The Spirit, and the blessing promised to Abraham cometh not by the law, but by faith.
By their ovvne conuersion at the first, 6 and by the example of Abraham, and promise made to him, he shevveth that the vvay to obtaine the benediction, is to seeke vnto God by faith in Christ. 10 Seing also that the Lavv curseth euery one that hath not euermore kept the Lavv. 15 And, that the Lavv vvas not giuen to alter Gods testament, 19 but to conuince the Iovves of sinne, 2• and so to be their padagogue or leader vnto Christ, 25 and then to cease.
1O senseless Galatians, who hath bewitched you that you should not obey the truth: before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been set forth, crucified among you?O Galati mentecatti, chi vi ha affascinati talmente, che non ubbidiate alla verità voi, dinanzi agli occhi de' quali fù già dipinto Gesù Cristo, tra voi crocifisso?O Sensles Galatians, vvho hath bevvitched you, not to obey the truth, before vvhose eies IESVS Christ vvas proscribed, being crucified among you?O insensati Galatæ, quis vos fascinavit non obedire veritati, ante quorum oculos Jesus Christus præscriptus est, in vobis crucifixus ? 2This only would I learn of you: Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law or by the hearing of faith?Questo solo bramo di imparar da voi: avete voi ricevuto lo Spirito per le opere della legge, o per l'ubbidienza alla fede?This only I vvould learne of you, By the vvorkes of the Lavv, did you receiue the Spirit, or by the hearing of the faith?Hoc solum a vobis volo discere: ex operibus legis Spiritum accepistis, an ex auditu fidei ? 3Are you so foolish that, whereas you began in the Spirit, you would now be made perfect by the flesh?Siete tanto stolti, che avendo principiato collo Spirito, finite ora colla carne?Are you so foolish, that vvhereas you began vvith the spirit, now you vvil be consummate vvith the flesh?sic stulti estis, ut cum Spiritu cœperitis, nunc carne consummemini ? 4Have you suffered so great things in vain? If it be yet in vain.Avete patito tanto senza ragione? Se però senza ragione.Haue you suffered so great things vvithout cause? if yet vvithout cause.tanta passi estis sine causa ? si tamen sine causa. 5He 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?Chi adunque da a voi lo Spirito, e opera tra voi i miracoli, lo fa egli per le opere della legge, o per l'ubbidienza alla fede?He therfore that giueth you the Spirit, and vvorketh miracles among you: by the vvorkes of the Lavv, or by the hearing of the faith doeth he it?Qui ergo tribuit vobis Spiritum, et operatur virtutes in vobis: ex operibus legis, an ex auditu fidei ? 6As it is written: Abraham believed God: and it was reputed to him unto justice.Come sta scritto: Abramo credette a Dio, e gli fu imputato a giustizia.As, Abraham beleeued God, and it vvas reputed to him vnto iustice.Sicut scriptum est: Abraham credidit Deo, et reputatum est illi ad justitiam:
7Know ye, therefore, that they who are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham.Intendete adunque, che quegli, che sono della fede, son figliuoli di Abramo.Knovv ye therfore that they that are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham.cognoscite ergo quia qui ex fide sunt, ii sunt filii Abrahæ. 8And the scripture, foreseeing that God justifieth the Gentiles by faith, told unto Abraham before: In thee shall all nations be blessed.Ma la scrittura prevedendo in futuro, come Dio era per giustificare i Gentili per mezzo della fede, anticipatamente evangelizzò ad Abramo: saranno in te benedette tutte le genti.And the Scripture foreseing that God iustifieth the Gentils by faith, shevved vnto Abraham before, That in thee shal al nations be blessed.Providens autem Scriptura quia ex fide justificat gentes Deus, prænuntiavit Abrahæ: Quia benedicentur in te omnes gentes. 9Therefore, they that are of faith shall be blessed with faithful Abraham.Quegli adunque, che sono per la fede, saranno benedetti con Abramo fedele.Therfore they that are of faith, shal be blessed vvith the faithful Abraham.Igitur qui ex fide sunt, benedicentur cum fideli Abraham. 10For as many as are of the works of the law are under a curse. 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.Imperocché tutti quegli, che sono per le opere della legge, sono sotto la maledizione. Imperocché sta scritto: maledetto chiunque non si terrà fermo a tutte quelle cose, che sono scritte nel libro della legge per adempierle.For vvhosoeuer are of the vvorkes of the Lavv, are vnder curse. For it is vvritten: Cursed be euery one that abideth not in al things that be vvritten in the booke of the Lavv, to doe them.Quicumque enim ex operibus legis sunt, sub maledicto sunt. Scriptum est enim: Maledictus omnis qui non permanserit in omnibus quæ scripta sunt in libro legis ut faciat ea. 11But that in the law no man is justified with God, it is manifest: because the just man liveth by faith.Che poi nissuno sia giustificato appresso Dio per mezzo della legge, è manifesto, dappoiché il giusto vive per la fede.But that in the Lavv no man is iustified vvith God, it is manifest, because The iust liueth by faith.Quoniam autem in lege nemo justificatur apud Deum, manifestum est: quia justus ex fide vivit. 12But the law is not of faith: but he that doth those things shall live in them.Or la legge non è per la fede, ma, chi farà quelle cose, avrà vita per esse.But the Lavv is not by faith: but, He that doeth those things shal liue in them.Lex autem non est ex fide, sed: Qui fecerit ea, vivet in illis.
13Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us (for it is written: Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree).Cristo ci ha redenti dalla maledizione della legge divenuto per noi maledizione: perché sta scritto: maledetto chiunque pende sul legno:Christ hath redeemed vs from the curse of the Lavv, being made a curse for vs (because it is vvritten, Cursed is euery one that hangeth on a tree)Christus nos redemit de maledicto legis, factus pro nobis maledictum: quia scriptum est: Maledictus omnis qui pendet in ligno: 14That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Christ Jesus: that we may receive the promise of the Spirit by faith.Affinchè alle genti pervenisse la benedizione di Abramo in Cristo Gesù, affinchè noi ricevessimo la promessa dello Spirito per mezzo della fede.that on the Gentiles the blessing of Abraham might be made in Christ IESVS: that vve may receiue the promisse of the Spirit by faith.ut in gentibus benedictio Abrahæ fieret in Christo Jesu, ut pollicitationem Spiritus accipiamus per fidem. 15Brethren (I speak after the manner of man), yet a man’s testament, if it be confirmed, no man despiseth nor addeth to it.Fratelli (io parlo da uomo) a un testamento benché di uomo, autenticato che è, nissuno da di bianco, o vi aggiunge.Brethren (I speake according to man) yet a mans testamēt being confirmed no man despiseth, or further disposeth.Fratres (secundum hominem dico) tamen hominis confirmatum testamentum nemo spernit, aut superordinat. 16To Abraham were the promises made and to his seed. He saith not: And to his seeds as of many. But as of one: And to thy seed, which is Christ.Ad Abramo furono annunziate le promesse, e al seme di lui. Non dice: e ai semi, come a' molti: ma come ad uno: e al seme tuo, il quale è Cristo.To Abraham vvere the promises said, and to his seede. He saith not, And to seedes, as in many: but as in one, And to thy seede, vvhich is Christ.Abrahæ dictæ sunt promissiones, et semini ejus. Non dicit: Et seminibus, quasi in multis: sed quasi in uno: Et semini tuo, qui est Christus. 17Now this I say: that the testament which was confirmed by God, the law which was made after four hundred and thirty years doth not disannul, to make the promise of no effect.Or io dico così: il testamento confermato da Dio, non è renduto vano da quella legge, che fu fatta quattrocento, e trent'anni dopo, talmente che abolita sia la promessa.And this I say, the restament being confirmed of God, the Lavv vvhich vvas made after foure hundred and thirtie yeres, maketh not void to frustrate the promise.Hoc autem dico, testamentum confirmatum a Deo: quæ post quadringentos et triginta annos facta est lex, non irritum facit ad evacuandam promissionem.
18For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise. But God gave it to Abraham by promise.Imperocché se l'eredità è per la legge, già non è ella più per la promessa. Ma Dio gratificò Abramo per mezzo della promessa.For if the inheritance be of the Lavv, novv not of promise. But God gaue it to Abraham by promise.Nam si ex lege hæreditas, jam non ex promissione. Abrahæ autem per repromissionem donavit Deus. 19Why then was the law? It was set because of transgressions, until the seed should come to whom he made the promise, being ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.A che adunque la legge? Fa ella: aggiunta a causa delle trasgressioni per sino a tanto che venisse quel seme, cui era stata fatta la promessa, ed era stata intimata per ministero degli Angeli in mano del mediatore.Vvhy vvas the Lavv then? It vvas put for transgressions, vntil the seede came to vvhom he had promised: ordeined by Angels in the hand of a mediatour.Quid igitur lex ? Propter transgressiones posita est donec veniret semen, cui promiserat, ordinata per angelos in manu mediatoris. 20Now a mediator is not of one: but God is one.Ma il mediatore non è di un solo: e Dio è uno.And a mediatour is not of one: but God is one.Mediator autem unius non est: Deus autem unus est. 21Was the law then against the promises of God: God forbid! For if there had been a law given which could give life, verily justice should have been by the law.La legge adunque è ella contro le promesse di Dio? Mai no. Imperocché' se fosse stata data una legge, che potesse vivificare, dalla legge sarebbe veramente la giustizia.Vvas the Lavv then against the promises of God? God forbid. For if there had been a Lavv giuen that could iustifie, vndoubtedly iustice should be of the Lavv.Lex ergo adversus promissa Dei ? Absit. Si enim data esset lex, quæ posset vivificare, vere ex lege esset justitia. 22But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise, by the faith of Jesus Christ, might be given to them that believe.Ma la scrittura tutto chiuse sotto il peccato, affinchè la promessa fosse data a' credenti mediante la fede di Gesù Cristo.But the Scripture hath concluded al things vnder sinne: that the promise by the faith of IESVS Christ might be giuen to them that beleeue.Sed conclusit Scriptura omnia sub peccato, ut promissio ex fide Jesu Christi daretur credentibus. 23But before the faith came, we were kept under the law shut up, unto that faith which was to be revealed.Ma avanti che venisse la fede eravamo custoditi sotto la legge, chiusi in aspettazione di quella fede, che doveva essere rivelata.But before the faith came, vnder the Lavv we vvere kept shut vp, vnto that faith which vvas to be reuealed.Prius autem quam veniret fides, sub lege custodiebamur conclusi in eam fidem quæ revelanda erat.
24Wherefore the law was our pedagogue in Christ: that we might be justified by faith.Fu adunque la legge il nostro pedagogo per condurci a Cristo, affinchè fossimo giustificati per la fede.Therfore the Lavv vvas our Pedagogue in Christ: that vve may be iustified by faith.Itaque lex pædagogus noster fuit in Christo, ut ex fide justificemur. 25But after the faith is come, we are no longer under a pedagogue.Ma venuta la fede, non siamo già più sotto pedagogo.But vvhē the faith came, novv vve are not vnder a paedagogue.At ubi venit fides, jam non sumus sub pædagogo. 26For you are all the children of God, by faith in Christ Jesus.Imperocché tutti siete figliuoli di Dio per la fede in Cristo Gesù.For you are al the children of God by faith in Christ IESVS.Omnes enim filii Dei estis per fidem, quæ est in Christo Jesu. 27For as many of you as have been baptized in Christ have put on Christ.Conciossiaché tutti voi, che siete stati battezzati in Cristo, vi siete rivestiti di Cristo.For as many of you as are baptized in Christ, haue put on Christ.Quicumque enim in Christo baptizati estis, Christum induistis. 28There is neither Jew nor Greek: there is neither bond nor free: there is neither male nor female. For you are all one in Christ Jesus.Non v'ha Giudeo, né Greco, né' servo, né libero, non v'ha maschio, né' femmina. Imperocché tutti voi siete uno solo in Cristo Gesù.There is not Ievve nor Greeke, there is not bond nor free, there is not male nor femal. For al you are one in Christ IESVS.Non est Judæus, neque Græcus: non est servus, neque liber: non est masculus, neque femina. Omnes enim vos unum estis in Christo Jesu. 29And if you be Christ’s, then are you the seed of Abraham, heirs according to the promise.Che se voi siete di Cristo: dunque siete seme di Abramo, eredi secondo la promessa.And if you be Christs, then are you the seede of Abraham, heires according to promise.Si autem vos Christi, ergo semen Abrahæ estis, secundum promissionem hæredes.
3:1
Witham
Before whose eyes Jesus Christ....crucified among you.[Ver. 1. Praescriptus, proegraphe; not proscriptus, as in some readings of the Latin text: and in vobis is better understood to be joined with praescriptus than with crucifixus.] The common exposition is, that St. Paul had before described and set before them Christ crucified. Others, that it had been clearly foretold by the prophets that Christ was crucified for them. (Witham)
3:2
Witham
Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law? As if he said, you esteem it a great favour to have received those spiritual gifts of working miracles, etc. When you were made Christians, had you these favours by the works of the law, or was it not by the hearing of faith, and by the faith of Christ, that you had such extraordinary graces? and when you have begun thus happily by the spirit of Christ and his spiritual gifts, are you for finishing and thinking to make yourselves more perfect by the exterior works of the law, the circumcision of the flesh, and such like ceremonies? (Witham)
3:4
Witham
If yet in vain: that is I have still good hopes, that what you have already suffered by persecutions and self-denials, since your conversion, will not be in vain; as they would be, if you sought to be justified by the works and ceremonies of the law of Moses, and not by the faith and law of Christ, by which only you can be truly sanctified. (Witham)
3:6
Witham
As it is written: Abraham believed God, and it was reputed to him unto justice. See Romans 4:3. They only who imitate the faith of Abraham shall be blessed with him, and are his spiritual children, whether Jews or Gentiles, whom God promised to bless by the seed of Abraham; that is by Christ, who descended from Abraham. (Witham)
Calmet
The apostle thus argues with the Galatians; Abraham, who was never under the law, still received the grace of justification in reward of his faith, even before he had received circumcision. Now, if a person can be justified without the law, the law can be no ways necessary to salvation. (Calmet)
3:10
Are under a curse....cursed is every man, etc. The sense of these is to be found in Deuteronomy 27:26. in the Septuagint. Some expound them thus: curses are pronounced against every one who keeps not all the precepts of the law, but there is not any one; that is scarce any one, who keepeth them all; therefore all under the law are under some curse. But as it cannot be said that no one kept all the precepts, especially the moral precepts of the law, mentioned in that place of Deuteronomy; (for Zacharias and Elizabeth were both just in the sight of God, Luke i., and doubtless many others lived so as not to incur those curses, but were just and were saved, though not by virtue of the works of the law only, nor without faith in God, and in their Redeemer, who was to come) therefore others understand that all such persons fall under these curses, who think to comply with all these precepts by their own strength, or who confide in the works of the law only, without faith in Christ, the Messias, and without which they cannot be saved. This agrees with what follows, that the just man liveth by faith. (Habacuc 2:4.) See Romans 1:17.
Now the law is not of faith, that is the works done merely in compliance with the law, are not works of faith that can save a man: but he that doth those things of the law, shall live in them; that is says St. Jerome, shall have a long temporal life promised in the law; or, as others say, shall have life everlasting, if they are done with faith.
Christ hath redeemed us from these curses; but to do this, hath made himself a curse for our sake, by taking upon himself the similitude of a sinner, and by dying upon the cross, as if he had been guilty of the greatest sins, having only charged himself with our sins, inasmuch as it is written: (Deuteronomy 21:23.) cursed is every one who hangeth on a tree; which is to be understood, in case he deserve it for his own sins.
Witham
That the blessing of Abraham (or promised to Abraham) might be fulfilled; that is Christ redeemed us, that these blessings might be fulfilled on all nations, and that all might receive the promise of the Spirit, or the promised spirit of grace believing in Christ, who is now come. (Witham)
3:15
etc. I speak after the manner of man; or, by a comparison, says St. Chrysostom, common among men. If a man make or execute his last will, or any deed or contract, it stands good; no one contemns it, or pretends to annul it, or add any thing to it: how much more shall the testament, the covenant, or solemn promise which God made to Abraham, to bless all nations, stand firm and have its effect? And he said to his seed, to one, that is in Christ only, not to his seeds, as it were by many. It is observed, that the word seed being a collective signification, may grammatically be taken for the plural as well as for the singular number; so that we are to have more regard to St. Paul's authority, who expounds to us what is here signified by the word seed, than to the word itself.
The law which was made after four hundred and thirty years (consult the chronologists) does not make void the testament: nor the promise which God himself made to Abraham, that mankind should be blessed only by Christ. These blessings could not be by the law of Moses ordained, or delivered by angels in the hand of a mediator, to wit, of Moses, according to the common interpretation, who, in receiving and publishing the law, was as it were a mediator betwixt God and his people.
Witham
And a mediator is not of one, (but is called so, as mediating betwixt two parties) but God is one. This is to signify, that when he made the covenant or promise to Abraham, he made this promise himself, and did not make use of a mediator inferior to himself, as when he gave the law; and the law, in this respect, was inferior to the promise; but the chief difference was, that true justice and sanctification was not given by the law, for so it would have contradicted and have made void the promise made before to Moses[Abraham?], that the blessings of true sanctification should only be by his seed and by faith in Christ, the Son of Abraham and of David. According to the Scriptures all things (that is, all men) were shut up together under sin, under the slavery of sin, from which they were not to be redeemed but by the accomplishment of the promise, and by the coming of Christ, by his grace, and faith in him. (Witham)
Because of transgressions. To restrain them from sin, by fear and threats.
Challoner
Ordained by Angels. The law was delivered by Angels, speaking in the name and person of God to Moses, who was the mediator on this occasion between God and the people. (Challoner)
The law was established not to occasion sin, but to manifest sin, and to punish sin. Ezechiel (xx. 11.) shews the meaning of the apostle, when he says: that God, after bringing the Israelites out of Egypt, imposed laws upon them that gave life to such as observed them. This was the decalogue, published immediately after the passage of the Red Sea; but violating these commandments, they became guilty of idolatry. To punish them, God imposed upon them precepts which are not good, and which give not life. (ver. 24, 25.) This is the ceremonial law, which was established and published by degrees during the forty years the Israelites sojourned in the desert. It is then evident that this law was given to punish transgressions in the Israelites, and to prevent relapses. This is the sense of St. Paul.
3:22
Challoner
Hath concluded all under sin; that is hath declared all to be under sin, from which they could not be delivered but by faith in Jesus Christ, the promised seed. (Challoner)
The law was not given to all; but all its precepts and prohibitions were binding under sin, and all violators of the law were guilty of sin.
3:24
Witham
As for the law, it was put or given because of transgressions, to put a stop, by the punishments prescribed, to idolatry and other crimes, which the Jews had learnt from other nations, particularly in Egypt. The law was a pedagogue, or schoolmaster, to direct and correct and bring men to Christ, our chief Master, our great Mediator, who being now come, we are no longer under our former pedagogue. Christ hath by his grace made all, who believe in him and follow his doctrine, his sons and his adoptive children, whether they were before Jews or Gentiles; now they are all one, united in the same faith, and in the same spirit of charity. All the faithful are to be accounted of the seed of Abraham, and his spiritual children by the accomplishment of the promise. (Witham)
Challoner
Pedagogue; that is schoolmaster, conductor, or instructor. (Challoner)
3:27
The baptism of infants shews that the sacrament gives grace of itself, by divine appointment; or, as divines say, ex opere operato.
3:28
Challoner
Neither Jew, etc. That is, no distinction of Jew, etc. (Challoner)
3:19
3:22
Hath concluded all under sin.... that is, hath declared all to be under sin, from which they could not be delivered but by faith in Jesus Christ, the promised seed.
3:24
Pedagogue.... That is, schoolmaster, conductor, or instructor.
3:28
Neither Jew, etc.... That is, no distinction of Jew, etc.
3:1
For any people or person to forsake the faith of their first Apostles & Conuersion, at the voice of a few nouellaries, seemeth to wise men a very bewitching & sensles brutishnes, Such is the case of our poore coūtrie, Germanie, and others.
3:6
Concordance Gen. 15, 6. Ro. 4. 3.
3:7
This faith whereby Abraham was iustified, and his children the Gen. i•s beleeuing in Christ, implieth al Christian vertues, of which the first is faith, the groūd & foundation of al the rest, and therfore here and els where often named of the Apostle.
3:8
Concordance Gen. ••, 3.
3:10
1•. Cursed be.] Notwithstanding venial sinnes, men are truely iust, and may keepe the cōmaundements. By this place the Heretikes vvould proue that no man is iust truely before God, al being guiltie of damnation and Gods curse, because they keepe not euery iote of the Lavv. Vvhere in deede the Apostle meaneth not such as offend venially (as it is plaine by the place of Deuteronomie vvhence he reciteth this text) but onely such as commit great and damnable crimes, and so by greuous and mortal transgressions vvholy breake Gods precepts, and thereby incurre the curse of the Lavv, from vvhich the said Lavv could not deliuer them of it self, nor by any other meanes, but by the faith and grace of CHRIST IESVS.
Concordance Deu. 27, 26.
3:11
11. Liueth by faith.] It is neither the Heretikes special presumption and confidence, Iac. 2. nor the faith of Diuels, Not only faith. nor faith vvithout vvorkes vvhich is dead in it self as S. Iames saith, that can giue life to the iust. for that vvhich is dead, can not be the cause of life. but it is the Catholike faith, as S. Augustine vvriteth, vvhich vvorketh by charitie (according to the Apostles ovvne explication of this vvhole passage) by vvhich the iust liueth. Li. 3 c. 5. cont. duas ep. Pelag. See the Annotation vpon the same vvordes. Rom. 1.
Concordance Abac. 2.
3:12
Concordance Ro. 1.
3:13
Concordance Leu. 18.
Concordance Deu. 21.
3:15
In the liturgy The Epistle vpō the 13 Sū day after Pentecost.
3:16
Concordance Gen. 22, 18.
3:22
Concordance Ro. 3, 9. 11, 32.
3:27
27. Haue put on Christ.] Baptisme giueth grace and iustification, not faith only. Here the Aduersaries might haue seen, if they vvere not blinded by contentious striuing against Gods Church, that vvhen Iustification is attributed to faith vvithout mention of good vvorkes or other Christian vertues & Sacraments, it is not meant to exclude any of the same from the vvorking of iustice or saluation. for here vve learne that by the Sacrament of Baptisme also vve put on Christ, vvhich is to put on faith, hope, charitie, and al Christian iustice. By the same vve proue also that the Sacraments of the nevv iavv giue grace, for that the receiuers thereof put on Christ. And the Aduersaries euasion, that it is faith vvhich vvorketh in the Sacrament, and not the Sacrament it self, is plainely false: Baptisme giuing grace and faith it self to the infant that had none before.
3:1
Tertullian † AD 220 The Prescription Against Heretics 27
… All these suggestions of distrust you may find put forward by the heretics. They bear in mind how the churches were rebuked by the apostle: “O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you?”
Archelaus † fl. AD 278 The Acts of the Disputation with the Heresiarch Manes 49
… Who, then, I ask, can be found so rash and audacious as not to make his faith fit in with these sacred words, in which there is no qualification nor any dubiety? Who, I ask you, O foolish Galatian, has bewitched you, as those were bewitched “before whose eyes Jesus Christ was evidently set forth, crucified?”
St Basil the Great † AD 379 The Letters 235.3
… No. This is absurd; for God is without parts. But do we know the whole essence? How then “When that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.” Why are idolaters found fault with? Is it not because they knew God and did not honour Him as God? Why are the “foolish Galatians”
St Gregory of Nazianzus † AD 389 Select Orations of Saint Gregory Nazianzen 2.54
… On behalf of some he gives thanks, others he upbraids. Some he names his joy and crown, others he charges with folly.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Commentary on Galatians 1
… To the Corinthians he says, “What will ye? shall I come unto you with a rod, or in love, and in a spirit of meekness?” ( 1 Cor. vi. 21 .) but to the Galatians, “O foolish Galatians.” (
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Commentary on Galatians 3
Ver. 1 . “Before whose eyes Jesus Christ was openly set forth, crucified.”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Commentary on Galatians 5
… How hath such a course been cut short? who hath been able to do this? ye who were superior to all and in the rank of teachers, have not even continued in the position of disciples. What has happened? who could do this? these are rather the words of one who is exclaiming and lamenting, as he said before, “Who did bewitch you?” (
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Homilies on Titus 1
… For to learn what they had deserved, and to what state they had been transferred, and that by grace, and what had been vouchsafed them, was no little encouragement. He takes aim also against the Jews, and if he censures the whole nation, we need not wonder, for he does the same in the case of the Galatians, saying, “O foolish Galatians.” (
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 The Confessions 13.13
… to be clothed upon with his house which is from heaven;” and calleth upon this lower deep, saying, “Be not conformed to this world, but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind.” And, “Be not children in understanding, howbeit in malice be ye children,” that in “understanding ye may be perfect;” and “O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you?”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Letters of St. Augustin 93.31
… You may just as well say that the numerous churches of Galatia had no existence at the time when the apostle wrote to them: “O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you,” that, “having begun in the Spirit, ye are now made perfect in the flesh?”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Our Lord’s Sermon on the Mount 1.9
… And in this way we defend the apostle when he calls the Galatians fools,
Theodoret of Cyrus † AD 458 Dialogues. The “Eranistes” or “Polymorphus” of the Blessed Theodoretus, Bishop of Cyrus 1
Orth. —Yes, if their revilings are vain. Sometimes the divine Apostle himself opportunely uses this mode of speech. He calls the Galatians “foolish,”
Pope St Gregory I the Great † AD 604 The Book of Pastoral Rule 3.7
… iii. 3 ). But again He revives them when ashamed, saying, Thou shalt forget the confusion of thy youth, and shalt not remember the reproach of thy widowhood; for thy Maker will reign over thee ( Isai. liv. 4 ). Paul also openly upbraids the Galatians impudently sinning, when he says, O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you (
3:2
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Commentary on Galatians 3
Ver. 2 . “This only would I learn from you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the Law, or by the hearing of faith?”
3:3
Origen † AD 254 Origen De Principiis 1.3.4
4. Some indeed of our predecessors have observed, that in the New Testament, whenever the Spirit is named without that adjunct which denotes quality, the Holy Spirit is to be understood; as e.g., in the expression, “Now the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, and peace;” and, “Seeing ye began in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect in the flesh?”
Origen † AD 254 Origen's Commentary on Matthew 12.5
… To the other side then came the disciples of Jesus who had passed over from things material to things spiritual, and from things sensible to those which are intellectual. And perhaps that He might turn back those who, by crossing to the other side, “had begun in spirit,”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Commentary on Galatians 3
Ver. 3 . “Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now perfected in the flesh?”
St Jerome † AD 420 Against Jovinianus 1.38
38. Something else I will say to my friends who marry and after long chastity and continence begin to burn and are as wanton as the brutes:
Pope St Gregory I the Great † AD 604 The Book of Pastoral Rule 3.7
… for thy Maker will reign over thee ( Isai. liv. 4 ). Paul also openly upbraids the Galatians impudently sinning, when he says, O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you ( Galat. iii. 1 )? And again, Are ye so foolish, that, having begun in the Spirit, ye are now made perfect in the flesh (
3:4
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 An Exhortation to Theodore After His Fall 1
… For that they had done miracles he testified when he said: “He therefore that supplieth to you the Spirit and worketh miracles among you:” and that they endured many contests for the sake of the faith, he also testified when he says: “Have ye suffered so many things in vain if it be indeed in vain.”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on Paul's Epistle to the Romans 13
… i. 6 .) Again, “Have ye suffered so many things in vain, if it be yet in vain?” (
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Commentary on Galatians 1
… “But since you,” he says, “are of the noble sort and have suffered, much, I do marvel.” Surely this was enough to recover and lead them back to their first expressions. He alludes to it also in the middle of the Epistle, “Did ye suffer so many things in vain? if it be indeed in vain.” (
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Commentary on Galatians 3
Ver. 4 . “Did ye suffer so many things in vain? if it be indeed in vain.”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Homilies on Ephesians 6
… x. 34 .) he said, “And ye took joyfully the spoiling of your possessions.” And to the Colossians ( Col. iii. 3 .) he testifies, saying, “For ye died, and your life is hid with Christ in God.” And indeed to these very Ephesians he bears witness of many perils and dangers. And again in writing to the Galatians, (
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Homilies on Philippians 4
… He said not, ye have heard, but “ye saw,” for he strove too at Philippi. Truly this is an exceeding virtue. Wherefore writing to the Galatians, also he said, “Did ye suffer so many things in vain, if it be indeed in vain.” (
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Epistle to the Hebrews 8
For this is ever a part of Paul’s wisdom, to mix painful things with kind ones. Which he also does in the Epistle to the Galatians, saying, “Ye did run well; who did hinder you?” ( Gal. v. 7 .) And, “Have ye suffered so many things in vain? if it be yet in vain” (
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Epistle to the Hebrews 10
… For one who despairs of present things, and has given up exerting himself, may be restored by [the prospect of] things future.) As he himself also said in writing to the Galatians, “Ye did run well” ( Gal. v. 7 ): and again, “Have ye suffered so many things in vain? if it be yet in vain.” (
3:5
St Irenaeus of Lyons † AD 202 Against Heresies 4.21.1
… Know ye therefore, that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham. But the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, announced beforehand unto Abraham, that in him all nations should be blessed. So then they which be of faith shall be blessed with faithful Abraham.”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 An Exhortation to Theodore After His Fall 1
… Moreover when the whole Galatian people fell after having believed, and wrought miracles, and endured many trials for the sake of their faith in Christ he sets them up again. For that they had done miracles he testified when he said: “He therefore that supplieth to you the Spirit and worketh miracles among you:”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Commentary on Galatians 3
Ver. 5 . “He therefore that supplieth to you the Spirit, and worketh miracles among you, doeth he it by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 A Treatise on Nature and Grace 61
… and these are contrary the one to the other; so that ye do not the things that ye would?” He wrote this, I apprehend, to the Galatians, to whom he also says, “He therefore that ministereth to you the Spirit, and worketh miracles among you, doeth he it by the works of the law or by the hearing of faith?”
3:6
St Irenaeus of Lyons † AD 202 Against Heresies 5.32
… Know ye therefore, that they which are of faith are the children of Abraham. But the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, declared to Abraham beforehand, That in thee shall all nations be blessed. So then they which are of faith shall be blessed with faithful Abraham.”
Tertullian † AD 220 The Five Books Against Marcion 5.3
… for by faith the apostle declares us to be “ children of Abraham ,” and after mentioning him he expressly called us “children of faith” also. But how are we children of faith? and of whose faith, if not Abraham’s? For since “Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness;”
Tertullian † AD 220 The Five Books Against Marcion 5.4
“But,” says he, “I speak after the manner of men: when we were children, we were placed in bondage under the elements of the world.”
St Cyprian of Carthage † AD 258 The Epistles of Cyprian 62.4
… Ye know, then, that they which are of faith, these are the children of Abraham. But the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles through faith, pronounced before to Abraham that all nations should be blessed in him; therefore they who are of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham.”
St Cyprian of Carthage † AD 258 Three Books of Testimonies Against the Jews 1.6
… Ye know, therefore, that they which are of faith, the same are children of Abraham. But the Scripture, foreseeing that God justifieth the heathens by faith, foretold to Abraham that all nations should be blessed in him. Therefore they who are of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham.”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Commentary on Galatians 3
Ver. 6 . “Even as Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned unto him for righteousness.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Reply to Faustus the Manichæan 12.47
… "Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him for righteousness. For the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thy seed shall all nations be blessed."
3:7
Tertullian † AD 220 The Five Books Against Marcion 5.3
… What I say, then, is this, that that God is the object of faith who prefigured the grace of faith. But when he also adds, “For ye are all the children of faith,” it becomes clear that what the heretic’s industry erased was the mention of Abraham’s name; for by faith the apostle declares us to be “ children of Abraham ,”
Tertullian † AD 220 On Monogamy 6
… For your origin in him, you must know, is not referable to every period of his life: there is a definite time at which he is your father. For if “faith” is the source whence we are reckoned to Abraham as his “sons” (as the apostle teaches, saying to the Galatians, “You know, consequently, that (they) who are of faith, these are sons of Abraham”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on Paul's Epistle to the Romans 8
… And this is why he passes by all the others, and leads his discourse back to this man. And he calls him “father, as pertaining to the flesh,” to throw them out of the genuine relationship ( συγγενείας γνησίας ) to him, and to pave the Gentiles’ way to kinsmanship
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Commentary on Galatians 3
Ver. 7 . “Know therefore, that they which be of faith, the same are sons of Abraham.”
3:8
Tertullian † AD 220 On the Flesh of Christ 22
… For, unfolding the promised blessing upon all nations in the person of Abraham, “And in thy seed shall all nations of the earth be blessed,” he adds, “He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Commentary on Galatians 3
Ver. 8 . “And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the Gospel beforehand unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all the nations be blessed.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 A Treatise on the Merits and Forgiveness of Sins, and on the Baptism of Infants 1.11
… Can any man be said to be justified in Paul or in Peter, or in any one whatever of those excellent men whose authority stands high among the people of God? We are no doubt said to be blessed in Abraham, according to the passage in which it was said to him, “In thee shall all nations be blessed”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 A Treatise on the Spirit and the Letter 46
… Because it is by faith that God justifies the Gentiles; and the Scripture foreseeing this, preached the gospel before to Abraham, saying, “In thy seed shall all nations be blessed,”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 A Treatise on the Spirit and the Letter 50
… For in one passage, when speaking of the Gentiles,—that is, of the uncircumcision,—he says, “The Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen by faith ;”
Theodoret of Cyrus † AD 458 Dialogues. The “Eranistes” or “Polymorphus” of the Blessed Theodoretus, Bishop of Cyrus 1
Orth. —When He brought him out of his father’s house, and ordered him to come into Palestine, did He not say to him “I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee, and in thy seed
3:9
Tertullian † AD 220 The Five Books Against Marcion 5.4
“But,” says he, “I speak after the manner of men: when we were children, we were placed in bondage under the elements of the world.”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on Paul's Epistle to the Romans 10
… But the particle “that” again does not assign the cause, but the result. For the purpose of its being given was not “in order that” it might abound, for it was given to diminish and destroy the offence. But it resulted the opposite way, not owing to the nature of the Law, but owing to the listlessness of those who received it.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Commentary on Galatians 3
Ver. 9 . “So then they which be of faith are blessed with the faithful Abraham.”
3:10
St Gregory of Nazianzus † AD 389 Select Orations of Saint Gregory Nazianzen 37
… For He is made not only a Jew, and not only doth He take to Himself all monstrous and vile names, but even that which is most monstrous of all, even very sin and very curse; not that He is such, but He is called so. For how can He be sin, Who setteth us free from sin; and how can He be a curse, Who redeemeth us from the curse of the Law?
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Commentary on Galatians 3
Ver. 10, 11 . “For it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things that are written in the book of the Law to do them. Now that no man is justified by the Law is evident.”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Commentary on Galatians 5
… then thou art circumcised, but not on the eighth day, or on the eighth day, but no sacrifice is offered, or a sacrifice is offered, but not in the prescribed place, or in the prescribed place, but not the accustomed objects, or if the accustomed objects, but thou be unclean, or if clean yet not purified by proper rules, every thing is frustrated. Wherefore
St Jerome † AD 420 Against the Pelagians 2
iii. 10, 13 . Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law.
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Reply to Faustus the Manichæan 12.11
… And this murderer is cursed by the Church; that is, the Church admits and avows the curse pronounced by the apostle: "Whoever are of the works of the law are under the curse of the law."
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Reply to Faustus the Manichæan 14.1
… You cannot make much of the distinction between hanging on a tree and being crucified, as you often try to do by way of apology; for Paul repudiates such a distinction when he says, "Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us; as it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree."
3:11
St Ignatius of Antioch † AD 108 Epistle to the Tarsians 1
… Wherefore I am prepared for [encountering] fire, wild beasts, the sword, or the cross, so that only I may see Christ my Saviour and God, who died for me. I therefore, the prisoner of Christ, who am driven along by land and sea, exhort you: “stand fast in the faith,” and be ye steadfast, “for the just shall live by faith;”
St Hilary of Poitiers † AD 367 De Trinitate or On the Trinity 9.16
… A youth, who provides himself upon the observance of the law, but did not know the end of the law , which is Christ, who thought himself justified by works, without perceiving that Christ came to the lost sheep of the house of Israel , and to those who believe that the law cannot save through the faith of justification
St Athanasius of Alexandria † AD 373 On the Symbols 'Of the Essence' And 'Coessential.' 1
… vii. 14, 12 ); and soon after, ‘What the Law could not do, in that it was weak’ ( ib. viii. 3 ), but wrote to the Hebrews, ‘The Law has made no one perfect’ ( Heb. vii. 19 ); and to the Galatians, ‘By the Law no one is justified’ (
St Ambrose of Milan † AD 397 Selections from the Letters of St. Ambrose sermon-against-auxentius-on-th.24
… And we, by the law of our Lord Jesus Christ, are dead to this law, which sanctions such perfidious decrees. The law did not gather the Church together, but the faith of Christ. For the law is not by faith, but “the just man lives by faith.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 City of God 14.2
… and among these various usages, a frequent one is to use flesh for man himself, the nature of man taking the part for the whole, as in the words, “By the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified;” for what does he mean here by “no flesh” but “no man?” And this, indeed, he shortly after says more plainly: “No man shall be justified by the law;”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 A Treatise on Faith and the Creed 1
1. Inasmuch as it is a position, written and established on the most solid foundation of apostolic teaching, “that the just lives of faith;”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 A Treatise Against Two Letters of the Pelagians 3.13
… But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and by the prophets.” Because the law, by the very fact that in it no man is justified, affords a witness to the righteousness of God. For that in the law no man is justified before God is manifest, because “the just by faith lives.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 A Treatise Against Two Letters of the Pelagians 4.10
… the apostle replies, “If righteousness be by the law, then has Christ died in vain.” “If the inheritance be by the law, then is it no more of promise.” “If they which are of the law be heirs, faith is made void, and the promise is made of none effect.” “But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, is evident: for, The just by faith liveth.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 89.34
… for howsoever God may beat, howsoever He may be wroth, howsoever He may flog and scourge, yet let Him scourge him bound, whom He is to cleanse, not “loose him from cleansing.” For if He loose him from being purified, he becomes incapable of cleansing, and must be an outcast. From what cleansing then is the Jew loosed? From faith; for by faith we live:
3:12
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Commentary on Galatians 3
Ver. 12 . “And the Law is not of faith; but He that doeth them shall live in them.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 A Treatise Against Two Letters of the Pelagians 4.10
… for, The just by faith liveth.” “But the law is not of faith: but The man that doeth them shall live in them.”
3:13
St Justin Martyr † AD 165 Dialogue with Trypho 94
Then I replied, “Just as God commanded the sign to be made by the brazen serpent, and yet He is blameless; even so, though a curse lies in the law against persons who are crucified, yet no curse lies on the Christ of God, by whom all that have committed things worthy of a curse are saved.
St Irenaeus of Lyons † AD 202 Against Heresies 3.18.3
… “Destroy not him with thy meat for whom Christ died.” And again: “But now, in Christ, ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.” And again: “Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth upon a tree.”
Tertullian † AD 220 An Answer to the Jews 10
Concerning the last step, plainly, of His passion you raise a doubt; affirming that the passion of the cross was not predicted with reference to Christ, and urging, besides, that it is not credible that God should have exposed His own Son to that kind of death; because Himself said, “Cursed is every one who shall have hung on a tree.”
Tertullian † AD 220 The Five Books Against Marcion 5.3
… “Behold,” says He, “I have set before you a blessing and a curse.” You cannot establish a diversity of authors because there happens to be one of things; for the diversity is itself proposed by one and the same author. Why, however, “Christ was made a curse for us,”
Tertullian † AD 220 Against Praxeas 29
… Nay, but you do blaspheme; because you allege not only that the Father died, but that He died the death of the cross. For “cursed are they which are hanged on a tree,”
Origen † AD 254 Origen's Commentary on Matthew 11.8
… But do not suppose that these things go to establish the necessity of keeping the law of Moses according to the letter, because the disciples of Jesus up to that time kept it; for not before He suffered did He “redeem us from the curse of the law,”
Archelaus † fl. AD 278 The Acts of the Disputation with the Heresiarch Manes 28
… For none of these either obtained any knowledge of the Paraclete, or received instruction in the doctrine of Jesus. But only this latest generation of men, which has run its course from Tiberius onward, as you make it out, is to be saved: for it is Christ Himself that “has re-deemed them from the curse of the law;”
Archelaus † fl. AD 278 The Acts of the Disputation with the Heresiarch Manes 31
31. Listen also to what I have to say on this other expression which has been adduced, viz., “Christ, who redeemed us from the curse of the law.”
St Hilary of Poitiers † AD 367 Homilies on the Psalms 53.13
… It was from this curse that our Lord Jesus Christ redeemed us, when, as the Apostle says: Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made curse for us, for it is written: cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree
St Athanasius of Alexandria † AD 373 On the Incarnation of the Word 24
… 2. For if He came Himself to bear the curse laid upon us, how else could He have “become
St Athanasius of Alexandria † AD 373 Against the Arians. (Orationes contra Arianos IV.) 2.19
… if to say, ‘My Father hath prepared for Me a body, and has created Me for men in behalf of their salvation.’ For, as when John says, ‘The Word was made flesh ,’ we do not conceive the whole Word Himself to be flesh , but to have put on flesh and become man, and on hearing, ‘Christ hath become a curse for us,’ and ‘He hath made Him sin for us who knew no sin
St Athanasius of Alexandria † AD 373 Festal and Personal Letters of Athanasius 59
… For what John said, ‘The Word was made flesh ,’ has this meaning, as we may see by a similar passage; for it is written in Paul: ‘Christ has become a curse for us
St Basil the Great † AD 379 De Spiritu Sancto 8
What then is meant by “became subject”? What by “delivered him up for us all”? It is meant that the Son has it of the Father that He works in goodness on behalf of men. But you must hear too the words, “Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law;”
St Gregory of Nazianzus † AD 389 Select Orations of Saint Gregory Nazianzen 2.55
… a preacher of the Gentiles, a patron of the Jews. He even was exceedingly bold on behalf of his brethren according to the flesh, if I may myself be bold enough to say so, in his loving prayer that they might in his stead be brought to Christ. What magnanimity! what fervor of spirit! He imitates Christ, who became a curse for us,
St Gregory of Nazianzus † AD 389 Select Orations of Saint Gregory Nazianzen 30
V. Take, in the next place, the subjection by which you subject the Son to the Father. What, you say, is He not now subject, or must He, if He is God, be subject to God? You are fashioning your argument as if it concerned some robber, or some hostile deity. But look at it in this manner: that as for my sake He was called a curse,
St Gregory of Nazianzus † AD 389 Letters on the Apollinarian Controversy 101
… For that flesh is less precious than soul, everyone who has a spark of sense will acknowledge. And so the passage, The Word was made Flesh, seems to me to be equivalent to that in which it is said that He was made sin, or a curse
St Gregory of Nyssa † AD 395 Against Eunomius 2.11
… I say, it was that He became obedient, even He Who “took our infirmities and bare our sicknesses ,” healing the disobedience of men by His own obedience, that by His stripes He might heal our wound, and by His own death do away with the common death of all men,—then it was that for our sakes He was made obedient, even as He became “sin ” and “a curse
St Gregory of Nyssa † AD 395 Against Eunomius 5.5
… This is our doctrine, which does not, as Eunomius charges against it, preach a plurality of Christs, but the union of the Man with the Divinity, and which calls by the name of “making” the transmutation of the Mortal to the Immortal, of the Servant to the Lord, of Sin to Righteousness, of the Curse
St Gregory of Nyssa † AD 395 Against Eunomius 12.1
… Since then it was impossible that our life, which had been estranged from God, should of itself return to the high and heavenly place, for this cause, as saith the Apostle, He Who knew no sin is made sin for us , and frees us from the curse by taking on Him our curse as His own
St Gregory of Nyssa † AD 395 Answer to Eunomius' Second Book 1
… And such a name is said by us to be arrived at by a conception. But if this is not agreeable to our opponents, let it be as each of them pleases. In his ignorance, however, of the figures of Scripture, our opponent contradicts what is said. For if he had learned the Divine names, he must have known that our Lord is called a Curse and Sin
St Ambrose of Milan † AD 397 Exposition of the Christian Faith 5.14
178. As, then, He was made sin and a curse not on His own account but on ours, so He became subject in us not for His own sake but for ours, being not in subjection in His eternal Nature, nor accursed in His eternal Nature. “For cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree.”
St Ambrose of Milan † AD 397 Selections from the Letters of St. Ambrose sermon-against-auxentius-on-th.25
… that Christ is said to have been made, but of a woman; that is, He was “made” as regards his birth from a Virgin, Who was begotten of the Father as regards His divine generation? Have they read also to-day, “that Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us”?
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Homilies on First Corinthians 38
… thus, “Behold,” saith he, “the Lamb of God, Who taketh away the sin of the world:” ( John i. 29 .) and Paul saying, “For Him Who knew no sin, He made to be sin on our behalf, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him:” ( 2 Cor. v. 21 .) and again, “Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us:” (
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Homilies on Second Corinthians 11
… But he did not say this: but mentioned that which is far greater than this. What then is this? “Him that knew no sin,” he says, Him that was righteousness itself , “He made sin,” that is suffered as a sinner to be condemned, as one cursed to die. “For cursed is he that hangeth on a tree.” (
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Commentary on Galatians 3
Ver. 13 . “Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law, having become a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree.”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 14
Again, the Law said, “Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things that are written in this book.” ( Deut. xxvii. 26 , LXX.) But what saith grace? “Come unto Me, all ye that labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest” ( Matt. xi. 28 ); and Paul, “Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us.” (
St Jerome † AD 420 The Letters of St. Jerome 55.5
… The chief stumbling-block in the passage is that the Son is said to be subject to the Father. Now which is the more shameful and humiliating, to be subject to the Father (often a mark of loving devotion as in the psalm “truly my soul is subject unto God” ) or to be crucified and made the curse of the cross? For “cursed is everyone that hangeth on a tree.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Sermons on Selected Lessons of the New Testament 38.8
… and that cross which the Jewish persecutors with great mockery prepared for the Lord, even kings His servants at this day bear with great confidence on their foreheads. Only the shameful nature of the death which our Lord vouchsafed to undergo for us is not now so apparent, Who, as the Apostle says, “was made a curse for us.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 88.6
… whence saith the Apostle, “Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the Law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth upon a tree.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 109.24
24. “I became also a reproach unto them” ( ver. 24 ): through the death of the Cross. “For Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us.”
Theodoret of Cyrus † AD 458 Dialogues. The “Eranistes” or “Polymorphus” of the Blessed Theodoretus, Bishop of Cyrus 1
Orth. —Hear then how he wrote to Epictetus. “The expression of John ‘the Word was made flesh’ has this interpretation, so far as can be discovered from the similar passage which we find in St. Paul ‘Christ was made a curse for us.’
Theodoret of Cyrus † AD 458 Dialogues. The “Eranistes” or “Polymorphus” of the Blessed Theodoretus, Bishop of Cyrus 3
Orth. —But the blessed Paul calls Him “sin” and “curse.”
Theodoret of Cyrus † AD 458 Letters of the Blessed Theodoret, Bishop of Cyprus 147
… This is a great mystery; but I speak concerning Christ and the Church.” Listen to him as he says “Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us,”
St John of Damascus † AD 749 An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith 4.18
Others again are said in the manner of association and relation , as, My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken Me ? and He hath made Him to be sin for us, Who knew no sin , and being made a curse for us
3:14
St Irenaeus of Lyons † AD 202 Against Heresies 4.25.1
… For, as I have shown, it existed in Abraham antecedently to circumcision, as it also did in the rest of the righteous who pleased God: and in these last times, it again sprang up among mankind through the coming of the Lord. But circumcision and the law of works occupied the intervening period.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Commentary on Galatians 3
Ver. 14 . “That upon the Gentiles might come the blessing of Abraham.”
3:15
Tertullian † AD 220 The Five Books Against Marcion 5.4
“But,” says he, “I speak after the manner of men: when we were children, we were placed in bondage under the elements of the world.”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on Paul's Epistle to the Romans 8
… And this is why he passes by all the others, and leads his discourse back to this man. And he calls him “father, as pertaining to the flesh,” to throw them out of the genuine relationship ( συγγενείας γνησίας ) to him, and to pave the Gentiles’ way to kinsmanship
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Commentary on Galatians 3
Ver. 15 . “Brethren, I speak after the manner of men; Though it be but a man’s covenant, yet when it hath been confirmed, no one maketh it void or addeth thereto.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 On Christian Doctrine 4.20
… but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ. And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect. For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise: but God gave it to Abraham by promise.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 A Treatise Against Two Letters of the Pelagians 3.6
… and to thy seed, which is Christ. And this I say,” said he, “that the testament confirmed by God, the law which was made four hundred and thirty years after, does not weaken, so as to make the promise of none effect. For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise: but God gave it to Abraham by promise.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 55.20
… To Abraham have been spoken the promises, and to his seed. The Apostle saith, “Nevertheless, a man’s testament confirmed no one maketh void, or super-addeth to: to Abraham have been spoken the promises, and to his seed. He saith not, And to seeds, as if in many; but as if in one, And to thy Seed, which is Christ.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 89.28
28. “His seed will I make to endure world without end” ( ver. 29 ). Not only for this world, but unto the world without end: whither His seed, which is His heritage, the seed of Abraham, which is Christ, will pass.
St John of Damascus † AD 749 An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith 3.25
… And it was in this way that our Lord appropriated both our curse and our desertion, and such other things as are not natural: not that He Himself was or became such, but that He took upon Himself our personality and ranked Himself as one of us. Such is the meaning in which this phrase is to be taken: Being made a curse for our sakes
3:16
St Irenaeus of Lyons † AD 202 Against Heresies 5.32
… Now He does not say, And of seeds, as if [He spake] of many, but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.”
Tertullian † AD 220 An Answer to the Jews 1
… to God’s Law—is enough to prevent Israel from priding himself on the notion that “the Gentiles are accounted as a little drop of a bucket,” or else as “dust out of a threshing-floor:” although we have God Himself as an adequate engager and faithful promiser, in that He promised to Abraham that “in his seed should be blest all nations of the earth;”
Tertullian † AD 220 The Five Books Against Marcion 5.4
… “To Abraham were the promises made, and to his seed. He said not ‘to seeds,’ as of many; but as of one, ‘to thy seed,’ which is Christ.”
Tertullian † AD 220 On Patience 6
… Deservedly then was he “blessed,” because he was “faithful;” deservedly “faithful,” because “patient.” So faith, illumined by patience, when it was becoming propagated among the nations through “Abraham’s seed, which is Christ,”
St Athanasius of Alexandria † AD 373 Against the Arians. (Orationes contra Arianos IV.) 1.4
… do ye, as ‘the heathen, rage, and imagine vain phrases against the Lord and against His Christ?’ for no holy Scripture has used such language of the Saviour, but rather ‘always’ and ‘eternal’ and ‘coexistent always with the Father.’ For, ‘In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God .’ And in the Apocalypse he thus speaks
St Ambrose of Milan † AD 397 Exposition of the Christian Faith 1.1
8. If, then, God is One, one is the name, one is the power, of the Trinity. Christ Himself, indeed, saith: “Go ye, baptize the nations in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.” In the name, mark you, not in the names. ”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on Paul's Epistle to the Romans 8
… And this is why he passes by all the others, and leads his discourse back to this man. And he calls him “father, as pertaining to the flesh,” to throw them out of the genuine relationship ( συγγενείας γνησίας ) to him, and to pave the Gentiles’ way to kinsmanship
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Commentary on Galatians 3
… but as of One, And to thy seed, which is Christ. Now this I say, A covenant, confirmed before hand by God the Law, which came four hundred and thirty years after, doth not disannul, so as to make the promise of none effect. For if the inheritance is of the Law, it is no more of promise: but God hath granted it to Abraham by promise.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Letters of St. Augustin 53.1
… unto you, let him be accursed.” For to you it was proclaimed by the voice of the Lord Jesus Christ Himself, that His “gospel shall be preached unto all nations, and then shall the end come.” To you it has moreover been proclaimed by the writings of the prophets and of the apostles, that the promises were given to Abraham and to his seed, which is Christ,
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Letters of St. Augustin 76.1
… “The Lord hath said unto me, Thou art My Son; this day have I begotten Thee. Ask of Me, and I shall give Thee the heathen for Thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for Thy possession”? “To Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, ‘And to seeds,’ as of many, but as of one, ‘And to thy seed,’ which is Christ.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Reply to Faustus the Manichæan 12.6
… "In thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed?" At the time when the apostle gave the following exposition of this promise, "To Abraham and to his seed were the promises made. He saith not, To seed, as of many, but as of one, To thy seed, which is Christ,"
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Answer to the Letters of Petilian, the Donatist 1.23
… Now let its lessons be read, from whatever source it has been brought to light. Certainly in the beginning of the promises of the Testator this is found to have been said to Abraham: "In thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed;" and this saying is truthfully interpreted by the apostle: "To thy seed," he says, "which is Christ."
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Answer to the Letters of Petilian, the Donatist 3.50
… for Thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for Thy possession;" and that the covenant of God made with Abraham may be quoted in behalf of our, that is, of the Catholic communion, in which it is written, "In thy seed shall all nations of the earth be blessed;" which seed the apostle interprets, saying, "And to thy seed, which is Christ."
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 A Treatise on the Spirit and the Letter 46
… and the Scripture foreseeing this, preached the gospel before to Abraham, saying, “In thy seed shall all nations be blessed,” in order that by this grace of promise the wild olive might be grafted into the good olive, and believing Gentiles might be made children of Abraham, “in Abraham’s seed, which is Christ,”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 A Treatise on the Predestination of the Saints 1.33
… but where we hear, “that the election hath obtained it,” there are to be understood the beloved for their father’s sakes, to which fathers those things were assuredly promised; because “the promises were made to Abraham and his seed,”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Sermons on Selected Lessons of the New Testament 31.8
… Dost thou not know that He notified this in the seed of Abraham? “The seed of Abraham,” says the Apostle, “which is Christ. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of One, And to thy seed, which is Christ.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Sermons on Selected Lessons of the New Testament 55.9
… “Except the Lord keep the city, he that keepeth it waketh but in vain.” And what “city”? “He that keepeth Israel shall neither slumber nor sleep.” What is Israel, but the seed of Abraham? What the seed of Abraham, but Christ? “And to thy seed,” he says, “which is Christ.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Sermons on Selected Lessons of the New Testament 79.5
5. A testimony for the Head; “To Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many, but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Sermons on Selected Lessons of the New Testament 94.5
… but as of one, And to thy Seed, which is Christ.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Lectures or Tractates on the Gospel According to St. John 12.9
… The hope for the rest is this, that He came down in order that in Him and with Him they might be one, who should ascend through Him. “He saith not, And to seeds,” saith the apostle, “as in many; but as in one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.” And to believers he saith, “And ye are Christ’s; and if Christ’s, then are Abraham’s seed.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Lectures or Tractates on the Gospel According to St. John 42.5
… Listen to the apostle: “To Abraham and to his seed were the promises made. He saith not,” he adds, “And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ. And if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 45.11
… and a lawgiver from his thighs”? Did not Abraham himself (to whom was promised the seed in which “all the nations of the earth were to be blessed”), when he sent his servant to seek and to bring home a wife for his son, being by faith fully persuaded, that in that, so to speak, contemptible seed was contained the great Name;
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 72.19
… Therefore for everlasting endureth the name of Him. For eternity doth precede times, and is not bounded by time. “And there shall be blessed in Him all the tribes of the earth.” For in Him is fulfilled that which hath been promised to Abraham. “For He saith not, In seeds, as though in many; but as though in one, And to thy Seed, which is Christ.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 89.5
5. Let us see then what God hath sworn. “I have sworn,” He saith, “to David My servant; thy seed will I establish for ever” ( ver. 4 ). But what is the seed of David, but that of Abraham. And what is the seed of Abraham? “And to thy seed,” He saith, “which is Christ.”
Theodoret of Cyrus † AD 458 Dialogues. The “Eranistes” or “Polymorphus” of the Blessed Theodoretus, Bishop of Cyrus 1
Orth. —It is in relation to these covenants that the divine apostle writes in his Epistle to the Galatians “Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made.” He saith not “seeds” as of many, but as of one…which is Christ,
Theodoret of Cyrus † AD 458 Letters of the Blessed Theodoret, Bishop of Cyprus 104
… he saith not and to seeds, as of many; but as of one, and to thy seed, which is Christ.”
Theodoret of Cyrus † AD 458 Letters of the Blessed Theodoret, Bishop of Cyprus 152
… We do not divide the two natures into two Christs, and we know that of the Father God the Word was begotten and that of the seed of Abraham and David our nature was assumed. Wherefore also the blessed Paul says when discoursing of Abraham “He saith not and to seeds as of many; but as of one, and to thy seed which is Christ,”
Pope St Leo I the Great † AD 461 Letters 28
… And finding the promise of God who says to Abraham, “In thy seed shall all nations be blest ,” to avoid all doubt as to the reference of this seed, he might have followed the Apostle when He says, “To Abraham were the promises made and to his seed. He saith not and to seeds, as if in many, but as it in one, and to thy seed which is Christ
3:17
Novatian † AD 258 On the Jewish Meats 2
… so that either the most vigorous food should not be given in too small quantity for men’s support, and they should be enfeebled for labour; or that the more tender meat should not be too abundant, so that, oppressed beyond the measure of their strength, they should not be able to bear it. But the law which followed subsequently ordained
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 City of God 16.24
… “And this I say, that the covenant confirmed by God, the law, which was made 430 years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.”
3:18
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on Paul's Epistle to the Romans 8
… And this is why he passes by all the others, and leads his discourse back to this man. And he calls him “father, as pertaining to the flesh,” to throw them out of the genuine relationship ( συγγενείας γνησίας ) to him, and to pave the Gentiles’ way to kinsmanship
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 A Treatise Against Two Letters of the Pelagians 3.7
… and he will have this which was made by Abraham to pertain rather to us, whom he will have to be children of the freewoman, not of the bondwoman, heirs by the promise, not by the law, when he says, “For if the inheritance be by the law, it is no more of promise: but God gave it to Abraham by promise.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 A Treatise Against Two Letters of the Pelagians 4.10
… For to those words of theirs in which they say “that the law was able to confer eternal life on the prophets and patriarchs, and all saints who kept its commandments,” the apostle replies, “If righteousness be by the law, then has Christ died in vain.” “If the inheritance be by the law, then is it no more of promise.”
3:19
St Irenaeus of Lyons † AD 202 Against Heresies 3.7
… An example occurs in the [Epistle] to the Galatians, where he expresses himself as follows: “Wherefore then the law of works? It was added, until the seed should come to whom the promise was made; [and it was] ordained by angels in the hand of a Mediator.”
St Irenaeus of Lyons † AD 202 Against Heresies 5.21.1
… This is the seed of which the apostle says in the Epistle to the Galatians, “that the law of works was established until the seed should come to whom the promise was made.”
St Hippolytus † AD 235 The Refutation of All Heresies 7.19
… Now, as he affirms, the Demiurge is evil, and his works. For this reason, he affirms, Jesus came down unbegotten, in order that He might be liberated from all (admixture of) evil. And He has, he says, been liberated from the nature of the Good One likewise, in order that He may be a Mediator, as Paul states,
St Athanasius of Alexandria † AD 373 On the Incarnation of the Word 5
… the rational man made in God’s image was disappearing, and the handiwork of God was in process of dissolution. 2. For death, as I said above, gained from that time forth a legal hold over us, and it was impossible to evade the law, since it had been laid down by God because
St Basil the Great † AD 379 De Spiritu Sancto 14
… and he was a type not of the Spirit, but of Christ. For at that time in the ministry of the law, he by means of himself typified “the Mediator between God and men.” Moses, when mediating for the people in things pertaining to God, was not a minister of the Spirit; for the law was given, “ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator,”
St Basil the Great † AD 379 The Letters 261
… For He helped His own creation, first through the patriarchs, whose lives were set forth as examples and rules to all willing to follow the footsteps of the saints, and with zeal like theirs to reach the perfection of good works. Next for succour He gave the Law, ordaining it by angels in the hand of Moses;
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 A Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles 17
… 38 .) Do you mark that thence comes the root, and that “salvation is from the Jews?” ( John iv. 22 .) “With the Angel,” it says, “which spake unto him.” ( Rom. xi. 16 .) Lo, again he affirms that it was He (Christ) that gave the Law, seeing Moses was with “Him” in the Church in the wilderness.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Commentary on Galatians 3
Ver. 19 . “What then is the Law? it was added because of transgressions.”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Epistle to the Hebrews 3
[6.] But what is this, “For if the word spoken by Angels was steadfast”? For in the Epistle to the Galatians also he saith to this effect, “Being ordained by angels in the hand of a Mediator.” (
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Letters of St. Augustin 82.20
… but where sin abounded, grace did much more abound.” Again, in another place, after affirming, when speaking of the dispensation of grace, that grace alone justifies, he asks, “Wherefore then serveth the law?” and answers immediately, “It was added because of transgressions, until the Seed should come to whom the promises were made.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 City of God 10.32
… but, that he might receive these great promises, and that there might be propagated from him a seed “disposed by angels in the hand of a Mediator,”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 On Christian Doctrine 4.20
… “God forbid.” And he also states the reason in these words: “For if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law. But the Scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 On the Holy Trinity 3.11
… And hence the apostle also says to the Galatians, “Wherefore then serveth the Law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made, which [seed] was ordered through angels in the hand of a mediator;”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Reply to Faustus the Manichæan 15.8
… She is not blinded by a spirit of controversy, but learns meekly from the apostle what is this law which we are not to be under; for "it was given," he says, "on account of transgression, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made."
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 A Treatise on the Merits and Forgiveness of Sins, and on the Baptism of Infants 1.45
… Now a mediator belongs not to one party; but God is one. Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law. But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 A Treatise on the Spirit and the Letter 31
Now, since, as he says in another passage, “the law was added because of transgression,”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 A Treatise Concerning Man’s Perfection in Righteousness 42
… for the mouth of the Lord hath spoken this.” As if the entire law were not full of conditions of this sort; or as if its commandments had been given to proud men for any other reason than that “the law was added because of transgression, until the seed should come to whom the promise was made.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 A Treatise Against Two Letters of the Pelagians 3.3
… this is that about which they object to us that we say “that the law was so given as to be a cause of greater sin.” They do not hear the apostle saying, “For the law worketh wrath; for where no law is, there is no transgression;” and, “The law was added for the sake of transgression until the seed should come to whom the promise was made;”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 A Treatise Against Two Letters of the Pelagians 3.7
… Therefore, when he had said, “For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no longer of promise: but God gave it to Abraham by promise,” as if it might be said to him, “Why then was the law made afterwards? “he added and said, “What then is the law?”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 89.36
… for from that people came the Virgin Mary, and from her the flesh of Christ; that Flesh sins not, but purifies sins; there, saith David, is my substance. “O remember what my substance is.” For the root has not entirely perished; the seed shall come to whom the promise was made, ordained by Angels in the hand of a Mediator.
John Cassian † AD 435 The Conferences of John Cassian 23.4
… “All your righteousness is like a menstruous cloth.” And to produce something still plainer, even the vital precepts of the law itself, which are said to have been “given by angels by the hand of a mediator,” and of which the same Apostle says: “So the law indeed is holy and the commandment is holy and just and good,”
Theodoret of Cyrus † AD 458 Dialogues. The “Eranistes” or “Polymorphus” of the Blessed Theodoretus, Bishop of Cyrus 2
Eran. —But was not Moses called a mediator, though only a man?
3:20
St Ignatius of Antioch † AD 108 Epistle to the Antiochians 4
… All things were made by Him, and without Him was not anything made that was made.” And concerning the incarnation: “The Word,” says [the Scripture], “became flesh, and dwelt among us.” And again: “The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.” And those very apostles, who said “that there is one God,”
Tertullian † AD 220 Five Books in Reply to Marcion 4
Chiding)—Paul—written that such zeal hath he.
St Hippolytus † AD 235 On Numbers 1
Now, in order that He might be shown to have together in Himself at once the nature of God and that of man,—as the apostle, too, says: “Mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus. Now a mediator is not of one man, but two,”
Novatian † AD 258 A Treatise of Novatian Concerning the Trinity 30
… For as well they who say that Jesus Christ Himself is God the Father, as moreover they who would have Him to be only man, have gathered thence the sources and reasons of their error and perversity; because when they perceived that it was written
St Gregory of Nyssa † AD 395 Against Eunomius 2.12
… Since, then, a mediator is not a mediator of one
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Commentary on Galatians 3
Ver. 20 . “Now a mediator is not a mediator of one, but God is one.”
3:21
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Commentary on Galatians 3
Ver. 21 . “Is the Law then against the promises of God?”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Reply to Faustus the Manichæan 19.7
… Thus Paul also says: "The letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life." Again, he says: "For if a law had been given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law; but the Scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe."
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 A Treatise on the Merits and Forgiveness of Sins, and on the Baptism of Infants 1.12
… “For if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law. But the Scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 A Treatise on the Spirit and the Letter 34
… and this change is effected by the life-giving Spirit, without whom the letter kills. “For if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law. But the Scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 A Treatise on the Grace of Christ, and on Original Sin 1.9
… it discovers disease, but does not heal it; nay, the malady that is not healed is rather aggravated by it, so that the cure of grace is more earnestly and anxiously sought for, inasmuch as “The letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.” “For if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 A Treatise on the Grace of Christ, and on Original Sin 2.29
Death indeed reigned from Adam until Moses, because it was not possible even for the law given through Moses to overcome it: it was not given, in fact, as something able to give life;
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 On Marriage and Concupiscence 2.24
… In former times, however, the sacramental mystery of justification by faith lay concealed in every mode. Still it was the self-same faith in the Mediator which saved the saints of old, both small and great—not the old covenant, “which gendereth to bondage;” not the law, which was not so given as to be able to give life;
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 A Treatise Against Two Letters of the Pelagians 3.3
… but the Scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 A Treatise Against Two Letters of the Pelagians 4.11
… law and mercy on her tongue,” —law whereby she frightens, mercy by which she may help,—law by His servant, mercy by Himself,—the law, as it were, in the staff which Elisha sent to raise up the son of the widow, and it failed to raise him up, “For if a law had been given which could have given life, righteousness would altogether have been by the law,”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Sermons on Selected Lessons of the New Testament 75.2
… for so saith the Apostle, “For if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the Law; But the Scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe;”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Sermons on Selected Lessons of the New Testament 86.5
… The son of the hostess of the man of God was dead, and his staff was sent by his servant, and laid upon his face, but he did not revive. What doeth the Law without grace? What saith the Apostle, now seeing, now of blind, enlightened? “For if there had been a Law given which could give life, verily righteousness should have been by the Law.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Lectures or Tractates on the Gospel According to St. John 17.2
… For this is what the apostle saith: “For if a law had been given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law.” Why, then, was the law given? He goes on to say, “But the Scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Lectures or Tractates on the Gospel According to St. John 49.22
… “Take ye away,” He saith, “the stone.” Take away the weight of the law; preach grace. “For if there had been a law given, which could have given life, verily righteousness should be by the law. But the Scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 71.17
… it was reported to him, to his servant he gave his staff: go thou, he saith, lay it on the dead child. Did the prophet not know what he was doing? The servant went before, he laid the staff upon the dead, the dead arose not. “For if there had been given a law which could have made alive, surely out of the law there had been righteousness.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 130.3
… Who could stand before Thee, and say, I am innocent? Who could stand in Thy judgment? There is therefore one hope: “for the sake of Thy law have I borne Thee, O Lord.” What law? That which made men guilty. For a “law, holy, just, and good,” was given to the Jews; but its effect was to make them guilty. A law was not given that could give life,
3:22
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Commentary on Galatians 3
Ver. 22 . “Howbeit the scripture hath shut up all things under sin, that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.”
St Jerome † AD 420 Against the Pelagians 2
… and I only wish that, when sins are manifest, I might still be silent. “I know nothing against myself,” says St. Paul, “yet am I not hereby justified.” “Man looketh on the outward appearance, but the Lord looketh on the heart.” Before Him no man is justified. And so Paul says confidently, “All have sinned, and come short of the glory of God”; and
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 A Treatise on the Merits and Forgiveness of Sins, and on the Baptism of Infants 3.20
… “The sting of death is sin, and the strength of sin is the law.” We all sinned in one, so that we all die in one; we received the law, not by amendment according to its precepts to put an end to sin, but by transgression to increase it. For “the law entered that sin might abound;” and “the Scripture hath concluded all under sin;”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 A Treatise on the Grace of Christ, and on Original Sin 1.9
… “The Scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 A Treatise Against Two Letters of the Pelagians 3.24
… And the law, holy and just and good, is neither grace itself, nor is anything rightly done by it without grace; because the law is not given that it may give life, but it was added because of transgression, that it might conclude all persons convicted under sin, and that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Sermons on Selected Lessons of the New Testament 86.5
… what is this that he hath said? “If there had been a Law given which could give life, verily righteousness should have been by the Law.” If it could not give life, why was it given? He went on and added, “But the Scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by the faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.”
Pope St Leo I the Great † AD 461 Sermons 33
… in order that, because all nations had long been turned aside from the worship of the true God by wicked error, and even God’s peculiar people Israel had well-nigh entirely fallen away from the enactments of the Law, now that all were shut up under sin
3:23
St Athanasius of Alexandria † AD 373 Festal and Personal Letters of Athanasius 19
… ‘Before faith came, we were kept guarded under the law, being shut up in the faith which should afterwards be revealed unto us; wherefore the law was our instructor in Christ, that we might be justified by faith
St Ambrose of Milan † AD 397 Exposition of the Christian Faith 4.8
… Peradventure, indeed, the Arians suppose that Christ is in the position of one in a family, and frets because He is not set free and independent of His Father’s authority, and is not empowered to administer the estate. But Christ is not under tutelage; nay, rather has He abolished all tutelage.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Commentary on Galatians 3
Ver. 23 . “But before faith came, we were kept inward under the Law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Reply to Faustus the Manichæan 19.7
… So the same apostle says: "For before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which was afterwards revealed. Therefore the law was our schoolmaster in Christ Jesus; but after faith came, we are no longer under a schoolmaster."
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Reply to Faustus the Manichæan 19.14
… In former days faith was dim, for the saints and righteous men of those times all believed and hoped for the same things, and all these sacraments and ceremonies pointed to the future; but now we have the revelation of the faith to which the people were shut up under the law;
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 A Treatise on the Spirit and the Letter 34
… For what purposes “ hath it concluded ,” except as it is expressed in the next sentence: “Before, indeed, faith came, we were kept under the law, concluded for the faith which was afterwards revealed?”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 A Treatise on Nature and Grace 13
… of course does not notice the Scriptures of the New Testament, wherein we learn that the intention of the law in its censure is this, that, by reason of the transgressions which men commit, they may flee for refuge to the grace of the Lord, who has pity upon them—“the schoolmaster” “shutting them up unto the same faith which should afterwards be revealed;”
3:24
St Irenaeus of Lyons † AD 202 Against Heresies 4.2.8
… them, two days, “believed because of His words, and said to the woman, Now we believe, not because of thy saying, for we ourselves have heard [Him], and know that this man is truly the Saviour of the world.” And Paul likewise declares, “And so all Israel shall be saved;” but he has also said, that the law was our pedagogue [to bring us] to Christ Jesus.
St Cyril of Jerusalem † AD 386 The Catechetical Lectures of S. Cyril 4.33
… For the God of the two Testaments is One, Who in the Old Testament foretold the Christ Who appeared in the New; Who by the Law and the Prophets led us to Christ’s school. For before faith came, we were kept in ward under the law , and, the law hath been our tutor to bring us unto Christ
St Gregory of Nazianzus † AD 389 Select Orations of Saint Gregory Nazianzen 2.23
… so all became one for the sake of all, and for the sake of one, our progenitor, the soul because of the soul which was disobedient, the flesh because of the flesh which co-operated with it and shared in its condemnation, Christ, Who was superior to, and beyond the reach of, sin, because of Adam, who became subject to sin.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies on the Statues to the People of Antioch 7.4
… But this is not the case. God forbid! Among men this may probably happen, when they inflict punishments in anger and passion; but God being free from passion, whether He exercise kindness, or whether He punish, He is alike good. Nor less does the threat of hell serve to show His goodness, than the promise of the kingdom.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies on the Statues to the People of Antioch 15.2
2. Seest thou what advantage is come of fear? If fear were not a good thing, fathers would not have set tutors
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Commentary on Galatians 1
… “O ye who were lately slaves, enemies and aliens, what right have ye suddenly acquired to call God your Father? it was not the Law which conferred upon you this relationship; why do ye therefore desert Him who brought you so near to God, and return to your tutor?
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Commentary on Galatians 3
Ver. 24 . “So that the Law hath been our tutor to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.”
St Jerome † AD 420 Against the Pelagians 2
24 . The law our teacher to bring us to Christ.
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Letters of St. Augustin 145.3
… So, then, the law brings us to faith, faith obtains the Spirit in fuller measure, the Spirit sheds love abroad in us, and love fulfils the law. For this reason the law is called a “schoolmaster,”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 On Christian Doctrine 3.6
… And the apostle describes this bondage as being like to that of boys under the guidance of a schoolmaster.
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 On the Profit of Believing 9
… Whom Paul deservedly rebukes as unbelievers, because they do not believe that now through our Lord Jesus they have been set free from that bondage, under which they were placed for a certain time by the most just appointment of God. Hence is that saying of the same Apostle, “For the Law was our schoolmaster in Christ.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 A Treatise on the Spirit and the Letter 16
… “Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man?” For who but a righteous man lawfully uses the law? Yet it is not for him that it is made, but for the unrighteous. Must then the unrighteous man, in order that he may be justified,—that is, become a righteous man,—lawfully use the law, to lead him, as by the schoolmaster’s hand,
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 A Treatise on Nature and Grace 1
… “For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.” This righteousness of God, therefore, lies not in the commandment of the law, which excites fear, but in the aid afforded by the grace of Christ, to which alone the fear of the law, as of a schoolmaster,
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 A Treatise on Nature and Grace 13
… even as light offences, if they cannot possibly be wholly avoided.” He of course does not notice the Scriptures of the New Testament, wherein we learn that the intention of the law in its censure is this, that, by reason of the transgressions which men commit, they may flee for refuge to the grace of the Lord, who has pity upon them—“the schoolmaster”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 A Treatise Concerning Man’s Perfection in Righteousness 11
… Thus the law fulfils its office as “schoolmaster,” so terrifying the man as “to lead him to Christ,” to give Him his love.
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 A Treatise on the Grace of Christ, and on Original Sin 1.9
… “The Scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.” Wherefore, says the apostle, “the law was our schoolmaster in Christ Jesus.”
John Cassian † AD 435 The Conferences of John Cassian 8.23
… vindicator of this (earlier law) and to use the expressions of Scripture, as its helper, that through fear of immediate punishment men might be kept from altogether losing the good of natural knowledge, according to the word of the prophet who says “He gave the law to help them:” and it is also described by the Apostle as having been given as a schoolmaster
3:25
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Commentary on Galatians 3
Ver. 25, 26 . “But now that faith is come which leads to perfect manhood we are no longer under a tutor . For ye are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus.”
3:26
Tertullian † AD 220 The Five Books Against Marcion 5.3
… “We have received therefore, the promise of the Spirit,” as the apostle says, “through faith,” even that faith by which the just man lives, in accordance with the Creator’s purpose. What I say, then, is this, that that God is the object of faith who prefigured the grace of faith. But when he also adds, “For ye are all the children of faith,”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 On the Holy Trinity 12.7
… and whereas in another place the same apostle says, “For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus; for as many as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ: there is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female; for ye are all one in Christ Jesus?”
3:27
Tertullian † AD 220 The Five Books Against Marcion 3.12
… just indeed as every nation, by whatever word they would express God-with-us, has called Him Emmanuel, completing the sound in its sense. Now since Emmanuel is God-with-us, and God-with-us is Christ, who is in us (for “as many of you as are baptized into Christ, have put on Christ”
Tertullian † AD 220 On Baptism 12
… Nay, since Paul is the only one of them who has put on the garment of Christ’s baptism,
Tertullian † AD 220 On Monogamy 7
… in order that the son, too, may carry out the precept of God, “Honour father and mother.” Us, moreover, Jesus, the Father’s Highest and Great Priest, clothing us from His own store —inasmuch as they “who are baptized in Christ
Tertullian † AD 220 On Modesty 6
… It did not bear the names of “body of Christ,” of “members of Christ,” of “temple of God,” at the time when it used to obtain pardon for adultery. And thus if, from the moment when it changed its condition, and “having been baptized into Christ put on Christ,”
St Cyprian of Carthage † AD 258 The Epistles of Cyprian 59.2
… For as the Apostle Paul says, “As many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ,”
St Cyprian of Carthage † AD 258 The Epistles of Cyprian 73.5
… For he who has been sanctified, his sins being put away in baptism, and has been spiritually reformed into a new man, has become fitted for receiving the Holy Spirit; since the apostle says, “As many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.”
St Cyprian of Carthage † AD 258 The Epistles of Cyprian 74.12
12. Moreover, what is the meaning of that which Stephen would assert, that the presence and holiness of Christ is with those who are baptized among heretics? For if the apostle does not speak falsely when he says, “As many of you as are baptized into Christ, have put on Christ,”
St Hilary of Poitiers † AD 367 De Trinitate or On the Trinity 8.8
… For the Apostle shews that this unity of the faithful arises from the nature of the sacraments when he writes to the Ga latians, For as many of you as were baptized into Christ did put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female; for ye are all one in Christ Jesus
St Basil the Great † AD 379 De Spiritu Sancto 12
28. Let no one be misled by the fact of the apostle’s frequently omitting the name of the Father and of the Holy Spirit when making mention of baptism, or on this account imagine that the invocation of the names is not observed. “As many of you,” he says, “as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ;”
St Basil the Great † AD 379 The Letters 292
… Preserve this seal of righteousness unsullied, that so you may stand before God, shining in the brightness of the Saints. Let no spot or wrinkle defile the pure robe of immortality; but keep holiness in all your members, as having put on Christ. “For,” it is said, “as many of you as have been baptized into Christ, have put on Christ.”
St Cyril of Jerusalem † AD 386 The Catechetical Lectures of S. Cyril 21.1
1. Having been baptized into Christ , and put on Christ
St Gregory of Nazianzus † AD 389 Select Orations of Saint Gregory Nazianzen 40
… A sick or a wounded man lies before you; respect your own health, and the wounds from which Christ delivered you. If you see one naked clothe him, in honour of your own garment of incorruption, which is Christ, for as many as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Instructions to Catechumens 1.2
… “For as many of you as were baptized into Christ did put on Christ.”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Instructions to Catechumens 2.2
… For thou hast the most excellent of raiment, thou hast a spiritual table thou hast the glory from on high, and Christ is become to thee all things, thy table, thy raiment, thy home, thy head, thy stem. “For as many of you as were baptized into Christ, did put on Christ.”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Commentary on Galatians 3
Ver. 27 . “For as many of you as were baptized into Christ, did put on Christ.”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Homilies on Colossians 10
… If one had offered thee the purple, and the diadem, wouldest thou not have taken them before all the gold in the world? I give thee not the regal ornaments, but I offer thee to put on the King Himself. And how can one put Christ on, doth any say? Hear Paul saying, “As many of you as were baptized into Christ, did put on Christ.” (
St Jerome † AD 420 Jerome's Apology for Himself Against the Books of Rufinus 1.29
… but they shall be as the angels of God.” And, indeed, when chastity is observed between man and woman, it begins to be true that there is neither male nor female; but, though living in the body, they are being changed into angels, among whom there is neither male nor female. The same is said by the same Apostle in another place:
St Jerome † AD 420 The Letters of St. Jerome 15.1
… I appeal for spiritual food to the church whence I have received the garb of Christ.
St Jerome † AD 420 The Letters of St. Jerome 39.4
… And to make their superstition complete, they follow a foolish custom of the Pharisees, and eat lentils, to show, it would seem, for what poor fare they have lost their birthright. Of course they are right to weep, for as they do not believe in the Lord’s resurrection they are being made ready for the advent of antichrist. But we who have put on Christ
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Letters of St. Augustin 102.29
… the souls of believers in a hidden and secret place, to whom, accordingly, it is said, “Ye are dead, and your life is hid with Christ in God;” —“Who hath bound the waters in a garment?” whence it could be said, “As many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ;”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 City of God 13.23
… the second man is the Lord from heaven. As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy, and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly. And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly.” So he elsewhere says, “As many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ;”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Of the Work of Monks 40
… For they have heard or read that which is written, “Whosoever of you have been baptized in Christ, have put on Christ: where is no Jew nor Greek; no bond nor free; no male nor female.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Reply to Faustus the Manichæan 24
… So the same apostle says again, "As many as have been baptized in Christ have put on Christ: there is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither male nor female, there is neither bond nor free; but all are one in Christ."
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 On Baptism, Against the Donatists 1.11
… And how can he be so renovated whose past sins are not remitted? But if he be not regenerate, neither does he put on Christ; from which it seems to follow that he ought to be baptized again. For the apostle says, "For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ;"
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 On Baptism, Against the Donatists 5.24
Chapter 24.— 34. I remember that I have already discussed at sufficient length the question of "the temple of God," and how this saying is to be taken, "As many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ."
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 86.4
… because I received, not because I had: because Thou gavest, not because I deserved. For on another side thou art beginning to do an injury to our Lord Jesus Christ Himself. For if all Christians who are faithful and have been baptized in Him have put Him on, as the Apostle saith, “As many as are baptized in Christ have put on Christ:”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 132.20
… 16 ). We are now at the end of the Psalm; attend for a short space, Beloved. “I will clothe her priests with salvation, and her saints shall rejoice and sing.” Who is our salvation, save our Christ? What meaneth, therefore, “I will clothe her priests with salvation”? “As many of you as have been baptized into Christ, have put on Christ.”
Theodoret of Cyrus † AD 458 Letters of the Blessed Theodoret, Bishop of Cyprus 147
… I speak concerning Christ and the Church.” Listen to him as he says “Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us,” and elsewhere “Know ye not that so many of us as were baptized unto Jesus Christ were baptized into His death,” and in another place, “For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ,”
Pope St Leo I the Great † AD 461 Letters 15
… “For as many of you as were baptized in Christ did put on Christ: there is neither Jew nor Greek: there is neither bond nor free: there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus
Pope St Leo I the Great † AD 461 Sermons 63
… There is neither Jew nor Greek: there is neither slave nor free: there is neither male nor female. For ye are all one in Christ. But if ye are Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, heirs according to promise
St John of Damascus † AD 749 An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith 4.11
… For by the Cross all things have been made right. So many of us, the apostle says, as were baptized into Christ, were baptized into His death , and as many of you as have been baptized into Christ, have put on Christ
3:28
St Ignatius of Antioch † AD 108 Epistle to the Philadelphians: Shorter and Longer Versions 4
… Now [the Scripture] says, “A righteous father educates [his children] well; his heart shall rejoice in a wise son.” Masters, be gentle towards your servants, as holy Job has taught you; for there is one nature, and one family of mankind. For “in Christ there is neither bond nor free.”
Tertullian † AD 220 On the Apparel of Women 1.2
… What commerce have they who are to condemn with them who are to be condemned? The same, I take it, as Christ has with Belial. With what consistency do we mount that (future) judgment-seat to pronounce sentence against those whose gifts we (now) seek after? For you too, (women as you are,) have the self-same angelic nature promised
St Hippolytus † AD 235 The Refutation of All Heresies 5.2
… For, says (the Naassene), Attis has been emasculated, that is, he has passed over from the earthly parts of the nether world to the everlasting substance above, where, he says, there is neither female or male,
Aphrahat † AD 346 Aphrahat: Select Demonstrations 6.6
… For those that take not wives shall be ministered to by the Watchers of heaven. Those that preserve chastity shall rest in the sanctuary of the Most High. The Only Begotten Who is from the bosom of His Father shall cause all the solitaries to rejoice. There is there neither male nor female, neither bond nor free,
Aphrahat † AD 346 Aphrahat: Select Demonstrations 22.13
… for they cannot die; but they are as the angels in heaven, and are the children of God . And the apostle said:— There is neither male nor female, neither bond nor free; but ye are all one in Jesus Christ .
St Gregory of Nazianzus † AD 389 Select Orations of Saint Gregory Nazianzen 7.23
… This is the purpose of the great mystery for us. This is the purpose for us of God, Who for us was made man and became poor, to raise our flesh, and recover His image, and remodel man, that we might all be made one in Christ,
St Gregory of Nyssa † AD 395 On Virginity 20
… It is plain moreover that the argument applies equally to men and women, to move them towards such a marriage. “There is neither male nor female
St Gregory of Nyssa † AD 395 On the Making of Man 16.7
… then it makes a resumption of the account of creation, and says, “male and female created He them.” I presume that every one knows that this is a departure from the Prototype: for “in Christ Jesus,” as the apostle says, “there is neither male nor female
St Ambrose of Milan † AD 397 On the Holy Spirit 2.8
… “And these indeed were you, but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and in the Spirit of our God.” How many instances of this I can bring forward. For it is written: “Ye are all one in Christ Jesus,”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Eulogy 1
… but on this side and on that many are proclaimed conquerors, and are crowned, in order that thou mayest learn by means of the exploits themselves that in Christ Jesus neither male nor female,
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom 70
It were meet indeed that ye had within you the wall to part you from the women; but since ye are not so minded, our fathers thought it necessary by these boards to wall you off; since I hear from the elder ones, that of old there were not so much as these partitions; “For in Christ Jesus there is neither male nor female.”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 A Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles 5
… The language is fraught with helpless dismay. ( supra p. 32.) “And it shall come to pass, every one who shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. Every one,” he says: though he be priest (but he does not vet reveal the meaning), though bond, though free. For there is no male nor female in Christ Jesus, no bond, no free. (
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on Paul's Epistle to the Romans 30
… You see these were noble women, hindered no way by their sex in the course of virtue. And this is as might be expected. “For in Christ Jesus there is neither male nor female.” (
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Homilies on First Corinthians 12
… for neither to these ought such things to have been permitted. For hence all these evils have their origin, that of our household we make no account. But it is enough in the way of contempt to say, “He is a slave,” and, “They are handmaids.” And yet, day after day we hear, (
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Homilies on First Corinthians 40
… Since not at all for need’s sake was the class of slaves introduced, else even along with Adam had a slave been formed; but it is the penalty of sin and the punishment of disobedience. But when Christ came, He put an end also to this. “For in Christ Jesus there is neither bond nor free.” (
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Commentary on Galatians 3
Ver. 16, 17, 18 . “Now to Abraham were the promises spoken and to his seed. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of One, And to thy seed, which is Christ.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Homilies on Ephesians 20
… ( Ecclus. xl. 23 .) And indeed from the beginning, God appears to have made special provision for this union; and discoursing of the twain as one, He said thus, “Male and female created He them” ( Gen. i. 27 .); and again, “There is neither male nor female.” (
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Homilies on Colossians 6
… No woman is there, for him to approach, and deceive as the weaker; for it is said, “There is neither female, nor male.” (
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Homilies on Colossians 12
… Is not this a shame? To act unseemly is a shame even though it be a king’s daughter. For doth her poverty stand in the way? or her course of life? Even if a virgin be a slave, let her abide in modesty. “For in Christ Jesus there can be neither bond nor free.” (
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Homilies on Philemon 1
… For the Church knows not the distinction of master and servant. By good actions and by sins she defines the one and the other. If then it is a Church, be not displeased that thy slave is saluted with thee. “For in Christ Jesus there is neither bond nor free.” (
St Jerome † AD 420 The Letters of St. Jerome 75.2
… And since even in the flesh, if we are born again in Christ, we are no longer Greek and Barbarian, bond and free, male and female, but are all one in Him,
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 The Confessions 13.23
… for in this manner hast Thou made man, male and female, in Thy grace spiritual, where, according to the sex of body, there is not male and female, because neither Jew nor Greek, nor bond nor free.
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Our Lord’s Sermon on the Mount 1.15
… For in that eternal kingdom to which He has vouchsafed to call His disciples, to whom He also gives the name of brothers, there are no temporal relationships of this sort. For “there is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female;” “but Christ is all, and in all.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Lectures or Tractates on the Gospel According to St. John 110.2
… Is not such a state the everlasting peace, and the reward of faith, rather than faith itself? For we shall be one not in order to our believing, but because we have believed. But although in this life, because of the common faith itself, all who believe in one are one according to the words of the apostle, “For ye are all one in Christ Jesus;”
Socrates Scholasticus † AD 440 The Ecclesiastical History of Socrates Scholasticus 4.23
… Having taken this resolution, they retired together to the mountain of Nitria, and in a hut there inhabited for a short time one common ascetic apartment, without regarding their difference of sex, being according to the apostles, ‘one in Christ.’
3:29
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Commentary on Galatians 3
Ver. 29 . “And if ye are Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, heirs according to promise.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 On Christian Doctrine 3.31
44. The first is about the Lord and His body , and it is this, that, knowing as we do that the head and the body—that is, Christ and His Church—are sometimes indicated to us under one person (for it is not in vain that it is said to believers, “Ye then are Abraham’s seed,”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Reply to Faustus the Manichæan 22.89
… words immediately following, "And it shall be that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people, there they shall be called the children of the living God," do not apply to that Israel which is after the flesh, but to that of which the apostle says to the Gentiles, "Ye therefore are the seed of Abraham, and heirs according to the promise."
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Reply to Faustus the Manichæan 32.9
… And to the objection that we do not belong to the house of Israel or to the house of Judah, we answer according to the teaching of the apostle, who calls Christ the seed of Abraham, and says to us, as belonging to Christ’s body, "Therefore ye are Abraham’s seed."
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Answer to the Letters of Petilian, the Donatist 2.8
… And, yet, even without any violation of that agreement, I think I may say with perfect justice that he should be deemed a partner with him who delivered up Christ who has not delivered himself up to Christ in company with the whole world. "Then," says the apostle, "then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise."
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Sermons on Selected Lessons of the New Testament 55.9
… “He that keepeth Israel shall neither slumber nor sleep.” What is Israel, but the seed of Abraham? What the seed of Abraham, but Christ? “And to thy seed,” he says, “which is Christ.” And to us what says he? “But ye are Christ’s, therefore Abraham’s seed, heirs according to the promise.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Sermons on Selected Lessons of the New Testament 80.3
… In this world hath God fulfilled His promise concerning the seed of Abraham. How shall He not give us His eternal promises, whom He hath made to be Abraham’s seed? For this the Apostle saith: “But if ye be Christ’s” (they are the Apostle’s words), “then are ye Abraham’s seed.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Sermons on Selected Lessons of the New Testament 94.5
… but as of one, And to thy Seed, which is Christ.” And for that we too belong to that which is Christ, by our incorporation together, and coherence to That Head, It is One Christ. And also for that he says to us too, “Therefore are ye Abraham’s seed, heirs according to the promise.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Lectures or Tractates on the Gospel According to St. John 108.5
… For those of whom He so speaks are, as I have said, His members; and the head and body are one Christ, as the apostle teaches when he says of the seed of Abraham, “And if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed,” after having said before, “He saith not, And to seeds, as in many, but as in one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Lectures or Tractates on the Gospel According to St. John 117.5
… For “they,” saith the apostle, “who are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God; but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.” And the Gentiles were those to whom he said, “But if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 74.1
… For to the Gentiles the Apostle was speaking, when he said, “Therefore the seed of Abraham ye are, heirs according to promise.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 83.4
… for it is rather customary to say, “let the name be mentioned” ( memoretur nomen ); but the sense is the same. For he who said, “let it be mentioned of the name,” translated the Greek phrase. But Israel must here be understood in fact of the seed of Abraham, to which the Apostle saith, “Therefore ye are the seed of Abraham, according to the promise heirs.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 89.5
… “And to thy seed,” He saith, “which is Christ.” But perhaps that Christ, the Head of the Church, the Saviour of the body, is the seed of Abraham, and therefore of David; but we are not Abraham’s seed? We are assuredly; as the Apostle saith, “And if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 102.31
… 27 ). But what are we to those years with these beggarly years? and what are they? Yet we ought not to despair. He had already said in His great and exceeding Wisdom, “I Am That I Am;” and yet He saith to console us, “I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob:” and we are Abraham’s seed:
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 114.3
3. Let us therefore consider what we are taught here; since both those deeds were typical of us, and these words exhort us to recognise ourselves. For if we hold with a firm heart the grace of God which hath been given us, we are Israel, the seed of Abraham: unto us the Apostle saith, “Therefore are ye the seed of Abraham.”
3:1
Who hath bewitched you? The Greek word here signifies (1.) to, envy. "What Jew has envied you your Gospel liberty?" (Theophylact and Anselm). It denotes (2.) to fascinate, charm, bind the eyes, so as to make them to see what is not, or not to see what is. This second sense better suits the context before whose eyes Christ hath been evidently set forth. It was through the fixed look of the person casting the spell that the charm was commonly made to work. Virgil refers to this in the line, " Some eye is casting its spell on my tender lambs." S. Paul's question then means: "What evil eye has seduced you, O Galatians, yet young in the faith, to the delusion of Judaism?" " The evil eye," says Jerome, " is peculiarly hurtful to infants, and those of tender years, and who cannot yet run alone."
Evidently set forth. The Vulgate is præscriptus, which is rendered by Anselm, disinherited; by Ambrose, spoiled, in the sense: You have deprived Christ of His lawful inheritance, the Church. S. Augustine, according to Erasmus, understands the word to allude to legal prescription, by which, after a certain time (three years in the case of movables, ten years in the case of immovables), possession gave a title to ownership. Christ, by the prescription of the Old Law, which for so many hundreds of years enjoyed the name of the Free Law, was shut out from His possession, the Church. But Erasmus has misread S. Augustine, as is evident from the best MSS. The latter reads proscriptus, and comments on it thus: " The Jews took away His inheritance, and drove Him out," which is an act of proscription, not of prescription. S. Jerome interprets præscriptus to mean that the death of Christ was predicted by the prophets and in the sacraments of the Old Law. But there is a third and better meaning. Christ was put by writing, or by a picture, before your very eyes, crucified. The Galatians had not been spectators of the actual Crucifixion, but Christ had by preaching and faith been represented to them as crucified. This interpretation makes it necessary to supply as though before crucified. The sense, then, is: Though crucified at Jerusalem in fact, yet Christ has been represented as though crucified before you, O Galatians, by my preaching and your faith. By the eyes of faith you have seen Christ hanging on the Cross more clearly than did the Jews who stood at its foot. Who, then, has cast a spell upon those eyes which have so clearly seen Christ crucified? It is possible, however, that the words are to be taken literally. In your own age, in the presence perhaps of some of you, and in a country not far removed, Christ was marked out by the instruments of His Passion, and depicted as your Saviour. While the colours then are so fresh on the canvas, how can you be so bewitched as to forget so great and so recent a benefit? In this sense Christ Himself crucified is, as it were, a picture or a book in which He is described in blood-red letters. Do you wish to know who Christ is and what He is like? Open this book, look at the Cross, see the title, Jesus of Nazareth i.e., Consecrator, who has consecrated us to God King of the Jews. You will find it written. " Christ was made sin for us, that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him." He alone bore and expiated our sin, for what is sin but Christicide or Deicide ? You will read too in this book, in the wounds and blood of Christ, that it was love of you which formed and coloured Him so. In His whole body you will see love written, nay, engraved. This book, in short, will show to one who reads and looks well all the wisdom of Christ, and the very depths of Christian philosophy. Ver. 2. Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the heating of faith? The Spirit here is the Holy Spirit, with His visible gifts of tongues and prophecy, which He used to give in baptism, as outward tokens of the invisible graces He there infused. S. Paul asks the Galatians whether it is not clear that they received the Spirit and His gifts, not from circumcision, but in baptism.
3:2
The heating of faith. Hearing can be taken here either actively, in reference to the preaching they heard, or passively, in reference to their hearkening to and obeying the faith preached. Cf. Isa 51:4-7. Ver. 3. Having begun in the Spirit. With the spiritual doctrine of Christ, and the spiritual gifts received from Him, enabling you to live the spiritual life.
3:3
Are ye now made perfect by the flesh? The flesh is put for circumcision and other carnal ceremonies of the law. The interpretation which sees here a reference to the carnal lusts of the flesh is disproved by the context. Made perfect is in the Vulgate consumemini. S. Bernard (Serm. 33 in Cant.) applies this text to those who exhaust their strength by unrestrained devotion, through excessive prayers and penances. Afterwards, he says, they become lazy, and are consumed by the flesh, while seeking for health, and so become sensual and carnal. Cf. notes to 1Co 3:2. Theophylact observes that S. Paul uses the passive, not the active "Are you made perfect?" not, "Do you make perfect?" i.e., he hints that they were like brute beasts, in suffering themselves to be circumcised by others. He also notes that he does not say merely πεγει̃σθε, but ε̉πιτελει̃σθε: After being perfected in Christ, will you seek a perfection beyond in the Old Law? Do you want to add a fifth wheel to the coach? Ver. 4. Have ye suffered so many things in vain? Why should unbelievers persecute you in vain, i.e., without cause, if you are returning to Moses?
3:4
If it be yet in vain. Which it will be, unless you return to your former mind, and stand firm in the faith of Christ. Ver. 5. He therefore that ministereth. I.e., God or Christ, who infuses His grace, and works in you by His Divine power. Cf. 1Co 12:6. Ver. 6. Even as Abraham believed God. This introduces the second argument, to prove that we are justified, not by the works of the law, but by faith; not by Moses, but by Christ. Abraham received the Spirit when uncircumcised and before the law, and was justified by faith in Christ, not by the law, which at that time was not in existence. So, argues S. Paul, are you justified by faith. And it was accounted to him for righteousness. By his faith he was justified. Cf. notes to Rom 4:3. Ver. 7. They which are of faith. A Græcism for they who are faithful, who imitate Abraham's faith.
3:7
The same are the children of Abraham. Not by blood, but by imitation; to them, therefore, belongs the blessing pronounced on Abraham. Ver. 8. Preached before the gospel unto Abraham. Gave him this most joyful news of the blessing to be conferred by Christ on His descendants, i.e., on the faithful. In other words, the Gospel about Christ and His righteousness is not new, but is as old as the days of Abraham.
3:8
In thee shall all nations be blessed. Cajetan observes, in his notes or Genesis 12., that when God called Abraham from his home in Chaldea, and from his kindred, to go to a land to be shown him, He promised him a sevenfold blessing. Seven is the number of completeness. (1.) He promised him that he should be the head or father of a great nation, in the words, " I will make of thee a great nation;" (2.) abundant riches, in the words, " I will bless thee;" (3.) fame and wide renown, in the words, " And make thy name great;" (4.) the sum of all blessings and honours, in the words, " Thou shalt be a blessing." The exact force of the Hebrew here is that thou shalt be so filled with blessings as to seem to be a blessing itself, so that when men may wish to bless any one, they shall put you forward as an example, saying, "May God bless thee as He blessed Abraham." In a similar way the Romans saluted their Cæsar: "May you be more fortunate than Augustus, more virtuous than Trajan." (5.) "The Lord promised His blessing, not to Abraham only, but to his friends, in the words, " I will bless them that bless thee." (6.) He promised that He would avenge him on his adversaries, in the words, " I will curse him that curseth thee." (7.) The preceding six are temporal only, but the seventh and the chief is spiritual and eternal, " In thee shall all families of the earth be blessed." 1. Observe that in thee, i.e., in thy seed, as is explained in Gen 22:17, is to he understood as in Christ, who was born of Abraham, according to the Apostle's interpretation in Gal 3:16. Through thy seed, Christ, and through faith in Him, all nations shall be blessed, i.e., be justified and made sons and friends of God, and consequently heirs of God's kingdom, and entitled to hear the blissful words, " Come, ye blessed of My Father, receive the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world." Abraham's blessing, therefore, was that he should be the father of the justified. 2. But in thee can be also rendered like thee. As thou art justified by faith, so by faith shall all nations be justified, and not by the works of the law. So say Chrysostom, Augustine, Theophylact, Œcumenius, and S. Thomas. Notice, too, that with God to speak is as efficacious as to do, for, " Ye spake the word and they were made." Similarly, to pronounce a blessing with Him is the same as to confer a blessing (benedicere = benefacere). The greater the blessing promised, the greater the blessing given. But the greatest good we can receive is that grace by which we become sharers of the Divine nature, and the word blessing, therefore, denotes this great gift. Hence the Fathers rightly interpret, they shall be blessed, as they shall be justified: they shall receive the blessing of justification, than which no greater gift can be given to man by God. From this is evident the error of Paginus, in rendering the phrase before us, In thee shall all nations bless themselves. The Hebrew voice of the verb is the Niphal, which is purely passive, not reflexive; moreover, S. Paul's use of the passage is against him. Ver. 9. So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham. This is the conclusion from the premisses of the three preceding verses. God promised to Abraham that in him, i.e., in his seed, i.e., in Christ, all nations should be blessed, i.e., justified. But the promise of God cannot fail; therefore the consequence contained in this verse follows. If the second sense of in thee, given above, is preferred, the argument is the same. In thee, i.e., like thee, all nations shall be blessed. But thou, O Abraham, wast justified by faith; therefore, the Gentiles too shall be justified in the same way. And from this it follows that they who are of faith shall be blessed, i.e., justified with faithful Abraham. This last phrase rather favours the second rendering of in thee, and hints that the Gentiles shall be justified by faith like faithful Abraham. Observe again the Græcism, they who are of faiih, i.e., who are faithful. Similarly, he speaks of those who are of the circumcision, i.e., the Jews, followers of the law. Elsewhere he calls them those who are of the works of the law, i.e., those who rely on it and hope for justification from it. Ver. 10. For as many as are of the works of the law are under a curse. He inquired in verse 5 whether righteousness comes from the law or from faith. He replied, "From faith," and then proved his answer by the example of Abraham. He now proceeds to a third proof, by destroying the alternative, viz., that it is not of the law. So far from the law bestowing a blessing, those who are under it are under a curse exposed to eternal damnation. This he argues thus: Whoever does not keep the whole law is cursed by the law. But no one keeps the whole law without the grace of Christ, as I suppose you know from your own experience; for you know that the law teaches, threatens, and punishes only, but does not confer grace; therefore, without faith no one is free from the curse of the law pronounced by it against those who transgress it. The law curses, faith alone blesses. If any one wishes the argument put more in syllogistic form, it may be thrown into the mood barbara thus. Whoever breaks any law is cursed by it. But all who are under the law, and are shut off from the grace of Christ, break the law; therefore, all who are under the law are cursed by it. The major is proved by Deut. xxvii. 26; the minor is supposed to be known by experience, and hence the conclusion follows. Of course the minor must be granted, else the Judaisers might say to the Galatians: We are as much under a blessing as a curse, for if the law curses those who break it, it also blesses those who keep it, as is said in Deut. xxviii. 2.
3:10
For it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them. Though Aquila, Symmachus, Theodotion, the LXX., render the word we translate continueth somewhat differently, yet the sense is the same throughout. Whoever does not by his deeds establish, strengthen, settle the law, is accursed by it. This is the major of the syllogism just stated. 1. Observe that he passes over the minor, because it was admitted. Calvin, however, makes it to be this: But no one can fulfil the law; therefore, the law imposes what is impossible, and consequently all are under its curse. But this is an impious proposition. If modified thus: No one keeps the law without the faith of Christ, therefore all without that faith are under the curse of the law, then it becomes orthodox. God does not command impossibilities. Although by natural strength a man cannot keep the whole law, yet he can by supernatural, and this latter God gives to all that ask Him, whether Jews or Gentiles. 2. Observe, in the second place, that not all were accursed who broke any law. For some laws, though of Divine origin, obliged under venial sin only, because of the nature of their subject-matter, as, e.g., the law forbidding the mother to be taken in the nest with her young (Deu 22:6.), and the law forbidding a vineyard to be sown with divers seeds (ver. 9), and the law forbidding a garment to be woven of flax and wool (ver. 11). It is evident, therefore, that Deut. xxvii., quoted by S. Paul, refers to the Decalogue, which contains commandments of great importance. It is because they oblige under mortal sin that he is cursed who breaks one of them. A reference to Deut. xxvii. will show this to be the case. The Apostle assumes that no one can keep the whole Decalogue without the grace of Christ, and he thence concludes that all who are under the law are cursed by it. Ver. 11. But that no man is justified. This is a fourth proof. S. Paul would fain convince the Galatians by an accumulation of proofs. After that based on the example of Abraham, and that on the condition of those under the law, he proceeds to another drawn from Habukkuk ii. 4, a text already explained in the notes on Rom 1:17. Ver. 12. And the law is not of faith. The law neither teaches nor gives the grace by which we fulfil the law and live righteously. But, as is said in Eze 20:11, the man that doeth what the law commands shall live, i.e., shall not be punished with the death threatened by the law for transgressors, but he shall enjoy life and an abundance of temporal goods, as the law promises to those who keep it. The same was said in Rom 10:5, which reminds us of the close relationship between that Epistle and this, the latter being a compendium of the former. Observe the antithesis between "faith" and "law." Of the former, it is said that the just, because he is just, shall live by it, i.e.,shall enjoy a life of grace and glory, which is the perfect and blissful life. But as to the latter, it is not said absolutely that he who keeps the law shall live by it, but only in it, i.e., he shall live the life, and enjoy the goods promised by the law, viz., abundance of corn, wine, and oil. Ver. 13. Christ was made a curse for us. Christ, though blessed in Himself, was made a curse, so far as He took on Him the person of sinners, to expiate the curse due because of their sins. Just as if a man make himself responsible for another's debt, he becomes and is called a debtor, so Christ was made a curse for us. The term, however, cannot be properly applied to Him, for though a debt may be transferred, sin cannot. It is only applied to Him improperly, in the sense that He took upon Him the punishment of sin. In 2Co 5:21, Christ is said to have been made sin for us, i.e., a victim for sin, according to the Jewish rite by which, through the imposition of hands, the whole body of sin was transferred to the victim. So here He is called a curse, because God transferred to Him the curses due to the whole human race, so that He bore for us the shameful Cross, to show the hideousness of sin as well as to give an example of every virtue. He hung on the Cross, says S. Augustine, " in order that Christian freedom, unlike Jewish slavery, might fear not only no death, but no kind of death " (contra Adimant. c. 21). So too Tertullian: " The Lord Himself was cursed in the law, and yet He alone was blessed. Therefore let us, His servants, follow our Lord, and patiently endure cursing, that we may be blessed. " (de Patienciâ, c. 8).
3:13
For it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree. This is from Deu 21:23. Aquila and Theodotion render the clause, The curse of God is hanged; Symmachus, He was hanged for blasphemy against God; Ebion, the half-Jewish, half-Christian heresiarch, as Jerome calls him, rendered it, He who hangs is an outrage on God; another, The insult against God is hanged. Jerome adds that his Hebrew teacher (Barhanina) told him that the Hebrew might be translated, God was ignominiously hanged. Hence S. Jerome infers, that as S. Paul does not mention the name of God, that name was not in the original, but afterwards inserted by some Jew, in derision of the Christians. But this is improbable, for all the Hebrew, Latin, and Greek texts, as well as the LXX. version, have the name of God in this text of Deuteronomy. It was, therefore, out of zeal for God that Paul omitted His name, and because of the Jews and the Galatians, already half-disposed to forsake Christ. He feared lest he might alienate them still further if he said that Christ had been cursed by God. 1. From this and other passages, such as Num 25:24, Jos 8:29, 2Sa 21:9, it appears that the Jews, contrary to the opinion expressed by some, punished criminals with crucifixion, as well as stoning or burning. 2. They adopted crucifixion for the most heinous crimes, such as blasphemy, idolatry, oppression, and accordingly they crucified Christ for aiming at a kingship over Judæa. Hence criminals so punished were held in greater execration than others, accursed by God and man. It was not among the Romans alone that the punishment of crucifixion was regarded as infamous above all others. 3. Although Tostatus extends by analogy the provisions of Deu 21:23 to other modes of punishment besides crucifixion, yet there is little warrant for doing so. The law imposes this penalty precisely on hanged criminals alone, on the ground that they were specially execrable. It may be asked why God commanded the bodies of such criminals to be buried before the evening. The answer is to be found in Josh. viii. 28, and the comments of Andreas Masius on it. " It is," he says, " because such a corps is regarded as contaminating the earth; for as long as human bodies are left neglected and unburied, like the bodies of brute beasts, men who dwell on the earth are apt to conceive an impious and pernicious opinion of the soul's mortality." This explanation is more ingenious than true. It proves too much, and applies to all criminals, however killed; but the law regards those only who were hanged on a tree. The opinion, therefore, of Cajetan and others is preferable, viz., that God wishes to blot out the remembrance of such men entirely from the earth, as a deterrent to others. So too poisoning, arson, fraud, and sodomy were punished with death by fire, the fire annihilating the bodies of those guilty of such atrocities. We should note the Scripture phraseology here. The earth is said to be polluted by crimes, to groan, to cry aloud, to be angry, to call for vengeance, nay, to cast out its inhabiters, as, e.g., in Lev 18:28. The figure is a prosopopœia, by which life and feeling are attributed to inanimate things, so that the earth and the elements, as irrational creatures serving their Creator and jealous for His honour, detest what He detests. They do this by a sort of natural instinct, which keeps them true to their place and the universal good, and eager to fulfil the will of God. This natural instinct makes them do what they would do in obedience to reason if they were rational creatures. It was in accordance with this law of Deuteronomy that Christ, as a suspended malefactor, was taken from the Cross and buried, before the evening of the day on which He suffered, the next day being a Sabbath, although strictly speaking He was exempted from this law by His innocence. Hence the Hebrew of S. Jerome, before quoted, held that the law could be prophetically rendered: " His body," i.e., Christ's, " shall not remain on the tree because God was ignominiously hanged." The Jews, however, did not rely on this law for their action in taking him down from the Cross, but on the dishonour that would otherwise be done to the great Sabbath that was close at hand, as is clear from S. Joh 19:31. This law of Deuteronomy was a judicial law, and, therefore, abrogated with the whole judicial and ceremonial law, by the death of Christ. Consequently crucified criminals are not now reckoned as cursed above others, nor are they buried on the same day, but are sometimes allowed to hang for days and weeks for a terror to other evil-doers. S. Jerome remarks on this passage. " The Lord's shame is our glory. He died that we might live. Ye descended into hell that we ascend to heaven. He was made foolishness that we might become wise. He emptied Himself of His fulness, and put off the form of God, and put on the form of a servant, that the fulness of the God-head might dwell in us, and that we might be changed from slaves into masters. He hung on the Cross, that the tree of shame might destroy the sin which we had committed through the tree of knowledge. His Cross made the bitter waters sweet, and made the lost axe swim in Jordan. Finally, He was made a curse made, not born that the blessings which had been promised to Abraham, with Him as author and herald, might be transferred to the Gentiles, and the promise of His spirit might by faith be fuelled in us." See too the notes of Chrysostom and Anselm. Ver. 14. That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles. This evidently is a corollary from the preceding verse. Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us, in order that the blessing of Abraham might be ours in place of the curse.
3:14
The promise of the Spirit. To the children of Abraham, i.e., to those who believe on Christ, the descendant of Abraham, was promised the Holy Spirit to justify and sanctify us. For when God said to Abraham, " In thee," it was to his seed, which is Christ, that the blessing was appointed. Cf. notes to verse 8 above. Ver. 15. I speak after the manner of men. Cf. Job 31:33, and Hos 6:7. S. Paul's meaning is that in dealing with spiritual things he uses material illustrations, as, e.g., that of a testator and his testament, to prove that we inherit Abraham's blessing, not through the law, but through faith in Christ, according to the covenant made with Abraham, and that, therefore, the Galatians should feel shame for attributing less to God than to the testaments and covenants of men. This is his fifth proof, that we are justified by faith and not by the law.
3:15
Though it be but a man's covenant. No one adds to or subtracts from a man's testament when once it is duly drawn up.
3:16
Ver. 16. To Abraham and his seed were the promises made. Thisrefers to Gen. xxii. 16. From this we conclude that by his readiness to obey God in sacrificing his son he merited that from his own seed should Christ be born as a blessing to the Gentiles, and to fulfil the promises. The Apostle, therefore, rightly lays it down that these promises were made to Abraham and his seed, i.e., to Christ, who should spring from his loins; although the word of Genesis speaks of these promises being made to Abraham in his seed only, and not to his seed. Yet the very fact that they were to be fulfilled in his seed shows that they were made rather to his seed than to Abraham. Just as if a king should promise one of his nobles to exalt his family in his son, by making him a duke or a prince, and thereby makes a promise to the son rather than to the father, so did God to Abraham. It was in Christ, as the seed of Abraham, that the promise, " In thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed," has been fulfilled, and justification assured to all who believe in Christ.
To thy seed which is Christ. This may be said to meet a possible objection that seed is equivalent to posterity or descendants, and is therefore a noun of multitude, and that S. Paul here denies this interpretation. But seed is sometimes used as a collective term, as for example, in the promise, " Thy seed shall be as the stars of heaven," and sometimes as a particular term; e.g., in Gen 21:13: " Of the son of the bondwoman will I make a nation, because he is thy seed." S. Paul, in interpreting the word here in the latter sense, might have appealed to the practice of the Rabbinical expositors, who all understood it of Christ. Moreover, if it were to be taken in the former sense, the prophecy would have failed of fulfilment, for all the nations of the earth have not been blessed in Abraham's posterity, if by them we are to understand the Jewish people; on the contrary, the Jews are for a reproach, and a curse among the Gentiles. Ver. 17. The covenant that was before of God in Christ. If, as was said in verse 15, no one annuls the testament of a man, still less can the law, which came 430 years afterwards, annul the promise of God confirmed to Abraham in Christ. Note that the Hebrew berith, the Greek diathèkè, and the Latin testamentum, have all the same meaning of covenant, and that the diathèkè, of the LXX. is identical with sunthèkè,accor ing to Jerome, Chrysostom, Theophylact, and Œcumenius. Budæus proves the same from Demosthenes and Aristophanes. Cf. notes to 1Co 11:25. But S. Augustine understands the term of a will. " Because," he says, " the death of the testator has the effect of confirming his will, so the unchangeableness of God has the effect of confirming His promise." An important question is here raised as to the date from which these 430 years should be reckoned, for the terminus ad quem alone is clearly defined in this passage, viz., the year when the law was given on Mount Sinai. S. Paul's computation seems in conflict with Exo 12:40, which speaks of the sojourning of the children of Israel in Egypt as lasting 430 years, or, in other words, which represents the time between the going down of Jacob into Egypt and the Exodus as 430 years; but the Apostle seems to count the interval between Abraham and the Exodus as 430 years. But from Abraham to Jacob's descent was 200 years, and therefore if Exod. xii. 40 is to be followed, the Apostle should have said 630 years. I reply briefly with S. Augustine (qu. 47 in Exod.); with Athanasius, or rather Anastasius, in his "Synopsis of Holy Scripture" (in loco) with Eusebius, in his Chronicon; with Rupert, Tostatus, Cajetan (in Exod.), that the computation of S. Paul is identical with that of Moses in Exod. xii. 40, and that both begin to reckon, not from the descent of Jacob into Egypt, but from the seventy-fifth year of Abraham's life, when he was called from his country to go into Canaan. It was in that year that he received the blessings S. Paul is referring to, as is evident from the beginning of Gen. xii. 1. This appears from the obvious fact that the Hebrews did not dwell in Egypt 430 years; for Kohath went down with his grandfather, Jacob (Exo 6:18). But Kohath lived 133 years, and his, son Amram 137 years. When Moses, Amram's son, went out of Egypt with the Hebrews, he was in his eighty-first year; and if all these three are added together, we get 351 only. But we must deduct from this total the years that Kohath lived after begetting Amram, and that Amram lived after begetting Moses. From this it follows that the number of 430 must be reckoned from a date long anterior to the descent into Egypt, viz., from the migration of Abraham from Haran, and this the LXX. expressly say in their rendering of Exo 12:40: " But the sojourning of the children of Israel, which they and their fathers made in the land of Egypt and Canaan, was 430 years." 2. Moreover, the Apostle says here that the law was given 430 years after, not the descent of Jacob, but the promise to Abraham; but the law was given in the same year that the Hebrews left Egypt, in the third month after their departure. Cf. Exo 19:1, and the notes to Exod. xii. 40. Ver. 18. If the inheritance be of the law. If our heritage of righteousness be of the law of Moses, then it is not of the promise. But this is false, for God promised this righteousness to Abraham and to his seed, which is Christ. If it is of the promise of Christ, then it is through faith in Christ, and not through the law of Moses, that all nations are to be blessed.
3:19
Ver. 19. Wherefore then serveth the law? Why was the law introduced after the promise? Is it that God does not fulfil His promise? The answer is that the law was given by God to restrain and punish transgressions. This was its direct purpose, but indirectly it served as a means whereby transgressions might be made manifest. A self-willed people would, on hearing the law, recognise their sins as such, and feel the need of Christ's grace if they were to keep it. In this way the law sent men to Christ.
Till the seed should come. Till the birth of Christ, to whom God had promised that by Him all nations should be blessed, i.e., justified, and so be able to live uprightly and to keep the law. The law was given as a pedagogue till Christ should come; therefore when Christ has come it has done its work, and the Jews are foolish in wishing to prolong its power.
Because of transgressions. The Greek word rendered added denotes put in its place, as a soldier is assigned his post by his general. So the law was assigned its rank, place, time, and method of promulgation. 1. It was given its rank between the law of nature and the Gospel, being more perfect than the one but inferior to the other. It was a road from one to the other. 2. It was given its fitting time, in being promulgated to a people still uncouth, when it was about to form itself into a nation and a Church, to prevent it from failing into idolatry and heathen license. 3. It had its due place, for being given at Sinai before the entrance into Canaan, it formed a sort of condition to the covenant. God promised that He would lead the Hebrews into Canaan, and put them in possession of it, if they would follow the law as their guide, and observe it as a condition attached to His promise. 4. It had its proper mode of promulgation, for it came from an angel on Mount Sinai, with the sound of a trumpet, with a terrible earthquake, with thunder and lightning, as a law of fear to restrain the rebellious Jews, like slaves, by fear of punishment. In these four ways the law was externally ordered. 5. But it was also internally disposed in due order. Its precepts bade the Hebrews (a) worship God by appointed ceremonies and sacrifices; (b) refrain from injury to their neighbour, or if injury had been inflicted, it bade them offer fitting satisfaction; (c) it regulated the inner man by the moral precepts of the Decalogue. Similarly, but much more perfectly, has the New Law, the law of Christ, been ordered. (1.) It was assigned its proper rank, as being the crown and perfection of all laws. (2.) It came in its proper time, viz., in the last age of the world, when Christ, the great Legislator, came. It was promulgated at Pentecost, on the fiftieth day after the Passover, which was a feast symbolical of pardon, freedom, bliss, and the eternal jubilee. (3.) Its place was befitting its dignity. Not on Sinai was it given but on Sion, the type and mirror of celestial glory, to which this law leads us. (4.) As to the mode of promulgation, notice that it was given with a mighty wind and fiery tongues, with the power and might of the Holy Spirit, to preach the Gospel and convert all nations, because it was a law of burning love and enkindled charity. (5.) Its contents were duly related to one another, through its precepts of faith, hope, charity, and those relating to justification and the Sacraments.
It was ordained by angels. From this it appears that it was not God who in person spoke to Moses, but an angel representing Him, and speaking in His Name; as when he said, "I am the Lord thy God." Even so an ambassador speaks in the name of his sovereign, and acts by his authority. It was then an Angel who, in the place of God, was the immediate giver of the Decalogue to the people on Mount Sinai. It was an Angel also who spoke with Moses on Mount Sinai, and gave him for promulgation to the people the ceremonial laws, with directions for the making of the Tabernacle, for the ark, the cherubim, the sacrifices, and expiatory rites, which are found scattered throughout the Pentateuch.
In the hand of a mediator. Hand is here used to denote instrumentality. By a similar usage the word of the Lord is said to have come to pass in the hand of Elijah, Isaiah, and other prophets, acting as the instruments of God. Vatablus has for mediator intercessor, and Erasmus conciliator. But mediator, as the more intensive term, is preferable. Whoever mediates between two may be either a messenger, or an interpreter, or a peacemaker, and in each sense he is a mediator. What mediator is referred to here? 1. Jerome, Augustine, Chrysostom, and Ambrose reply, Christ the Lord. Although Christ was not then actually our mediator, yet He was by the decree and in the purpose of God. The Old Law, in this sense, was given by the power and authority of Christ, who was the predestined Mediator; and since, therefore, the law was given by His authority, so when He was born into the world it was in His power to abrogate it. 2. The answer of Cyril (Thesauri, xii. 10), Gregory Nazianzen (Orat. 6 before Greg. Nyss.), Catharinus, Adam, and others, including even Beza, is better, viz., that the mediator was Moses, who himself says, in Deuteronomy v. 5, that he stood between the Lord and the people at that time. This opinion is supported by the consideration (a) that Christ cannot be said to be a mediator as God, but only as God-made-man. But at the time of Moses He was not yet made man, and therefore could not then be called a mediator. The major of this syllogism is proved thus: Christ as God only, just as Christ as man only, is but one of two extremes; therefore as such He cannot be a mediator, but only as God-man. As the God-man He unites in His person the two extremes of God and man. As God He had the authority and dignity belonging to a mediator; as man He did the work of a mediator. It may be objected to this, no doubt, that though Christ was not then actually a mediator, yet He was by predestination. But this objection loses sight of the fact that the Apostle is not speaking of a mediator by predestination, but of an acting mediator; for he says that the Old Law was ordained by this mediator, i.e., in very deed, when it was given to the Hebrews. But Christ, not yet existing as mediator, could not have ordained the law at that time; therefore He was not its mediator, for what has no existence can neither work nor ordain anything. (b) The phrase of S. Paul means that angels gave the law by the instrumentality of a mediator. But Christ cannot be said to be the minister of angels but their Prince (cf. Heb 1.); therefore, the mediator here is not Christ. (c) Again, the Old Law was given by Moses, as the New Law by Christ. As, then, Christ is the mediator of the New Law and the New Covenant, so was Moses of the old. (d) Lastly, that Moses was the mediator is clear from Heb 8:5-6, and Heb 9:15-20. Observe, in opposition to the Protestants, that if Moses could be called a mediator without any derogation from the mediatorial office of Christ, as even Beza admits, in the sense, not of a redeemer or reconciliator, but as a messenger from one to the other, why may not the Saints with even better title be called mediators without offence to Christ, seeing that by their merits and prayers they gain for us the grace of God? It is astonishing that Protestants should make so much fuss about this word, and strive to throw so much dust in people's eyes, when, as is evident, there is no difference between us, either about the name or the thing. The meaning of the Apostle, then, is this: The Old Law was given by angels and promulgated by Moses, the New by Christ Himself. He who as God used the instrumentality of Moses in proclaiming the Old Law, could, when made man, abrogate it in His own person, in order that 'the promise made to Abraham, that all nations should be justified, might be fulfilled in Himself, the seed of Abraham. Ver. 20. Now a mediator is not a mediator of one, but of two, in this case of two peoples, Jews and Gentiles, to whom Christ acts as mediator, says Ambrose. (2.) Or, Christ is not a mediator of one nature, but of two, the Divine and the human. (3.) Or, Moses is not a mediator of one will and purpose, because as a man he was subject to change. God on the contrary is unchangeable in His will and promise. Adam leans to this explanation. But all these are beside the phraseology of Scripture and the drift of the Apostle. (4.) A better interpretation is that Christ is a mediator not of one but of two not of two Gods, as though Father and Son make two, according to the heresy of Arius and Nestorius not between God and angels, for the good angels need no mediator, and the evil angels cannot derive any benefit from one but He is a mediator between the two parties, God on one side and man on the other. And the inference drawn is that it is not the law, but Christ, that redeems us and reconciles us to God. This explanation is supported by Augustine, Theophylact, Anselm. (5.) The best interpretation of the clause is that the Apostle is explaining the character of a mediator. The mediator Moses, he seems to say, is not of one but of two determinate parties, viz., God and the Hebrews, but not of God and Christians. On the other hand, God is One, not two. The Apostle is not building his argument on these words, except indirectly, but is merely contrasting the dual character of a mediator with the unity of God. It is on this latter fact that he relies to prove his case.
3:20
But God is one. There are not two Gods, one of whom is the God of the law and of the Jews, the other of Abraham and of Christians, as the Manichæans have thought, but the God of Jews and of Christians is one and the same the law and the Gospel proceed from the same Author. Accordingly, it being the same God, He could not intend that the law should annul His promise to Abraham of giving His righteousness to all nations in Abraham's seed, i.e., in Christ, or, in other words, through faith in Him; else would He be inconstant, the very thought of which is impious. Rather He gave the law to be our pedagogue to Christ. It is, therefore one and the same God who made Moses the mediator between Himself and the Hebrews; and, when he was superseded, between Himself and Christians of all nations, and so fulfilled His promise to Abraham, that He would give through Christ the blessing of justification to all nations. This interpretation is confirmed by the parallel passage in 1Ti 2:5, where, from the fact that the same God is God of all nations, the Apostle proves that He wishes all men to be saved, and from the same principle he infers that there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus. God, he argues, does not wish for the salvation of the Jews only, but of all nations. Again, not only the Jews, but all nations have fallen into sin, and stand in need of a redeemer. This cannot be Moses, for he was mediator to the Jews only; therefore it must be Christ. Moses, therefore, must give way to Him, as the seed promised to Abraham, in whom all nations should be blessed. So Gennadius in Œcumenius, and, following him, Salmeron. Ver. 21. Is the law then against the promises of God ? Jerome correctly points out that this is an answer by anticipation to the objection to which S. Paul had exposed himself in verse 19, when he said, "The law was added because of transgressions till the seed should come." For any one might say: If the law was added to the promise, and, as it were, removed it, it seems to have taken to itself the office of quickening and justifying men, so that it may be regarded as doing the work of the promise till Christ should come; for if not, why was it added, unless it were, as you say yourself, because of transgressions, to destroy them by the living and virtuous actions prescribed by the law for justification? If this be so, then the law is against the promises of God, for God promised this justification to faith in Christ, not to the law, nay, He thereby excluded it from the law. That S. Paul is meeting an objection of this sort is obvious from what follows. he law, he exclaims, cannot give life; therefore, it is not against the promises of God which offer that spiritual life in Christ. The antecedent is proved thus: If the law could give life it could also justify; but this it cannot do (ver. 22). Hence the law was only given to be our pedagogue to Christ, to lead us to justification by faith. Or it may be put thus: When I said that the law was given because of transgressions, I meant that its function was to prevent them by fear of punishment, that passion might not issue in action; I did not mean that the law alone could calm the violence of passion within, or give that grace by which we fulfil the law.
3:21
God forbid. It is impossible that God should give a law contradictory to His promises, for this would be for God to contradict Himself. The law which came after was not opposed to the preceding promises, but its office was to admonish men to prepare themselves worthily for Christ and His Gospel. Therefore the law is not contrary to the promise, but establishes it.
For if there had been a law given which could have given life. To give life is to impart righteousness to the soul. But, as S. Paul appears to distinguish between life and righteousnessit is better to say that to give life stands for to quicken man's works. This is done when a man does virtuous actions out of the spirit of charity. The argument is from the effect to the cause, from a living work to life; as we say: This man eats, talks, moves, therefore he is alive. In the same way, if the law could produce in us living works, it could also give us the spirit of charity from which they spring, for the works of the Spirit presuppose the Spirit, just as motion does life. Ver. 22. But the scripture hath concluded all under sin. This Scripture is cited in Rom 3:9. Ver. 23. Before faith came. Like slaves under the stern discipline of the law, we were kept as though by walls and hedges from sin, and were held, and kept in, that we might be thereby prepared, and might learn to long for the righteousness which Christ should give. Ver. 24. The law was our schoolmaster. A pædagogue, says S. Jerome, is one who looks after a boy. Among the Greeks he was a slave, whose duty it was to accompany his ward wherever he went, to keep him from loose conduct, to chastise him if need were, and in every way to form his character for good. Such was the office of the law with regard to the Hebrews.
3:22
Unto Christ. By a happy figure of speech, S. Paul compares the law to a pædagogue, and faith in Christ to a father, For we are born again by faith in Christ, and become sons of God, thereby passing from the state of pupilage under the law to that of men under Christ. Ver. 26. For ye are all the children of God. Both Jews, who were under the law, and Gentiles, who were not, are become, by faith in Christ, children of God. The conjunction for is causal, and indicates the reason why we are not under the law as a pædagogue, viz., because we are the sons of God. Children are like slaves, S. Paul says, in chap. iv. 1, nay, like the lower animals, in needing a pædagogue to enable them to resist the motions of sense. But those who by faith in Christ have left this state of childhood, and are become sons of God, have grown to man's estate. It would be, therefore, absurd for them to be made subject to the law as their pædagogue, as though they were still children. This would be as absurd, says Theophylact, as for a man, when the day had dawned, to prefer a lamp to the sun. This is a rebuke to the Judaisers, which may be summarised thus: Christ is to us as a father to his grown-up sons. Why do you then go back to the pædagogy of the law? Why hold out your hand again like boys to the ferule?
By faith. Not faith alone, but by faith manifested in baptism and other acts. Ver. 27. As many of you as have been baptized into Christ. To be baptized into Christ is to receive His baptism as distinct from that of Moses or John Baptist. The change from the first person (we) of verse 25 to the second person (you) here denotes the change of subject from Jews to Gentiles.
3:27
Have put on Christ. You have received plenteously in your baptism the grace and gifts of Christ; you have put them round you like a garment (cf. Psa 109:18), so that you are made partakers of the Divine nature, and therefore of the workings of God's power, by which Christ shines in your lives. " Your daily conversation," says Anselm, " like a splendid robe, is Christ's holiness and Christ's religion." These words may be explained in a better way, thus: As matter takes its form, the body its soul as a substantial robe to hide its nakedness and ugliness; so you in baptism have put on Christ by grace, so that the Spirit of Christ is, as it were, your form and soul; consequently you have been brought into such close union with Christ that, as He is the Son of God by nature, so are you by adoption and grace. This is the explanation of Chrysostom and Theophylact. The conjunction for shows that Paul wishes to prove that we are the sons of God by the fact that we have put on Christ, who is the Son of God by nature, and hence are one with Him, and, as it were, are Christ Himself. Cf. notes to 1Co 12:12. We should note from this the efficacy of baptism, which not only adorns us with graces and gifts, but with Christ Himself. What have the Protestants to say to this who make baptism to be a bare sign of righteousness already received by faith? S. Ambrose (Serm. 90) gives some beautiful words of S. Agnes about the baptismal robe of Christ, both that which is within, and that material robe which formerly was given to adults at their baptism as a symbol of the first. " He adorned me," she said, " with a glorious bracelet. Hie covered my hand and neck with precious stones. He put pearls in my ears, and loaded me with glistening gems. On my face He put his seal, that I might admit no lover save Him alone. He clad me in a robe of cloth of gold, and with glorious jewels did He beautify me." And a little farther she continued: " Now have I drunken milk and honey from His mouth. Now have I been clasped in His most chaste embraces. Now has His body been united to mine, and His blood has bedewed my cheeks." This last of course refers to the Eucharist, which used to be given to those newly baptized, that they might be wholly united to Christ. To them too used to be given milk and honey, as symbols of the sweetness of Christ, and of the law of Christ, of which they then become partakers. Ver. 28. There is neither Jew nor Greek. i.e., in Christ. In the Church of Christ there is no distinction before God of birth, position, or sex. All, whether Jews or Greeks (= Gentiles), whether slaves or freemen, whether males or females, make one mystical body, the Church, of which the Head is Christ. Or we may take it, and better, with S. Chrysostom, to mean that ye are one in the sense that ye have put on one form, or one soul, like the garment described above, and this not of any angel, but of Christ. This garment is the faith, charity, and holiness of Christ, and it makes you to seem like one man, to be one Christ. The Jews, therefore, have nothing of their Judaism to pride themselves on when they pass into Christ; therefore they have nothing of their own to invite you to, O Galatians, for you are equal sharers in Christ with them. Ver. 29. If ye be Christ's. Ifyou are members of the Head, and are the mystical body of its Spirit, then, as Christ is, so are ye Abraham's seed, and hence inheritors of the righteousness promised to Abraham. Accordingly, Ambrose reads here: " If ye are one in Christ, then are ye Abraham's seed," which gives the meaning very clearly.
3:1
Supra confutavit apostolus vanitatem et mutabilitatem Galatarum per auctoritatem evangelicae doctrinae, ostendens suam doctrinam authenticam fuisse ab aliis apostolis, hic vero per rationem et auctoritatem ostendit hoc idem, scilicet quod legalia non sunt servanda. Et hoc dupliciter. Primo ex insufficientia legis; secundo ex dignitate eorum qui ad Christum conversi sunt; et hoc IV cap., ibi dico autem: quanto tempore, et cetera. Circa primum duo facit. Primo praemittit obiurgationem; secundo prosequitur suam probationem, ibi hoc solum a vobis volo, et cetera. Circa primum duo facit: primo obiurgat eos, ostendens eorum fatuitatem; secundo rationem obiurgationis assignat, ibi ante quorum oculos, et cetera. Primo ergo eos de fatuitate obiurgat, vocans eos insensatos. Unde dicit o insensati, et cetera. Insensatus autem proprie dicitur qui sensu caret. Sensus autem spiritualis est cognitio veritatis; qui ergo veritate caret, proprie insensatus dicitur. Matth. V: et vos sine intellectu estis. Sap. V, 4: nos insensati vitam istorum, et cetera. Sed contra, Matth. V, 22 dicitur: qui dixerit fratri suo: fatue, etc.; sed fatuus idem est quod insensatus; ergo apostolus reus est Gehennae ignis. Sed dicendum est, ut Augustinus dicit, quod intelligendum est si dixerit sine causa, et animo vituperandi; sed apostolus ex causa dixit, et animo corrigendi. Unde dicitur in Glossa hoc dolendo dicit. Secundo cum dicit quis vos fascinavit, etc., ostendit modum quo insensati erant effecti. Ubi primo notandum est, quod insensatus fit aliquis multis modis. Vel quia non proponitur sibi aliqua veritas quam cognoscere possit; vel quia etsi proponatur sibi, tamen numquam eam acceptat; vel quia veritatem propositam et acceptam deserit, a via veritatis recedens; et tales erant isti Galatae, qui veritatem fidei quam acceperant deserentes, veritatem propositam renuerunt. Supra I, 6: miror quod sic tam cito, et cetera. Et ideo istum gradum insensationis in eis reprehendit, dicens quis vos fascinavit, et cetera. Ad sciendum autem quid sit fascinatio, sciendum est, quod secundum Glossam fascinatio proprie dicitur ludificatio sensus, quae per artes magicas fieri consuevit; puta cum hominem facit aspectibus aliorum apparere leonem vel cornutum, et huiusmodi. Et hoc etiam per Daemones potest fieri, qui habent potestatem movendi phantasmata, et reducendi ad principia sensuum, ipsos sensus immutando. Et secundum hanc acceptionem satis proprie dicit apostolus quis vos fascinavit? Quasi dicat: vos estis sicut homo ludificatus, qui res manifestas aliter accipit, quam sint in rei veritate: quia scilicet vos estis ludificati per deceptiones et sophismata, veritati non obedire, id est, veritatem manifestam, et a vobis receptam non videtis, nec obediendo recipitis. Sap. IV, 12: fascinatio nugacitatis obscurat bona. Is. V, 20: vae qui dicunt bonum malum, et cetera. Alio modo accipitur fascinatio secundum quod aliquis ex aspectu malevolo laeditur, et hoc maxime in vetulis quae visu urenti et aspectu invido fascinant pueros, qui ex hoc infirmantur et vomunt cibum. Huius causam volens assignare Avicenna in libro suo de anima dicit, quod materia corporalis obedit substantiae intellectuali, magis quam qualitatibus activis et passivis in natura. Et ideo ponit quod ad apprehensionem substantiarum intellectualium (quas vocat animas seu motores orbium) multa fiunt praeter ordinem motus caeli et omnium corporalium agentium. Eodem modo dicit, quod quando anima sancta depurata est ab affectibus terrenorum, et a carnalibus vitiis, accedit ad similitudinem substantiarum dictarum, et obedit ei natura. Et hinc est quod aliqui sancti viri operantur quaedam mira praeter naturae cursum; et similiter quia anima alicuius foedata passionibus carnalibus, habet fortem apprehensionem in malitia, obedit ei natura ad transmutationem materiae, in illis maxime in quibus materia habilis est: sicut in pueris teneris contingit. Et sic contingit, secundum eum, quod ex forti apprehensione vetularum, in malitiam immutatur puer et fascinatur. Haec autem positio satis videtur vera secundum opinionem Avicennae. Nam ipse posuit formas omnes corporales in istis inferioribus influi a substantiis incorporalibus separatis, et quod agentia naturalia non habent se ad hoc nisi ut disponentia tantum. Sed hoc quidem improbatur a philosopho. Agens enim oportet esse simile subiecto. Non fit autem forma tantum, nec materia, sed compositum ex materia et forma. Id ergo quod agit ad esse corporalium, oportet quod habeat materiam et formam. Unde dicit quod transmutare materiam et formam non potest, nisi id quod habet materiam et formam, et hoc quidem vel virtute, sicut Deus, qui actor est formae et materiae: vel actu, sicut agens corporeum. Et ideo materia corporalis quantum ad huiusmodi formas, nec Angelis, nec alicui purae creaturae obedit ad nutum, sed soli Deo, ut Augustinus dicit. Unde non est verum quod Avicenna dicit de huiusmodi fascinatione. Et ideo dicendum, quod ad imaginationem seu apprehensionem hominis, quando fortis est, immutatur sensus, seu appetitus sensitivus: quae quidem immutatio non est sine alteratione corporis et spirituum corporis, sicut nos videmus quod ad apprehensionem delectabilis movetur appetitus sensitivus ad concupiscentiam, et exinde corpus calefit. Similiter ex apprehensione timendi, frigescit. Immutatio autem spirituum maxime inficit oculos, qui infecti rem per aspectum inficiunt, sicut patet in speculo mundo, quod ex aspectu menstruatae inficitur. Sic ergo quia vetulae obstinatae in malitia et durae sunt, ex forti apprehensione immutatur appetitus sensitivus, et ex hoc, sicut dictum est, infectio maxime fit a venis ad oculos, et ex oculis ad rem perspectam. Unde quia caro pueri mollis est, ad earum invidum aspectum inficitur et fascinatur. Et quandoque quidem ad hunc effectum Daemones operantur. Dicit ergo quis vos fascinavit veritati non obedire? Quasi dicat: vos aliquando obedistis veritati fidei, sed modo non; ergo estis sicut pueri, qui ex aliquo invido aspectu infecti, cibum receptum vomitis. Rationem autem obiurgationis assignat, dicens ante quorum oculos, et cetera. Quod potest tripliciter legi. Uno modo, secundum Hieronymum, ut respondeat primae acceptioni fascinationis; quasi dicat: dico vos fascinatos, quia ante quorum oculos, etc., id est proscriptio Christi, qui damnatus est in mortem, adeo vobis manifesta fuit, ac si ante oculos vestros fuisset, et in vobis crucifixus, id est, in intellectibus vestris erat crucifixio Iesu Christi, ita ut sciretis qualiter facta esset; unde si eam non videtis modo, nec obeditis, hoc contingit, quia estis ludificati et fascinati. Contra quod dicitur Cant. ult.: pone me ut signaculum super cor tuum, et cetera. Alio modo secundum Augustinum; quasi dicat: recte fascinati estis, quia veritatem quam recepistis, scilicet Christum, per fidem, in cordibus vestris evomitis sicut pueri. Et hoc quia ante oculos vestros, id est, in vestra praesentia, Iesus Christus proscriptus est, id est, expellitur et eiicitur de haereditate sua, quod molestum deberet esse vobis; quia quem non deberetis pati quod ab aliis proscriberetur, et expelleretur, in vobis proscriptus est, id est, haereditatem suam amisit in vobis, id est, vosipsos. Et tunc hoc quod sequitur, scilicet crucifixus, legi debet cum pondere et ostensione doloris, quia hoc addidit, ut considerarent quo pretio Christus emerit possessionem, quam in eis amittebat, et ex hoc moverentur magis. Quasi dicat: Christus proscriptus est in vobis, scilicet qui crucifixus, id est, qui cruce sua et sanguine proprio acquisivit hanc haereditatem. I Cor. VI, 20: empti enim estis pretio magno, et cetera. I Petr. I, 18: non corruptibilibus auro vel argento, et cetera. Tertio modo secundum Ambrosium, quasi dicat: vere fascinati estis, ante quorum oculos, id est, in quorum reputatione, scilicet secundum iudicium vestrum, Iesus Christus proscriptus est, id est, damnatus, non alios salvans. Et in vobis, id est, secundum quod vos intelligitis, crucifixus est, id est, mortuus tantum, non autem alios iustificans, cum tamen de eo dicatur, II Cor. c. ult., quod si mortuus est ex infirmitate nostra, vivit tamen ex virtute Dei. Potest, et quarto modo, exponi secundum Glossam, ut per hoc designet apostolus gravitatem culpae eorum, quia in hoc quod Christum deserunt legem observantes, aequaliter quodammodo peccabant Pilato, qui Christum proscripsit, id est, damnavit. Ut dum insufficientem Christum credunt ad salvandum, similes in peccando crucifixoribus Christi sint, qui ipsum in ligno suspenderunt, morte turpissima condemnantes et afficientes. Aequalitas tamen est accipienda ex parte eius, in quem peccatur, quia in Christum Galatae peccabant, sicut Pilatus et crucifixores Christi.
3:2
Posita obiurgatione, consequenter apostolus procedit ad insufficientiam legis et virtutem fidei ostendendam. Et primo ostendit insufficientiam legis; secundo movet quaestionem et solvit, ibi quid igitur lex, et cetera. Et circa primum duo facit. Primo probat defectum legis et insufficientiam per ea quae ipsi experti sunt; secundo per auctoritates et rationes, ibi sicut scriptum est. Circa primum duo facit, quia primo probat propositum, experimento sumpto ex parte ipsorum; secundo probat idem, experimento sumpto ex parte ipsius apostoli, ibi qui ergo tribuit vobis, et cetera. Circa primum duo facit. Primo ostendit donum quod receperunt; secundo defectum in quem inciderunt, ibi sic stulti estis, et cetera. Donum autem quod receperunt ostendit, quaerendo ab eis unde illud receperunt. Unde susceptum donum supponens, interrogans, quaerit ab eis, dicens: quamvis fascinati et stulti sitis, tamen non tantum estis ludificati quin unum quod valde manifestum est, me docere possitis. Et ideo solum hoc volo a vobis discere, quia hoc solum sufficit ad probandum quod intendo: hoc, inquam, est, quia constat, quod spiritum sanctum accepistis; quaero ergo an accepistis illum ex operibus legis, an ex auditu fidei? Ad quod sciendum est, quod in primitiva Ecclesia, ex divina dispositione, ut fides Christi promoveretur et cresceret, statim post praedicationem fidei ab apostolis manifesta signa spiritus sancti fiebant super audientes. Unde de Petro dicitur Act. X, 44: adhuc loquente Petro verba haec, cecidit spiritus sanctus, et cetera. Ipsi etiam Galatae ad praedicationem Pauli manifeste spiritum sanctum acceperant. Quaerit ergo apostolus ab eis, unde habuerunt spiritum sanctum. Constat autem quod non per opera legis, quia cum essent gentiles, ante receptionem spiritus sancti legem non habebant; ergo habuerunt spiritum sanctum, id est, dona spiritus sancti ex auditu fidei. Rom. VIII, 15: non accepistis spiritum servitutis iterum in timore, qui scilicet dabatur in lege (unde et cum tremore lex data est), sed accepistis spiritum filiorum, qui datur per fidem, quae est ex auditu, ut dicitur Rom. X, 17. Si ergo hoc potuit fidei virtus, frustra quaeritur aliud per quod salvemur, quia multo difficilius est de iniusto facere iustum, quam iustum in iustitia conservare. Si ergo fides de iniustis Galatis sine lege iustos fecerat, non est dubium, quod sine lege poterat eos in iustitia conservare. Magnum ergo erat donum, quod per fidem acceperant.
3:3
Consequenter cum dicit sic stulti estis, etc., ostendit defectum in quem prolapsi sunt. Et exaggerat duplicem defectum in eis apostolus, scilicet quantum ad dona quae a Christo acceperant, et quantum ad mala quae pro ipso pertulerunt, ibi tanta passi estis, et cetera. Circa primum sciendum est quod isti Galatae deserentes quod magnum erat, scilicet spiritum sanctum, adhaeserunt minori, scilicet carnali observantiae legis, et hoc stultum est. Et ideo dicit sic stulti estis, adeo ut cum coeperitis instinctu sancti spiritus, id est, initium perfectionis vestrae habueritis a spiritu sancto, nunc, dum perfectiores estis, consummamini carne, id est, quaeratis conservari per carnales observantias legis, a qua nec initium iustitiae potest haberi? Io. VI, v. 64: caro non prodest quicquam, et cetera. Et sic ordinem pervertitis, quia via perfectionis est ab imperfecto tendere ad perfectum. Vos autem, quia e converso facitis, stulti estis. Eccli. XXVII, 12: homo sanctus permanet in sapientia sicut sol, stultus ut luna mutatur. Similes isti sunt his, qui incipiunt servire Deo cum fervore spiritus, postmodum deficiunt in carne; qui etiam assimilantur statuae Nabuchodonosor, cuius caput aureum, et pedes lutei, Dan. II, 32. Et ideo dicitur Rom. c. VIII, 8: qui in carne sunt, Deo placere non possunt. Et infra VI, 8: qui seminat in carne, de carne metet corruptionem. Consequenter cum dicit tanta passi estis, etc., exaggerat eorum defectum quantum ad mala quae pro Christo pertulerunt. Qui enim aliquid sine labore recipiunt, illud minus chare custodiunt; sed illud quod cum labore acquiritur vilipendere et non custodire stultum est. Isti autem cum labore et tribulatione magna, quam passi sunt a contribulibus suis propter fidem, receperunt spiritum sanctum.
3:4
Et ideo dicit tanta passi estis sine causa, quasi dicat: non contemnatis tantum donum quod cum labore accepistis, alias illa, sine causa, id est sine utilitate, passi estis, quia haec sustinuistis ut perveniretis ad vitam aeternam. Rom. V, 3: tribulatio patientiam operatur, patientia autem probationem, probatio vero spem, et cetera. Unde si praecluditis vobis aditum vitae aeternae, deserentes fidem, quaerentes conservari carnalibus observantiis, sine causa, id est inutiliter, passi estis. Et hoc dico, si tamen sine causa. Quod ideo dicit, quia in eorum potestate erat poenitere si vellent, quamdiu viverent. Ex hoc autem habetur, quod opera mortificata reviviscunt. Sap. III, 11: labores eorum sine fructu, et cetera. Gal. IV, 11: timeo autem ne sine causa laboraverim, et cetera. Si vero accipiatur de malis qui non poenitent, potest dici quod patiuntur sine causa conferente, scilicet vitam aeternam.
3:5
Consequenter cum dicit qui ergo tribuit vobis, etc., probat propositum, experimento sumpto ex parte apostoli. Possent enim dicere quod verum est nos recepisse spiritum sanctum ex auditu fidei, tamen propter devotionem quam ad legem habuimus, accepimus fidem quam praedicabas. Et ideo dicit: non curo quicquid sit ex parte vestra, tamen illud quod ego feci, tribuens vobis ministerio meo spiritum sanctum, qui operatur in vobis virtutes, id est inter vos miracula, sed numquid facio hoc sic, ex operibus legis, an ex operibus fidei? Non utique ex operibus legis, sed ex fide. Sed numquid aliquis potest dare spiritum sanctum? Augustinus enim, XV de Trinitate, dicit, quod nullus homo purus spiritum sanctum dare potest, nec ipsi apostoli dabant, sed imponebant manus super homines, et accipiebant spiritum sanctum. Quid ergo est quod hic dicit apostolus de se loquens qui tribuit vobis spiritum sanctum? Respondeo. Dicendum est quod in datione spiritus sancti tria per ordinem se habentia occurrunt, scilicet spiritus sanctus inhabitans, donum gratiae et charitatis cum caeteris habitibus, et sacramentum novae legis, cuius ministerio datur. Et sic potest ab aliquibus tripliciter dari. Ab aliquo enim datur sicut auctoritatem habente quantum ad tria praedicta, scilicet respectu spiritus sancti inhabitantis, respectu doni, et respectu sacramenti; et hoc modo spiritus sanctus datur a solo patre et filio secundum quod eius auctoritatem habent, non quidem dominii sed originis, quia ab utroque procedit. Sed quantum ad gratiam seu donum, et quantum ad sacramenta spiritus sanctus dat etiam se, secundum quod datio importat causalitatem spiritus sancti respectu donorum ipsius; quia, ut dicit apostolus I Cor. XII, v. 11, ipse dividit singulis prout vult. Secundum autem quod in datione importatur auctoritas, non potest proprie dici spiritum sanctum seipsum dare. Quantum vero ad sacramentum quod ministerio ministrorum Ecclesiae datur, potest dici quod sancti per ministerium sacramentorum dant spiritum sanctum. Et hoc modo hic loquitur apostolus secundum quod tangitur in Glossa, tamen huiusmodi modus non est consuetus neque extendendus. Dicit etiam Glossa quod facere miracula attribuitur fidei, quia ex hoc quod credit quae supra naturam sunt, supra naturam operatur, et quia apostoli praedicabant fidem, quae quaedam rationem excedentia continebat, ideo oportebat ad eorum credulitatem aliqua testimonia adducere quod missi essent a Deo: quod rationem excedit. Unde Christus dedit eis signum suum ad hoc ostendendum. Est autem duplex signum Christi. Unum est quod est dominus omnium; unde dicitur in Ps. CXLIV, 13: regnum tuum, regnum omnium saeculorum, et cetera. Aliud est quod est iustificator et salvator, secundum illud Act. IV, v. 12: non est aliud nomen sub caelo datum hominibus, et cetera. Dedit ergo eis duo signa: unum est quod facerent miracula, per quod ostenderent quod missi sunt a Deo domino creaturae omnis. Lc. X: dedit eis potestatem et virtutem super omnia Daemonia, et cetera. Aliud quod darent spiritum sanctum ministerio, per quod ostenderent, quod missi sunt ab omnium salvatore. Act. VIII, 17: tunc imponebant manus super eos, etc., et tunc cum imposuisset illis manus Paulus, spiritus sanctus venit super illos, et cetera. Et de his duobus modis dicitur Hebr. II, 4: contestante Deo signis, et portentis, et variis virtutibus, et spiritus sancti distributionibus, secundum suam voluntatem.
Supra probavit apostolus experimento virtutem fidei et insufficientiam legis, hic vero probat idem per auctoritates et rationes. Et primo probat virtutem fidei in iustificando; secundo in hoc ostendit legis defectum, ibi quicumque enim ex operibus legis, et cetera. Primum autem probat utens quodam syllogismo. Unde circa hoc tria facit. Primo ostendit minorem; secundo maiorem, ibi providens autem Scriptura, etc.; tertio infert conclusionem, ibi igitur qui ex fide, et cetera. Circa primum duo facit. Primo proponit quamdam auctoritatem, ex qua elicit minorem; secundo concludit eam, ibi cognoscite ergo, et cetera. Dicit ergo: vere iustitia et spiritus sanctus est ex fide, sicut scriptum est, Gen. XV, 6, et introducitur Rom. IV, 3, quod credidit Abraham Deo, et cetera. Ubi notandum est quod iustitia consistit in redditione debiti, homo autem debet aliquid Deo, et aliquid sibi, et aliquid proximo. Sed quod aliquid debeat sibi et proximo, hoc est propter Deum. Ergo summa iustitia est reddere Deo quod suum est. Nam si reddas tibi vel proximo quod debes, et hoc non facis propter Deum, magis es perversus quam iustus, cum ponas finem in homine. Dei autem est quidquid est in homine, et intellectus et voluntas et ipsum corpus; sed tamen quodam ordine, quia inferiora ordinantur ad superiora, et exteriora ad interiora, scilicet ad bonum animae; supremum autem in homine est mens. Et ideo primum in iustitia hominis est, quod mens hominis Deo subdatur, et hoc fit per fidem. II Cor. X, 3: in captivitatem redigentes omnem intellectum in obsequium Christi. Sic ergo dicendum est in omnibus, quod Deus est primum principium in iustitia, et qui Deo dat, scilicet summum quod in se est, mentem ei subdendo, perfecte est iustus. Rom. VIII, 14: qui spiritu Dei aguntur, hi filii sunt Dei. Et ideo dicit credidit Abraham Deo, id est, mentem suam Deo per fidem subdidit. Eccli. II, 6: crede Deo, et recuperabit te, etc., et infra qui timetis dominum, credite illi, et cetera. Et reputatum est ei ad iustitiam, id est, ipsum credere et ipsa fides fuit ei et est omnibus aliis sufficiens causa iustitiae, et quod ad iustitiam reputetur ei exterius ab hominibus, sed interius datur a Deo, qui eos qui habent fidem, per charitatem operantem iustificat, eis peccata remittendo. Ex hac autem auctoritate concludit minorem propositionem, dicens cognoscite ergo, etc., quasi dicat: ex hoc aliquis dicitur filius alicuius, quod imitatur opera eius; si ergo vos estis filii Abrahae, opera Abrahae facite, Io. VIII, 39.
3:7
Abraham autem non quaesivit iustificari per circumcisionem, sed per fidem; ergo et illi qui quaerunt iustificari per fidem, sunt filii Abrahae. Et hoc est quod dicit: quia Abraham iustus est ex fide, per hoc quod Deo credidit, et reputatum est ei ad iustitiam, ergo cognoscite, quod illi qui ex fide sunt, id est, qui ex fide credunt se iustificari et salvari, hi sunt filii Abrahae, scilicet imitatione et instructione. Rom. IX, 8: qui filii sunt promissionis aestimantur in semine, et cetera. Lc. c. XIX, 9 dicitur Zachaeo: hodie huic domui salus a Deo facta est, eo quod et ipse sit filius Abrahae, et cetera. Et Matth. III, 9: potens est Deus de lapidibus istis, id est, de gentibus, suscitare filios Abrahae, inquantum scilicet facit eos credentes.
3:8
Consequenter cum dicit providens autem Scriptura, etc., ponit maiorem, quae scilicet est, quod Abrahae praenuntiatum est quod in semine suo benedicerentur omnes gentes. Et hoc est quod dicit providens autem Scriptura, inducens Deum loquentem Abrahae dicit Gen. XII, 3, quod Deus praenuntiavit Abrahae quod in te, id est, in his qui ad similitudinem tuam filii tui erunt imitatione fidei, benedicentur omnes gentes. Matth. VIII, 11: multi venient ab oriente et occidente, et cetera. Consequenter cum dicit ergo qui ex fide, etc., infert conclusionem ex praemissis.
3:9
Unde sic potest formari argumentum: Deus pater nuntiavit Abrahae, quod in semine suo benedicerentur omnes gentes; sed illi qui quaerunt iustificari per fidem, sunt filii Abrahae; ergo qui ex fide sunt, id est, qui quaerunt iustificari per fidem, benedicentur cum fideli, id est credente, Abraham.
3:10
Supra ostendit apostolus virtutem fidei, hic consequenter ostendit defectum legis. Et primo per auctoritatem legis; secundo per humanam consuetudinem, ibi fratres, secundum hominem dico, et cetera. Circa primum tria facit. Primo ostendit damnum occasionaliter ex lege consecutum; secundo legis insufficientiam ad ipsum damnum removendum, ibi quoniam autem in lege, etc.; tertio Christi sufficientiam, qua ipsum damnum est remotum, ibi Christus autem nos redemit, et cetera. Circa primum duo facit. Primo proponit intentum; secundo probat propositum, ibi scriptum est enim: maledictus, et cetera. Dicit ergo: quicumque enim, et cetera. Nam quia dixerat quod qui ex fide sunt benedicentur, cum sint filii Abrahae, posset quis dicere quod propter opera legis et propter fidem benedicuntur, et ideo, hoc excludens, dicit quicumque ex operibus legis sunt, sub maledicto sunt. Sed contra. Antiqui patres fuerunt in operibus legis, ergo sunt maledicti, et per consequens damnati, quod est error Manichaei. Ideoque hoc est sane intelligendum. Et attendendum est quod apostolus non dicit: quicumque servant opera legis sub maledicto sunt, quia hoc est falsum pro tempore legis, sed dicit quicumque ex operibus legis, etc., id est, quicumque in operibus legis confidunt, et putant se iustificari per ea, sub maledicto sunt. Aliud enim est esse in operibus legis, et aliud est servare legem; nam hoc est legem implere, et qui eam implet, non est sub maledicto. Esse vero in operibus legis est in eis confidere et spem ponere. Et qui in eis hoc modo sunt, sub maledicto sunt, scilicet transgressionis, quod quidem non facit lex, quia concupiscentia non venit ex lege, sed cognitio peccati, ad quod proni sumus per concupiscentiam per legem prohibitam. Inquantum ergo lex cognitionem peccati facit, et non praebet auxilium contra peccatum, dicuntur esse sub maledicto, cum nequeant illud per ipsa opera evadere. Sunt autem quaedam opera legis caeremonialia, quae in observationibus fiebant. Alia sunt opera quae pertinent ad mores, de quibus sunt mandata moralia. Unde secundum Glossam hoc quod hic dicitur quicumque ex operibus legis, etc., intelligendum est de operibus caeremonialibus, et non de moralibus. Vel dicendum quod loquitur hic apostolus de omnibus operibus tam caeremonialibus quam moralibus. Opera enim non sunt causa quod aliquis sit iustus apud Deum, sed potius sunt executiones et manifestationes iustitiae.
3:11
Nam nullus per opera iustificatur apud Deum, sed per habitum fidei, non quidem acquisitum, sed infusum. Et ideo quicumque ex operibus iustificari quaerunt, sub maledicto sunt, quia per ea peccata non removentur, nec aliquis quoad Deum iustificatur, sed per habitum fidei charitate informatum. Hebr. XI, 39: hi omnes testimonio fidei, et cetera. Consequenter cum dicit scriptum est enim, etc., probat propositum, et hoc primo quidem secundum Glossam ostenditur per hoc quod nullus potest legem servare hoc modo, quo lex praecipit Deut. XXVIII, 15, quod omnis qui non permanserit in omnibus quae scripta sunt in libro legis, ut faciat ea, id est, qui non impleverit totam legem, sit maledictus. Sed implere totam legem est impossibile, ut dicitur Act. XV, 10: ut quid tentatis imponere iugum, quod neque nos, neque patres nostri portare potuimus? Ergo nullus est ex operibus legis, quin sit maledictus. Potest etiam accipi hoc quod dicitur scriptum est enim, etc., non ut probatio propositi, sed ut ostendatur eius expositio; quasi dicat: dico quod sunt sub maledicto, sub illo scilicet de quo dicit lex scriptum est enim: maledictus est omnis, etc.: ut intelligatur de peccato, id est, de maledicto. Nam lex imperat bona facienda seu mala vitanda, et imperando obligat, sed non dat virtutem obediendi. Et ideo dicit maledictus, quasi malo adiectus, omnis, nullum excipiendo, quia, ut dicitur Act. X, 34, non est personarum acceptio apud Deum. Qui non permanserit usque in finem. Matth. XXIV, 13: qui perseveraverit usque in finem. In omnibus, non in quibusdam tantum, quia, ut dicitur Iac. II, 10, quicumque totam legem servaverit, offendat autem in uno, factus est omnium reus. Quae scripta sunt in libro legis, ut faciat ea, non solum ut credat seu velit tantum, sed ut opere impleat. Ps. CX, v. 10: intellectus bonus omnibus facientibus eum. Sancti autem patres etsi in operibus legis erant, salvabantur tamen in fide venturi, confidentes in eius gratia, et saltem spiritualiter legem implentes. Moyses enim, ut in Glossa dicitur, multa quidem praecepit, quae nullus implere potuit ad domandam Iudaeorum superbiam dicentium: non deest qui impleat, sed deest qui iubeat. Sed hic est quaestio de hoc quod dicitur maledictus omnis, et cetera. Dicitur enim Rom. XII, 14: benedicite, et nolite maledicere. Respondeo. Dicendum est quod maledicere nihil aliud est quam malum dicere; possum ergo dicere bonum esse malum, et malum esse bonum, et rursum bonum esse bonum, et malum esse malum. Et primum quidem prohibet apostolus, dicens: nolite maledicere, id est, nolite dicere bonum esse malum, et e contra; sed secundum licet, et ideo cum vituperamus peccatum, maledicimus quidem, sed non dicendo bonum malum, sed dicimus malum esse malum. Et ideo licet peccatorem maledicere, id est, dicere eum esse malo addictum vel esse malum. Consequenter cum dicit quoniam autem in lege, etc., ostendit insufficientiam legis non valentis ab illo maledicto eripere ex hoc quod iustificare non poterat. Ad quod ostendendum utitur quodam syllogismo in secunda figura, et est talis: iustitia est ex fide, sed lex ex fide non est; ergo lex iustificare non potest.
3:12
Circa hoc ergo primo ponit conclusionem, cum dicit quoniam autem in lege nemo iustificatur; secundo autem maiorem, cum dicit quia iustus ex fide vivit; tertio minorem, cum dicit lex autem non est ex fide. Dicit ergo: dico quod per legem maledictio inducta est, nec tamen ab illa maledictione lex eripit, quia manifestum est quod nemo in lege iustificatur apud Deum, id est per opera legis. Circa quod intelligendum, quod illi qui negaverunt vetus testamentum, ex hoc verbo occasionem sumpserunt. Et ideo dicendum est quod nemo iustificatur in lege, id est per legem. Nam per eam cognitio quidem peccati habebatur, ut dicitur Rom. V, sed non habebatur per eam iustificatio. Rom. III, 20: ex operibus legis nullus iustificabitur. Sed contra Iac. II, 21 dicitur: nonne Abraham ex operibus iustificatus est? Respondeo. Dicendum est, quod iustificare potest accipi dupliciter: vel quantum ad executionem iustitiae et manifestationem, et hoc modo iustificatur homo, id est, iustus ostenditur, ex operibus operatis. Vel quantum ad habitum iustitiae infusum, et hoc modo non iustificatur quis ex operibus, cum habitus iustitiae qua homo iustificatur apud Deum, non sit acquisitus, sed per gratiam fidei infusus. Et ideo signanter apostolus dicit apud Deum, quia iustitia quae est apud Deum, in interiori corde est: iustitia autem quae est ex operibus, id est, quae manifestat iustum, est apud homines. Et hoc modo apostolus accepit apud Deum. Rom. II, 13: non enim auditores, sed factores, et cetera. Rom. IV, 2: si ex operibus Abraham iustificatus est, habet gloriam, sed non apud Deum, et cetera. Sic ergo patet conclusio rationis, scilicet quod lex iustificare non potest. Consequenter cum dicit quia iustus, etc., ponit maiorem, quae est ex auctoritate Scripturae, Hab. II, 4 et introducitur etiam Rom. I, 17 et ad Hebr. X, 38. Circa quod notandum est, quod in homine est duplex vita, scilicet vita naturae et vita iustitiae. Vita quidem naturae est per animam; unde anima a corpore recedente, corpus remanet mortuum. Vita vero iustitiae est per Deum habitantem in nobis per fidem. Et ideo primum quo Deus est in anima hominis, est fides. Hebr. XI, 6: accedentem ad Deum oportet credere. Eph. III, 17: habitare Christum per fidem, et cetera. Et sic dicimus, quod in anima prima indicia vitae apparent in operibus animae vegetabilis: quia anima vegetabilis est, quae primo advenit animali generato, ut philosophus dicit. Ita quia primum principium quo Deus est in nobis, est fides, ideo fides dicitur principium vivendi. Et hoc est quod hic dicitur iustus meus ex fide vivit. Et intelligendum est de fide per dilectionem operante. Minor autem ponitur ibi lex autem non est, et cetera. Et primo ponitur ipsa minor; secundo probatur, ibi sed qui fecerit, et cetera. Dicit ergo lex non est ex fide. Sed contra, lex mandat credere quod sit unus Deus, et hoc pertinet ad fidem; ergo lex habebat fidem. Quod autem sit unus Deus, mandatur Deut. VI, audi, Israel, dominus Deus tuus, et cetera. Respondeo. Dicendum est, quod hic loquitur de observationibus mandatorum legis, secundum quod lex consistit in mandatis et praeceptis caeremonialibus, et dicit quod talis lex non est ex fide. Fides enim, ut dicitur Hebr. XI, 1, est substantia sperandarum rerum, argumentum non apparentium. Et ideo proprie implet mandatum de fide qui non sperat ex hoc aliqua praesentia et visibilia consequi, sed bona invisibilia et aeterna. Lex ergo quia promittebat terrena et praesentia, ut dicitur Is. I, 19: si volueritis et audieritis me, bona terrae comedetis, ideo non est ex fide, sed ex cupiditate potius, vel ex timore, secundum illos praecipue, qui carnaliter legem servabant. Aliqui tamen spiritualiter vivebant in lege, sed hoc non erat ex ea, sed ex fide mediatoris. Et quod lex non sit ex fide, probat cum dicit sed qui fecerit ea, id est, opera legis, vivet in illis, scilicet vita praesenti, id est, immunis erit a morte temporali, et conservabitur in vita praesenti. Vel aliter: dico quod lex non est ex fide, et hoc patet, quia qui fecerit, etc.; quasi dicat: praecepta legis non sunt de credendis, sed de faciendis, licet aliquid credendum annuntiet. Et ideo virtus eius non est ex fide, sed ex operibus; et hoc probat, quia dominus quando voluit eam confirmare, non dixit: qui crediderit sed: qui fecerit ea, vivet in illis. Sed nova lex ex fide est. Mc. ult.: qui crediderit et baptizatus fuerit, et cetera. Lex tamen est quoddam effigiatum et effectum ex fide, et ideo comparatur lex vetus ad legem novam, sicut opera naturae ad opera intellectus. Nam in ipsis operibus naturae apparent quaedam opera intellectus, non quod res naturales intelligant, sed quia aguntur et ordinantur ab intellectu ut finem consequantur. Sic et in veteri lege aliqua continentur, quae fidei sunt, non quod Iudaei ea prout erant fidei haberent, sed habebant ea in figura tantum fidei Christi, et protestatione, ex cuius fidei virtute salvabantur iusti.
3:13
Posito damno a lege illato, et defectu legis ab illo eripere non valentis, hic consequenter ostendit virtutem Christi ab ipso damno liberantis. Et primo ostendit quomodo per Christum ab ipso damno liberamur; secundo quomodo etiam super hoc auxilium a Christo acquirimus, ibi ut in gentibus, et cetera. Circa primum tria facit. Primo enim ponit liberationis auctoritatem; secundo liberationis modum, ibi factus pro nobis, etc.; tertio testimonium propheticum, ibi quia scriptum est, et cetera. Dicit ergo primo: quicumque servabant opera legis erant sub maledicto sicut dictum est, nec per legem liberari poterant. Ideo necesse fuit aliquem habere, qui nos liberaret, et iste fuit Christus. Et ideo dicit Christus redemit nos de maledicto legis, et cetera. Rom. VIII, 3: quod impossibile erat legi, etc., Deus mittens filium suum, scilicet Christum, et cetera. Redemit, inquam, nos, scilicet Iudaeos, pretioso sanguine suo, Apoc. V, 9: redemisti nos in sanguine, et cetera. Is. XLIII, 1: noli timere, quia redemi te, et cetera. De maledicto legis, id est, de culpa et poena. Infra IV, v. 5: ut eos qui sub lege erant redimeret; Os. XIII, 14: de morte redimam eos. Modum liberationis ponit cum dicit factus pro nobis maledictum. Ubi notandum quod maledictum est quod dicitur malum. Et secundum duplex malum potest dici duplex maledictum, scilicet maledictum culpae et maledictum poenae. Et utroque modo potest hoc legi dupliciter factus est pro nobis maledictum. Et primo quidem de malo culpae. Nam Christus redemit nos de malo culpae. Unde sicut redemit nos de morte mortuus, ita redemit nos de maledicto culpae factus maledictum, scilicet culpae; non quidem quod in eo peccatum esset aliquod, qui peccatum non fecit, nec dolus, etc., ut dicitur I Petr. II, v. 22, sed secundum opinionem hominum, et praecipue Iudaeorum qui reputabant eum peccatorem. Io. XVIII, 30: si non esset hic malefactor, non tibi tradidissemus eum. Et ideo de hoc dicitur II Cor. V, 21: eum qui non noverat peccatum, fecit pro nobis peccatum. Dicit autem maledictum, non maledictus, ut ostendat quod Iudaei eum sceleratissimum reputabant. Unde dicitur Io. IX, 16: non est hic homo a Deo, etc.; et Io. X, 33: de bono opere non lapidamus te, sed de peccato et de blasphemia. Et ideo dicit factus est pro nobis maledictum, in abstracto; quasi dicat: factus est ipsa maledictio. Secundo exponitur de malo poenae. Nam Christus liberavit nos a poena, sustinendo poenam et mortem nostram: quae quidem in nos provenit ex ipsa maledictione peccati. In quantum ergo hanc maledictionem peccati suscepit, pro nobis moriendo, dicitur esse factus pro nobis maledictum. Et est simile ei quod dicitur Rom. VIII, 3: misit Deus filium suum in similitudinem carnis peccati, id est, mortalis. Eum qui non noverat peccatum, scilicet Christum, qui peccatum non fecit, Deus scilicet pater, pro nobis fecit peccatum, II Cor. V, 21, id est fecit pati peccati poenam, quando scilicet oblatus est propter peccata nostra. Consequenter ponit Scripturae testimonium cum dicit quia scriptum est: maledictus omnis, et cetera. Et hoc Deut. XXVII. Ubi sciendum, secundum Glossam, quod in Deuteronomio, unde accipitur hoc verbum, tam in nostris, quam in Hebraeis codicibus habetur: maledictus a Deo omnis, etc., quod quidem, scilicet a Deo, in antiquis Hebraeorum voluminibus non habetur, unde creditur quod a Iudaeis post passionem domini appositum sit ad infamiam Christi. Potest autem exponi auctoritas de malo poenae et de malo culpae. De malo quidem culpae sic maledictus omnis qui pendet in ligno, non propter hoc quod pendet in ligno, sed pro culpa pro qua pendet. Et hoc modo Christus aestimatus maledictus in cruce pendens, propter hoc quod maxime tali poena punitus fuit. Et secundum hoc continuatur ad praecedentia. Dominus enim praecepit in Deuteronomio, ut qui suspensus fuerit, in vespera deponatur; et ratio huius est, quia haec poena erat caeteris abiectior et ignominiosior. Dicit ergo: vere factus est pro nobis maledictum, quia ipsa mors crucis, quam sustinuit, sufficit ad maledictionem, hoc modo exponendo de malo culpae, sed solum aestimatione Iudaeorum, quia scriptum est maledictus omnis, et cetera. De malo vero poenae sic exponitur maledictus omnis qui, etc., quia ipsa poena est maledictio, scilicet quod sic mortuus est. Et est hoc modo exponendo vere maledictus a Deo, quia Deus ordinavit quod hanc poenam sustineret, ut nos liberaret. Consequenter cum dicit ut in gentibus benedictio, etc., ponit spem quam per Christum, super hoc quod per eum liberamur de maledicto, acquirimus, ut dicitur Rom. V, 16: non sicut delictum, ita et donum; immo multo maius, scilicet quia liberat a peccato, et confert gratiam.
3:14
Primo ergo ponit fructum, et quibus datur, dicens ut in gentibus benedictio Abrahae, etc., quasi dicat: factus est pro nobis maledictum, non solum ut maledictionem removeret, sed ut in gentibus, quae non sub maledictione legis erant, fieret benedictio Abrahae promissa Gen. XXII, 18: in semine tuo benedicentur omnes gentes, et cetera. Et haec quidem benedictio facta est nobis, id est, impleta est, per Christum, qui est de semine Abrahae, cui dictae sunt promissiones et semini suo, qui est Christus, ut dicitur infra. Quae quidem benedictio et fructus est ut pollicitationem spiritus accipiamus, id est, promissiones quas spiritus sanctus facit in nobis, scilicet de beatitudine aeterna, qui quasi arra et pignus nobis traditus ipsam nobis promittit, ut habetur Eph. I, 14 et II Cor. c. VI. Et quidem in pignore datur ad certitudinem. Nam pignus est quaedam certa promissio de re accipienda. Rom. V: non enim accepistis spiritum servitutis, etc., et infra: si filii, et haeredes. Vel pollicitationem spiritus accipiamus, id est, spiritum sanctum, quasi dicat: accipiamus pollicitationem de spiritu sancto factam semini Abrahae, Ioel II, 28: effundam de spiritu meo, etc.; quia per spiritum sanctum coniungimur Christo, et efficimur semen Abrahae, et digni benedictione. Secundo ostendit per quid proveniat nobis iste fructus, dicens per fidem, per quam quidem et haereditatem aeternam acquirimus. Ad Hebr. IX: accedentem ad Deum oportet credere quia est, et inquirentibus se remunerator sit. Per fidem etiam acquirimus spiritum sanctum, quia, ut dicitur Act. V, 32, dominus dat spiritum sanctum obedientibus sibi, scilicet per fidem.
3:15
Postquam apostolus probavit per auctoritates, quod lex non iustificat, nec ad iustificationem, quae est per fidem, est necessaria, hic consequenter ostendit idem per rationes humanas. Et circa hoc quatuor facit. Primo humanam consuetudinem ponit; secundo assumit promissionem divinam, ibi Abrahae dictae sunt promissiones, etc.; tertio infert conclusionem, ibi hoc autem dico, etc.; quarto ostendit conclusionem sequi ex praemissis, ibi nam si ex lege, et cetera. Dicit ergo: aperte quidem prius locutus sum secundum auctoritatem Scripturae non allatae voluntate humana, sed spiritu sancto, ut dicitur II Petr. I, 21; sed nunc secundum hominem dico, et secundum ea quae humana ratio et consuetudo habet. Ex quo quidem habemus argumentum, quod ad conferendum de his quae sunt fidei, possumus uti quacumque veritate cuiuscumque scientiae. Deut. XXI, 11: si videris in numero captivorum mulierem pulchram, et adamaveris eam, voluerisque habere in uxorem, introduces eam in domum tuam, id est, si sapientia et scientia saecularis placuerit tibi, introduces eam intra terminos tuos, quae radet caesariem, etc., id est, resecabit omnes sensus erroneos. Et inde est quod apostolus in multis locis in epistolis suis utitur auctoritatibus gentilium, sicut illud I Cor. XV, 33: corrumpunt bonos mores, etc., et illud Tit. I, 11: Cretenses malae bestiae, et cetera. Vel quamvis huiusmodi rationes vanae sint et infirmae, quia, ut dicitur in Ps. XCIII, 11: dominus scit cogitationes hominum, quoniam vanae sunt; tamen hominis confirmatum testamentum nemo spernit aut superordinat, quia nihil humanum tantam firmitatem habet sicut ultima voluntas hominis; sperneret autem illud aliquis, si diceret quod testamentum hominis confirmatum morte testatoris et testibus non valeret. Si ergo testamentum huiusmodi nemo spernit, dicens non esse servandum, aut spernit, aliquid mutando; multo magis testamentum Dei nullus spernere debet aut superordinare, infringendo illud, vel addendo vel diminuendo. Apoc. ult.: si quis apposuerit ad haec, apponet Deus super illum plagas scriptas in isto libro, et si quis diminuerit de verbis prophetiae huius, auferet Deus partem eius, et cetera. Deut. IV, 2: non addetis ad verbum, quod vobis loquor, neque auferetis ex eo, et cetera. Consequenter cum dicit Abrahae dictae sunt promissiones, etc., assumit promissionem divinam Abrahae factam, quae est quasi quoddam testamentum Dei. Et primo exponit hanc promissionem seu testamentum; secundo vero aperit veritatem testamenti, ibi non dicit: et seminibus, et cetera. Dicit ergo primo Abrahae dictae sunt promissiones, quasi dicat: sicut testamentum hominis est firmum, ita promissiones divinae firmae sunt. Sed numquid Deus aliquas promissiones fecit ante legem? Utique, quia Abrahae, qui fuit ante legem, scilicet quod non falleret Deus, dictae, id est, factae sunt promissiones, et semini eius a Deo. Sed Abrahae factae sunt, ut cui erant implendae, semini vero, ut per quod implerentur. Dicit autem promissiones pluraliter, quia promissio de benedicendo semine multa continebat. Vel quia frequenter idem, id est, aeterna beatitudo sibi promissa est, sicut Gen. c. XII, 3, in te benedicentur universae cognationes terrae; item XV, 5, suscipe caelum, et numera stellas, etc.; item eodem: semini tuo dabo terram hanc, etc.; item XXII, 18: benedicam tibi et multiplicabo semen tuum sicut stellas caeli. Istae ergo promissiones sunt quasi testamentum Dei, quia est quaedam ordinatio de haereditate danda Abrahae et semini suo. Veritatem autem testamenti aperit, cum dicit non dicit: et seminibus, et cetera. Quam quidem aperit eodem spiritu quo testamentum conditum est. Et hoc patet ex verbis testamenti.
3:16
Non, inquit, dicit et seminibus, quasi in multis, id est, sicut faceret, si de multis illud valeret, sed quasi in uno, quod est Christus, quia ipse solus est per quem et in quo omnes poterunt benedici. Nam ipse solus et singularis est, qui non subiacet maledictioni culpae, etsi maledictio pro nobis dignatus sit fieri. Unde dicitur in Ps. CXL, 10: singulariter sum ego, et cetera. Item: non est qui faciat bonum, et cetera. Eccle. VII, 29: virum de mille unum reperi, scilicet Christum, qui esset sine omni peccato, mulierem autem ex omnibus non inveni, quae omnino a peccato immunis esset, ad minus originali, vel veniali. Conclusionem autem infert consequenter cum dicit hoc autem dico: testamentum, etc., ubi videamus per ordinem quid sit quod dicit. Dicit ergo, quod hoc promisit Deus Abrahae, sed hoc est testamentum, scilicet ista promissio de haereditate adipiscenda. Ier. XXXI, 31: feriam domui Israel et domui Iuda foedus novum, et cetera. Confirmatum, quod ideo ponit, ut concordet cum praemissis. Nam supra dixerat testamentum hominis confirmatum, et cetera. A Deo, scilicet qui promisit. Et confirmatum dico iureiurando. Gen. XXII, 16: per memetipsum iuravi, etc., Hebr. VI, 18: ut per duas res immobiles quibus impossibile est mentiri Deum, et cetera. Hoc, inquam, testamentum lex non facit irritum, quae quidem lex facta est, et data a Deo per Moysen. Io. I, 17: lex per Moysen data est, etc., post quadringentos et triginta, et cetera.
3:17
Et quasi exponens quod dixerat, subiungit non irritum facit ad evacuandam promissionem. Sic enim irritum fieret praedictum testamentum, si promissio facta Abrahae evacuaretur, id est, in vacuum facta esset, quasi non sufficeret semen Abrahae repromissum ad gentium benedictionem. Per Christum autem non sunt evacuatae promissiones patribus factae, sed confirmatae. Rom. XV, 8: dico Iesum Christum ministrum fuisse circumcisionis, ad confirmandas promissiones patrum. Et II Cor. c. I, 20: quotquot enim promissiones Dei sunt, in illo est, et cetera. Hoc autem quod dicitur post quadringentos et triginta annos, concordat ei quod habetur Ex. XII, 40: habitatio filiorum Israel, qua manserunt in Aegypto, fuit quadringentorum triginta annorum. Et Act. VII, 6: locutus est dominus, scilicet Abrahae, quia erit semen eius accola in terra aliena, et servituti eos subiicient annis quadringentis triginta. Sed contra est quod dicitur Gen. c. XV, 13: scito praenoscens, quod peregrinum futurum sit semen tuum, et servituti eos subiicient, et affligent eos annis quadringentis. Respondeo. Dicendum quod si fiat computatio annorum a prima promissione facta Abrahae, quae legitur Gen. XII, usque ad exitum filiorum Israel de Aegypto, quando data est lex, sic sunt anni quadringenti triginta, sicut hic scribitur, et Ex. XII, et Act. c. VII. Si autem incipiat computatio a nativitate Isaac de qua legitur Gen. XXI, sic sunt tantum quadringenti et quinque anni. Nam viginti quinque anni fuerunt a promissione facta Abrahae usque ad nativitatem Isaac. Abraham enim erat septuaginta quinque annorum quando exivit de terra sua, et facta est ei prima promissio, ut habetur Gen. XII. Centenarius autem fuit, quando natus est Isaac, ut habetur ibidem cap. XXI. Quod autem a nativitate Isaac usque ad exitum filiorum Israel de Aegypto fuerint quadringenti quinque anni, probatur per hoc, quod Isaac fuit sexaginta annorum quando genuit Iacob, ut habetur Gen. XXV; Iacob autem erat centum triginta annorum quando intravit Aegyptum, ut habetur Gen. XXVII. Et sic a nativitate Isaac usque ad introitum Iacob in Aegyptum fuerunt centum nonaginta anni. Ioseph autem fuit triginta annorum, quando stetit coram Pharaone, ut habetur Gen. XLI. Et postea transierunt septem anni fertilitatis et duo sterilitatis, usque ad ingressum Iacob in Aegyptum, ut habetur XLV. Vixit autem Ioseph centum et decem annis, ut habetur Gen. ult. A quibus si subtrahantur triginta novem anni, remanent septuaginta et unus annus. Fuerunt ergo a nativitate Isaac usque ad mortem Ioseph ducenti et sexaginta unus annus. Fuerunt autem in Aegypto filii Israel post mortem Ioseph centum quadraginta quatuor annis, ut Rabanus dicit in Glossa. Fuerunt ergo a nativitate Isaac usque ad exitum filiorum Israel de Aegypto et legem datam quadringenti et quinque anni; Scriptura autem non curavit de minutis. Vel potest dici, quod quinto anno Isaac expulsus fuit Ismael, et remansit solus Isaac haeres Abrahae, a quo tempore fuerunt quadringenti anni.
3:18
Deinde, cum dicit nam si ex lege, etc., ostendit quomodo sequatur ex praemissis, quod lex evacuaret promissiones, si lex necessaria esset ad iustificationem sive benedictionem gentium. Dicit ergo: vere promissio evacuaretur si lex necessaria esset. Nam si haereditas, scilicet benedictionis Abrahae, esset ex lege, iam non esset ex repromissione, id est, ex semine repromisso Abrahae. Si enim semen promissum esset sufficiens ad haereditatem benedictionis consequendam, non fieret iustificatio per legem. Destruit autem consequens, cum dicit Abrahae autem donavit Deus, etc., id est, promisit se daturum, quod ita certum erat ac si statim daret, per repromissionem, id est per semen repromissum. Non ergo est ex lege haereditas, id est benedictio, de qua dicitur I Petr. III, 9: in hoc vocati estis, ut benedictionem haereditate possideatis.
3:19
Postquam ostendit apostolus et auctoritate Scripturae et consuetudine humana, quod lex iustificare non potuit, hic movet duas dubitationes et solvit. Secunda dubitatio incipit ibi lex ergo adversus promissa Dei, et cetera. Circa primum tria facit. Primo movet dubitationem; secundo solvit, ibi propter transgressiones, etc.; tertio quoddam in solutione positum manifestat, ibi mediator autem, et cetera. Potest autem esse dubium ex praemissis tale: si lex iustificare non poterat, an esset omnino inutilis. Et hanc dubitationem movet, dicens quid igitur lex, etc., sit, id est, ad quid lex utilis fuit? Et hanc punctuationem magis approbat Augustinus ut habetur in Glossa, quam aliam quae sibi primitus melior videbatur, ut distinguatur: quid igitur? Et postea dicatur: lex propter transgressiones, et cetera. Similis dubitatio proponitur Rom. III, 1 ubi sic dicitur: quid igitur amplius Iudaeo, et cetera. Deinde cum dicit propter transgressiones, solvit dubitationem motam, ubi quatuor facit. Primo proponit legis utilitatem; secundo legis fructum, ibi donec veniret semen, etc.; tertio legis ministros, ibi ordinata per Angelos; quarto legis dominium, ibi in manu mediatoris. Circa primum notandum est, quod lex vetus data est propter quatuor, secundum quatuor ex peccato consecuta, quae enumerat Beda, scilicet propter malitiam, infirmitatem, concupiscentiam et ignorantiam. Est ergo lex primo data ad reprimendam malitiam, dum scilicet prohibendo peccatum et puniendo, retrahebantur homines a peccato, et hoc tangit dicens propter transgressiones posita est lex, id est, ad transgressiones cohibendas: et de hoc habetur I Tim. I, 9: iusto lex non est posita, sed iniustis. Cuius ratio potest sumi a philosopho in IV Ethicorum. Homines enim bene dispositi ex seipsis moventur ad bene agendum, et sufficiunt eis paterna monita, unde non indigent lege: sed, sicut Rom. II, 14 dicitur, ipsi sibi sunt lex, habentes opus legis scriptum in cordibus suis. Sed homines male dispositi indigent retrahi a peccatis per poenas. Et ideo quantum ad istos fuit necessaria legis positio, quae habet coarctativam virtutem. Secundo, lex data est ad infirmitatem manifestandam. Homines enim de duobus praesumebant. Primo quidem de scientia, secundo de potentia. Et ideo Deus reliquit homines absque doctrina legis, tempore legis naturae, in quo dum in errores inciderunt, convicta est eorum superbia de defectu scientiae, sed adhuc restabat praesumptio de potentia. Dicebant enim non deest qui impleat, sed deest qui iubeat, ut dicitur in Glossa super illud Ex. XXIV: quicquid praeceperit dominus, faciemus, et erimus obedientes. Et ideo data est lex, quae cognitionem peccati faceret, per legem enim cognitio peccati, Rom. III, 20. Quae tamen auxilium gratiae non dabat ad vitandum peccata, ut sic homo sub lege constitutus et vires suas experiretur, et infirmitatem suam recognosceret, inveniens se sine gratia peccatum vitare non posse, et sic avidius quaereret gratiam. Et haec etiam causa potest ex his verbis accipi, ut dicatur, quod lex posita est propter transgressiones adimplendas, quasi illo modo loquendo quo apostolus dicit Rom. c. V, 20: lex subintravit ut abundaret delictum; quod non est intelligendum causaliter, sed consecutive: quia lege subintrante, abundavit delictum, et transgressiones sunt multiplicatae, dum concupiscentia nondum per gratiam sanata, in id quod prohibebatur, magis exarsit, et factum est peccatum gravius, addita praevaricatione legis scriptae. Et hoc Deus permittebat, ut homines imperfectionem suam cognoscentes, quaererent mediatoris gratiam. Unde signanter dicit posita est, quasi debito ordine collocata inter legem naturae et legem gratiae. Tertio, data est lex ad domandam concupiscentiam populi lascivientis, ut diversis caeremoniis fatigati neque ad idololatriam, neque ad lascivias declinarent. Unde dicit Petrus Act. XV, 10: hoc est onus, quod neque nos, et cetera. Quarto, ad instruendum ignorantiam data est lex in figuram futurae gratiae, secundum illud Hebr. X, 1: umbram habens lex, et cetera. Deinde cum dicit donec veniret semen, etc., id est Christus, de quo promiserat Deus, per eum benedicendas omnes gentes. Matth. XI, 13: lex et prophetae usque ad Ioannem, et cetera. Gen. XII: in semine tuo, et cetera. Ministri autem legis ponuntur, cum dicit ordinata, id est, ordinanter data, per Angelos, id est, per nuntios Dei, scilicet Moysen et Aaron. Mal. II, 7: legem requirent ex ore eius, et cetera. Angelus enim domini, et cetera. Vel per Angelos, id est, ministerio Angelorum. Act. VII, 35: accepistis legem in dispositionem Angelorum, et cetera. Et est data per Angelos, quia lex non debebat dari per filium, qui maior est. Hebr. II, 2: si enim, qui per Angelos factus est sermo, et cetera. Dicit autem ordinata, quia ordinabiliter data est, scilicet inter tempus legis naturalis, qua homines convicti sunt, quod se iuvare non poterant, et tempus gratiae. Nam antequam gratiam acciperent, convincendi erant de lege. Dominus autem legis dicitur Christus. Et ideo dicit in manu mediatoris, id est, in potestate Christi. Deut. XXXIII, 2: in dextera eius ignea lex. I Tim. II, 5: mediator Dei et hominum, et cetera. Iste mediator significatus est per Moysen, in cuius manu est lex data. Deut. V, 5: ego sequester et medius fui inter Deum et vos, et cetera. Deinde, cum dicit mediator autem, etc., exponit quod dixit in manu mediatoris, quod potest tripliciter exponi. Uno modo, quia mediator non est unius tantum, sed duorum. Unde cum iste sit mediator Dei et hominis, oportet quod sit Deus et homo. Si enim esset purus homo, vel Deus tantum, non esset verus mediator. Si ergo est verus Deus, cum nullus est mediator sui ipsius, posset videri alicui, quod praeter ipsum sunt alii dii quorum est mediator; et hoc removet, dicens quod mediator iste et si non est unius tantum, non propter hoc sunt alii dii, sed Deus unus est, quia licet ipse alius sit in persona a Deo patre, non est tamen aliud in natura. Deut. VI, 4: audi, Israel, dominus Deus tuus, et cetera. Eph. IV, 6: unus Deus, et cetera. Secundo modo, quia posset credi, quod iste esset mediator Iudaeorum tantum, ideo dicit: dico quod Christus est mediator, sed non unius, scilicet Iudaeorum, sed unus est omnium, id est, sufficiens ad omnes reconciliandos Deo, quia ipse Deus est. Rom. III, 30: unus Deus qui iustificavit circumcisionem ex fide, et praeputium per fidem, et cetera. II Cor. V, v. 19: Deus erat in Christo mundum reconcilians sibi, et cetera. Tertio modo, quia non est mediator unius populi tantum, scilicet Iudaeorum, sed etiam gentilium. Eph. II, 14: ipse est pax nostra, qui fecit utraque unum. Et hoc ex parte gentium auferendo idololatriam, et ex parte Iudaeorum observantiam legis.
3:20
Specialiter autem mediator est filius, non pater, non spiritus sanctus, nihilominus tamen unus est Deus.
3:21
Hic movet apostolus aliam dubitationem, utrum scilicet lex noceat gratiae. Et primo movet dubitationem, dicens lex ergo, etc., quasi dicat: si lex posita est propter transgressiones, numquid lex facit adversus promissa Dei, scilicet ut id quod Deus promisit se facturum per semen repromissum, per alium faciat? Absit. Quasi dicat: non. Nam, supra eodem: lex non irritum facit testamentum ad evacuandas promissiones, et cetera. Rom. VII, 12: lex sancta, et mandatum sanctum. Secundo cum dicit si enim lex esset data, etc., solvit dubitationem. Et primo ostendit, quod lex non est contra promissa Dei; secundo quod est in obsequium promissorum, ibi sed conclusit, et cetera. Dicit ergo, quod licet lex sit posita propter transgressiones, non tamen contrariatur promissioni Dei, quia transgressiones ipsas removere non potest. Si enim eas removeret, tunc manifeste esset contra promissa Dei, quia iustitia esset per alium modum, quam Deus promisit, quia esset per legem et non per fidem, cum tamen dicatur, Hab. II, v. 4: iustus meus ex fide vivit. Rom. III, 22: iustitia Dei est per fidem Iesu Christi. Et ideo dicit, quod si lex esset data talis, quae posset vivificare, id est, tantae virtutis esset, quod posset vitam gratiae, et aeternam beatitudinem conferre, tunc vere et non apparenter iustitia esset ex lege, si lex faceret quod fides facere dicitur, et sic frustra esset fides. Sed lex non iustificat, quia littera, scilicet legis, occidit, ut dicitur II Cor. III, 6 et Rom. c. VIII, 2: lex enim spiritus vitae in Christo Iesu, et cetera. Deinde cum dicit sed Scriptura conclusit, etc., ostendit quod lex non solum non contrariatur gratiae, sed est ei etiam in obsequium. Et primo ostendit quod lex obsequitur promissis Dei; secundo quomodo hoc obsequium manifestatum est in Iudaeis, ibi prius autem quam veniret fides, etc.; tertio quomodo gentiles etiam sine lege consecuti sunt promissa Dei, ibi omnes enim filii Dei estis, et cetera. Circa primum sciendum est, quod lex obsequitur promissis Dei in generali quantum ad duo. Primo quia manifestat peccata. Rom. III, 20: per legem cognitio peccati. Deinde quia manifestat infirmitatem humanam, in quantum homo non potest vitare peccatum, nisi per gratiam, quae per legem non dabatur. Et sicut ista duo, scilicet cognitio morbi et impotentia infirmi, multum inducunt ad quaerendum medicum, ita cognitio peccati et propriae impotentiae inducunt ad quaerendum Christum. Sic ergo lex obsecuta est gratiae, inquantum praebuit cognitionem peccati et experientiam propriae impotentiae. Et ideo dicit Scriptura, id est lex scripta, conclusit, id est tenuit inclusos Iudaeos, sub peccato, id est, ostendit eis peccata, quae faciebant. Rom. VII, 7: concupiscentiam nesciebam, et cetera. Item conclusit, quia veniente lege sumpserunt occasionem peccati. Rom. c. XI, 32: conclusit Deus omnia in incredulitate, et cetera. Et hoc ideo, ut homo quaereret gratiam.
3:22
Et ideo dicit ut promissio, id est, gratia repromissa, daretur non solum Iudaeis, sed omnibus credentibus, quia illa gratia poterat liberare a peccatis, et haec gratia est ex fide Iesu Christi.
3:23
Deinde cum dicit prius autem quam veniret, etc., ponit experimentum huius obsequii manifestatum in Iudaeis. Et primo ponit obsequium Iudaeorum; secundo concludit quoddam corollarium, ibi itaque lex paedagogus, et cetera. Dicit ergo: si Scriptura, id est, lex scripta, detinuit omnia sub peccato, quas utilitates habebant Iudaei ex lege antequam veniret fides ex gratia? Respondet et dicit: nos Iudaei, ante adventum fidei, custodiebamur sub lege, inquantum faciebat nos vitare idololatriam et multa alia mala; custodiebamur, inquam, non sicut liberi, sed quasi servi sub timore, et hoc sub lege, id est, sub onere legis et dominio. Rom. VII, 1: lex in homine dominatur quanto tempore vivit, et cetera. Et custodiebamur conclusi, id est, servati ne deflueremus a vita, sed praepararemur in eam, id est, tam bonam fidem, quae revelanda erat. Is. LVI, 1: iuxta est salus mea, ut veniat, et iustitia mea ut reveletur. Et dicit revelanda, quia cum fides excedat omne humanum ingenium, non potest per proprium sensum haberi, sed ex revelatione et dono Dei. Is. XL, 5: revelabitur gloria domini, et cetera. Vel in eam fidem, quae revelanda erat tempore gratiae, in antiquis temporibus multis signis latens. Unde et tempore Christi velum templi scissum est, Matth. XXVII, 51. Consequenter cum dicit lex paedagogus, etc., concludit quoddam corollarium. Et primo ostendit legis officium; secundo officii testationem, ibi at ubi venit plenitudo temporis, et cetera.
3:24
Officium autem legis fuit officium paedagogi, et ideo dicit lex paedagogus noster, et cetera. Quamdiu enim haeres non potest consequi beneficium haereditatis, vel propter defectum aetatis seu alicuius debitae perfectionis, conservatur, et custoditur ab aliquo instructore, qui quidem instructor paedagogus dicitur, a paedos, quod est puer, et goge, quod est ductio. Per legem enim Iudaei tamquam imbecilles pueri, per timorem poenae retrahebantur a malo, et promovebantur amore et promissione temporariorum ad bonum. Iudaeis autem promissa erat benedictio futuri seminis de haereditate obtinenda, sed nondum advenerat tempus ipsius haereditatis consequendae. Et ideo necessarium erat, quod conservarentur usque ad tempus futuri seminis et cohiberentur ab illicitis, quod factum est per legem. Et ideo dicit itaque, etc., quasi dicat: ex quo sub lege custodiebamur, lex fuit noster paedagogus, id est, dirigens et conservans in Christo, id est in via Christi. Et hoc ideo, ut ex fide Christi iustificaremur. Os. XI, 1: puer Israel, et dilexi eum. Ier. c. XXXI, 18: castigasti me, domine, et eruditus sum, et cetera. Rom. III, 28: arbitramur enim hominem iustificari per fidem, et cetera. Et quamvis lex paedagogus noster esset, non tamen ad perfectam haereditatem ducebat, quia, ut dicitur Hebr. VII, neminem ad perfectum adduxit lex, et cetera. Sed hoc officium cessavit postquam venit fides.
3:25
Et hoc est quod dicit at ubi venit fides, scilicet Christi, iam non sumus sub paedagogo, id est sub coactione, quae non est necessaria liberis. I Cor. XV: cum essem parvulus, et cetera. Cum autem factus sum vir, et cetera. II Cor. V, 17: si qua ergo in Christo nova creatura, vetera transierunt, et cetera.
3:26
Hic ostendit apostolus quod ad fructum gratiae gentiles sine obsequio legis pervenerunt, ad quem tamen Iudaei perducti sunt per legis custodiam et obsequium. Et circa hoc tria facit. Primo proponit intentum; secundo manifestat propositum, ibi quicumque enim in Christo, etc.; tertio ex hoc argumentatur, ibi si autem vos Christi; ergo, et cetera. Dicit ergo: vere non sumus sub lege, id est, sub paedagogo et coactione, quia sumus filii Dei. Similiter et vos neque sub lege, neque sub paedagogo estis, quia scilicet ad gratiam pervenistis. Ideo omnes estis filii Dei per fidem, non per legem. Rom. VIII, v. 15: non enim accepistis spiritum servitutis, scilicet timoris, qui dabatur in lege veteri, sed accepistis spiritum filiorum, scilicet charitatis et amoris, qui datur in nova lege per fidem. Io. I, 12: dedit eis potestatem filios Dei fieri, et cetera. Si ergo filii Dei estis per fidem, quare vultis esse servi per legis observantias? Nam sola fides homines facit filios Dei adoptivos. Nullus siquidem est filius adoptivus, nisi uniatur et adhaereat filio naturali. Rom. VIII, v. 29: quos praescivit conformes fieri imaginis filii eius, et cetera. Fides enim facit nos in Christo Iesu filios. Eph. III, 17: habitare Christum per fidem in cordibus vestris. Et hoc in Christo Iesu, id est filii Dei estis per Iesum Christum.
3:27
Consequenter cum dicit quicumque enim in Christo, etc., manifestat propositum. Et circa hoc tria facit. Primo proponit propositi manifestationem; secundo manifestationis expositionem, ibi non est Iudaeus, etc.; tertio assignat manifestationis rationem, ibi omnes enim vos unum estis, et cetera. Manifestat autem circa primum quomodo sumus in Christo Iesu filii Dei. Et hoc est quod dicit quicumque enim in Christo Iesu, et cetera. Quod potest quadrupliciter exponi. Uno modo, ut dicatur: quicumque in Christo Iesu baptizati estis, id est, institutione Christi ad Baptismum instructi estis. Mc. c. ult.: euntes in mundum universum, praedicate Evangelium omni creaturae, et cetera. Qui crediderit et baptizatus fuerit, et cetera. Alio modo: quicumque in Christo Iesu baptizati estis, scilicet per similitudinem, et per configurationem mortis Christi. Rom. VI, v. 3: quicumque baptizati sumus in Christo Iesu, in morte ipsius baptizati sumus. Vel in Christo Iesu, id est, in fide Iesu Christi. Nam Baptismus non fit nisi in fide, sine qua effectum Baptismi nullum consequimur. Mc. ult.: qui crediderit et baptizatus fuerit, salvus erit, et cetera. Vel in Christo Iesu, id est, in virtute et operatione eius. Io. I, 33: super quem videris spiritum descendentem, hic est qui baptizat. Quicumque ergo istis quatuor modis baptizati estis, Christum induistis. Ubi sciendum est, quod qui induitur aliqua veste, protegitur ac contegitur ea, et apparet sub colore vestis, colore proprio occultato. Eodem modo et qui induit Christum, protegitur et contegitur a Christo Iesu contra impugnationes et aestus, et in eo nihil aliud apparet nisi quae Christi sunt. Rom. XIII, 14: induite dominum Iesum Christum. Et sicut lignum accensum induitur igne, et participat eius virtutem, ita et qui Christi virtutes accipit, induitur Christo. Lc. ult.: sedete in civitate donec induamini virtute, etc., quod in illis locum habet qui interius Christi virtute informantur. Eph. IV, 24: induite novum hominem, qui secundum, et cetera. Et nota, quod Christum aliqui induunt exterius per bonam conversationem, et interius per spiritus renovationem; et secundum utrumque per sanctitatis configurationem, ut tangitur in Glossa. Expositionem autem manifestationis ponit, cum dicit non est Iudaeus, etc., quasi dicat: vere dixi, quod quicumque in Christo Iesu, et cetera. Quia nihil potest esse in hominibus, quod faciat exceptionem a sacramento fidei Christi et Baptismi. Et ponit tres differentias hominum, ostendens quod per eas nullus excipitur a fide Christi. Prima differentia est quantum ad ritum, cum dicit non est Iudaeus, neque Graecus, quasi dicat: ex quo in Christo Iesu baptizatus est, non est differentia, quod propter hoc sit indignior in fide, ex quocumque ritu ad eam venerit, sive ex ritu Iudaico sive Graeco. Rom. III, 29 s.: an Iudaeorum Deus tantum? Nonne et gentium? Immo et gentium, quoniam quidem unus est Deus, qui iustificavit circumcisionem ex fide, et praeputium per fidem. Et Rom. X, 12: non est distinctio Iudaei et Graeci, et cetera. Sed contra est quod dicitur Rom. III, 1: quid ergo amplius est Iudaeo? Multum quidem per omnem modum. Respondeo. Dicendum est, quod Iudaei et Graeci possunt considerari dupliciter: uno modo secundum statum in quo erant ante fidem; et sic amplius fuit Iudaeo propter beneficium legis. Alio modo quantum ad statum gratiae, et sic non est amplius Iudaeo; et de hoc intelligitur hic. Secunda differentia est quantum ad statum et conditionem, cum dicit non est servus, neque liber, id est, neque servitus, neque libertas, neque nobilitas, neque ignobilitas differentiam facit ad recipiendum effectum Baptismi. Iob III, 19: parvus et magnus ibi sunt, et servus liber a domino suo. Rom. II, 11: non est personarum acceptio apud Deum. Tertia differentia est quantum ad naturam, cum dicit non est masculus, neque foemina, quia sexus nullam differentiam facit quantum ad participandum Baptismi effectum. Gal. III, 28: non est masculus, aut foemina, et cetera.
3:28
Expositionis vero rationem ponit, cum dicit omnes enim vos unum estis in Christo Iesu, quasi dicat: vere nihil horum est per quod differentia fiat in Christo, quia vos omnes, scilicet fideles, unum estis in Christo Iesu, qui in Baptismo omnes estis effecti membra Christi, et unum corpus, etsi inter vos sitis diversi. Rom. XII, 5: omnes unum corpus sumus in Christo, et cetera. Eph. IV, v. 4: unum corpus, unus spiritus, et cetera. Ubi autem est unitas, differentia non habet locum. Pro hac unitate orat Christus, Io. XVII, 21: volo, pater, ut sint unum, et cetera. Consequenter cum dicit si autem vos estis, etc., arguit ad principale propositum hoc modo: dixi quod Abrahae dictae sunt promissiones et semini eius, sed vos estis Abrahae, ergo ad vos pertinet promissio Abrahae de haereditate consequenda.
3:29
Minorem sic probat: vos estis filii Dei adoptivi, quia estis uniti per fidem Christo, qui est filius Dei naturalis; sed Christus est filius Abrahae, ut supra eodem: quasi in uno, et semini tuo, qui est Christus; ergo si vos estis Christi, id est, in Christo, estis semen Abrahae, id est, filii, cum Christus filius eius sit. Et si filii, estis et haeredes, id est, ad vos pertinet haereditas secundum promissionem Abrahae factam. Rom. IX, 8: non qui filii sunt carnis, hi filii Dei, sed qui sunt filii promissionis, aestimantur in semine.
3:1
Quis vos fascinavit non obedire veritati? Pro obedire, multi codices habent credere: atque ita vertisse hoc loco interpretem, affirmat Hieronymus exponens illud 5. capitis: quis vos impedivit, veritati non obedire? Verumtamen idem Hieronymus praesentem locum enarrans, submovet totum illud, non credere veritati; eo quod in exemplaribus Adamantii non habeatur. Et rursus ad 5. caput annotat, in vetufctis codicibus ea verba non haberi. Licet, inquit, et Graeca exemplaria hoc errore confusa sint, quod tamen non de omnibus, quae tunc extabant Graecis exemplaribus accipiendum, sed de multis, qunlia sunt et quae hodie in manibus Labentur. Alioqui, nec apud Chrysostomum illa verba leguntur: ut nec apud posteriores Graecos Pauli interpretes: quemadmodum ex eorum commentariis satis colligitur. ducentem ad Christum. His adde Latinos Augustinum, Ambro9ianum, Primasium, Sedulium, Haimonem et Scholiastem Hieronymi titulo, nec non MSS. codices nonnullos, denique Syriacam editionem. Verosimile est autem, huc adscriptum fuisse illud additamentum ex 5. cap. idque jam olim ante Hieronymi tempora. In Graecis nostris codicibus utroque loco idem verbum legitur; quod aptius vertas, acquiescere, quam vel credere, vel obedire. Porro de fascino multa scribit Hieronymus in commentario: nec pauciora Thomas, qui duplicem distinguit fascinationem. Unam, qua sensus adhibitis prae- Ktigiis quibusdam ludificatur: ut aliud pro alio appareat; veluti cum homo apparet cornutus, autpro homine lupus, quod quidem ad artem magicam pertinet. Alteram, qua quis ex maligno oculorum intuitu laeditur. Id quod maxime contingere solet pueris aetate adhuc tenera, dum ex vetularum urenti et invido aspectu languescunt, et ad vomitum provocantur. Cujus rei naturalem causam idem doctor eodem loco diligenter investigat, tametsi et ad hujusmodi effectum fatetur operam daemonum quandoque admisceri, quod et Hieronymus annotavit. Juxta hoc igitur bifariam hic locus exponi potest. Uno modo: quis ita menti vestrae, velut praestigiator, falsis persuasionibus illudere potuit, ut veritatem ante oculos positam, et paulo ante cognitam atque receptam, jam non videretis, sed pro ea aliud Evangelium, quod non est aliud, amplecteremini? Altero modo: Quis ita felicitati vestrae, tanquam fascinator invidit, ut oculos mentis, quibus imper Christum fide cognitum recepistis, malevolo adspectu atque inspiratione Judaici erroris inficeret; vosque salutaris doctrinae cibum stomacho nauseante revomere cogeret? Hunc sensum Hieronymus tradit, a quo non adeo multum recedunt Graeci, dum verbum Graecum ftaaxaiveiv pro co, quod est invidere, positum interpretantur. At priori sensui magis videtur congruere, quod sequitur.
Ante quorum oculos Jesus Christus proscriptus est, in vobis crucifixus? Graece: quibus ante oculos etc. Item proscriptus, graece praescriptus; et ita legisse Hieronymum, exejus commentario pene certa conjectura est, nec desunt Latini codices, qui ita legunt. Eam certe lectionem Clementina editio habet; praescriptus autem, id est, ante scriptus, est enim idem in Graeco verbum, quod bis legitur Rom. 15., ubi nos habemus, quaecunque scripta sunt, ad nostram doctrinam scripta sunt. Unde commentarius de proscripto, id est, damnato apud Galatas Christo, quem Augustinus et Ambrosianus et alii Latinorum nonnulli adferunt, ad rem praesentem facere non videtur. Nam verbum graecum vix reperitur in ea significatione. Hieronymus praescriptum ante Galatarum oculos Jesum interpretatur, quod olim de ejus passione et morte ac caeteris ad eum pertinentibus multa, a Galatis perlecta, scripserint Prophetae. Sed quia non est verosimile, Galatas, etiamnum in Christo parvulos, in Prophetarum libris admodum fuisse versatos; idcirco Graecorum expositioni libentius accedimus, quae hujusmodi est: Quis vos Galatas fascinavit? Quibus per meam praedicationem palam, velut in programmate ac tabula publica, unde de plano legi et aperte cognosci posset, propositus est Christus, perinde atque si apud vos esset crucifixus; ut non minus, imo vero magis ac certius illum crucifixum fidei oculis aspexeritis, quam multi eorum, qui coram viderunt eum crucifigi? Illud tamen, quod addit Apostolus, in vobis crucifixus, multo aliter a Cajetano exponitur. Crucifixus, inquit, in vobis, hoc est, multa passus in vobis; eo scilicet modo, quo Chiistus Petro dixisse narratur, vado Romam iterum crucifigi: et quo Paulus dicit se adimplere ea, quae desunt passionum Christi Col. 1. Christus enim, etsi post resurrectionem impassibilis, adhuc tamen patitur in membris suis. Itaque secundum Cajetanum sensus est, quis vobis fascinavit non so!um oculos, quibus Christum velut in tabula vobis depictum vidistis, sed et tangendi sensum, quo tam multa mala pro Christi nomine passi estis? Huic intellectui respondet, quod paulo post sequitur: tanta passi estis sine causa? Rursus aliter hanc partem exponit B. Arias. In vobis crucifixus, inquit, per virtutem; quia passionis ejus virtutem in vobis experti estis per dona Spiritus S., quae in vos effusa sunt. Hic sensus consonat cum iis, quae sequuntur de Spiritu accepto. Verumtamen expositio Graecorum mihi planior videtur, et verbis Apostoli magis inhaerens: ut tota pericope sit hypotyposis quaedam signata, qua doceat, Jesu Christi crucem sic apud Galatas praedicatam, sic depictam fuisse: tanquam sub oculis eorum Dominus fuisset crucifixus.
3:2
2. Hoc solum a vobis volo discere. Premit Galatas rationibus aliquot interrogando propcsitis; ut dum non habent, quod respondeant, stultitiam suam agnos* cere, et ab ea resipiscero cogantur. Vel hoc solum, inquit, mihi respondete; unum hoc vos interrogo. Nam qui interrogat et sibi responderi vult, quasi discere cupit. Alioqui proprie a Galatis, quos insensatos et stupidos vocat, et quorum ipse doctor erat, non quaerebat aliquid discere, sed interrogando voluit eos docere.
Ex operibus legis Spiritum accepistis, an ex auditu fidei? Spiritum intelligit sanctum, quem accipeie diountur, qui dona ejus accipiunt. Quod vero noster interpres ad verbum reddidit, ex auditu fidei, hoc Erasmus et Hentenius, sensum reddentes, dixerunt, ex praedicatione fidei, scilicet audita et recepta. Nam et Graeca vox axoV; pro fama et narratione sumitur interdum apud profanos autores: LXX. vero interpretes ea leguntur usi pro obedientia 1 Reg. 16. in verbis Samuelis ad Saul. Quae significatio bene etiam huic loco convenit. Quaerit ergo Paulus: Unde Spiritum accepistis operandi miracula et variis linguis loquendi? Num ex operibus legis? Quod dici nequit, quia spiritum accepistis antequam ad legem Mosaicam vos converteretis. An vero, quod restat, et negare non potestis, ex fide Christi, quam audita praedicatione mea suscepistis? Hinc concludendum, ergo stulto facitis, qui a fide Christi ad legem Mosis transire vultis. Unde et sequitur:
3:3
3. Sic stulti estis, ut cum spiritu coeperitis, nunc carne consummemini? Stultos hic vocat interpres, quos paulo ante insensatos, cum in Graeco sit idem nomen. Ambrosianus legit: Sic sine intellectu estis? Sed et pro eo, quod sequitur: ut cum spiritu etc. Ambrosiana lectio Graeco textui propius inhaerens, sic habet: Incipientes spiritu, nunc carne consummamini? Et quidem etiam nonnulli nostri codices habent, ut et textus Primasii, consummamini, quid quia non respondet particulae ut, videri potest, eam non fuisse scriptam ab interprete; quemadmodum nec in Graeco est, sed quasi desideraretur, ab alio adjectam. Verum prout Graeca sonant, ita legendum et distinguendum esset: Sic stulti estis? qui spiritu coepistis, nunc carne consummamini? Quamquam sensus eodem recidit, estquehujusmodi: Adeone vecordes et insipientes estis, ut cum rectus ordo postulet, a carne ad spiritum progrediendum esse; vos contra, postquam iucepissetis a spiritu, cujus charismata in vos effusa sunt, nunc consummationem sive perfectionem quaeratis a carnalibus legis e^remoniis, quas observare vultis, quasi illae vobis ad perfectionem desint, sicut falso persuasi estis a pseudoapostolis? Lexceremonialisco^o seu carnqlis vocatur, quia tantum valebat ad justitiam et emundationem carnis, ut loquitur Apostolus Heb. 9., aut certe, quia carnalem populum, cui congrr.enter data fuit, ad spiritum elevare non potuit, sed in carne reliquit. Nec contrarium est, quod Rom. 7. dicit: Scimus, quod lex spiritualis est, nam ibi non de ceremoniali lege, sed de finil. Estil Comm. Tom. II. morali sermo est; quae spiritualis dicitur, quoniam observata spiritualem reddit hominem; licet ejus observatio non a lege sit, sed a Spiritu sancto. Quidam partem hanc absque interrogatione legunt, ut et sequentem: sed vehementior est oratio cum interrogatione. Verbum Graecum eiriTsXsTa&at significat etiam uniri. Et sic quidam exponunt hoc loco istud consummari, ut inchoatio opponatur non perfectioni, sed fini. Ita sensus est: Adeone dementes estis, ut cum a spiritu feceritis initium, desinatis in carnem?
3:4
4. Tanta passi estis sine causa? si tamen sine causa. Graece frustra? si quidem et frustra. Quod autem ait tanta, graece Toaauxa, potest et de numero et de magnitudine intelligi. Sensus: Ergone tam multa et gravia pro Christi nomine frustra passi estis ac sine fructu? Revocatenim eos commemoratione eorum, quae pro fide Christiana perpessi fuerant, ne patientia illa reddatur eis inutilis, quod utique futurum erat, si a gratia Christi ad legem Mosis, id est, a spiritu ad carnem prolaberentur. Quod autem addit: Si tamen sine causa, correctio quaedam rhetorica est ejus, quod interrcgaudo dixerat, sine causa; quasi dicat, sed spero meliora. Nam ccnfido, vos redituros a lege ad gratiam, ut non frustra tot et tanta passi fueritis. Hic locus ostendit, id quod a Theologis traditur, bona opera subsequenti peccato mortificari, id est, infructuosa reddi, eademque rursus per poenitentiam vivificari. Quod si vero poenitentia non sequatur, frustra, quantum ad illos, qui ea fecerint, facta esse, ut qui fructum inde nulluir unquam sint percepturi. Qua de re vide commentarium Hieron.
3:5
5. Qui ergo tribuit vobis spiritum, et operalur virtutes in vobis: ex operibus legis, an ex auditu fidei? Tribuit, graece subministrat vel praebet, ut legit Ambrosianus. Itaque tribuit non praeteriti, sed praesentis temporis est: sicut verbum operatur; ita tamen ut haec verba, quae in Graeco participia sunt, intelligamus a tempore absolvi, et proinde ad illud tempus referri, quo talia Galatis contingebant. Tametsi Hieronymus refert etiam ad tempus praesens, quando jam Evangelii veritatem Galatae deseruerant, atque ex eo docet, etiam a malis et haereticis, invocato Christi lomine, miracula fieri posse. Sed verosimilius est, Apostolum ad praeterita tantum respicere. Sumit enim argumentum ab iis bonis, quae consecuti fuerant Galatae, ex fide Christi suscepta, sine legis ceremoniis; non ab iis, quae forte apud eos adhuc remanserant, postquam ad Mosem desciverant. Sic enim parum validum videretur Apostoli argumentum. Sensus igitur ct collectio talis est: Deus, qui varia Spiritus sancti dona vobis impertiit, quique signa non vulgaria operatus est in vobis: utrumque id fecit, quia sectabamini opera legis, an vero quia fidem Christi vobis praedicatam receperatis? Prius dici non potest, quandoquidem lex erat tunc vobis incognita. Restat igitur, ut fidem gratiae Christi tantorum in vobis bonorum causam agnoscatis: a qua proinde ad legem transferri minime debuistis. Explicatio est et confirmatio superioris argumenti, quo dixerat: Ex operibus legis spiritum accepistis etc. Si enim Deus dederit spiritum, non ex operibus legis, sed ex fide: ergo et illi spiritum ex fide, non ex operibus legis acceperant.
3:6
6. Sicut Abraham credidit Deo, et reputatum est ei ad justitiam. In quibusdam codicibus tam excusis quam manuscriptis ita legitur: Sicut scriptum est, Abraham credidit Deo etc. Sed illud scriptum est, adjectitium esse, Graeca et Syra exemplaria monstrant, iisque conformis Hieronymi textus Latinus, cum plerisque nostris codicibus. In his enim non plus legitur, quam nos bahem. s. Quomo^o et Ambrosium atque Augustinum legisse, colligitur exeorum commentariis. Non ergo Scripturae testimonium allegat Apostolus, sed exemplum solum adducit, in quo tamen ipsius Scripturae verbis utitur, quae sunt Gen. 15. Tale est ergo, quod dicit: Sic Deus spiritum vobis subministrat et virtutes in nobis operatur ex fide et non ex operibus legis, sicut Abrahae non ex operibus legis obtigit justitia, sed per fidem, qua credidit Deo, etiam antequam esset circumcisus. Quaenam fides fuerit Abrahae reputata ad justitiam, et quo sensu reputata dicatur; item, quomodo sententia illa valeat ad docendum, quod etiam nobis ad justitiam fides imputanda s't; satis a me explicatum arbitror in comm. epist. ad Rom. cap. 4. Significat autem Apostolus, charismata spiritus non sine justitiae dono Galatis dafcu fuisse. Neque enim in multitudinem aliquam effundebatur spiritus, quoad charismata, nisi simul effunderetur quoad justitiam, cui charismata serviebant, tametsi in singulis id non oporteat.
3:7
7. Cognoscite ergo, quia qui ex fide sunt, ii sunt filii Abrahae. Graecum yivcoaxsTS, ambiguum est ad cognoscite et cognoscitis. Posteriori modo ^egunt Arnbrosifuius et Hieronymus, et ante eos Cyprianus in epistola 63. ad Caecilium, quibus et manuscripti quidam Latini codices astipulantur. Utraque tamen lectio, quemadmodum bene Cajetanus ostendit, commcdum sensum facit. Infert enim Apostolus ex eo, quod adduxerat exemplo Abrahae Patriarchae, cui fides ad justitiam fuit imputata, eos, qui ex fide justificati sunt, aut ex ea justitiam et salutem exspectant, (nam graece quamvis tantum sit, qui ex fide, supplendum tamen est verbum sunt, quod exprimitur vers. 10.,) esse filios Abrahae potius quam illos, qui justitiam ex lege quaerunt; eo quod Abrahae per imitationem assimilentur. Idque c< gnoscere et intelligere Galatas debere admonet. Simul autem carnales Judaeos perstringit, qui gloriabantur se Abrahae filios esse, quod ex eo secundum carnem essent progeniti. Quin potius, inquit, discite eos, qui justitiam ex fide quaerunt, esse filios Abrahae: quoniam ejus imitatores sunt. Hinc et Dominus ad JuJaeos ait Joan. 8. Si filii Abrahae estis, opera Abrahae facite. Sed quia rudes Galatae dicere poterant: Quid nobisproderit, essefilios Abrahae? propterea subjungit fructum benedictionis exspectandae, quae Abrahae promissa fuit.
3:8
8. Frovidens autem Scriptura, quia ex fide justificat gentes Deus: praenuntiavit Abrahae. Providens, graece upoiSoooa, id est, praevidens, cum praevidisset, vel quoniam praeviderat. PraevidenSj etiam in textu Ambrosiano Jegitur: quamquam providere pro eo, quod est praevidere, etiam Latine dicitur. Adde, quod praevidere potest videri dictum pro eo, quod Theologis est providere, id est, praeordinare. Sic enim praecognoscere nonnunquam inScripturis accipi constat, atque eo modo Theophylactus verbum hoc exponit. Porro Scriptura pro eo, qui per Scripturam nobis loquitur, id est, Spiritu sancto, metonymice dixit Apostolus. Non enim ipsa Scriptura, quae res inanimata est, vel praevidere quidquam potuit, vel Abrahae quicquam praenuntiavit. Quod posterius nec ad ipsum Mosem, qui multo post Abraham fuit, potest referri; sed ad solum Deum. Jam nec simpliciter in Graeco est praenuntiavit, sed praeevang elizavit, id est, rem laetam ante nuntiavit ac promisit. Igitur sensus est: Quoniam praeviderat ac decreverat Deus, justificare gentes ex fide: idcirco ad hoc significandum in Scriptura narratur, jam olim annuntiasse Abrahae tanquam omnium credentium patri, ut rem laetissimam, hoc quod sequitur:
Quia benedicentur in te omnes gentes. Id est, quod in te, hoc est in semine tuo, sive ratione seminis ex te nascituri, benedictionem consequentur omnes gentes. Ubi gentium nomen generale est, Judaeos etiam comprehendens: sicut et in hujus versus parte praecedenti. Nam iu Christo, qui est semen illud promissum, non est distinctio Gentilis et Judaei. Et quidem Genes. 12., ubi Scriptura, quam citat, originaliter habetur, in Hebraeo non est vocabulum significans gentes, sed familias, graece cpoXal. Unde Hieronymus ita vertit: In te benedicentur universae cognationes terrae. Tametsi aliis locis, ubi haec benedictio repetitur, ut Gen. 18. 22. et 26. nec non Psalm. 71. legitur in Hebraeo gentes, sed generali, ut dictum est, significatione, ut eaedem intelligantur gentes et familiae terrae. Porro benedictionem non carnalem, sensu Judaico, sed spiritualem oportet intelligi, quae consistit in sanctitate et justitia et beatitudine vitae aeternae: quam accepturi sunt ex omnibuo gentibus illi, qui audient a Christo: Venite benedicti Patris mei. Repetit autem Scriptura promissionem hanc Gen. 22. his verbis: In semine tuo benedicentur omnes gentes. Quae posterior prioris explicatio est, juxta sensum jam datum. Nam et ad Isaac postea similiter atque eodem sensu dictum est Gen. 26. In semine tuo benedicentur omnes gentes terrae. Alii tamen diversum aliquid significatum putant, Scripturam ab Apostolo citatam ita exponentes: In te, hoc est, ad tui similitudinem et imitationem, benedicentur omnes gentes. Sicut enim tu benedictionem et justitiam consequeris, sic et omnes gentes fidem tuam imitantes, et per hoc tui filii, similiter fide justitiam et benedictionem consequentur. Hunc sensum tradunt Augustinus et Theophylactus; eumdemque Cyrilli auctoritate confirmat Oecumenius. Imo sensum hunc exigere videtur illatio sequens: Igitur qui etc. Sed sciendum, in Genesi ante hanc promissionem, qua dictum est Abrahae: benedicentur in te etc., nihil legi de fide aut justitia Abrahae, ad quod hujusmodi expositio referri queat, et proinde minus germana nobis videtur haec interpretatio. Nostram vero, quam tradit Hieronymus, quam et ipse Oecumenius primo loco posuit, praeter alterum Scripturae locum similem, probabilem facit ipsius loci circumstantia, qua semen et posteritas Abrahamo promittitur. Porro neminem offendat, quod loco verbi benedicentur in Hebraeo legitur benedicent se, tam Gen. 12. et 22., quam etiam Psalm. 71., ubi nos ex LXX. legimus: Et benedicentur in ipso omnes tribus terrae. Nun enim, ut quidam putant, id solum significatur, gentes usuras hujusmodi imprecatione: faciat tibi Deus, sicut fecit Abrahae et semini ejus: aut certe sibi optaturas similem cum illo et semine ejus telicitatem; sed plane significatur, futurum, at gentes se benedictas, id est, beatas et felices agnoscant et praedicent propter semen Abrahae, quod est Christus, auctor benedictionis omnium gentium, quaecumque in eum credHerint. Utproinde nun multum differanthaecduo, benedicentur et benedicent se. Quod intelligentes LXX. interpretes passive verterunt tribus locis supra dictis ivsuXoyr,ft^aovTat benedicentur, quemadmodum et hoc loco a Paulo et Act. 3. a Luca refertur. Quale et Pagninus cum Gen. 12. vertisset: benedicent se, reliquis locis vertit benedicentur.
3:9
9. Igitur qui ex fide sunt, benedicentur cum fideli Abraham. Graece benedicuntur, Ambrosiano consentiente. Ac rursr.s tantum dicitur, qui ex fide, non addite verbo sunt; quod tamen, cum etiam graece exprimatur vers. 10., est hic quoque subaudJendum, ut et monuimus supra ad vers. 7. Continet autem haec illatio rationem sententiae superioris, qua dicebatur, Deum, significare vclentem, quod gentes per fidem justificaturus esset, praenuntiasse Abrahae, quod in ipso benedicendae essent omnes gentes. Ea ratio est, assimulatio gentium cum Abraham in eo, quod illum benedictione dignum reddidit, id est, in fide. Sic ergo ratiocinatur Apostolus: Abrahae facta est promissio, quod in ipso benedicerentur omnes gentes; at Abraham ipse per fidem, qua promissioni credidit, Deo placuit, et benedictionem promeruit; ergo quicunque ex fide justitiam et benedictionem exspectant, eam cum Abraham, qui Deo credidit, assequuntur: non autem illi, qui sunt ex operibus legis. Quod jam docet verbis sequentibus:
3:10
10. Quicunque enim ex operibus legis sunt, sub maledicto sunt. Quasi d:cat: Qui vero opera legis sectantur, et ex iis justitiam exspectant, usque adeo promissae benedictionis exsortes sunt, ut etinni maledictioni sive exsecrationi sint obnoxii ac punitione digni. Hoc siquidem est sub maledicto e?se.
Scriptum est enim. Tn ipsa lege Deut. 27. Maledictus omnis, qui nvn permanserit in omnibus, quoe scripta sunt in Hbro legis, ut faciat ea. Observat Hieronymus, in Hebraeo non addi signa universalia, omnis et omnibus, sed nec ea legi apud interpretes, praeterquam apud solos LXX. Refert autem, Samaritanorum Hebraea volumina hac in re cum LXX. interpretibus concordare: unde suspicatur, Judaeos, quod viderent, se non posse omnia legis praecepta, quae innumera erant, observare, ne propter he-e sub maledicto esse viderentur, erasisse ex Hebraeis codicibus illa signa omnis et omnibus, praesertim, inquit, quod Apostolus vir Hebraeae peritiae, et in lege doctissimus, illa verba, quasi sensui suo necessaria ad probandum illud, quod quicunque ex operibus legis sunt, sub maledicto sunt, nunquam protulisset, nisi in Hebraeis voluminibus haberentur. Sed hoc argumentum non convincit. Nam ut in disciplinis, sic et in legibus, indefinitas propositiones universalem habere sensum in confesso est. Exempla passim obvia sunt, etiam in lege Mosaica, nominatim Exod. 21. et 22. Hoc igitur attendentes LXX. interpretes universale signum, quod in sensu verborum latebat, expresserunt. Idque simUiter esse factum ab iis, qui Samaritanis Hebraea biblia communicarunt, existimandum est. Nec sane verisimile est, ob causam ab Hieronymo commemoratam codices a Judaeis fuisse corruptcs: cum utique non ignorarent, eam audaciam nihil sibi profuturam ad evadendum legis mnledictum, ac futurum potius, ut tanto scelere maledicrum sibi conduplicarent. Deinde qui convenit, ut propter multitudinem praeceptorum, quae lege Mosaica continebantur, in tantam sibi metuerint a maledicto, ut de verbis legis aliquid abradendum pr.tareut; quando ipsi tam multa alia secundum suas, quas Vocant, Deuteroses <>1 scivanua legi superaddiderint? Omitto quaerere, quando Judaei seu Judaeorummagistri conspiraverint in tale facinus. Nam id factum oportuit post tempora Pauli, si is allegavit testimonium sicut in Hebraeis voluminibus legerat. Atqui ab eo tempore Judaei magis magisque dispersi fuerunt per nationes, iidemque passim in urbibus celebricribus suas habebant Synagogas, in quibus Scriptura per omne sabbatum legeretur. An ergo credibile est, una conspiratione ac pari consensu factum, ut per omnes Synagogas legem patriam a Deo sibi traaitam, quam mordicus semper retinuerunt, et pro qua toties periclitati fuerunt, aliqua verborum mutilatione seu qualibet mutatione conumperent? Deni^ue si Judaei voculas illas, de quibus nunc agirur, abraserunt: cur eas Hierou ymus in sua versione non restituit, ut integram nobis Scripturam daret? Dices, eum aliud vertere non potuisse, quam quod reperit in Hebraeo. Dicam et ego, quod ille ex Hebraeo transtulit, et in Ecclesia legitur, sicut usque hodie in Hebraeis codicibus habetur, id nobis tenendum esse citra suspicionem rasurae, ubi nulla probabilis ratio suadet, ut credamus quidquam esse sublatum. Nam ex supradictis arbitror satis apparere, Hieronymi saspicionem, quod salva, tanti doctoris autoritate dixerim, tantum esse suspicionem, non veritatem. Est igitur citati testimonii sensus: Omnem eum esse maledictum, id est, execrabilem et poenis a lege commiuatis obnoxium ac devotum, qui non perseveranter omnia faciat, atque observet, quae lex praescribit observanda. Nam ut ait Jacobus Apustolus cap. 2. Quicunque totam legem seruaverit, offendat autem in uno, factus est omnium reus. Censetur autem omnia facere, qui a fine legis non aberrat, id est, qui moraliter contra legem non peccat. Alii sic exponunt, eum omnia facere, qui sine exceptione servat ea legis mandata, quae continent substantiam vitae, ac de his similiter memoratam Jacobi sententiam interpretantur. Explicat enim ille seipsum de praeceptis decalogi, quorum utique mortalis esse solet transgressio. Cujusmodi item sunt omnia, quae in maledictionibus a Mose exprimunturDeut. 27. Sciendum tamen, inter illas maledictiones quaedam nominari peccata, quae non expresse prohibentur decalogo: ac rursum interdum peccari contra aliquod decalogi praeceptum citra mortalem culpam. Quapropter id, quod prius dixi, potius senuendum est. Nunc argumentationem Apoetoli consideremus, quae talis est: Maledictus est, quicunque non permanserit in omnibus, quae lex praecipit: at quicungue ex operibus legis sunt, non permanent in illis omnibas: ergo quicunque sunt ex operibus legis, sub maledicto sunt. Hujus syllogismi minorem Apostolus non enurrtiat, sed intelligendam relinquit. Et quoniam non eam concessuri erant adversarii, sed dicturi se permanere in omnibus praeceptis legis, ideoque nihil ad se maledictionis sententiam pertinere, idcirco tacitam istam subsurnptioitem verbis subjunctis probat:
3:11
11. Quoniam autem in lege nemo justificatur apud Deum, manifestum est, quia justus ex fide vivit. Quoniam pro quod, sicut in Ambrosiano: et pro vivit, verior lectio futuri vivet, quemadmodum et ad Rom. 1. annotavimus. Sic enim etiam hoc loco Graeci Syrique codices, et ex nostris optimi quidam habent; sic et Hieronymus legit. Nec in Graecis ea dictionum affinitas est, quae in Latinis, ut facile possit per errorem alcera pro altera scribi. Sensus est: Neminem vero per legem justificari apud Deum, hoc argumento manifestum est, quia teste Propheta justus ex fide vivet. Itaque probat Apostolus, eos, qui ex operibus legis sunt, non facere ea, quae scripta sunt in lege: quia ex lege nemo justificatur coram Deo. Et hoc rursum probat ex Scriptura prophetica: de cuius sensu videnda sunt, quae pro ejus explicatione diximus ad Rom. 1. Eodemque pertinet, quod ait hujus epistolae cap. 2. Quod autem nunc vivo in carne, in fide vivo Filii Dei. Declarat enim ille locus, ex ea fidepraecipue, quaeestiu ChristumFilium Dei redemptorem ac propitiatorem nostrum, vivere justum,quatenus justus est, id est, ex ea justitiae suae vitam omnem haurire: quia quod justus est, et juste operatur, et justus permanet, habet ex hac fide tanquam radice, ex qua nascatur; et tanquam fundamento, cui innitatur tota ejus justitia. Nam Deus ordinavit, non justificare nisi credentes in Christum Filium suum unigenitum, mediatorem ac redemptorem; vult enim, beneficium redemptionis et justificationis agnosci per fidem. Ex eodem loco refellitur illa distinctio propheticae sententiae, cujus Hieronymus tantum meminit, quamque sequitur et nimis diligenter inculcat Cajetanus, nam et Rom. 1. eam tradit et Heb. 10. repetit, scilicet ut legatur justus ex fide, deinde commate interposito sequntnr vivet, quasi dicat Apostolus: Qui ex fide justus est et non ex operibus, is absolute vivet. Refellitur, inquam, quia Apostolus illud ex fide cum verbo vivere manifeste conjangit, affirmans se vivere ex fide Filii Dei cap. 2. hujus. Atque hoc modo citatam ab Apostolo propheticam sententiam omnes interpretes acceperunt. Porro notandum est, Apostolum superioris syllogismi minorem non ex eo probare, quod jugum legis ob multitudinem praeceptorum, maxime ceremonialium, fuerit supra modum grave, Petro attestante, quod neque nos, inquit, neque patres nostri portare potuimus Act. 15. Quam probationem nonnulli huc adferunt minus recte. Nam eo non obstante sancti Patres veteris testamenti permanserunt in omnibus praeceptis legis, ut qui a maledictione fuerint liberi. Adde, quod Moses illo Deut. loco, quo maledictiones recenset, nullam ceremonialium praeceptorum facit mentionem, sed tantum mo-, ralium. Itaque solidiorem fecit Apostolus probationem ex testimonio Scripturae.
3:12
12. Lex autem non est ex fide. Complementum est argumentationis superioris et consequentiae probatio. Nam quia respondere quis poterat, legem et fidem quoad effectum justitiae inter se non pugnare, sed ex utraque justitiam peti posse, hoc enim Judaizantes docebant, ideoque testimonium Prophetae nihil adversum se facere: responsioni hujusmodi Paulus occurrit, dicens: legem non esse ex fide, hoc est, opera ex lege facta non posse esse opera fidei. Si enim ex lege justitia, jam non ex fide, sed gratis Christus mortuus est.
Sed qui fecerit ea, vivet in illis. Sententia haec etiam Rom. 10. legitur, et desumpta est ex Lev. cap. 18., tametsi Hieron. hujus loci immemor, eam referat ad locum Ezech. 20., ubi simile quid dicitur. Et quia de ejus intellectu plene disseruimus in explic. epist. ad Rom. tantum hic repeto, sensum illum a multis receptum: Qui fecerit ea, quae lex praecipit, ita saltem ut illam manifesto opere non transgrediatur; per ea legis opera supplicium mortis evadet, vivetque vita temporali: non esse consentaneum sermoni Scripturae, quae legis observationem nominans, de vera legis obedientia ubique et maxime in ipsa lege loquitur: ac nominatim in eo, quod paulo ante Apostolus ex lege citavit: Maledictus omnis, qui non permanserit etc., ut faciat ea, ubi relinquebat assumendum, illos, qui ex operibus legis sunt, non facere ea: quemadmodum ibi diximus. Verus igitur intellectus est de vera et in Scripturis laudata legis obedientia. Quocirca sic Apostolum intellige: Lex autem non est ex fide: tametsi qui fecerit ea, quae lex praecipit, ex eorum observatione vivet vita justitiae, veraequae salutis, quia factores legis justificabuntur Rom. 2. Et dictum est a Domino: Si vis ad vitam ingredi, serva mandata. Sed ex lege praecepta legis implere et in iis vivere nemo polest; hoc enim non fit nisi perfidem: quia justus ex fide vivet.
3:13
13. Christus nos redemit de maledicto legis, factus pro nobis maledictum. Cum dixisset Apostolus, eos, qui sunt ex operibus legis, sub maledicto esse, nec per legem inde eximi posse: pergit ntmc ostendere, per quem, et qua ratione a maledicto liberari queamus, et promissam benedictionem consequi: scilicetper Christum, si in eum credatur. Christus, inquit, nos tam Judaeos quam Gentiles redemit a maledicto, sive execratione legis id est, a poena, quam lex cum execratione minatur, dicens: Maledictus omnis, qui non permanserit in omnibus etc. Praestitit autem id nobis Christus, dum factus est ipse pro nobis maledictum. Hoc quo sensu dicatur, cum dure sonet, Chrietum factum esse maledictum et execrationem, atque ex eo non intellecto olim quidam fideles errandi, infideles autem calumniandi ceperint occasionem, uti liquet ex Hieronymi et Augustini commentariis: petendum ex subjuncta probatione:
Quia scriptum est, Deut. 21., maledictus omnis, qui pendet in ligno. In Hebraeo legitur hoc solum, maledictio Dei suspensus. Et eo modo Theodotionem et Aquilam vertisse, Hieronymus afBrmat. Nam quod Symmachus et eum imitatus Pagninus interpretandum putarunt, propter blasphemiam, seu maledictionem Dei, suspensus est, neque fonti Hebraeo respondet, neque convenit cum citatione Apostoli, acproinde rejiciendum est praesertim, quod non appareat solis in Deum blasphemis supplicium crucis ac patibuli decretum fuisse, quandoquidem et latrones una cum Domino crucifixi leguntur, et in lege blasphemus non crucifigi, sed lapidari praecipitur Levit. 24. Porro LXX. sic verterunt: Maledictus a Deo omnis, qui pendet in Ugno. Hos Apostolus secutus videtur, nisi quod loco participii nomen verbale posuit, quod execrabilem sonat. Nec addidit a Deo, quam particulam quo consilio omiserit, incertum est: cum sic potuerit Christum dicere maledictum a Deo, quomodo dixit alibi, eum factum a Deo peccatum. Eum, inquit, qui non noverat peccatum, pro nobis peccatum fecit, utique Deus, 2 Cor. 5. Quod autem Hieronymus existimat, veteres Hebraeorum libros non habuisse Dei nomen, et post passionem Christi tam in Hebraeis quam nostris codicibus ab aliquo Dei nomen appositum, ut infamiam nobis inureret, qui in Christum meledictum a Deo credimus: id nullo modo verisimile est, licet in eam opinionem etiam S. Thomas autoritate Glossae, ex Hieronymo sumptae, fuerit inductus. Neque enim vel unus vel plures Judaei potuerunt libros tot interpretum, quos ipse Hieronymus allegat, quique in manibus Christianorum versabantur, adscripto Dei vocabulo corrumpere, sic nt nulla sincerae lectionis vestigia usquam exstarent. Potius arbitror, Dei nomen studio praetermissum ab Apostolo, ne atrociori sermone, quo Christus a Deo maledictus diceretur, imbecilles animi Galatarum offenderentur. Sensus autem citati testimonii ex loco Deut. quaerendus est, ubi sic legitur: Quando peccaverit homo, quod morte plectendum est, et adjudicatus morti appensus fuerit in patibulo; non permanebit cadaver ejus in ligno, sed eadem die sepelietur: quia maledictus a Deo est, qui pendet in ligno: et nequaquam contaminabi* terram tuam etc. Cui sane loco sensus hic aptissime congruit. eum, qui suspenditur in patibulo, maledictum esse a Deo, id est, execrabilem Deo, propter peccatum, quo supplicium tale meruit; ut propterea corpus ejus non diu relinquendum sit in hominum conspectu, pendens in cruce, sed eadem die removendum ex oculis et obruendum terra. Dices, si hic est sensus: nihil ergo ad Christum, utpote peccati omnis expertem, haec Scriptura pertinet. Respondent nonnulli, proprie quidem tsstimonium hoc Scripturae de sceleratis agere, sed quadam extensione ad Christum accommodari, qui maledictus a Deo dicatur, non propter sua, quemadmodum illi, qui secundum legem crucifigebantur, sed propter aliena peccata: quatenus nimirum Dens in illo nostra peccata, quasi ipse peccasset, punivit et expiavit: secundum illud Propheticum: posuit in eo iniquitatem omnium nostrum Jes. 53. Verum hac extensione Scripturae nihil opus est. Non enim amrmat Apostolus, Christum illa sententia comprehendi, sed tantum ex ea probare vult, Christum factum esse maledictum similitudine quadam. Si enim maledicti et execrabiles erantDeo, qui pro suie sceleribus suspendebantur in ligno: Christus igitur, sicut assumendo naturam mortalem, venit in similitudinem carnis peccati: ita suspensus in cruce sustinuit similitudinem maledicti, de quo loquitur ScripturaDeut. Dicitur ergo factus pro nobis maledictum, quia pro nostra redemptione ac salute crucifixus, similitudinem gessit hominis a Deo maledicti, et pro tali reputatus est ab hominibus, juxta quod apud eundem Prophetam eodem capite legitur: Cum sceleratis reputatus est. Hunc intellectum confirmat alter ejusdem Apostoli locus, quem supra citavimus, quo Christus pro nobis factus dicitur peccatum, id est, ob poenam peccatoribus similis et pru tali reputatus. Nec ab hoc sensu discrepant Hieronymi, Augustini et Graecorum commentarii, si propius inspiciantur.
3:14
14. Ut in gentibus benedictio Abrahae fieret in Christo Jesu. In gentibus, graece in gentes vel ad gentes. Referenda est haec* pars ad illud praecedens: Christus nos redemit de maledicto legis, factus pro nobis maledictum. Hoc ideo, inquit, ut benedictio Abrahae promissa, quae totam hominis renovationem et beatitudinem complectitur, ad gentes veniret et in iis compleretur per Jesum Christum. Gentium nomen hoc loco generale est, Judaeos etiam comprehendens, ut et in verbis promissionis. Notanda quoque antithesis inter malediotum et benedictionem; licet ea minus appareat in Graeco.
Ut pollicitationem Spiritus accipiamus per fidem. Explicatio est membri praecedentis. Neque enim poUicitationem Spiritus dicit, tanquam promittentis, ut quidam exponunt, sed tanquam rei promissae. Sensus enim est: Ut per fidem, qua in Christum credimus, acciperemus Spiritum sanctum nobis promissum, hoc est, spiritum charitatis et adoptionis filiorum Dei: non spiritum servitutis in timore, quem, qui sub lege erant, acceperant. Ostendit hic locus, eandem esse promissionem benedictionis factam Abrahae et promissionem Spiritus sancti per Prophetas annuntiatam, quantum quidem ad rem promissam attinet: ideoque benedictionem illam Abrahae promissam spiritualiter intelligi opoitere.
3:15
15. Fratres, secundum hominem dico. Alio nunc argumento docet, ex lege non esse justitiam, eoque sumpto a ratione humana. Hoc est enim, quod ait: Secundum hominem dico} id est, humano more loquor, a rebus humanis exemplum adfero, si minus capitis rationes sublimiores.
Tamen hominis confirmatum testamentum nemo spernit aut superordinat. Spernit, rectius ex Graeco rejicit. Textus Ambros. ordinem verborum immutat, hoc modo: hominis testamentum confirmatum tamen nemo irritum facit aut superordinat. Quae lectio sensum hanc innuit: Testamentum hominis, si tamen confirmatum sit, rescindi non potest aut mutari. Placet hic sensus et constructio etiam Cajetano. Sed quia violentius est, dictionem tamen in principio positam eo usque trahi medio vocabulo praetermisso: magis probandum, quod alii dicunt, tamen pro licet positum esse, et proximo genitivo hominis adhaerere. Unde vertoint Erasmus et Hentenius: hominis licet testamentum etc. Itaque sensus est: Testamentum licet humanum, modo comprobatum sit, et, ut loquuntur, autorizatum, hoc est, jure factum: nemo rejicere permittitur aut superordinare. Rejicit, qui quod factum est, plane convellit ac pro nullo habet. Superordinat autem, qui mutat aut innovat, sive addendo aliquid, sive demendo. Quidam confirmatum intelligunt testamentum per mortem; prout Hebr. 9. dicitur: Testamentum in mortuis confirmatum est. Sed Graecum vocabulum hoc loco positum magis exigit sensum, quem diximus: tametsi verum est, Apostolum loqui de tempore, quo mortuus est testator. Dum enim vivit, ipsi mutare est integrum. Porro ex hac proportione colligendum relinquit, multo minus testamentum, seu pactum, seu promissionem Dei posse a quoquam rescindi, aut mutari; cum necesse sit, divina firmiora esse humanis. Quae tacita conclusio novae propositionis loco intelligenda est, cui haereat sequens assumptio.
3:16
16. Abrahae dictae sunt promissiones et semini ejus. Graece: Abrahae autem dictae etc. Sensus: atqui promissiones voce divina factae sunt Abrahae et semini ejus: Abrahae quidem, et quia &ermo promissionis ad eum factus est, et quia promissum est ei; semini autem ejus. et quoniam ei promissum est, et quia per illud promissiones erant adimplendae. Dicit autem promissiones, numero plurali, quia non semel, sed saepius facta est promissio: tametsi res principaliter promissa, hoc est, benedictio gentium, sit in omnibus eadem. Nominatim autem in promissionibas fit mentio semi-
Non dicit: et seminibus, quasi in multis: sed quasi in uno: et semini tuo, qui est Christus. Hoc postremum: Qui est Christus, interpretatio est Apostoli, qua promissionem illam: Et semini tuo, de Christo docet accipiendam. Quaeritur, ad quem locum Geneseos Paulus in his verbis respiciat. Plerique putant ad cap. 22., ubi celebris illa promissio legitur: Benedicentur in semine tuo omnes gentes. Sed obstat, quod Apostolus tam diligenter conjunctionem copulantem semel et iterum exprimit, cum ait, Deum promittentem non dixisse: Et seminibus, sed dixisse: et semini tuo. Quorsum enim coniunctionem, alioqui supervacaneam, ita studiose adderet, nisi respiceret ad aliquem scripturae locum, in quo illa expressa haberetur? Hujusmodi autem loca sunt Gen. 13. et 17., in quibus, terram Chanaam promittens, Dominus dicit: Dabo tibi et semini tuo. Quare huc potius Apostolum respexisse crediderim; eo maxime, quia dixerat: Abrahae et semini ejus dictas fuisse promissiones; quod distincte in his duobus fit locis, dicendo, tibi et semini tuo; non item, cum dicitur: Benedicentur in semine tuo omnes gentes. Item quia infra dicitur, donec veniret semen cui promiserat, non, in quo promiserat. Nec obstare puto, qucd Apostolus semen interpretatur Christum; cum in duobus locis memor-itis semen intelligi constet populum carnaliter ex Abraham nasciturum, utpote cui possessionem terrae Chanaan Dominus promittat. Xam et Gen. 22. secundum Hteram idem populus nomine seminis significatur; id quod palam ostendunt anteriora verba promissionis, quae sic habent: multiplicabo semen tuum sicut stellas coeli et velut arenam, quae est in litore maris. Possidebit semen tuum portas inimicorum suorum. Post quae nuidem verba continuo sermone sequitur illud: Et benedicentur in semine tuo omnes gentes terrae. Quod si ergo locus hic rectissime de Christo accipitur, qui pars erat futurus populi ex Abraham venientis, nihil prohibebit et in aliis duobus locis Christum nomine seminis per mysterium intelligi, qui regno suo spiritali omnes terras gentium erat possessurus. Quanquam dici potest, illud et semini ejus, posse ex phrasi Hebraea sic accipi quasi dictum foret, de semine ejus, quomodo Psalm. 3. legimus: Multi dicunt animae meae, id est, de anima mea. Est similis locutio saepe in aliis Psalmorum locis. Imo hoc ipso cap. vers. 19. talis expositio optime quadrat. Verum hic alia non parva difficultas occurrit. Nam qua ratione Apostolus in vccabulo seminis urget numerum, dicens, non dixisse, et seminibus, tanquam de multis, sed tanquam de uno: et semini tuo: cum semen Hebraeis sit nomen collectivum singulari numero multos comprehendens, nec usquam apud eos in plurali reperiatur, quantumcunquemultos homines significare voluerint; ut et Hieronymus testatur? Ad hoc respondent, frequenter etiam unum hominem per semen significari, quemadmodum patet ex ipsa Gen. 3. 4. 21. capitibus et ex aliis Scripturae locis. Oportere autem vel ex circumstantiis vel aliunde intelligi. num pro uno, an pro multis accipiatur. Sed haec responsio praesentem difficultatem non tollit. Non enim dubium, quin semen aliquando de uno tantum homine dicatur in Scripturis: sed quaeritur, quuinodo recte procedat ApostoH ratiocinatio, qua non ex circumstantiis aut aliun^le, sed ex numero singulari docet unum, id est, Christum intelligi; cum numerus ille communis sit multis et uni: et qttidem frequentius ad mr.ltos referatur. Nec si vel maxime multos comprehendere voluisset Moses, scripsisset: seminibus, sed semini, scilicet propter ejus vocabuli in Hebraea lingua proprietatem Quaestionem hanc piimus movit Hieronymus, nec plane solvit. Magis facit ad nodum quaestionis solvendum, quod Aquinas et Cajetanus breviter annotarunt, Paulum eodem spiiitu, quo promissio facta et Scriptura condita est, eam interpretari, quod ex numero singulari unus, id est Christus, fuerit significatus. Providit enim Spiritus sanctus vocabulum ejusmodi in Scripturis, ut per illud convenienter Christus significaretur. Nec praetermittendutn, quod Aiv gustinus in Cnristo vult significari omnes Christianos fide imitantes Abraham Hi namque sunt illud semen, cui promissio facta est, cum Christus proprie sit semen, per quod promissio sit adimplenda: iu quo tamen etiam 1111 omnes per unam fidem ad singularitatem rediguntur: ut loquitur Augustinus.
3:17
17. Hoc autem dico. Collectio est ex praemissis. Quasi dicat. Hoc igitur est, quod intendo, quod volo concludere. Testamentum confirmatum a Deo, graece testamentum ante confirmatum a Deo in Christum. Ambrosianus in Christo. Quae post (^uadringentos et triginta annus facta est lex, non irritum facit ad ecacuandam promissionem. Graece: ad abolendam sive abrogandam promissionem. Ordo et sensus est: Lex, quae post annos a promissione quadringentos et triginta demum accepit initium, non potest irritum facere testamentum seu pactum tanto ante firmatum ratumque factum a Deo atque in Christo praestandum, ut sic aboleatur et inanis reddatur Dei promissio. Por.ro tota Pauli argumentatio ab eo loco, tamen hominis confirmatum testamentum, speciem habet syllogismi, estque hujusmodi: Pacta divina rata et firma esse debent, multo magis quam humana; atqui Deus iniit pactum cum Abraham et semine ejus promissa benedictione per Christum: ergo pactum illud debet manere firmum et inviolabile, nec per legem, quae multo post supervenit, abrogari potuit aut intercipi, quo minus per Christum impleatur. Id autem contingeret, si per legem esset benedictio, quae praestanda per Christum est promissa, quod declarant proxime sequentia Apostoli verba. Sed prius hoc loco quaerendum, quid testamenti nominesignificetur. Sanepriori loco, ubi exemplum humani testamenti inducitur, proprie testamentum intelligi, id est, dispositionem hominis de eo, quod post mortem suam velit fieri, consensus est omnium interpretum. Nec id videtur in dubium revocandum. Hoc vero, ubi Deo testamentum attribuitur, constat non ita proprie sumi posse. Pro qua re notandum est, ubicunque in Scriptura veteris instrumenti LXX. scripserunt Siafr^XYjv, quod Latinis testamentum sonat, in Hebraeo legi: Berith. Quo vocabulo pactum significatur. Unde et Aquila et caeteri interpretes, Hieronymo teste, non <5iabr^rjv, sed auvfrVjx7}v, id est, pactum transtulerunt. Quanquam non ob hoc imperitiao arguendi sunt LXX. Siquidem ij'.OL'\f)y,yi, praeter testamentum, significat etiam interdum in genere pactum, conventum, pollicitationem; quemadmodum ex prolatis autoribus ostendit Budaeus in commentariis linguae graecae. Quoniam autem LXX. interpretes usi sunt ea voce ad pacta signifitauda; hinc et Apostoli, quorum tempore non alia Graeca sacrorum codicum editio exstabat, libentei eandem vocem eadem significatione usurparunt. Itaque testamentum hoc, quod Apostolus Paulus dicit confirmatum a Deo, non dubitavimus pactum exponere, id est, promisbionem Abrahae factam: sicut Apostolus se ipsum interpretatur. Nec ideo invulida est Apostoli argumentatio, in qua pro antecedente sumsit testamentum proprie dictum: nam quaecunque sunt Dei pacta et decreta, majovem habent fiimitatem, quam quae apud hominis firmissima habentur, quale est testamentum. Unde a firruitate testamenti humani rectissime proceditur ad firmitatem cujuscunque pacti seu promissionis divinae. Adde, quod promissio, de qua disserit Apostolus, etsi proprie testamentum non sit, merito tamen et hoc loco et iu epist. ad Heb. testamentum vocatur, duplici ratione: tum quia, sicut ait Augustinus, quod mors testatoris valet ad confirmandum testamentum ejus, quia consilium jam mutare non potest: hoc immutabilitas promissionis Dei valet ad confirmandam haereditatem Abrahae, praesertim accedente jurejurando, quodixit: Per memetipsum juravi Gen. 22; tum quia respiciebat mortem Filii Dei et ab ea, ut a Patre praeordinata, certoque futura, jam inde ab initio firmitatem accipiebat. Plura de vocabulo testamenti legat, qui volet, apud Sasboldum in commentario: et nos plura in epistolam ad Hebraeos. Jamquod ad numeium annorum attinet hic expressum ab Apostolo, breviter dicimus eam sententiam veriorem esse, et absque scrupulo tenendam, quae tempus hoc ducit ab initio promissionis Abrahae factae, usque ad legem datam in monte Sinai. Primum enim id omnino exigit intentio Apostoli hoc luco; nam urget annorum multitudinem a promissione usque ad legem, docens non potuisse per legem abrogari promissionem tot annorum veluti praescriptione jam ante firmatam. Quare ut vim adderet argumento, non ab aliquo posteriori principio, juxta quorumdam opinionem, sed a primo tempore factae promissionis annos numerare debuit. Deinde probatur id ex chronica supputatione totius temporis memorati, quam diligenter in suo commentario S. Thomas exsequitur, et ante eum Augustinus q. 47. in Exod. et lib. 16. de civit. cap. 24. Praeter hos autem ita de hoc annorum numero sentiunt Josephus lib. 2. Ant. c. 6., Eusebius in chronico ad annum mundi 3260, Epiphanius in Ancorato, Severus historiae sacrae lib. 1., Rabanus, Liranus et Cajetanus in Gen. et Exodum scribentes. Item Joannes Driedo, Melchior Canus et alii plerique, ut taceam commentatores hujus loci tam Graecos quam Latinos, qui omnes in banc eandem sententiam conveniunt. Cui denique suffragantur Martyrologia, quae in Ecclesia leguntur, nominatim Romanum et Usuardi, quae ad dicm 8. cal. Jan. a nativitate Abrahae usque ad egressum populi Israelitici ex Aegypto, quando lex data est, annos numerant ferme quingentos. Nec vero pugnat cum hac sententia, quod Gen. 15. Dominus Abrahae praedicit posteriores ejus quadringentis annis servituros, quodqueExod. 12. tempus habitationis filiorum Israel in Aegypto scribiturfuisse quadringentorum et triginta annorum. Ex quibus locis Genebrardus et alii nonnulli sumpserunt occasionem errandi, ut putarent annorum numerum, de quo loquitur Apostolus, supputandum es-se ab ingressu Jacob et filiorum ejus in Aegyptum: ex quo consequens sit, a promissione facta Abrahae usque ad legislationem multo plures annos intercessisse, nimirum septingentns aut circiter. Sed ut omittam, quod LXX. Exod. 12. sic legunt: In terra Aegypti et in terra Chanaan, forte enim alterum hoc addititium est, respondendum est cum Augustino, Thoma aliisque supradictis autoribus, Scripturam iis locis non dicere, a quo tempore servitus aut habitatio filiorum Israel in Aegypto coeperit, sed tantum significare velle ad quod usque tempus perducta sit: haudquaquam exprimendo initium, a quo tempus illud supputandura esset. Non semper enim in talibus Scriptura id exprimit. Exemplum apertum est 2 Reg. 15, 7. Hoc autem initium in re proposita secundum Apostolum et ve ram chronologiam multo altius repetendum esse, jam satis ostendimus.
3:18
18. Nam si ex lege haereditas: jam non ex promissione. Id est: Si benedictio Abrahae promissa et juxta promissionem a filiis ejus baereditanda per legem praestatur: non ergo jam ex pura et liberali Dei promissione per Christum exspectanda erit, atque ita per legem evacuabitur promissio. Quod fieri non posse superioribus verbis monstratum est. Convenit haec sententia cum illa praecedentis capitis: Si per legem justitia: ergo gratis Christus mortuus est. Et expressius cum illa Rom. 4. Si qui ex lege, haeredes sunt: exinanita est fides, abolita est promissio.
Abrahae autem per repromissionem donavit Deus. Ex opposito consequentis, colligendum relinquit oppositum antecedentis. Atqui, inquit, ex promissione haereditas est, quia Deus non ex conditione legis, sed gratuito et irrevocabili dono dandam promisit haereditatem. Igitur haereditas, benedictio, justitia non est ex lege. Huc respicit Prosper lib. 1. de vocat. gent. cap. 9. quando dicit, manere prorsus et impleri quotidie, quod Abrahae Dominus sine conditione promisit et sine lege donavit. Obiter autem nota, vulgatum interpretem hic et alias indifferenter ursurpare nomina promissionis et repromissionis, pro quibus in Graeco semper est idem vocabulum eizayysXia.
3:19
19. Quid igitur lex? Ex dictis oritur haec qaaestio: Si enim haereditas ita ex promissione est, ut non ex lege: cur igitur lex introducta est? quae utilitas legis aut quid omnino de lege dicendum? Respondet:
Propter transgressiones posita est. Oraece apposita sive addita est. Augustinus legit proposita. Additam auteru dicit, ne putetur lex promissioni successisse, eamcjue removisse Igitur manente promissione lex adjuncta est et subinducta, idque propter transgressiones, scilicet coercendas terrore et minis, ut saltem metu retraherentur homines a manifestis transgressionibus. Sic exponunt Hieron. et Chrysost. cum suis sequacibus. Aliter Augustinus, qui legem propter transgressiones ostendendas, imo et quodammodo augendas, positam interpretatur; idque longe probabilius, si alia Scripturae loca consulamus. Nam per legem cognitio peccati. Rom 3. Et: ubi non est lex, nec praevaricatio, cap. 4. Et: peccatum, inquit, non cognovi nisi per legem cap. 7. Ac rursus ibidem: Occasione accepta peccatum per mandatum operatum est in me omnem concupiscentiam. Et alia ejusdem loci, quae significant, per legem ex occasione augeri peccatum. Virtus enim peccati lex, 1 Cor. 15. Et: litera occidit. 2 Cor. 3. Quin vero legem ad hoc subintroductam esse, ut augerentur transgressiones, ejusdem ad Rom. epistolae cap. 5. diserte Apostolus affirmat, dicens, legem subintrasse, ut abundaret delictum. Cum quo loco ea, quae hic dicuntur, omnino conferenda sunt. Ad eum intellectum invitat quoque Graeca lectio praesentis sententiae, quae ita sonat, quasi dicas: transgressionum gratia, vel, transgressionum gratiam lex apposita est. Quae lectio etiam est apud August. lib. 15. contra Faustum cap. 8. Transgressionis gratia posita est. Jam quod alicujus gratia fit, non fit ad ejus destructionem, sed profectum. Neque tamen sensus est, augmentum et abundantiam peccatorum id esse, cujus gratia lex a Deo data fuerit, ut causam legis finalem, hoc enim esset Deo peccata adscribere, sed Deuro lege lata permittere volaisse. ut homines suis viribus fidentes in legem impingerent, ejusque transgressores fierent, et legis occasione peccata augerent: ono sic infirmitatis suae convictus superbus eoium animus intelligeret, legem sibi ad justitiam non sufTicere, sed ad eam consequendam potentiori remedio atque auxilio sibi opus esse, nempe gratia Christi. Sensum hunc, praeter ea quae ex epistola ad Rom. adduximus, quam constat cum hac epistola ejusdem fere esse argumenti, probabilem insuper facit, quod hic statim quaerit: Lex ergo adversus promis*a Dei? Et quod paulo post sequitur: Sed conclusit Scriptura omnia sub peccato. Haec enim referuntur ad illud, quod dixerat, legem positam propter transgressiones, non minuendas autcoercendao, sed augendas; sensu jam explicato. Vide etiam Augrstinum lib. de gratia Chiisti cap. 8. De Spirit. et lit. cap. 6. Contra duas epist. Pelag. lib. 3. cap. 4. Item serm. 13. de verbis Apost. et epist. 89. Porro sensum Augustini bene admodum explicat S. Thomas in comm., ad quem studiosum lectorem remitto.
Donec veniret semen, cui promiserat. Graece u> iTrrjyysATai, cui promissum est, aut erat, quemadmodum et legitur apud Hieronymum et commeutatorem Ambrosianum, nec non apud Augustinum, tam in commentario, quam alias, ubi locum hunc allegat: ut lib. 3. de Trin. cap. 11. Syra qr.oque versio Latine reddita sic habet: Donec veniret semen illud, cui facta est promissio. Vide, quae de Graeca voce annotavimus ad illud Rom. 4. Quaecunque promisit. Sensus Apostoli fcst, legem introductam fuisse, non ut semper duraret, sed ad tempus, donec veniret semen, cui promissio tacta erat. ut in eo benedicerentur omnes gentes, quod semen est Christus. Ordinataper angelos. Legem veterem per angelos ordinatam, sive dispositam, ut legit Augustinus loco jam dicto, id est, angelorum opera seu ministerio digestam, scriptam, ac latam fuisse, testatur idem Apostolus Heb. 2., et Stephanus Act. 7. significat, et ipse Moses Deut. 33. dicens, cum Domino legem in monte Sinai ferente adfuisse Sanctorum millia; quos LXX. angelos interpretati sunt. Indicat ergo discrimen Apostolus inter legem et promissionem, quod lex angelorum ministerio lata fuerit; promissio per Christum praestanda, sicut infra dicitur: Ut promissio ex fide Jesu Christi daretur. Sic etiam ad Ileb. 2. distinguit.
In manu mediatoris. Mediatorem hoc loco Christum plenque, tam Graeci, quam Latini intelligunt, ut sensus sit, legem Israelitico populo traditam fuisse per manum, id est, potestatem et directionem mediatoris Christi, populum illum in suum adventum hoc modo praeparantis. Nam Christum Dei et hominum mediatorem vocat Apostolus 1 Tim. 2. Sensum hunc late prosequitur Augustinus. Alii vero mediatorem hoc loco Mosem intelligunt. Qui sane intellectus multis modis fit probabilis: primum, quia Christus non veteris testamenti, sed novi mediator est; quomodo eum aperte nuncupat Apostolus Heb. 8. et 12. Quo praeterea faciunt, quae ibidem, nec non ejusdem epist. cap. 2. et 9. de differentia Christi et Mosis, quoad utriusque ministerium disseruntur; quam et Joannes Evangelista brevi sententia aperuit, dicens cap. 1. Lex per Mosem data est: gratia et veriias per Jesum Christum facta est. Adde, quod Moses ipse sequestrum et medium, quoad legislationem, inter Dominum et filios Israel se vocat: ac multis deinde verbis declarat Deut. 5. Ad quem locum hic Paulum respexisse valde verisimile est. Quamvis autem per manum in scripturis metaphorice potentiasignificari soleat: quoties tamen aliquid a Deo factum dicitur in manu cujuspiam, non potentia, sed ministerium aut instrumentr.m intelligitur, ut cum factum dicitur verbum Domini in rnauu Aggaei aut Malachiae Prophetae. Atqui legem ministerio Mosis latam a Deo fuisse, planum est: idque hac ipsa phiasi, in manu Mosis, multis locis Scriptura significat. Ut Lev. 10. et 26. Jos. 2 Esd. 8. 9. et 10. At ministerio Christi datam aut latam fuisse eam legem, nec dicitur usquam, nec sine errore dici potest. Sentit igitur Apostolus, legem per angelos administratam populo, nec tamen immediate, sed iutervenieute ministerio Mosis. Atque haec Theodoreti expositio est, a Sasboldo pluribus verbis confirmata. Igitur haec pars superiori conjuncta plenius, ex parte ministerii, distinguit legem a promissione, quae non per angelot, nec per Mosem impleta fuit, sed per Christum Absit implenda erat.
3:20
20. Mediator autem unius non est: sed plurium, ac saltem duorum: id quod ex ipsa ratione medii constat, nam medium est, quod inter extrema collocatur. Qui Christum mediatorem interpretantur, hanc partem varie exponunt, ut videre est apud S. Thomam et Oecumenium. Tametsi res clara est ex illis Apostoli ad Tim. verbis, quibus Christum mediatorem Dei et hominum appellat: ut non sit opus, alios sensus quaerere, si ad Christum referamus. Moses etiam quo sensu non unius mediator fuerit, sed plurium, ex ipsius verbis liquet, quibus ait ad populum: Ego sequester et medius fui inter Dominum et vos, ut annuntiarem vobis verba ejus.
Deus autem unus est. At Deus, inquit, qui promisit Abrahae, unus est, non usus homine mediatore ad promittendum, sicut usus est ad ferendam legem. Notandum est ea, quae hic de lege dixit Apostolus, respondens ad quaestionem: Quid igitur lex? non solum eo spectare, ut discamus usum legis, qui erat, homines adducere ad Christum, uti mox explicabit; verum etiam ut intelligamus, quanto lex inferior fuerit promissione, quantoque promissio dignior lege. Nam praeter disparitatem supra indicatam, promissio principaliter ac primo facta est, lcx apposita est et subintroducta.; Promissio benedictionis est, lex propter transgressiones: promissio limitationem temporis non habet, lex posita donec veniret semen. Promissio facta a Deo, lex ordinata per angelos. Illa sine mediatore, haec in manu mediatoris. Illic unius Dei factum est, ad Abraham loquentis: hic Mose internunoio ac mediatore res gesta est, eo quod populus non sustinorct audire verba Dei loquentis. Non negat Apostolus, Deum cum Abraham loquentem usum fuisse ministerio angeli, cum id satis constet et Scriptura, Gen. 18. et 22., sed tantum dicere vult, legem ordinatam ac dispositam fuisse per angelos, non autem promissionem.
3:21
21. Lex ergo adversus promissa Dei? Ex praecedenti responsione emergit haec quaestio; quasi dicat Apostolus: si propter transgressiones lex posita est, non impediendas, sic enim quaestio locum non haberet, sed augendas potius: num ergo fatebimur, legem adversari promissionibus divinis, easque evertere? Quoniam enim transgressores constituit homines, videtur obstare, ne promissiones ipsi Abraham factae ad eos perveniant, et in iis impleantur: quandoquidem transgressoribus non benedictio, sed maledictio per ipsam legem denunciatur. Verum absit, ut lex Dei promissis Dei repugnet, sic enim Deus sibi ipsi contrarius esset.
Si enim data esset lex, quae posset vivificare; vere ex lege esset justiiia. Vere ovtoj^ revera } pro quo Augustinus omnino tract. 49. in Joannem. Nondum ad quaestionem directe respondet, sed objectionem in adversarium retorquet: tanquam diceret: Imo, contra se res habet. Nam si lex data esset, quae vivificare posset homines, id est, praestare, ut bene beateque vivant, quod fieri nequit nisi per justitiam: tum vere ex lege haberetur justitia. Si autem ex lege, jam non ex promissione, uti superius ostensum est. Itaque per legem evacuaretur, atque irrita redderetur promissio, utpote in effectu benedictionis praestando a lege praeoccupata. Sic ergo patet, quemadmodum sequatur, legem contra Dei promissa militaturam, si verum *it, quod vult adversarius, legem vivificare posse.
3:22
22. Sed conclusit Scriptura omnia sub peccato. Graece: sub peccatum. Hic jam respondet ad quaestionem. Per Scripturam quidam legem scriptam, quam alibi literam vocat Apostolus, alii in genere Scripturam sacram intelligunt. Quod posterius magis probo. Consonat enim hic locus cum illo Rom. 3., ubi omnes, tam Judaeos, quam Graecos, sub peccato esse ex scripturis ostendit. Hoc igitur est, quod ait: Non modo lex eos, qui sub lege sunt, peccati convincit et transgiessores constituit, sed in universum Scriptura conclusit omnia sub peccato, id est, declarat, omnes homines velut conclusos et captivos teneri sub dominio peccati; declarat autem, cum passim docet, omnes esse peccatores. Unde Hieronymus q. 8. ad Algasiam hunc locum miscens cum eo, qui est ad Rom. cap. 11. Conclusit Deus omnes in incredulitattm, ut omnium misereatur, ita scribit: Auctoritatem sequimur Scripturorum, quod nullus homo sit absque peccato; sed conclusit Deus omnes sub peccato, ut ontnium misereatur, absque eo solo, qui peccatum non fecit, nec inventus est dolus in ore ejus. Sic ille.
Ut promissio ex fide Jesu Christi daretur credentibus. Id est, ut promissa justitiae haereditas per fidem Jesu Christi daretur credentibus in eum; dum scilicet in lege nullam invenientes peccati medelam, ad Christum confugiunt, qui est semen illud, in quo datae sunt promissiones. Lex igitur adeo non est adversus promissa Dei, ut etiam illis subserviat et obsequium praestet, dum homines peccati convictos ad promissum auctorem gratiae justificandos transmittit, quamvis etiam legis occasione factos deteriores; juxta illud Rom. 5. TJbi abundavit delictum, superabundavit gratia. Notandum est enim, quod quemadmodum duplici ratione lex propter transgressiones posita est, nti diximus; nam aut eas nescientibus commonstrat, aut per occasionem insuper auget: ita duplici ratione ducit ad Christum. Quum eniro monstrat transgressiones, quasi morbum aperiens, medicum, a quo curetur, quaerendum docet. Quum vero per ipsam etiam augetur transgressio, quasi morbo crescente, qui eurandus erat: tum suam illa manifeste prodit impotentiam. Itaque jam multo magis, simul et morbi demonstratione, et impotentiae suae professione, mittit infirmum ad verum medicum Christum.
3:23
23. Prius autem, quam veniret fides, sub lege custodiebamur conclusi in eam fidem, quae revelanda erat. Sub lege, graece, sub legem. Ad eandem particulam referendum participium, conclusi: sic enim hic dicit, conclusi sub legem, sicut statim dixerat, co?iclusit sub peccatum. Loquitr.r autem in persona Judaeorum, qui legem acceperant, et loquitur de tota lege Mosaica, non de sola ceremoniali, sed prout lex est sine gratia, cui velut ex adverso opponitur. Confer cap. 4. et 5. hujus ep. et cap. 6. ad Rom. Sensus est: Priusquam autem veniret tempus revelandae fidei, quod nimirum est in adventu Christi; sub legis imperio ac potestate, velut iu custodia conclusi, servabamur, ne prorumperemus iu manifesta crimina, sed poenarum timore coerciti, ab idololatria et aliib hujusmodi gravioribus, externo saltem opere committendis, abstineremus: servabamur, inquam, in eam fidem, quae revelanda erat: id est, ut hac ratione duceremur ad eam fidem, quae suo tempore manifescauda eratpe-r Christi et Apostolorum ejus praedicationem. Igitur hic tertiiiG modus significatur, quo Icx praeparavit homines ad Christum, dum scilicet timore eos continens et coarctans, quasi servos, cogeret aspirare ad libertatem riliorum Dei, promissam in Christo per fidem. Quod quidem ita se habere docet Augustinus exemplo primorum fidelium Judneorum, qui prius sub lege conclusi, mox ad praedicationem Apostolorum tanto studio Christi fidem amplexi sunt, ut pro ejus amore, confestim lebus suis venditis, earum pretia ad eorundem Apostolorum pedes abjicerent, ac caeteiis ecclesiis exempla Christianae perfectionis ostenderent.
3:24
24. Itaque lex paedagogus noster fuit in Christo, ut ex fide justificemur. Graece in Christum vel ad Christum: et melius erat justificaremur, quam justificemur. Texlus Ambrosianusad utrumque sufiragatur, Hieron. quoque in secundo dialogo contra Pelag. legit, ad Christum. Paedagogus is dicitur, qui puero ductor et custos adhibetur, ut teneram ejusaetatemre^at: metuqueacflagris a vitiis coerceat, et primis elementis erudiat, donec, ut ait Hieronymus, ad majores philosophiae ac gubernandae reipublicae disciplinas a magistro instituendus transmittatur. Huic Apostolus legem similem fuisse, ex superiori sententia eoliigit: Itaque, inquit, lex, instar paeda gogi, nos, tanquam parvulos et ad vitia proclives, timot e coercuit et praeparavit, duxitque ad Christum, verum justitiae doctorem ac magistrum, ut ex fide ejus justitiam consequeremur. Sed quaeret hic aliquis: Si lex nos ducit ad Christum et gratiae ejus recipiendae nos praeparat; quomcdo non inde consequens est, hominem sola lege instructum sese ad gratiam praeparare posse? Qciod est contra illud a Patribus definitum, gratiam non dari secundum merita, et illud verissime dictum a Prospero resp. ad octavum capitulum Gallorum: Sine gratia nemo cuirit ad gratiam. Respondeo, pertinere hoc ipsum ad beneficium gratiae Christi, quod quis a lege tanquam paedagogo ducatur ad Christum: non quod in homine, priusquam in Christum mediatorem saltem implicite credat, sit aliqua gratiae provocativa dispositio, sed quia lege Deus utitur, et quidem multipliciter, sicut supra declaratum est, tanquam occasione, qua ad gratiam homines adducuntur, quemadmodum et flagellis atque afflictionibus, quas hominibus immittit, uti solet ad eorum conversionem. Unde nec repugnat huic loco, quod supra dictum est: propter transgressiones legem positam esse, nam etiam in eo, quod auctum est accepta lege peccatum, lex paedagogus fuit ad Christum; dum videntes homines, se per legem sanari non posse, sed ejus occasione gravius vulnerari, ad Christum medicum confugiunt.
3:25
25. At ubi venit fides, jam non sumus sub paedagogo. Ex inducta comparatione legis cum paedagogo, concludit legis cessationem hoc pacto: At postquam advenit tempus revelatae fidei, jam tanquam magistro contraditi, non amplius sub paedagogo sumus, hoc est, sub lege, quae paed;igogi erga nos gerebat officium. Posteaquam ad Christum introducti sumus per fidem, cessat paedagogia legis.
3:26
26. Omnes enim filii Dei estis per fidem in Christo Jesu. Tacitam diluit objectionem, qua Galatae dicere poterant Apostolo Paulo: Si lex paedagogus vester ad Christum fuit, igitur et nos legem recipere debemus, ut ab ea velut paedagogo ducamur ad Christum. Ad id ita respondet Apostolus, ut doceat, paedagogum illum Judaeis quidem opportunum fuisse, per quem ad Christum adducerentur; non tamen omnibus hominibus necessai tum, cum sine eo fided haberi possit, per quam omnes efficiamur filii Dei. Dicit ergo: Quamvis lex nobis Judaeis paedagogus fuerit ad Christum: ncn ideo tamen etiam vobis illa accersenda est, ut ad Christum ducamiui, regenerandi in filios Dei. Omnes enim vos, etiam sine legis opera, filii Dei estis per fidem, qua in Christum creditis. Quin potius fines, quae nos Judaeos liberat a lege, cui subjecti fuimus; eadem non patitur, vos Galatas legi subjici, ut qui per fidem aeque, ut nos, facti sitis secundum adoptionem filii Dei, et per hoc a servitute legis liberi. Notandum, quod etsi illud in Christo, fere construatur cum fide, ad hunc modum: per fidem, quae est in Christo Jesu, ut legit Hieron., aut quae est in Christum Jesum, ut Ambrosianus; potesl tamen ordinari cum anterioribus verbis filii Dei estis, praesertim cum Graece non sit in Christum, sed in Christo, id est, per Christum, Hebraea phrasi. Ita sensus erit: omnes estis filii Dei per Christum Jesum, idque per fidem, qua in eum creditis. Neminem vero moveat, quod dicit universaliter omnes. Id enim dicit ex hypothesi fidei, non cujuscumque, sed qualis hic intelHgitur, id est ejus, quae per dilectionem operatur. Sic enim et intra cap. 5. fidem limitat.
3:27
27. Quicunque enim in Christo baptizati estis, Christum induistis. In Christo, graece in Christum; tametsi quidam Graeci codicos eam particulam omnino praetermittunt, tantum legentes: Quicunque enim baptizati estis etc. Quos Erasmus in sua versione, necnon in paraphrasi secutus est. Sed mendosa, ni fallor, ea lectio est. Nam veteres tam Graeci quam Latini legerunt, hi in Christo, illi in Christum. Est autem haec probatio sumpta a sacramento fidei, id est, baptismo, sicut illa piaecedens ab ipsa fide. Quicunque enim, inquit, baptismi sacramento abluti estis, et per illud Christo incorporati, Christum induistis, id est, exuto vetere homine velut transformati estis in Chiistum, novum hominem. Cum igitur tam sitis intime Christo conjuncti per fidem ac fidei sacramentum, utique legis obsequio jam opus non habetis, ut adducamini ad Christum. Induere Christum, ut ex aliorum locorum collatione patet, est Christo fieri conformem imitatione virtutum et bonorum operum, quae inChristo, tanquam capite, perfectissime fuerunt. Unde Rom. 13. post enumerationem vitiorum, a quibus abstinendum admonet, subjungit: Sed induamini Dominum Jesum Chri- 8tum. Ex quo liquet, non omnes omnino baptizatos Christum induisse, sed eos tantum, qui baptismo justificati sunt. Idipsum et praesens locus ostendit. Probat enim Apostolus, Galatas esse filios Dei, quia per baptismum Christum induerunt, quae ratio non valeret, si induisse Christum etiam malis, id est, non filiis Dei, competeret. Quod ergo dicit: Omnes in Christo baptizatos Christum induisse, sic intellige, quantum est ex virtute baptismi. Quo sensu et illud de aquis baptismi scriptum est Ezech. 47. Vivent omnia, ad quae venerit torrens. Porro si Christum induunt, quicunque in Christo baptizantur; igitur ad gratiam justificationis conterendam ac virtutes Christianas inserendas efficax est baptismi sacramentum: et fal sum est, quod haeretici docent, baptismum esse nudum justitiae per fidem acceptae signaculum.
3:28
28. Non est Judaeus, neque Graecus; id est gentilis: species enim pro genere ponitur. Non est servus neque liber: non est masculus neque femina. Supplendum ex subsequenti sententia: in Christo. Ne putarent Galatae saltem plus aliquid eos consequi in Christo, quos lex quasi paedagogus ad Christum adduxisset: id jam removet generali sententia, qua docet, in negotio justitiae per Christum adipiscendae nullam haberi rationem, sitne Judaeus quispiam an gentilis: servus, an liber: mas, an femina: hoc est, nullum generis, conditionis aut sexus discrimen apud Christum agnosci, ut propter aliquid hujusmodi dicere " quis possit: ad me magis Christus pertinet. Ad hanc indifferentiam significandam, prius servum quam liberum nominavit Apostolus: quomodo et inter martyres Vitalem servum Agricolae Domino praenominat Ecclesia in oratione, qua eorum intercessione petit adjuvari. 4. Nov. Posset hic quaeri, quomodo cum eo, quod hic dicit: Non est Judaeus neque Graecus, non pugnet, quod Rom. 3. docet, multum omniao amplius esse Judaeo prae gentili. Sed hanc quaestionem in illius loci commentario solutam invenies.
Omnes enim vos unum estis in Christo Jesu. Graece Unus, sed sensu eodem. Quasi dicat: Estis omnes tanquam unus, id est, prorsus indiscreti, in negotio salutis per CLristum: perinde atque si omnes ejusdem generis, conditionis et sexus essetis. Alii paulo aliter, sed hic sensus optime respondet t&m sententiae praecedenti, quam Graecae lectioni.
3:29
29. Si autem vos Christi: ergo semen Abrahae estis. Nec deest vobis, inquit, dignitas Judaicae gentis, quae se jactat esse semen Abrahae. 2 Cor. 11. Nam si vos Christi estis, id est, Christo incorporati et membra ejus effecti per fidem et baptismum, uti jam ostensam est: Christus autem est verum illud ac singulare semen promissum: ergo et vos semen ac filii Abrahae estis, non solum fidei imitatione, verum etiam incorporationis jure: ut quod Christo capiti convenit, toti ejus corpori Ecclesiae tribuatur. S. Augustinus banc sententiam paulo aliter legit, usus vitioso codice, quantum apparet.
Secundum promissionem haeredes. Graece: et secundum promissionem, quomodo legit etiam Ambrostanus. Sensus est: Non ita estis semen Abrahae, sicut erant Ismael et reliqui concubinarum filii, qui ab haereditate fuerunt exclusi: sed sicut Isaac, de quo dictum est: In Isaac vocabitur tibi semen. Pertinet enim ad vos aeque ut ad Judaeos haereditas benedictionis, ex promissione facta Abrahae, cum per incorporationem pari jure pertineatis ad semen illi promissum, quod est Christus.
3:1
1. o insensati (&véónvot Aug. : stulti cfr v. 3) Galatae, quis vos fascinavit (non obedire veritati), ante quorum oculos Iesus Christus praescriptus est (in vobis) erucifizus. Cum nonnullis Patribus (CArys. Aug. de serm. Dom. in monte I. 9,25) monendum Oec. Thom. etc. censent, Paulum Domini praeceptum, quo fratrem stultum vocare vetamur (MattA. 5,92 sq.) , non violasse, quia non temere aut vituperandi gratia, sed iusta ex causa, animo nimirum corrigendi, Galatas stultos vocasset. Porro £nsensatus, uti Vulg. hic graecum «vónro; reddidit, « proprie dicitur, qui sensu (vox;) caret; sensus autem spiritualis est cognitio veritatis; qui ergo veritate caret, proprie insensatus dicitur » (Thom.). Revera de Galatarum naturali quadam mentis hebetudine (id quod ZIier. probabilius censet) Paulum non loqui, sed de defectu altioris intelligentiae spiritualis (cfr v. 3) ac de spirituali quadam caecitate, satis apparet ex interrogatione addita, quae caecitatem istam quasi fascino quodam productam esse innuit. Fascinum (faaxavíz) autem incantationis genus intelligitur, quo pueri ita afficiuntur, ut mentis compotes non amplius esse videantur, aut aliud malum eis impingitur. Graeci quidem (cfr CArys. Theod. etc.) verbo Bacxaivew hic significationem zneidendi attribuunt, at nulla est ratio, cur prima fascinandi significatione relicta ad illam derivatam confugiamus. Recte enim Hier. ex opinione vulgi sumtum esse exemplum dicit, « ut quomodo tenera aetas noceri dicitur fascino, sic etiam Galatae, in Christi fide nuper nati et nutriti lacte et non solido cibo, veluti quodam fascinante sint nociti et stomacho fidei nauseante Spiritus S. cibum evomuerint ». Est igitur metaphora quaedam , qua Paulus admirationem suam exprimit, quod Galatae malis pseudapostolorum artibus tam facile et celeriter sese occaecari et a veritatis via abduci siverint (cfr 1,6). Finem, quem pseudapostoli in fascinandis seu seducendis Galatis prosecuti sunt, Vulg. Clem. (cfr VV. LL.) glossemate in textum recepto recte quidem, sed quum sententia per se sit clara, superflue indicat (non obedire veritatzi. e. ne veritati doctrinae de iustitia per fidem a&cquirenda amplius obediretis). Rationem deinde,:cur Paulus de subita hac Galatarum mutatione tantopere stupuerit, ut eam quasi fascinationi adscribendam duxerit, sententia relativa explicat (ante quorum oculos etc.). In suis enim praedicationibus , quando eis fidem annuntiaverat , tam vividis coloribus imaginem Christi cruci affixi morteque sua fructum mox indicatum acquirentis inter eos depinxerat, ut eam oculis suis quodam modo intuiti sint. De morte igitur Christi, de eius causa ac meritis, diligentissime et accuralissime erant edocti, ac nihilominus nunc iam eo erant &dducti, ut ex operibus Legis iustificari quaerentes mortem Domini quasi vilipenderent : si enim per Legem iustitia, frustra Christus mortuus est (2,21). Haec est Graecorum interprelatio (cfr Chrys. Theod. eic.), quibus verbum mpoyoxouv idem est quod palam pingere, eamque iure merito plerique iuniores ac moderni approbant (Sa/m. Est. Iust. eic., Reithm. M Ev. etc.). Obiicientibus vero, verbum zpoypxot significationem pingendi non admittere , recte respondet Grimm : « Quum simplex yp£qsvv saepe de pictoribus dicatur, v?oyocoetv vero significet etiam ante omnium qui legere possint oculos scribere (Plut. Demetr. &6 in fine), non intelligitur, cur 72oyoz9tw non possit esse ante - oculos pingere ». Certum est, graecos Patres de hac signi(icatione verbi non dubitasse, atque inter Latinos Pe/. quoque et Prim. verbo latino praescribere eandem attribuerunt (« quibus tam manifesta facta passio Christi est me praedicante, ut eum ante oculos vestros pendere putaretis » Prim.). Verba &ouiv (in vobis), si genuina sunt (cfr VV. LL.), cum participio c»avzwuévos (crucifixus) aptius connectuntur (ante quorum oculos depictus est Christus quasi esset znter vos crucifirus), quam cum verbo zporyocor, (praescriptus est), ne tautologia quaedam exoriatur (ane quorum oculos inter vos depictus est Christus crucifixus). Christum crucifixum » (Jisp. etc. — Mey. etc.); sed haec explicatio verbis ofc xac' ó0uApoóc (quorum ante oculos) excluditur. Eandem significationem Hier. retinens de vaticiniis agi censet, in quibus mors Christi antea erat scripta quibusque lectis Galatae « via et ordine venerunt ad credendum »; sed iterum non apparet, quid verba otc xo:' ópdaAyoUc et dv üuiv sibi velint, ut praetermittamus, Galatas, utpote ethnicos, vaticinia messianica ignorasse neque iis ad fidem potuisse adduci. Reliqui antiqui Latini legerunt proseriptus (« i. e. exspoliatus vel condemnatus » Afer; « Christus proscriptus est, i. e. bona eius distracta et vendita sunt » Vict.), quam lectionem Aug. hac ratione interpretatur : « quibus videntibus Christus haereditatem suam passionemque amisit : his utique auferentibus eam Dominumque inde expellentibus, qui ex gratia fidei, per quam Christus possidet gentes, ad Legis opera eos qui crediderant revocabant, auferendo illi possessionem suam, i. e. eos in quibus iure gratiae fideique habitabat ». Inde a Polybio haec latini.verbi proscribere significatio graeco wpoypágrw attribuitur quidem, sed nostro contextui parum consonat, nec satis apte dicitur : « ante vestros oculos Christus haereditatem suam, i. e. vos ipsos quos vi passionis suae possedit, amisit ». Retineri haec versio nequit, nisi cum nonnullis antiquis Latinis legamus : « ante quorum oculos Christus proscriptus ET crucifixus est » ; sed haec lectio graeco textui non congruit nec sufficiente testium auctoritate est munita. Itaque Graecorum interpretationem cum plerisque iunioribus et modernis recte praeferimus (cfr Salm. Est. lust. Nat. Pic. etc., M Ev. Reithm. LR. Schaef. etc. — de W. Ew. Schm. Goeb. Z. etc.). . Ut Galatae intelligant, quam insensate egerint pseudapostolorum fascinationem aspectu Christi inter eos crucifixi, i. e. recordatione doctrinae de mortis Christi virtute et efficacia, non averruncantes (cfr Num. 91,9), longa demonstratione Paulus opus non esse censet; una interrogatio ei sufficit :
3:2
2. Aoc solum a vobis volo discere (yafitiv i. q. audire vel comperire) : Ez operibus legis Spiritum accepistis , an ex auditu fidei? Quae in verba bene Thom. cum Patribus : « In primitiva Ecclesia ex divina dispositione, ut fides Christi promoveretur et cresceret, statim post praedicationem fidei manifesta signa Spiritus S. fiebant super audientes; ipsi quoque Galatae manifeste Spiritum S. acceperant. Quaerit igitur Apostolus ab eis, unde eum habuerint; constat &utem, quod non per opera Legis, quia quum essent gentiles, ante acceptionem S. Spiritus non habebant Legem; ergo habuerunt eum ex auditu fidei. Si ergo hoc potuit fidei virtus, frustra quaeritur aliud, per quod salvemur [sive ad perfectionem adducamur]; quia multo difficilius est , de iniusto facere iustum, quam iustum in iustitia conservare [et promovere]; si ergo fides de iniustis Galatis sine Lege iustos fecerat, non est dubium, quod sine Lege poterat eos in iustitia conservare » et promovere. Nomine Sprritus non solas gratias gratis datas hic designari, id quod aliquid putant (Pa/m. etc.), ex contextu iam apparet, quia de iustitia, utrum ex operibus an ex fide sit, proxime agitur; hinc saltem dona sanctificantia Spiritus simul comprehendantur oportet. Rectius . autem ipsam tertiam SS. Trinitatis personam intelligemus, quae non ' tantum per dona sua, sed etiam secundum substantiam suam speciali modo iustos inhabitat eosque sua inhabitatione templum sibi consecrat (1 Cor. 6,19; cfr infra ad &,6 sq.). Sed « illo tempore, inquit Aug., in novitate invitationis ad fidem etiam sensibilibus miraculis praesentia Spiritus S. apparebat »; quare gratiae gratis datae, quae acceptae iustitiae et inhabitantis Spiritus quasi documentum erant (cfr Act. 15, 8. 9; 2,15; sqq.; 10,84 sqq.; 11,15 sqq.) , dumtaxat velut manifestatio quaedam praesentiae Spiritus ipsius intelliguntur. Iam vero, :«si in operibus Legis esset salus, Spiritus S. non nisi circumcisis daretur » (Aug.), siquidem non nisi sanctificatis datur; atqui circeumcisi Galatae nondum fuerant; ergo restat, ut eum ez auditu fidei acceperint. Quoniam auditus fidei hic operibus Legis opponitur, haud satis recte multi audztum fidei explicant « praedicationem, qua aüdita fides suscipitur » (bfr Est. Iust. etc.), quamvis procul dubio fides sit ez auditu, i. e. ex praedicatione (Rom. 10,17). Aptius auditus . fidei (&xo3 mícveox) hic idem esse dicitur quod obsequium fidei (axo víortoc Rom. 1,5 ; 10,96); scilicet sicut &xoóev (audire) interdum significat obsequi (Matth. 171,5; Joan. 10,8; Act. 3,92 sq. etc.), ita axo iam ab Alexandrinis interdum pro $za«xoá (obsequium) usurpatur (4 Reg. 15,22 etc.). Pulchrior hac ratione et accuratior inter duo membra habetur oppositio : « non Legem, quam ignorabant, observantes, sed fidei, quae eis praedicabatur, sese subiicientes Galatae iustificati sunt et Spiritum acceperunt » (cfr Wind. etc. — Lightf. etc.). Hinc etiam elucet, quam insensate agant, qui illo seposito, quo summum bonum consecuti sunt (fide nimirum), perfectionem suam in re quaerant (sc. in Lege), quae ex ipsa sua natura commodum ullum eis afferre nequeat :
3:3
3. sic stulti (&vóntov insensati) ests, «t quum spiritu coeperitis, nunc carne consummemini? luxta graecum textum duas habemus interrogationes, quibus sermo vividior redditur, secus autem sensus non mutatur : Sic (o9vec adeo) insensati estis? Spiritu auspicati (ivapzxy.ivox A'" minus accurate : incipientes) carne consummamini (vel : ad perfectionem adducimini iz:76):050:)? Quanam in re Galatarum stultitia, quam secunda iam vice increpat, sit sita, Paulus lectoribus, quibus scribit, cognitum supponit; hucusque nondum clare eam indicavit neque hic eam clare exprimit, sed obscurius innuit. Rectus enim ordo postulat, ut ab inferioribus et imperfectioribus ad superiora et perfectiora progrediamur; contrariam vero viam Galatae tenentes a perfecto ad imperfectissimum , a summis ad ima, a Spiritu ad carnem delabi videbantur. Cum Vulg. Clem. , quae v. 9. Spiritum (S maiusculum), hic vero spiritum (s minusculum) scribens diverso sensu nomen sumendum esse insinuat, nonnulli interpretes, qui v. 2. personam Spiritus S. recte intelligunt, hic nominibus spiritus et carnis duas quasi partes hominis, superiorem , quae gratia sanctifiante instructa principium est actionum supranaturalium, et inferiorem , quae contra . spiritum rebellans legi peccati inservit (cfr ad 1 Cor. 2, 13), inter se opponi censent. Sed de carne, quae sedes peccati sit, hic non agitur, ' nec ulla est ratio, cur nominis Spiritus significationem, quae eadem est v. 9. et 5., in hac intermedia sententia mutemus. Etenim « initium perfectionis suae Galatae habuerunt a Spiritu S. » (Thom.) , quando :ex auditu fidei iustificati Spiritum acceperunt. Spiritui S. autem, qui novae oeconomiae Ecclesiam docet regitque singulosque fideles regenerat ac renovat, opponitur caro, circa quam lex ritualis, qua pseudapostoli Galatas ad perfectionem adducere volebant, versabatur : « carnem, inquit Theod., legalem conversationem vocat, quia corporea sunt Legis superflua ; ad corpus enim circumcisio et sabbathi observatio et lepra et mundationes aliaque eiusmodi spectant ». In eo igitur est stultitia Galatarum, quod a nova gratiae ac libertatis oeconomia ad veterem Legis et servitutis oeconomiam delabantur atque in vetere perfectionem quaerant, quam: in nova sola invenire possunt et ex parte iam invenerunt. Altera nimirum oppositio inter verba vápytoUat (incipere) et. ixvrc.sis0ot (ad finem et perfectionem adduci) habetur (cfr 2 Cor. 8,6; Pil. 1,6). Solam fidem in Christum eis non sufficere, pseudapostoli neophytis persuadere conati erant; si genuini perfectique Christiani esse velint, magnis Apostolis primisque, quos illi ad fidem adduxerant, fratribus pares et aequales, omnino requiri, ut fideiadderent observationem Legis. Contra quae Paulusacerba cum ironia de perfectione loquitur, ad quam per carnales illas observantias Galatae non tam proprio studio pervenire quam caeci a magistris suis adduci velint; « neque enim dicit : ezoxi &xvreA ett (carne consummalis et ad perfectionem adducitis rem) sed eagxi éxvreutcÓr (carne consummamini), indicans eos velut pecudes a pseudapostolis tractari et concidi,, postquam se illis tradiderunt » (CArys. cfr Theoph.). Cum Vulg. enim Graeci quoque formam ézireXetc0e pro passiva habent (cfr. 1 Petr. 5,9), quoniam medium huius verbi genus, liceta profanis sit usitatum, in Scripturis non reperitur. Ceterum ironia vix - ininor est, si cum plerisque modernis formam esse medii dixeris, quia tota sententia continetur; ridiculum enim est, initium quidem perfectionis à Spiritu S., eius autem consummationem a carne exspectare et petere. ! Quam stultitiam ut clarius perspiciant, Galatae tribulationum recordari iubentur, quas in conversionis suae principio perpessi sunt, quarumque fructus nunc in discrimen vocant, quum perfectionem in Lege quaerunt. Quasi indignabundus enim Apostolus exclamat, vel iuxta Vulg. iaterpunctionem interrogat :
3:4
4. tanta pass estis sine causa (cxi temere ac frustra)! Quia vero adhuc meliora de eis sperat neque eos ad seductorum partes iam plane transisse supponit, duram increpationem mitigst addens : sí tamen sine causa (eye xoi cix), i. e. si tamen, id quod non crediderim, verum est, quod defectio vestra iam sit completa atque ita effecerit, ut omnia, quae propter fidem perpessi estis, frustra a vobis sint tolerata omnique fructu orbata. Quot quantasque persecutiones in meridionalibus provinciae Galatiae partibus Iudaei increduli contra Paulum ac Barnasbam Evangelium Galatis annuntiantes et contra neophytos ipsos excitaverint, Lucas refert (Act. 13,50; 15,2. 5 sq.18 sq.); atque nostra quoque epistola de difficultatibus haud levibus loquitur, quas Galatae superare debuerant, ut fidem reciperent (cfr ad &,13 sq.) et de persecutionibus, quae a Iudaeis excitatae eo tempore, quo epistola est scripta, perdurabant (cfr 4,29). Itaque quam verum esset Pauli proficiscentis monitum, « quoniam per multas tribulationes oportet intrare in regnum Dei » (Act. 15,21), Galatae in ipso conversionis suae principio experti erant, sed multa graviaque cum divino auxilio perpessi in via fidei bene currere coeperant (5,7); verum « haec omnia praesenti sua verlibilitate nunc vana esse monstrarunt » (Mopsu.), quum fide se ad perfectionem adduci non amplius confidere viderentur. Neque tamen rectam viam circumcisione recepta iam deseruerant, nequedum Legis iugo sese subiecerant (cfr ad v. 5; 5,1; 6,1. 9.); eos enim secum esse consensuros Apostolus sperat eosque etiam nunc stare insinuat (5,10. 1); quare mirum non est, quod eos adversitates cunctas temere ac frustra passos esse absolute asserere noluerit, sed spem simul exprimat fore, ut tanta non sint passi sine causa. sentiam) ullo modo teneri posse non arbitror, quia erroneo innititur supposito !. Rectissime enim Aug. iam monet « Galatas nondum cecidisse sed inclinatos esse ut caderent, quum adhuc in eis Spiritus operari dicatur » (v. 5), atque eos etiamtunc, uti iam diximus, stare Apostolus insinuat (5,1), eos secum consensuros sperans solis seductoribus iudicium minatur (3,10), eos exhortatur, ne bonum facere deficiant (6,9) etc. Porro interroganti, utrum TAeod. et Vict., an Aug. sententia sit praeferenda, priorem longe probabiliorem esse Apostolumque increpationem suam. mitigare neque omnem spem Galatis praecludere voluisse respondeo. Per se quidem apta est Aug. quoque sententia, quod maiore terrore: incusso neophytos in bona via efficacius retinere voluerit: difficile vero intelligitur, quomodo Pauli verba in hunc sensum trahi queant. Licet enim gratiae antea acceptae, si quis iis neglectis aut spretis a fide deficiat, maioris ei damnationis graviorisque poenae fiant causa, merita tamen antea acquisita haud recte possunt dici « ad perniciem valere » ei, qui postea peccaverit. Increpatione Galatarum (vv. 3,5) Paulus inchoatam argumentatio- - nem interruperat; ad eandem nunc revertitur, interrogationem v. 2. propositam nova forma repetens ; ibi enim interrogaverat , qua ratione sese ad accipiendum Spiritum disposuissent, utrum fide an Lege; nunc interrogat, quanam re quasi motus fuerit Deus, ut eis Spiritum suum largiretur :
3:5
5. qui ergo tribuit vobis Spiritum et operatur virtutes in vobis, ez operibus legis an ex auditu fidei? Particula o2v (ergo), uti saepe, interruptae orationi recipiendae inservit; quae autem latinus interpres sententia relativa exprimit, ea graecus fextus participiis praesent. expressit : à... éxvyogrpàv... xai eepyGv (tribuens et operans), ut clarius appareat, iuxta Apostoli sententiam etiam eo tempore, quo scribebat, Deum Galatis Spiritum suum tribuisse atque Spiritum praesentiam suam miraculis manifestasse. Unde rectissime Aug. : « utique adhuc in eis Spiritus operabatur », ac proin Galatae nondum ceciderant nequcdum gratiam aimiserant. Adnotat quidem Hier. : « observandum est , quod operari virtutes dicuntur in eis, qui non tenent evangelicam veritatem, sicut in illis, qui Dominum non sequentes in nomine eius signa faciebant »; verum nemo sibi, opinor, persuascrit, Deum signa, quae ad apostolicae praedicationis veritatem demonstrandam erant ordinata, etiam inter eos operari perseverasse, qui ad errorem iam defecerant signorumque continuationem pro novi sui erroris confirmatione habere potuerunt. Haud apta quoque Pauli fuisset interrogatio, siquidem eiusmodi signa, quae ex hypothesi inter Galatas in errorem delapsos facta essent, neque ex auditu fidei, quam abiecerant, neque ex operibus Legis, quae eis non insigniuntur, fuissent. Neque rectior est eorum explicatio, qui ut praecedentem sententiam de reviviscentia meritorum intelligere possint, Paulum nunc de praeterito tempore ac de donis, quae ante defectionem suam Galatae acceperint, loqui volunt (Est. etc.). Nam Apostolus, opinor, participium praes. a participio aoristi differre non ignoravit, atque aoristum adhibuisset, sisolum praeteritum tempus indicare donorumque cessationem innuere voluisset. In superiore utique sententia (v. 2. 70 mvebua £Ax6ee; Spiritum accepistis?) de eorum initio praeterito locutus erat, at generaliore hac sententia de tota eorum duratione usque ad témpus, quo scribit, . loquitur. Ceterum ex hac sententia id quoque elucet, nos in v. 29. nomen Spiritus de ipsa Spiritus persona recte esse interpretatos; nam dona gratis data, quae sola isto nomine significari alii dicunt, hic a persona Spiritus, qui magna cum liberalitate a Deo in iustificatos diffunditur (émtyopnyetv largiter et liberaliter dare 9 Petr. 1,5; 2 Cor. 9,10) diserte distinguuntur; ex eis autem unum solum (operatio virtutum 1 Cor. 12,10. 28 etc.) nominatur, quia frequentius, ut videtur, in Galatiae ecclesiis erat. ) Ad interrogationem propositam id unum Galatae respondere poterant, ex obsequio fidei se Spiritum accepisse et accipere ; quod respon- : sum Paulus confirmans addit, eos igitur Abrahae ex fide iustificato esse assimilatos eiusque filios factos :
3:6
6. sicut (scriptum est :) Aóraham credidit Deo et reputatum est illi ad iustitiam. Iuxta Vulg. Clem. lectionem ex verbis Scripturae (Gen. 15,6) argumentum desumitur; sed ex ezemplo Abrahae, quod Scripturae verbis affertur, rectius dicitur desumi. Nam verbum scriptum est (yéyoartox) testium criticorum auctoritate improbatur (cfr VV. LL.); ac revera eius additio, etsi sensum non mutat, nexum vr. 5. et 6. reddit impeditiorem argumentationemque minus concinnam., Scilicet iuxta genuinam lectionem Paulus responsum Galatarum quasi complet : vos igitur ex fidei obsequio Spiritum accepistis, sicut Abraham credidit Deo et reputatum est illi ad iustitiam. lisdem Geneseos verbis Romanis iustitiam ex fide esse demonstrat accurate et fuse ea explicans (Rom. 5,3 sqq. 16-22); quare isto in loco de eis erit agendum, atque hic pauca attigisse sufficiet, quae ad hanc argumentationem intelligendam requiruntur. Praeprimis ex eis apparet, Paulum nomine /idei eam virtutem theologicam intelligere, quam verbis Conc. Vatic. supra definivimus (2,16 p. 458) atque nomine zustitae veram internam sanctitatem designare. Quoniam enim Galatas, qui ex fide Spiritum acceperunt, Abrahamo credenti et iustitiam coram Deo assecuto assimilat , eandem fidem Abrahamo et Galatis evidenter attribuit atque iustitiam internam intelligit, quae praesentiam Spiritus S. in iustificato post se trahit. Nemo vero in Geneseos loco fiduciam, qua homo sibi peccata propter Christi merita non imputari confidit, designatam viderit; sed Deo numerosam ipsi posteritatem praedicenti « Abraham credidit, i. e. mentem suam per fidem ei subdidit » (Thom.). Quamvis enim quae promittebantur, impossibilia viderentur, propter auctoritatem Dei revelantis ac promittentis « non haesitavit diffidentia (74 &rwcí« incredulitate) , sed confortatus est fide dans gloriam Dei , plenissime sciens (7*£ooorfis; omnino persuasus), quod quae promisit potens est et facere » (Rom. 5,20 sqq.). Porro haec Abrahae fides non ipsa erat iustitia nec per se, quatenus erat actus hominis, iustitiam meruit aut effecit, sed repiata est in iustitiam, i. e. & Deo acceptata est tamquam apta dispositio, ut ei veram iustitiam conferret infundens gratiam sanctificantem et caritatem per Spiritum S. Iamvero Abraham, qui non ex operibus sed ex fide iustitiam adeptus est antequam circumcideretur, pater constitutus est omnium credentium, sive circumcisorum sive praeputiatorum, qui fidem, quam adhuc praeputiatus habuit, imitantur (cfr Hom. 5.11 sqq.). Quare primum suum argumentum Apostolus terminat alterumque praeparat concludens :
3:7
7. cognoscite ergo, quia qui ex fide sunt, ii sunt fili Abrahae. Vtrum graecum verbum 7w6cz«zc cum antiqua. versione (S. Cypr. Acer, Hier.) et nonnullis bonis Vulg. codd. (cfr Corss.) indicativo (cognoscitis) an cum plerisque. Vw/4g. codd. imperativo (cognoscite) reddimus, nihil interest; maior tamen vis fortassis imperativo inest. Circumcidi eos debere, ut tamquam Abrahae filii promissionum illius parlicipes fierent, pseudapostoli Galatis persuadere conabantur; sua fide cos iam filios Abrahae csse , demonstrat Paulus, siquidem benedictionum participes iam facli sint. Iuxta Domini verba |/oaa. 8,39) filius Abrahae ex eo dignoscitur, quod opera Abrahae faciat, atque ex hoc principio Apostolum argumentari clarum est. Bene Thom. : « ex hoc aliquis dicitur filius alicuius, quod imjtatur opera eius ; Abraham autem non quaesivit iustificari per circumcisionem, sed per fidem; ergo et illi qui quaerunt iustificari per fidem sunt filii Abrahae ». Itaque qu ez fide sunt (oi i zicz:05) , i. e. qui quasi filii sunt fidei, ex fide procreati (opp. ^i d Zzyovw vóus) v. 10, aut oi ix vóuos Rom. 1h, qui ex operibus Legis seu ex Lege quasi nali sunt, filii Legis), A, iique soli, sunt filii Abrahae haeredesque benedictionum eius. Magna cum vi Paulus pronomine o?xot subiectum (oi ix mícveoc) resumit, ut se alios omnes a dignitate filiorum Abrahae excludere significans (cfr Rom. 9,6; 8,15) obiectionem iudaizantium refutet. Haud minus efficaciter eandem refutat altero argumento, quo Galatas non tantum imitatione fidei Abrahae, sed etiam mystica sua cum Christo, filio Abrahae, unione filios patriarchae factos esse ostendit (cfr v. 977 sqq.). 8 2. Inutilitas Legis iuxta indolem promissionum Abrahae factarum (3,8-^,90). Primo argumento nixus Paulus ad alterum transit, quo benedictiones Abrahae promissas a Lege mosaica nullo modo dependere ex Scriptura ostendit. Eos enim solos, qui ex fide sunt, filios Abrahae esse supponens ad eosdem quoque solos benedictiones pertinere probat, quoniam Lex maledictionem afferat, quam ipsa auferre non possit sed Christus morte sua abstulerit (3,8-14). Ne quis vero putet, post Legis promulgationem promissiones Abrahae antea factas iam a Lege dependere, licet ipsa benedictiones non conferat, id admitti non posse demonstrat (3,15-18) difficultatisque solutionem fine et indole Legis accuratius explicatis confirmat (3,19-4,7). Totum vero argumentum exhortatione quadam terminat (5,8-20). 1. Qui ez fide sunt soli $us habent ad. benedictiones Abrahae promissas (3,8-14). accipiamus per fidem. pazos Ad£enaty 2: cs mios; !. Ab enthymemate exorditur, quo integrum argumentum quasi complectitur : luxta Scripturae verba in Abrahamo omnes gentes benedicentur, ergo qui ex fide sunt soli cum Abrahamo fideli benedicentur (8. 9). Conclusionem deinde ex contrario confirmat tantum abesse docens, ut Lex asseclis suis benedictionem conciliet, ut eos maledicto subiiciat neque eos ad iustitiam adducere possit (10-12); Christum vero Legis maledictionem in se suscepisse et abstulisse, ut omnes in ipso benedictionem consequerentur (13.11). Antecedens enthymematis est hoc :
3:8
8 providens autem Scriptura, quia er fide iustificat gentes Deus, praenuntiavit. (nposvayyeMcao) ' Aórahae, quia Benedicentur (lvsukerrefiísovvas) in te omnes gentes. Particula 8é (autem) hic est metabatica et ad novum argumentum nos traducit. Figura porro, qua Scriptura providisse (zpoàeiv providere i. q. praevidere Act. 2,13 etc.) et praenuntiasse dicitur, non est mera prosopopoeia, uti moderni multi censent (Disp. Dr. Ramó. — Mey Sieff. Lightf. PA. etc.), sed metonymia, ita ut ex hoc loco ad divinam Scripturae originem legitime concludamus; cum Og. enim Patres et antiquiores interpretes recte monent, Scriptur«on hic esse nomipatam pro eius auctore, Deo. Hic enim praevidit scientia utique practica, quae rerum effectioni praelucet, ac proin statuit (42iex; 2v Chrys. , Gowev TAeod. etc.) ex fide tustificare gentes. Qua in sententia ordo verborum consideretur oportet; cum emphasi enim illud ez /ide primo in loco ponitur, quia in illo sita est vis argumenti : /idem scilicet Deus, priusquam Legem mosaicam daret, praevidit ac voluit esse fundamentum ac radicem iustificationis gentium. Procul dubio eadem Iudaeis quoque radix erat omnis verae iustitiae, nec quisquam in vetere oeconomia, nisi fide, iustificatus est coram Deo (v. 11. 14); at de ethnicis quaestio agitabatur cum iudaizantibus; quare de eorum iustificatione speciatim Paulus loquitur. Hoc igitur praevidens ac praedefiniens Deus Abrahae futuram gentium benedictionem praenuntiavit ad Legem, quam filiis Israel daturus erat, non attendens. Pulcherrima est vox wporueyyeAO,ecUat (antea evangelizare), qua utitur, siquidem illam praedictionem Evangelium anticipatum fuisse significat. Verum quidem est, quod CArys. adnotat: « non dixit revelavit, sed evangelizavit (laeta annuntiavit), ut etiam patriarcham intelligas de hoc iustificationis modo gavisum esse ac vehementer, ut hoc contingeret, desiderasse »; at proxime tamen verbo illo Paulus, quantopere gentes de hoc vaticinio laetari debeant, significat. Brevissima enim praedictione : Benedicentur in (e om-- nes gentes, non tantum omnes gratiae, quas Christus promeruit et Evangelio suo nobis promulgavit, comprehenduntur, sed earum etiam universalitas asseritur; neque enim unus populus tantum, sed omnes gentes in Abrahamo benedicentur. Sunt quidem, qui verbo óenedicentur solam iustitiam ex fide praedici censeant; at quamquam iustitia est una ex benedictionibus, quin etiam earum praecipua, utpote omnium aliarum quasi fundamentum, tamen ad illam non licet coarctare vocis significationem.Ipse enim Paulus, uti in priore argumento ex Spiritu Galatis dato concludit eos filios Abrahae esse, ita in hoc quoque Spiritum, qui nobis datur, inter benedictiones illas certe includit (cfr ad v. 15). Latissimo igitur sensu benedictionem, quam gentes in Abraham consequentur, de tota et integra salute messianica interpretemur oportet, cuius partem tantum pseudapostoli ethnicis conversis, nisi Legem observarent ac circumciderentur, concedere volebant. Vaticinium &enedicentur fn te omnes gentes ex Gen. 19,3 (« bencdicentur in te omnes cogDationes terrae ») Paulus ita desumsit, ut subiectum (omaes cognationes, seu tribus, terrae, noTNa nin»co 52, zÀcxi zi o).at 75; YZ;) suo argumento accommodaret. Ne quis enim de Abrahae posteris proxime aut praecipue agi contenderet (id quod ex vocabulo n'nzv-2, quo familiae (Exod. 6,14 sqq. etc.] aut tribus Ios. 7,11] filiorum Israel designari solent, aliqua cum probabilitate forte coniici potuit), ex loco parallelo, in quo fdez vaticinium indirecto sermone repetitur (Gen. 18,18 : « quum benedicendae sint in illo omaes nationes [vel potius : gentes] terrae »; xxvza và £üva v4 Yi vor 52) alterum subiectum legitime substituit, quo filii Israel excludi potius quam includi videbantur; gentes enim (4X £üva ), uti hebr. plur. 2*2, ethnici populi sunt, qui Legem mosaicam non sequuntur : hi igitur, quamvis Legem nec habeant nec observent, in Abrahamo benedictum iri, i. e. totam salutem messianicam obtenturi esse praedicuntur. Haud recte Hier. verba Gen. 22,18 (« benedicentur zn semine tuo omnes gentes terrae ») libere allegari asserit , neque rectius aliqui ad ea saltem alludi volunt, quum Apostolum significare dicant, ratione seminis ex Abrabamo nascituri, i. e. Christi, omnes gentes benedictum iri (Oec!. Cat. Salm. Est. etc. , Wind. M Ev. etc.). Doctrina enim procul dubio verissima est, sed hic nec docetur nec insinuatur; si enim eam hie docere aut insinuare voluisset, Paulus verba zn semzne tuo non mutasset. Neque iis assentimur, qui verbis 7n te nudam benedicendorum cum Abraham similitudinem designatam vident (S. Cyr. de ador. in Spir. II. M. 68,717 : « vocabuli in te ea vis est, ut ad similitudinem tuam significare videatur », Theoph. : « iuxta fidei tuae imitationem »; Aug. : « imitatione fidei tuae » cfr Att", Herv. Lomó. etc.). Verissimum iterum est, fidei conformitatem tanquam benedictionis causam supponi; sed verbis in te haec similitudo non designatur. Nulla quippe profecto est ratio, cur & proprio eorum sensu (Zn te, i. e. in tua persona), qui aptissimus est, recedamus; neque ab eo recedere licet, nisi Pauli argumentum perturbare eiusque verba negligere velimus. Ad verba enim quod attinet, attende in Graeco haberi : évevXoyrÉicovvat iv cot, quae eadem lectio in alexandrina versione habetur (Gen. 12,3; 18, 18.); repetita igitur praeposione £ Abraham velut persona designatur, in qua benedictionis ratio sita sit; ratio autem haec est paternitas, nam si pater benedicitur, in eo et cum eo simul etiam filii eius benedicuntur : in Abrahamo igitur, patre credentium, benedicentur credentes. Hanc interpretationem Mopsu. innuit, si Abrahamum a gentibus « suae salutis principatorem » existimari dicit, et CArys. clarius exponit : « si non ii, inquiens, qui cum Abraham naturalem cognationem habent, sed ii qui cum eo sanguinis propinquitatem non habentes fidem tamen eius imitantur, filii eius sunt, perspicuum est, gentes quac crediderunt £n. eum inseri [sc. tamquam filios]; id enim significat, quum ait : in te benedicentur omnes gentes ». Hinc etiam elucet, quomodo Paulus concludere potuerit :
3:9
9. ?gitur qui ez fide sunt benedicentur cum fideli Abraham. Quibusnam ex praemissis hanc conclusionem deducat , inter interpretes non constat quidem, at ex sola promissione eum argumentari vix non certum est, ita ut enthymema suppleta Minore in syllogismum legitimum hac ratione converti queat : [n Abrahamo omnes gentes benedicentur; atqui . quitatis aut originis neque ratione Legis et circumcisionis in Abra-- hamo insunt, sed ratione fidei, qua credenti Abrahamo assimilantur et tamquam filii inseruntur; ergo qui ex fide sunt et tamquam credentes Abrahamo inserti sunt, benedicentur cum fideli Abraham. Chrys. verbis supra allegatis hanc explicationem insinuat, Mopsu. autem eam uberius explanat : « Divina igitur Scriptura in omnes gentes benedictionem venire promittit. Hoc autem quomodo fieri poterit super illos, qui extra Legem sunt et ad cognationem Abrahae non pertinere videntur? Sed non sola naturalis propinquitas est, quae hoc illis praestare possit, aut illa ratio, qua sub Lege minime babeantur. Evidens est enim, quoniam non aliter participari eius benedictioni possibile est eos, qui extra Legem sunt et secundum progeniem nihil pertinent ad Abraham, nisi similitudine eius credunt universitatis Deo et sic per fidem cum eo & Deo potientur benedictionem. Unde et probationis considerans firmitatem vehementius institit : itaque qui ex fide sunt, benedicentur cum fideli Abraham ». — Thom. ab Hier., qui pro in te supplere voluit in semine tuo, in errorem inductus censet « sic posso formarí argumentum : Deus nuntiavit Abrahae, quod in semine eius benedicerentur omnes gentes; atqui illi qui quaerunt iustificarl per fidem sunt filii Abrahae [i. e. semen Abrahae]; ergo qui ex fide sunt, i. e. qui quaerunt iustificari per fidem, benedicentur cum fideli, i. c. credente, Abraham ». Est. vero Apostolum ita ratiocinari vult : « Abraliae facta est promissio, quod in ipso benedicerentur omnes gentes; at Abraham ipse per fidem, qua promissioni credidit, Deo placuit et benedictionem promeruit; ergo quicumque ex fide iustitiam et benedictionem exspeclant, eam cum Abraham, qui Deo credidit, consequentur, non autem illi qui sunt ex operibus Legis ». Num hi syllogismi genuinum sensum attipgant, lector ipse videat; alii usque ad v. 6. recurrunt, ut praemissas inveniant (Lap. Pic. etc. — de W. etc.), alii saltem e. 7. cum 8. coniungunt (Bisp. etc. — Mey Sieff. eto.). Argumentum fPauli est exclusorium; so/£ ii qui ex fide sunt cum fideli Abraham benedicentur; nec sanguis abrahamiticus nec Lex mosaica ad benedictiones consequendas requiritur. Prius iudaizantes concedebant; circumcisione autem et Lege gentes Abrahamo inserendas esse, ut benedictionum eius participes fierent, contendebant. Quare argumenti sui conclusionem confirmans Apostolus Legem benedictiones non conciliare demonstrat ex eo, quod Lex asseclas suos maledictioni subiiciat, benedictionibus igitur eos privet :
3:10
10. quicumque enim ez operibus legis sunt, sub maledicto sunt; scriptum est enim : Maledictus omnis , qui non permanserit in omnibus, quae scripta sunt in. libro legis, ut faciat ea. llis igitur qui ex fide sunt (v. 7. 9) ii qui ex operibus Legis sunt opponuntur; ez operibus Legis autem non omnes sunt, qui sub Lege nati eam observare pro viribus student, sed ii soli, qui in eis confidentes et ex eis iustificari quaerentes iustitiae Dei non sunt subiecti sed propriam quandam iustitiam sibi acquirere volunt (Rom. 10,3). Hi omnes sub maledicto esse dicuntur non eo sensu, quod sub Lege degant quae transgressoribus maledictionem minatur, sed (uti ex demonstratione addita elucet) eo sensu, quod maledictionis sententia contra eos iam sit lata; ut enim argumentatio Pauli sit legitima, idem esse debet sub maledicto esse (Ux xavápzv ewax) et maledictum esse. (Exvxaváoxov slvat). Assertím suum probat iuxta versionem alexandrinam, quae hoc in loco a primigenio textu sensu non differt!, ultimam ex maledictionibus allegans, quas olim filii Israel in terram promissam ingressi ipsi contra Legis violatores pronuntiare iussi erant (Deut. 27,96). Ad cuius tenorem omnis, qui maledictionem effugere vult, Legem integram, nullo eius praecepto excepto, implere atque omnia singulaque eius mandata continuo et semper opere exsequi tenetur (qui non permanet in omnibus... ut faciat ea, óc oox dy. i évet ctv... ToU mol Gat «órX). lam vero id a nullo per ipsam Legem praestari potuisse summo cum iure supponit, non tam quia difficillima erat observatu (cfr Act. 15,10) quam quia per se cognitionem quidem peccati suis asseclis praebebat, sed vires, quibus impleri posset, eis non addebat ideoque iram operabatur (Rom. 3,20; &,15 etc.). Quare consequens est, ut omnes qui ex operibus Legis sunt, i. e. in eis solis fiduciam suam ponunt, maledicti sint. Ne vero iudaizantes obiiciant, Legem, quae hanc maledictionem contra suos violatores pronuntiet, eandem quoque auferre, quum asseclas suos coram Deo iustos constituat, Paulus eis hoc effugium eripit iterum Scripturae testimoniis nixus :
3:11
11. quoniam autem in lege nemo tiustificatur apud Deum, manifestum est, quia : Iustus ex fide vivit;
3:12
19. lez autem non est ez fide, sed : Qui fecerit ea, vivet in illis. « Ostendit, inquit TAhom., insufficientiam Legis non valentis ab illo maledicto liberare ex hoc, quod iustificare non poterat, Ad quod ostendendum utitur quodam syllogismo in secunda figura, et est talis : Iustitia est ex fide, sed Lex ex fide non est, ergo Lex iustificare non potest. Circa hoc ergo primo ponit conclusionem quum dicit : Quoniam in Lege nemo iustificatur, manifestum est; secundo Maiorem, quum dicit : Iustus ex fide vivit; tertio Minorem, quum dicit : Lex autem non est ex fide ». Prior igitur particula quoniam (9*:) declarativa est atque a manifestum est dependet (i. q. manifestum est neminem in Lege iustificari apud Deum), altera quia (&*x) est causalis rationemque reddit, cur neminem in Lege iustificari manifestum sit. Totam vero Pauli argumentationem aliqui moderni .acath, (Fi. etc.) perturbant, qui priorem particulam pro causali, alteram pro declarativa habent (« quia in Lege nemo iustificatur, ideo manifestum est, quod iustus ex fide vivit »); quare cum antiquis et modernis cath. omnibus etiam longe plerique acath. recte tenent Paulum eo tendere, ut in Lege neminem coram Deo iustificari demonstret. Ad cuius theseos intelligentiam recte adnotat Aug. , expressione in Lege hic idem significari, quod alibi Apostolus expressionibus per Legem aut ez Lege aut ex operibus Legis significat; id quod satis clare intimus iam huius sententiae cum praecedente nexus totusque contextus docet. lllud ergo sibi hie probandum proponit, quod Antiochiae velut certam scientiam eorum, qui ex iudaismo ad Christum se convertunt , exposuit et Psalmistae verbis confirmavit « ex operibus Legis hominem non iustificari » (cfr ad 2,16); accuratius vero hic indicat, de quanam iüstitia loquatur, additis verbis coram Deo. Externa quidem iustitia quaedam, quae coram hominibus valeat, ex operibus illis forsitan habeatur, at non vera iustitia interna, qua homo Deo placet. Maiorem porro argumenti Paulus ex Haó. 2,4 desumit : Justus ez fide vivit (vel rectius : vévet cera) ' , divina testimonii origine non indicata. Saepius (cfr Rom. 1,17; Hebr. 10,38) illud eodem modo allegat, quamvis verba nec massorethico nec alexandrino textui accurate consonent. Priorem Hier. fideliter expressit : « iustus in fide sua vivet », cum eoque reliqui graeci interpretes consentiunt, in eo solo discedentes, quod sensu non mutato hebr. praepositionem 2 aliis praepositionibus graecis reddant (ix Tigtéex aToU, cT mí(cvt: a0roU er fide sua, fide sua, vel per fidem suam). "Alexandrinus vero pro iniowNi legens "Mos vertit àx xícctóc qov(vel soU N 486 iNUTILITAS LEGIS IUXTA INDOLEM PROMISSIONUM FACTARUM (3,8-4,20). Contra aliquos iuniores cath. (Cai. Bisp. Reithm.) et multos acath. (Beng. Win. Rück. Hilgenf. Mey Sieff. etc.) omnino tenendum est. Sequitur Minor, cui probatio scripturistica additur : Jez autem non est ez fide, sed : Qui fecerit ea , vivet in illis. Quae in verba TAeod. : « Lex non quaerit fidem, sed actionem exigit, et iis qui eam servant vitam promittit », atque Thom. : « praecepta Legis non sunt de credendis sed de agendis, licet aliquid credendum annuntiet; et ideo virtus eius non est ex fide, sed ex operibus; et hoc probat, quia Deus, quando voluit eam confirmare, non dixit : qui crediderit, sed : qui fecerit ea; nova autem Lex est ex fide, nam : qui crediderit et baptizatus fuerit, hic salvus erit » (Marc. 16,16). Nomine Legis Apostolus hic non intelligit divinam revelationem per Moysen traditam, sed complexum mandatorum per eum filiis Israel impositorum, quae per se sola nec hominem iustificant nec ei vires, quibus impleri possint, conferunt sed cognitionem dumtaxat peccati ei praebent. Quamvis igitur Lex, quum Dei dilectionem praecipiat (Deut. 6,5), simul etiam praecipiat fidem, tamen nec credendi nec diligendi facultatem dat. Procul quidem dubio etiam veteris oeconomiae sancti credebant et diligebant, sicut Lex eis praecipiebat, verum non Legis praecipientis virtute sed virtute Messiae in ea promissi, quem credentes exspectabant et ad cuius adventum Lege praeparabantur. At postquam Messias iam advenit, Iudaeis, qui eum agnoscere noluerant, nihil remansit nisi nuda Lex praecipiens; atque iudaizantes quoque, qui fide ac virtute Christi non erant contenti, nihil praeterea habebant nisi nudam Legem. Contra eos igitur Apostolus urget, Legem per se consideratam, qualis iam tunc ab omnibus considerari debuit, opera tantum praecipere nec quidquam ultra praestare nec quidquam cum fide habere commune ; non est ez fide. Lex ipsa igitur maledictionem, quam asseclis suis conciliavit, auferre nequit; eam autem Christus abstulit morte sua in cruce : .43. Christus nos redemit de maledicto legis, factus pro nobis maledicium, quia scriptum est : Maledictus omnis qui pendet in ligno. Nulla quidem particula, quis huius sententiae cum praecedentibus sit nexus, indicatur, sed clarum est, eam duobus vv. 11. 12. opponi. Postquam enim v. 10. Legem maledictionem conciliasse docuit, Apostolus duobus sequentibus ev. eam ad maledictionem auferendam fuisse impotentem demonstravit, ita ut Iudaeis, qui sub ea erant, omnem salutis ' spem negare videretur. At tantum abest, ut eis spem auferat, ut eis verum omnis spei ac fiduciae fontem aperire velit; hinc non sine vi quadam rhetorica novam sententiam asyndete prioribus opponit. Ex quo nexu iam elucet, pronomine nos omnes homines, uti aliqui volunt (Est. etc.), non designari, sed eos, qui Legis maledicto subiacebant, i.e. ludaeos. Hi sc. primum a maledicto erant liberandi, ut deinde ad gentes quoque salus perveniret (cfr ad &,&. 5); ea enim salutis erat oeconomia, ut.gentiles benedictionum participes non fierent ante Iudaeos, quibus primum ad illas ius competebat (cfr Rom. 1,16; 9,1 sqq.; 11,1 sqq.; 15,8. 9 etc.; Act. 3,26 etc.). Iudaeos igitur, qui velut servi sub Lege degentes, quum omnia eius mandata implere non possent, maledictionem , quam contra transgressores pronuntiaverat, sibi attraxerant , Christus pretio soluto redemit de maledicto Legis. Etenim omnis omnino peccati expers nec proinde maledictioni subiacens ipse sponte pro iis maledictioni sese submisit (factus pro nobis maledictum) , atque tamquam maledictus poenam maledictionis subiens vicaria sua morte maledictionem ipsam abstulit. Eadem ratione Christus dicitur factus maledictum , qua etiam factus peccatum est (cfr ad 2 Cor. 5,91); sicut enim omnia totius mundi peccata innocentissimus in se suscipiens non tam peccator quam peccatum ipsum videri voluit, ita quoque omnium maledictionem in se suscipiens non tam maledictus (1nwxvápzvo;) quam maledictio (xax&ox) videri voluit, i. e. vir maledictissimus, in quo praeter maledictionem nihil inveniretur; et sicut peccatum pro nobis factus est, ut nos efficeremur iustitia Dei in ipso, ita pro iis qui sub Lege erant factus est maledictum , ut illi maledicti esse desinerent et benedictionum Abrahae iterum .participes fierent. fecit atque omnium quoque maledictionem abstulit (nam ii quoque, qui Legem mosaicam non habebant, transgressione legis naturalis maledictioni divinae obnoxii erant); at quod ex omnibus suppliciorum generibus crucem et suspensionem in ligno elegerit, id eum in finem fecisse recte dicitur, ut maledictionem , quam Lex mosaica contra suos transgressores pronuntiaverat, deleret. « Nam si ideo venit, ut maledictionem contra nos pronuntiatam portaret, quomodo factus esset maledictio, nisi maledictionis mortem sustinuisset? Ea autem crux est, siquidem scriptum est : ma- ' ledictus qui pendet in ligno ». (S. Athan. Orat. de incarn. 25.) Post parenthesin , qua Christum maledictionem factum esse probavit, Paulus finem indicat, quem Dominus in hac morte subeunda habuerit : redemit nos (ludaeos) de maledicto Legis,
3:14
1&. w£ in gentibus benedictio Abrahae fieret in. Christo Iesu, ut pollicitationem Spiritus accipiamus per fidem. Duae sententiae inter se sunt parallelae et eadem ratione a verbo redemit (iEayópacey) dependent. Antequam benedictiones Abrahae ad gentes venire poterant, Iudaeis aditus ad eas aperiendus erat ablata maledictione Legis (cfr 5,5). Morte sua ergo Christus hanc abstulit atque parietem, quo Iudaei a gentibus separabantur, destruens utraque fecit unum Legem mandatorum evacuans (cfr Eph. 9,1& sqq.). ltaque nune iam gentes quoque benedictiones Abrahae promissas obtinere possunt, in Christo Iesu, in quo cum ludaeis uniti sunt (cfr v. 27. 98), atque gentes et ludaei nunc eadem ratione, sc. per fidem, pollicitationem Spiritus, i. e. Spiritum promissum , accipiunt. 'Exayy(Mo (promissio) proxime quidem actum promittendi , s. promissionem, sed metonymice etiam donum promissum significat (cfr v. 99; EpA. 3,6; Hebr. 6,12. 15 etc.); genetivus ToU xvtóparog porro est epexegeticus (beneficium promissum, qui est Spiritus) vel appositivus (beneficium promissum, i. e. Spiritum cfr ad 2 Cor. 1,22). Omnes vero benedictiones Abrahamo eiusque filiis promissas Paulus nomine Spiritus comprehendit, qui gratiam caritatemque in cordibus nostris diffundens nos filios Dei . adoptivos constituit cuiusque praesentia nobis arrha est aeternae haereditatis (EpA. 1,15) ; quare alibi quoque veterem oeconomiam, quae litera sua scripta praecipit tantum sed vires ad faciendum non Quod in primo argumento (1-7) ex Galatarum experientia constare ostendit , eos participes esse factos Spiritus , i. e. omnium benedictionum Abrahamo eiusque filiis promissarum, non ex Lege sed ex fide, id aliter fieri non potuisse altero argumento (8-15) demonstravit. Lex enim, quia asseclas suos maledictioni subiecit, eos ad benedictiones adducere non potuit, sed vi sua privari debuit morte Christi, qua maledictio auferebatur, ut deinde Iudaei ipsi et gentes benedictiones consequerentur. At obiici potuit, Legis promulgatione rem esse mutatam, atque nunc secundum Dei voluntatem promissiones a Lege dependere. Quam obiectionem Paulus refutat ex iis, quae in vita quotidiana fieri solent, argumentans. Etenim inter homines alicuius testamentum vatihabitum ab altero irritari non potest (v. 15); atqui promissiones & Deo Abrahamo eiusque semini datae etiam testamentum constituunt idque perpetuo duraturum (v. 16); ergo Lex multo postea promulgata illud irritare non potuit (v. 17); illud autem irritaret, si haereditas non & fide sed a Legis observatione dependeret (v. 18). Placidiore animo novam expositionem exorditur eosdem, quos antea insensatos Galatas appellaverat (v. 1), nunc velut fratres alloquens :
3:15
15. Fratres, secundum hominem dico; tamen hominis confirmatum testamentum nemo spernit aut superordinat. Cur verba secundum hominem dico parenthesi includantur, nulla est ratio; Apostolus ea praemittit, ut novae suae argumentationis indolem indicet : ex Scripturis praecedens argumentum desumserat, hoc autem rationi humanae innititur et ex humano quasi iure desumitur. Recte CArys. : « quid est secundum hominem loquor? Humanis utor exemplis. Postquam enim ex Scripturis et ex miraculis et ex iis quae Christus passus est et ex patriarchae rebus thesin suam confirmavit, ad communem digreditur consuetudinem » ! (cfr ad 1 Cor. 9,8; 3,3 etc.). Ad reliquae sententiae constructionem quod attinet, animadvertatur oportet, per hyperbaton particulam 9peg (tamen), quae ad. o)3«í; (nemo) pertinet, ad primam vocem esse translatam (cfr ad 1 Cor. 14,7); a minore enim ad maius concludere Apostolus vult, atque sensus sententiae est : « confirmatum testamentum, quamvis sit hominis tantum, nemo (amen spernit; multo minus igitur confirmatum testamentum Dei spernere licet ». Porro verbum xvpoóv, quod Vulg. reddit confirmare, proprie significat « publica cum auctoritate decernere » (cfr ad 2 Cor. 2,8) seu publice sancire, ita ut Oiafhíxn xsxopogéva sit documentum, quod, quia publice et legitime est sancitum et statutum , nec integrum pro irrito habere seu irritum. reddere (aüertiv Vulg. : spernere cfr ad 2,21), nec ex parte novis additis conditionibus adulterare ac mutare (iiJixvzocec0a: insuper disponere, i. e. constitutis aliquid addere, quo ipsa dispositio mutatur, Vulg. : superordinare) cuiquam licet. Nemo igitur eiusmodi testamentum irritum reddere aut mutare dicitur, quia nemo id iure ac legitime facit. mutabilitas Dei valet ad confirmandam haereditatem Abrahae »; nam Paulus hic non considerat, num testator suum ipsius testamentum mutare possit, sed num alteri legitimum alicuius testamentum mutare liceat. Rectius igitur dicemus : « quod forma a iure praescripta valet ad confirmandum testamentum humanum, id incommutabilitas Dei valet ad testamentum divinum confirmandum »; hoc quoque ab altero irritum reddi aut mutari nequit; alterum autem, a quo irritari non possit, Paulus, uti ex v. 17. elucet, intelligit Legem (xàv vóxov), quam velut personam considerat. Ex v. 15. consequitur, ut multo minus, quam humanum, divinum lestamentum confirmatum mutare liceat; quod consequens Paulo Maior est syllogismi, cui statim per particulam 9é, quam Latini parum apte praetermittunt (cfr VV. LL.), Minorem adiungit :
3:16
16. Abrahae (autem) dictae sunt promissiones et semini eius. Pluralis ei ina y ye)ia. (promissiones) aut ideo est adhibitus, quia divina promissio multa diversa bona complectitur, aut potius quia saepius est repetita (cfr S. Clem. Rom. 1 Cor. 10). Vis vero argumenti in eo est, quod promissiones non soli Abrahae, sed etiam semini eius sint factae, ac proin non solus Abraham, sed etiam semen eius ius habeat ad haereditatem atque in divino testamento inter haeredes sit scriptum; Abrahae igitur morte promissio non cessavit, verum ad eius semen transiit. Unde elucet; Paulum de illa promissione, quae Gen. 99,18 legitur (« benedicentur in semine tuo omnes gentes ») non cogitasse, quamvis antiquiores et iuniores multi haec verba hic allegata esse censeant (CArys. Theod. etc., Tert. de carne Chr. 923. A'tr etc., Haym. Herv. etc., Est. Pic. etc.); neque enim ibi semini ipsi quidquam promittitur. Ex glossa quoque, quam Paulus argumentationi suae parenthetice inserit, clare apparet, eum promissionem prae oculis habuisse, in qua nomini «à erépuarm (seminis) particula x«t (et) erat praemissa. Nam ut explicet, quodnam intelligendum sit semen, addit : non dicit : er seminibus , quast in multis (ivi «oXov i. e. de multis loquens), sed quasi zn uno (iQ ivó; de uno loquens) : Er semini tuo, qui est Christus. Utrum velut subicctum verbi dicit (Aéye)) suppleas Seriptura (cfr Hom. 5,3 eic.) an rectius iuxta contextum (dictae sunt sc. a Deo promissiones) Deus (cfr Heór. 8,8), parum interest; certum semper erit, in verbis allegatis particulam xai (e£) adfuisse. Quare dubium non est, quin Paulus ad Gen. 13,15 (« omnem terram, quam conspicis, 45i dabo kr semini tuo usque in sempiternum ») vel Gen. 17,8 (« dabo tibi xr seminz tuo terram peregrinationis tuae, omnem terram Chanaan in possessionem aeternam ») respexerit, uti iam S. [ren. (c. haer. V. 32,2) et Orig. (in Rom. lib. IV. 6) viderunt et moderni tantum non omnes recte tenent. Neque ulla ex eo exoritur difficultas, quod illis in locis de sola terra Chanaan sit sermo; nam terram promissam, lacte et melle fluentem, quae filiis Israel haereditas promissa ac data est, typum ac figuram esse spiritualium benedictionum aeternaeque haereditatis spiritualibus Abrahae filiis promissarum, nemo ignorat (cfr Heór. &,1 sqq. etc.). Maiorem difficultatem glossa exegetica Apostoli ipsa creat, quoniam ex grammatica forma adhibita (7?: exégy.x , semen) concludere videtur, nomine semznis in promissione unam solam personam, Christum, designari. Attamen /Iier. iam adnotat : « omnes Scripturas sensu ac memoria peragrans numquam plurali numero semzna scripta reperi, sed sive in bonam partem sive in malam, semper in singulari numero ». Revera Y (semen), si metaphorice, uti hic, sobolem vel progeniem significat, semper singulari numero usurpatur!, sive de una persona (Gen. 5,95; 1 Heg. 1,11 etc.) sive, uti plerumque, de multis agitur; quin etiam illis in locis, ad quos Apostolum respexisse diximus, sensu literali de omnibus filiis Israel nomen »?:, quamvis sit singulare, esse intelligendum, patet. Quapropter inter modernos acath. non desunt, qui hanc Pauli argumentationem pro commento mere rabbinico habeant, cui vis probationis nulla prorsus insit; benignissime tamen Apostolum fraudis absolvunt totamque culpam rabbinicae eius educationi attribuunt, et concedunt quoque thesin eius (promissionem sc. Dei suum valorem retinere, donec in Christo impleatur) veram esse (cfr Mey. W'tes. Sie/f. etc.). Contra quos ante omnia tenendum est, Paulum « eodem Spiritu testamentum aperuisse, quo conditum est » (TAom.), neque argumentationi eius, utpote inspiratae , . vim probandi negare licere. Deinde animadverte, eum ex grammatica illius vocabuli hebraici aut graeci forma nequaquam argumentari; neque erat, cur a S. lier. aut a nobis edoceretur, pluralem &'27 aut ezí£zyaz« sensu metapliorico in Scripturis non usurpari atque singularem 2^5 aut o7z72 eliam de progenie numerosissima intelligi posse ; optime enim haec scivit, atque ipse immediate postea 1. Proprio tainen sensu pluralis 2*2^5 (i. q. grana, vel segetes) Hebraeis non plane erat inusitaLus (1 Jteg. 8.15. Eiusdem. vocabuli chaldaici pluralem (1*2) paraphrastes aliquo(v. 29) alibique haud infrequenter (cfr Rom. 5,13 sqq.; 9,7 sq. etc.) eo modo singularem adhibet. Ex eo igitur argumentatur, quod in promissionibus nomen collectivum sit adhibitum , quo Abrahae posteri omnes in unum quasi corpus coniunguntur, evitatum vero sit nomen plurale, quo posteri potius singuli ac velut inter se separati designantur. Nisi technicis grammaticae terminis uti voluit, sententiam suam 'clarius ac brevius, quam hac distinctione intersingularem evépua et pluralem cxéou.at«, exprimere non potuit. Argumentatio eius enim haec est : Abrahae dictae sunt promissiones et posteris eius, neque tamen his, quatenus multi sunt singulique inter se disiuncti nullo vinculo colligantur, sed quatenus omnes coniuncti unum corpus constituunt; nam 'Si eis, quatenus multi et disiuncti sunt, promissiones essent datae, Deus non nomen semznis elegisset, quo unitas quaedam connotatur, sed aliud nomen («éxvx, &móyovo: filii, posteri etc.), quo pluralitas clare effertur. Divinitus igitur provisum esse Apostolus censet, ut in promissione nomine collectivo singulari adhibito unitas enuntiaretur; namque hac ratione cautum est, ut filii Israel sibi eatenus tantum, quatenus unum semen Abrahae sunt, ius ad haereditatem patris sui Abrahae attribuant; similiter etiam sensu typico spiritualis haereditas posteris Abrahae spiritualibus non est promissa, quatenus multi sunt variisque rationibus inter se distincti, sed quatenus omnes simul sunt unum semen Abrahae!. Qua autem in re haec spiritualis seminis unitas sit fundata , Paulus docet addens : qui, i. e. quod spirituale Abrahae semen, est Christus Sc. mysticus, seu Ecclesia, quae quum Christi sit corpus, quod eius Spiritu informatur et vivit, aptissime Christus appellatur (cfr ad 1 Cor. 19,12). Simili nimirum ratione, qua in ep. ad Cor., Paulus hoc in loco nomine ecclesiae (ixxXncíe concio convocata), quo proxime multitudo significatur, uti noluit, sed illud nomen elegit, quo directe et immediate notio unitatis menti obiicitur. Cum plerisque quidem Patribus (CArys. Theod. etc., Tert. A*", Hier. etc.) plerique quoque interpretes (Lomb. Thom. etc., Cai. Est. Pic. etc., M Ev. Reithm. etc. — Mey. Sieff. eic.) singularem redemtoris personam nomine Christi designatam vident; sed Patres illi et antiquiores interpretes ad hanc sententiam adducti sunt, quia Paulum ad Gen. 22,18 (« benedicentur in semine tuo omnes gentes terrae ») respicere erronee arbitrabantur; si is enim revera allegaretur locus, nihil omnino obstaret, quominus nomine Christi redemtorem ipsum intelligeremus. At probe consideretur oportet, Apostolum hic non loqui de semine, zn quo vel per quod benedictiones gentibus adveniunt, sed de semine, cw eodem modo, quo Abrahae, dictae sunt promissiones , i. e. cui benedictiones messianicae sunt promissae; atqui Messiae ipsi messianicas benedictiones eodem modo, quo Abrahae, esse promissas, haud recte dicitur; ipse enim eas meruit et attulit, sed sibi eas non eo modo, quo Abraham, accepit. Promissum autem est, eas per Messiam et in Messia datum iri uti Abrahae, ita omnibus qui ad regnum messianicum pertinent, i. e. omnibus, qui in Christum baptizati Christum induerunt atque Christi membra facti eius corpus vivum constituunt (cfr vv. 91 sqq.), i. e. Christo mystico seu Ecclesiae. lta verba nostra iam intellexerunt S. Iren. (c. haer. V. 32,2 : « semen Abrahae est Ecclesia per Christum adoptionem, quae cst ad Deum, accipiens ») ac praecipue Aug. : « semen Abrahae, cui dictae sunt promissiones, C/ristum dicit Apostolus, i. e. omnes Christianos fide imitantes Abraham; quos ad singularitatem redigit commendando, quod non dictum est : Et seminibus , sed Semini tuo; quia ct una est fides et non possunt similiter iustificari, qui vivunt ex operibus carnaliter cum his qui vivunt ex fide spiritualiter ». Similiter ex Graecis Mopsu. verba interpretatur, ex iunioribus autem nonnulli (/lerv. 1ust. etc.) candem interpretationem innuunt, quam ex modernis haud pauci tenent ( Wind. Bisp. L R. Palm. Schaef. eic. — Olsh. Thol. Lightf. Ph. etc.). Neque contra hanc explicationem recte obiicitur, semen cui promissiones datae sunt propter contextum (cfr v. 19) intelligendum esse Christum ipsum; quominus enim illo in loco eadem ratione, qua hic, explicetur, nihil obstat, uti suo loco dicemus. Glossa exegetica , quam Minori addidit, Paulus syllogismum inchoatum interrupit; quare syllogisticam formam praetermittens ad conclusionem ita transit, ut praemissas eidem quodammodo iterum inserat :
3:17
17. Hoc autem dico : Testamentum confirmatum (mgoxexugtopévnv antea confirmatum vel sancitum) a Deo, quae post quadringen: tos et triginta annos facta est, lez non irritum facit ad evacuandas promissiones. Quoniam hominis testamentum legitima forma vestitum nemini irritum reddere licet, multo minus Dei testamentum ab ipso confirmatum a quoquam irritum fieri potest. Testamentum divinum porro antea confirmatum dicitur relate ad Legem, quae tanto tempore postea lata est; confirmatum autem est iuramento divino, quo interposito Deus promissionis suae immobilitatem abundantius ostendere voluit (Hebr. 6,17; cfr Gen. 22,16; Deut. 1,8. etc.), atque iuxta graecum fertum rec. confirmatum est zn Christum (ti X2wóv), ut usque ad illum, utpote semen, cui non minus, quam ipsi Abrahae, facta est et in quo suam invenire debuit impletionem, permaneret. Additio haec probabiliter quidem genuina non est (cfr VV. LL.), sed aptissima est glossa, qua praecedentis Minoris quoque summa in conclusione repetitur. lam sua sponte elucet, eiusmodi testamentum divinum a iuniore Lege subintrante non potuisse ita alterari, ut promissiones effectum non amplius sortirentur atque haereditas non iam a gratuita promissione, sed a Legis adimpletione dependeret. Quae accuratius versu sequente exponit. ficultas a plerisque solvi solet; omittimus autem eorum acath. sententiam, qui aut omnem inspirationem negantes de Pauli errore loquuntur (Mey. Sieff. etc.) aut inspirationem non recte intelligentes inter ea, quae ad libri essentiam pertinent, interque alia distinguunt atque hanc chronologicam notam, quia accurata numeri indicatio ad argumenti valorem nihil conferat, ab inspiratione excludunt (Wies. Schm. etc.) '. Ezech. p. 38 etc. — Ph. etc.). Contra similem quidem sententiarn Est. iam obiicit, Paulum, ut vim daret argumento, non ab aliquo posteriore principio, sed a primo tempore factae promissionis annos numerare debuisse, sc. ' utmaiore numero annorum ostenderet, promissionem etiam veluti praescriplione iam antea esse firmatam; aitamen ad hanc demonstrationem numerum indicatum plane sufficere recte responderi potest. Equidem utramque explicationem per se probabilem esse iudico; utra autem sit praeferenda, a multis rationibus chronologicis dependet, quas explicare huius loci non est. Abrahae seminique eius dictae erant promissiones absolute conditione nulla apposita; evacuatae igitur, i. e. genuina sua vi privatae atque inanes redditae essent, si haereditas promissa post datam Legem ab eius impletione dependeret. Quae accuratius Apostolus explicat, ut argumentationem suam omni ex parte confirmet :
3:18
18. nam si ez lege haereditas , iam non ez promissione (8, inavyeMac) ; Aórahae autem per repromissionem (8v icayyoíxs per promissionem) donavit (xtyspieras) Deus (haereditatem). Quanam de haereditate agatur, clarum est; benedictiones enim messianicae cunctae, quarum typus erat terra promissa, intelliguntur. Hac de re Paulum inter eiusque adversarios nulla erat controversia ; quaestio sola erat de modo, quo haereditas obtineretur. luxta iudaizantes ex fide et ex Lege erat; neque enim fidem in Christum necessariam esse negabant, sed a neophytis, ut benedictionum omnium messianicarum seu integrae haereditatis fierent capaces, insuper Legis observationem postulabant. Verum haec duo (fidem et opera Legis) ita inter se pugnare Paulus docet, ut simul - requiri nequeant; aut unum aut alterum solum ducit ad haereditatem. Uberius hanc doctrinam in epistola ad Rorn. explicat ibique illud principium diserte enuntiat, quod hic supponit : « ei qui operatur merces non imputatur secundum gratiam (velut donum gratuitum) sed secundum debitum » (Rom. &,*4). Haereditas non potest simul esse et eadem ratione donum gratuitum et merces debita; atqui qui eam ex Lege (i. e. ex operibus, quae solius Legis virtute absque fide et gratia fiunt cfr ad 2,16) exspectant, eam mercedem sibi debitam esse putant neque amplius eam velut donum gratuitum considerare et exspectare possunt; quare si illi, qui ex Lege sunt, haeredes sunt, exinanita est fides et abolita est promissio (Rom. &,15). In Maiore igitur (iterum enim habemus syllogismum, cuius conclusio est praetermissa) habemus dilemma quoddam : Haereditas aut est merces debita aut est donum gratuitum; atqui Abrahae seminique eius Deus per promissionem haereditatem assignavit velut donum gratuitum, (cfr tom. &,13sqq.). Aliqui moderni verbum y96:ctox, quum nullum. obiectum sit expressum , intransitive sumere volunt (Deus per promissionem sese gratiosum ac benevolum exhibuit), at cum Vulg. transitiva significatio retinenda est; ex propositione Maiore enim obiectum sua sponte in Minore suppletur : «v xXngovouízv (haereditatem). Si haereditas messianica, uti Paulus demonstravit, a Legis observationenon dependet eiusque promulgatione testamentum promissionum mutatum aut abolitum non est, sua sponte quaestio exoritur, quid tandem Lex sibi voluerit. Divinitus enim erat data eiusque observatio populo, quem Deus sibi peculiarem elegerat, per tot saecula tam necessaria fuerat, ut omnis transgressio gravissimis poenis vindicaretur;. plane superflua igitur dici non potuit nec satis apparuit, cur eius observatio iam nunc esset minus necessaria. Hinc Pauli argumenlatio iudaizantibus eius adversariis non satisfecisset, nisi Legem, etiamsi per se ad salutem consequendam nihil nunc confert, magna tamen utilitate non caruisse ostendisset. Itaque sibi ipse quaestionem de fine Legis proponit , eamque ita solvit, ut eius promulgatione promissiones non ésse abolitas confirmet. Legem enim datam esse ostendit ut tamquam paedagogus ad Christum adducens viam praepararet ad promissionum impletionem (3,19-2*); adveniente igitur fide Legem munere suo esse defunctam nec amplius necessariam esse iis, qui fide facti sint filii Abrahae et haeredes promissionum (3,25-29); quod responsum per filii minoris, qui sub tutoribus est, analogiam explicans tempus Legis, utpote tempus praeparationis et educationis, nunc terminatum esse docet (5,1-7). Interroganti ad quid igitur Lex inserviat, si per eam haereditas messianica obtineri nequeat, Paulus praeparatorio et temporario eius charactere exposito respondet. Namque ut trangressionibus provocatis homo infirmitatem suam agnosceret, eam datam esse docet velut aliquid intermedii, quod promissionum impletione adveniente cessare debuit (19. 20). Neque tamen inde sequi monet, eam promissionibus adversari (v. 21); sed econtrario eam promissionibus obsecundare, quia peccata et infirmitatem manifestans hominem ad medicum quaeren- : dum impellat (22. 93) atque hac ratione eidem fiat paedagogus ad
3:19
19. Quid igitur lex !? Propter trangressiones posta. est (noocevéths, lege : apposita est), donec veniret semen cui promtserat (& izípyexros melius cum antiqua versione : cuz promissum est), ordinata per angelos in manu mediatoris. Pronomen ^í (quid) hic, uti saepe (cfr 5,11; Rom. 3,1 etc.; 1 Cor, &,T etc.), idem est quod ix «t (propter quid); neque enim in responso Paulus indolem ac naturam, sed finem ac scopum Legis indicat. Namque eam propter transgressiones non tam positam, quam appositam dicit; ad promissiones scilicet, quae Lege data abrogatae non sunt sed inviolatae permanere debent usque ad suam impletionem; quare Lex non quasi codicillus quidam, quo conditio aliqua promissionibus gratuitis adderetur (id enim fieri non potuit t. 1'I), ad eas accessit, sed tamquam altera institutio , quae promissionum adimpletioni inserviret eamque praepararet. móderni plerique ( Wind. Bisp. M Ev. Reithm. L R. Dr. Schaef. etc. — Mey. Lightf. Ph. Sieff. etc.) iure merito adoptarunt. Namque verbis accuratius consonat, contextui facilius adaptatur, constantique Pauli doctrinae congruit. Iuxta eum enim Lex ad peccati cognitionem hominem adducit (Rom. 3,20; 7,1), peccatum quoque occasionaliter provocat (cfr ad 4 Cor. 16,56; 2 Cor. 3,6; tom. 1,13), atque subintravit ut abundaret delictum (Aom. 5,20) *. Contextui hanc explicationem facilius adaptari evidens est; nam sí Lex data est ad coercendas transgressiones, non intelligitur, quomodo adversarius aliquis ex Pauli sententia colligere possit, Legern esse adversus promissa Dei (v. 21). Demum eam verbis consonare etiam clarum est; transgressionum gratia enim idem est quod « ut exoriantur atque adsint transgressiones »; data est, ut peccata naturam transgressionum quasi induerent (Aom. 4,15) atque specie transgressionum induta facilius cognoscerentur, conscientiam acrius pungerent, desiderium redemtionis efficacius excitarent. .. , Quo ex Legis finegam promissionibusinferiorem locum in salutis oeco- "nomia tenere satisiam elucet, siquidem lata est, ut illisindirecte tantum obsecundaret. Illis autem inferior quoque est, si eius duratio spectatur; longo enim tempore post promissiones lata durare dumtaxat debuit, donec veniret semen cui promissio facta est?. Quin idem semen hic et v. 16. intelligatur, nemini est dubium; usque ad adven- 1. Ad totam Pauli doctrinam respiciens egregie Thom. : « Secundo Lex data est ad intum Christi mystici igitur, i. e. usque ad Ecclessiae fundationem , Lex auctoritatem suam retinere debuit, ita ut nunc pro abolita iure habeatur. Quodsi multi nomen seminis de Christi ipsius persona interpretantur, in tempore durationis Legis definiendo nobiscum consentiunt quidem, sed non satis, uti iam monuimus (ad v. 16), attendunt, non tam ipsi Messiae, 2n quo omnes gentes benedicendae sunt, quam lis, qui ad Messiae regnum pertinent, haereditatem esse promissam; quam utique obtinere nequeunt nisi per eum, quatenus ipse solus eam meruit, et in eo, quatenus eius corporis viva membra sint et cum eo unam personam moralem constituant oportet. Demum promissionibus inferiorem locum occupat, si modus, quo lata est, consideratur : ordinata per angelos in manu mediatoris. Cum S. Iren. (c. haer. WII. 7,2.) et Hier. nonnulli iuniores ac moderni hyperbato admisso sententiam nostram hac ratione digerunt : « disposita per angelos in manu mediatoris (propter transgressiones) posita est, usque dum veniat semen, cui promissum est » (S. Iren.); sed cur hyperbaton statuatur, nulla est ratio. Expedite et facile enim currit sententia; scopum vero legislationis Paulus praemittit, quia ex eo maxime argumentatur, et de eius modoin fine sententiae loquitur, quia explicationem quandam addere voluit. Lex igitur per angelos ordinata (Svereyes 9v &yyé£xov) dicitur: verbum ót«céccev significat cum auctoritate disponere!, ita ut Lex per angelos, i. e. eorum ministerio, non tam composita vel digesta, sed imposita sit et lata. Utrum nomine angelorum veri angeli, an potius sacerdotes (Chrys. Oec. TheopA.), vel Moyses losue ceterique prophetae (4'*), vel Moyses et Aaron (Thom.) etc. essent designati, olim dubitatum est; sed Deum in Lege mosaica ferenda ministerio angelorum usum esse, Vetus Test. (Deut. 33,2 clarius iuxta alex. vers., obscurius iuxta alios translatores) innuit et Novum diserte docet (Act. 7,53; Hebr. 2,2); quare dubitationi non relinquitur locus. Neque obstat, quod legislatio saepius Deo immediale attribui videatur; nam « Deus quidem loquebatur (in monte Sinai), i. e. vox, prout erat repraesentativa loquentis, ad eum referebatur, sed organa, ut ita dicam, Dei loquentis erant angeli, qui physice figuram ac voces in aere formabant; angeli praeterea auctores immediati erant eorum phaenomenorum, quae legislationem comitata sunt » (Palm.). S. Stephanus angelorum ministerium commemorat, ut dignitate Legis exaltata doceat, quanti criminis violatores eius reos sese faciant (Act. 7,53), neque dissimiliter Paulus (Heór. 2,2) ex eodem magnam Legis auctoritatem colligit; nihilominus eodem in loco a minore ad maius concludens insinuat, mediato isti loquendi modo longe praestare immediatum, quo Verbum incarnatum per se ipsum nobiscum loqui voluerit. Quapropter etiam hic eadem ratione testamentum promissionum utpote immediate a Deo confirmatum (cfr v. 17) Legi per angelorum ministerium a Deo latae opponi ac praeferri multi censent; nescio tamen num satis recte. Nam etiam in promissionibus Abrahae datis Deum angelis ministris usum esse, ex Scriptura haud obscure colligi videtur (Gen. 18,1 sqq.), ut haec differentia immerito asseratur. At Abrahae ipsi immediate dictae sunt promissiones, verum Lex populo immediate non est lata, sed in manu mediatoris. Maiestate enim et magnitudine divina, quae sesein monteSinai manifestavit, perterrefacti filii Israel Moysen rogarunt, ut solus accederet cunctaque quae Dominus esset locuturus cum ipsis communicaret. Quibus obsecutus Moyses . « sequester et medius fuit inter Dominum (per angelorum ministerium loquentem) et filios Israel in tempore illo, ut annuntiaret eis verba illius » (Deut. 5,5 etc.), atque in manu eiustamquam mediatoris positae sunt duae tabulae foederis, quod Deus cum populo suo pepigit (Deut. 9,9 sqq. etc.). Cur haec addiderit, Apostolus ita explicat, ut Legem mosaicam a promissionum testamento multum differre neque illius in locum succedere potuisse clarius appareat.
3:20
20. Mediator autem (à 9: picíen)) unius non est; Deus autem unus est. Prior particula 3i (autem), uti patet, non est adversativa, sed , uti saepissime, explicationem quandam affert (cfr ad 2,4 p. $28), altera Minorem argumenti introducit; iterum enim syllogismum incompletum (conclusione omissa) habemus. Maior est sententia universalis, qua nominis mediatoris definitio exhibetur (in expressione ó à soízuc articulus genus solum determinat, ut omnes designentur et singuli, qui eo comprehen- . duntur) : mediator vi nominis sui non est unius personae; ut aliquis mediatoris nomen méreatur eiusque fungatur munere, duae saltem personae vel partes adsint oportet, inter quas medius (éco) velut internuntius agat vel pacis inter eas conciliandae vel foederis inter eas stabiliendi vel similis contractus bilateralis, in quo utraque pars obligationem in se suscipit, conscribendi causa; in contractibus unilateralibus vero et gratuitis, in quibus obligatio ex una sola parte adest, mediator proprii nominis haberi nequit. Unde quae natura sit Legis mosaicae, sua sponte elucet; quia enim in ea ferenda Moyses velut mediator intercessit, de contractu quodam bilaterali (atque in specie quidem de foedere) agitur. Legem in manu mediátoris ponens Deus ad benedictiones dandas sese obligavit quidem , sed eas ab impletione Legis dependere constituit (v. 19. qui fecerit ea, vivet tn eis); atque populus ex manu Moysis, quem suum mediatorem esse voluerat, Legem accipiens sese ad eam implendam obligavit, ut promissarum benedictionum particeps fieret (Deut. 5,9& etc.). Ex Maiore igitur Paulus id colligiti vult, quod aliunde quoque notum erat, legislatione mosaica adesse contractum bilateralem , quo benedictiones conditioni erant alligatae; in Minore autem promissiones aliam omnino rem esse innuit : Deus autem unus est. Promissio est contractus unilateralis, quo promittens solus se obligat ad aliquid gratuito praestandum. Abrahae ergo seminique eius promissiones dicens Deus in se solum obligationem suscepit nulla conditione adiecta; solus proin eas implere tenetur ac pro sua fidelitate et immutabilitate implebit. Itaque hunc syllogismi sensum esse arbitror : Legislatio per mediatorem Moysen data contractum constituit bilateralem , qui benedictiones conditioni Legis impletae alligat; atqui promissiones Abrahae seminique eius dictae, utpote contractus unilateralis, benedictiones nulli conditioni alligant; ergo Lex in promissionum locum succedere easque abrogare non potuit. Legislatio potius promissionibus adversari videtur; sed hanc conclusionem Paulus velut illegitimam statim reiiciet fine Legis accuratius explicato. nem non esse communem , si de communi loqui fas est in uno ex vexatissimis Scripturae locis, qui inter cruces interpretum non minima iure habetur. Quamvis enim simplicissimae et clarissimae duae sententiolae (v. 20) per se esse videantur, difficillimum (amen dictu est, quid sibi in hoc contextu velint et quis earum cum praecedentibus et subsequentibus sit nexus. Ineunte hoc saeculo iam 250 circiter varias explicationes adfuisse (cfr Winer Ep. ad Gal. 1821.) earumque numerum nunc fere duplicatum esse, quum plus 430 adsint, aliqui asserunt (cfr Iowett apud Ph. Scha[f The ep. to the Gal. N. York 1881. p. 38). Quas omnes recensere et diludicare, si possemus, nollemüs; ne tempus perdamus, paucas tantum notas de praecipuis cath. Ínterpretationibus adiiciemus. Plerique antiqui interpretes in hoc versu explanando nos parum iuvant, quia in praecedentibus verbis (ín manu mediatoris) explicandis & vero aberrantes sibi ge-- nuinae interpretationis viam obstruxerunt. Quoniam enim nomen medíatoris (usalcno), quod in Vet. Test. non legitur, in reliquis Novis Scripturis soli Christo tribuitur (1 Tím. 2,5; Hebr. 8,6; 9,15; 12,24), Patres multique antiquiores, sed pauci iuniores ac moderni, praeeunte Orig. (Iragm. in Col. M. 14,1297 « data est Lex Moysis per angelos in manu et virtute mediatoris Christi »), etiam in e. 19. Christum mediatorem designari arbitrati sunt, quippe cuius virtute ac potentia (in manu) Lex sit data (Chrys. Dam. Phot. etc., Vict. Ater, Aug. Hier. etc., Haym. Here. Lomb. hi omnes in v. 20. explicando inter se consentiunt, sed in diversissimas sententias abeunt. Alii enim Christum, utpote Del hominumque mediatorem ac verum Deum, auctorem Legis dici volunt, ut ei potestatem etiam abrogandae Legis competere significetur (cfr Chrys. Dam. etc.); alii doceri putant, Christum, qui& Dei hominumque sit mediator, utriusque partis naturam, divinam et humanam, habuisse! (cfr dare potuit. Ceterum bene attendatur oportet, Paulum in toto boc loco non agere de Lege et de Evangelio, sed de Lege et de promissionibus Abrahae seminique elus factis, atque eo impletione nec in promissionum locum potuisse succedere. Hanc ob causam de mediatore loquitur, qui in legislatione adfuit, in promissionibus non adfuit; quomodo vero Novo Foedere, quainvis ibi quoque adfuerit mediator, promissiones impletae sint, facile apparet, 8i Novi Testamenti mediator cum Moyse comparatur (cfr Hebr. 9,11-15). Quod autem Palm. maxime urget, « tam difficilem conclusionem Paulum debuisse diserte exprimere », id eodem modo contra omnes huius loci inlerpretationes urgeri potest. atque maxime contra eam, quam ipse praefert, ab Apostolo nimirum per transitum quasi doceri duplicem Christi mediatoris naturam, divinam et humanam. Palm. ipse fatetur. Deinde autem gratis supponi videtur, mediatorem maturam duarum diator; promissio autem à Deo immediate dicta est semini Abrahae, i. e. Christo, Filio Dei (dixit Dominus Domino meo : Sede a dextris meis Ps. 109,1); itaque quum a Deo Patre dicta sit Deo Filio, qui unus Deus sunt, mediator adesse non potuit ». Antea iam adnotavimus, semen, cui dictae sunt promissiones, non tam ipsum Messiam esse, quam eos, qui ad eíus:regnum pertinent; semen igitur esse Christum mysticum (cfr ad v. 16); aliquid duri autem habet, quia hic Christus mysticus est intelligendus, ut promissio a Deo Deo data esse dicatur; praeterea animadverte, promissiones dictas esse Abrahae et semini eius, ac proin hanc explicationem non posse admitti. — Alii (cfr Knabenb. in Stímmen aus M. Laach 26 p. 447) attendere nos iubent, promissionem ita esse datam, ut promittens se ipsum quoque datorem fore insinuet (« tibi dabo » etc.); vi ípsius promissionis ergo excludi mediatorem, per quem promissio impleatur; legislationem ígitur, quum per mediatorem Moysen facta sit, pro adimpletione haberi non posse nec in promissionum locum successisse. At nescio, num verba Deus autem unus est significare queant : idem Deus qui promisit étiam adimplebit; et quid de Novi Test. mediatore dicemus? Sed haec suffieiunt, quum reliquae, quas vidi, explicationes illis, quas recensui, minus probabiles esse videantur.
3:21
91. Lez ergo adversus promissa Dei? Ut illativam particulam (oov ergo) explicent, alii cum Chrys. usque ad v. 10, alii cum Hier. ad v; 17. recurrunt, alii cum Reithm. ,eius vim infirmant hanc sententiam praecedenti (v. 19. Quid igitur Lex) parallelam dicentes. At nova haec obiectio sua sponte ex prioris solutione exoritur; Lex enim, quae ad manifestandas et augendas transgressiones posita esse (v. 19) et gratuitae promissioni onerosam conditionem apposuisse (v. 20) dicitur, revera promissioni adversari videtur; neque tamen ei adversatur, nisi erronea, quam de fine ac munere Legis iudaizantes sibi formarant, notio supponitur. Dei enim Lex promissionibus Dei vere repugnare nequit; quare Apostolus obiectionem istam cum indignatione reiicit et in adversarios suos ita retorquet , ut falsam eorum suppositionem manifestet : absit (gÀà yévovro cfr ad 2,17)! sc enim data esset lez, quae posset vivtficare, vere (óvrx Aug. : omnino) ez /ege esset tustitia; at Lex, quae data est, quia non iustificat (v. 11), etiam vitam non praestat, ac proin non repugnat promissioni, iuxta quam credentibus gratuito confertur vita. Cum aliis antiquioribus Latinis bene TAom. : « si Lex esset data talis, quae posset vivificare, i. e. tantae esset virtutis, ut posset vitam gratiae et aeternam beatitudinem conferre, tunc vere et non apparenter iustitia esset ex Lege ; sic Lex faceret, quod fides facere dicitur, et sic frustra esset fides ». Similiter quoque Graeci : « si Lex potuisset vivificare, merito putare posset aliquis, eam adversus promissa esse constitutam eorumque iustitiam surripuisse, quatenus ipsa posset iustificare; verum quoniam nihil huiusmodi facere potest, nec vivificare nec iustificare , certe non est data adversus promissiones; his enim propria est iustitia, quum salvent et iustificent eum qui est ex fide » (PAot. cfr Oec.). Apostolo vitam et zustitiam (seu vivificare et iustificare) unum idemque esse nonnulli censent (cfr Palm. etc.), sed cum plerisque antiquioribus et modernis rectius tenemus , iustitiam ei esse fundamentum verae illius vitae, quae, quum hac in terra inchoetur, plena autem et perfecta in aeterna beatitudine possideatur, quasi summa est haereditatis Abrahae seminique eius promissae. lamvero iuxta iudaizantium doctrinam Lex neophytis erat observanda, ut integrae haereditatis promissae participes fierent; contra quos Paulus urget, etiam iustitiam, utpote haereditatis fundamentum, debere esse ex Lege, si haereditas ipsa ex Lege esset; iustitia igitur et vita post Legem datam non essent amplius dona gratuita credentibus promissa , sed merces operantibus debita (cfr Rom. &,& etc.), ac Lex revera promissionibus adversaretur easque evacuaret. « Si data esset Lex, quae posset praestare vitam et id, quod promissio spoponderat, exhibere, vere promissio per Legem putaretur exclusa » (Hier.). Obiectio illa igitur contra iudaizantes, qui Legem sibi fingunt iustificantem et vivificantem, iure urgetur, sed locum non habet, si Lex illa consideratur, quae revera data est; haec enim nec vivificat nec iuslificat;
3:22
22. sed conclusit Scriptura omnia sub peccato, ut (iva) promissio ez fide Iesu Christi daretur credentibus. Nomen Scripturae plerique Patres de solis praeceptis scriptis intelligunt, sed rectius cum Theod. universaliorem nominis significationem retinentesintegrum Dei verbum scriptum designari censemus. Quatenus est Lex, i. e. praecepta imponit, Iudaeos quidem sub peccato conclusit transgressiones eorum manifestans etoccasionaliter augens (cfr ad v. 19) ; sed quatenus in genere est verbum Dei scriptum, irrefutabili suo testimonio omnes, et Iudaeos et gentiles, sub peccato conclusit, quoniam eos omnes esse peccatores convincit ac declarat. Verbum evyzXitv (concludere) hic non tam significat sm: claudere (cfr Luc. 5,6), quam undique claudere, ita ut incluso via fugae non pateat (cfr Ps. 30,9; 77,50; Rom. 11,32); concluduntur autem sub peccato, qui ita peccatores esse convincuntur 8c de peccatis condemnantur, ut excusaudi aut negandi nullus eis relinquatur praetextus. Porro omnia Scriptura sub peccato conclusit multis illis testimoniis, quibus peccati universalitatem docet quaeque Apostolus alibi (Rom. 3,10-18) affert, ut accusationem suam « omnes, Iudaeos et Graecos, sub peccato esse » confirmet; haec igitur similiaque testimonia nomine Scripturae hic designat. Ex eodem porro loco parallelo apparet , suó peccato esse vel sub peccato concludi idem esse, quod « Deo obnoxium et obstrictum esse ad poenam » (bzó)txov selva 1$ O:à Rom. 3,19), seu peccatorem esse aeterna poena dignum ; deinde expressione ^X v£vra (omnia) integrum quidem genus humanum (cfr Col. 3,11 etc.) comprehendi, sed prae reliquis Iudaeos, qui Legem habebant, significari; siquidem « scimus quoniam quaecumque Lex (seu Scriptura) loquitur, iis qui in Lege sunt loquitur » (Rom. 3,19). Unde satis patet, « ex operibus Legis neminem iustificari coram Deo » (Rom. 3,20), Legem ergo non esse datam, quae iustificare et vivificare potest. Scriptura vero (vel si mavis : Scripturae auctor), si omnes homines, et imprimis ludaeos, peccatores esse convicit, eum habuit finem, wt promissio, i. e. haereditas Abrahae seminique eius promissa, ez fide Iesu Christi daretur credentibus; hac enim ratione eos impulit, ut culpae infirmitatisque suae conscii redemtorem adiutoremque quaererent atque eam salutis viam ingrederentur, quam Deus fide in Iesum Christum credentibus paravit. Tautologice dici videtur ez fide credentibus dari haereditatem ; neque tamen tautologia est, sed iudaizantium causa expressio est electa; namque, quia fidei necessitatem non negabant, credentibus haereditatem dari concedebant, sed eam, quia Legis simul necessitatem praedicabant, ex Lege dependere volebant; cum emphasi igitur quadam Paulus eam credentibus non ex Lege sed ez fide dari asserit. Ac profecto illi quoque omnes, qui veteris oeconomiae tempore iusti erant, iustitiam et vitam ex fide consecuti sunt (cfr Hebr. 11 etoc.). Quid vero Lex contulerit, ut in Iudaeis sub peccato conclusis hic finis obtineatur, exponendum remanet, ut prioris difficultatis (v. 19 quid igitur Lex?) completa habeatur solutio. Itaque Paulus de solis iam Iudaeis loquens (se enim suosque contribules prima persona plur. adhibita designat), quid Deus Legem dans velut ultimum finem intenderit, clarius explicat :
3:23
23. prius autem quam veniret fides , sub lege custodiebamur conclusi in eam fidem quae revelanda erat. Utrum fides in hac sententia sensu obiectivo explicetur (fides quae creditur) doctrina fidei vel Evangelium vel evangelica praedicatio etc. (cfr lust. Est. eic., Wind. Bisp. etc.), an socialis institutio christianismi, quae opponatur sociali institutioni mosaicae (Palm.), an sensu subiectivo fides qua creditur (Heithm. etc.), ad temporis definitionem nihil interest; priore enim membro totum tempus, quod adventum Christi, vel si mavis fundationem Ecclesiae, praecessit, designari clarum est. Ultimam autemsignificationem praeferendam arbitror, quia fides est criterium novae oeconomiae ; atque fides (uti gratia, veritas, Spiritus), quae tempore veteris testamenti aderat, ipsa quoque ad novam oeconomiam pertinebat, quia non nisi virtute adventuri Messiae concedebatur (cfr ad Joan. 1,171; 7,39 etc.). Ante adventum igitur novae oeconomiae, quae nomine /idei designatur, Iudaei sub lege custodiebantur. Graecum verbum opovgetv (uti latinum custodzre) duplicem admittit significationem ; opovosic0at (custodiri) cnim aliquis potest, uta fuga prohibeatur (cfr 2 Cor. 11,32) aut ut ab eo periculum arceatur atque ipse hac ratione servetur (cfr PAZ. &,17;1 Petr. 1,5). Utramque TÀom. ' coniungit : « Nos Iudaei custodiebamur sub Lege, in quantum faciebat nos vitare idololatriam et multa alia mala; custodiebamur, inquam, non sicut liberi, sed quasi servi sub timore et hoc sub Lege, i. e. sub onere et dominio Legis ; et custodiebamur conclusi, i. e. servati ne deflueremus a vita sed praepararemus in eam fidem , quae revelanda erat tempore gratiae, in antiquis autem temporibus sub multis signis latebat ». Antiquiores tamen priorem praeferunt : « oportebat veluti muro quodam custodiri genus israeliticum , donec germinaret exspectatio gentium » (Theod. cfr CArys. Hier. etc.). Revera Lex tyranno assimilatur, qui subditos suos inclusos tenet, ne effugiant; haec autem custodia et inclusio in favorem erat inclusorum ; si enim effugissent, ad bonum eis reservatum non pervenissent. Sub Lege nimirum con- ' clusi custodiebantur eo fine, ut ad fidem, quae revelanda erat, pervenirent. Multis suis praeceptis minisque ac poenis subditos suos Lex retinebat atque hac ratione efficere volebat, ut novam fidei oeconomiam, quae eis praedicta erat et adveniente Messia initium habere debebat, ardentius desiderarent illiusque participes fierent. Hinc sua sponte patet conclusio :
3:24
25. 4taque lex paedagogus noster fuit ín. Christo (lege : in Christum & Xgwzóv), ut ex fide iustificemur. Apud Graecos et Romanos nomine paedagogorum designabantur servi quidam honestiores, quibus pueri non educandi aut erudiendi sed custodiendi et refrenandi committebantur; eadem ratione Lex data non erat ad ludaeos educandos et erudiendos sed ad cos custo- . diendos et refrenandos. Paedagogus pupillos suos ad magistrum ducebat, a quo educabantur et doccbantur, atque ita Lex quoque ludaeos ad Christum, verum magistrum, ducere debebat, ut ab eo edocti crederent et ita ex fide iustificarentur. « Paedagogus, inquit JIzer., parvulis assignatur, ut lasciviens refrenetur actas et prona in vitia corda teneantur, dum tenera studiis eruditur infantia et ad maiores philosophiae et regendae reipublicae disciplinas metu poenae coercita praeparatur. Non tamen paedagogus magister et pater est, nec haereditatem nec scientiam paedagogi is qui eruditur exspectat; sed alienum custodit filium paedagogus. Denique nomen paedagogi et ipsum sonat et est compositum ab eo, quod pueros agat i. e. ductet (zai; puer et &yo- T5s duz). Itaque et mosaica Lex populo lascivienti ad instar paedagogi severioris apposita est » (cfr Chrys. Theod. etc., Aug. etc.). Lex igitur, quamvis nec iustificet nec vivificet neque directe ad promissam haereditatem obtinendam iuvet , magnum tamen in salutis oeconomia tenebat locum. Peccata quippe manifestans et occasionaliter augens conscientiam subditorum suorum stimulabat eorumque superbiam humiliabat atque ita eos impellebat, ut ad Christum advenientem confugerent. 2.) Adventu fidei Lex munere paedagogi privata est (3,25-29). ludaeis data erat Lex, ut sub ea usque ad fidei adventum custodirentur et per cam velut per paedagogum ad Christum adducerentur; unde evidens est, ludaeochristianos, quippe qui ad Christum adducti sint, ea non amplius indigere nec iam sub eius disciplina esse :
3:25
95. at ubi venit fides, iam non sumus sub paedagogo. Temporis definitio (u5£ venit fides) ex v. 23. clara est. Sicut iuvenis, qui iam adultus est suique iuris , ridiculum se redderet, si paedagogo suo subiectus maneret eiusque severa disciplina se regi pateretur (cfr CArys.), ita Iudaeochristiani absurde agerent, si Legi se etiam nunc crederent subiectos, postquam per fidem ad Christum iam pervenerunt. Id quidem ex praecedentibus manifestum erat; de eo autem dubitari potuit, annon ethnici quoque, si Lex paedagogus erat ad Christum, per eandem ad Christum adduci deberent; annon igitur sese ei submittere tenerentur, ut eadem via, qua ludaei, ducerentur et hac ratione ludaeochristianis plane assimilati iisdem, quibus illi, iuribus potirentur (cfr Aug. Thom. Est. Wind. etc.). Quam dubitationem ut praeoccupet, Apostolus Iudaeorum a Lege libertatem novo argumento confirmat, quod etiam Ethnicochristianos ei non subiici demonstrat. lllud autem ex Christianorum dignitate desumit, qui omnes sunt filii Dei (v. 26); ad quam dignitatem omnes eodem modo pervenerunt per baptismum Christo inserli (v. 27); iamvero cum eo intime uniti differentiis, quae antea aderant , non amplius distinguuntur, sed pari modo semen Abrahae sunt atque ius habent ad haereditatem promissam (28. 29). Superioribus versibus (23-25) Paulus relationem Legis ad Iudaeochristianos exponens se ipsum prima persona plur. adhibita comprehenderat; nunc vero secundam adhibens Galatas, qui plerique gentiles conversi erant, directe alloquitur, quia novo suo argumento eos quoque sub Lege non esse demonstrat :
3:26
26. omnes enim filii Dei estis per fidem, (quae est) in Christo Iesu. « Ostendit, inquit TÀeod. , perfectionem eorum qui crediderunt; quid enim perfectius iis est, qui sunt filii Dei? » Fidem accipientes ludaei ex statu infantium et parvulorum, qui nihil differunt a servis (cfr ad 5,1 sq.), exierunt et « legitimum aetatis tempus ineuntes veri filii Dei nominantur » (/Iier.), ' quibus iam licet omnibus suis iuribus frui; aptissime igitur hac filiorum Dei dignitate, quam adepti sint, Apostolus ludaeochristianos sub paedagogo non amplius esse confirmat. At eadem diguitas etiam Ethnicochristianis competit; ideo magna cum vi illud ones in principio sententiae ponitur : quotquot credidistis, sive Iudaei fuistis sive gentiles, facti estis filii Dei nec proin amplius Legis disciplinae subiecti. Neque immerito omnes filii Dei esse asseruntur, quia omnes eadem via ad hanc dignitatem pervenerunt : per fidem in Christo Iesu (8 ix 7; r(oztos iv Xpiezó 'Ineoz). Quomodo haec verha sint construenda, in controversia est. Simili enim modo, quo V«/y. Clem. cum A'r? et Hier. (per fidem quae est in Christo Iesu, sc. reposita), etiam aliqui Graeci (Chrys. Oec. Theoph.) multique iuniores (Just. Est'. Lap. Nat. etc.) ac nonnulli moderni (Pa/m. — Mey Sieff. etc.) verba év Xgtü "12992 à genetivo 45; zícvto; dependere volunt, ac si scriptum sit : ix fs mío reos T5 Ev Xp. "Inc. (cfr VV. LL.) aut ài £y Xe. "Ine. míoTto; (Oec.). Quoniam articulus ante eiusmodi appositionem a Paulo aliquoties praetermittitur atque pro consueta formula | ít tl, 70v Kóptov interdum, licet rarissime, adhibetur altera : do niens i à Kupio (cfr EpA. 1,15; Col. 1,&; 1 Tim. 1,13; 2 Tim. 3,15), huic constructioni ex parte grammaticae nihil opponi potest , nisi eam esse insolitam. At contextui non est adaptata , ideoque pleri- : que moderni (Wznd. Bisp. Reithm. L R. Schaef. ec. — Ew. LigMf. Goeb. eic.) cum antiquioribus Latinis (Gl ord. Herv. Lomb. Thom. eic., cfr Est ?.) alteram expressionem év Xewà 'Incoo (2n CAristo Iesu) non minus quam priorem 9ix 4i; níezto5 (per fidem) immediate cum verbo £cvé (estis) iure merito connectunt. Per fidem, utique caritate infor- : matam (cfr5,6), omnes facti sunt i/i? Dei, quatenus nimirum hac fide Christo inseruntur et tamquam viva membra corporis eius mystici 2n Christo Iesu esse inceperunt; bene iam Herv. : « filii Dei estis per fidem exsistentes in Christo Iesu, i. e. facta membra Christi »; nam, uti egregie monet 7AÀom., « nullus est filius Dei adoptivus, nisi uniatur et adhaereat Filio Dei naturali ». . Haec solá structura contextui consonat; assertum enim suum , omnes fideles esse filios Dei, probaturus Paulus, qua via ad hanc dignitatem pervenerint, verbis 24 Christo expositis docet; filii enim Dei fiunt, quando velut membra corpori mystico Christi inseruntur Christumque indueutes intima, quae excogitari potest, unione cum eo coniunguntur :
3:27
27. quicumque enim in Christo (ti Xovovóv in. CAristum) baptizali estis, Christum induistis. Interrogat Chrys. : « cur non dixit : Quicumque in Christum baptizati estis, ez Deo nati estis? Hoc enim congruebat ad demonstrandum, quod essent filii Dei ». Respondet autem : « ftem eandem alio modo exprimit, qui animum sancto quodam horrore et stupore replet. Etenim si Christus est Filius Dei et tu eum induisti, tu iam, quum habeas Filium in te et in illius similitudinem transformatus sis, iu eandem familiam (cvyyéveav) et eandem formam (iav) perductus es ». Uti iustificationis, ita adoptionis no- : strae fundamentum quidem et radix est fides; ipsa vero iustificatio et adoptio est effectus baptismi, quo gratia sanctificante et caritate . infusa Spiritum Filii clamantem Abba Pater (&,&) credentes velut , adoptionis sigillum in cordibus suis recipiunt. Haud sine ratione autem Apostolus dicit : qui in Christum baptizati estis; per baptismum enim fideles Christo consecrari ac devoveri ac sese in eius proprietatem tradere innuit. Qui vero per baptismum se totos Christo tradunt, illis vicissim Christus quoque se trádit; illos quippe in se transformat; et hoc est, quod Apostolus verbis Christum induistis significat. . Admodum ieiune et plane erronee iuniores quidam expressionem induere Christum nihil aliud hic significare volunt, nisi « conformem Christo fieri imitatione virtutum et bonorum operum, quae in Christo tamquam capite perfectissime fuerunt » (Est. etc). Procul quidem dubio etiam morum virtutumque imitatione baptizati Christum induere eique conformes se reddere debent (Rom. 13,14); at de hac Christi imitatione Paulus hic non loquitur, sed de conformitate cum Christo, quae ipsius baptismi virtute efficitur : « qui baptisati estis... Christum indutstis ». Longe aliter: hac de re " loquuntur Patres : « In Christum baptizati, inquit S. Cyr. leros. (Cat. 91,1), et Christum induti eiusdem formae cum Filio Dei (eójasoppot zo YtoU voü Geov) facti estis. Qui enim praedestinavit nos Deus in adoptionem, conformes (evitióppouc) effecitnos corpori glorioso Christi. Participes (u£xoyo)) igitureffecti Christi, alteri Christi iure merito appellamini ». Atque S. Method. (Conviv. Virg. VIII. 8) : « Ii quiilluminantur (i. e. baptizantur) lineamenta et effigiem atque virilem formam speciemque (r3v ájfsveníov) Christi assumunt, quum Verbi forma secundum similitudinem illis imprimatur et per certam scienliam fidemque in illis progignatur, ita ut in unoquoque spiritaliter nascatur Christus... Etenim necesse est, in regeneratorum animis velut sigillum quoddam exprimi et efformari Verbum veritatis ». Quibuscum consentiens S. Cyr. Alez. (in Luc. 2,92): « Sicuti circumcisus in Dei populum per illud signum olim coaptabatur, sic baptizatus Christo in se sigilli instar recepto inter filios Dei adscribitur ». Sed alia testimonia afferre superfluum est ; tropi explicationem ex Thom. addidisse sufficit : « Qui induitur aliqua veste, inquit, protegitur et contegitur ab ea et apparet sub colore vestis, colore proprio occultato; eodem modo etiam qui induit Christum, protegitur et contegitur a Christo et in eo nihil aliud apparet, nisi quae sunt Christi ». Cavendum tamen est , ne in hac vestis metaphora de mera quadam apparentia vel externa imputatione cogitetur; per baptismum quippe homo regeneratur, siquidem vetere homine mortuo novus nascitur, qui secundum Deum creatus in iustitia et sanctitate (Eph. 4,24 cfr Col. 3,10) corpori mystico velut membrum insertus vita ipsius Christi vivit eiusque Spiritu informatus ei perfecte assimilatur '. Quia vero omnes baptizati Christum induunt in eumque transformantur, ideo etiam omnes differentiae, quibus antea secundum velerem hominem distinguebantur, plane disparent :
3:28
98. non est ' Iudaeus , neque Graecus , non est servus neque liber, non est masculus neque femina; omnes enim vos unum (lege : unus cfr VV. LL. s) estis in Christo Iesu. Quae in verba egregie Chrys. : « Videsne animam insatiabilem? Quum enim dixisset : omnes factt sumus filii Dei per fidem , gradum non sistit, sed aliquid amplius quaerit, 'quo clarius intimam nostram cum Christo unionem (tvecw) manifestet; quumque dixisset : CAristum induistis, ne hoc quidem contentus est, sed ultra progreditur : omnes unus estis in. Christo, i. e. eandem formam eundemque typum habetis cum Christo. Quid his verbis potest esse magis stupendum aut verendum? Qui prius erat ethnicus vel servus, nunc formam habet non angeli aut archangeli, sed Domini universorum, ipsum Christum in se exhibens ». Sed « quum quis semel, inquit Hier., Christum indutus fuerit et missus in flammam S. Spiritus ardore canduerit, non intelligitur, aurum sit an argentum; quamdiu calor massam sic possidet, unus igneus color est; et omnis diversitas generis, conditionis et corporum aufertur istiusmodi indumento », ita ut iam « omnia et in omnibus sit Christus » (Col. 3,11). Revera quum vetus noster homo in baptismo cum Christo cruci confixuset mortuus sit (cfrad 2,19; Rom. 6,6), etiam formae, quae ad veterem hominem spectarunt, interierunt; et quia in baptismo cum Christo resurgente ad novam vitam novus homo resurgit, sola in eo illa iam adest forma, qua est membrum Christi (6,15; cfr ad 1 Cor. 12, 13; Col. 3,11 etc.). Ad proximum, quem Paulus hoc in loco prosequitur, finem suffecisset, si religiosas differentias, quae antea adfuerunt, disparuisse docuisset : non est Iudaeus neque Graecus , i. e. gentilis (cfr 2,3; 1 Cor. 1,22); nam hinc iam patebat, Christianos illos, qui ante baptismum ethnici fuerant, non magis quam ludaeochristianos, Legi velut paedagogo esse subiectos, quia ipsi quoque in Christo iam circumcisi sunt cireumcisione non manu facta sed circumcisione Christi (Col. 2,11). At sancto quodam ardore abreptus reliquas quoque formas, quibus homines in vita sociali (non est servus neque liber) etin ipsa vita naturali (non est masculus neque femina) distinguuntur, eorum inserlione in Christum sublatas esse addit, quia omnes nunc sint «nus (sic), una persona moralis seu unus novus homo (cfr EpA. 2,15), in sua cum Christo unione. Altera lectio : &v &c:& (unum estis) eandem quidem ideam, sed multo minore cum vi exprimit. Iam vero si omnes fideles per baptismum Christum — duerunt eiusque corpori mystico inserti in eo et cum co unam per onam constituunt, sua sponte patet eos ius habere ad haereditatem Abrahae illiusque semini promissam, quia illud ipsum semen sunt :
3:29
29. s? autem. vos Christi, ergo semen. Abrahae estis , secundum promissionem haeredes. Và Paulus revertitur ad thesin, quam in huius sectionis principio statuerat quaeque nunc plene est demonstrata, eos nimirum, qui ex fide sunt, benedictum iri cum fideli Abraham (v. 8. 9.). Argumentum Pauli est clarum : vos estis membra Christi, utpote baptismate ei incorporati (v. 27. 28), atqui Christus est Abrahae semen, cui dictae sunt promissiones (v. 16); ergo vobis dictae sunt. « Hic ergo ostendit, inquit Aug., unum semen Christum (v. 16.) . non tantum ipsum mediatoremintelligendum esse, verum etiam Ecclesiam , cuius ille corporis caput est : ut omnes in Christo unum sint et capiant secundum promissionem haereditatem per fidem, in quam conclusus erat, i. e. in cuius adventum tamquam sub paedagogo custodiebatur populus usque ad aetatis opportunitatem, qua in libertatem vocandi erant, qui in eodem populo secundum propositum vocati sunt ». Atque clarius TAeod. * « Si nos enim corpus Christi, et ipse est caput nostrum , Christus autem semen Abrahae est, nos ergo etiam secundum fidem coniuncti sumus Abrahae et promissionum benedictionem colligimus; fieri enim non potest, ut caput quidem censeatur esse semen Abrahae, corpus vero alterius sit semen ». Frustra igitur iudaizantes iactant originem abrahamiticam, « neque enim qui filii carnis, hi filii Dei; sed qui filii sunt promissionis, (soli) aestimantur in semine » (Rom. 9,8). Quia fili:Dei'sunt, ideo Christiani sui iuris quoque sunt neque amplius paedagogo Legi subiecti; Christo enim Filio Dei unigenito per baptismum velut membra inserti omnes, sive Iudaei sive ethnici antea fuerunt, eodem modo sunt filii Dei et semen Abrahae, ac proin idem ius ad haereditatem promissam habent. Haec erat in praecedente sectione (3,26-29) Pauli argumentatio, quae támen explicatione quadam indigebat. Etenim Iudaei vi originis suae iam erant semen Abrahae, atque etiam iam ante Domini adventum adoptivi filii Dei erant (Rom. 9,5; cfr Exod. 4,20; Deut. 18,1. 29 etc.; Is. 1,2; 43,6 etc.); nihil igitur, quominus haereditate potirentur, eis defuisse neque nova illa, de qua Apostolus loquitur, adoptio eis necessaria fuisse videbatur. Quam difficultatem praevertens prioribus suis verbis explicationem addit, qua Iudaeos filios quidem fuisse concedit, sed parvulos filios fuisse monet, qui usque ad tempus a patre definitum eadem ratione, qua servi, tractantur neque ab eis differunt (1-3). Tempus autem illud, quo iuxta Patris voluntatem Iudaei sub Lege serviebant servis assimilati , finitum esse docet adventu Christi, qui ipse Legi se subiiciens eos ab illius iugo liberavit omnibusque veram illam adoptionem contulit, cuius signum et documentum est Spiritus, quem acceperunt (4-6). Itaque tempus. servitutis seu. infantiae finitum est atque per Deum plenum ius ad haereditatem nunc sunt consecuti (v. 7). Paulus, quum Iudaeos sub paedagogo fuisse diceret, eos iam filiis parvulis assimilaverat, qui nondum essent sui iuris; ad eandem comparationem nunc revertitur, sed novo modo eam explanat, ut eos, quamvis promissiones patribus factae proxime ad eos spectarent (cfr Rom. 15,8), eodem tamen modo quo ethnicos, in plenum haereditatis ius non nisi adventu Domini intrasse ostendat.
3:1
Sens général. Ici commence, nous l'avons dit, une section nouvelle; mais une lettre n'est pas un traité, et Paul qui écrit sous une impression très vive passe d'une idée à l’autre par le point où elles s'enchaînent. La mort du Christ, cet événement inouï, ne pouvait pas avoir été décrétée par Dieu si elle n'était pour le genre humain la cause du salut. C'est l'idée sur laquelle Paul est resté (πὶ 21). C’est de là qu'il part en s'adressant de nouveau aux Galates, pour leur appliquer directement la leçon qui résultait de l'incident d'Antioche. Leur avant sans doute dit souvent les mêmes choses qu'à Pierre. il s'étonne qu'ils n'aient pas compris la valeur de la mort du Christ. Le v. 1 peut être entendu de deux manières, l’une en prenant βασχαίνω au sens vague d’'ensorceler, de préférence par des paroles, et προεγράφη au sens d'écrire d'avance. On aurait : « qui vous ἃ ensorcelés par des paroles séductrices, vous auxquels j'avais décrit d'avance le Christ crucifié? » Mais cette manière ne tient pas compte du sens propre de κατ᾽ ὀφθαλμούς, « aux yeux ». Il faut donc entendre : « qui vous a jeté le mauvais œil, vous aux yeux desquels le Christ avait été placé crucifié? » L'image est empruntée au jettatore qui exerce l'influence de son mauvais œil sur les yeux de sa victime. Les Galates auraient dû être prémunis par le spectacle du Sauveur crucifié mis sous leurs yeux : comment donc s'en sont-ils détournés pour subir une fatale influence? Naturellement Paul sait très bien que les judaïsants n'ont point eu recours au mauvais œil. mais plutôt à toutes les ressources de leur parole; il se sert d'une expression populaire très frappante, comme nous disons « ensorceler » sans penser à la sorcellerie. Cette métaphore lui a permis de présenter aux Galates la saisissante image du Christ crucifié. — ὦ ἀνόητοι Γαλάται. Paul s'adresse parfois à ses correspondants : II Cor. vi, 11; Phil. 1v, 15, sans ὦ. L'emploi de ὦ donne un tour plus vif, et souvent avec une note de reproche : Rom. τι, 1. 8; 1x, 20; Le. xxiv, 25: Act. x, 40. Ἀνόητοι ne peut s'entendre, comme le pensait 5. Jérôme, d'un défaut naturel des Galates. C'est plutôt, comme dans l'épisode des disciples d'Emmaüs (Le. χχιν, 25), l'expression d’un défaut de perspicacité. Le νοῦς est la partie la plus spirituelle de l’homme. Les Galates n'ont pas pénétré le mystère du christianisme; leur esprit superficiel prétend concilier des éléments dont ils n'ont pas compris l'incompatibilité. — τίς interrogation vague comme dans Mt. πι, 7 ; Le. mt, 7. La diatribè aimait les interrogations à la cantonade (cf. Comm. Rom., p. Lvu). Paul n'ignorait pas à quel parti appartenaient les perturbateurs, mais veut marquer surtout ce que leur entreprise a d’inouï : qui donc a pu? — ἐῤόσκανεν, aoriste en «. Le mot βασχαίνω semble venir de βάζω, βάσχω (φάσχω), « parler », et a ἀὰ s'entendre d’abord des incantations par la parole, d’où, au sens métaphorique, d'un enseignement corrupteur (Diop. IV, 6). Ce sens métaphorique convient ïci, maïs le contexte indique par l'image employée le maléfice spécial du mauvais œil (cf. dans le Banquet de Plutarque, V. 7, p. 680 C περὶ τῶν καταθασκαίνειν λεγομένων καὶ βάσχανον ἔχειν ὀφθαλμόν x.7.À.). Le cas le plus fâcheux était l'influence du mauvais œil sur les yeux de la personne à laquelle on voulait du mal : ὥσπερ ἰώδη τινὰ χαὶ φθοροποιὸν ἀχτῖνα ἐξιᾶσιν ἀπὸ τῆς χόρης αὐτῶν χαὶ αὕτη εἰσιοῦσα διὰ τῶν ὀφθαλμῶν τοῦ φθονουμένου τρέψει τὴν ψυχὴν καὶ τὴν φύσιν κιτιλι (ALEXAND. ArHr. Probl. phys. IT, 53, cité par Light). C'était même proprement l'imposition d'un βάσκανος : δόσις βασχάνου ἐχτήκει ὀφθαλιούς (Eccl. xvir, 18). Paul reproche aux Galates de n'avoir pas tenu les yeux fixés sur le Christ crucifié, ce qui les aurait préservés. Les Pères grecs (Chrys. Théod., ete.) ont compris cette allusion au mauvais œil, mais comme dans l'A. et le N. T. il désigne l'envie, ils ont transcrit « envier ce qui est remplacer le maléfice par son mobile ordinaire. 5. Jérôme avait un sens plus juste de cette métaphore en rappelant que la fascinatio s'exerçait sur les enfants : ut quomodo tenera aetas noceri dicitur fascino, sic etiam Galatae, in Christi fide nuper nati et nutriti lacte et non solido cibo, veluti quodam fascinante sint nociti. Cependant Paul n’a pas dû considérer la passion du Christ comme le lait qu’on donne aux enfants. — Après ἐδάσχανεν on lit dans le texte reçu : τῇ ἀληθείᾳ μὴ πείθεσθαι, qui a dû être emprunté au v. 7. — κατ᾽ ὀφθαλμούς ne peut être simplement synonyme de l'intelligence, comme dans Le. χιχ, 42, où la métaphore est indiquée par ἔγνως (ἐκρύδη ἀπὸ ὀφθαλμῶν sw). L'expression signifie dans le grec classique « sous les regards — προεγράφη. Dans le N. T. προγράφω signifie « écrire d'avance », Rom. xv, &; Eph. 1, 3: Jud. &, ce qui a été entendu soit de la prédiction du Christ dans les Écritures, soit de la prédication de Paul. Mais les Écritures n'ont point été écrites pour les Galates (οἷς προεγράφη), et la prédication n’est point une écriture, Or προγοάφω a un autre sens en grec, surtout profane (Cf, I Macch. x, 36; Lucien, T'êm. τὰ; Piur. Mor. 408 D), celui de faïre connaître au public par un placard : 8 τι ἂν προγράφωμεν ἐν τοῖς πιναχίοις, ARISTOPH, Av. 450, Ce sens convient admirablement ici et justifie beaucoup mieux que le précédent χατ᾽ ὀφθαλμούς. Le Christ, par la prédication de Paul, cela va sans dire, ἃ été comme affiché aux yeux des Galates. Comme le Christ en croix appelle l'idée d’un tableau, quelques Pères grecs ont donné (encore Zahn, Lietz.) à προγράφω le sens de peindre. Maïs si c'est bien le sens de γράφω, on n'a pas fourni d'exemple de cette signification pour çoypéow; non plus que pour celle de « peindre d'avance » (Zipsius). Il est donc plus prudent de s'en tenir au sens d'afficher, d'autant que peut-être ces aïtiches publiques contenaient parfois des images, comme les enseignes. Quoi qu'il en soit de cette précision, il n’est pas douieux que le Christ devait servir aux Galates de préservatif (3xax4yiov ou προδασχάνιον, Episi. Jer. 69) contre les sortilèges. — Après προεγοάφη le texte reçu insère ἐν ὑμῖν. Si ces mots étaient authentiques, il faudrait pour le sens les joindre à προεγράφη « le Christ aété aifiché parmi vous »; il est vrai que ocindique déjà cette idée, mais ἐν ὅμῖν ferait allusion à la prédication de Paul; l'image du Christ n'était pas éloignée, mais dressée dans leur pays même. La Fg. n'a pas in sobis d'après WW. ed. min, En tout cas la coupure de la Vg.- Clém. praescriptus est, in vobis crucifixus, est difficilement explicable, car le Christ n'a pas été crucifié parmi les Galates (Corn. : quasi esset inter vos crucifisus); d'autre part « en vous » ne peut signifier « dans vos âmes » puisque le crucilié est placé sous les yeux. — ἐσταυρωμένος, parce que c'était la mort sur la Croix qui avait sauvé le monde, et que c'est par l'union au crucifié que les chrétiens étaient affranchis de la Loi (cf. n, 19). Paul était si versé dans les textes du Pentateuque qu'on serait étonné qu'il n'eût pas pensé au serpent d'airain dressé par Moïse contre la morsure des serpents (Num. XXI, 8). — L'afichage public des anciens avait souvent pour objet une liste de proscription, d'où le sens de proscrire pour προγράφειν (Polybe, XXXII, 21,12; XXXII, 22,1; Prur. Brut. 27); la Vo. sixtine lisait proscriptus est, d'après l'ancienne latine, Victorin, Ambrosiaster, Augustin et le codex Fuldensis; c'était la leçon de Pélage : on remédiait à ce qu'elle avait de difficile en ajoutant ei: proscriplus est et in vobis crucifixus : le Christ condamné de nouveau et crucifié chez les Galates.
3:2
Les Galates eux-mêmes, dont l’Apôtre reconnaît la bonne foi, ont le moyen de résoudre la question des œuvres par un argument décisif. Ils ont reçu lEsprit-Saint, principe intérieur de la vie chrétienne, et ils en ont eu conscience, non seulement par des signes extérieurs miraculeux dont il sera question au v. 5, mais encore par le changement qui s’est opéré en eux, leur conviction intime, les lumières qu’ils ont reçues, les bons désirs qu'ils éprouvent. Or ils ne se préoccupaient pas alors des œuvres de la Loi, dont ils ne pouvaient avoir qu'une connaissance très vague: ils ont reçu l'Esprit au moment où ils ont adhéré par la foi à ce qu'on leur prêchait, c'est-à-dire à Jésus-Christ crucifié. — ἐξ ἀκοῆς πίστεως est la seule expression difficile. D'après Cornely, ἀκοή est synonyme de ὑπαχοή; cf. Rom. 1, 5; χνι, 26, mais ἄχοή n'a ce sens que dans I Regn. xv, 22, où il n'est qu'un calque de l'hébreu. Paul connaissait la distinction des deux mots. ἀχοή, outre le sens d'ouïe et même d'oreille, a deux sens qui peuvent convenir ici : « audition » (Rom. x, 17; IL Pet. n, 8: Is. VI, 9) et « rumeur répandue, prédication » (Rom. x, 16; Mt. 1v, 24; χιν, 1; xxrv, 6); le premier convient mieux, parce qu'il suppose une participation des auditeurs, équivalent pour 16 rythme de la phrase à l'exercice des œuvres. Alors πίστεως serait un génitif subjectif : celui qui entend prête créance, l'audition conduit à la foi, elle est même accompagnée de la foi. Il va sans dire que cette foi a pour objet le Christ, comme il a été dit (n, 16 ss.). Même si l'on prenait ἀκοή dans son sens de rumeur, qui revient à celui de prédication, πίστεως ne peul être, quoi qu'il semble au premier abord, un génitif d'objet, car πίστις n'a jamais pour Paul le sens de « doctrine de la foi »; le vrai mot pour cela est l'évangile. Ce serait donc un génitif de relation, la prédication sur la nécessité de la foi (Sicffert). Mais le contraste avec les œuvres serait trop fort : d'un côté les œuvres exercées, de l’autre une parole qui prêche la foi; l'Esprit-Saint serait-il donc donné sans aucun assentiment des fidèles?
3:3
οὕτως avec un adjectif : « tellement », « à ce degré », avec l'interrogation après ἐστε. La Vg.-Clém. n’a fait qu'une phrase du verset en mettant ut qui lie les deux parties. Paul a lancé au début (nr, 1) l'épithète d'insensés. Il va la justifier. — ἐναρξάμενοι se dit de rites préliminaires, cf. Eur. /ph. Aul. 4471, et aussi d'une première initiation; cf. Porrux, VIII, 88 (Lise). Cette initiation fut celle de l'Esprit-Saint; il faudrait donc Spiritu plutôt que spiritu (Vy.-Clém.). Paul expose plus loin (v, 16 ss.) l'opposition entre l'esprit, principe de vie divine dans le chrétien, et la chair, disposition qui conduit au péché (Rom. vin, 42 s ). Mais ici l'Esprit principe de la vie nouvelle ne peut être autre que l'Esprit-Saint du verset précédent que les fidèles ont reçu avec la foi. Aussi bien n'est-il pas question de la lutte morale du baptisé entre l'esprit et la chair, mais, dans l'opinion des judaïsants, de passer d'une première initiation à l'admission au rang des parfaits, ou plutôt de deux formes religieuses, le christianisme et 16 judaïsme. Le judaïsme est qualifié de « chair », parce qu'on y entraït par la circoncision, stigmate de la chair. D'ailleurs avec son habitude d’opposer la chair et l'esprit, Paul qui regarde le christianisme comme inauguré par l'Esprit, devait regarder l’ancienne dispensation comme une sorte de chair, une législation d'œuvres extérieures et corporelles {(T'héodoret). D'une part on est sous la mouvance de l'Esprit, de l'autre on dépend de rites corporels : Esprit et chair, sans article, sont donc les caractéristiques de deux modes religieux. — ἐπιτελεῖσθε (au présent, parce que les choses sont en cours) pourrait être au moyen dans le sens de l'actif, « achever ». Mais Paul sait très bien employer l'actif, précisément après ἐνάρχομαι (Phil. 1, 6; cf. II Cor, vu, 6), et le moyen ne se trouve nulle part dans le N. T.; ἐπιτελεῖσθαε de I Pet. v, 9 est au passif. Dire que le moyen correspond mieux à ἐναρξάμενοι, c’est, négliger la fine nuance et l'ironie, qui n’a pas échappé à Chrysostome. Au début, les Galates se sont initiés à l'Esprit par la foi; maintenant ils sont consacrés dans la chair par ceux qui les traitent en enfants et en esclaves. ἐπιτελεῖν ἃ Le sens rituel : « achever, consommer des sacrifices ». Ici il s’agit d'une initiation supérieure — naturellement par antiphrase. Ce terme ne prouve pas que les judaïsants donnaient seulement la circoncision comme une perfection surérogatoire du christianisme; si ce n'est pas simplement une ironie qu'il ne faudrait pas serrer de trop près, le judaïsme serait un degré de religion supérieur à celui du christianisme, ce qui était le renversement des rôles : au lieu de s'élever plus haut, on tombait dans la chair. La prétention était plus insolente que de voir seulement dans la circoncision une marque de bonne volonté, une œuvre, qui rendait le christianisme plus parfait, par l’accomplissement d’une loi divine. Pour un judaïsant relativement modéré, le christianisme ne dispensait pas de la Loi ceux qui étaient nés juifs; d'après les judaïsants qui travaillaient chez les Galates, ces gentils, d'abord convertis au christianisme, étaient seulement sur la voie d’une religion plus haute, le judaïsme intégral, messianisme compris.
3:4
Deux opinions. ἐπάθετε ἃ été pris par un très grand nombre de modernes (Lips. Sieff. Lietz. Lois. Bous.) dans un bon sens. « C’est doncen vain que vous avez éprouvé de la part de Dieu tant d'expériences spirituelles convaincantes ». Ordinairement πάσχω n’a le sens de ressentir une chose bonne ou agréable que lorsqu'il est déterminé par des termes clairs, comme εὖ, ἀγαθά etc. Les tenants de cette opinion allèguent que le contexte suffit à opérer cette détermination au bien et citent Josèphe (Ant. III, xv, 1) : ὁπομνῆ-- σαι, ὅσα παθόντες ἐξ αὐτοῦ (de Dieu) καὶ πηλίκων εὐεργεσιῶν μεταλαδόντες ἀχάριστοι πρὸς αὐτὸν γένοιντο, où le contexte est en effet si clair qu'il n’y ἃ aucun doute. C'est aussi le plus probable dans notre cas, puisque ἐπάθετε est comme encadré entre deux mentions des opérations de l'Esprit. Mais comme πάσχω n’a nulle part dans la Bible une acception favorable, d’autres s’en tiennent à son acception ordinaire (Zight. Corn. Zahñn). Dans la théologie de Paul (Rom. vin, 17 ss.), Les souffrances du chrétien sont récompensées par la gloire; il serait donc très fâcheux d'avoir souffert en vain (εἰκῇ), non pas sans cause, car la cause était bonne, mais sans résultat, ce qui arriverait infailliblement si les Galates, en acceptant la circoncision, renonçaient au véritable évangile. ἢ Υ a une interrogation après εἰχῇ, qui continue le rythme des phrases précédentes (contre Sieffert). A ce sens de ἐπάθετε on ne saurait objecter que les souffrances des Galates ne sont mentionnées nulle part ailleurs dans l'épître, et que l'histoire n’en parle pas. Si ce sens était certain, on répondrait que Paul regarde la souffrance pour le Christ comme une faveur qui suit la foi (Phil. τ, 29) et qui a été souvent accordée aux nouvelles communautés (1 Thess. πι, 14). Nous ne pouvons rien affirmer des Galates parce que nous ignorons presque tout de leur histoire, que l’épître ne nous fait connaître que très imparfaitement. Ceux qui regardent ces Galates comme habitant la Pisidie et la Lycaonie ne sont point embarrassés pour citer des persécutions (Act. χιν, 2. 5. 19. 22), mais d'ailleurs cette ressemblance dans les souffrances ne prouverait pas l'identité des Galates et des Lycaoniens, même d’après l'opinion que nous croyons moins probable. — εἴ γε καὶ εἰκῇ. a) Augustin (Schae/.) a compris d’après le latin si tamen sine causa dans un sens péjoratif : « quand je me demande si vous avez éprouvé tant de choses pour rien, je devrais me demander si ce n'est pas pour votre perte » : guod sine causa, inquit, factum dicilur, superfluum est; superfluurm autem nec prodest nec nocet; hoc vero timendum est, ait, ne ad perniciem valeat. L'idée pourrait être juste si ἐπάθετε s'eutendait des grâces reçues: si on les méprise, non seulement elles sont sans profit, elles concourent à la perte. Mais il est difficile de soutenir que des souffrances endurées pour le Christ soient jamais une cause de damnation (Corn.). b) D'après Victor., Théod. de Mops., Théodoret, Light., Corn., Zahn, Lietz. etc., au lieu d’une appréhension, Paul exprime l'espérance que les Galates n'auront pas souffert en vain. C’est un adoucissement de ce qui précède ; le doute est encore exprimé, mais atténué : si tamen, id quod non crediderim, etc. (Corn.). Ce sens serait en harmonie avec la situation des Galates, dont l'apostasie n'est pas consommée, mais, dans cette situation, Paul pourrait exprimer une crainte aussi bien qu’une espérance. La question est d’ailleurs de savoir si εἴ γε, surtout avec χαί, ne signifie pas : « si, comme je le crois », etc. C’est son sens normal en grec, et des grammairiens compétents soutiennent que c’est le seul. Light. demande une exception en faveur du N. T., mais il semble bien que εἴ γε suppose la réalité du fait dans Eph. π|, 2: rv, 24; Col. 1, 23 et surtout dans II Cor. v, 3 (avec καῇ). c) Le sens serait donc : « si, comme je le crois », ou tout au plus « si, comme je le crains », mais non pas : « je veux espérer le contraire ». On objecte que Paul répéterait deux fois la même chose. Maïs c'est qu'on ne tient pas compte de τοσαῦτα et de l'interrogation : « est-ce donc en vain que vous avez TANT souflert ? si, comme je le crains, c’est bien en vain » (Sieffert, Lipsius). Le ps.-Primasius force à peine la note : si tamen non dubitantis est, sed confirmantis.
3:5
οὖν reprend la question principale posée au v. 2. Paul s'était interrompu à la pensée de la situation fâcheuse où couraient les Galates. — ἐπιχορηγῶν au partie. présent, comme plus loin ἐνεργῶν, ce qui marque bien que la situation n'était pas désespérée. IL est d’ailleurs dans la nature des choses que les Cralates ne se soient pas comportés comme un bloc. Pendant que les uns méritaient déjà les reproches du v. 8, où ἐπιτελεῖσθε est aussi au présent, d’autres étaient fidèles et continuaient à recevoir les dons de l'Esprit. C'est d'après ceux-là, puisqu'ils étaient sous l’action de Dieu, qu'il fallait se former une conviction. — irtyopnyéw renferme l’idée de fournir généreusement, largement; cf. Phil. 1, 19 et II Pet. τ, 5. L'Esprit peut agir par des dons de discrétion, de sagesse, de science (1 Cor. x, 6 ss.) qui tout en se manifestant à l'occasion sont de leur nature intérieurs; alors ἐν ὑμῖν signifierait « en vous dans vos âmes. Mais si les δυνάμεις sont plutôt des miracles extérieurs, ἐν ὑμῖν doit signifier parmi vous. Et il semble bien que pour Paul {II Cor. χα, 12) comme dans l'Évangile (Mt. vu, 22; x1, 20 etc.) les δυνάμεις sont des miracles. Leur pouvoir convaincant est en effet plus décisif encore que les expériences intérieures dont il a été déjà question au v. 2.
3:6
La question posée au v. 5 ne comportait qu'une réponse : l'Esprit est donné aux Galates ensuite d’une audition accompagnée de foi. Cette réponse si évidente est censée acquise, et Paul s'y référant comme si elle avait été énoncée peut dire : καθώς, « c'est de la même façon que ». Puis sans renvoyer à l'Écriture il lui emprunte (Gen. xv, 6) les termes qui disent comment Abraham ayant cru, cette foi lui fut comptée comme justice. Sur le sens de ce texte, voir le Commentaire de Rom. 1v, 3. La Vg.-Clém. (mais non WW.ed. min.) ajoute seriptum est pour souligner la citation; pareille insertion n’est jamais permise à un traducteur, mais celle-ci est dans l'esprit de l'argumentation, car Paul argumente moins du fait d'Abraham dans ses contours historiques que de l'autorité des termes de l’Ecriture qui le révèlent dans toute sa portée religieuse. La prédiction faite à Abraham était la promesse d'une nombreuse postérité; peu importe l’objet; ce qui est mis en relief par l'Écriture c’est l'acte de foi d'Abraham en la parole de Dieu : lui aussi a procédé ἐξ ἀκοῆς πίστεως, M. Loisy a indiqué crûment une objection que nous avions en vue en tentant l'exégèse des textes de l’Épitre aux Romains (ιν, 3 ss.) : « Peut-être n'est-il pas inutile de noter que Paul va fonder son argumentation sur un contresens. La Genèse dit qu'Abraham crut contre toute vraisemblance à la promesse de Dieu qui lui annonçait une nombreuse postérité, et que Dieu lui sut gré de cette foi, de cette confiance, la lui imputa en témoignage de piété, en œuvre de justice, en mérite, ce qui est à peu près le contraire de ce que veut Paul en prenant le mot « justice », non pas au sens concret de conduite ou d'action bonne ou méritoire, mais au sens abstrait de justification, comme si les péchés d'Abraham avaient été effacés devant Dieu par sa foi en la promesse, idée qui est complètement étrangère au texte ». Il y a là en effet une véritable difficulté dont les protestants ne se sont pas souciés parce qu'ils s'appliquent à voir dans le texte cité par Paul la justice déclarative, dont il n’a jamais eu même l'idée, et que les catholiques récents n’ont certes pas diminuée en voyant dans les mêmes paroles le don formel de la justice qui eût fait passer Abraham du péché à la justice, idée réellement étrangère au texte de la Genèse, et que ni Chrysostome et son école, ni Jérôme n'y avaient vue, d'autant que dès son départ de Chaldée Abraham figure dans l'Écriture comme un ami de Dieu (οἵ, Comm. Rom., p. 89 et ΗΒ. 1916, p. 496 ss.), Le sens de la Genèse est bien celui qu'indique M. Loisy (cf. Comm. Rom., p. 84}, en ineistant davantage sur le relief de l'acte de foi, qui répond de la part d'Abraham à la parole de Dieu, contenant une promesse. Mais 5. Paul a toujours le plus grand soin de ne point expliquer ce texte en parlant d'Abraham comme si sa foi Ini avait, en ce moment même, obtenu le pardon de ses péchés. La comparaison entre les fidèles chrétiens et Abraham se fait sur 66 point que des deux parts ce qui rend agréable à Dieu, ce n’est pas les œuvres de la Loi, mais la foi en la parole, en la promesse. C'est ce que M. Loisy a très hien dit : « Ce n’est pas d'aujourd'hui, pense-t-il (Paul), que la foi est le principe du salut ». Et rien ne le prouve mieux que l’exemple d'Abraham dont l'Écriture loue la foi. Cette foi d'Abraham était évidemment le principe de ses actes, étant à la base de son obéissance. C'est à cause de sa foi qu'il a quitté son pays pour venir au pays de Canaan, c'est par un acte de foi qu’il a répondu à la promesse; c’est parce que cette foi demeurait intacte qu'il a consenti à immoler Isaac, le fils de la promesse. C'est ainsi qu'on l’entendait alors (Ieb. x1, 8-10, 17-19), et Lighifoot ἃ noté dix passages de Philon qui citent le même verset de la Genèse (xv, 6) sur la foi d'Abraham. Si donc l'on demandait : Dieu tient-il compte de la foi ou des œuvres de la Loi? L'exemple d'Abraham, reconnu juste avant de recevoir la circoncision, prouvait bien que Dieu s’en tient à la foi. Les chrétiens qui attendaient leur salut de la promesse de Dieu, qui faisaient un acte de foi en la prédication proposée de sa part, avaient pour type Abraham reconnu juste en suite d'un acte de foi. On ne se demande pas si cette foi n'est pas en même temps une œuvre agréable à Dieu. La question posée devant les Galates est de savoir si le salut est promis aux œuvres de la Loi ou à la foi en Jésus-Christ. Il y ἃ le système des œuvres légales et le système de la foi. De quel côté doit-on ranger Abraham, père des Juifs? Du côté de ceux qui croient! Or en aflirmant que Ja foi a toujours été le principe du salut, Paul suppose que les voies de Dieu ont toujours été les mêmes. Comment il procède dans le christianisme, tous les fidèles le savent. On croit de toute son âme et l'on reçoit l'Esprit-Saint. Le converti passe normalement du péché à la justice. Dès lors il a la justice, 1 est justifié, sans aucune œuvre légale, après son acte de foi, ce qui équivaut à dire que la justice est un don de Dieu. Même point de départ dans le fait d'Abraham. Dans l'Épitre aux Romains, après avoir cité le mémetexte que dans l'Épitre aux Galates, Paul s'en sert pour expliquer l’origine de la justice. Maïs cette glose est, comme nous avons essayé de le montrer, distincte de l'argument principal. À s'en tenir au texte des Galates, il n’y a même pas de prétexte pour prétendre que le texte de la Genèse fait allusion à la première justification d'Abraham. L'Apôtre conclura seulement au v. 7 que les hommes de foi sont les enfants d'Abraham, parce qu'Abraham étant le type de la foi, son exemple prouve que la foi et non les œuvres est la disposition nécessaire pour plaire à Dieu. La foi en la promesse, sentiment chrétien par excellence, était le propre d'Abraham. En renversant l’ordre historique, en appliquant à Abraham ce qui est vrai des chrétiens, on devra conclure qu'Abraham lui aussi n’a reçu l’Esprit-Saint qu’en suite de 18 foi. Le texte de la Genèse en est l'indice, le point de départ d'un raisonnement. Paul ne prétend pas voir exprimées dans un texte de l'Ancien Testament toutes les conclusions théologiques qu'on peut à bon droit tirer de sa doctrine.
3:7
υἱοί εἰσιν (Nestle), ε, v (Soden avec Vg.). Ce verset précise en quoi consiste la ressemblance (καθώς) entre Abraham et les chrétiens non judaïsants Jui et eux procèdent par foi. — γινῴώσχετε peut être à l'indicatif ou à l'impératif. La seconde manière paraît convenir mieux au ton animé du passage. C'est celle de la Ve. (Clém. et WW. ed. min.), quoique Jérôme ait lu l'indicatif. — οἱ ἐκ πίστεως, ceux qui font de la foi le principe de leur vie religieuse (cf. οἱ ἐξ ἐριθείας Rom. n, 8; ὃ ἐκ πίστεως Rom. 111, 26; οἱ ἐκ νόμου Rom. 1v, 14). La foi n'empêche pas, au contraire elle stimule puissamment l'exercice des œuvres; Paul ne l'ignore pas, qui est si zélé pour la sainteté des convertis, mais en ce moment il s'agit de savoir si Dieu veut qu’on l'aborde avec foi dans la prédication de l'évangile pour y trouver le pardon et la grâce de l'Esprit-Saint, ou si l’on peut avoir la prétention d'obtenir son suffrage par des œuvres légales. Il ne saurait être question de perfectionner le christianisme par les œuvres de la Loi, il faut choisir entre les deux principes : οἱ Ex πίστεως est opposé à ὅσοι... ἐξ ἔργων νόμου (v. 10). — οὗτοι, ceux-ci, au sens exclusif, et non pas les autres, ceux qui se prévalent des œuvres, sont les vrais fils d'Abraham. La locution a une saveur hébraïque. On aurait pu dire en Grèce que Xénophon ou Platon était le vrai fils de Socrate parce qu’il avaitson esprit. En hébreu on disait tout uniment fils de la mort etc. Ge mot suppose ici un sentiment profond de la filiation religieuse, Si on l'admet, il n’y a plus rien à opposer à l'argument de Paul. Il ἃ été accepté par les musulmans à leur manière, quand ils nomment Abraham le Père des croyants.
3:8
προϊδοῦσα δὲ ἣ γραφή n'est pas seulement une personnification de l'Écriture, car si l'on peut dire que l'Écriture a vu d'avance (formule des Rabbins ΠΝῚ ΠῸ qu'a-t-elle vu?), ce n'est pas l'Écriture qui a parlé à Abraham. La personnalité de l’Écriture est ici soutenue par celle de Dieu son auteur; cf. Puizon, De fuga 197 : « le père de l'univers a parlé de cela, en rendant des oracles par la bouche des prophètes » (RB. 1916, p. 698). — ἐκ πίστεως est fortement en vedette devant le verbe, comme ur, 24 (tandis que dans tous les autres cas la foi est nommée après le verbe); c’est l’idée principale. — δικαιοῖ au présent; Paul fait allusion à ce qui se passe. Peu importe là-dessus l'opinion des judaïsants outrés; les Galates étaient censés avoir reconnu qu'ils avaient été justifiés par la foi. Il n’y avait donc pas à le prouver, Mais ce fait autorisait l'Écriture ou plutôt celui qui l’a inspirée à annoncer à Abraham que les gentils seraient bénis en lui, non pas que la justification épuise toute la bénédiction, mais parce qu’elle fait entrer les gentils dans la grâce du christianisme, dans la vérité religieuse dont Abraham est le lointain précurseur. — προενηγγελίσατο, terme employé par Philon (De opif. mundi $ 9; Mutat. nom. $ 29), maïs inconnu de la Bible et des anciens auteurs profanes. L'évangile est pour ainsi dire commencé avec l’heureuse nouvelle donnée à Abraham de la bénédiction accordée aux gentils en sa personne. — ἐνευλογηθήσονται χ, τ᾿ À. Le passage principal, où la bénédiction est annoncée directement à Abraham, est Gen. χα, 8, passage antérieur à celui de la foi d'Abraham (Gen. xv, 6), ce qui montre bien que Paul re spécule pas sur la justification d'Abraham, en tant que passant du péché à la justice. Seulement ce texte disait πᾶσαι αἱ φυλαὶ τῆς γῆς, et ces tribus ou nations de la terre convenaient moins au contexte que les termes de la fin de Gen. ΧΥΠΙ, 18 χαὶ ἐνευλογηθήσονται ἐν αὐτῷ πάντα τὰ ἔθνη τῆς γῆς, parce que τὰ ἔθνη était le terme reçu pour désigner les gentils par opposition à Israël. Paul a donc mis πάντα τὰ ἔθνη sans dire expressément qu'il groupe deux textes, de façon que la prophétie et Le fait se correspondent mieux, sans d’ailleurs rien changer au fond des choses. Mais on lui reproche d’avoir cité d’après les Septante qui rendraient mal le texte hébreu, et de s'être écarté même de la pensée des Septante. Les deux griefs sont ainsi exposés par M. Loisy « La même équivoque existe ici sur la « bénédiction » que plus haut sur la « justice ». L'ancien texte disait que les nations, témoins de la gloire et des biens accordés par Dieu à Abraham, « se béniraient par lui », ne trouveraient rien de mieux à se souhaiter que le bonheur d'Abraham, c'est-à-dire d'Israël. Paul, après les Septante, entend que tous les peuples seront bénis par Dieu en Abraham; mais au lieu d'admettre simplement que la vraie religion arrivera aux nations par le moyen d'Israël, il imagine une bénédiction, c'est-à-dire le don du salut par la foi, qui, octroyé par Dieu à Abraham, compte pour tous les croyants de l'avenir ». Le second grief suppose que Paul assimile complètement la bénédiction à la justification par la foi; il tombe avec cette interprétation trop étroite. Mais les Septante ont-ils mal compris l'hébreu? C'est l'opinion de plusieurs exégètes de la Genèse, mais elle ne paraît guère fondée que sur la répugnance à prendre telle quelle cette étonnante prophétie, qui inaugure dans la Bible le rôle religieux d'Abraham, s'étendant virtuellement à tous les peuples. Sans entrer dans une discussion grammaticale du texte hébreu, on voit bien que les nations pourraient se souhaiter le bonheur d'une autre nation, qui serait dans ce cas Israël, mais non de son ancêtre, disparu avant l'effet de la promesse, et il est par trop facile de les identifier en disant « d'Abraham, c'est-à-dire d'Israël ». D'autant que dans Gen. x, 2, Abraham doit être « bénédiction », c’est-à-dire source de bénédiction, comme l'explique le contexte : « je bénirai ceux qui te béniront … et toutes les familles de la terre seront bénies en toi », hériteront de la bénédiction à toi donnée. — ἐν σοί, « en toi », non pas dans ta postérité, ni à limitation de la bénédiction que je t'accorde (Cyr. Aug. apud Corn.}), mais en ta personne (Corn.). Cette bénédiction, de sa nature, est religieuse; elle ne peut être répandue sur toutes les nations de la terre par la simple action d'une force naturelle. La bénédiction d'Abraham lui-même suppose qu'il a obéi et qu'il a cru en la promesse. Il en sera donc de même de toutes les nations. La bénédiction leur est donnée d'avance en Abraham, mais à la condition que les gentils imitent sa foi. C’est ce que conclut le v. 9.
3:9
ὥστε indique bien une conclusion. — οἱ x πίστεως est exclusif : ceux qui procèdent par foi et ceux-là seuls. Du fait qu'ils ont été bénis en Abraham, dont l'Écriture loue la foi, on pouvait conclure qu'ils seraient bénis pour leur foi. C’est bien ce qui se passe, εὐλογοῦνται, ils sont actuellement bénis, et comme cette bénédiction leur appartient à eux-mêmes, ils ne sont pas actuellement bénis en Abraham, maïs avec Abraham, l'homme de Ia foi. On s’est demandé comment l'argument conclut. Cornely forme un argument purement logique, déduit du verset précédent, en suppléant une mineure În Abrahamo omnes ΘΕΝΤΕΒ benedicentur; atqui gentes, id quod nomen ipsum docet, nec ratione naturalis propinquitatis, aut originis etc. in Abrahamo insunt, sed ratione fidei.... erge qui ex fide sunt et tanquam credentes Abrahamo inserti sunt, benedicentur cum fideli Abraham. Mais en voit que la conclusion de Cornely s'exprime au futur, « seront bénis », et la distinction de « dans » et « avec » Abraham n’est pas sauvegardée. Il faut reconnaître que l’argument s'appuie sur le fait de la bénédiction, dont ni Paul, ni les Galaies ne doutent qu'elle a été accordée aux gentils après leur acte de foi. Il ne veut pas prouver que les gentils sont bénis, mais que la bénédiction qu'ils reçoivent est la même qui fut accordée d’abord à Abraham, à la suite de sa foi. Ils ont été bénis en lui, au moment de la promesse, et maintenant ils sont bénis avec lui. Qu'on ne prétende donc pas qu'ils ne peuvent se réclamer d'Abraham s'ils ne sont circoncis!
3:10
La phrase se rattache à ce qui précède (v. 9) comme une explication supplémentaire, un argument a contrario, le dilemme étant constemment sous-entendu : ou la foi ou des œuvres de loi, c'est-à-dire en fait, et dans la situation historique, les œuvres de la Loi mosaïque. À οἱ tx πίστεως s’opposent ὅσοι ἐξ ἔργων νόμου εἰσίν, tous ceux, même les Juifs convertis au christianisme, qui, ne comprenant pas que le salut est assuré par la foi, croiraient devoir prendre leur appui sur des œuvres comme la circoncision, l'observance du sabbat etc. Paul pose par contraste qu'ayant cessé d'attendre leur salut du Christ, ils l'attendent de l’observance de la Loi, c'est-à-dire d'eux-mêmes. C'est dans cette hypothèse qu'il se place; il suppose cetto disposition d'âme connue : il l’expliquera aux Romains (τη, 20; 1x, 32 etc.; Comm., p. 183 ss.). Or dans cette poursuite des œuvres légales, en ne s’appuyant que sur la Loi, on ne peut aboutir qu’à recueillir la malédiction. C'est ce qu'affirme la Loi elle-même, puisqu'elle maudit quiconque n’'accomplit pas tous ses préceptes. Le texte est celui de Dt. xx, 26, d'après les Septante : ἐπικατάρατος πᾶς ἄνθρωπος ὃς οὐχ ἐμμένει ἐν πᾶσιν τοῖς λόγοις τοῦ νόμου τούτου τοῦ ποιῆσαι αὐτούς. Les lévites promulguant uns loi par la parole disaient naturellement en grec τοῖς λόγοις, Paul qui se réfère à une loi écrite dit plus clairement : τοῖς γεγραμμένοις ἐν τῷ βιδλίῳ, changement inoffensif, d'autant qu’en hébreu « les paroles » sont un terme vague. Deissmann (Neue Bibeist. 76 s.) a conjecturé aussi qu'en mettant un participe Paul a suivi inconsciemment la terminologie des contrats et édits, attestée par de nombreux papyrus, par exemple : ἐνμένω πᾶσι ταῖς προγεγραμέναις ἐντολαῖς (Berlin, 600, 6, du Fayoum, ne à mes. ap. J.-C.). Le texte des LXX est conforme à l'hébreu qui cependant ne contient pas l'équivalent de πᾶς ni de πᾶσιν, Le Samaritain contient 53 au second endroit: 5. Jérôme, qui l’a constaté, a soupçonné les Juifs de l'avoir effacé pour ne pas être sous la malédiction s'ils ne peuvent observer toute la Loi. Il se pourrait qu'ils aient eu cette appréhension, quoique d'ailleurs, même sans « tous », la proposition soit universelle. C'est sur Cette universalité que Paul se fonde. Toute loi veut être entièrement obéie, et ses menaces s'adressent à quiconque enfreint un seul article. La menace ici est la malédiction de Dieu, et sinon le déchaînement extérieur de sa colère, du moins un état permanent d'hostilité qui, pour l’homme, est une sorte de mort, opposée à la vie, puisque ceux au contraire qui observeront la Loi y trouveront la vie comme Paul va le dire (v. 12). Comment donc le texte prouve-t-il que tous ceux qui s'appuient sur les œuvres tombent sous la malédiction ? On complète l’argument par cette mineure sous-entendue : or personne ne peut accomplir toute la Loi, donc tous sont sous la malédiction. Maïs cela ne va pas sans difficulté, Peut-on dire d'une loi divine qu'on ne peut accomplir toutes ses prescriptions? Dans ce cas, comment la malédiction est-elle juste? et comment la vie pouvait-elle être promise à ceux qui pratiqueraient les commandements? On dirait que Paul emploie le texte de la Loi pour lui faire dire le contraire de ce qu’elle affirme. - Il faut donc renoncer à cette mineure sous-entendue. Paul n’a pas prétendu qu'il était impossible de pratiquer toute la Loi avec le secours de Dieu. Il a seulement dit que la Loi ne contenait aucune énergie qui pût aïder à la pratique, qu'elle ne faisait que mettre le mal en évidence, et par là multipliait les transgressions. Et il ne dit pas ici que ceux qui s'appuient sur les œuvres de la Loi sont maudits, mais qu'ils se placent sur un terrain où ils courent un risque certain d’être maudiis. Ils font état de la Loi comme d’un principe de force supérieur à la foi, et la Loi — dérision suprême — ne leur promet que la malédiction s'ils ne parviennent pas à l’observer toute entière. Mais ils n’y parviendron! jamais s'ils ne s'appuient sur la foi, si la foi n’est le principe de leurs actions. Paul va montrer que l'Écriture connaissait ce principe de foi, assurément compatible avec les œuvres, et il ne songeait pas à nier qu'il y ait eu des saints dans l’Ancien Testament (cf. Rom. 11, 48). Mais si l’on faisait abstraction de la foi, il ne restait qu'une menace terrible à laquelle on ne pouvait échapper. Or, depuis la passion et la résurrection du Christ, la foi en Dieu était la foi du Christ. Les judaïsants qui ne la jugeaient pas suffisante ne pouvaient trouver dans la Loi qu'une législation menaçante sans aucune force pour pratiquer tous ses commandements, car la foi nouvelle n'avait pas ce but. D'ailleurs Paul était persuadé qu’en fait les Juifs n'avaient pas observé la Loi et avaient besoin de la grâce; c’est le point de vue de l'Épître aux Romains {π-ππ|, 20).
3:11
ὅτι ... ὅτι, Le premier est déclaratif, pour exposer la conclusion principale; le second fournit la preuve. — ἐν νόμῳ ne peut signifier « au temps de la Loi », « pour ceux qui vivent sous la Loi », mais : « en vertu de la Loi », puisque l'opposition est entre la vertu de la Loi et la vertu de la foi. — δικαιοῦται ne signifie donc pas « est déclaré juste », car, par la vertu de la Loi, on devient ou on ne devient pas juste. D'ailleurs il s’agit d’une vraie justice, qui est telle aux yeux de Dieu, παρὰ τῷ θεῷ (cf. Rom. n1, 13 δίκαιοι παρὰ τῷ θεῷ), et non d'une justice extérieure. Sur le texte d'Habacuc 1, 4, cf. sur Rom. 1, 17. On peut dire avec M. Loisy : « Le texte d'Habacuc ne visait pas si loin », en ce sens qu'il n'avait pas été écrit pour enseigner que l'homme est justifié par la foi, non par les œuvres, mais il suffit qu'il mette en relief « le sort du juste, qui mérite par sa confiance en Dieu d’être protégé par lui ». Dans le prophète ἐκ πίστεως se rattache à ζήσεται, parce que dans son thème il s'agit de la vie, accordée au juste en récompense de sa foi; mais dans Paul, il s’agit de l’origine de la justice, de sorte que ἐκ πίστεως se rattache à δίκαιος : celui qui est juste par la foi vivra, donc la justice vient de la foi et non des œuvres. C'est le sens adopté par Chrys., Caj. et d’autres catholiques. On ne voit pas que Corn. soit en droit de conclure : Paulum eadem ratione (que le prophète) verba intellexisse.…. emnino tenendum est, car Paul ne se croit pas à ce point lié par le sens historique des textes, non plus qu'à leur reproduction ponctuelle. Il en est autrement dans Heb. x, 38, où μοῦ demeure après δίκαιος.
3:12
δέ marque la mineure d'un syllogisme : arqui. La Loï, en tant que loi, ne se préoccupe pas du mobile des actions; elle veut simplement l'accomplissement de ses préceptes : elle n'exige donc pas la foi, elle ne suppose pas un principe de foi. On peut très bien concevoir cette opposition entre l’accomplissement extérieur de la Loi, qui suffit pour se mettre en règle, et la foi, mobile des actions, qui rend juste auprès de Dieu. Mais ce qu'il y a ici de piquant, et qui déroute au premier abord, c'est que Paul demande cette preuve que la Loi ne procède pas par foi à un texte qui promet aux œuvres la même récompense qu'à la foi : le juste qui croit vivra, cela prouve que Dieu justifie par la foi : celui qui fait les œuvres vivra, cela prouve que Dieu ne justifie pas par les œuvres. Ce raisonnement serait étrange et n'était pas daos l'intention de Paul. Il dira encore aux Romains (Π, 43) : « ce ne sont pas en eflet ceux qui entendent lire une loi qui sont justes auprès de Dieu; mais ce sont ceux qui la mettent en pratique, qui seront reconnus justes C'est dans le même sens que le Lévitique {xvin, 5) promettait la vie, c'est-àdire l'amitié de Dieu, à ceux qui observeraient ses lois. La difficulté a frappé M. Loisy qui écrit : « Le premier venu des docteurs juifs... s'il avail eu un peu de bon sens, (il) se serait contenté de nier simplement le principe admis par Paul en manière de postulat, à savoir que le domaine de la foi et celui de la Loi étaient séparés et comme antagonistes : tout bon Juif accomplissait la Loi dans un sentiment de foi, ne comptant point sur ses mérites, et confiant en Dieu pour la réalisation des promesses », etc. Mais si l’on tient à l'exégèse historique, il faut d'abord s'apercevoir que Paul ne raisonne pas contre un docteur juif, il s'adresse aux Galates. Il ne songe nullement à nier la conciliation possible de la Loi et de la foi, prouvée précisément par les deux textes qu'il cite, et il ne soupçonne même pas qu'on puisse lui reprocher de nier la valeur du second. Ceite conciliation possible fut l'œuvre du passé; c'est ainsi que se sont sanctifiés les bons ancêtres. Et la séparation théorique de la foi et de la Loi n'est point un postulat; c’est un résultat de l'analyse qui défie toute contradiction, et que Paul établit par des textes de l'Écriture, sans étudier expressément leur portée dans le contexte historique. Il veut prouver que la Loi procède par œuvres, ne tient compte que des œuvres, et c'est bien ce que prouve en effet le texte du Lévitique. Ce n’est pas le moment de dire le rôle de la Loi dans le passé; il y viendra plus loin. Pour des chrétiens venus de chez les gentils, et c’est à eux qu'il parle, ayant la justice par la foi, ils auraient tort de la chercher dans la Loi mosaïque, parce que, comme Loi, elle ne contient que des exigences, sans contenir la vertu de les accomplir, vertu que l'Écriture ellemême attribue à la foi. — Le second texte apparaît comme le premier sans citation formelle. αὐτά est naturellement ce qui est prescrit par la Loi, Cela est plus clair dans le texte complet du Lévitique : φυλάξεσθε τὰ προστάγματά pou χαὶ τὰ χρίματά pou καὶ ποιήσετε αὐτά’ ὃ ποιήσας αὐτὰ ζήσεται ἐν αὐτοῖς. 1] est étrange que Paul suppose chez les Galates une telle connaissance des Écritures. Il est probable que les docteurs judaïsants s'étaient empressés de leur enseigner les textes les plus caractéristiques, comme pouvait être celui-là, que Paul retourne hardiment contre eux, en s'appuyant sur la foi au Christ venu, à laquelle les Galates ne veulent pas renoncer.
3:13
La phrase débute sans liaison, pour rendre plus solennelle l'apparition du Christ après l'évocation d'Abraham et de la Loi. La doctrine exprimée ici sous une forme paradoxale et obscure est la même que celle de Rom. vin, 8 et II Cor. v, 21. Non que Paul renvoie à ces passages; il suppose connue la catéchèse orale qu'ils expriment plus clairement — ἡμᾶς s'entend des Juifs, Paul compris, car Les païens n'étaient pas sous le joug ni par conséquent sous la malédiction de la Loi (Rom. nu, 12), et c'est moyennant la délivrance des Juifs convertis que la bénédiction s’est répandue εἰς τὰ ἔθνη, opposés à ἡμᾶς (Light. Corn. Sieff.). La loi de la conscience n'a rien à faire ici. M. Loïisy, après avoir reconnu « que cette malédiction, semble-t-il, n’eût dû concerner que les Juifs, comme la Loi même », imagine qu'en dépit de cette bonne raison Paul s'est cru autorisé à regarder tous les hommes comme étant sous la malédiction. Mais les chapitres 1 et πὶ de l'Epître aux Romains ne parlent pas de la malédiction de la Loi, et d'ailleurs ἢ faut seutement ici expliquer le texte adressé aux Galates qui ne dit rien d'approchant. — ἐξαγοράζειν « délivrer en payant une rançon », mais il n'est pas dit à qui cette rançon fut payée, d'autant que l'expression Es métaphorique; il n’y eut pas d'argent versé; cf. Rom. nx, 24 s.; Mc. x, 45. Au sens propre, on verse la somme à celui qui retient en esclavage : ici on était sous la domination, sous la malédiction de la Loi qui pesait infailliblement sur ceux qui étaient sous le ressort de la Loi (cf. v. 10). C’est donc à la Loi qu’il eût fallu payer la rançon. Mais cela n'était pas possible. Celui qui rachetait ἃ délivré les autres en prenant sur lui la malédiction. L'idée sous-entendue est que lui était libre; il s'est donné pour les autres. — ὑπὲρ πολλῶν n'est pas en soi synonyme de ἀντὶ πολλῶν, et signifie seulement : « à leur profit mais la pensée est bien qu'en devenant malédiction le Christ a pris leur place. Autrement, comment serait-il devenu malédiction? La Loi est censée avoir accepté l'échange, ou plutôt tout a été réglé par la volonté de Dieu (Rom. v, 18 5.). — κατάρα substantif abstrait sans article. D’après Cornely, Paul ne pouvait rien dire de plus fort. Le Christ n'a pas seulement voulu être maudit, il a voulu être la malédiction même, vir maledictissimus, in quo praeter maledictionem nihil inveniretur, comme Dieu l’a rendu péché pour nous (II Cor. v, 21 τὸν μὴ γνόντα ἁμαρτίαν ὑπὲρ ἡμᾶς ἁμαρτίαν ἐποίησεν). Les deux passages répondent bien à la même idée. Mais Paul a évité de dire que le Christ a été fait pécheur, et ce n’est pas sans intention non plus qu'il a évité aussi de le dire maudit. Il le dit κατάρα, une malédiction, un objet de malédiction, et en somme celui sur lequel la malédiction s'est déchaînée, mais non point pour des motifs personnels. Ce que l'expression semble avoir d'excessif, en remplaçant le concret par l’abstrait, n'a point pour but de mettre le concret au superlatif, mais de dégager de toute responsabilité la personnalité concrète : il va de soi que le Christ ne pouvait être maudit pour lui, il n’est même pas maudit pour les autres, il est devenu une malédiction personnifiée; c'est plus, en apparence, et cela lui donne qualité pour remplacer tous les maudits; en réalité, c'est moins que si la malédiction tombait sur sa personne. — ὅτι γέγραπται », τι À. n'est pas précisément une « démonstration », mais une « illustration » tirée de l'Écriture. Le Christ ayant été victime pour le péché avait dû aussi encourir la malédiction du péché. Un texte de la Loi (Dt. xx1, 23) mettait ce fait en évidence, car il était mort pendu sur un gibet; or la Loi déclarait le pendu maudit de Dieu. Le texte de Paul est à peu près celui des LXX xexarnpapévos ὑπὸ θεοῦ πᾶς κρεμάμενος ἐπὶ ξύλου. ἐπικατάρατος au lieu de χεχατηραμένος rendait la ressemblance plus frappante entre le texte du v. 10 et celui-ci, le fait correspondait ainsi plus strictement à la menace. — ὑπὸ θεοῦ a dû être omis par un sentiment de révérence pour le Christ (Light. Sieff. contre Corn.i. L'argument suppose bien que le Christ ἃ été traité comme un maudit de Dieu; mais il est des choses qu'on ne dit pas : ce scrupule était très habituel aux docteurs juifs, De son côté le texte des LXX rendait bien l'hébreu « car c’est une malédiction de Dieu un pendu », où DY5x τ" signifie « une malédiction au regard de Dieu, de la part de Dieu » (génitif du sujet et non pas « une malédiction contre Dieu, une insulte à Dieu ». Il est vrai que ce dernier sens est traditionnel chez les Juifs au moins depuis le second siècle. Lightfoot conjecture que c'est à cause du grand nombre des Juifs crucifiés par les Romains, qu'on ne pouvait regarder comme maudits de Dieu. D'ailleurs le texte ne parlait pas d'un crucifié, destiné à mourir sur le gibet, mais d’une exposition sur un gibet d'un condamné déjà exécuté. Cette manifestation avait sans doute pour but de détourner du crime, mais elle était aussi regardée comme une notable aggravation de la peine, par la honte qui rejaillissait sur la famille et que le coupable endurait d'avance. Cette suspension sur un gibet de bois ne devait pas se prolonger pendant la nuit, pour que 18 terre n'en soit pas souillée, en suite de la malédiction de Dieu qui pesait sur le pendu, tout en se détournant des autres (Num. xxv, 4; II Sam. xx1, 6-14). IL semble d’après ces traits qu'il importait peu que le coupable pérît sur le gibet ou avant d'y être exposé; c'était sur l'être suspendu en public que se déchargeait la malédiction du public et aussi celle de Dieu. C'est ce qui autorise le rapprochement de Paul. Aucun Juif ne l'aurait contesté, si bien qu’ils s’en sont fait une arme contre les apologistes (Light.). Jérôme : Memini me in altercatione Iasonis et Papisci quae graeco sermone conscripla est ita reperisse, Λοιδορία θεοῦ ὁ κρεμάμενος id est, maledictio Dei qui appensus est; cf. Jusrin, C. Tryph. c. xevi; Tenr. Ado. Judaeos ὃ 10; EiseNuenGer, Ænid. Judenth. 1, pp. 88 s., 496. Ce sont des concepts que nous ne devons pas peser d'après nos balances; aussi M. Loisy n’aurait-il pas dû écrire : « L’arbitraire de j'interprétation atteint ici au comble... Paul ne fait pas attention qu'il s'agit de suppliciés morts » etc. Maïs Paul n'expliquait pas le texte du Deutéronome comme on pourrait le faire au Coliège de France; il comparait deux situations selon les idées du temps qui tenaient pour maudit quiconque était pendu, mort ou vif, et sans doute les Juifs de son temps lui ont objecté que Jésus crucifié, comme pendu, était maudit de Dieu ou une insulte pour Dieu. 1] ne s'en éfonne pas et réplique. C'est en effet une malédiction qui a pesé sur le Christ, mais la malédiction dont menagçait la Loi et dont le Christ les a délivrés, s'ils veulent l'en croire.
3:14
Ἰησοῦ Χριστῷ (Nestle); X. ‘I (Soden avec Vg.). — ἵνα et ἵνα sont coordonnés (comme dans II Cor. 1x, 3}, et non subordonnés, la seconde clause n'étant guère que l'explication de la première. Il fallait que les Juifs fussent affranchis de la malédiction de la Loi pour que la bénédiction parvint aux 69 Ἀδελφοί, κατὰ ἄνθρωπον λέγω" ὅμως ἀνθρώπου χκεχυρωμένην διαθήκην gentils. Car les Juifs devaient passer les premiers (Rom. 1, 16; τπ, 1. 2; ix, 1-5; xv, 8. 9). Le texte de notre verset ne dit rien de plus explicitement. Il contient cependant en germe la doctrine de Eph. 1, 14-18; l’abrogation de la Loi était l'effondrement du mur qui séparait 165 Juifs et les gentils. Cela résulte déjà de ce que la bénédiction d'Abraham, c’est-à-dire donnée à Abraham, s'attache aux gentils, ἐν Ἰησοῦ Χριστῷ, dans l'union à Jésus-Christ rédempteur qui a racheté les Juifs; en Jésus-Christ tous se trouvent unis et puisque la bénédiction est acquise grâce à lui, on peut donc dire que Juifs et gentils (λάθωμεν) reçoivent la promesse de l'Esprit, c'est-à-dire le don de l'Esprit. Ce don n'était pas annoncé à Abraham en termes exprès, mais sa nature est constatée par l'expérience des Galates à laquelle Paul ἃ fait appel au début du chapitre, Juifs et chrétiens y sont arrivés au moyen de la foi qu’ils ent prêtée à la prédication de l’évangile.
3:15
᾿Αδελφοί, « frères » et non plus « Galates insensés ». Au lieu de les interpeller comme un juge, Paul raisonne avec eux, comme leur ancien maître, et leur témoigne sa première affection. — κατὰ ἄνθρωπον, cf. I Cor. 1x, 8 et Rom. 111, 5; aussi ἀνθρώπινον λέγω, Rom. vi, 19 : pour employer une comparaison tirée des us et coutumes des humains. C'est la manière dont Paul se rapproche quelque peu de l’enseignement du Maître, mais sa parabole, au lieu d'être empruntée à la vie journalière, est une comparaison avec les institutions du droit. Dans un cas semblable, 1 Cor. xiv, 7, Paul emploie aussi ὅμως. On suppose καίπερ sous-entendu : καίπερ ἀνθρώπου οὖσαν, ὅμως κ. τ. À., ὅμως prenant la place de καίπερ : « quoique ce ne soit que le fait d'un homme, cependant... ». Donc, à plus forte raison s’il s’agit d'un acte de Dieu, est la pensée sous-entendue, puisque la comparaison avec des actes humains est destinée à expliquer les voies de Dieu. - διαθήκη signifie testament. C’est le sens des classiques grecs (sauf Arisropx. Aves, 439) confirmé sans exception par les papyrus et les inscriptions. Si les LXX se sont servis de ce mot pour signifier « contrat, alliance c'est sans doute pour donner à l'alliance contractée entre Dieu et Israël le sens d'un acte unilatéral, par lequel Dieu accorde son alliance, et s'ils ont pu le faire, c'est donc que le mot avait en soi le sens de « disposition » que l'usage entendait « disposition lestamentaire », mais qu'on pouvait entendre plus largement. C'est ainsi qu'en anglais will a pu signifier testament. Pour rendre διαθήχη par le même mot 1οἱ etrv, 24, nous traduisons « disposition ». Ici le caractère unilatéral est évident, puisqu'on suppose la libre disposition d'un homme, et qu'on aflirme qu'elle ne peut être changée par un autre homme. Cet acte unilatéral, comparé à la promesse parce que les effets en sont renvoyés à plus lard, ne peut être une alliance, et ne peut être qu'un testament, comme le prouve le mot d'héritage (v. 18). C'est ce qu'a compris la Vulgate (Corn. Sieff. Loisy, contre Light. qui préfère « contrat », et Bousset qui exclut le testament proprement dit). — χεχυρωμένη, à propos d'un testament, signifie moins « ratifié » que « rovêtu des conditions de validité ». Le testament comportant un transfert de propriété d'un mort à un vivant était regardé par les Romains comme émanant de la puissance publique; il n'était pas valide sans certaines formes; mais, précisément parce que la puissance publique était censée intervenir, aucun particulier ne pouvait regarder la volonté du testateur comme nulle (ἀθετεῖ) ou lui imposer des retouches en ajoutant des clauses qui la modifieraient. Le mot ἐπιδιατάσσομαι, qui ne se trouve pas ailleurs, indiquerait bien l'idée d’un codicille: cf. Jos. Bellum II, 11, 3 ἀξιῶν τῆς ἐπιδιαθήκης τὴν διαϑήχην εἶναι κυριωτέραν et Ant. XVII, 1x, 4. La notion d'un codicille fait par un autre que le testateur est même contradictoire dans les termes. Le testament doit rester tel que le testateur l’a rédigé selon les formes légales. Paul n’envisage pas l'hypothèse où le testateur aurait recommencé son testament ou aurait fait lui-même un codicille en forme. Il suppose que le testateur est mort après avoir fait son testament, de sorte que ce testament soit exécutable. D'après M. Ramsay, Paul parle d'une disposition que son auteur lui-même ne pouvait révoquer. Il y voit une adoption à la mode grecque, donnant droit à l’hérédité, et en conclut que les Galates vivaient depuis longtemps selon les coutumes grecques, ce qui exclut les Galates proprement dits. Mais l'opposition de ἀνθρώπου et de οὐδείς indique bien deux personnes différentes, Et il serait étrange que le même Paul soit à la fois si techniquement romain en matière administrative, si techniquement grec en droit civil, d'après le même auteur.
3:16
La proposition principale posée, le v. 16 l’applique au cas d'Abraham. Or (δὲ omis à tort par la Vulgate) les promesses ont été prononcées (ἐρρέθησαν, attique ἐρρήθην), c'est-à-dire sont dans le cas d’un testament valide contenant la désignation d'un héritier. C'était en effet, dans le droit romain, la principale condition de la validité du testament. D’aïlleurs Paul ne prétend pas serrer la comparaison de trop près. Ici les promesses sont au pluriel tandis que le testament était au singulier, et il y a deux bénéficiaires, Abraham et son lignage. Le pluriel ἐπαγγελίαι a été suggéré par les textes de la Genèse; non seulement la promesse ἃ été renouvelée à Isaac et à Jacob; elle a été adressée à Abraham lui-même plusieurs fois : Gen. x11, 7; χα, 15; xv, 18; XVII, 8; ΧΧΙΙ, 16 ss.; xxiv, 7. On voit d’ailleurs que Paul n’attache pas d’importance à ce pluriel comme s’il s'agissait de promesses de biens distincts il conclut par la promesse (ur, 29). A quel texte Paul fait-il allusion? A juger par 168 isolé, le xx devant τῷ σπέρματι n'indique rien de particulier dans le premier cas la promesse est faite plus directement à Abraham (Gen. ΧΙ, 2), dans d'autres seulement à sa postérité (χν, 18; xxiv, 7). Il suffirait de grouper ces cas pour justifier la promesse faite à Abraham et à sa postérité; mais 16P indique une citation dont καί fait partie. L'Apôtre visait donc . ὅτι πᾶσαν τὴν γῆν ἣν σὺ ὁρᾶς, σοὶ δώσω καὶ τῷ σπέρματί σου ἕως αἰῶνος (Gen. χπι, 15 et xvit, 8). Il n'y est pas question de la bénédiction, mais de la promesse d'installer la postérité d'Abraham au pays de Canaan devenu le sien (Infx. Haer. V, 32, 2; Origène sur Rom. 1v, 4; Jér. etc., contre Terr. Chrys.). Mais si l'Apôtre vise plus directement les mots contenus dans ces textes, il les entend au sens de la bénédiction. La possession du pays de Canaan n'est pour lui que le symbole de l'héritage éternel auprès de Dieu. — λέγει, le sujet sous-entendu est Dieu qui a parlé à Abraham, plutôt que l'Écriture, ce qui d’ailleurs reviendrait au même pour le fond (nr, 8). — καὶ τοῖς σπέρμασιν. Paul note que l'Écriture n'a pas employé σπέρμα au pluriel. On a jugé cette remarque étrange, parce que l'hébreu y ne s'emploie pas au pluriel pour désigner des descendants humains. Le pluriel D\y*r signifie des grains, des semences de plantes (I Sam. vin, 15) et non des descendants. On trouve cette acception en araméen, mais ce n’était pas la langue de la Genèse. En grec on trouve exceptionnellement σπέρματα dans ce sens; Par. Legg. IX, 853 C ἄνθρωποί τε καὶ dBptrmy anépuant νομοθετοῦμεν et IV Macch. xvur, 4 ὦ τῶν ᾿Αὐρχμιαίων σπευμάτων ἀπόγονοι παῖδες ᾿Ισραηλεῖται, Or c'est bien à ce sens que Paul fait allusion, opposant un franc pluriel au singulier. — ὡς ἐπὶ πολλῶν s'entend donc, comme σπέρματι, d'individus au pluriel, sans lien entre eux, — ἐφ᾽ ἐνύς met l'accent sur le singulier du terme collectif. Zahn estime que la remarque porte sur le fond des choses, c’est-à-dire sur les faits de l'histoire d'Abraham. Abraham avait plusieurs fils qui ont eu de la postérité, mais la promesse ne regardait que ia postérité d'Isaac. C’est très exact, et Paul fera allusion plus loin à la préférence donnée à la postérité d'Isaac sur celle d'Ismaël, mais en ce moment le singulier ahoutit à cette conclusion : ὅς {au lieu de ὅ par attraction du masculin qui suit) ἐστιν Χριστής. ΤΙ était donc justifié par 16 fait du Christ, non par celui d'Isaac, Ici se place ἴα grave difficulté da verset : Paul désigne-t-il la personne individuelle du Christ de l'histoire (Chrys. Théod. Tert. Jér. Ambrst. Thomas, et parmi les plus récents Light. Sieff. Lips. Bousset, Loisy)? ou bien a-t-il en vue le Christ mystique, c’est-à-dire le peuple chrétien (7rén. Aug. Corn.)? Pour le sens collectif ou le Christ mystique, Cornely cite Irénée (Haer. V, 82, 2): semen Abrahae est Ecclesia per Christum, adoptionem, quae est ad Deum, accipiens, et Augustin : semen Abrahae, cui dictae sunt promissiones, Christum dicit apostolus, id est omnes Christianos fide imitantes Abraham; quod ad singularitatem redigit commendando, quod non dictum est : Et seminibus, sed semini tuo; quia et una est fides et non possunt similüter iustificari, qui vivunt ex operibus carnaliter cum his qui vivunt ex fide spiritualiter. Le principal argument pour cette interprétation, c'est que 5. Paul regarde comme la postérité d'Abraham tout le pouple chrétien, non seulement dans l'Épitre aux Romains (iv, 43-16), mais encore dans Galates in, 29, passage qui semble donner la clef de celui-ci. Mais on peut répondre que, d'après l'argumentation de 111, 26-29, les fidèles sont le lignage d'Abraham en tant qu'unis au Christ. Il fallait donc que le Christ parût d'abord dans sa personne, comme la postérité d'Abraham, et la raison d'être pour ses fidèles d'appartenir à cette postérité. D'autant que le Christ, c'est toujours la personne du Christ, à moins que le contexte n’exige absolument le sens du Christ mystique, comme c'est le cas dans 1 Cor. ΧΙ, 12, mais non pas ici. Nous croyons donc que Paul a eu ici en vue le Christ individuel, mais conçu comme principe d'unité du peuple chrétien. Car on peut entendre son raisonnement de deux façons différentes. D'après les critiques modernes cités, Paul a argumenté du singulier σπέρματι comme désignant un pur individu, et il prétendrait faire l'exégèse littérale du texte de la Genèse. Loisy : « L'Écriture, remarque assez naïvement l'apôtre, n’a pas employé le pluriel parce qu’elle ne visait pas plusieurs personnes, mais elle a dit « à la semence », ne visant qu'une seule personne « qui est le Christ ». L'inférence est plus que téméraire, vu que, s’il s’agit d’un fils unique d'Abraham, Isaac serait plutôt indiqué. Mais l’assertion principale, qui veut que « ta semence », c’est-à-dire, en toute évidence, « ta postérité », signifie « ton uniquerejeton », est plus déconcertante que tout ». — Paul aurait donc ignoré le sens collectif de σπέρμα qui revient si souvent sous sa plume (ici même τι, 29; 1v, 22-28; Rom. ἵν, 1-16, 1x, 6 ss.; xt, 1; II Cor. xt, 22), et n'y voyant qu'un individu unique, il aurait péché à la fois contre le lexique et contre le sens du texte qu'il prétendait expliquer. Mais nous avons noté dans l'explication littérale de ὡς ἐπὶ πολλῶν que l'opposition n'est pas entre un terme collectif et un terme singulier mais entre un franc pluriel etun collectif au singulier. En réalité Paul insiste sur le choix d'un terme qui étant collectif au singulier peut convenir au Christ. Ou, comme M. Loisy le dit assez bien à la page suivante, la « promesse » concernait deux personnes, Abraham, père et prototype des croyants, et « la semence » unique d'Abraham, le Christ, lequel figurait et comprenait en lui tous les hommes « de la foi De plus Paul ne prétend pas faire l’exégèse historique du texte. ὅς ἐστι n'est pas équivalent de : « ce qui signifie », ni même de « ce qui indique », mais veut dire simplement : lequel est le Christ, notre Christ, désigné d'avance par un terme qui peut s'entendre soit d’une collectivité, soit d’un individu (Gen. iv, 25; χχι, 13). Ce sens de l'Écriture serait demeuré obscur, si le fait chrétien n'en avait fourni la clef. Sans doute Paul ἃ appris à l’école des rabbins l'existence de ces sens mystérieux qui se greffent sur le sens littéral, mais ces sens spirituels, connus des Alexandrins, ne sont pas le propre du rabbinisme. Il n'argumente pas d'une particularité du texte pour en fixèr le sens litiéral ou plutôt pour en tirer un contresens. Il voit dans le choix d'une expression une sorte d'harmonie avec ce que révèlent les faits divins. Les Pères qui admettaient les sens spirituels ont donc admis aussi sans difficulté que Paul parlait ici du Christ, descendant d'Abraham. Les descendants d'Abraham avaient pu être aussi nombreux que les étoiles du ciel et les sables de la mer, la promesse donnée à Abraham touchait avant tout le Christ, nouveau principe d'unité pour les peuples. Cornely objecte que les Pères ont été amenés à cette opinion en supposant que le passage cité par Paul était Gen. xxu, 18 : « toutes les nations de la terre seront bénies dans ton lignage ». Dans ce cas le lignage peut être le Christ, qui fut bien en effet source de bénédiction. Mais Paul cite plutôt Gen. xvu, 8; or dans ce passage la promesse est faite au lignage; Dieu lui promet la terre de Canaan. 1] est vrai que, du temps de Paul, ce pays de Canaan avait pris un sens spirituel : c'était le règne de Dieu, les bénédictions messianiques etc. Cependant, même dans ce sens, le Christ n’était pas celui qui avait reçu la promesse, mais celui en qui elle s'était réalisée. Paul ne pouvait donc pas parler ici de la personne du Christ sans déroger à sa dignité, mais du Christ mystique, c'est-à-dire des fidèles, bénéficiaires comme Abraham de la promesse. Mais cette objection suppose elle aussi l'Apôtre trop préoccupé du sens prochain des textes, Car enfin il n'en ἃ cité aucun dans toute sa teneur. Pour le comprendre, les Galates n'étaient pas obligés de recourir à leur Bible, coinme font les exégétes. Il 8 seulement retenu catte association d'Abraham et de sa postérité comme étant l'objet d'une promesse de Dieu, quelque chose comme les héritiers d'un testament chez les hommes. Et il est très vrai que la promesse, que les dons divins ont été versés sur l'humanité du Christ pour être répandus sur les fidèles. Les judaïsants disaient : la promesse a été faite à Abraham pour sa seule postérité : soyez donc sa postérité de quelque manière pour avoir part à la promesse. Paul répond : soit: il faut se souder à Abraham par sa postérité. Or cette postérité par excellence, l'Écriture la désigne par un terme collectif singulier, ce qui nous permet d'y reconnaître notre Christ, descendant d'Abraham. I ne pouvait avoir oublié que les descendants d'Abraham avaient bénéficié de la promesse temporelle. Mais il songeait surtout à la bénédiction que les docteurs juifs attendaient aussi du Messie. Au sens spirituel ils devaient entendre le texte de la Genèse comme lui. Les Galates avaient reconnu le Messie en Jésus. Ils étaient donc héritiers des prornesses. C’est la démonstration que Paul reprendra au v. 26. Pour le moment il va $e préoccuper des relations entre la promesse et la Loi, de sorte que, provisoirement, le v. 16b a l'air d'une parenthèse. Mais c'est un point de départ important, le Christ personnel centre du Christ mystique.
3:18
La proposition du v. 17 contient en elle-même sa preuve : la Loi ne pouvait aanuler la promesse, étant venue longtemps après, et la promesse étant scellée par Dieu. Mais ne pouvait-elle contribuer à assurer le fruit dela promesse? C'était précisément la prétention des docteurs judaïsants, Dans sa réponse, Paul suppose qu'ils ne regardaient pas la Loi comme une perfection secondaire, mais comme conférant un titre au mains égal à celui de la promesse, et même le seul qui compte. C'est à cette hypothèse tacite qu’il répond au v. 18, et c'est ce qui explique le γάρ. — οὐκέτι est au sens logique. On ne peut obtenir l'héritage à un double titre, parce que, en réalité, le titre de la Loi effacerait les prérogatives de la promesse, ce qui serait l'annuler. Quand on réclame une chose comme due, on ne se soucie pas de la tenir de la faveur. La pensée est concise à l'excès, sans être obscure. Paul reviendra sur ce point dans l'Épître aux Romains : « Or, à celui qui a des œuvres, le salaire n'est pas compté par faveur, mais selon ce qui est dû, tandis que celui qui n'a pas d'œuvres, mais qui croit en celui qui rend juste l’impie, sa foi lui est comptée comme justice » (Rom. 1v, 4 5.}; « et en effet, si ceux [qui se réclament] de la Loi étaient les héritiers, la foi serait sans objet, et la premesse sans effet » (Rom. ἵν, 14). — Ce qui est promis, c'est à xAnpovouia, « l'héritage », terme suggéré par les textes auxquels Paul s'est référé au v. 16, qui parlent de la possession du pays de Canaan, l'héritage par excellence du peuple d'Israël. Dans Rom. 1v, 13, c'était d'être « héritier du monde ». Les Juifs du temps de Paul ne s'en tenaient pas à l'héritage terrestre, et pourtant ne voulaient pas non plus le lâcher; ils se contentaient d'y ajouter l’autre monde (cf. Mekilta sur Ex. χιν, 31). Mais Paul transpose hardiment les promesses dans le domaine purement spirituel. Puisque, en Jésus-Christ, les fidèles héritiers de la promesse d'Abraham sont devenus fils de Dieu, 115 sont associés à l'héritage du Christ (Rom. vin, 17; Eph. 1, 11). L'héritage est donc l'ensemble des biens dont le Christ est la source; cf. I Cor. vi, 9; Gal. v, 21. — La majeure de l'argument étant posée en forme de dilemme : ou en vertu de la Loi, ou en vertu de la promesse, la mineure rappelle que la promesse ἃ été faite à Abraham, et y ajoute l'idée de grâce qui la caractérise, κεχάρισται {au parfait, car le don est permanent). On se demande quel est le régime, et l'on gous-entend τὴν xAngovoufav. C'est cependant un tact parfait qui ἃ empêché Pau de s'exprimer si clairement. 11 n'a pas oublié que la promesse est faite à Abraham et à son lignage, et que c’est dans ce dernier qu'elle sera réalisée. Abraham, au moment de la promesse, n'en a pas joui. Il fallait donc s'en tenir au don gracieux qui lui fut fait, et que l'avenir devait éclairer en l'apportant; χαρίζεσθαι n’a donc pas de complément.
3:19
τί οὖν ὁ νόμος; pour le neutre τί avec un nom masculin, cf. τί οὖν ἐστὶν Ἀπολλώς (1 Cor. im, 5). Cornely prend τί pour διὰ τί, parce qu’en fait Paul se préoccupe.plus du but de la Loi que de sa nature. Mais il emploie volontiers τί οὖν; et la question sur le but est aïnsi posée : qu'est donc la Loi? c'est-à-dire, dans les desseins de Dieu. — τῶν παραθάσεων χάριν ne. peut signifier directement : pour faire connaître les transgressions, parce que Paul ne parle pas de connaissance. 1] faut donc que ce soit : pour dompter, réprimer les transgressions, ou bien : pour qu'elles se multiplient. Le premier sens indique bien le but que poursuit ordinairement le législateur; les Grecs, Jérôme, Thomas ont cru que c'était aussi le sens de Paul. Mais il ne se demande pas quel fut le but prochain de Dieu par rapport aux Israélites, mais quel fut le but de la Loi dans l’histoire du salut? Or sa pensée, ici obscure à force de concision, a été clairement exprimée dans Rom. 1v, 45 : « car la loi produit La colère; (car) où il n’y a pas de loi, il n'y a pas non. plus de transgression » et dans Rom. v, 20 : « la loi est intervenue afin que la faute abonde »; cf. Rom. vu, 7 55. Et le mot παραδάσεων prouve bien que telle était déjà sa pensée en écrivant aux Galates, car παράδασις n'est pas simplement le péché, maïs le péché qui viole une loi positive. Une loi est donnée pour empêcher les crimes, mais non pour empêcher les transgressions de son texte qui ne peuvent commencer qu'avec la loi. On ne peut supposer que Dieu s’est proposé pour but ces transgressions, mais il pouvait les permettre et poser une cause qui les multiplierait comme transgressions (par la faute des transgresseurs) dans un dessein connu de lui, et que Paul indiquera au v. 22. La loi n’augmente pas le nombre des actes qui sont peccamineux d'après sa norme, mais elle les révèle sous ce jour, ce qui revient à augmenter le nombre des transgressions, ou dans un sens très vrai, à manifester ces actes comme peccamineux (Rom. πι, 20; vi, 7). C'est après que le péché a été multiplié, et reconnu comme tel, que l’homme comprend son impuissance, et l’on croit volontiers, avec 8. Augustin et 5, Thomas, que le but de Dieu était précisément qu'il s'humiliât et implorât la grâce. Mais cette admirable doctrine fait intervenir l'homme, et Paul ne s'occupe ici que des. desseins de Dieu : si l'on. commente son texte par celui des Romains, on dira seulement que le péché. devait abonder, afin que la grâce surabonde (Rom. v, 20 s.). — προσετέθη, la Loi fut ajoutée, par Dieu cela va sans dire, La causalité divine est ici plus. indiquée que dans le mot παρεισῆλθεν (Rom, v, 20) « est intervenue », mais.le mode est le même : la Loi est ajoutée, non, pas comme un coficille qui modifie un testament, mais comme une disposition transitoire jusqu'au jour eù la promesse sortira son effet. C'est ce que Paul note en termes formels. Lire avec Soden οὗ au lieu de ἄν (Nestle) devant ἔλθη. ἄν est omis devant ἔλθῃ pour éviter toute apparence que cette venue ait pu manquer {clause irréelle); en effet l’omission de ἄν n'est pas normale dans la koinè et dans le N. T. elle est en fait limitée à s. Jean (MM.). Le terme fixé est la venue du lignage auquel a été faite la promesse. Les termes sont conçus pour répondre exactement au v. 16, et prouvent bien que la personne du Christ pouvait étre regardée en quelque façon comme terme et bénéficiaire de la promesse, car ici le lignage qui vient est bien le Christ personnel et non mystique (cf. — ἐπήγγελται est au passif, comme dans IT Macch. τν, 27, cerrespondant au passif ἐῤῥέθησαν du v. 16. Après avoir caractérisé la Loi comme une institution provisoire, dont le but était de multiplier les transgressions, Paul esquisse une autre infériorité de la Loi par rapport à la promesse : elle ἃ été donnée au moyen d'un médiateur, ce qui suppose deux parties contractantes, conséquemment des engagements réciproques, de sorte que ce n’est plus, comme dans la promesse, la libre voionté de Dieu qui est en jeu, mais aussi la volonté de l'homme, qui peut tout compromettre. C'est du moins ce qui nous paraît résulter de ce passage difficile (49b et 20). — διαταγείς en soi pourrait signifier que la Loi a été non seulement promalguée, mais disposée, édictée par les anges. Mais la préposition διά qui suit marque clairement que les anges ont seulement servi d'intermédiaires. Dieu était le véritable auteur de la Loi (Ex. xxx, 18; xxx, 16; Deut. 1x, 10) d’après FA. T., et Paul n’a pas songé à s'écarter de cette doctrine; c'est pour lui la parole de Dieu (Rom. m1, 2), la loï de Dieu (Rom. vu, 22. 25). Les anges ont donc seulement servi de ministres. C'était ce qu'avait dit Etienne οἵτινες ἐλάδετε τὸν νόμον εἰς διαταγὰς ἀγγέλων (Act. vir, 58); il l’entendait probablement en ce sens que Moïse parlait avec un ange : μετὰ τοῦ ἀγγέλου τοῦ λαλοῦντος αὐτῷ ἐν τῷ ὄρει Σινὰ (Act. vir, 98), c’est-à-dire tantôt avec l'un, tantôt avec l'autre. L'Épître aux Hébreux regarde aussi la Loi comme proférée par le ministère des anges : ὁ δι’ ἀγγέλων λαληθεὶς λόγος (Heb. τι, 2). Il n'y a pas de raison de penser que Paul avait ici une autre manière de voir. La tradition était d’ailleurs assez répandue; cf. Jos. Anc. XV, v, 3 ἡμῶν δὲ τὰ χάλλιστα τῶν δογμάτων καὶ τὰ ὁσιώτατα τῶν ἐν τοῖς νόμοις δι᾿ ἀγγέλων παρὰ τοῦ θεοῦ μαθόντων, cf. Pis. De Somn.f,p.642 M. et le livre des Jubilés ch. 1. D'où venait cette opinion? C’est une base trop étroite que le récit d'Exode (χχιν) à cause des phénomènes extraordinaires que l’Écriture attribue aux anges (Sieffert), ou -le texte de Dt. xxx, 2 d’après l'hébreu : « il est sorti du milieu des saintes myriades » qui n'est probablement qu’une fausse lecture pour l'ancienne leçon : « il est venu de Méribath de Cadès », quoique les LXX aient ramené les anges dans le même verset : ἐκ δεξιῶν αὐτοῦ ἄγγελοι μετ᾽ τὸ σπέρυα ᾧ ἐπήγγελται, διαταγεὶς δὺ ἀγγέλων ἐν χειρὶ μεαίτου" 206 αὐτοῦ (Light). De toute façon le Deutéronome indiquerait seulement la présence des anges, la Loi aurait été donnée devant eux mais non par leur intermédiaire. Mais les commentateurs juifs ne pouvaient pas n'être pas frappés par ce fait que les manifestations de Iahvé sont tantôt attribuées à sa personne, tantôt à son ange (cf. RL. avril 1908, p. 212-225 : l'Ange de lahvé). C'en était assez pour suggérer que la Loi elle-même avait été donnée par le ministère des anges. S. Étienne y voyait pour la Loi un titre de gloire, et au contraire l'Épître aux Hébreux conclut à l'infériorité de la parole proférée par des anges, en comparaison de celle du Fils de Dieu. Quelle est ici la pensée de Paul? On dit ordinairement que c'est une manière de mettre la Loi au-dessous de la promesse, proférée directement par Dieu. Mais, comme l'a vu Cornely, on pouvait, pour les mêmes raisons scripturaires, voir le ministère des anges dans les paroles de Dieu aux patriarches. Comme ici le ministère des anges n’est pas opposé à la parole directe de Dieu, il semble que Paul a récité sans y attacher d'importance spéciale ce qu'on disait du ministère des anges à propos de la Loi, à moins qu'il n'ait pensé — sans s'exprimer davantage, — à l'infériorité de la Loi en cela par rapport à celui auquel elle était ordonnée, le Christ. Le ministère des anges serait une gloire, mais une gloire destinée à être surpassée, cf. II Cor. in, 12 s. Dans notre verset, la Loi n’est pas étudiée seulement par comparaison avec la promesse; avec ἄχρις où ἔλθῃ Paul prélude déjà au thème de son rôle pédagogique. — ἐν χειρὶ μεσίτου est uno allusion très claire à Moïse. Comme le N. T. ne donne le titre de μεσίτης qu'au Christ ([ Tim. nu, 5), Origène l'a introduit dans ce passage, malgré le contexte. Il a été suivi par Victorin, Hilaire, Jérôme, Augustin et même Chrysostome, quoique l’école d'Antioche : Théod. de Mopsueste, Théodoret, Gennadius aient suivi Basile (De Spir. sanct. xIv, 33). Et en effet donner au Christ le titre de χρείττονος... διαθήκης ὑεσίτης (Heb. νι, 6; cf. 1x, 15; x, 24), c'était laisser à Moïse Le titre de médiateur de l’ancienne alliance, titre désormais surpassé. C’est bien en effet le rôla que lui attribue l'A. T. (Ex. xx, 19 et Deut. v, 2. 5), et le mot même se trouve dans Philon : οἷα μεσίτης καὶ διαλλαχτής (Fit. Moys. πι, 49, τι, p. 160 M.). Les Rabbins ont l'équivalent en hébreu (YYDN). — ἐν χειρί se dit souvent dans le Pentateuque pour marquer le rôle instrumental de Moïse, un peu comme en grec διά (Lev. xxvi, 46; Num. 1v, 47 etc.), mais aussi dans un sens très précis, parce que Moïse portait les tables de la Loi dans sa main (Ex. xxx1 15). Le contexte dégage clairement le dessein de donner à la Loi une place subordonnée; la présence du médiateur doit être le principal élément de ce dessein. Mais comment? c'est ce que Paul expliquera au verset suivant.
3:20
On a prétendu que ce verset avait reçu quatre cent trente interprétations. Les a-t-on bien comptées? Un grand nombre, même autorisées par des noms illustres, ne peuvent être soutenues, parce qu'elles entendent le médiateur du Christ. D'autres ont pris Evés pour un neutre, ce qui est impossible d’après l'explication : ὁ δὲ θεὸς εἷς ἐστίν, Le progrès très réel de l'exégèse a éliminé nombre de combinaisons. On est à peu près d'accord sur le point de départ, c'est-à-dire sur la portée du v. 20. C'est une explication du rôle du μεσίτης dans la Loi d’après la fonction du μεσίτης en général. Le δέ n'est point un obstacle; comme dans d'autres cas, il est explicatif. Tandis que μεσίτης au v. précédent n'avait pas d'article, ici ὁ μεσίτης indique le μεσίτης comme tel. Ce concept est incompatible avec l’idée qu'une seule autre personne soit en scène. Or, dit la fin du verset par manière d'opposition, Dieu est un. Cela posé, deux explications de cette situation peuvent être proposées selon que l'intervention du μεσίτης s'exerce au profit d'une pluralité de personnes ou entre deux personnes seulement. Dans le premier cas il est interprète de plusieurs, la pluralité suggérée par le contexte est celle des anges, et l'on aboutit à ce sens : un μεσίτης ne trouve pas son emploi si ce n’est comme truchement de plusieurs personnes, car elles ne peuvent parler toutes ensemble il est donc leur organe. Or Dieu est un; il pouvait donc se passer de truchement; si donc le μεσίτης jouait ce rôle, c'était comme l'organe d’une pluralité, c'est-à-dire des anges. La Loi n’a donc pas été donnée par Dieu, mais par les anges, et on le conclut de la présence du μεσίτης. Une note très érudite de Sieffert donne l'historique de cette interprétation (passée sous silence par Cornely). Elle fut proposée en 1826 par Schmieder, et soutenue par Schulthess, Schnekenburger, Huth, Caspari, Hilgenfeld, Vogel, Kloepper, Ritschl, R. Schmidt, Steck, Vollmer, ct en dernier lieu par Bousset, Lietzmann et Loisy. Ce dernier avoue tout uniment que l'argument est faux, qu'il ne porte pas, mais ce n'est point une raison pour ne pas l’attribuer à Paul. Il y a pourtant des limites au sans-gêne. L'argument en effet serait par trop visiblement faux; il suppose qu'une personne seule ne peut se servir d’un intermédiaire, alors que c’est l'usage constant des personnes haut placées qui choisissent des mandataires, ou des personnes inférieures qui cherchent un intercesseur pour obtenir gain de cause. L'argument ne serait pas seulement faux, il serait contre le sens commun. D'ailleurs μεσίτης peut-il avoir le sens de porte-parole, de héraut qui ferait une communication au nom du prince, sans avoir rien à arranger, à traiter avec une ou plusieurs parties? L'étymologie et l'usage (dans l'ancien latin, μεσίτης est ARBITER) sont contraires, et l'on ne cite aucune exception. Le sens de μεσίτης au v. 20 étant l’explication par une notion générale du μεσίτης du v. 19 doit tenir compte du rôle concret de ce μεσίτης qui était Moïse, intermédiaire entre Dieu et le peuple, comme 18 prouve toute l'histoire du pacte; cf. Deut. v, 5 κἀγὼ εἱστήκειν ἀνὰ μέσον κυρίου καὶ ἀνὰ μεσὸν' ὑμῶν ἐν τῷ καιρῷ ἐκείνῳ, La notion générale de médiateur, qui est le sens de μεσίτης en grec et dans le N. T., coïncide parfaitement avec le rôle de Moïse comme intermédiaire chargé de proposer la Loi au peuple et d'obtenir son consentement à l'alliance. Paul semble avoir en vue Lév. xxvi, 46 ὁ νόμος ὃν ἔδωχε χύριος ἀνὰ μέσον αὐτοῦ καὶ ἀνὰ μέσον τῶν υἱῶν Ἰσραὴλ ἐν τῷ ὄρει Σινᾶ ἐν χειρὶ Μωυσῆ. Enfin, d’après la solution proposée, le v. 20, ou n'ajouterait rien, ou suggérerait une énormité. S'il dit seulement que la Loi émanait d’une pluralité, c'est-à-dire qu'elle avait été manifestée par le ministère des anges, cela était déjà dit, et n'avait pas besoin de preuve. S'il conclut que la Loi n'était donc pas l'œuvre de Dieu qui est un, il va contre la foi de tout Israël et de Paul lui-même; c'est une proposition marcionite qui rompt l'accord, soigneusement maintenu par Paul, entre l'A. et le N. T. M. Loiïisy ne recule pas devant cette conséquence : « Cette Loi n'est pas un acte de Dieu, elle a été « édictée par des anges », qui l'ont « confiée à un intermédiaire c'est-à-dire à Moïse. » — Or διαταγεὶς δι᾿ ἀγγέλων ne peut signifier « édictée par l'autorité des anges », car διά indique nécessairement une action subordonnée. Il faut donc prendre μεσίτης dans son sens ordinaire de médiateur eu d'intermédiaire entre deux parties, qu'il s'agisse de deux personnes ou de deux collectivités, ou d’une personne et d'une collectivité (Light. Corn. Sieff. Lipsius). La notion de μεσίτης est indifférente à ce point; elle exige seulement que tout ne soit pas fait, réglé d'avance par une seule personne, qu'il y ait lieu à un rapprochement entre deux parties. C’est exactement ce qui s’est passé au Sinaï. Paul nous rappelle donc qu'alors Dieu n'était pas seul, il devait tenir compte des dispositions de l’autre partie, sa volonté n'était pas inconditionnée. 11 y avait tractation, arrangement, et, comme c’est nécessairement le cas quand l'humanité entre en scène, imperfection, provision transitoire. De ce chef la Loi était inférieure à la promesse qui ne dépendait que de Dieu, ὁ δὲ θεὸς εἷς ἐστιν. Paul ne dit pas que Dieu « était » unique, au moment où il a fait la promesse, car il est toujours ce qu'il est. À la majestueuse solitude de Dieu faisant une promesse inviolable qu'il tiendra à son heure, Paul oppose la Loi, sujet de transgressions, dans laquelle il se sert des anges, qui ne sont que ses ministres, et pour laquelle un médiateur est nécessaire, comme dans tout arrangement. Comment ce modus vivendi pourrait-il changer les conditions de la promesse? Aussitôt que l'action de Dieu seul apparaît, l'âme de Paul s'incline. Tel est, selon nous, le sens de ces deux versets. On peut objecter que la pensée demeure obscure, à force de concision, mais on ne peut nier qu'elle est impressionnante. On pourrait la développer dans ce sens que la médiation suppose un contrat, que le contrat peut être violé par la partie humaine, ce qui rendrait caduc l'engagement pris par Dieu, C'est bien la pensée de Paul dans Rom. 1v, 14 ss., sur ce même thème de la promesse, et le mot de « transgression » (v. 49) suggère que cette pensée était déjà la sienne. Mais il nest pas nécessaire d'aller jusqu'à cette précision pour que l'intervention du médiateur ait un sens. Entre les deux opinions que seules nous avons retenues, se place celle de D'après lui, le v. 20 n'est point une proposition générale sur la nature du médiateur; ὁ peotrns-est Moïse, qui ne fut pas le représentant d'un seul, mais de la multitude. Il n'a pas précisément servi d'intermédiaire entre Dieu et le peuple. Le rôle d’intermédiaire a été joué par les anges. I1 a reçu la loi Littéralement dans sa main, pour la transmettre au peuple. Donc Zahn suppose comme Loisy etc. que le médiateur est moins un intermédiaire entre deux parties que le représentant d’une pluralité, mais il entend cette pluralité des Israélites, non des anges, dont la pluralité était déjà reconnue par le soul énoncé de leur présence multiple. Seulement que résulte-t-il de cette situation de Moïse pour suggérer l’infériorité de la Loi? D’après Zahn tandis que la promesse avait été donnée au seul Abraham, et se terminait au seul Christ, la Loi avait dû passer par les mains de Moïse pour étre transmise au peuple nombreux des descendants d'Abraham. Elle ne pouvait donc être que provisoire. — Mais cette conclusion ne suit pas de l'interprétation proposée. D'autant que le v. 20 serait assez banal : Moïse n'est pas le représentant de Dieu qui est un, il est donc le représentant du peuple. La vraie notion scripturaire c'est qu'il était entre deux. L'opinion de M# Schacfer est encore plus étrange. Le médiateur figurant dans la Loi ancienne prouverait non seulement son infériorité, mais encore son caractère transitoire. Le peuple chrétien en effet, étant uni au Christ qui est uni à Dieu, n'a plus besoïn de médiateur, ni de loil
3:21
οὖν est difficile. Il semble d'après le contexte, insistance sur la justice v. 21 et le péché v. 22, que οὖν se rapporte à la proposition principale du v. 49, la loi ἃ été donnée pour (amener) les transgressions. Est-elle done opposée aux promesses de Dieu qui contenaient la bénédiction? Ou encore cette loi, étant donnée en somme par Dieu, dérogeait-elle donc aux promesses? Mais le sens le plus en situation est indiqué par la qualification τοῦ Θεοῦ, qui était absente des vv. 17 et 18; οὖν se rattache au v. 20 avec une nuance d'ironie : une telle loi, avec un médiaicur, sera-t-elle donc en opposition avec 165 promesses qui, elles, sont de Dieu? …— La réponse est μὴ γένοιτο, l'inférence serait manifestement fausse. On eût pu, à vrai dire, faire une autre hypothèse, ou plutôt c'était celle des judaïsants. Si la loi avait élé capable de conférer le salut, elle aurait donc aussi procuré la justice, et alors celle pourrait être présentée comme un élément essentiel de la promesse qui comprenait la justice : c'est ce que Paul indique par la fin du verset. — Ζωοποιῆσαι, vivilier, donner cette vie véritable qui est la vie avec Dieu ct en Dieu, que ce soit durant l'existence présente ou après là mort. Alors vraiment (ὄντως) cette loi serait le principe de la justice qui est considérée par Paul comme le point de départ de la vie divine (Rom. v, 10). — ἂν ἦν (Soden : ἣν ἄν), apodose d'une phrase conditian-
3:22
Mais — quoi qu'en disent les judaïsants — la Loi s'est montrée incapable de jouer ce rôle, et la preuve, c'est que l'Écriture a tout enfermé sous le péché. — ἡ γραφή « l'Écriture », qui sans doute comprend la Loi, mais c’est le terme adopté comme synonyme des affirmations divines (cf. m1, 8). De sorte que l’action qui lui est attribuée est de l'ordre intellectuel, non pas de l'ordre d'une causalité physique. συνέχλεισεν doit s'entendre d'une constalation, d'une déclaration de la part de Dieu que le péché a débordé de telle façon qu'il est devenu le maître et que nul ne pouvait échapper à sa domination. L'humanité était dans une impasse. Dans συγχλείω, la préposition ne signifie pas qu'on est fermé ensemble, mais que la fermeture ne laisse aucune issue; cf. Rom. χι, 82. Il est probable que Paul avait déjà en vue les textes qu'il a cités dans Rom. 111, 10-18. Lightfoot allègue que γραφή fait toujours allusion à un passage particulier, et, comme Paul n’en cite aucun, il suppose un renvoi à Ps. excuni, 2, cité plus haut (π, 46), ou à Deut. xxvu, 26, cité dans int, 10. Mais ce serait une trop maigre justification de la domination universelle du péché. — τὰ πάντα « toutes choses » humaines, et par conséquent les hommes pécheurs; le neutre est pour le masculin; cf. I Cor. 1, 27; Col. τ, 20 et ÉPICTÈTE, V, χχῃ, 1. Pourquoi donc Dieu avait-il voulu que la voie fût barrée, comme le constatait l'Écriture? C'était pour que sa libéralité se manifestât par un don gratuit (δοθῇ), le don de la promesse, c'est-à-dire de la réalité promise, accordé à ceux qui procéderaient non pas des œuvres de la Loi, mais de la foi en Jésus-Christ. Et pour que nul n'en ignore, et que les prétentions des œuvres ne renaissent pas, même à l'entrée du domaine de la foi, Paul ajoute τοῖς πιστεύουσιν « pour ceux qui croient ». D’après le v. 21 et le v. 24, la réalité de la promesse vise surtout le don de la justice, que la Loi ne pouvait procurer, et qui est donnée à la foi. On peut encore ici dire très justement avec Cornely que l'Écriture, en révélant le péché, invitait les hommes à prendre conscience de leur faiblesse, à demander le secours d'un Rédempteur etc., mais Paul n'envisage que le dessein de Dieu, comme dans Rom. x1, 32 : le péché fait mieux éclater le don gratuit ou la miséricorde. D'après M, Loisy, « l'argumentation tourne dans un cercle et ne tient qu’en vertu du parti pris qui la supporte : il n'y a dans la Loi aucune foi qui justifie et qui garantisse l’immortalité. Mais c’est ce qui est en question, ce qu'un Juif ayant la foi juive ne pourrait même pas concevoir, ce qu'il pourrait encore moins admettre ». On voit que l’objection suppose toujours que Paul en veut à un Juif, ayant la foi juive, tandis qu'il s'adresse à des gentils professant la foi chrétienne. En acceptant le christianisme, ils ont cherché la justice en Jésus, et font partie de communautés animées par l'Esprit-Saint. On leur dit que la Loi est nécessaire à la justice, que c'est d'elle que vient la justice. Alors pourquoi l'Écriture elle-même se plaint-elle de la domination du péché? Ce qu'on constate, depuis que la Loi existe, c'est que les transgressions ont augmenté. Paul ne nie pas qu'elle ait pu être utile aux Juifs, mais elle ne contient pas le don de Dieu. Si elle n'a pas changé le dessein de Dieu de procéder par libéralité pure, ne serait-ce pas insensé d'y recourir après que ce dessein a été réalisé? Placée entre la promesse et le don, elle n’a pas pu donner la vie. Que pourrait-elle à présent? Paul ne nie pas non plus qu'il y ait eu au sein du peuple de Dieu une foi qui justifie, mais cette foi, il la fait remonter à Abraham son ancêtre, elle se rattache à la promesse. Par définition cette foi au secours divin ne peut sortir de la Loi qui n’est qu'un précepte. Et quels que soient les avantages de la Loi, il faudra toujours dire avec M. Loisy cette fois : « La loi extérieure ne fait pas la moralité intérieure de l'individu ». C’est tout ce que Paul demande.
3:23
L'espèce d'emprisonnement sous la domination du péché laissait une impression fort triste. Paul l'adoucit en partant de ce terme même de fermeture. Étant ainsi gardés, les Israélites avaient la Loi pour pédagogue; la contrainte avait pour avantage de les tenir en attendant une meilleure espérance, et devait disparaître au moment où le terme serait venu. δέ au sens ordinaire d'opposition; le v. 22 avait mené les choses jusqu'à la promesse; il faut revenir en arrière; au v. 25, nouvelle opposition pour la marche en avant. Ici δέ est le troisième mot de la phrase, pour ne pas séparer la préposition de son régime. — πίστις avec l'article, le mot étant déterminé par l'explication du v. 28, la foi en Jésus. Cette foi vient (v. 24), elle ἃ donc quelque chose d'objectif. Pourtant ce n'est pas l'évangile, ni le contenu de l'évangile; d'après le sens paulinien ordinaire, c'est bien la foi dans l'esprit des fidèles, mais considérée comme un nouveau régime, opposé à la Loi. — ὑπὸ νόμον se rapporte à ἐφρουρούμεθα, modifié d’ailleurs par συνχλειόμενοι, Le rôle de la Loi est donc précisé par ces deux verbes; ὑπό indique qu'on était (c'està-dire les Juifs, dont Paul fait partie, « nous ») sous l'empire de la Loi dont l'action va être précisée. On est gardé soit pour être protégé, soit pour que la fuite soit impossible; φρουρεῖν peut avoir les deux sens, mais συνχλειόμενοι fait pencher pour le second. Exemples cités par Lightfoot : ἐφρουρεῖτο εἰς τὴν ἀσίδηρον εἱρχτὴν καταχλεισθείς (Sap. xvir, 15); οὐδὲ φρουρεῖν συγχλείσαντας τῇ ὕλῃ (Pur. De def. orac. p. 426 Β). Dans ces deux exemples, le verbe « emprisonner » est à l’aoriste, parce qu'on emprisonne les gens avant de les gar° der en prison; sens dont se rapprocherait le parfait συγχεχλεισμένοι (Soden). Si le texte authentique est συνχλειόμενοι (Nestle), le présent suggère que la double action se prolonge ou se renouvelle simultanément au cours de l'histoire. La Loi était donc comme un geôlier qui vérifiait les serrures et faisait bonne garde; les Juifs ne pouvaient échapper. Cependant, dans le dessein du législateur, c'est pour le bien des Israélites; ils étaient ainsi maintenus ensemble en vue de la foi à venir. Cette conception est parfaitement juste, et appuyée sur l'histoire. Les dix tribus dispersées ne pouvaient entretenir l'espérance messianique. La Loi, reconnue et pratiquée par les exilés revenus à Jérusalem comme leur seule règle religieuse, politique et sociale, faisait des Juifs un peuple attentif aux enseignements de Dieu, regardant vers le salut promis. Ce salut était la foi, au même sens qu'au début du verset: elle devait venir, comme une chose nouvelle, et venir par une manifestation, une révélation; le passif ἀποκαλυφθῆναι suggère la causalité divine. Paul emploie ici la même tournure que pour la manifestation de la gloire du monde futur (Rom. vin, 18}, car le régime de la foi comporte déjà une grande lumière, inconnue des siècles précédents. Une prison dans l’antiquité était toujours ténébreuse.
3:24
La Loi est comparée à un pédagogue. Le terme de pédagogie risque de mettre ici sur une fausse voie. On pourrait penser à un enseignement progressif, conduisant peu à peu à des vérités de plus en plus hautes, et développant de plus en plus l'effort moral. C'était déjà le sens de παιδαγωγία en grec. Ce dessein fut en effet réalisé par Dieu dans l’histoire d'Israël, et si Paul avait parlé de toute l'Écriture, il eût pu dire qu’elle avait réellement et positivement préparé les âmes au Christ. Mais il ne parle ici que de la Loi, et il ne peut avoir oublié ni qu'elle développe les transgressions (1, 19), ni qu’elle est une sorte de geôlier (πι, 23}. La comparaison du pédagogue, qui explique ce qui précède (ὥστε), est cependant de nature à atténuer ce rôle ingrat de geôlier. C’est décidément l'intérêt des Israélites qui prévaut. Le pédagogue était un esclave chargé de surveiller les enfants et de réprimer leurs écarts. Comme on ne les laissait pas sortir seuls, il les conduisait chez les maîtres chargés de leur instruction. Les parents comptaient sur la bonne influence du pédagogue, mais Paul ne se préoccupe pas de ce côté de l'institution. Il n’envisage que la discipline imposée à l'enfant, placé sous autorité d'un esclave. Sur ce qu'il y avait en cela d'étrange, on cite Platon (Zysis, p. 208 C) : « Te laisse-t-on te diriger toi-même, ou ne te le permet-on même pas? — Comment, dit-il, le permettrait-on? — Quelqu'un a donc autorité sur toi? — Ce pédagogue, dit-il. — Est-ce un esclave? — Maïs quoi? c’est le nôtre, dit-il. — C’est une chose étrange, dis-je, quand on est libre, d'être commandé par un esclave. En quoi donc ce pédagogue exerce-t-il de l'autorité sur toi? — En me conduisant, dit-il, à la maison du maitre ». Ce dernier office a fait penser à Ghrysostome que εἰς Χριστόν signifiait que la Loi avait mené les Juifs à l'école du Ghrist : πρὸς τὸν Χριστόν, ὅς ἐστιν ὁ διδάσκαλος, ἀπῆγε, mais le Christ, dans toute l’épître, est le rédempteur, objet de la foi plutôt que le docteur. D'ailleurs, loin de transformer sa métaphore de la clôture en une marche en avant, Paul indique que c’est la foi qui vient. La comparaison avec le pédagogue antique ne doit pas être serrée de trop près; εἰς Χριστόν marque simplement le terme que le Père, c'est-à-dire Dieu, se proposait. L'institution du pédagogue prouve que les Grecs avaient compris la nécessité de guider le libre arbitre par une discipline sévère, jusqu'au jour où, là raison étant développée, la crainte du châtiment serait moins nécessaire. C'était, d'après Libanius, païen qui n’a pas dû s'inspirer de saint Paul, le but de toute doi : πρῶτον μὲν νόμῳ παιδαγωγήσομεν αὐτῶν τὴν προαίρεσιν, ὡς ἂν τὴν ἀπὸ τοῦ νόμου ζημίαν ἀναδυόμενοι σωφρονεῖν ἀναγκάζωνται (IV, 437 éd. Reiske). L'idée de pénalité est bien celle de Paul, mais il n'estimait pas que la Loi mosaïque ait obtenu le résultat d'apprendre aux hommes à faire leur salut par leurs propres forces. Il a développé sa pensée dans l'Épiître aux Romains. Connaissant le péché par la Loi, ne trouvant aucune force dans la Loi, ni un appui suffisant dans la raïson, l'homme n'avait plus qu'une ressource, la foi en Jésus-Christ (Rom. vi, 24). C'est cette heureuse issue qui est ici présentée comme le dessein de Dieu ἕνα x πίστεως δικαιωθῶμεν. C'est seulement au terme que la justice est obtenue, non comme le résultat des efforts prolongés du pédagogue, mais comme le résultat de la foi, à laquelle Dieu donne la justice. Maïs alors 16 rôle du pédagogue ἃ cessé. Ramsay distingue le pédagogue grec, tel que nous l'avons dépeint, et le pédagogue romain, chargé de l'instruction. Paul parlerait ici du premier et dans ΠΤ Cor. 1v, 15 du pédagogue à la romaine. La distinction n'était sans doute pas aussi tranchée, d'autant qu'en Orient le pédagogue n’était pas l’esclave grec chargé d'apprendre sa langue aux enfants romains.
3:25
Ce verset est la conclusion de ce qui précède, mais, en même temps par son allure de proposition générale, il amorce le développement qui suit.
3:26
γάρ fait de ce verset la preuve du précédent. Pourquoi ne sommes-nous plus sous l'autorité du pédagogue? Parce que nous sommes des fils, arrivés à la plénitude de l’âge, étant unis au Christ, qui est l'homme parfait. A propos de la Loi, il disait « nous », se rangeant parmi kes Juifs, et maintenant il pourrait encore le faire, au nom de tous les chrétiens; mais pour montrer qu'il ne s'occupe plus seulement des Juifs, il dit ἐστέ, « vous êtes », mais sans s'adresser uniquement aux gentils convertis, comme 16 prouve πάντες. Les Juifs se disaient fils de Dieu, mais tous les chrétiens le:sont à un nouveau titre, διὰ τῆς πίστεως ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ, Cela peut s'entendre de deux manières, selon que ἐν Χριστῷ I. est joint à υἱοὶ Θεοῦ ou ἃ πίστεως, Dans le premier cas, ils deviennent fils de Dieu par l'union au Christ, qui se fait d’ailleurs par la foi, telle que Paul l'entend, adhésion totale de l’âme; dans le second cas, c’est explicitement par la foi dans le Christ Jésus. Le premier mode (Zipsius, Corn., Loisy, Zahn) argumente de ce que la foi au Christ devrait s'écrire τῆς πίστεως τῆς ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ, cette foi qui est la foi au Christ. Mais Sieffert répond très bien que Paul ne distingue pas plusieurs genres de foi, il n’en connaît pratiquement qu’une, de sorte que l'omission de l'article est non seulement tolérable mais indiquée avec ce sens (avec Eph. 1, 45; Col. 1, 4; tandis que dans I Tim. ni, 18 ἐν πίστει τῇ ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ). Quoique πίστις soit plus souvent suivi de εἰς, cependant on trouve aussi ἐν (exemples cités) d'après la locution πιστεύειν ἔν τινι, Le second mode étant grammaticalement possible, il faut le préférer comme plus naturel d’après l’ordre des mots. Il est très vrai qu'on devient fils de Dieu par l’union au Christ, maïs cette union commence par la foi et produit dès lors cet effet; selon le mouvement des idées, l'unité ne paraîtra qu’au v. 27. (Avec Vg.-Clém. per fidem quae est in Christo Jesu[ WW. ed. minor om. quae est, ce qui laisse la question indécise], Ambrosiaster, Jér. Chrys. Sief. Bousset etc.).
3:27
Ceux qui joignent υἱοὶ θεοῦ... ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ voient dans le v. 27 la preuve de cette union : on a la série : vous êtes fils de Dieu en étant dans le Christ, et vous êtes dans le Christ parce que vous l'avez revêtu dans le baptême. Ceux qui joignent τῆς πίστεως ἐν Χριστῷ [ησοῦ voient dans notre verset la preuve de la filiation divine : vous êtes fils de Dieu par la foi, car par le baptême, acte de la foi, vous avez revêtu le Christ. Dans les deux manières Îl faut sous-entendre que 16 Christ est le Fils de Dieu. Nous avons préféré le second mode qui fait progresser la pensée. — ὅσοι répond aux πάντες, Le baptême est εἰς Χριστόν, comme Rom. vi, 8. Il ne faut pas distinguer les effets de la foi (totale) et ceux du baptéme; ce sont les mêmes, et le baptême, avec sa grâce propre, est la conclusion extérieure logique de l'acte de foi (cf. Comm. Rom., p. 151 s.). Par le baptême on revêt le Christ. La. métaphore était courante dans l'A. T. de revétir une disposition morale ou une qualité quelconque, bonne ou mauvaise, ἰσχύν (Is. μι, 9), δύναμιν, εὐπρέπειαν (Ps. xcn, 1); αἰσχύνην (Ps. xxxiv, 26), διχαιοσύνην (Job, xxix, 14). Chez les Grecs, même usage, et l’on a poussé jusqu'à dire : revêtir quelqu'un, c'est-à-dire entrer dans ses dispositions : τὸν Ταρχύνιον ἐνδύεσθαι (Dion. Hal. XI, v, 5). C'est le sens de Paul, mais avec l'intention d'exprimer l'union la plus parfaite, de telle sorte que le titre de fils de Dieu soit communiqué aux chrétiens par la participation de l'adoption, comme Paul l’expliquera plus tard (1v, 5-7). Peut-être l'image du vêtement a-t-elle paru à l'Apôtre encore insuffisante pour marquer toute l'union au Christ dans le baptême, car dans l'Épitre aux Romains il a employé des comparaisons plus saisissantes (Rom. vi; 1-11). Puis il a repris la pensée de revêtir le Christ (Rom. xm, 14), quand il invite les chrétiens, donc déjà baptisés, à prendre la tenue qui convient au jour et à la lumière pour combattre la chair en union avec Jésus- Christ. — D'ailleurs ce second emploi da la même image, en dehors du baptême, suggère qu’elle n'est pas venue à l'esprit de Paul à cause de l'usage de prendre après le baptême des habits nouveaux et spécialement des vêtements blancs. On ne sait au juste de quand date l'adoption de ces vêtements. Il était dans la nature des choses qu'après le baptême on ne reprit pas des vêtements souillés; le symbolisme de la purification qui est aussi ancien sans doute que le baptême juif eût exclu pareille négligence. Dans un pays où la tunique tient souvent lieu de chemise et se lave, un simple bain est une occasion de changer de costume; cf. Jusrin, Dial. cxvi : οὕτως ἡμεῖς οἱ διὰ τοῦ Ἰησοῦ ὀνόματος ὡς εἷς ἄνθρωπος πιστεύσαντες... τὰ ῥυπαρὰ ἱμάτια ἀπημφιεσμένοι t. À. Justin pense au texte de Paul au v. suivant, maïs il parle de quitter les vêtements sales sans ajouter qu'on revêt le Christ au baptême.
3:28
Corollaire de l'union au Christ affirmée au v. 27 par la métaphore « revêtir le Christ ». Si chaque chrétien lui est uni, tous ne sont qu'une seule personne, et il ne peut plus y avoir de ces différences qui empêchent l'union. Ce serait une preuve que la Loi n'a plus sa raison d'être, car son caractère national juif est indéniable. Maïs Paul ne s'arrête pas encore à cette pensée, il arrive au dernier degré nécessaire pour poser la conclusion de toute cette péricope au verset suivant. — ἔνι pour ἐνί est la préposition ἐν prise adverbialement. Elle est employée au sens d'évestt « il y ἃ », maïs n'est pas l'abréviation de ce mot. Du point de vue religieux, il y avait des Juifs et des gentils, dont les Grecs étaient le type dans le monde oriental; du point de vue social, des esclaves et des hommes libres; du point de vue naturel, des hommes et des femmes. Ces différences n'existent plus pour ce qui touche à la vie spirituelle des chrétiens en Jésus (π, 20; 11 Cor. v, 15 s.; Rom. χιν, 8). — Le rythme est changé entre ἄρσεν et θῆλυ par l'insertion de χαί au lieu de οὐδέ, peut-être parce que la phrase de la Genèse (1, 27) ἄρσεν καὶ θῆλυ (ἐποίησεν αὐτούς) s’est présentée toute faite à la mémoire de Paul.
3:29
Conclusion définitive : vous êtes donc ce lignage d'Abraham, et héritiers d'après la promesse, puisqu'elle est un testament. La particule δέ marque la dernière prémisse de l'argumentation. Le v. 26 affirmait que les chrétiens sont fils de Dieu par la foi, et le v. 27 le prouvait par leur union au Christ, le vrai Fils de Dieu. De cette union le v. 28 déduisait qu’ils ne sont qu'une seule personne, Le v. 29 ne revient pas sur cette unité pour la restreindre, mais enfin, étant une unité mystique, elle n'est pas absolue. Si les chrétiens sont « quelque chose du Christ », ils participent à ce qui appartient au Christ, ils sont donc comme lui le lignage d'Abraham. Cette conclusion confirme l'interprétation du v. 16 pour le Christ individuel. Comme le dit Théodoret : « Si en effet mous sommes le corps du Christ, le Christ étant 16 lignage d'Abraham, nous sommes joints à Abraham par la foi ». Ce Christ était donc ce lignage unique d'Abraham dont parlaït Paul, et c'est en s’unissant à lui que les fidèles eux-mêmes font partie du lignage, sont. ce lignage. On arrive donc à l'idée du Christ mystique, mais seulement au terme de la démonstration, en se servant des titres qui appartenaient au Christ individuel, le seul qui soit mis en scène expressément au v. 16. C’est dans ce sens qu'on peut dire avec 5. Augustin : hie ergo ostendit unum semen Christum non tanitum ipsum mediatorem intelligendum esse, verum etiam Ecclesiam, cuius ille corporis caput esi. Dans χατ᾽ ἐπαγγελίαν χληρονόμοι, le mot important comme conclusion de ce qui précède est xat’ ἐπαγγελίαν : les chrétiens sont appelés à l'héritage promis à Abraham non pas par le droit du sang, mais en vertu de la promesse, ellemême embrassée par la foi, par la foi d'Abraham et par la foi de ses vrais fils. D'autre part, le mot χληρονόμοι, mis à la fin, dépasse en portée l'héritage d'Abraham. La pensée a marché. Les chrétiens sont fils de Dieu par leur union avec le Christ; il s’agit done bien plutôt de l'héritage de Dieu. Ce sont leurs rapports d’héritiers et d'enfants par rapport à Dieu qui seront le sujet du chapitre suivant ἃ son début. Τ᾿ Αέγω. δέ, ἐφ᾽ ὅσον χρόνον à κληρονόμος νήπιός ἐστιν, οὐδὲν διαφέρει
3:1
Significant, however, is Gal. 3:1, where the addressees are apostrophized with the title of "Galatians" and with the hardly flattering addition of "foolish." If "Galatia" could be used in the broad sense of Roman province, …
… Christ affirms that the Scripture cannot be destroyed (λυθήναι: cf. Jn. 10, 35; Rom. 1, 17; Gal. 3, 1 ff.; I Cor. 9, 9 etc.). …
3:3
… whence whoever lives under it is subject to the divine curse (Gal. 3:10). The L. is the letter that kills (II Cor. 3:6), a cause of death and condemnation (ibid. 3:7 ff.; cf. Rom. 7:6), since it is within the realm of the flesh (Rom. 7:5; cf. Gal. 3:3).
3:4
… The fact of the r. of m. is today commonly admitted, because it is founded, at least implicitly, on texts of Scripture (Ezek. 18:21; 33:12; Joel 2:18; Gal. 3:4; Heb. 6:10; above all the parable of the prodigal son [Luke 15:11-32], who is restored to all his previous rights) and on explicit affirmations of the Fathers who, commenting on that …
3:5
Apostles (Gr. Ἀπόστολος "Sent One", from ἀποστέλλω)
… The miracles of the apostles are not lacking to him (Gal. 3:5; 2 Cor. 12:12; Rom.
3:6
… 7-9; Gal. 3, 29; 4, 22-31). A. is the representative of the economy of the promise (ἐπικτωσία) — opposed to the bilateral Mosaic covenant — which has its full realization in the New Testament (Gal. 3, 16-18). The exaltation of A.'s faith (Rom. ch. 4; Gal. 3, 6-9; Heb. 11, 8-19; Jas. 4, 21-23) and the demonstration of the superiority of Christ's priesthood over the Aaronic one on the basis of what took place between A. and Melchizedek (Heb. …
This covenant is the one that has the greatest resonance in the New Testament, especially in St. Paul (cf. Gal. 3:6-18), inasmuch as, unlike the Sinaitic and Davidic covenants, it expressly contained the promise of the messianic blessings (= redemption) to all the descendants of Abraham. …
… The case of Abraham, illuminated in Gal. 3:6-18, and which remains central also in the Epistle to the Romans, is an example of how faith operated before and above the L. The latter, having come much later, could not take away …
3:8
… Holy Spirit" (v. 41), completed it by giving its profound reason in the blessed fruit of her womb, in whom precisely, according to the messianic promises to the Patriarchs, "all nations" would be "blessed" (Gen. 22:18; 26:4; 28:14, and Jn. 1:16 and Gal. 3:8-16). Theologically those words are essential: without them the angelic message would remain incomplete, neglecting the true reason for the "Dominus tecum"; they are demanded by the intimate …
… This is the most frequent sense in the New Testament: "This man (the publican) went back justified to his house" (Lk. 18:14 and above all Rom. 2:3; 3:24, 26, 28 and Gal. 3:8, 24: "Ex fide iustificat gentes Deus"; "Lex paedagogus fuit in Christo ut ex fide iustificemur"). …
3:10
… provoker of God's wrath (Rom. 4:15), because it multiplies transgressions (Gal. 3:19; Rom. 5:20), awakening the moral conscience (Rom. 3:20) without offering the strength to combat sin; whence whoever lives under it is subject to the divine curse (Gal. 3:10). The L. is the letter that kills (II Cor. 3:6), a cause of death and condemnation (ibid. 3:7 ff.; cf. Rom. 7:6), since it is within the realm of the flesh (Rom. 7:5; cf. Gal. 3:3).
3:11
Habacuc (Hebrew Hâbaqqûq; Septuagint: Ambakoum, confusing him with the character in Dan. 14:32)
… in 2:14: "the earth will be filled with the knowledge of the glory of Jahweh" and still more in 2:4 "the just shall live by his faith," the core of the whole book, cited three times by St. Paul (according to the Septuagint) as "Scripture" (Rom. 1:17; Gal. 3:11; Heb. 10:37-38). The Apostle further cites (Acts 13:41) the passage 1:5 among the group of "prophetic" books.
3:12
… through the angels, with Moses acting as mediator (Gal. 3:19; cf. Hebr. 2:3), whence it is the chief boast of Israel (Rom. 9:4), led by it, as by a pedagogue, to Christ (Gal. 3:24); that by observing it one is declared righteous (Rom. 2:13; 10:5; Gal. 3:12); that it was the shadow of the future Christ (Col. 2:16), in whom it has found its own fulfillment (τέλος; Rom. 10:4). On the other hand, the L. is accused of having brought nothing …
3:13
… Genes.), p. 3, ed. Lagarde, and Commentarii in Ep. Pauli ad Gal. 3, 13: PL 26, 387 b). It is seen from these citations that for A. the bereich (the "beginning") of Gen. 1, 1, was the Son (for this exegesis in patristic literature, cf. A. Harnack, …
3:15
… Aquila and Symmachus preferred συνθήκη, and already St. Jerome (In Mal., 2:4; PL 25, 1555) warned that the word T. "in many places of Scripture does not mean the will of the dead, but a pact between the living." The ordinary meaning can be found, however, in Gal. 3:15 and in Heb. 9:16. That sense applies well to the writings of the New T., inasmuch as their content can be considered as an "inheritance," a good (the Redemption) in close connection …
3:16
… who, through faith, are sons of the great patriarch (Rom. 9, 7-9; Gal. 3, 29; 4, 22-31). A. is the representative of the economy of the promise (ἐπικτωσία) — opposed to the bilateral Mosaic covenant — which has its full realization in the New Testament (Gal. 3, 16-18). The exaltation of A.'s faith (Rom. ch. 4; Gal. 3, 6-9; Heb. 11, 8-19; Jas. 4, 21-23) and the demonstration of the superiority of Christ's priesthood over the Aaronic one on the basis …
The M. and his kingdom is the ultimate purpose intended by God in the "covenant" of Sinai, which specifies and determines the ancient "covenant" with Abraham, the "promise" (ἐπικητελία; Rom. 4:13-16; 9:8; Gal. 3:16-29; 4:28) formulated for his posterity. …
3:19
The passages of the New Testament in which these appearances are alluded to (Act. 7, 31-35; Gal. 3, 19; Hebr. 2, 2) seem to favor the linking of the divine mediator angel with the Word; this interpretation was falsified by the Gnostic, and later Arian, currents, so as to give rise …
… Paulus, Tübingen 1930, p. 184 ff.; J. Bonsirven [v. bibl.], p. 135). On the one hand, it is said that the L. was given for life and is holy and spiritual (Rom. 7:10 ff., 14); that it was communicated through the angels, with Moses acting as mediator (Gal. 3:19; cf. Hebr. 2:3), whence it is the chief boast of Israel (Rom. 9:4), led by it, as by a pedagogue, to Christ (Gal. 3:24); that by observing it one is declared righteous (Rom. …
3:20
Before the exile the Hebrew religion had as its supreme "mediator" (Gal. 3:20) Moses (v.), whose Law (v.) contains the norms of the religious and social life of the people, founded on the doctrinal cornerstones of monotheism and Retribution. …
3:22
… It is firmly held that "now, independently of the Law, a righteousness of God has been manifested... namely, the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all believers" (Rom. 3:21 ff.; cf. Gal. 3:22). This doctrine is clearly fixed by the Council of Trent (cf. Denz-U, 793-94; 811-12), which summarizes and solemnly reaffirms (ibid., 797-98) the position already taken by the Church …
Satan extends his dominion not only over "his angels" (Mt. 25:41; Apoc. 12:7), but over all men infested by evil, "sons of rebellion" (Eph. 2:2; 5:6), "all enclosed in unfaithfulness, under sin" (Rom. 11:32; Gal. 3:22); "all are under sin," "the whole world is debtor of punishment to God" (Rom. 3:9, 19). In this "kingdom" of his (Lk. 11:15), from the first sin, the original one, Satan makes sin …
3:24
… and is holy and spiritual (Rom. 7:10 ff., 14); that it was communicated through the angels, with Moses acting as mediator (Gal. 3:19; cf. Hebr. 2:3), whence it is the chief boast of Israel (Rom. 9:4), led by it, as by a pedagogue, to Christ (Gal. 3:24); that by observing it one is declared righteous (Rom. 2:13; 10:5; Gal. 3:12); that it was the shadow of the future Christ (Col. 2:16), in whom it has found its own fulfillment …
… In this sense one must understand St. Paul's statement that faith justifies (Rom. 1:12; 5:1; 3:28; 9:30; 10:6; Gal. 2:16; 3:24). It is the obligatory way and the first effective step toward justification: "Iustitia Dei per fidem Jesu Christi" (Rom. 3:22, 30). Not that faith is the essential and constitutive …
… without violent shocks, of the Christian revelation; c) the Hebrew revelation was in fact a preparatory revelation that was not an end in itself; its function was to prepare the Christian revelation, in which it found its fulfillment (cf. Mt. 5:18; Gal. 3:24). For this reason the Hebrew revelation ceased its function with the coming of the Christian revelation, or, better, the whole content of truth that it possessed was made its own by …
3:26
… Its destruction in 70 A.D. was the most manifest sign that the ancient covenant was by then finished, and that the Messiah had already come (Gen. 49:10). J. had lost its supremacy; henceforth there was no longer Jew nor Gentile, but only those reborn in Christ (Gal. 3:26-29; Col. 3:10 ff.).
3:27
… This doctrine St. Paul further develops in its most recondite and mystical meanings: there is only one B., as there is only one Christ (Eph. 4:5); B. brings the imprint of the Holy Spirit (II Cor. 1:21-22); it clothes us with Christ (Gal. 3:27); it makes us mystically relive the death and resurrection of Jesus (Rom. 6:3-4); etc. (cf. further on, III). …
… restoration begun with Baptism, which is rebirth in the risen Christ (Rom. 6, 4-11), a new life nourished by faith and charity (I Cor. 13; Eph. 3, 14-19), whereby a new creation is brought about (II Cor. 5, 17), the new man clothed in Christ (Col. 3, 9; Gal. 3, 27), living of Christ (Gal. 2, 20). The synthesis of St. Paul's thought, which vibrates in all the Epistles (Eph., first chapters) is read in Tit. 3, 5: « Secundum suam misericordiam …
… This gift was merited by Christ, and is transmitted to us through his humanity (Rom. 5:18; I Cor. 1:30) operating in the Sacraments, and it configures us to him, so that one can say that we become just with his justice and that we put on Christ (cf. Gal. 3:27); but this expression does not exclude the reality and interiority of the divine gift of grace, but rather highlights its meritorious and efficient cause and its purpose, which is …
… More than on the necessity of the rite (cf. Act. 19, 5), P. insists on pointing out its symbolism; it represents also externally death to the world and the incorporation of the new creature into the Mystical Christ (cf. Rom. 6, 3; Gal. 3, 27; Eph. 3, 6). The Apostle recalls at length the Eucharist (I Cor. 11, 20-32). He speaks of Holy Orders, pointing out its capacity to confer Grace (Act. 20, 28; I Tim. 4, 14; II Tim. …
… For you are all one in Christ Jesus" (Gal. 3:27-28). From the manner in which Jesus treated women it appears that He placed her, in all things and especially as regards the supernatural life, on the same level as man. An example is …
3:28
… Corinthiens [Verbum Salutis, 13], Paris 1946, pp. 288-89). To the Galatians he said that by being baptized into Christ one puts on Christ and every difference originating in race, civil condition, or sex falls away: «you are all one in Christ Jesus» (Gal. 3:28). Whether one interprets the preposition εἰς of Gal. 3:27, Rom. 6:3, and 1 Cor. 12:13 in an almost local sense, saying that Christ is, as it were, the element, the medium in which …
The law of Christian love has brought down the barriers of religious or national particularism; since all are one in Christ, there is no longer either Greek or barbarian, free man or slave (Gal. 3:28).
… Graecus) is equivalent in the New Testament to "pagan" (John 7:35; Acts 11:19; 14:1; 18:4; Rom. 1:14, 16; 2:9 ff.; 3:9; Gal. 3:28) as opposed to Ἰουδαῖος; οἱ Ἕλληνες is equivalent to τὰ ἔθνη (cf. Acts 13:47), with explicit reference to the Greco-Roman cultural world. …
… It exhorted slaves, it is true, to be patient, resigned, obedient, but at the same time it commanded masters to treat them as brothers, as themselves, because before God there is neither slave nor free (Gal. 3:28; Eph. 6:5-9; Col. 3:22-24). Moving is St. Paul's letter to Philemon on behalf of Onesimus, his runaway slave, received, converted and sent back to his master: "receive him no longer …
3:29
Peter, Stephen and Paul will recall the Abrahamic promises (Acts 3, 25; 7, 2-8, 17; Heb. 6, 13; II Cor. 11, 22), which were fulfilled in Christ for all those who, through faith, are sons of the great patriarch (Rom. 9, 7-9; Gal. 3, 29; 4, 22-31). A. is the representative of the economy of the promise (ἐπικτωσία) — opposed to the bilateral Mosaic covenant — which has its full realization in the New Testament (Gal. …
… At the third mile from Bethlehem, Ps. 132, 8; Is. 7, 10-15; Gal. 3, 29-4, 7 are recited; alleluia, Ps. 110, 1; Lk. 2, 1-7." Furthermore, a homily by Chrysippus, a priest of Jerusalem, delivered on a feast day of the Madonna to his brother monks of St. Euthymius, …
Douay-Rheims (Challoner) · Vulgata Clementina · original Douay-Rheims (Rheims 1582), transcription by EEBO-TCP (CC0) · La Sacra Bibbia, tradotta dalla Volgata da Antonio Martini (1769-1781) (LaParola (laparola.net), Martini OSIS text, Public domain (LaParola's electronic edition marks it 'Dominio pubblico')). Public domain.