Commentary on Galatians

[Gal 1:1–3] "Paul, an apostle, not from men nor through man … and all the brothers who are with me, to the churches of Galatia: grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ." The opening is full of indignation and of a lofty spirit; and not the opening only but, one may say, the whole letter. For always to speak mildly to those under instruction, even when they need severity, would be the part not of a teacher but of a corrupter and an enemy. That is why the Lord too, though he spoke gently to his disciples in many things, at times also used sterner language, now calling them blessed, now rebuking them. To Peter, for instance, he said, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah," and promised to lay the foundations of the church on his confession; yet not long after these words he says, "Get behind me, Satan; you are a stumbling block to me." And again elsewhere: "Are you also still without understanding?" And he put such fear into them that John says that when they saw him talking with a Samaritan woman they reminded him about food, but "no one dared to say, What are you saying? or, What do you seek with her?" Paul, who learned this and walked in his teacher's footsteps, varied his speech according to the need of his disciples, now burning and cutting, now applying gentle remedies. To the Corinthians he said, "What do you wish? Shall I come to you with a rod, or in love and a spirit of gentleness?" but to the Galatians, "O foolish Galatians"; and he uses this rebuke not once but twice. Toward the end, too, he reproaches them, saying, "Let no one cause me trouble." But he also heals again, as when he says, "My little children, for whom I am again in labor," and many other such things. That the letter is full of indignation is plain to everyone even from a first reading. But we must say what it was that provoked him against his disciples; for it was nothing small or trivial, or he would not have used such vehemence. To be provoked over ordinary matters is the part of petty, harsh and wretched men; … But Paul is not such. What, then, was the sin that moved him? A great and enormous one, which was estranging them all from Christ, as he himself says as he goes on: "Look, I, Paul, say to you that if you receive circumcision, Christ will be of no benefit to you"; and again: "You who are justified by the law have fallen away from grace." What, then, is this? We must unfold it more clearly. Those of the Jews who had believed, held fast at once by their Jewish prejudice and drunk with vainglory, and wishing to give themselves the rank of teachers, came to the nation of the Galatians and taught that they must be circumcised and keep sabbaths and new moons, and not put up with Paul, who was doing away with these things. "For Peter and James and John," they said, "the first of the apostles, who were with Christ, do not forbid them." And indeed they did not forbid them; but they did this not as laying down doctrine, but condescending to the weakness of those who believed from among the Jews. Paul, however, preaching to the Gentiles, had no need of this condescension; though when he was in Judea, he too used it. But the deceivers, without stating the reasons for which both he and they condescended, said that Paul was not to be put up with: "For he appeared yesterday and today, but Peter and those with him were the first; he became a disciple of the apostles, they of Christ; he is alone, they are many, and pillars of the church." They also accused him of hypocrisy, saying: "This very man who does away with circumcision is seen to use it elsewhere, and he preaches one way to you and another way to others." So when he saw a whole nation set ablaze and a fierce fire kindled against the churches of the Galatians, and the building shaken and in danger of falling, seized partly by righteous anger and partly by dejection (he showed this too when he said, "I wish I could be present with you now and change my tone"), he writes the letter, answering all these charges. And from the very opening he aims at the charge by which they were undermining his standing, that the others were disciples of Christ but he of the apostles. Therefore he began thus: "Paul, an apostle, not from men nor through man." For, as I said before, those deceivers said that he was the last of all the apostles and had been taught by them; that Peter and James and John were both called first and are the leaders of the disciples and received their doctrines from Christ, so that one ought to obey them rather than him; and they do not forbid circumcision or the keeping of the law.

By saying these and similar things, pulling him down and exalting the others' reputation, not in order to praise them but to deceive the Galatians, they were persuading them to cling to the law out of season. With good reason, then, he began in this way. Since they belittled his teaching, saying that it came from men, while Peter's came from Christ, he takes his stand against this at once from the opening, saying that he is an apostle "not from men nor through man." For Ananias baptized him, but it was not he who freed him from error or brought him to the faith; Christ himself from above sent forth to him that wonderful voice by which he caught him in his net. Peter and his brother, and John and his brother, he called while walking by the sea; Paul he called after he had gone up into heaven. And just as they needed no second call, but at once left their nets and everything else and followed him, so Paul too from the first call rose to the very summit: he was baptized and at once took up a war without truce against the Jews; and in this above all he surpassed the apostles: "I worked harder than all of them," he says. For the present, however, he does not argue this; he is content to claim equal standing. For what he was eager for was not to show himself superior to them, but to overthrow the ground of the error. "Not from men," then, was common to all believers (for the preaching has its beginning and its root from above), but "nor through man" was peculiar to the apostles; for Christ did not call them through men, but himself, by himself. Why did he not mention his calling and say, "Paul, called not from men," but rather his apostleship? Because the whole question turned on this. For they said that the teaching had been entrusted to him by men, the apostles, and that he must follow them. But that it was not by men … "while they were worshiping the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said: Set apart for me Paul and Barnabas." From this it is clear that the authority of the Son and of the Spirit is one; for though he was sent by the Spirit, he says that he was sent by Christ. He shows this elsewhere too, ascribing the things of God to the Spirit. Speaking to the presbyters of Miletus he says, "Take heed to yourselves and to the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you shepherds and overseers"; yet in another letter he says, "God appointed some in the church, first apostles, second prophets, … then shepherds and teachers." So indifferently does he use his words, saying that the things of the Spirit are God's and the things of God are the Spirit's. He also stops the mouths of the heretics in another way, saying, "through Jesus Christ and God the Father." For since they say that this expression ('through') is attached to the Son as being lesser, see what he does: he applies it to the Father, teaching us not to lay down laws for the ineffable nature nor to set measures of Godhead between Son and Father. For having said "through Jesus Christ," he added "and God the Father." If he had mentioned the Father on his own and said "through whom," they might perhaps have argued that "through whom" suits the Father because the works of the Son are referred back to him; but as it is, he mentions the Son and the Father together and puts the expression in common, and so leaves that argument no room. For he does this not as now ascribing the works of the Son to the Father, but to show that this expression introduces no difference of essence. And what would those say here who devise some inferiority from baptism, because one is baptized into the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit? If the Son is lesser because he is placed after the Father, then, since here the apostle begins from Christ and comes to the Father, what would they say? But we would say nothing blasphemous. For we must not, in contending with them, depart from the truth; however much they rave, we must keep the measures of piety. As, then, we would not say that the Son is greater than the Father because he mentioned Christ first, so neither there must we think the Son less than the Father because he is placed after the Father. "Who raised him from the dead." What are you doing, Paul? Wishing to lead Judaizing men to faith, you bring forward none of those great and splendid things, such as what you wrote to the Philippians, that "being in the form of God, he did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped"; or what you say elsewhere, that he is "the radiance of his glory and the exact imprint of his being"; or what the son of thunder proclaimed at the outset, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God"; or what Jesus himself often said to the Jews, that he can do the same things as the Father and has the same authority. You say none of these things, but leaving them all aside you recall the dispensation in the flesh, bringing forward the cross and death? "Yes," he says. If my words were addressed to people who imagined nothing great about Christ, it would have been well to say those things; but since they are in revolt against us, as if they would be punished if they departed from the law, he recalls the thing by which he casts out all need of the law, I mean the benefit that comes to all from the cross and the resurrection. To say "In the beginning was the Word," and "he was in the form of God," and "he made himself equal to God," and the like, would show the Godhead of the Word, but would contribute nothing to the matter in hand; but to say "who raised him from the dead" recalled the chief point of his benefit toward us, which helped his purpose not a little. For most people are usually moved not so much by words that set forth the majesty of God as by those that display his kindness to men. Therefore he left those things aside and makes his discourse about the benefit done for us. [3] But the heretics leap upon this, saying: "Look, the Father raises the Son." For since they have once fallen sick, they willfully stop their ears to the lofty doctrines, while they pick out the lowly sayings, which were spoken so either because of the flesh, or for the honor of the Father, or for some other purpose of the dispensation; and examining these in isolation they do violence to themselves (I would not say to Scripture). I would gladly ask them why they say this. Is it because they wish to show that the Son is weak and unable to raise a single body? Yet faith in him made even the shadows of those who believed in him raise the dead. Then men who believed in him, mortal though they were, raised the dead with the mere shadow of their bodies of clay and with their garments, but he himself was not able to raise himself? How is this not plain madness and the height of folly? Did you not hear him say, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up"? And again, "I have authority to lay down my life, and I have authority to take it again"? Why, then, is the Father said to have raised him? In the same way as he is said to do the other things that the Son himself does. For this is said both for the honor of the Father and because of the weakness of the hearers. "And all the brothers who are with me." Why did he never add this anywhere else when writing letters? For he either puts his own name alone, or that of two or three others by name; but here he set down a whole multitude, and therefore mentioned no one by name. Why, then, does he do this? They were accusing him of preaching these things alone and of bringing some novelty into the doctrines. Wishing, then, to remove their suspicion and to show that he has many who share his view, he joined the brothers with himself, showing that what he writes he writes with their agreement too. "To the churches of Galatia." For this fire of error was spreading not over one city, nor two or three, but over the whole nation of the Galatians. Observe here too his great indignation. He did not say, "To the beloved," nor "To the sanctified," but "To the churches of Galatia." This was the mark of one deeply grieved and showing his pain: not to call them by a name of love or of honor, but only by the name of their assembly, and not even to add "the churches of God," but simply "the churches of Galatia." Besides, he hastens from the outset to unite what was divided; that is why he set down the name "church," to shame them and draw them together into one. For those divided into many parts could not be called by this title; the name of the church is a name of harmony and concord. "Grace to you and peace from God the Father and our Lord Jesus Christ." He sets this everywhere of necessity, but above all now in writing to the Galatians. For since they were in danger of falling from grace, he prays that they may win it back; and since they had made themselves enemies of God, he calls on God to bring them back to the same peace. "God the Father." Here again the heretics are easily caught. For they say that John, in saying at the beginning of the Gospel "and the Word was God," put it without the article as bringing in a lesser Godhead of the Son; and again that Paul, in saying that the Son was "in the form of God," did not mean the Father, because that too stands without the article. What would they say here, when Paul says not "from the God" but "from God the Father"? He calls God "Father" here not to flatter them, but to rebuke them sharply and remind them of the cause through which they became sons. For it was not through the law but through the washing of regeneration that they were counted worthy of this honor. That is why everywhere, even in his openings, he scatters traces of God's kindness, all but saying: "You who were slaves, enemies and estranged, how is it that you suddenly call God Father? Was it the law that gave you this kinship? Why, then, do you leave the one who brought you into this nearness and run back to the tutor?" Not only the name of the Father but also the names of the Son are enough to show them the benefit. For the name "Lord Jesus Christ," examined carefully, displays the whole benefit. "For he shall be called Jesus," it says, "because he will save his people from their sins"; and the title "Christ" recalled the anointing of the Spirit. "Who gave himself for our sins." You see that he did not undergo a servile or a forced ministry, nor was he handed over by anyone, but he gave himself. So when you hear John saying that the Father gave his only-begotten Son for us, do not on that account lessen the dignity of the Only-begotten, nor suspect anything merely human. For though the Father is said to have given him, this is said not so that you may think of a servile ministry, but so that you may learn that this was the Father's good pleasure too; which Paul showed here as well, saying "according to the will of our God and Father": not "by command," but "according to the will." For since the will of the Father and of the Son is one, what the Son willed, the Father too willed. "For our sins." We had pierced ourselves through with countless evils, he says, and were liable to the ultimate punishment; and the law not only did not free us but even condemned us, making sin more evident but unable to set us free or to quench the wrath of God. But the Son of God made even this impossible thing possible, loosing our sins, putting enemies in the rank of friends, and granting countless other good things. Then he says, "to deliver us from the present evil age." Again, other heretics seize on this expression, slandering the present life and bringing forward Paul's testimony. "Look," they say, "he has called the present age evil." And what is an age, tell me? Time made up of days and hours. What then? Is the span of days evil, and the course of the sun? No one would ever say this, even if he sank into the last degree of absurdity. "But he did not mean time," they say; "he called the present life evil." Yet the words do not say this; but since you do not keep to the words on which you base your charge, you will allow us too to interpret what is said, and all the more because our view is both pious and reasonable. What, then, would we say? That nothing evil could ever be the cause of good things; but the present life is the cause of countless crowns and of so many rewards. This very blessed Paul praises it highly, saying, "If it is to live in the flesh, that means fruitful labor for me; yet which I shall choose I cannot tell." And having set before himself the choice between living here and departing to be with Christ, he prefers his life here. If it were evil, he would not have said this of himself, nor could anyone else have used it for virtue, however zealous he was. For no one could ever use vice for good, fornication for chastity, envy for kindness. Indeed, when Paul says of the mind of the flesh that "it does not submit to God's law; indeed it cannot," he means this: that wickedness, while it remains wickedness, cannot be virtue. So when you hear "evil age," understand evil deeds and a corrupt choice. For Christ did not come to kill us and take us out of the present life, but to leave us in the world and make us fit for life in heaven. That is why, speaking to the Father, he said, "And these are in the world, and I am coming to you"; and again, "I do not ask that you take them out of the world, but that you keep them from the evil one," that is, from wickedness. If you will not accept this, but still say that the present life is evil, do not blame those who kill themselves. For just as one who withdraws himself from wickedness deserves not blame but crowns, so too one who ends his life by a violent death, by hanging or some other means, could not justly be blamed on your view. But in fact God punishes such people more than murderers, and we all abhor them, and rightly. For if it is not good to destroy others, much less oneself. And if the present life is evil, murderers ought to be crowned for freeing us from evil. Apart from this, they are also caught by their own words. For they say that the sun is God, and after it the moon, and they worship them as causes of many good things, and so contradict themselves. For the use of these and of the other stars serves nothing else but our present life, which they call evil: they nourish bodies, give them light, and bring fruits to ripeness. How, then, do these gods of yours render so great a service to the maintenance of an evil life? But neither are the stars gods (far from it!), but works of God made for our use; nor is the world evil. If you mention to me murderers and adulterers and grave-robbers, these have nothing to do with the present life; for they do not belong to life in the flesh, but to a corrupt will. If they belonged to the present life, as wholly bound up with it, no one would be free or pure. See, at any rate, that no one can escape the properties of life in the flesh. What are they? Eating, drinking, sleeping, growing, hunger, thirst, being born, dying, and everything like these. And no one could rise above these, neither sinner nor righteous, neither king nor private person; we are all subject to the necessity of nature. So too doing evil, if it were bound up with the nature of life, no one would escape, just as no one escapes those things. Do not tell me that those who succeed are few; for of the necessities of nature you will never find anyone who has prevailed over them. So as long as even one is found who has achieved virtue, the argument suffers no harm. What do you say, wretched and miserable man? Is the present life evil, in which we have come to know God, in which we practice the true philosophy about the things to come, in which from men we have become angels and join in the dance of the powers above? And what other proof shall we seek of your evil mind and

"Why, then," someone says, "did Paul call the present age evil?" He was following common usage. For we too are accustomed to say, "I had a bad day," blaming not the time but the action or the circumstance. So Paul too, blaming evil choices, … and he shows that Christ both freed us from our former sins and secured us for the future. By saying "who gave himself for our sins" he showed the first; by adding "to deliver us from the present evil age" he made plain our security for the future. For the law was not strong enough even for the one, but grace has proved able for both. "According to the will of our God and Father." Since they thought that they would be disobeying God, as the giver of the law, and were afraid of leaving the Old and coming to the New, he corrects this suspicion of theirs too, saying that this is also the Father's will. And he did not simply say "Father," but "our Father," and he puts this continually, to shame them by showing that Christ has made his own Father our Father. "To whom be the glory for ever and ever. Amen." This too is new and unusual. For nowhere do we find "Amen" placed at the beginning and in the opening of a letter, but only after much has been said. Here, however, he has put it in the opening to show that what had been said already contained a sufficient charge against the Galatians, and that the argument was complete. For obvious charges need no elaborate proof. Having reminded them of the cross and the resurrection, of the redemption from sins, of the security for the future, of the purpose of the Father, of the will of the Son, of grace, of peace, of his whole gift, he closed his words with a doxology. He did this not for this reason only, but also because he was overwhelmingly amazed at the greatness of the gift, the excess of the grace, and at the thought of who we were and what God had done all at once and in a single moment of time. Unable to set this forth in words, he broke off into a doxology, sending up on behalf of the whole world not the praise it deserves, but what he was able to give. That is why he uses more vehement language after this, as if set on fire by the thought of God's benefits. For having said, "To whom be the glory for ever and ever, Amen," he begins from there a rebuke, saying: "I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ, for a different gospel." Since they supposed that by keeping the law they were pleasing the Father, just as the Jews did when they persecuted Christ, he first shows that by doing this they provoke not only Christ but the Father as well. "For it is not from Christ only," he says, "but from the Father too that you are deserting by doing this." For just as the Old Covenant is not the Father's only but also the Son's, so too grace is not the Son's only but also the Father's, and all things are common: "For all that is my Father's is mine." Having said, then, that they are deserting the Father too, he lays two charges: desertion, and very swift desertion. Yet the opposite is also blameworthy, to fall away after a long time; but here the subject is deception. One who falls away after a long time deserves blame; but one who falls at the first assault, in the very first skirmishes, has shown an example of the utmost weakness. This is what he charges them with, saying: "What is this, that those who deceive you do not even need time, but the first approach suffices to overthrow and capture you all? And what pardon could you have? For if this is a fault when it happens among friends, and one who abandons his old and useful companions deserves condemnation, then one who leaps away from God when he calls, of how great a punishment would he be liable?" When he says, "I am astonished," he says it not only to shame them, because after so great a gift, after such forgiveness of sins and excess of love for mankind, they had deserted to the yoke of slavery, but at the same time to show what opinion he has of them, that it is a great and serious one. For if he had thought them ordinary people and easily deceived, he would not have marveled at what happened. "But since you are genuine," he says, "and have suffered much, I am astonished." This was enough to win them back and bring them back to their former state. He made this clear in the middle of the letter too, saying, "Did you suffer so many things in vain? If indeed it was in vain." "You are deserting." He did not say "you have deserted," but "you are deserting," that is: "I do not yet believe or think that the deception is complete"; which again is the language of one winning them back. Saying this more clearly further on, he says, "I have confidence in you that you will take no other view." "Him who called you in the grace of Christ." The calling is the Father's, but the cause of the calling is the Son's; for he it is who reconciled us and gave the gift freely; for "not by works done in righteousness" were we saved. Or rather, these things are the Father's too, and those the Son's: "For all that is mine is yours," he says, "and yours is mine." And he did not say, "You are deserting the gospel," but "him who called you," God. He set down what was more fearful and better able to strike them. For those who wished to deceive them did not do it all at once, but moved them gradually away from the realities while not changing the names. Such is the deceit of the devil: not to set out his snares uncovered. For if they had said, "Depart from Christ," the Galatians would have guarded against them as deceivers and corrupters; but as it was, leaving them for the time in the faith and putting the name of gospel on their error, they undermined the building with great freedom, hiding what they said behind these names as behind curtains. Since, then, they called their deception a gospel, he does well to fight against the very name, and speaks boldly, saying, "for a different gospel, which is not another." Rightly; for there is no other. Yet the Marcionites suffered here what sick people suffer who are harmed by wholesome food. For they seized on the words, saying, "Look, Paul too said that there is no other gospel." For they do not accept all the evangelists, but only one, and that one they have cut down and confused as they wished. What, then, when he himself says, "according to my gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ"? What they say is quite laughable; yet laughable as it is, it must be refuted for the sake of those who are easily deceived. What, then, shall we say? That even if countless people write gospels, so long as they write the same things, the many are one, and their being one suffers no harm from the number of the writers; just as, on the other hand, even if there is only one writer and he says contradictory things, what is written is not one. For whether something is one or not is judged not by the number of the writers but by the sameness or difference of what is said. Hence it is clear that the Gospels of the four are one gospel. For when the four say the same things, it is not one thing and another because of the difference of the persons, but one because of the agreement of what is said. Nor is Paul now speaking of number, but of disagreement in what is said. If, then, Matthew's gospel were one thing and Luke's another in the force of what is written and in the exactness of the doctrines, they would be right to seize on the word; but if it is one and the same, let them stop their folly and their pretending not to know things that are plain even to little children. "Only there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ." That is: as long as you are sound in mind, you will not recognize another gospel; as long as you see straight and not distortedly, imagining things that are not there. For just as the eye, when disturbed, sees one thing in place of another, so the mind too, clouded by the confusion of evil thoughts, usually suffers the same. That is why madmen too imagine one thing in place of another. But this madness is worse than that, since it works its harm not among the things of sense but among the things of the mind, and brings about ruin not in the pupils of the bodily eyes but in the eyes of the understanding. "And want to pervert the gospel of Christ." Yet they were bringing in only one or a second commandment, that of circumcision, and innovating only about the days; but to show that a small alteration ruins the whole, he said that the gospel was being overturned. For just as with the royal coins, one who clips a little of the stamp has made the whole coin counterfeit, so too one who overturns even the smallest part of the sound faith corrupts the whole, going on from the beginning to worse things. Where, then, are those who condemn us for contentiousness because of our separation from the heretics? Where are those who say that there is no difference between us and them, but that the quarrel comes from love of power? Let them hear what Paul says, that those who innovated even a little overturned the gospel. And these men innovate in no small matter; how could they, who call the Son of God a creature? Did you not hear that under the Old Covenant too a man who gathered sticks on the sabbath, transgressing one commandment and not the greatest, paid the ultimate penalty; and that he who steadied the ark died on the spot, because he had laid hold of a ministry that did not belong to him? Then if the transgression of the sabbath and the touching of the ark brought God to such indignation that those who dared these things did not obtain even a brief pardon, shall one who has corrupted awesome and ineffable doctrines obtain a defense and pardon? It is not so; it is not so. Indeed this very thing is the cause of all evils, that we are not indignant even at these small matters. That is why the greater sins have come in, because the lesser do not receive due correction. And just as in bodies, those who neglect wounds bring on fevers and gangrene and death, so too in souls, those who overlook small things bring in the greater. "So-and-so," someone says, "goes wrong about fasting, and it is nothing great. Another is firm in the right faith, but acting a part because of the times he has given up his boldness; this too is no great harm. Another, provoked, threatened to depart from the right faith; but neither does this deserve punishment, for he sinned from anger and passion." And one could find countless such sins brought into the churches every day. That is why we have become a laughingstock to both Jews and Greeks, as the church is split into countless parts. For if those who at the beginning attempted to leap away from the divine laws and to alter some small thing had received due rebuke, the present plague would not have been born, nor would so great a storm have seized the churches. See, at any rate, how Paul calls circumcision an overturning of the

gospel. But now there are many among us who fast on the same day as the Jews and keep the sabbaths in the same way; and we bear it nobly, or rather wretchedly. And why do I speak of Jewish things? Many customs of the pagans too are kept by some of our people: omens, auguries, tokens, the observance of days, concern about nativities, and writings full of every impiety, which, as soon as children are born, they set upon their heads to their own harm, teaching them from the very start to give up the labors of virtue and bringing them, as far as in them lies, under the deluded tyranny of fate. If Christ is of no benefit to those who are circumcised, what further benefit will faith bring for salvation to those who draw so many evils upon themselves? And yet circumcision had been given by God; nevertheless, since it was harming the gospel by being performed out of season, Paul did everything to cut it off. Then if Paul showed such zeal against Jewish customs because they were kept out of season, shall we not cut off even the pagan custom? And what defense could we have? That is why our affairs are now in confusion and tumult, and the disciples, puffed up, have overturned the order, and everything has been turned upside down; and since we trained them badly, they do not bear even a gentle rebuke. And yet even if their leaders were rather wicked and full of countless evils, not even so would it be right for the disciple to disobey. For if of the Jewish teachers he says that since they sat on the seat of Moses they deserved to be heard by their disciples, although they had works so wicked that he commanded the disciples not to emulate or imitate them, what pardon could those deserve who spit on and trample the presidents of the church, who live with moderation by the grace of God? For if it is not right to judge one another, much less our teachers. "But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed." See the apostle's understanding. So that no one could say that he was putting his own doctrines together out of vainglory, he anathematized himself too. And since they took refuge in persons of dignity, James and John, he mentioned angels too. "Do not speak to me of James and John," he says; "for even if one of the first angels from heaven corrupts the preaching, let him be accursed." And he did not simply say "angel," but "from heaven"; for since priests too were called angels ("For the lips of the priest shall guard knowledge, and they shall seek the law from his mouth, for he is the angel of the Lord Almighty"), so that you might not think that these are now meant by 'angels,' he hinted at the powers above by adding 'heaven.' And he did not say, "If they proclaim contrary things or overturn the whole," but, "even if they preach some small thing besides what we preached, even if they disturb the least thing, let them be accursed." "As we have said before, so now I say again." So that you may not think that the words came from anger, or were spoken in exaggeration or on some impulse, he sets down the same words a second time. For one who has said something carried away by anger may soon repent; but one who says the same a second time shows that he spoke so after judging the matter, and uttered what he said only after first ratifying it in his mind. When Abraham was asked to send Lazarus, he said, "They have Moses and the prophets; if they do not listen to them, neither will they listen when the dead rise." Christ brings him in saying this to show that he wishes the Scriptures to be more trustworthy even than the dead raised up. But Paul (and when I say Paul, I again mean Christ, for it was he who moved Paul's soul) sets them above even angels coming down from heaven; and very reasonably. For the angels, however great, are slaves and ministers, but all the Scriptures were written and sent not by slaves but by the God and Master of all. That is why he says: "If anyone preaches to you a gospel besides what we preached to you." And he did not say "So-and-so and so-and-so," which was very wise and gave no offense. For what need was there to mention names, for one who used such exaggeration as to include everyone, both those above and those below? By anathematizing evangelists and angels, he took in every rank; by anathematizing himself, every intimacy and close tie. "Do not tell me that your fellow apostles and companions say these things; for I do not spare even myself if I preach such things." He says this not as condemning the apostles or as if they were transgressing the preaching (far from it! "Whether it is I or they," he says, "so we preach"), but because he wishes to show that he admits no regard for the rank of persons when the question is about the truth. "Am I now persuading men, or God? Or am I seeking to please men? If I were still pleasing men, I would not be a slave of Christ." "Even if I could deceive you by saying these things," he says, "can I deceive God, who knows the secrets of the mind, and whom I am always eager to please?" Did you see the apostolic spirit? Did you see the loftiness of the gospel? He said the same things when writing to the Corinthians: "We are not commending ourselves to you again, but giving you an occasion to boast"; and again, "But with me it is a very small thing that I should be judged by you or by any human day." For since, though a teacher, he is compelled to make a defense to his disciples, he submits to it but is vexed; not from arrogance, far from it, but because of the fickleness of mind of those who were deceived and because they did not trust him much. That is why he said this too, all but saying: "Is my case to be heard by you? Are men going to judge me? Our case is with God, and we do everything with a view to the account we must give there; and we would not have sunk so low as to corrupt the doctrines when we are going to give account to the Master of all for what we preach." So he put this both to defend himself and at the same time to rise up against them. For disciples ought not to judge their teachers but to believe them. "But since the order has been reversed," he says, "and you sit as judges, learn that I care little about my defense before you; we do everything for God's sake, so as to give account to him for these doctrines." For one who wishes to persuade men does many underhanded and crooked things and uses deceit and lies to persuade and capture the minds of his hearers; but one who persuades God and is eager to please him needs a simple and pure mind, for the Divine cannot be deceived. "Hence it is clear," he says, "that we too write this not for love of power, nor to have disciples, nor because we desire glory from you; for we have been eager to please not men but God. For if I wished to please men, I would still be with the Jews, I would still be persecuting the church. But one who despised a whole nation, household, friends, kinsmen and so much glory, and took in exchange persecutions, enmities, wars and daily deaths, plainly does not say what I am saying now out of desire for human glory." He said this because he is about to narrate his former life and his sudden change, and to show by clear proofs that he changed sincerely; so that they may not think he does this to defend himself before them and become puffed up. That is why he said first, "Am I now persuading men?" For he knows how to speak, at the proper time, something lofty and great for the correction of his disciples. And yet he could have drawn the proofs of his sincere preaching from elsewhere: from the signs, from the miracles, from the dangers, from the prisons, from the daily deaths, from hunger and thirst and nakedness, and from other such things. But since his argument now was not against the false apostles but concerned the apostles, and they too had shared in these, I mean in the dangers, he conducts his argument from another quarter. For when he aimed at the false apostles, he brings in the comparison in this way, setting forth his endurance in dangers and saying: "Are they servants of Christ? I am talking like a madman; I am more: in labors more abundantly, in beatings beyond measure, in prisons more abundantly, in deaths often." Now, however, he speaks of his former manner of life, and says: "For I would have you know, brothers, that the gospel preached by me is not according to man. For I did not receive it from man, nor was I taught it, but through a revelation of Jesus Christ." See how again and again he insists that he became a disciple of Christ, with no man in between, but Christ himself by himself deigning to reveal all knowledge to him. "And what proof could there be for unbelievers that God revealed those ineffable mysteries to you himself, and not through some intermediary?" "My former manner of life," he says. "For unless it was God who revealed it, I would not have changed so suddenly. Those taught by men, when they are vehement and ardent on the opposite side, need time and much contrivance to be persuaded; but one who changed so suddenly, and became perfectly sober in the very height of his madness, plainly obtained a divine vision and teaching and so returned all at once to pure health." That is why he is compelled to narrate his former life, and he calls them as witnesses of what happened. "That the only-begotten Son of God deigned to call me himself from heaven, you do not know; how could you, who were not there? But that I was a persecutor, you know very well. For my vehemence spread even as far as you; and yet the distance between the Palestinians and the Galatians is great, so that the report would not have spread so far unless what was done had been excessive and unbearable to all." That is why he says: "For you have heard of my former manner of life in Judaism, how I persecuted the church of God beyond measure and tried to destroy it." Do you see how he sets out each thing with emphasis and is not ashamed? For he did not simply persecute, but beyond measure; and he did not only persecute, but laid waste, that is, tried to destroy and wipe it out; for that is the work of one who lays waste. "And I advanced in Judaism beyond many of my own age among my people, being more exceedingly zealous for the traditions of my fathers."

For so that you may not think the matter came from anger, he shows that he did everything out of zeal, even if not according to knowledge; that he persecuted not out of vainglory or enmity, but "being zealous for the traditions of my fathers." What he means is this: "If I did what I did against the church not for human reasons but out of zeal for God, mistaken but zeal nonetheless, how should I now, when I am running on behalf of the church and have come to know the truth, be doing this out of vainglory? For if, when I was in error, no such passion ruled me, but zeal for God brought me to it, much more, now that I have come to know the truth, should I be free of every such suspicion. For as soon as I passed over to the doctrines of the church, I put off all Jewish prejudice and showed much greater zeal on this side; which is a sign that I changed sincerely and am held by a divine zeal. Otherwise, tell me, what else was it that brought about such a change, and made me exchange honor for insult, ease for dangers, security for hardship? There is nothing else, but only the love of truth." "But when it pleased God, who set me apart from my mother's womb and called me through his grace, to reveal his Son in me, so that I might preach him among the Gentiles, I did not immediately confer with flesh and blood." See what he is eager to show here: that even the time during which he was left to himself, he was left for some ineffable purpose of God's dispensation. For if he had been set apart from his mother's womb to become an apostle and to be called to this ministry, yet was called only then, and obeyed as soon as he was called, it is clear that God for some ineffable reason was putting it off until then. What, then, is this dispensation? Perhaps you are eager to hear from me at once why he did not call him with the Twelve; but so as not to depart from what presses and make my discourse longer, I too beg your love not to learn everything from me, but to search for yourselves as well, and to ask God to reveal it. Something has also been said by us on this subject, when we spoke to you about the change of his name, and why he called him Paul who had been called Saul; if you have forgotten it, you will learn all this by reading that book. For the present, let us keep to the sequence, and see how again he shows that nothing human happened in his case, but that God arranged all his affairs with great providence. "And called me through his grace." God says that he called him because of his worth: "For he is a chosen vessel to me," he said to Ananias, "to carry my name before Gentiles and kings," that is, able to serve and to display a great work. God gives this as the cause of the calling; but Paul himself everywhere says that the whole is of grace and of God's ineffable love for mankind: not because he was fit, "but that in me he might display his perfect patience as an example to those who were to believe in him for eternal life." Did you see the excess of humility? "That is why I received mercy," he says, "so that no one may despair, when the worst of all men has enjoyed his love for mankind." For he shows this by saying, "that in me he might display his perfect patience as an example …" "… to reveal his Son in me." Elsewhere Christ says, "No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and anyone to whom the Son chooses to reveal him." Do you see that the Father reveals the Son and the Son reveals the Father? So too with glory: the Son glorifies the Father and the Father the Son: "Glorify me," he says, "that I may glorify you"; and, "As I have glorified you." Why did he not say "to reveal his Son to me," but "in me"? To show that he not only heard the things of the faith through words, but was also filled with the Spirit in abundance, the revelation illuminating his soul, and that he had Christ speaking within him. "So that I might preach him among the Gentiles." For not only his believing but also his appointment came from God. "He revealed him to me in this way, not only that I might see him myself, but that I might also make him known to others." And he did not simply say "to others," but "so that I might preach him among the Gentiles," anticipating here already no small point of his defense, taken from the persons of those he taught. For it was not the same thing to preach to Jews and to Gentiles. … "… flesh and blood." Here he hints at the apostles, calling them by their nature. But if he says this of all men, we will not object either. "Nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me." If one examines these words by themselves, they seem full of great boasting and far from the apostolic spirit. For to cast one's vote for oneself and take no one as sharer in one's judgment seems to be folly. "For I saw a man," it says, "who seemed wise in his own eyes; but a fool has more hope than he"; and, "Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes and clever in their own sight"; and he himself again: "Do not be wise in your own estimation." One who had heard so much from others, and urged the same things on others, would not have fallen into this; not Paul only, but not even an ordinary man. But, as I said, this saying, examined bare, can rouse suspicion and offense in some of the hearers; yet if we add the reason for which it was said, they will all applaud and admire the speaker. Let us do this, then. For we must not examine words bare, or many errors will follow; nor torture an expression by itself, but attend to the meaning of the writer. In our own conversations too, if we did not use this method and examine the intention of the speaker, we would incur many enmities and everything would be turned upside down. And why speak of words, when even with deeds, if one does not keep this rule, everything will be thrown into confusion? For physicians too cut and break certain bones, and robbers often do the same. What wretchedness would it be if we could not distinguish a robber from a physician! Again, murderers and martyrs endure the same pains under torture, but the difference between them is great. If we do not keep this rule, we will not be able to know these things, but we will call Elijah a murderer, and Samuel and Phinehas too, and Abraham even a child-killer, if we are to examine deeds bare, without adding the intention of the doers. Let us examine Paul's intention too, then, from which he wrote this; let us see his purpose and what his attitude to the apostles was throughout, and then we shall know from what intention this was said. For neither these words nor the former ones did he utter belittling them or praising himself (how could he, when he anathematized even himself?), but everywhere guarding the security of the gospel. For since those who were ravaging the church said, "We must follow the apostles, who do not forbid these things, not Paul, who forbids them," and from this the Jewish error was creeping in little by little, he is compelled to stand up nobly against this; not wishing to speak ill of the apostles, but wishing to check the folly of those who wrongly exalted themselves. That is why he says, "I did not confer with flesh and blood." Indeed it would have been the height of absurdity for one who had learned from God to consult men afterwards. One who learns from men reasonably takes men as partners again; but one who had been counted worthy of that divine and blessed voice, and had been taught everything by him who holds the treasure of wisdom, why should he afterwards consult men? Such a man would rightly not learn from men but teach men. So he said this not from arrogance, but to show the dignity of his own preaching. "Nor did I go up," he says, "to those who were apostles before me." For since they kept saying this over and over, that those men were before him and were called before him, he says, "I did not go up to them." If it had been necessary to consult them, he who revealed the preaching to him would have commanded this too. What then? Did he not go up there? Indeed he did go up, and not simply, but to learn something from them. When? When in the city of the Antiochenes, in the church that from the beginning showed great zeal, a dispute arose about this very question now before us, and they were asking whether those who believed from the Gentiles must be circumcised, or should not be forced to undergo anything of the kind. Then this same Paul went up, and Silas. How, then, does he say, "I did not go up nor consult"? Because, first, he did not go up of his own accord but was sent by others; and second, he came not to learn but to persuade others. For he himself held from the beginning the view that the apostles later confirmed, that there is no need to be circumcised; but since to them he did not yet seem trustworthy, and they gave more heed to those in Jerusalem, he went up, not to learn anything further himself, but to persuade those who contradicted, when those in Jerusalem too voted for this. So from the beginning he saw what was needed and had need of no teacher; what the apostles were to confirm after much discussion, he held firmly within himself from above before the discussion. Luke shows this, saying that Paul held a long and great debate with them about these things even before coming to Jerusalem. But since the brothers wished to learn about these matters from the apostles as well, he went up for their sake, not his own. And when he says, "I did not go up," one may also say this: that he did not go up at the beginning of his preaching, and when he did go up, he did not go up to learn. For he points out both, saying, "I did not immediately confer with flesh and blood." He did not simply say, "I did not confer," but "immediately." And if he did go up afterwards, it was not to receive anything further. "But I went away into Arabia." See a fervent soul! He was eager to occupy places not yet cultivated but still in a wilder state. For if he had stayed with the apostles, having nothing to learn, the preaching would have been hindered; for they had to spread the word everywhere. That is why this blessed man, fervent in spirit, at once took in hand the teaching of barbarous and wild men, choosing a life of struggle and much toil. [11] And see his humility. Having said, "I went away into Arabia," he added, "and returned again to Damascus." He does not mention his achievements, nor whom he instructed and how many; and yet as soon as he was baptized he showed such zeal as to confound the Jews, and he roused them to such exasperation that both they and the Greeks lay in wait and wished to kill him; which would not have happened if he had not brought a great increase to the believers. For since they were defeated in teaching, they turned at last to murder; which was a clear sign of Paul's victory. But Christ did not allow him to die, keeping him for the preaching. Yet he mentions none of these achievements. So all that he says, he says not from ambition, nor to be thought greater than the apostles, nor because he is stung at being belittled, but because he fears that some harm may come to the preaching from it. For he calls himself "one untimely born," and "first of sinners," and "last of the apostles," and "unworthy of that title"; and this was said by one who had labored more than all of them, which is the very height of humility. For one who knows that he has done nothing good and speaks humbly of himself is honest, not humble; but one who speaks so after so many crowns, he is the one who knows how to be modest. "And I returned again," he says, "to Damascus." And how much is it likely that he did there! For of this city he says that the ethnarch of King Aretas guarded the whole of it, wishing to catch this blessed man in his net; which was the greatest sign that the Jews were hunting him fiercely and with all their strength. But he says nothing of this here; nor would he have set it down there, had he not seen that the occasion then required the account; otherwise he would have kept silent, just as here, saying that he came and went away, he adds nothing more about what happened there. "Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Peter." What could be humbler than this soul? After so many and such great achievements, needing nothing from Peter, nor his voice, but being his equal in honor (I will say nothing more for now), he nevertheless goes up to him as to a greater and an elder; and the sole cause of his journey there is to visit Peter. Do you see how he gives them their due honor, and thinks himself not only not better than they, but not even their equal? This is clear from this journey. For just as many of our brothers now travel to holy men, so Paul too then went to Peter in that frame of mind; or rather with much greater humility. For they travel now for their own benefit; but that blessed man went then not to learn anything from him, nor to receive any correction, but only for this, to see him and honor him with his presence. "To visit Peter," he says. He did not say "to see Peter," but "to visit Peter," the word that those use who go to see great and splendid cities. So worthy of great eagerness did he think it even merely to see the man. This is clear from the Acts too. For when he came to Jerusalem, having converted many of the Gentiles and done more than any of the others, having set right Pamphylia, Lycaonia, the nation of the Cilicians and all those in that part of the world and brought them to Christ, he first goes in to James with great humility, as to one greater and more honored. … the opposite of what happens now. "You see, brother," he says, "how many thousands there are among the Jews who have believed …" … and performed all the Jewish rites. For where the gospel was not harmed, he was the humblest of all; but where he saw that some were being wronged by his humility, he no longer used this advantage; for this was no longer humility, but ruin and corruption for the disciples. "And I remained with him fifteen days." To travel for his sake was a mark of great honor; to stay so many days, a mark of friendship and most ardent love. "But I saw none of the other apostles except James the Lord's brother." See how he has the greater friendship toward Peter: for it was for his sake that he travelled, and with him that he stayed. I say this continually and ask you to keep it in mind, so that when you hear what he seems to have said against Peter, no one may suspect the apostle. For that is why he himself says this, correcting it in advance, so that when he says, "I opposed Peter," no one may think these words come from enmity and rivalry; for he honors the man and loves him more than all. For he says that he went up for the sake of none of the apostles but him alone. "But I saw none of the other apostles," he says, "except James." "I saw him," he says; "I was taught nothing by him." But see with what honor he named him too. For he did not simply say "James," but added the title of honor, "the brother of the Lord"; so free was he from all envy. For if he had only wished to indicate whom he meant, he could have made it plain by another mark too, and said "the son of Clopas," as the evangelist also said. But he did not speak so; since he thought the honors of the apostles his own, he honors that man as if exalting himself. For he did not name him as I said, but how? "The brother of the Lord." And yet he was not the Lord's brother according to the flesh, but was only thought to be so; even so, he did not shrink from giving the man this dignity. And from many other places it is shown that he was disposed toward all the apostles with the sincerity that became him. "In what I am writing to you, look, before God, I am not lying." Did you see how the humility of this holy soul shines out alike in everything? As if contending in a court and about to give account, so eager was he to make his defense. "Then I went into the regions of Syria and Cilicia," after seeing Peter. Again he takes up his argument and the contest before him, not touching Judea, both because he had been sent to the Gentiles and because he would not choose "to build on another's foundation." That is why he did not even see them in a simple meeting; and this is clear from what follows: "For I was … of Judea. They only heard it said: He who once persecuted us is now preaching the faith he once tried to destroy." What could be more modest than this soul? When he spoke of what brought accusation on him, such as that he persecuted the church and ravaged it, he set it out with great exaggeration, parading his former life; but what was going to show him in a splendid light he passes over. Though he could have told all his achievements had he wished, he sets down none of them; but passing over a boundless sea in one word and saying, "I went into the regions of Syria and Cilicia," and that "they heard that he who once persecuted us is now preaching the faith he once tried to destroy," he added nothing more. What does he mean by saying "… of Judea"? That you may learn that he was so far from preaching circumcision to them that he was not even known to them by sight. "And they glorified God because of me." See here too the rule of his humility, how exactly he keeps it. He did not say, "They admired me, they praised me, they were astounded at me," but showed that the whole was of grace: "They glorified God," he says, "because of me."

[Gal 2:1–2] "Then after fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus along with me. I went up because of a revelation." The cause of his first going up, he says, was Peter and visiting him; the cause of the second was the revelation of the Spirit. "And I laid before them the gospel that I preach among the Gentiles, but privately before those who seemed to be something, lest somehow I should be running or had run in vain." What are you saying, Paul? You who at the beginning chose not to consult them, not even after three years, now, after fourteen years have passed, do you consult them, lest somehow you be running in vain? How much better it would have been to do this at the very start rather than after so many years! And why were you running at all, if you were not persuaded that you were not running in vain? Who is so foolish as to preach for so many years without knowing whether he preaches rightly? And what is much more puzzling than this is that he says he went up by revelation. This is more puzzling, as I said, than the former, yet it is enough to give us the solution of that one as well. For if he had gone up of his own accord, even this would hardly make sense; for it was not like that blessed soul to fall into such folly; he is the one who says, "So I run, not aimlessly; so I box …" … how do you say, "lest somehow I should be running or had run in vain"? Hence it is clear that even if he had gone up without a revelation, he would have been acting like a fool; yet what happened would not have been so absurd. But when the grace of the Spirit draws him, who will dare suspect anything of the kind? That is why he himself added "by revelation," so that even before the solution of the question you would not condemn him of any ignorance, knowing that what happened was not a human thing but a divine dispensation that foresaw much both of the present and of the future. What, then, was the cause of this journey? Just as, when he went up earlier from Antioch to Jerusalem, he did not go up for his own sake (he knew clearly that one must follow the doctrines of Christ purely), but because he wished to bring together those who were in conflict, so now too he did not need to learn that he was not running in vain, but went so that those who accused him might be fully convinced. Since they held a higher opinion of Peter and John, and thought that they were at variance with Paul, because he preached without circumcision while they allowed it, and they thought he was acting against the law and running in vain … "the gospel," not so that I might learn something myself, as he says more clearly further on, but so that I might teach those who suspected these things that I am not running in vain. For the Spirit … that he should go up and consult them. That is why, he says, he took … to be witnesses of the preaching. "And I laid before them the gospel that I preach among the Gentiles," that is, the one without circumcision, "but privately before those who seemed to be something." What does "privately" mean? Surely one who is eager to set right common doctrines sets them out not privately but in common? But Paul was not doing this; for he did not wish to learn something and correct it, but to take away the pretext of those who wished to deceive. But since in Jerusalem … if anyone forbade the use of circumcision; that is why he said, "You see, brother, how many thousands there are of those who have believed; and they have all been told about you that you teach apostasy from the law." Since, then, they were offended, he would not come forward openly and disclose his preaching; but he laid it privately before those who seemed to be something, in the presence of Barnabas and Titus, so that these might be trustworthy witnesses to those who accused him that it did not seem contrary to the apostles either, but that they confirmed such preaching. When he says "those who seemed," he does not say it to deny that they were great; for he says of himself too, "And I think that I too have the Spirit of God," which is the language of one speaking modestly, not denying that he has it. So here too he says "those who seemed," expressing along with his own judgment the common verdict of all. "But not even Titus, who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised." What is "being a Greek"? "He was from the Greeks," he says, "and uncircumcised. For not only did I preach so, but Titus too acted so, and though he was uncircumcised the apostles did not compel him to be circumcised." This was the greatest proof that they did not condemn what Paul said or did. And what is much greater than this: not even when the opponents were pressing and knew these things were the apostles compelled to order this; which he shows too when he says, "But because of false brothers secretly brought in." Who are these false brothers? For the question here is no small one. If the apostles allowed circumcision there, why do you now call false brothers those who, in line with the apostles' judgment, order this to be done? Because, first, it is not the same to command something to be done and to permit it when it is done. One who commands does it with zeal, as something necessary and of first importance; but one who does not command it himself, but does not hinder one who wishes to do it, permits it not as something that ought to be done but in fulfilling some purpose of the dispensation. For example: Paul wrote to the Corinthians that wives and husbands should come together again

Then, so that you may not think he was laying down a law for them in saying this, he added: "I say this by way of concession, not of command." For it was not a primary judgment of his authority, but an indulgence of their lack of self-control; that is why he says, "because of your lack of self-control." If you want to learn Paul's own view, hear what he says: "I wish that all were as I myself am," in self-control. So here too, the apostles permitted it not as upholding the law, but as condescending to Jewish weakness. For if they had been upholding the law, they would not have preached one way to the Jews and another way to the Gentiles. For if the thing had been necessary for the unbelievers, it would plainly have been necessary for all the believers too. But since they laid it down for the Gentiles that they were not to be troubled about these things, they showed that they permitted it to the Jews too by way of condescension. The false brothers, however, did not act so, but in order to make them fall from grace and bring them again under the yoke of slavery. This, then, is the first difference, and a great one. The second is that the apostles did this in Judea, where the law was in force, but the false brothers everywhere; for they had laid hold of all the Galatians. Hence it is clear that the thing was done not for building up but for total overthrow; the apostles permitted it in one way, the false brothers in another. … "… our freedom, which we have in Christ Jesus." Do you see how he revealed their warfare by the very name of spies? For spies go in for no other reason than to learn the state of the enemy and so to prepare for themselves an easy way to ravage and destroy; just as these men were doing then, wishing to bring them under the old slavery. So it is clear from this too that the purpose of the apostles and of these men was not the same, but quite the opposite. For the apostles permitted it in order to lead them out of slavery little by little; but these men were contriving to subject them the more to … and prying into who were uncircumcised; as Paul too showed when he said, "They slipped in to spy out our freedom," showing their hostility not only by the name of spies but also by the manner of … "To whom we did not yield in subjection even for an hour." See the nobility and force of the expression. He did not say "in argument," but "in subjection." For they did this not to teach anything useful, but to subject and enslave. That is why we yielded to the apostles, but no longer to these men. "So that the truth of the gospel might remain with you." That is, so that what we said before we might confirm by deeds: that … all things have become new, and that "if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation," and that "Christ will be of no benefit to those who are circumcised." Confirming this truth, we did not yield even for an hour. Then, since what the apostles did immediately came up against him, and it was likely that some would say, "How then do they enjoin these things?", see how wisely he resolves the objection. He does not state the real cause, namely that the apostles did this for condescension and as a dispensation; for the hearers would have been harmed. For those who are to reap some benefit from a dispensation must be ignorant of its cause; if the reason for what is done were to come to light, the whole would be lost. That is why the one who carries it out must know the cause of what is done, but those who are to gain something from it must not know it. To make what I say clearer, I will use an example from this very subject. This same blessed Paul, who did away with circumcision, when he was about to send Timothy as a teacher to the Jews, first circumcised him and then sent him. He did this so that he might be acceptable to his hearers; he went in with circumcision in order to abolish circumcision. But the reason he himself knew, and Timothy; he did not tell the disciples. For if they had known that he circumcised him for this purpose, to do away with circumcision, they would not have listened to him preaching at all, and the whole gain would have run to waste; but as it was, their ignorance benefited them greatly. For thinking that he did this as a guardian of the law, they received both him and his teaching kindly and gently; and having received it and been instructed little by little, they departed from the old things; which would not have happened if they had known the reason from the start. For had they learned it, they would have turned away from him; having turned away, they would not have listened; and not having listened, they would have remained in their former error. So that this might not happen, he did not reveal the reason. That is why here too he does not state the reason for the dispensation, but conducts his argument in another way, saying: "And from those who seemed to be something (what they once were makes no difference to me; God shows no partiality)." Here he not only does not defend the apostles, but even bears hard on the saints, in order to benefit the weak. What he means is something like this: "Even if they permit circumcision, they themselves will give account to God. For God will not show them partiality because they are great and leaders." But he did not say this so plainly; he said it sparingly. For he did not say, "If they muddy the preaching and preach contrary to what was commanded, they will pay the ultimate penalty and undergo punishment." He said none of this, but seems to touch them more reverently, saying, "And from those who seemed to be something, what they once were." And he did not say "whatever they are," but "were," showing that they themselves had by then ceased to preach in that way, since the preaching had shone out everywhere. And "what they once were" means: "If they preached thus, they will give account; for they will make their defense not to men but to God." [3] He said this not as doubting, nor as ignorant of their position, but, as I said before, thinking it not yet expedient to handle the argument otherwise. Then, so as not to seem to be accusing them as one who took the opposite position, and so to create a suspicion of conflict, he at once added the correction, saying: "For those who seemed to be something added nothing to me." What is this? "What you say," he says, "I do not know; but this I know clearly, that they did not oppose me, but were of one mind and one voice with me"; for this is what "they gave the right hand" shows. For the moment, however, he does not say this, but only that they did not teach, did not correct, did not add anything to what I knew. "For those who seemed to be something," he says, "added nothing to me." That is: "Having learned my position, they added nothing and corrected nothing, though they knew that I had come for this purpose, to consult them; I came by a revelation of the Spirit to consult them, and I had Titus, uncircumcised, with me; yet they neither told me anything beyond what I knew, nor circumcised him." "But on the contrary." What does "on the contrary" mean? Some say he means that not only did they not teach him, but they were taught by him; but I would not say this. For what further were they to learn from him? Each of them was complete. So by "on the contrary" he does not mean this, but that not only did they not rebuke him, but they were so far from finding fault that they even praised him; for the contrary of finding fault is praising. Then, since it was likely that some would object, "If they praised you, why did they not abolish circumcision? If they praised you, they ought to have abolished it": to say that they abolished it he thought very shameless, bringing in an open conflict with what was agreed; while if he admitted the permission of circumcision, he saw that he would necessarily fall into another objection. "For if they praised my preaching," he says, "and yet permitted circumcision, they were contradicting themselves." What, then, is the solution of this? He could have said that they did this out of condescension to the Jews; but by saying this he would have shaken the whole foundation of the dispensation. That is why he does not say it, but leaves it in doubt and suspense, saying, "And from those who seemed to be something … it makes no difference to me"; as if he said: "I do not accuse or slander those saints; they themselves know what they were doing, for they will give account to God. What I am eager to show is that they did not overthrow my position, nor correct it, nor add to it as if it were defective, but praised it and agreed with it; and I have Titus and Barnabas as witnesses of this." That is why he goes on to say: "But when they saw that I had been entrusted with the gospel of the uncircumcision, just as Peter with that of the circumcision"; meaning by "circumcision" and "uncircumcision" not the things themselves but the nations known by them. He added: "For he who worked through Peter for the apostleship of the circumcision worked through me also for the Gentiles." Just as he calls the Gentiles uncircumcision, so he calls the Jews circumcision. And he shows himself now their equal in honor, and compares himself not with the others but with the leader, showing that each had enjoyed the same dignity. For since he had established the proof of their concord, he now speaks with confidence and freedom, and no longer stops at the apostles only, but carries his argument up to Christ and the grace given him by Christ, and calls the apostles as witnesses of this, saying: "And when James and Cephas and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given to me, they gave the right hand of fellowship to me and Barnabas." He did not say "having heard," but "having perceived," that is, having learned it from the facts themselves, "they gave the right hand of fellowship to me and Barnabas." Do you see how little by little he showed that this seemed good both to Christ and to the apostles? For the grace would not have been given or been at work unless such preaching had seemed good to him. And where he had to compare himself, he mentions Peter alone; but where he had to call witnesses, he names the three together, and with praise: "Cephas," he says, "and James and John, who seemed to be pillars." And again he says "who seemed," not to deny it, but taking in the judgment of the others too, and saying: "The great and eminent men, whom all carry about everywhere on their lips, these are witnesses of what is said, that this seems good to Christ too; they learned it from the facts and were convinced by experience itself. That is why they gave the right hand to me, and not to me only but also to Barnabas, so that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcision." O excess of understanding, and incontestable proof of concord! For he shows that their concerns are his, and his are theirs. For this seemed good to both: … that they should preach thus to the Jews, and he to the Gentiles; that is why he added, "so that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcision." Do you see how here he calls not the thing but the Jews "circumcision"? When he speaks of the thing itself and contrasts it, he sets uncircumcision itself against it, as when he says, "Circumcision is indeed of value if you keep the law; but if you are a transgressor of the law, your circumcision has become uncircumcision"; and again, "Neither circumcision counts for anything, nor uncircumcision." But when he calls the Jews so, and wishes to indicate not the thing but the people, he sets against it not uncircumcision but the Gentiles. For Jews are contrasted with Gentiles, and circumcision with uncircumcision; as when he says above, "For he who worked through Peter for the apostleship of the circumcision worked through me also for the Gentiles"; and here again, "we to the Gentiles and they to the circumcision": he does not mean the thing itself, but calls the people of the Jews so, distinguishing them from the Gentiles. "Only they asked us to remember the poor, the very thing I was eager to do." What is it that he says? "In the preaching," he says, "we divided the world, and I took those from the Gentiles and they the Jews, according to God's good pleasure; but to the care of the poor among the Jews I too contributed my part with them." If there had been war and conflict, they would not have accepted this. Who are these poor? Many of the Jews in Palestine who had believed had been deprived of all their possessions and were driven out from everywhere. He shows this in the letter to the Hebrews, saying, "For you joyfully accepted the plundering of your property"; and he shows it in writing to the Thessalonians and proclaiming their courage: "For you became imitators of the churches of God that are in Judea, because you suffered the same things from your own countrymen as they did from the Jews." And everywhere he shows that those who believed from among the Greeks were not so warred on by the Greeks who remained as those who believed from among the Jews were persecuted by their own people; for this nation is the harshest of all. That is why he takes great pains that they should enjoy every care, writing both to the Romans and to the Corinthians; and he not only collects money but carries it himself, and says, "But now I am going to Jerusalem to minister to the saints." For they lacked even necessary food. Showing this here too, he said: "In this I resolved to help them, and I undertook it, and did not fall short." Having shown by these things his concord and agreement with them, he is compelled at last to mention also the dispute with Peter that took place in Antioch, and says: "But when Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. For before certain men came from James, he was eating with the Gentiles; but when they came, he drew back, fearing those of the circumcision." Many who read this passage of the letter superficially think that Paul accuses Peter of hypocrisy; but it is not so, it is not so, far from it. For we shall find great wisdom of both Peter and Paul hidden here for the benefit of the hearers. But first it is necessary to speak about Peter's boldness, and how he always leapt ahead of all the disciples. For he received his name from this, from the unbending and unshakable firmness of his faith; and when they were all asked together, he leapt ahead of the others and said, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God," when he was also entrusted with the keys of heaven. On the mountain too he alone is seen speaking; and when Christ spoke of the cross, while the others were silent, he says, "God forbid, Lord!" These words, even if they did not come from a considered judgment, nevertheless came from a fervent love. And everywhere we see him more ardent than the others and leaping forward into dangers. When Christ appeared on the shore, while the others were dragging the boat, he could not bear to come in the boat; and after the resurrection, when the Jews were murderous and raging and seeking to tear them in pieces, he was the first to come forward, and he dared to break silence and say that the one who was crucified had been taken up and is in heaven. It is not the same to open a closed door and make a beginning of a thing, as to speak boldly afterwards. Then he who exposed his own life to so great a populace, how could he ever have played the hypocrite? He who was scourged and bound, and chose not to abate his boldness at all, and that at the beginning of the preaching, in the middle of the capital, where there was such danger, how, after so long a time, in Antioch, where there was no danger, and when he had become much more illustrious, with the testimony of his deeds, could he have feared those of the Jews who had believed? For he who did not fear the Jews themselves, at the beginning and in the capital, how, after so long a time and in a foreign place, would he have feared those who had come over from them? So Paul does not say this against Peter; but from the same mind with which he said, "And from those who seemed to be something, what they once were makes no difference to me," he utters this too. But so that we may not remain further perplexed about these things, we must unfold the cause of what is said. The apostles, as I said before, permitted circumcision in Jerusalem; for it was not possible to tear them away from the law all at once. But when they came to Antioch, they no longer observed anything of the kind, but lived without distinction with those who believed from the Gentiles; and this is what Peter too was doing then. But when those came from Jerusalem who had seen him preaching in that way there, he no longer did this, fearing to wound them, but changed his course, managing two things: not to scandalize those from the Jews, and to give Paul a reasonable pretext for rebuke. For if he who had preached with circumcision in Jerusalem had changed in Antioch, he would have seemed to those from the Jews to be doing this out of fear of Paul, and the disciples would have condemned him of great fickleness; and this was going to become no small stumbling block. But in Paul, who knew everything clearly, his change would not have caused such suspicion; for he knew the intention with which these things were done. That is why Paul rebukes and Peter submits, so that when the teacher is rebuked and keeps silent, the disciples may change more easily. For if Paul had exhorted them when nothing of this kind had happened, he would have achieved nothing great; but as it was, taking the occasion for a sharper rebuke, he put greater fear into Peter's disciples. For if Peter, on hearing this, had contradicted him, one might rightly have found fault, as if the dispensation were being overturned; but as it was, when the one rebuked and the other kept silent, great fear came upon those from the Jews. That is why he used vehemence against Peter.

And see how exactly he uses his words, giving the wise to see that the words were not of conflict but of dispensation. "When Peter came to Antioch," he says, "I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned." He did not say "by me," but by the others. If he himself had condemned him, he would not have hesitated to say this too. And "I opposed him to his face" was a staged form. For if they had really been fighting, they would not have rebuked each other in front of the disciples; for they would have greatly scandalized them; but as it was, the open conflict was profitable. And just as Paul yielded to them in Jerusalem, so they too yielded in Antioch. What, then, was the condemnation? "For before certain men came from James" (for he was the teacher in Jerusalem) "he was eating with the Gentiles; but when they came, he drew back and separated himself, fearing those of the circumcision"; not fearing that he might be in danger (for he who did not fear at the beginning, much less then), but that they might fall away. For Paul himself says to the Galatians, "I fear for you, that I may have labored over you in vain"; and again, "I fear lest, as the serpent deceived Eve, your thoughts be corrupted." The fear of death was nothing to them, but the fear of the loss of their disciples shook their souls violently. "So that even Barnabas was carried away by their hypocrisy." Do not be surprised that he calls the thing hypocrisy; for, as I said before, he does not wish to reveal their intention, so that those others may be set right. For since they clung vehemently to the law, he therefore calls what was done hypocrisy and rebukes it sharply, so as to tear up their prejudice by the roots. And Peter, hearing this, plays his part along with him, as if he had sinned, so that through the rebuke given to him … For if Paul had rebuked those from the Jews, they would have been indignant and spat on him, for they had no great opinion of him; but as it was, seeing their teacher rebuked and silent, they could neither despise nor contradict what was said. "But when I saw that they were not walking straight according to the truth of the gospel." Let not this phrase trouble you either; for he does not say this condemning Peter, but frames the phrase as it was expedient for those to hear who were to become better through Peter's rebuke. "I said to Peter before them all." Do you see how he corrects the others? That is why he spoke "before them all," so that they too might hear and fear. What did you say, tell me? "If you, though a Jew … why do you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?" Yet are you not charging him with something that has not happened? And why do you not turn your words against the hypocrites from among the Jews, rather than toward the Gentiles? And why do you charge Peter alone, when the rest also joined him in the hypocrisy? Let us see, then, what he charges. "If you, though a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?" Yet he alone was drawing back. What, then, does Paul wish to establish? To make the rebuke free from suspicion. For if he had said, "You do wrong in keeping the law," those from the Jews would have rebuked him as being insolent toward their teacher; but as it was, by charging him on behalf of his own disciples, I mean those from the Gentiles, he makes his words acceptable in this way; and not only in this way, but also by turning the rebuke away from all the others and laying the whole of it on the apostle. "If you," he says, "being a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew": all but saying outright, "Imitate your teacher, for he too, being a Jew, lives like a Gentile." But he does not speak so, for they would not have accepted the exhortation; under the guise of a rebuke on behalf of the Gentiles he reveals Peter's mind. Again, if he had said, "Why do you compel those from the Jews to live like Jews?", his words would have been harsher; but as it was, not as taking the part of the Jewish disciples but of those from the Gentiles, he corrects the former in this way. For rebukes are best able to be well received when they are not very burdensome. Nor could any of those from the Gentiles accuse Paul of speaking on behalf of the Jews. All this Peter accomplished by keeping silent and accepting the reputation of hypocrisy, in order to free the Jews from real hypocrisy. At first, then, he turned his words on Peter's person, saying, "you, though a Jew"; but going on he makes what he says general, taking himself in too, and saying: "We who are Jews by birth, and not sinners from among the Gentiles." What was said was exhortation, but the form of a rebuke is placed around it because of those from among the Jews.

He does this elsewhere too: seeming to say one thing, he establishes another; as when, writing to the Romans, he says, "But now I am going to Jerusalem to minister to the saints." For he did not wish simply to say this and to inform them why he was going to Jerusalem, but to rouse them to zeal for almsgiving. If he had wished only to state the reason, it was enough to say, "I am going to minister to the saints"; but as it is, see how much he joins to it: "For Macedonia and Achaia have been pleased to make some contribution for the poor among the saints in Jerusalem. They were pleased to do it, and indeed they are in debt to them." And again: "For if the Gentiles have come to share in their spiritual blessings, they ought also to be of service to them in material things." See, then, how here too he humbles the pride of the Jews, establishing one thing by means of another. And he uses his words with authority, saying, "We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles." What is "Jews by nature"? "Not proselytes, but brought up in the law from our earliest years, we left the way of life in which we were reared and took refuge in faith in Christ." "Knowing that a man is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, we too have believed in Christ." See here too how securely he says everything. "For we left it," he says, "not as evil but as weak." If, then, the law does not provide righteousness, circumcision is superfluous. For now he says only this; but going on, he shows that it is not only superfluous but also dangerous. And this especially must be noted, how at the beginning he says, "A man is not justified by works of the law," but as he goes on he speaks more severely: "But if, in seeking to be justified in Christ, we ourselves were found to be sinners, is Christ then a minister of sin?" "For if faith in him," he says, "is not able to justify, but we must cling to the law again; if, having left the law for Christ's sake, we are not justified by leaving it but condemned, we shall find that the cause of our condemnation is he for whose sake we left the law and went over to him." Do you see to what necessity of absurdity he has reduced the argument, and how strongly he has contended? "For if we ought not to leave the law," he says, "and we left it for Christ's sake, how are we going to be judged?" Why, then, do you say this to Peter and urge it on him, who knew these things more exactly than anyone? Did not God show him that one must not judge an uncircumcised man by circumcision? Did he not, when discussing these things with the Jews, stand up nobly on the strength of that vision? Were not clear decrees on these matters sent from Jerusalem? … So he does not say this to correct Peter; the words had to be directed at him, but it was the disciples he was rebuking. And this is said not only to the Galatians but also to those who suffer the same sickness as they. For even if many are not circumcised now, yet they fast and keep the sabbath with the Jews, they do the same things and thrust themselves out of grace. For if Christ is of no benefit to those who only practice circumcision, when fasting and sabbath are added, and two commandments are kept instead of one, see how the danger has become more serious, and from the time as well. For those did these things at the beginning, while the city and the temple and everything else were still standing; but these, who see the punishment the Jews paid and the destruction of the city, and still observe more, what defense could they have for keeping the law at a time when the Jews themselves, though they earnestly wish it, cannot keep these things? You have put on Christ, you have become a member of the Master, you have been enrolled in the city above, and you still crawl about the law? And how is it possible for you to obtain the kingdom? Hear Paul saying that the gospel is overturned by the observance of the law. And, if you will, learn the manner of it too, and shudder, and flee the pit. Why do you keep the sabbath and fast with them? Plainly because you fear the law and are afraid to leave that letter behind; but you would not have feared to leave the law, unless you had condemned faith as weak and unable to save by itself. For if you fear not to keep the sabbath, it is plain that you fear the law as still in force. And if the law is needed again, it is plainly not a part or a single commandment, but the whole law that is needed; and if the whole, then righteousness through faith has been cast out little by little. For if you keep sabbaths, why not be circumcised too? And if you are circumcised, why not offer sacrifice too? For if it must be kept, the whole law must be kept; and if not the whole, not a part either. And if you shudder for the part, lest you be condemned for transgression, you must fear for the whole as well; but if the whole, when transgressed, does not bring punishment, plainly neither does a part; and if a part does, much more the whole. And if the whole must be kept, we must either disobey Christ, or, in obeying Christ, become transgressors of the law. For if it must be kept, those who do not keep it … and for us the cause of this is Christ; for he himself abolished the law about these things and commanded us to abolish it.

Do you see what the Judaizers establish? Christ, who is the cause of our righteousness, they make out to be the cause of sin as well, as Paul too says: "Is Christ then a minister of sin?" Then, having reduced the argument to absurdity, he needed no further argument to overthrow it, but was content with a simple denial, saying only, "God forbid." For against shameless things no arguments are needed; a denial alone suffices. "For if I build up again what I tore down, I prove myself a transgressor." See Paul's understanding. They wished to show that one who does not keep the law is a transgressor; but he turned the argument the opposite way, showing that one who keeps the law is a transgressor, not of faith only but of the law itself. What he says is something like this: "The law has come to an end, and we confessed this by leaving it and fleeing to the salvation that comes by faith. If, then, we insist on setting it up again, we become transgressors, contending to keep what God has abolished." Then he shows how it was abolished: "For through the law I died to the law." This admits a twofold interpretation. Either he means the law of grace (for he is accustomed to call this too a law, as when he says, "The law of the Spirit of life has set me free"), or he means here the old law, showing that through the law itself he died to the law; that is, "The law itself led me to give no further heed to it. If, then, I were to give heed to it, I would be transgressing it." How, and in what way? Moses says, "The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet from among your brothers, like me; you shall listen to him," speaking of Christ. So those who do not obey him transgress the law. And "through the law I died to the law" must also be understood in another way. The law commands that everything written in it be done, and punishes the one who does not do it. So we have all died to it, for no one fulfilled it. And see how here too he wages the battle against it in measured terms. For he did not say, "The law died to me," but "I died to the law." What he means is this: "Just as a corpse, a dead man, cannot obey the commands of the law, so neither can I, who died by its curse; for I died by its own word. Let it not, then, give orders to the dead man whom it killed itself; and killed with a death not of the body only but also of the soul, through which it brought on the bodily death too." That this is what he means he showed by what follows. "So that I might live to God, I have been crucified with Christ." For since he had said, "I died," so that no one might say, "How, then, do you live?", he added the cause of the life too, and showed that the law killed him while he was alive, but Christ took him dead and gave him life through death; and he shows a twofold wonder: that he both gave life to the dead and granted life through death. By life he here means the immortal life; for this is the meaning of "So that I might live to God, I have been crucified with Christ." "And how was one who lives and breathes crucified?" someone says. "That Christ was crucified is plain; but how were you crucified, and yet live?" See how he explains this too, saying, "It is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me." By saying, "I have been crucified with Christ," he hinted at baptism; by saying, "It is no longer I who live," at the way of life that follows, through which our members are put to death. What is "Christ lives in me"? "Nothing is done by me," he says, "that Christ does not wish." For just as by death he means not this common death but death to sins, so by life he means release from them; for it is not possible to live to God otherwise than by having died to sin. As, then, Christ underwent the death of the body, so I underwent death to sin. "Put to death, then, your members that are on earth: sexual immorality, impurity, adultery"; and again he says, "Our old self was crucified with him," which took place in the washing. After this, if you remain dead to sin, you live to God; but if you raise it up again, you have ruined such a life. But Paul was not such a man; he remained dead throughout. "If, then, I live to God," he says, "a life other than the life under the law, and have become dead to the law, I can keep nothing of the law."

And see the exactness of his way of life, and marvel exceedingly at that blessed soul. He did not say, "I live," but, "Christ lives in me." Who will dare to utter this word? For since he had made himself obedient to Christ and cast out everything worldly, and did everything according to his will, he did not say, "I live to Christ," but, what was much more, "Christ lives in me." For just as sin, when it prevails, is the thing that lives, leading the soul wherever it wishes, so, when sin has been put to death and what pleases Christ is done, such a life is no longer a human life, since he lives in us, that is, works and rules in us. But since he had said, "I have been crucified with Christ," and "I no longer live, but have died," and he seemed to many to be saying something incredible, he added: "And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God." "What I have said," he says, "concerns the life of the spirit; but if one examines this life of the senses too, I have this also through faith in Christ. For as far as the old way of life and the law were concerned, I deserved the ultimate punishment and would long ago have perished. For 'all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,' and while we lay under the sentence, Christ set us free. For all had died, if not in fact, yet by sentence. Since the law had accused and God had pronounced sentence, Christ came and gave himself up to death and snatched us all from death. So 'the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith.' For if this were not so, nothing would have prevented all from being destroyed, as happened in the flood; but the coming of Christ, stopping the wrath of God, made us live through faith." That this is what he means, hear from what follows; for having said, "The life I now live in the flesh I live by faith," he added, "in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me." What are you doing, Paul, appropriating what is common and making your own what was done for the whole world? For he did not say, "who loved us," but "who loved me." Yet the evangelist says, "God so loved the world"; and you yourself say, "He who did not spare his own Son but gave him up," not for you, but "for us all"; and … What, then, does he mean here? Considering the despair of human nature and the ineffable care of Christ, from what he freed us and what he granted us, and set on fire by love for him, he speaks so. For the prophets too often appropriate to themselves the God of all, saying, "O God, my God, to you I rise early." Besides this, he shows that each of us ought rightly to owe Christ as much gratitude as if he had come for him alone. For he would not have refused to show so great a dispensation even for one; so great is the measure of love with which he loves each man, as great as that with which he loves the whole world. The sacrifice was offered for the whole of human nature, and it was able to save all; but those who have made use of the benefit are the believers only. Yet the fact that not all came did not turn him away from such a dispensation. Just as the banquet in the Gospel had been prepared for all, and when those who were invited would not come he did not take away what was set out but called others, so he has done here too. For the sheep that strayed from the ninety-nine was one, yet he did not despise even it. Paul hints at this very thing too when speaking of the Jews, saying: "What if some were unfaithful? Does their faithlessness nullify the faithfulness of God? By no means! Let God be true, though every man be a liar." Then he so loved you as even to give himself up, and to bring you, who had no hope of salvation, to such and so great a life; and do you, after so many good things, run back to the old ways? Since, then, he has set out the arguments with exactness, he now proclaims vehemently in a declaration, saying, "I do not nullify the grace of God." Let those hear who even now Judaize and give heed to the law; for this is said to them. "For if righteousness were through the law, then Christ died for nothing." What is more grievous than this sin? What is more shaming than these words? For if Christ died, it is plain that it was because the law was unable to justify us; but if the law justifies, Christ's death was superfluous. And how could it make sense to say that so great a thing, so full of awe, surpassing human reason, so ineffable a mystery, for which patriarchs were in travail, which prophets foretold, at which angels were astonished as they looked on, which all confess to be the sum of God's care, happened in vain and for nothing? Considering, then, the excess of the absurdity, if they should say that so great and mighty a thing had happened superfluously (for this followed from what they were doing), he even uses words of insult against them, saying thus:

[Gal 3:1] "O foolish Galatians, who has bewitched you, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified?" Here he strikes them hard. For he did not say, "Who deceived you? Who abused you? Who misled you?" but, "Who has bewitched you?" Here at last he passes on to another main point. In what went before he showed that he was an apostle not from men nor through man, and had no need of the apostles' teaching; but here, having established himself as a trustworthy teacher, he speaks with greater authority, making a comparison between faith and law. At the beginning he said, "I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting"; here, "O foolish Galatians!" Then he was in labor with his indignation; but now that he has made his defense concerning himself, he bursts it out openly, after the proof. And if he calls them foolish, do not be surprised; he does this not transgressing the law of Christ that forbids calling one's brother a fool, but keeping it exactly. For it is not simply said, "Whoever calls his brother a fool," but "whoever does so without cause." And who would more justly have received this title than those who, after so many and such great things, clung to the former things as if nothing had happened? If you call Paul insolent for this, you will call Peter a murderer because of Sapphira and Ananias. But if to say that is madness, much more is this. And see, I pray, how he does not use this vehemence from the opening, but after the refutations and the proofs, when they were receiving the rebuke not from him but from the refutations themselves. For when he had shown that they were thrusting out faith and making the death of Christ superfluous, then he brings in the rebuke, and not even then as they deserved; for they deserved much harsher words. And see how at once he relaxes, putting a rebuke that is not without praise. For "bewitched" shows that they had formerly done things that deserved envy, and that what happened was the spite of a demon, who blew fiercely against their prosperity. When you hear of envy here, and in the Gospel of an "evil eye" meaning the same thing, do not think that the glance of the eyes naturally harms those who are looked at; for the eye, the member itself, could not be evil, but Christ there calls envy by this name. Merely to see belongs to the eyes, but to see with evil comes from the perverted mind within. For since through this sense the sight of things flows into our soul, and envy is born mostly in the case of wealth, and wealth is seen with the eyes, and power and retinues too, he therefore called "evil eye" not the eye that sees, but one that sees with jealousy from wickedness of soul. By saying, "Who has bewitched you?" he shows that these men do this not as guardians, nor as supplying what is lacking, but mutilating what is there. For it belongs to envy not to add what is lacking, but to take something away from what is complete and to spoil the whole. He says this not as if envy had power of itself, but as of men who teach these things and have come to it out of jealousy. "Before whose eyes Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed among you as crucified." Yet he was crucified not in the land of the Galatians but in Jerusalem; how, then, does he say "among you"? He is showing the power of faith, which can see even what is far off. And he did not say "was crucified," but "was portrayed as crucified," showing that with the eyes of faith they saw more exactly than some who were present and watched what was done. For many of those watched and gained nothing; but these, though they did not see with their eyes, saw more exactly through faith. He says this both rebuking and praising them: praising, because they received what had happened with such full assurance; rebuking, because him whom they saw stripped for them, impaled, nailed … (for he showed all this by saying, "was portrayed among you as crucified"), him they left and ran to the law, without any reverence for those sufferings. And see, I pray, how everywhere he leaves aside heaven, earth, sea and everything else, and proclaims the power of Christ, carrying the cross about with him; for this above all was the sum of his care for us. "This only I want to learn from you: did you receive the Spirit by works of the law or by hearing with faith?" "Since you do not follow long arguments," he says, "and do not wish to look into the greatness of the dispensation, I wish to persuade you by a brief word and a very swift proof, seeing your extreme want of sense." Above, he persuaded them from what he said to Peter; but here he strips for the contest with them, establishing everything not from what happened elsewhere but from what took place among themselves, and persuading and making his proof no longer only from what was given to all in common, but from the gifts given to them in particular. That is why he says, "This only I want to learn from you: did you receive the Spirit by works of the law or by hearing with faith?" "You received the Holy Spirit," he says; "you worked miracles, cleansing lepers, prophesying, speaking in tongues. Did the law give you so great a power? Yet you did nothing of the kind before. Or was it faith?" [2] How, then, is it not the utmost madness, after receiving so many benefits from faith, to leave it and desert to the law, which provided nothing of the kind? "… are you now being perfected by the flesh?" Again he brought in the reproach at the right moment. "You ought," he says, "to have made progress as time went on; but not only have you not advanced, you have even been carried backward. Those who begin from small things go on to greater; but you, who began from great things, have been carried down to their opposite. Even if you had begun from carnal things, you ought to have advanced to spiritual things; but as it is, having begun from spiritual things, you have been carried down to carnal ones. … After the wonders you have come to circumcision; after seeing the sun you look for a lamp; after solid food you run to milk." And he did not say "you are being initiated" (teleisthe), but "you are being perfected" (epiteleisthe), a word also used of sacrifice, showing that those men cut them like brute beasts without their noticing, while these gave themselves over to suffer whatever those wished; as if someone, from being a general and a champion after countless trophies and victories, were to give himself over to the disgrace of deserters and offer his body to be branded by anyone who wished. "Did you suffer so many things in vain? If indeed it was in vain." This is much more stinging than the former. For the recalling of the signs did not have such power as the display of their contests and their endurance of sufferings for Christ. "All those things you endured," he says, "these men wish to make into your loss, and to snatch away your crown." Then, so as not to shake their souls and slacken their sinews, he did not stop at the sentence, but added, "if indeed it was in vain." "For if you recover yourselves, it was not in vain." Where now are those who cut off repentance? For look: these received the Spirit, worked signs, became confessors, enduring countless dangers and persecutions for Christ, and after such achievements fell from grace. "Yet nevertheless," he says, "if you will, you can recover yourselves." "Does he, then, who supplies the Spirit to you and works miracles among you do so by works of the law or by hearing with faith?" "Were you counted worthy of so great a gift," he says, "and did you perform so many wonders because you kept the law, or because you held fast to faith? Plainly because of faith." For since those men kept turning this over and over and carrying it about, saying that faith has no strength unless the law is added to it, he shows the opposite: that when the commandments are added, faith will benefit nothing further; for faith has its strength when nothing from the law is added to it. "For you who would be justified by the law," he says, "have fallen away from grace." But this he says further on, when he uses greater boldness, taking his starting point from what had already been established; for the present he constructs his starting point from what had happened in the past. "When you gave heed not to the law but to faith, then you received the Spirit, and the signs …" Then, since the argument was about the law, he moved on to another, most combative point, bringing Abraham forward, very seasonably and with great abundance, saying: "Just as Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness." "The miracles done by you," he says, "show the power of faith; but if you wish, I will persuade you from ancient narratives too." For since the patriarch was much spoken of among them, he brings him forward and shows that he too was justified in this way. If he who lived before grace was justified by faith, though he abounded in works, much more are you. For what harm did he suffer from not being under the law? None; faith sufficed him for righteousness. "For there was no law then," he says. "Nor is there a law now, just as there was none then." That is why, after removing the need of the law, he then brought in the one justified before the law, so that he would not meet this objection. For just as then it had not yet been given, so now, having been given, it has come to an end. Then, since they prided themselves on being descended from Abraham, and feared that if they left the law they would be cut off from kinship with him, Paul turns this too around to the opposite and dissolves their fear, showing that it is above all faith that produces kinship with him. He established this more clearly in the letter to the Romans, but he does it no less here too, saying: "Know, then, that it is those of faith who are the sons of Abraham." Then he establishes this very thing from an ancient testimony: "And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, In you shall all the nations be blessed." If, then, not those who have a natural kinship with him are his sons, but those who imitate his faith (for this is the meaning of "in you, the nations"), it is plain that faith brings one into this kinship.

Through these words he also shows another great point. Since they were troubled that the law was older and faith came after the law, he removes this suspicion of theirs as well, showing that faith is older than the law; and this is clear from Abraham, for he was justified before the law appeared. He also shows that what is happening now has happened according to prophecy: "For the Scripture, foreseeing," he says, "that God would justify the Gentiles by faith" (not by the law), "preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham." What does this mean? "He who gave the law," he says, "had determined, even before he gave this law, that the Gentiles should be justified by faith." And he did not say "revealed," but "preached the gospel beforehand," so that you may learn that the patriarch too rejoiced in this way of righteousness and longed greatly for it to come to pass. And since another fear also held them (for it was written, "Cursed is everyone who does not abide by all things written in the book of this law, to do them"), he dissolves this fear too, wisely and intelligently turning it round to the opposite, and showing that those who have left the law are not only not cursed but blessed, while those who hold to it are not only not blessed but cursed. Those men said that one who does not keep the law is cursed; but he shows that one who keeps it is cursed, and one who does not keep it is blessed. Again, they said that one who gives heed to faith alone is cursed; but he shows that one who gives heed to faith alone is blessed. How, then, does he show all this? … For it is no ordinary thing we have promised; therefore we must attend with exactness to what follows. He showed it already, when he said earlier that Scripture said to the patriarch, "In you shall all the nations be blessed." At that time there was no law, but faith; therefore, drawing the conclusion, … "with faithful Abraham." But so that they might not take this as an objection and say, "Naturally he was justified by faith, for there was not yet a law; but show us faith justifying after the law was given," he comes to this point and shows more than they ask: not only that faith justifies, but that the law makes those who rely on it accursed. And to learn this, hear the apostle's own words: "For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse." But this is an assertion that does not yet have its proof. What, then, is the proof? From the law itself: "For cursed is everyone who does not abide by all things written in the book of this law, to do them." That no one is justified by the law is plain to everyone; for all have sinned and are under a curse. But he does not say it so, lest he seem to be pronouncing it himself; again he establishes it by a testimony that contains both points in brief: that no one fulfilled the law (which is why they were accursed), and that faith justifies. What is the testimony? From the prophet Habakkuk, who says, "The righteous shall live by faith." This shows not only righteousness by faith but also that it is not possible to be saved through the law. "For since no one kept the law," he says, "but all were under the curse because of transgression, an easy way was devised, the way of faith"; which is also the greatest sign that no one could be justified by the law. For the prophet did not say, "The righteous shall live by the law," but "by faith." "But the law is not of faith; rather, the one who does them shall live by them." "For the law," he says, "seeks not faith only but also works; but grace saves and justifies by faith." Do you see how he showed that those who give heed to the law came under a curse, because it is impossible to fulfill it? And how faith has this power of justifying? For he had promised these things earlier, and he established them with great force. Since the law was too weak to bring man to righteousness, faith was found as no small remedy, making what was impossible for the law possible through itself. If, then, Scripture too says, "The righteous shall live by faith," despairing of salvation through the law, and Abraham was justified by faith, it is clear that the power of faith is great. "That one who does not abide in the law is cursed, and one who gives heed to faith is righteous, is clear," someone says; "but how can you prove to us that that curse no longer stands? For Abraham lived before the law; but we, having once come under the yoke of slavery, made ourselves liable to the curse. Who, then, has loosed that curse?" See how quickly he meets this. What has been said is indeed sufficient: for how could one who has once been justified, and has died to the law, and has entered upon a new life, be liable to the curse? Yet he is not content with this, but contends in another way as well, writing: "Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us; for it is written, Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree." And yet the people was liable to another curse, the one that says, "Cursed is everyone who does not abide by the things written in the book of the law." And what of this? The people was liable to it, for they did not abide by them, nor was there anyone who had fulfilled the whole law. But Christ exchanged this curse for another, the one that says, "Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree." Since, then, both the one who hangs on a tree is cursed and the one who transgresses the law, and the one who was to loose that curse must not himself become liable to it, yet must receive a curse in its place, he received such a curse, and through it loosed the other. And just as when someone has been condemned to die, another who is not liable, choosing to die in his place, snatches him from the punishment, so Christ too did. For since he was not subject to the curse of transgression, Christ took this curse upon himself in place of that one, in order to loose theirs; "for he committed no sin, nor was deceit found in his mouth." [4] As, then, by dying he rescued from death those who were going to die, so by receiving a curse he freed them from the curse. "So that the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles." How to the Gentiles? "In your seed," it says, "shall all the nations be blessed," that is, in Christ. If this had been said of the Jews, how could it make sense that those who were liable to the curse because of their transgression should become the cause of blessing to others? For none of the accursed gives another a share in a blessing of which he himself has been deprived. Hence it is clear that the whole is said of Christ; for he was the seed of Abraham, and through him the nations have been blessed; and so the promise of the Spirit comes as well. He himself shows this, saying, "So that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith." For since it was not possible for the grace of the Spirit to come to one who was ungrateful and had given offense, they are first blessed, the curse having been removed; then, justified through faith, they draw down the grace of the Spirit. So the cross loosed the curse, faith brought in righteousness, and righteousness drew down the grace of the Spirit. "Brothers, I speak in human terms: even a man's covenant, once ratified, no one annuls or adds to it …" … from human examples. For since he had established his argument from the Scriptures, from the miracles that took place among them, from what Christ suffered, and from the patriarch, he now goes on to common usage too. For it is always his habit to do this, so as to sweeten his discourse and make it more acceptable to his hearers. So too in speaking to the Corinthians he says, "Who tends a flock and does not eat of its milk? Who plants a vineyard and does not eat of its fruit?" And again to the Hebrews: "For a will takes effect only at death, since it is not in force as long as the one who made it is alive." And in many places one may find him dwelling on such reasonings. For God too in the Old Testament does this continually, saying, "Can a woman forget her child?" and again, "Shall the clay say to the potter, What are you doing?" And in Hosea he takes the part of a husband despised by his wife. And in the types too one can see much use of human examples, as when the prophet takes the loincloth, and goes down to the potter's house. What, then, does his example mean? That faith was older, and the law more recent and temporary, and given for this reason, to prepare the way for faith. That is why he says, "Brothers, I speak in human terms." Having called them foolish above, here he calls them brothers, at once rebuking and consoling them. "Even a man's ratified covenant." "If a man makes a will," he says, "does anyone dare to come afterward and overturn it, or add something to it?" For this is the meaning of "or adds to it." "Much more, then, in the case of God." And with whom did God make the covenant? "The promises were spoken to Abraham," he says, "and to his seed. It does not say, And to seeds, as of many, but as of one, And to your seed, who is Christ. This I say: the law, which came four hundred and thirty years afterward, does not annul a covenant previously ratified by God in Christ, so as to make the promise void. For if the inheritance comes by the law, it no longer comes by promise; but God gave it to Abraham by promise." "Look, then: God too made a covenant with Abraham, saying of the nations that they would have the blessings in his seed; how, then, can the law overturn them?" But since the example could not wholly carry the mind up to the matter in hand, he therefore said first, "I speak in human terms": "Take nothing from the example as applying to the majesty of God." But consider the example from the beginning. He promised Abraham that through his seed the nations would be blessed; and his seed according to the flesh is Christ. The law came four hundred and thirty years later. If, then, the law grants the blessings and life and righteousness, that promise is void. Then no one annuls a man's covenant, but God's covenant is annulled after four hundred and thirty years? For if what that covenant promised is given not by it but by something else in its place, it has been cast out. And how could this make sense? "Why, then," he says, "the law? It was added because of transgressions." For this too is not superfluous. Do you see how he looks all around, how he uses countless eyes? For since he had exalted faith and shown it to be older, so that no one might think the law superfluous, he sets this part right too, showing that it was given not in vain but very usefully: "because of transgressions," that is, so that the Jews might not live without fear and slip into the extremity of wickedness, but the law might lie upon them like a bridle, training, regulating, preventing them from transgressing, if not all the commandments, at least some one of them. So the gain from the law is not small. But until when? "Until the seed should come to whom the promise had been made," speaking of Christ. If, then, it was given until the coming of Christ, why do you drag it further and out of season? "Ordained through angels by the hand of a mediator." He either calls the priests angels, or says that the angels themselves served in the giving of the law. By "mediator" he here means Christ, showing that he existed before and himself gave the law. "Now a mediator is not of one, but God is one."

What would the heretics say here? For if "the only true" does not allow the Son to be true God, then neither does this allow him to be God at all, because it is said, "But God is one." But if, though the Father is called the one God, the Son too is God, it is plain that, though the Father is called true, the Son too is true. "A mediator," he says, "is a mediator between two." Of whom, then, was Christ the mediator? Plainly of God and men. Do you see how he shows that it was he who gave the law? If, then, he gave it, he would have authority to annul it too. "Is the law, then, against the promises of God?" For if the blessings were given in the seed of Abraham, and the law brings in a curse, then it is against the promises of God. How, then, does he resolve the objection? First he denies it, saying, "God forbid"; then he establishes his point, saying: "For if a law had been given that could give life, then righteousness would indeed be by the law." What he means is this: "If we had the hope of life in it, and it held the power of our salvation, perhaps you would be right to say this; but if it is faith that saves, then even if the law makes men accursed, you have suffered no harm, since faith comes and looses everything. For if you were to fall from faith because of the law, you would fall indeed; but if the law was given for this purpose, to shut up all, that is, to convict them and show them their own offenses, it not only does not hinder you from obtaining the promise, but even helps you to obtain it." Showing this, he said: "But the Scripture shut up all things under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe." For since the Jews did not even perceive their own sins, and those who did not perceive them did not even desire forgiveness, he gave the law to convict their wounds, so that they might long for the physician. For "shut up" means that, having convicted them, it held them in fear. Do you see that it is not only not against the promises of God, but was even given on behalf of the promises? If the law had been championing its own cause and authority, this would rightly be said; but if it runs for another and did everything for his sake, how is it against the promises of God? For if the law had not been given, all would have run aground in wickedness, and none of the Jews would have been ready to listen to Christ. But having been given, it achieved two things: it trained them in a measured virtue, and persuaded them to know their own sins, which above all made them more eager to seek the Son. Those, at any rate, who did not believe in him did not believe because they had not condemned their own sins. Showing this, he said: "For, being ignorant of the righteousness of God, and seeking to establish their own righteousness, they did not submit to the righteousness of God." "Now before faith came, we were kept under guard by the law, shut up for the faith that was to be revealed." Do you see how clearly he has set out what we said? For "we were kept under guard" and "shut up" show nothing else than the security that came from the commandments of the law: … and the law, by the way of life it prescribed, kept them safe for faith. "So the law has become our tutor to Christ, so that we might be justified by faith." But the tutor does not oppose the teacher; he even works with him, freeing the young man from all wickedness and preparing him to receive the lessons from the teacher in full leisure; but when the boy is formed, the tutor then departs. That is why he says: "But now that faith has come" (faith that leads to the perfect man), "we are no longer under a tutor. For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus." If, then, the law is a tutor, and we were kept under guard under it, shut up, it is not opposed to grace but its fellow worker; but if, after grace has come, it goes on holding us, then it is opposed. For if it shuts in those who ought to go out to grace, then it ruins our salvation. Just as a lamp that gave light in the night, if, when day has come, it should compel us not to look at the sun, has not only done us no favor but has done us harm, so too the law, if it becomes a hindrance to greater things. So those who keep it now are the ones who most discredit it. For the tutor too makes the young man ridiculous when, though the time calls on him to leave, he keeps him by his side. That is why Paul says, "But now that faith has come, you are no longer under a tutor." So we are no longer under a tutor. "For you are all sons of God." Oh, how great is the power of faith, and how he reveals it as he goes on! Earlier he showed that it made them sons of the patriarch: "For know," he says, "that it is those of faith who are the sons of Abraham"; but now he declares that they are sons of God too: "For you are all sons of God," he says, "through faith in Christ Jesus": through faith, not through the law. Then, since he had said something great and wonderful, he tells the manner of the adoption too: "For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ." And why did he not say, "For as many of you as were baptized into Christ were born of God"? For that was what followed from showing them to be sons. Because he puts it in a much more awesome way. For if Christ is the Son of God, and you have put him on, having the Son in yourself and having been made like him, you have been brought into one kinship and one form. "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus." Do you see an insatiable soul? Having said that we have become sons of God through faith, he does not stop there, but seeks to find something more that can set forth more clearly our closer union with Christ. And having said, "You have put him on," he is not content even with this expression, but explaining it he goes further into such union, and says, "You are all one in Christ Jesus"; that is, you all have one form, one stamp, the stamp of Christ. What could be more awesome than these words? He who was formerly a Greek, a Jew, a slave, goes about bearing the form not of an angel or an archangel, but of the Master of all himself, and displaying Christ in himself. "And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's seed, heirs according to promise." Do you see how he has now proved what he said earlier about the seed, that the blessings were given to Abraham and to his seed?

… the time appointed by the father. "So we too, when we were children, were enslaved under the elements of the world." By "children" here he means not age but understanding, showing that God wished to grant these things from the beginning, but since we were still in a rather childish state, he left us under the elements of the world, that is, new moons and sabbaths; for these days come to us from the course of the moon and the sun. If, then, they now bring you under the law, they do nothing else than lead you back again from full age, even as time has gone forward. Do you see how great a thing the observance of days is? It puts the lord, the master of the house, the one who rules all, in the rank of a servant. "But when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his Son, born of a woman, born under the law, to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons." He sets down here two causes and achievements of the incarnation: release from evils and the supply of good things, which no one could achieve but he alone. What were these? To be freed from the curse of the law, and to be brought to adoption. "To redeem those under the law," he says, "and that we might receive the adoption." He said well "receive," showing that it was owed. For God had promised it from of old, as he himself showed by many proofs that promises about these things had been made to Abraham. "And how is it clear that we have become sons?" he asks. He gave one way: that we have put on Christ, who is the Son; he gives a second too: that we have received the Spirit of adoption. "And because you are sons, God has sent forth the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, Abba, Father. So you are … an heir of God through Christ." For we could not have called him Father, unless we had first been made sons. If, then, grace made us free instead of slaves, mature instead of children, heirs and sons instead of strangers, how is it not absurd and the height of ingratitude to leave it and turn back? "Formerly, when you did not know God, you were enslaved to beings that by nature are not gods; but now that you have come to know God, or rather to be known by God, how can you turn back again to the weak and beggarly elements, to which you wish to be enslaved all over again?" Here, addressing those who believed from the Gentiles, he says that this too, the keeping of the observance of days, is idolatry, and that it brings greater punishment now. That is why he called the elements "beings that by nature are not gods," wishing to establish this very point and to throw them into greater anxiety. What he means is something like this: "Then you were in darkness, living in error and dragging along the ground; but now, when you have come to know God, or rather been known by him, how will you not draw upon yourselves a greater and more grievous punishment, if after so much care you fall sick of the same disease again? For it was not by your own labor that you found God; you were living in error, and he drew you to himself." He calls the elements weak and beggarly because they have no power toward the good things set before us. "You observe days and months and seasons and years." From this it is clear that those men preached to them not only circumcision but also the feasts and the new moons. "… for you." Do you see the apostle's tender heart? They were shaken, and he trembles and fears. That is why he says, very earnestly, "… for you," as if he said, "Do not make my sweat of labor empty." By saying "I fear" and adding "lest," he both threw them into anxiety and brought them to good hopes. For he did not say, "I have labored in vain," but "lest somehow." "This shipwreck has not yet happened," he says, "but I see the storm still in labor with it. That is why I fear; yet I have not despaired; for you have it in your power to set everything right and return to your former calm." Then, as if stretching out a hand to men caught in a storm, he brings himself forward, saying, "Become as I am, for I also have become as you are." This is said to those from the Jews. That is why he brings himself forward, persuading them by this too to depart from the old things. "Even if you had no one else as an example, it would be enough to look at me alone to make this change and take courage easily. Look closely, then: for I too once felt these things, and burned exceedingly for the law; yet afterward I was not afraid to leave the law or to change from that way of life. And you know this clearly, with what great excess I clung to Judaism, and with what greater vehemence I left it afterward." And he did well to put this later. For most people, even if they find countless arguments, and just ones, are drawn rather by one of their own kind, and when they see him doing the same things, they cling to them the more. "Brothers, I beg you, you have done me no wrong." See how he again addresses them by the name of honor; this was also a reminder of grace. For since he had touched them sharply, and compared matters from every side, and shown that they were acting unlawfully, and struck them from many directions, he relaxes again … For just as constant rebuking hardens, so constant soothing makes men slack. That is why it is good to use moderation everywhere. See, then, how he defends himself to them for what he has said, showing that he said what he said not simply from hostility but from care. For since he had made a deeper incision, he now pours in this consolation like oil. And showing that what was said was not from hatred or enmity, he reminds them of the love they had shown toward him, and sets down his defense with praises. [2] That is why he says: "I beg you, you have done me no wrong. You know that it was because of a weakness of the flesh that I preached the gospel to you; and you did not despise my trial in my flesh." "It is not yet a great thing not to have done wrong; though not even an ordinary man would have wished to harm someone who had done him no wrong, and to grieve him idly and in vain. But you not only did me no wrong, but showed great and ineffable goodwill; and it is not possible that one who has enjoyed such attention should say these things from ill will. So I do not say them from hostility; it remains that it is from affection and care." "I beg you, you have done me no wrong. You know that it was because of a weakness of the flesh that I preached the gospel to you." Nothing is gentler than that holy soul, nothing sweeter or more affectionate. So neither were the former words from irrational anger or passion of soul, but from great care. "And why do I say, you did me no wrong? Rather you showed great and genuine zeal for us. For you know," he says, "that it was because of a weakness of the flesh that I preached the gospel to you, and you did not despise or spit at my trial in my flesh." What is it that he means? "I endured … while preaching to you, and not even so did you despise me." For this is the meaning of "you did not despise or spit at my trial in my flesh." Do you see spiritual understanding? For under the guise of a defense he again shames them, showing how much he suffered for them. "Yet none of this offended you," he says, "nor did you spit at me because of the sufferings and the persecutions"; for it is these he calls weakness and trial. "But you received me as an angel of God." How, then, is it not absurd to receive one who is persecuted and driven out as an angel of God, but not to receive him when he exhorts you to what is right? "What, then, has become of your blessedness? For I bear you witness that, if possible, you would have plucked out your eyes and given them to me. Have I then become your enemy by telling you the truth?" He seeks to learn the cause of the change. "Who has deceived you," he says, "and persuaded you to be otherwise disposed toward us? Are you not the ones who cherished and served me and held me dearer than your eyes? What, then, has happened? Where does the enmity come from, where the suspicion? Because I told you the truth? For this you ought to have honored and served me the more; but now I have become your enemy by telling you the truth. For I know no other cause," he says, "than that I told you the truth." And see with what humility he defends himself. For he shows that it is impossible for these things to be said from ill will, not from what he had shown toward them, but from what they had shown toward him. For he did not speak thus: "And how is it possible that one who was scourged, driven out, who suffered countless things for you, should now be plotting against you?" but he draws his reasoning from what they could take pride in, saying: "How is it possible that one who was honored by you, who was received as an angel, should repay you with the opposite?" "They make much of you, but not rightly; they want to shut you out, so that you may make much of them." For there is a good zeal, when one is zealous so as to imitate virtue; and there is an evil zeal, aimed at casting out of virtue the one who achieves it; which is what these men are now attempting, wishing to cast you out of the perfect knowledge and to lead you into a mutilated and spurious one, for no other reason than that they themselves may sit in the rank of teachers, and that you, who are now higher than they, may be put in the rank of disciples. He showed this by saying, "so that you may make much of them." "But I want the opposite," he says, "that you should be better than they and become an example for those more perfect; which indeed was the case when I was with you." That is why he goes on to say: "It is good to be made much of in a good thing always, and not only when I am present with you." Here he hints that this is a blessed thing: for disciples to have the right mind not only when the teacher is present but also when he is absent; but since they had not yet reached this perfection, he does everything to bring them up to it. "My little children, for whom I am again in labor until Christ is formed in you." See him troubled, see him disturbed. "My brothers, I beg you"; "My little children, for whom I am again in labor until Christ is formed in you." Did you see a father's heart? Did you see dejection worthy of an apostle? Did you see what a wailing he uttered, much sharper than that of women in childbirth? "You have corrupted the image," he says; "you have lost the kinship; you have changed the form; you need another regeneration and refashioning." Yet even so he does not say it in this way, but otherwise; for he spares them and does not wish to strike them, nor to lay wounds upon wounds. But as wise physicians do not heal all at once those who have fallen into a long illness, but little by little, so too this blessed man. For these pangs are sharper than those of the body, inasmuch as the affection is greater, and the sin was no ordinary one. [3] For, as I always say and will not stop saying, even a small transgression has wiped out the whole likeness and spoiled the form. "I wish I could be present with you now and change my tone." See his impatience, his ardor, his inability to contain such things. Such is love: it is not content with words, but seeks presence too. "So as to change my voice," he says, that is, to change it into lament, to shed tears, and to turn everything into mourning. For through a letter it was not possible to show tears or wailing; that is why he burns with longing to be present. "For I am perplexed about you." "For I do not know," he says, "what to say, I do not know what to think. How is it that you, who ascended to the very summit of heaven, both through the dangers you endured for the faith and through the signs you displayed through faith, have now all at once been carried down to such cheapness as to hang on circumcision?" That is why at the beginning he said, "I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting"; and here, "I am perplexed about you"; as if he said, "What shall I say? What shall I speak? What shall I think? I am at a loss; therefore I must wail," which is what the prophets too do in their perplexities. This too is no small kind of healing, not only to counsel but also to lament. He said this too when speaking to the Milesians: "For three years I did not cease to admonish you with tears." And he says the same here too, saying, "to change my voice." For in the perplexities and helplessness that come upon us contrary to hope, we are overcome and are carried at last to tears. Since, then, he had rebuked and shamed and healed again, he then lamented; and lamentation belongs not only to rebuke but also to gentleness. For it neither roughens like rebuke nor slackens like soothing, but is a mixed remedy, and has great strength for exhortation. Since, then, he had lamented and softened their minds and drawn them more strongly, he enters the contest again, setting forth a greater main point, showing that the law itself does not wish to be kept. Earlier he brought in the example from Abraham; now he brings in the law itself exhorting them not to keep it but to withdraw from it, which was stronger. "So if you wish to obey the law," he says, "depart from it; for this is what it wishes." But he does not say it so, but otherwise: "Tell me," he says, "you who wish to be under the law, do you not hear the law?" He said well, "you who wish"; for the matter came not from the sequence of events but from their untimely contentiousness. By "law" here he means the book of creation, as he often does, naming the whole Old Testament so. "For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one …" Again he goes up to Abraham, not repeating himself, but since the patriarch's glory was great among the Jews, he shows that the types took their beginning from there, and that present things were sketched out beforehand in him. And having first shown that they are sons of Abraham, since the patriarch's sons were not of the same dignity, but one was from the slave woman and the other from the free woman, he shows next that they are not only sons, but sons in the way the free and well-born son was. So great is the power of faith. "But the son of the slave woman was born according to the flesh, the son of the free woman through promise." What is "according to the flesh"? Since he had said that faith joins us to Abraham, and it seemed incredible to his hearers that he should call those who were not born of him his sons, he shows that this paradox happened from the beginning. For Isaac, who was born not according to the sequence of nature, nor according to the law of marriage, nor according to the power of the flesh, was both a son and a genuine one, sprung from dead bodies and from that womb. For it was not the flesh that brought about the conception, nor the seed the birth (for the womb was dead, both through age and through barrenness), but the word of God fashioned him. Not so with the slave woman's son; he was born by the bonds of nature and the custom of marriage. Yet the one not born according to the flesh was more honored than the one born according to the flesh. "Do not be troubled, then, that you were not born according to the flesh; for this above all makes you his kin, that you were not born according to the flesh. For this 'according to the flesh' makes people not more honorable but less; the birth not according to the flesh is more wonderful and more spiritual." This is clear from those born of old. For Ishmael was born according to the flesh, but he was a slave; and not only this, but he was also cast out of his father's house. But Isaac, born according to promise, being a son and free, was lord of all. "These things are said allegorically." He called the type an allegory, using the word loosely. What he means is this: this history not only shows what appears, but also proclaims some other things; that is why it is called an allegory. What did it proclaim? Nothing else than all the present things. "For these are the two covenants," he says, "one from Mount Sinai, bearing children for slavery, which is Hagar." "These": who? The mothers of those children, Sarah and Hagar. What are "two covenants"? Two laws. But since the names in the history were those of women, he kept to the title of their gender, and shows great consistency even from the names. How from the names? "For Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia," he says. The slave woman was called Hagar, and Mount Sinai is so called in the local language there.

So all who are born of the Old Covenant must be slaves. For that mountain where the Old Covenant was given, having the same name as the slave woman, takes in Jerusalem too; for this is the meaning of "it corresponds to the present Jerusalem," that is, it borders on it and touches it. "For she is in slavery with her children." What follows from this? That not only was she a slave and bore slaves, but this too, the covenant, of which the slave woman is a type. For Jerusalem lies near the mountain that bears the same name as the slave woman, and on this mountain the covenant was given. Where, then, is the type of Sarah? "But the Jerusalem above is free." So those born of her are not slaves. Of the Jerusalem below the type was Hagar, as is clear from the mountain so called; of the one above, the church. Yet he is not content with the types, but adds Isaiah too as a witness to what he has said. For having said, "The Jerusalem above is our mother," and having called the church so, he brings forward the prophet casting the same vote as he: "Rejoice, O barren one who does not bear; break forth and cry aloud, you who are not in labor; for the children of the desolate one are more than those of her who has a husband." Who, then, is the barren one, and who the one formerly desolate? Is it not clear that it is the church from the Gentiles, which had been deprived of the knowledge of God? And who is she who has the husband? Is it not clear that it is the synagogue? Yet the barren one surpassed her in the number of her children. For the one holds a single nation, but the children of the church have filled Greece and the barbarian lands, the earth and the sea, the whole inhabited world. Do you see how Sarah by deeds and the prophet by words sketched out beforehand the things to come for us? And consider: Isaiah called her barren and showed that she became the mother of many children. This happened in type with Sarah too; for she also, though barren, became the mother of a multitude of descendants. But even this does not suffice Paul; he also looks into how the barren woman became a mother, so as to bring the type into line with the reality from this point too. That is why he goes on to say: "Now we, brothers, like Isaac, are children of promise." For the church was not only barren like Sarah, nor did she only become the mother of many like her, but she also bore in the same way as Sarah. For just as it was not nature that made Sarah a mother but the promise of God (for he who said, "At this season I will come, and Sarah shall have a son," entered her womb and formed the child), so too in our regeneration nature has no part, but the words of God spoken by the priest, which the faithful know, these, in the pool of waters as in a womb, form and regenerate the one who is baptized. If, then, we are children of the barren one, we are also free. "And what sort of freedom is this," someone might say, "when the Jews arrest and scourge those who have believed, and those who seem to be free are persecuted?" For this was happening then, as the believers were being persecuted. "Let not this trouble you either," he says; "for this too was anticipated in the type. For Isaac, though free, was persecuted by the slave Ishmael." That is why he goes on to say: "But just as at that time the one born according to the flesh persecuted the one born according to the Spirit, so it is now also. But what does the Scripture say? Cast out the slave woman and her son; for the son of the slave woman shall not inherit with the son of the free woman." What then? Is the whole consolation this, that the free are shown to be persecuted by the slaves? "No," he says, "I do not stop there; hear what follows, and then you will receive comfort enough not to lose heart under persecution." What, then, follows? "Cast out the son of the slave woman; for he shall not inherit with the son of the free woman." Do you see the wages of a temporary tyranny and of untimely arrogance? The boy falls from his father's inheritance and becomes an exile and a wanderer with his mother. But see, I pray, the wisdom of what is said. He did not say only, "Since he persecuted, he was therefore cast out," but "so that he may not inherit." For God did not exact this from him as the penalty for a temporary persecution (that would have been small and nothing in comparison), but he did not allow him to become a sharer in what had been prepared for the son, showing that even apart from the persecution this had been marked out from of old, taking its beginning not from the persecution but from the purpose of God. And he did not say, "the son of Abraham shall not inherit," but "the son of the slave woman," naming him from the meaner side of his descent. But Sarah was barren; and so is the church from the Gentiles. Do you see the type kept throughout? For just as she did not bear in all the years before, and became a mother in extreme old age, so too the church bears when the fullness of time has come. This too the prophets proclaimed beforehand, saying, "Rejoice, O barren one who does not bear; break forth and cry aloud, you who are not in labor; for the children of the desolate one are more than those of her who has a husband," calling the church so. For she had not known God; yet, when she came to know him, she surpassed the synagogue with its many children. "So, brothers, we are not children of the slave woman but of the free woman." He moves and turns all these things over, wishing to show that what had happened was not recent, but had been sketched out from of old and many ages before. How, then, is it not absurd that those who were marked out so many ages before and have obtained freedom should willingly bring themselves under the yoke of slavery? Then he sets down another reason too that persuades them to abide by the doctrines: "For freedom," he says, "Christ has set us free." "Did you set yourselves free, that you now run back to your former masters? It is he who redeemed you; another gave the price for you." Do you see by how many arguments he leads them away from the Jewish error? First, by showing that it is the height of folly for those who have become free instead of slaves to desire to be slaves instead of free; second, that they will be shown to be ungrateful and thankless toward their benefactor, … ; third, that this is not even possible, for the law no longer holds the mastery, since another has once bought us all from it. "Stand firm, then …

… by saying this he showed their tossing. "And do not submit again to a yoke of slavery." By the name of yoke he shows them the heaviness of the thing; by saying "again," he shows their great insensibility. "If you had been without experience of that burden, you would not deserve such charges; but you who learned by experience how heavy the yoke is, and then put yourselves under it again, what pardon could you justly obtain?" "Look, I, Paul, say to you that if you receive circumcision, Christ will be of no benefit to you." See how great the threat is. With reason, then, did he anathematize even angels. How will Christ be of no benefit to them? He himself did not argue this but declared it, as if the trustworthiness of his person sufficed from now on instead of any proof (that is why he said beforehand, "Look, I, Paul, say to you," which was the mark of one confident in what he says); but we will add what we can of our own. How will Christ be of no benefit to the one who is circumcised? The one who is circumcised is circumcised because he fears the law; the one who fears it distrusts the power of grace; and the one who distrusts it gains nothing from what he distrusts. Again, in another way: the one who is circumcised makes the law sovereign; and thinking it sovereign, and transgressing it in the greater part while keeping it in the lesser, he puts himself under the curse; and having thrust away the freedom that comes from faith, how can he be saved? For if one may say something paradoxical, this man believes neither in Christ nor in the law, but stands in the middle, wishing to gain from both sides; and therefore he will reap nothing from either. Then, having said, "will be of no benefit," he sets out the proof obscurely and in few words, saying: "I testify again to every man who receives circumcision that he is a debtor to keep the whole law." "So that you may not think these things are said out of enmity," he says, "I say this not to you only but to every man who receives circumcision, that he is a debtor to fulfill the whole law; for the ordinances of the law hang together. And just as one who has had himself registered as a slave instead of free no longer does what he wishes but is held by all the laws of slavery, so too with the law: when you take on some small part of the law and put yourself under the yoke, you have drawn upon yourself its whole mastery." So it is with an inheritance from outside the family too: one who has touched nothing is free of all the obligations attached to the estate of the deceased; but if he lays his hand on some small part, even if he does not take the whole, he has made himself liable for everything through the part. This happens with the law too, not only in the way I have said but in another; for the ordinances of the law hang together. For example: circumcision has sacrifice yoked with it, and the observance of days; sacrifice in turn requires the keeping of both a day and a place; and the place brings with it countless kinds of purification. For it is not lawful for the unclean to sacrifice, nor to enter the holy sanctuary, nor to do anything else of the kind. So the law draws many things after it even through one commandment. If, then, you are circumcised, but not on the eighth day; or on the eighth day, but there is no sacrifice; or there is sacrifice, but not in the appointed place; or in the appointed place, but not with the prescribed offerings; or with the prescribed offerings, but you are not clean; or you are clean, but not purified by the proper ordinances: all those things are lost. That is why he says, "he is a debtor to fulfill the whole law." "If the law is sovereign, fulfill not a part but the whole; but if it is not sovereign, not even a part." "You are severed from Christ, you who are justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace." Since he had established his point, he now declares the danger too, at the very edge of the precipice. For when one who runs to the law cannot be saved by it, and has fallen away from grace, what remains but inexorable punishment, since the one is powerless and the other will not admit him?

Having thus increased their fear, shaken their minds and shown them the shipwreck they were about to suffer, he opens to them the harbor of grace close at hand; which he does everywhere, showing that salvation from that quarter is most easy and most secure. That is why he goes on to say: "For through the Spirit, by faith, we eagerly wait for the hope of righteousness." "We need none of those ordinances," he says; "faith suffices to supply us with the Spirit, and through him with righteousness and the many great good things." "For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision … working …" Do you see how he now strips for the contest with greater boldness? "Let the one who has put on Christ busy himself no longer with these things," he says. Yet he said that circumcision is harmful; how, then, does he speak of it so? It is indifferent in the case of those who already had it before faith, not in the case of those circumcised after faith. And see where he has cast it out to, setting it beside uncircumcision. For what makes the difference is faith. Just as, if someone is enrolling athletes, whether they are hook-nosed or snub-nosed, black or white, makes no difference to the trial, but one must seek only that they be strong and skilled, so too, for the one who is to be enrolled in the New Covenant, all these bodily things do no harm, just as they do no good if present. What is "working through love"? Here he struck them a great blow, revealing that this intrusion came about because their love for Christ had not taken root; for what is sought is not only to believe, but also to remain in love. As if he said: "If you loved Christ as you should, you would not have deserted to slavery, nor … the one who set you free." He also hints here at those who were plotting against them, showing that they too, if they had love for them, would not have dared to do these things. And he wishes to correct their life too by this phrase. "You were running well; who hindered you?" This is not the language of one asking, but of one perplexed and lamenting. "How was so great a race cut short? Who had such strength? You who were above all and in the rank of teachers have not even remained in the rank of disciples. What has happened? Who had such strength?" These are the words of one who is calling them back and mourning, rather, as he said before too, "Who has bewitched you?" "This persuasion is not from him who calls you." "The one who calls you did not call you for this, to be so shaken; he did not lay this down, that you should Judaize." Then, so that no one might say, "Why do you magnify the matter and make it terrible with your words? We have kept only one commandment of the law, and you make such a commotion?", hear how he frightens them not from the present but from the future, saying: "A little leaven leavens the whole lump." "So this small error too, if it is not corrected, can bring you to complete Judaism, as leaven leavens the lump." "I have confidence in you in the Lord that you will take no other view." He did not say, "that you do not think otherwise," but "that you will not think otherwise," that is, "you will be set right." How do you know this? He did not say, "I know," but "I am confident": "I trust God," he says, "and I call on his alliance for your correction, and take courage." And he did not simply say, "I have confidence in you," but "in the Lord." For everywhere he weaves his accusations together with praises; as if he said: "I know my disciples, I know how easily you are set right; I am confident, partly because of the Lord, who does not let even the least thing perish, partly because of you, who are able quickly to recover yourselves." At the same time he urges them to contribute their own zeal too, since it is not possible to obtain what comes from God unless what is ours is contributed as well. "But the one who is troubling you will bear his judgment, whoever he is." He anoints them for the contest from both sides: from his encouragement, and from what he invoked against those men, or rather foretold. But see how he nowhere gives the name of those who were plotting against them, so that they might not become more shameless. What he means is this: "It is not because you will think nothing different that those responsible for the deceit are free from punishment; they will pay the penalty. For it is not fitting that the zeal of some should become a consolation for the wickedness of others." This is done so that they may not attack others again. And he did not simply say, "those who trouble you," but heightened the expression, saying, "whoever he is." "But I, brothers, if I still preach circumcision, why am I still persecuted?" For since they slandered him as Judaizing in many places and playing a part in his preaching, see how plainly he has stripped for the contest, calling them as witnesses. "For you yourselves know," he says, "that the pretext for my persecutions is this, that I command men to keep away from the law; but if I preach circumcision, why am I still persecuted? For those from the Jews have nothing else to accuse me of but this alone. For if I had allowed them to believe along with their ancestral customs, neither those who believed nor those who did not believe would have plotted against me, since I would have overturned nothing of their own." [3] What then? Did he not preach circumcision? Did he not circumcise Timothy? He did circumcise him. How, then, does he say, "I do not preach it"? Here too learn his exactness. He did not say, "I do not perform circumcision," but "I do not preach it," that is, I do not command men to believe in this way. "I circumcised, but I did not preach circumcision." "In that case the stumbling block of the cross has been removed." That is, the obstacle, the hindrance, has been taken away, if what you say is true. For the cross was not so much a stumbling block to the Jews as not having to obey their ancestral laws. For when they brought Stephen forward, they did not say, "This man worships the crucified one," but "He speaks against this holy place and the law." And they accused Jesus too of this, that he was loosening the law. That is why Paul says: "If circumcision has been permitted, your quarrel with us is at an end; no stronghold remains against the cross and the preaching. But if every day they thirst for our blood, how can they accuse us of this? Me, at any rate, they attacked for this, that I had brought an uncircumcised man into the temple. Am I, then, so foolish," he says, "that, if circumcision has been permitted, I should take on such harm idly and in vain, and put such a stumbling block in the way of the cross? For you see that they war against us for nothing so much as for circumcision. Was I so foolish as to be afflicted for nothing, and to make others stumble?" He called it the stumbling block of the cross because the word of the cross enjoined this; and this above all was what scandalized the Jews and kept them from accepting the cross, that they were commanded to depart from their ancestral customs. "I wish those who unsettle you would even cut themselves off!" See how bitter he is here against the deceivers. At the beginning he turned the accusation against the deceived, calling them foolish once and again; but since he has trained and corrected them well, he now turns to the deceivers. We must observe his wisdom here too: how he admonishes and chastens the one group as his own children, able to receive correction, but cuts off the deceivers as strangers and incurably sick, saying on the one hand, "He will bear his judgment, whoever he is," and on the other cursing them and saying, "I wish those who unsettle you would even cut themselves off." And he did well to say "unsettle." For they forced them to leave their own homeland, freedom and kinship above and to pursue a foreign and alien one, casting them out of the Jerusalem above, the free one, and compelling them to wander like captives and exiles. That is why he curses them. What he means is this: "I care nothing about them. 'As for a heretical man, after a first and second admonition, have nothing more to do with him.' If they wish, let them not only be circumcised, but mutilated as well." Where, then, are those who dare to mutilate themselves, drawing the curse upon themselves, slandering God's handiwork and siding with the Manichaeans? For these say that the body is a traitor and comes from evil matter; and those men by their deeds give a handle to these harsh doctrines, for they cut off the member as an enemy and a traitor. In that case they ought much rather to blind their eyes, for it is through the eyes that desire comes down into the soul. But neither the eye nor any other member is the cause, but only the evil will. If you will not accept this, why do you not cut off the tongue too because of blasphemy, and the hands because of robbery, and the feet because of their running to wickedness, and, so to speak, the whole body? For the hearing too, charmed by the flute, has often softened the soul, and nostrils that have received a sweet smell have bewitched the mind and driven it into a frenzy of pleasure. Shall we, then, cut everything off, ears and hands and noses? But this belongs to the utmost lawlessness and to a satanic madness. For one ought only to correct the disorderly impulse of the soul … which the evil demon has persuaded, who rejoices continually in slaughter. "How, then," someone says, "is desire kindled when the body is fattened?" See again the fault of the soul; for to fatten the flesh is the doing not of the flesh but of the soul. If the soul wished to waste the body away, it has all the power to do so. But you do something like this: as if someone, seeing a man kindling a fire, putting wood on it and setting a house ablaze, were to let go the one who lit the pyre and accuse the pyre, because it caught hold of much wood and rose to a height. But the fault is not the fire's but the one's who lit it. For fire was given for cooking food, for light, and for other such services, not to burn houses; and so too desire was given for the begetting of children and the maintenance of life, not for adultery and sexual immorality and licentiousness: that you may become a father, not an adulterer; that you may have lawful intercourse with a wife, not corrupt another unlawfully; that you may leave offspring, not ruin another's. For adultery belongs not to natural desire but to an outrage against nature; for desire seeks only union, not union of this kind.

I have not said this now idly, but against those who say that God's handiwork is evil, who leave the soul's slackness alone but rage against the body and slander our flesh; of whom the apostle Paul too speaks later on, accusing not the flesh but devilish thoughts. "For you, brothers, were called to freedom; only do not use your freedom as an opportunity for the flesh." Here at last he seems to enter on moral discourse; but something new happens to him, which happened to him in none of his other letters. For he divides all of them into two parts, discussing doctrines in the first part and life in the last; but here … into moral discourse; for this too again clings to that in the battle against the Manichaeans. What is "only do not use your freedom as an opportunity for the flesh"? "Christ has freed us from the yoke of slavery," he says, "and left us masters of doing what we wish, not so that we might use our power for wickedness, but so that we might have occasion for a greater reward, rising to a higher philosophy." For since he calls the law again and again a yoke of slavery, and grace a release from the curse, so that no one might suspect that he bids them leave the law so that they may live lawlessly, he corrects the suspicion, saying: "Not that our way of life may become lawless, but that our philosophy may rise above the law. For the bonds of the law have been loosed. And I say this not so that we may become lower, but so that we may become higher." For the fornicator and the virgin have both gone beyond the measures of the law, but not in the same direction: the one was carried down to what is worse, the other raised up to what is better; the one transgressed the law, the other surpassed it. This, then, is what Paul says: "He has loosed the yoke from you, not so that you may leap about and kick, but so that you may walk in good order without a yoke." Then he shows also the way by which this may easily be achieved. What, then, is the way? "Through love be servants of one another," he says. Here again he hints that contentiousness, faction, love of power and arrogance were the causes of this error for them; for the mother of heresies is the desire for power. For by saying, "Be servants of one another," he showed that the evil took its beginning from arrogance and pride; therefore he brings in a fitting remedy. For since they wished to rule over one another … for so you will be brought together again. He does not state the sin openly, but he sets out the correction openly, so that through it they may learn the other too; as if someone, without telling a licentious man that he is licentious, were to exhort him continually to be chaste. For one who loves his neighbor as he should does not refuse to serve him more humbly than any slave. Just as fire, meeting wax, easily softens it, so the warmth of love dissolves all pride and arrogance more powerfully than fire. That is why he did not simply say, "Love one another," but "Be servants," showing an intense friendship. For since he had taken away the yoke of the law, so that they might not kick it off, he puts another yoke on them, that of love, stronger than the other but much lighter and sweeter. Then, showing what it achieves, he says: "For the whole law is fulfilled in one word, in this: You shall love your neighbor as yourself." For since they kept turning the law over and over, he says: "If you wish to fulfill it, do not be circumcised; for it is fulfilled not in circumcision but in love." See how he does not forget his own pain, but continually stirs the sore place, and though he has gone out to moral discourse … "watch out that you are not consumed by one another." He does not declare it, so as not to weigh on them; he knows it is happening, but says it with a doubt. For he did not say, "Since you bite one another," and likewise with what follows; nor did he there declare, as one condemning them, that they had been consumed by one another. And he used his words with emphasis. He did not say only "bite," which is the mark of one who is angry, but "and devour," which is the mark of one who persists in wickedness. For one who bites has satisfied the passion of anger, but one who devours has given proof of the utmost savagery. He means bites and eatings not of the body, but much more grievous ones. For one who has tasted human flesh has not done so much harm as one who fixes his bites in the soul; for as much as the soul is more precious than the body, so much more grievous is the harm done to it. "Watch out that you are not consumed by one another." For since, in their contentiousness and plotting, they come to this, as if consuming others, he therefore says: "Watch out lest the thing turn round upon you." For division and strife are destructive and consuming both of those who receive them and of those who bring them in, and eat through everything more than a moth. "But I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desire of the flesh." [5] See, he shows another way too that makes virtue easy and achieves what has been said, a way that bears love and is bound fast by love. For nothing, nothing so makes people loving as being spiritual, and nothing so persuades the Spirit to remain with us as the strength of love. That is why he says, "Walk by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desire of the flesh." For since he had named what causes the disease, he names also the remedy that gives health. What is this, and what is the power behind the good things he has named, but living by the Spirit? That is why he says: "Walk by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desire of the flesh. For the flesh desires against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; for these are opposed to each other, so that you do not do the things you wish." Here some attack, saying that the apostle has divided man in two, presenting him as composed of opposite substances and showing that the body is at war with the soul. But it is not so, it is not so; for here he does not call the body flesh. If he meant this, how would what follows make sense? "For it desires," he says, "against the Spirit." Yet desiring belongs not to the things that are moved but to the movers, not to what is acted upon but to what acts; how, then, does the flesh desire? Desire belongs not to the flesh but to the soul. For elsewhere it says, "My soul is full of desire"; and, "Whatever your soul desires, I will do for you"; and, "Do not go after the desire of your soul"; and again, "So my soul longs." How, then, does Paul say, "The flesh desires against the Spirit"? He is accustomed to call flesh not the nature of the body but the evil will, as when he says, "You are not in the flesh but in the Spirit," and again, "Those who are in the flesh cannot please God." What then? Must we do away with the flesh? Did not the very man who said this carry flesh about? These are not the teachings of the flesh but of the devil; "for he was a murderer from the beginning." What, then, does he mean? Here he calls flesh the earthly mind, slack and careless. This is not an accusation against the body but a charge against a slack soul. For the flesh is an instrument, and no one turns away from or hates an instrument, but the one who handles the instrument badly. We hate and punish not the iron but the murderer. "But this very thing," someone says, "is an accusation against the body, that the sins of the soul are called by the name of the flesh." I for my part admit that the flesh is lesser than the soul, but it too is good. For what is lesser than the good is itself good; but evil is not lesser than the good but contrary to it. If you can show that wickedness is produced by the body, accuse the flesh; but if you try to slander it on the ground of a name, it is time for you to accuse the soul too. For one who is deprived of the truth is called a "psychic" man, a man of the soul, and the hordes of demons are called "spirits of wickedness." Again, Scripture is accustomed to call both the mysteries and the whole church by the name of flesh, saying that it is the body of Christ. And if you wish to call the things done through it achievements, put out the senses in thought, and you will see the soul bereft of all knowledge and knowing nothing of what it knows. For if the power of God has been clearly seen since the creation of the world, being understood through the things he has made, how could we see without eyes? And if faith comes from hearing, how shall we hear without ears? Preaching and going about are done through the tongue and the feet ("For how will they preach unless they are sent?"), and writing through the hands. Do you see that the service of the flesh is the cause of countless good things for us? When he says, "The flesh desires against the Spirit," he is speaking of two kinds of thoughts; for it is these that are opposed to each other, virtue and vice, not the soul and the body. For if these were opposed, they would destroy each other, as fire destroys water and darkness light. But if the soul cares for the body and makes great provision for it, and suffers countless things so as not to leave it, and resists being torn away from it, while the body serves the soul and brings much knowledge into it and has been made for its activity, how could these be contrary and at war with each other? For I see by their works that they are not only not contrary but in great harmony, clinging to each other. So he does not say of these that they are opposed to each other; he brings in a war of evil thoughts and good ones. For willing and not willing belong to the soul. That is why he says: "These are opposed, so that you may not let the soul go after its evil desires." He uttered this like a tutor and teacher putting them in fear. "But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law."

What sort of sequence is this? A very great and clear one. For one who has the Spirit as he ought quenches every evil desire by it; and one who has been freed from these has no need of the help of the law, having risen far above its command. For how does one who is not angry need to hear, "You shall not murder"? How does one who does not look with licentious eyes need someone to teach him not to commit adultery? Who discusses the fruit of wickedness with one who has torn up its very root? For anger is the root of murder, and curious gazing the root of adultery. That is why he says, "If you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law." Here he seems to me to have spoken great and wonderful praise of the law as well: if the law stood in the place of the Spirit, as far as its power went, before the coming of the Spirit, we ought not on that account to stay with the tutor. Then we were rightly under the law, so that by fear we might chastise our desires, since the Spirit had not yet appeared; but now that grace has been given, which not only commands us to abstain from them but also withers them and leads us up to a higher way of life, what need is there of the law? What need of a tutor has one who by himself achieves greater things? A philosopher does not need a schoolmaster. … and now sit by the law? "Now the works of the flesh are evident: … sorcery, idolatry, enmities, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, rivalries, dissensions, factions, envy, murders, drunkenness, carousing, and things like these. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God." Now then, you who accuse your flesh and think these things are said of an enemy and foe, tell me (grant, on your view, that adultery and sexual immorality belong to the flesh): enmities, strife, jealousies, rivalries, factions, sorceries (for these belong only to a corrupt will, as do the others too), how could they belong to the flesh? Do you see that here he means not the flesh but the earthly mind that drags along the ground? That is why he puts them in fear, saying, "Those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God." If these things came from an evil nature and not from a wicked will, he would have said not "do" but "suffer." And why do they fall from the kingdom? For crowns and punishments concern not what belongs to nature but what belongs to choice. That is why Paul threatened them with these things. "But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace." He did not say "the work of the Spirit," but "the fruit." "Then the soul is superfluous," someone says. "For if the discussion is about flesh and Spirit, where is the soul? Is he speaking about soulless beings? When the evil things belong to the flesh and the useful ones to the Spirit, the soul is superfluous." Not at all. For self-control over the passions is the soul's work and concerns it; and since the soul stands in the middle between vice and virtue, if it uses the body as it should, it has made it spiritual; but if it departs from the Spirit and gives itself up to evil desires, it has made itself more earthly. Do you see from every side that his discussion now is not about the substance of the flesh, but about a wicked will, and one that is not so by nature? Why does he call it the fruit of the Spirit? Because evil works come from us alone, which is why he calls them works; but good ones need not only our diligence but also the love of God for mankind. Then, as he is about to enumerate them, he first sets down the root of the good things, saying: "Love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faith, gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law." For what command could one give to one who has everything within himself, and love as a perfect teacher of philosophy? Just as horses that are obedient to the rein and do everything of themselves would not need the whip, so a soul that achieves virtue from the Spirit does not need the law to admonish it. Here too he has cast out the law in a very wonderful way, not as bad, but as lesser than the philosophy given by the Spirit. "And those who belong to Christ have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires." So that they might not say, "And who is such a person?", he points to those who achieve such things by their works, again calling the evil deeds flesh. For they did not do away with the flesh; otherwise how were they to live? For what has been crucified is dead and inactive; but he is showing an exact philosophy. For desires, even if they trouble us, rage in vain. Since, then, the power of the Spirit is so great, let us live by it, let us be content with it; which he himself adds, saying: "If we live by the Spirit, let us also keep in step with the Spirit," living according to its laws. For this is the meaning of "let us keep in step," that is, let us be content with the power of the Spirit and not look for any addition from the law. Then, showing that those who were bringing in circumcision did so out of ambition, he says: "Let us not become conceited" (which is the cause of all evils), "provoking one another, envying one another." For envy comes from vainglory, and from envy these countless evils.

[Gal 6:1] "Brothers, if a man is overtaken in any trespass …" For since they were avenging their own passions under the guise of rebuke, and seemed to do this on account of sins while really wishing to establish their own love of rule, he says: "Brothers, if a man is overtaken." He did not say, "if he commits," but "if he is overtaken," that is, … restore such a one. He did not say, "Punish," nor "Condemn," but "Restore." And he did not stop even here, but, showing that they must be very gentle toward those who are tripped up, he added: "in a spirit of gentleness." He did not say "in gentleness," but "in a spirit of gentleness," showing that this pleases the Spirit too, and that to be able to correct sinners with forbearance is a spiritual gift. Then, so that the one correcting another may not be puffed up, he put him too under the same fear, saying: "Looking to yourself, lest you too be tempted." For just as … so that, if ever they themselves should fall into poverty, they may obtain the same; so we too must act. That is why he gives a compelling reason, saying: "Looking to yourself, lest you too be tempted." And he pleads for the one who has sinned: first by saying, "if he is overtaken"; second by the word that implies great weakness; then by "lest you too be tempted," laying the blame on the spite of a demon rather than on the slackness of the soul. … For since it is not possible for a human being to be without fault, he urges them not to be exacting examiners of the offenses of others, but even to bear the faults of their neighbors, so that their own too may be borne by others. For just as in a building the stones do not all have the same position, but one is fit for a corner but not for the foundations, another for the foundations but not for a corner, so it is in the body of the church. One may see this very thing in our own flesh too; and yet one part puts up with the other, and we do not seek everything from all. For what is contributed in common makes up both a body and a building. "And so fulfill the law of Christ." He did not say "fulfill," but "fill up together," that is, all of you fulfill it in common, by bearing one another. For example: so-and-so is quick to anger, you are sluggish; bear, then, his vehement impulse, so that he too may bear your dullness. And so neither will he sin, being borne by you, nor will you go wrong in the things in which you are burdensome, since your brother puts up with you. So, stretching out a hand to one another where you are about to fall, fulfill the law in common through one another, each filling up what is lacking in his neighbor by his own patience. But if you do not act so, and each is going to prosecute his neighbor's faults, nothing that ought to be done will ever be done among you. For just as in the body, if someone required the same function from all the parts, the body would never stand, so too among brothers there is much war if we seek everything from all. "For if anyone thinks he is something when he is nothing, he deceives himself." Here again he is on the watch against arrogance. For one who thinks he is something is nothing, giving this opinion of himself as the first proof of his worthlessness. "But let each one test his own work." Here he shows that we must be examiners of our life, and not superficially, but must test what we have done with exactness. For example: did you do something good? Consider whether it was done from vainglory, from compulsion, from hostility, in hypocrisy, or for some other human reason. For just as gold seems brilliant before the furnace, but when it is given over to the fire, then it is shown for what it is, everything false being separated from what is genuine, so too our works, when … we shall see that we are liable to many charges. "And then he will have his boast in himself alone, and not in another." He says this not as laying down a law but as condescending; as if he said: "… to boast; but if you must, not against your neighbor, like the Pharisee." For one who has been trained in this will soon give up the other too. That is why he allowed this, so as to remove the whole little by little. For one who has grown used to boasting in himself alone, and not against others, will quickly correct this fault too. One who has not thought himself better than others (for this is the meaning of "not in another"), but takes pride in examining himself by himself, will later stop doing even this. And so that you may learn that this is what he wishes to bring about, see how he restrains him by fear. Having said above, "Let him test his own work," he here adds, "For each will carry his own load." He seems to be setting down a reasoning that prevents boasting against another; but he is correcting the boaster so that he does not think highly even of himself, bringing him to the thought of his own sins, and weighing down his conscience with the words "load" and "carrying." "Let the one who is taught the word share all good things with the one who teaches."

Here at last his discourse turns to teachers, that they should enjoy much attention from their disciples. And why did Christ legislate in this way? For in the New Testament too this law is laid down, that those who proclaim the gospel should live by the gospel; and likewise in the Old the Levites had many revenues from those under them. Why, then, did he arrange this? To teach humility. For since the dignity of teaching often puffs up those who hold it, curbing their pride he put them under the necessity of needing their disciples; and he gave the disciples in turn an occasion of becoming more ready for goodwill, training them through goodwill toward their teachers to be gentle toward others too; which produced no small love on both sides. For if it were not as I have said, why did he who fed the ungrateful Jews with manna put the apostles in the necessity of beggars? Is it not clear that by this he was producing great goods, humility and love, and that the disciples should not be ashamed at giving? … seems to be a matter of shame; but it no longer seemed so, since the teachers practiced it with all boldness. So the disciples gained not a little from this too, being trained by these things to despise all glory. That is why he says: "Let the one who is taught the word share all good things with the one who teaches." That is, let him show every generosity toward him; for he hinted at this by saying "all good things." "Let nothing be the disciple's own," he says, "but let all things be common. For he receives more than he gives, and so much more as heavenly things are better than earthly ones"; which he showed elsewhere too, saying, "If we have sown spiritual things among you, is it a great thing if we reap your material things?" That is why he calls the thing "sharing," showing that an exchange takes place. And from this the bonds of love too became much warmer and firmer. If, then, the teacher seeks only what is sufficient, he remains in his proper dignity even while receiving. For this too is to his praise, to devote himself to the word so much as to need others, to be in great poverty and to despise all worldly things. But if he oversteps the measure, he has ruined his dignity, not by receiving but by lack of measure. Then, so that the wickedness of a teacher may not make the disciple more reluctant in these matters, so that he often passes him by when he is poor because of his character, he says further on, "And let us not grow weary in doing good"; but here he shows the mean between such … and ambition in worldly things, saying: "Do not be deceived: God is not mocked; for whatever a man sows, that he will also reap. For the one who sows to his own flesh will from the flesh reap corruption; but the one who sows to the Spirit will from the Spirit reap eternal life." For just as with seeds it is not possible for the sowing to be one thing and the harvest another, so too with works: one who casts into the flesh luxury, drunkenness and unlawful desire will reap what comes from these. What are these? Punishment, retribution, shame, mockery, corruption. For the end of costly tables and delicacies is nothing else but corruption; for they are themselves corrupted, and they corrupt the body along with them. But the things of the Spirit are not so; they are in every way the opposite of these. Consider: you have sown almsgiving: the treasures of heaven and eternal glory await you. You have sown chastity: honor and prize await you, and the praises of angels and the crowns from the judge of the contest. "And let us not grow weary in doing good; for in due season we shall reap, if we do not give up. So then, as we have opportunity, let us do good to all, and especially to those of the household of faith." So that no one might think that one ought to care for teachers and feed them but neglect the others, he carries his discourse out to all, and opens the door of such generosity to everyone; and he goes so far as to bid them show mercy to Jews and Greeks, in due order, but still to show mercy. What is the order? To show greater care for the faithful. And what he does in his other letters, he does here too, speaking not only of showing mercy, but of doing it generously and continually; for the word "sowing" and the bidding not to grow weary hint at this. Then, since he had required a great thing, he sets the reward at the door, mentioning a new and wonderful harvest. For among farmers not only the sower but also the reaper endures much toil, …; but then there is nothing of this, he says; which he shows by saying, "In due season we shall reap, if we do not give up." By this he urges and draws them on; and from the other side he presses and pushes them, saying: "So then, as we have opportunity, let us do good." For just as we are not always masters of sowing, so neither of showing mercy. When we are carried off from here, even if we wish it countless times, we shall accomplish nothing more. The virgins bear witness to my words: though they had shown countless zeal, because they did not depart with abundant almsgiving they were shut out of the bridal chamber; and so does the rich man who overlooked Lazarus. For he too, since he was bereft of this ally, though he lamented and entreated much, received mercy neither from the patriarch nor from anyone else, but remained continually parched, without any pardon. That is why he says, "As we have opportunity, let us do good," and "to all"; and by this above all he frees them from Jewish narrowness. For that way of life directed all its love for mankind toward its own kin; but the philosophy of grace calls land and sea alike to the table of almsgiving, though it shows greater zeal toward its own. "See with what large letters I am writing to you with my own hand. Those who want to make a good showing in the flesh, these would compel you to be circumcised." Consider how much pain grips that blessed soul. For just as those who have fallen into some grief, or lost one of their own, or suffered something unexpected, have rest neither night nor day while the grief besieges their soul, so too the blessed Paul, having said a few words about conduct, returns again to the former matters that most troubled his soul, saying: "See with what large letters I am writing to you with my own hand." Here he hints at nothing else but that he wrote the whole letter himself, which was a sign of great sincerity. For in the other letters he dictated and someone else wrote; this is clear from the letter to the Romans, for at the end it says, "I, Tertius, who wrote this letter, greet you." But here he wrote it all himself. And he did this here of necessity, not only out of love but also because of the evil suspicion … in matters in which he had no part, and he was said to preach circumcision and to pretend that he did not preach it; he was therefore compelled to write the letter in his own hand, laying up beforehand a written testimony. And "how large" seems to me to point not to the size but to the ungainliness of the letters, all but saying: "Though I do not know how to write very well, I was nevertheless compelled to write it myself, so as to stop the mouths of the slanderers." "Those who want to make a good showing in the flesh, these would compel you to be circumcised, only so that they may not be persecuted for the cross of Christ. For not even those who are circumcised keep the law themselves, but they want you to be circumcised so that they may boast in your flesh." Here he shows that they underwent this not willingly but under compulsion, giving them an occasion to withdraw, almost pleading for them, and urging them to leap away quickly. What is "make a good showing in the flesh"? To be in good repute among men. For since they were reproached by the Jews as having departed from their ancestral customs, "So that they may not be charged with this," he says, "they want to ruin you, making their defense to those men through your flesh." He said this to show that they were not doing this for God's sake; as if he said: "What is being done has nothing to do with piety; all this is done out of human ambition, to please unbelievers, so that believers are cut, and they choose to offend God in order to please men." For this is the meaning of "to make a good showing in the flesh." Then, showing that from another side too they are deprived of pardon, he convicts them again of ordering this not only to please others but also from their own vainglory. That is why he added, "so that they may boast in your flesh," as having disciples and being teachers. And what is the proof of this? "For not even they themselves keep the law," he says. Even if they kept it, they would deserve to be accused; but as it is, their very aim is corrupt. "But far be it from me … in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ." Yet the thing seems shameful; but in the world and among unbelievers; in heaven and among the faithful it is glory, and the greatest glory. Poverty too is shameful, but to us it is a boast; and to be despised is ridiculous to many, but we take pride in it. So too the cross is our boast. And he did not say, "But I do not boast," or "I do not wish to boast," but "Far be it from me," as one praying against something absurd, and he called on God's alliance to achieve this. And what is the boast of the cross? That Christ took the form of a slave for my sake and suffered what he suffered for my sake, the slave, the enemy, the ungrateful one; yet he so loved me as to give himself up. What could be equal to this? For if servants are proud when they are merely praised by their masters, and these of the same nature as themselves, how should we not boast when the Master, the true God, is not ashamed of the cross borne for us? Let us not, then, be ashamed of his ineffable care either. He was not ashamed to be crucified for you, and are you ashamed to confess his boundless care? It is as if a prisoner who had not been ashamed of the king should become ashamed of him because he came to the prison and loosed his bonds himself. But this is the utmost madness; for on this very account we ought to take the greatest pride. "Through which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world." He calls the world here not heaven or earth, but the affairs of this life, the praise of men, retinue, glory, wealth, all such things that seem splendid. "These have become dead to me." Such must the Christian be; this is the word he must always carry about. For he was not content with the first manner of dying, but brought in another too, saying, "and I to the world," hinting at a twofold death, and saying: "Those things are dead to me, and I to them; neither can they capture and subdue me, for they are dead once for all; nor can I desire them, for I too am dead to them." Nothing is more blessed than this death; for it is the foundation of the blessed life. "For neither circumcision counts for anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creation. And as for all who walk by this rule, peace be upon them, and mercy, and upon the Israel of God." Did you see the power of the cross, to what a height it has raised him? For it not only put to death in him all the affairs of the world, but set him far above the old way of life. What is equal to this height? The man who was ready to die for this circumcision and slaughtered others for it, the cross persuaded to leave it, as being on a level with uncircumcision, and to seek strange and wonderful things that are above the heavens. For he calls this way of life of ours a new creation, both because of what has happened and because of what will be. Because of what has happened: our soul, grown old in the old age of sin, was all at once renewed through baptism, as if created anew; that is why a new and heavenly way of life is required of us. Because of what will be: heaven and earth and the whole creation will be changed to incorruption together with our bodies. "Do not speak to me, then," he says, "of circumcision, which no longer has any power; for how will it appear, when all things have been so changed? But seek the new things of grace. For those who pursue these will enjoy peace and kindness, and would properly be called by the name of Israel; while those who think the opposite, even if they were born of him and carry his name, have fallen from all this, from both the kinship and the very name. For those who can properly be Israelites are those who keep this rule, who abstain from the old things and pursue the things of grace." "From now on let no one cause me trouble." Here he says this not as one who is weary or has lost heart. For how would one who chose to do and to suffer everything for his disciples have been worn out and given up now, he who says, "Be urgent in season and out of season," who says, "God may perhaps grant them repentance leading to knowledge of the truth, and they may come to their senses out of the snare of the devil"? Why, then, does he say this? To check their slack minds, to throw them into greater fear, to make fast the laws he had laid down and not allow them to be continually disturbed. "For I bear on my body the marks of the Lord Jesus Christ." He did not say "I have," but "I bear," like one who takes pride in trophies or royal insignia; even though this too seems to be a matter of reproach. But he takes pride in his wounds; and like the standard-bearers among soldiers, so he exults in carrying wounds about. Why does he say this? "Through these," he says, "I make my defense more brilliantly than by any argument or speech. For these send forth a voice louder than a trumpet against those who contradict me and say that I play a part in my doctrine and say things to please men. For if one saw a soldier come out of the battle line covered in blood and with countless wounds, he would not bear to judge him guilty of cowardice or treachery, since he carries the proof of his valor on his body. So you must cast your vote in my case too," he says. "And if anyone wishes to hear my defense and to learn my mind, let him look at my wounds, which offer more proof than these words and letters." At the beginning of the letter he clearly showed his unfeigned mind from his sudden change; at the end, from the dangers that came of it. For so that no one might say that he changed with a right intention but did not remain in the same purpose, he brings forward as witnesses that he did remain: the labors, the dangers, the blows. Then, having defended himself clearly on every point, and having shown that he said nothing of what he said in anger or hostility but holds his affection for them unshaken, he establishes this very thing again, closing his discourse with a prayer full of countless good things, saying: "The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit, brothers. Amen." With this last word he set a seal on all that went before. For he did not simply say "with you," as with the others, but "with your spirit," leading them away from carnal things, everywhere showing the kindness of God, and reminding them of the grace they had enjoyed, which was able to lead them away from all the Jewish error. For to receive the Spirit belonged not to the poverty of the law but to the righteousness that comes by faith; and to keep it once received came, again, not from circumcision but from grace. That is why he closed his exhortation with a prayer, mentioning grace and the Spirit, at the same time calling them brothers and asking God that they might continually enjoy these things, securing them in a twofold way. For the same words were both a prayer and a complete teaching of what had been said, and became for them a double wall. For the teaching, by reminding them of the good things they had enjoyed, held them more firmly in the doctrines of the church; …