Galatians 2:16–20

Some say that if Paul is right in asserting that no one is justified by the works of the law but from faith in Christ, the patriarchs and prophets and saints who lived before Christ were imperfect. We should tell such people that those who are said not to have obtained righteousness are those who believe that they can be justified by works alone. The saints who lived long ago, however, were justified from faith in Christ, seeing that Abraham saw in advance Christ's day.

In this place we must consider how many are the precepts of the law which no one can fulfill. And it must also be said that some works of the law are done even by those who do not know it. But those who perform it are not justified, because this happens without faith in Christ.

(Verse 16). However, knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law, but through faith in Jesus Christ, we also have believed in Christ Jesus, so that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the Law. Some say: if what Paul affirms is true, that no one is justified by the works of the Law, but by faith in Jesus Christ, then the patriarchs, prophets, and saints who lived before the coming of Christ were imperfect. Those whom we ought to admonish are those who have not attained to justice, who believe that they can be justified by works alone. But the saints, who have been justified by the faith of Christ since ancient times. For Abraham saw the day of Christ and rejoiced. And Moses esteemed the greater riches as a treasure of the Egyptians, as an insult to Christ. For he looked to the reward. And Isaiah saw the glory of Christ, as John the Evangelist recounts, and Judas speaks generally of all: I want to remind you, knowing everything once: that Jesus, saving the people from the land of Egypt, destroyed them secondly, those who did not believe. Where the works of the Law are not so much condemned, as those who trust that they can be justified by works alone, the Savior also spoke to his disciples, Unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven (Matt. 5:20). It is necessary to gather (or consider) at this place how many precepts there are in the Law, which no one is able to fulfill. And on the other hand, it must be said that some of the Law is also done by those who are ignorant of it. But this is why his workers are not justified, because they are done without the faith of Christ. For example, not sleeping with a woman as a man sleeps, not committing adultery, not stealing, but rather honoring father and mother, and doing the other things that are commanded. But if they bring us examples of holy men: that they, being versed in the Law, have committed the things that were of the Law, we will say: Because the just Law is not laid down for the law-abiding and the obedient, but for the unjust and the disobedient, the impious and the sinners, the polluted and the unclean (1 Timothy 1). But as for one who is taught by God, it is not necessary for him to be taught about charity, as Paul says: But as for charity, I have no need to write to you: for you yourselves are taught by God to love one another (IV Thess. IV, 9).

"Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law, save through faith, in Jesus Christ, even we believed on Christ Jesus."

Observe here too how cautiously he expresses himself; he does not say that they had abandoned the Law as evil, but as weak. If the law cannot confer righteousness, it follows that circumcision is superfluous; and so far he now proves; but he proceeds to show that it is not only superfluous but dangerous. It deserves especial notice, how at the outset he says that a man is not justified by the works of the Law; but as he proceeds he speaks more strongly.

"knowing that a person is not justified." Having fulfilled what accords with Peter's opposition, he now turns to the subject at hand, slightly criticizing circumcision, and asserting that the law cannot be held as able to save. And these things, he says, are according to Peter. But we, being Jews by nature, that is, not converts (for this is what is meant by "not sinners of the Gentiles"), since we have recognized that it is not possible to be saved through works of the law (for there is, he says, great exactitude demanded there), have put our trust in Christ, expecting to be saved through faith in him. These things are fittingly spoken both to Peter and to the Galatians.

"by works of the law." Because of the resentment felt toward him.

"For by works of the law no flesh shall be justified." The things necessary to the law, and those taught by nature, are for example, "You shall not commit adultery, You shall not murder, You shall not steal," and the other similar precepts. (Ex. 20:13-15) But matters concerning the Sabbath, and circumcision, and leprosy, and gonorrhea, and sacrifices, and sprinklings, were particular to the law. For nature did not instruct concerning these things. These, then, he calls works of the law. Of these, transgression is sin, and observance is not the accomplishment of perfect righteousness. For these are riddles of other peoples, yet even for the Jews they fitted the occasion. Concerning these the divine Apostle said, "For by works of the law no flesh shall be justified."

But what do the Marcionites wish to have believed (on the point)? For the rest, the apostle must (be permitted to) go on with his own statement, wherein he says that "a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by faith: " faith, however, in the same God to whom belongs the law also.

For he remembered that the time was come of which the Psalm spake, "Let us break their bands asunder, and cast off their yoke from us; " since the time when "the nations became tumultuous, and the people imagined vain counsels; "when "the kings of the earth stood up, and the rulers were gathered together against the Lord, and against His Christ," in order that thenceforward man might be justified by the liberty of faith, not by servitude to the law, "because the just shall live by his faith.

The necessary commandments of the law were taught even by nature. That is, "You shall not commit adultery, you shall not murder, you shall not steal, you shall not bear false witness against thy neighbor, honor your father and mother, and the rest of this kind." But the commandments about the sabbath and circumcision and lepers and menstruation and sacrifice were peculiar to the [Jewish] law, since nature taught nothing about these matters. These are what he now calls "works of the law." The transgression of these is sin, yet the mere keeping of them is not the way of maintaining perfect righteousness. For these were symbols of other things. Nonetheless they were appropriate to the Jews in their due time.

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

Then when he says, "But knowing that man is not justified by the works..." he sets forth the apostles' manner of life, which consists not in the works of the Law but in the faith of Christ. About this he does two things:

First, he gives the reason for the apostles' manner of life;

Secondly, he sets forth their manner of life (v. 16): "we also believe in Christ Jesus."

Therefore the apostolic life rested on the faith of Christ and not on the works of the Law. The reason for this is that although we were Jews by nature and were nourished in the works of the Law, yet "knowing" for certain that man is "not justified by the works of the law," i.e., through the works of the Law, but "by the faith of Jesus Christ," for that reason we have left the Law and are living according to the precepts of the faith: "For we account a man to be justified by faith, without the works of the Law" (Rom 3:28); "For there is no other name under heaven given to men whereby we must be saved" (Acts 4:12).

However, it is said in Romans (2:13): "For not the hearers of the law are just before God; but the doers of the law shall be justified." Therefore, it seems that a man would be justified by the works of the Law. I answer that "to be justified" can be taken in two senses, namely, doing what is just, and being made just. But no one is made just save by God through grace. It should be known, therefore, that some works of the Law were moral and some ceremonial. The moral, although they were contained in the Law, could not, strictly speaking, be called "works of the Law," for man is induced to them by natural instinct and by the natural law. But the ceremonial works are properly called the "works of the Law." Therefore, to that extent is man justified by the moral laws—so far as the execution of justice is concerned—and also by the ceremonial laws that pertain to the sacraments, as their observance is a work of obedience. And this is the way it is taken in the word of the Apostle to the Romans (2:13).

But with respect to being made just by the works of the Law, a man does not seem to be justified by them, because the sacraments of the Old Law did not confer grace. "How turn you again to the weak and needy elements?" i.e., that neither confer grace nor contain grace in themselves. The sacraments of the New Law however, although they are material elements, are not needy elements; hence they can justify. Again, if there were any in the Old Law who were just, they were not made just by the works of the Law but only by the faith of Christ "Whom God hath proposed to be a propitiation through faith," as is said in Romans (3:25). Hence the sacraments of the Old Law were certain protestations of the faith of Christ, just as our sacraments are, but not in the same way, because those sacraments were configured to the grace of Christ as to something that lay in the future; our sacraments, however, testify as things containing a grace that is present. Therefore, he says significantly, that "it is not by the works of the law that we are justified, but by the faith of Christ," because, although some who observed the works of the Law in times past were made just, nevertheless, this was effected only by the faith of Jesus Christ.

From this knowledge which the apostles had, namely, that justification is not by the works of the Law but by the faith of Christ, he concludes to their manner of life, in which they chose the faith of Christ and gave up the works of the Law. Hence he adds, "we also believe in Christ Jesus," because as is said in Acts (4:12): "There is no other name under heaven given to men, whereby we must be saved." Therefore he continued, that we may be justified by the faith of Christ. "Being justified, therefore, by faith, let us have peace with God" (Rom 5:1). But lest anyone suppose that the works of the Law along with the faith of Christ justify, he adds, "and not by the works of the law": "For we account a man to be justified by faith, without the works of the Law" (Rom 3:28).

From this he derives his main proposition, saying that if the apostles, who are Jews by nature, do not seek to be justified by the works of the Law but by faith, then "by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified," i.e., no man whatsoever can be justified by the works of the Law. For "flesh" is taken here to stand for "man," i.e., the part for the whole, as does "All flesh shall see the salvation of the Lord" (Is 40:5). Then by saying, "because by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified," he concludes, as it were, a fortiori. For it seems more natural or reasonable for the Jews, more than anyone else, to be justified by the works of the Law rather than by faith. But this is not the case. Therefore...

Suppose that we, after receiving faith in Christ, do in Christ what the Jews do. Suppose we have received faith in Christ and wish to be justified in it. Suppose we have understood that a man is not justified by the works of the law. Would we not then, by observing the works of the law, be made sinners? Then it would be the case that Christ, whom we received in order not to sin, would himself become a minister of sin. Now, when after receiving him we return to sin—that is, to the old covenant—is Christ made a minister of sin? Let this possibility, Paul says, be far from us. One ought not to think in this way and act so as to make Christ a minister of sin, when he suffered in order that sin might perish.

(Vers. 17, 18.) Therefore, by the works of the Law, all flesh will not be justified. But if we seek to be justified in Christ, we ourselves have also been found to be sinners, is Christ then a minister of sin? Certainly not! For if the things that I destroyed, I build again, I make myself a transgressor. That flesh, of which it is written, 'All flesh is grass, and all its glory is like the flower of the field' (Isaiah 40:6), will not be justified by the works of the Law. But that flesh of Jesus Christ is justified by faith, of which it is said in the sacrament of the resurrection: All flesh shall see the salvation of God (Luke 3:6). But also according to a lower understanding, not all flesh was justified by the Law, but only those men who were in Palestine. Now, however, all flesh is justified by the faith of Jesus Christ, while his Church is founded throughout the whole world.

"But if, while we sought to be justified in Christ, we ourselves also were found sinners is Christ a minister of sin?"

If faith in Him, says he, avail not for our justification, but it be necessary again to embrace the Law, and if, having forsaken the Law for Christ's sake, we are not justified but condemned for such abandonment,-then shall we find Him, for whose sake we forsook the Law and went over to faith the author of our condemnation. Observe how, he has resolved the matter to a necessary absurdity. And mark how earnestly and strongly he argues. For if, he says, it behooved us not to abandon the Law, and we have so abandoned it for Christ's sake, we shall be judged. Wherefore do you urge this upon Peter, who is more intimately acquainted with it than any one? Hath not God declared to him, that an uncircumcised man ought not to be judged by circumcision; and did he not in his discussion with the Jews rest his bold opposition upon the vision which he saw? Did he not send from Jerusalem unequivocal decrees upon this subject? Paul's object is not therefore to correct Peter, but his animadversion required to be addressed to him, though it was pointed at the disciples; and not only at the Galatians, but also at others who labor under the same error with them. For though few are now circumcised, yet, by fasting and observing the sabbath with the Jews, they equally exclude themselves from grace. If Christ avails not to those who are only circumcised, much more is peril to be feared where fasting and sabbatizing are observed, and thus two commandments of the Law are kept in the place of one. And this is aggravated by a consideration of time: for they so acted at first while the city and temple and other institutions yet existed; but these who with the punishment of the Jews, and the destruction of the city before their eyes, observe more precepts of the Law than the others did, what apology can they find for such observance, at the very time when the Jews themselves, in spite of their strong desire, cannot keep it? Thou hast put on Christ, thou hast become a member of the Lord, and been enrolled in the heavenly city, and dost thou still grovel in the Law? How is it possible for thee to obtain the kingdom? Listen to Paul's words, that the observance of the Law overthrows the Gospel, and learn, if thou wilt, how this comes to pass, and tremble, and shun this pitfall. Wherefore dost thou keep the sabbath, and fast with the Jews? Is it that thou fearest the Law and abandonment of its letter? But thou wouldest not entertain this fear, didst thou not disparage faith as weak, and by itself powerless to save. A fear to omit the sabbath plainly shows that you fear the Law as still in force; and if the Law is needful, it is so as a whole, not in part, nor in one commandment only; and if as a whole, the righteousness which is by faith is little by little shut out. If thou keep the sabbath, why not also be circumcised? and if circumcised, why not also offer sacrifices? If the Law is to be observed, it must be observed as a whole, or not at all. If omitting one part makes you fear condemnation, this fear attaches equally to all the parts. If a transgression of the whole is not punishable, much less is the transgression of a part; on the other hand, if the latter be punishable, much more is the former. But if we are bound to keep the whole, we are bound to disobey Christ, or by obedience to Him become transgressors of the Law. If it ought to be kept, those who keep it not are transgressors, and Christ will be found to be the cause of this transgression, for He annulled the Law as regards these things Himself, and bid others annul it. Do you not understand what these Judaizers are compassing? They would make Christ, who is to us the Author of righteousness, the Author of sin, as Paul says, "Therefore Christ is the minister of sin." Having thus reduced the proposition to an absurdity, he had nothing further to do by way of overthrowing it, but was satisfied with the simple protestation,

"God forbid:" for shamelessness and irreverence need not be met by processes of reasoning, but a mere protest is enough.

Look at the absurd direction into which he leads those who are attached to the Law. If the faith in Christ, he says, is not sufficient to justify, but, once again there is a need to uphold the Law, and if those, having left the Law for Christ, are not justified in doing so, but rather are condemned, then Christ will be found to be the cause of our condemnation, since we left the law on his account in order to run towards the faith. "God forbid," he says. Seeing the absurdity, which this doctrine leads to, he immediately turns away from it by using this aphorism.

"If, seeking to be justified in Christ." If, then, wishing to be justified through Christ, we have been found sinners by abandoning the law, he says, has Christ therefore become a promoter of sin to you? Do you see how by pushing to an absurd conclusion he exposes the law? If then you hold to the law and wish also to be justified through Christ, you are found sinners in abandoning the law. Has Christ therefore advocated this? By no means. The absurdity has been removed by the refutation of the proposition.

For the Lord has sworn by His glory, in regard to His elect, that if any one of them sin after a certain day which has been fixed, he shall not be saved. For the repentance of the righteous has limits.

Paul says in effect: "We have forsaken the law and come over to Christ, expecting to enjoy righteousness through faith in him. But suppose that this itself is counted as a transgression. The fault would then pertain to Christ the Lord himself. For it was he who gave us the New Testament. Far be it from us to tolerate such blasphemy!"

We sought to obtain justification in Christ, he says, having abandoned the law. How then do you say that it is sinful to abandon the law: for it turns out that Christ led us into such a sin, since for His sake we abandoned everything pertaining to the law. Thus Christ, as you say, not only did not justify us, but even became for us the cause of greater condemnation by having persuaded us to depart from the law.

Having driven the argument to absurdity, he no longer had need of confirmation, but contented himself with a simple denial, which is what he ordinarily always did in matters that were generally disputable.

After proving by the apostles' manner of life that the works of the Law ought not to be observed, the Apostle raises a question to the contrary. About this he does three things:

First, he raises the question;

Secondly, he solves it (v. 17): "God forbid";

Thirdly, he explains his solution (v. 19).

The first point can be developed in two ways according to a Gloss. First, thus: Someone could say that the apostles sinned by abandoning the Law and turning to the faith of Christ. But the Apostle shows that this would lead to the following unwelcome conclusion, namely, that Christ is the author of sin in calling men to His faith. This is what he means when he says, "But if we apostles, while we seek to be justified in him," i.e., through Him, namely, Christ, "are found," i.e., plainly proven to be "sinners" for leaving the Law, "is Christ then the minister of sin?" i.e., is He inducing us to sin, Who called us from the slavery of the Law to His faith? "Made under the law that he might redeem them that were under the law" (4:4), namely, from the burden of the Law.

The Apostle answers, "God forbid," because He is rather the minister of justice; "By the obedience of one, many shall be made just" (Rom 5:19); "Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth" (1 Pet. 2:22). That Christ is not the minister of sin in leading one from the Old Law is plain, because "if I" myself, by wanting to glory once more in the Law, "build up again" the things I have destroyed, namely, my pride taking glory in the Law, "I make myself a prevaricator" in taking up what I destroyed: "The dog is returned to his vomit" (2 Pet. 2:22); "Cursed be the man that shall raise up and build the city of Jericho" (Jos. 6:26). He says, "which I have destroyed," i.e., not the Law itself, as the Manicheans would have it, because the Law is holy (Rom 7:12), but pride in the Law, concerning which it is said in Romans (10:3): "For they, seeking to establish their own justice have not submitted themselves to the justice of God."

Now if someone were to object that since he formerly had wasted the faith of Christ, he makes himself a prevaricator by trying to build it up, the plain answer is that he did indeed try to destroy the faith of Christ, yet because of the truth he did not persist: "Why persecutest thou me? It is hard for thee to kick against the goad" (Acts 9:4). But pride in the Law was vain and this pride could be destroyed, never again to be re-established.

The second way in which it can be developed is to refer his statement, "we ourselves are found sinners," not to their abandoning the Law, as in the first explanation, but to the observance of the Law. For it is plain that anyone who seeks to be made just does not profess himself to be just but a sinner. The sense, therefore, is this: "if we, in seeking to be justified in Christ, are" by the very fact of seeking to be justified "found," i.e., reasonably proved, to have been "sinners," because we observed the Law, "is Jesus Christ then the minister of sin?" i.e., commanding men to observe the works of the Law after His passion—something that cannot be done without sin? Note that this explanation harmonizes with Jerome's opinion which posited that the legal justifications were deadly immediately after the passion of Christ.

It is possible to explain "we ourselves are found to be sinners" in a third way as referring, indeed, to the state in which the Law was observed; not that they offended by observing the Law, but that the Law is deficient and cannot remove sin. Hence the meaning is this: If in seeking to be justified in it, we ourselves are found to be sinners, i.e., still in our sins, because the Law does not remove sin—according to Romans (3:9): "For we have charged both Jews and Greeks, that they are all under sin"—"Is Jesus Christ then the minister of sin," so as to bring us back to observing the Law in which we are under sin? This explanation accords with Augustine's exposition.

And he answers to either explanation, "God forbid," because I destroyed the Law understood carnally by judging and teaching it spiritually. Hence, if I should desire to re-establish the observances of the carnal law, I would be a prevaricator of the spiritual law.

Furthermore, it can be explained in a fourth way, thus: I had said that man is not justified by the works of the Law. But someone might say, "Nor by the faith of Christ either," because many sin after embracing the faith of Christ. And this is what he says: "If we, seeking to be justified in Christ," i.e., by the faith of Christ, "are ourselves," who have become believers by embracing the faith of Christ, "found to be sinners," i.e., living in sin, "is Jesus Christ then the minister of sin" and of damnation, as the minister of the Old Law is a minister of sin and damnation? Not that the Law led one into sin, but was its occasion, because it forbade sin and conferred no grace to help one resist sin. Hence it is said: "But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence" (Rom 7:8). But Christ gives a helping grace: "Grace and truth came by Jesus Christ" (Jn 1:17). Hence in no way is He the minister of sin, either directly or as its occasion.

"For if I build up again those things which I destroyed, I prove myself a transgressor."

Observe the Apostle's discernment; his opponents endeavored to show, that he who kept not the Law was a transgressor, but he retorts the argument upon them, and shows that he who did keep the Law was a transgressor, not merely of faith, but of the Law itself. "I build up again the things which I destroyed," that is, the Law; he means as follows: the Law has confessedly ceased, and we have abandoned it, and betaken ourselves to the salvation which comes of faith. But if we make a point of setting it up again, we become by that very act transgressors, striving to keep what God has annulled. Next he shows how it has been annulled.

When they say that he who does not keep the law is a transgressor, he says the exact opposite, calling a transgressor the person who keeps the law. It is like saying: The law has ceased, as we confessed, and so, having abandoned it, we have taken refuge with the salvation which is from faith. If, then, we contest about the application of the law, we become transgressor of the same, inasmuch as we contest about keeping what has been dissolved by God.

We have nullified the law by allowing it, and have run to Christ. If then we seek to establish it again, we make ourselves transgressors in that we attempt to set up again what was dissolved by us. But observe his sense: those men thought themselves transgressors because they did not keep the law; he shows that they are transgressors because they hold to it.

"I consider myself a transgressor." For by once more obeying the law, I show that as a transgressor I first permitted myself, and I believed in Christ.

Justly, therefore, did he refuse to "build up again (the structure of the law) which he had overthrown." The law, indeed, had to be overthrown, from the moment when John "cried in the wilderness, Prepare ye the ways of the Lord," that valleys and hills and mountains may be filled up and levelled, and the crooked and the rough ways be made straight and smooth -in other words, that the difficulties of the law might be changed into the facilities of the gospel.

How should (the Church) fear to suffer a fraudulent loss of him whom she had already lost on his ereption, and whom, after condemnation, she could not have held? Lastly, to what will it be becoming for a judge to grant indulgence? to that which by a formal pronouncement he has decisively settled, or to that which by an interlocutory sentence he has left in suspense? And, of course, (I am speaking of) that judge who is not wont "to rebuild those things which he has destroyed, lest he be held a transgressor."

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

"Purify out the old leaven, that you may be a new lump," cries the apostle to us. And again in anger at such people he directs that we should "have no fellowship with anyone called a brother if he is a fornicator or covetous man or idolater or reviler or drunkard or robber; with such a man one ought not even to eat." "For I through the law am dead to the law," he says, "that I may live unto God. I am crucified with Christ; it is no longer I that live," meaning that I used to live according to my lusts, "but Christ lives in me," and I am pure and blessed by obeying the commandments; so that whereas at one time I lived in the flesh carnally, "the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God."

Now it is possible to see Paul as speaking of two laws—one of Moses, the other of Christ—so that he is saying he is dead to that law, which was given to the Jews, through the law that was given through Christ … that is, "I am dead through the law of Christ to the law formerly given to the Jews." But Paul may also be seen as doing what both he and the Savior himself often do, so that he speaks of two laws because it is itself, as it were, twofold: one thing when it is understood carnally another when understood spiritually.… Thus the sense will be "For I through the law," which is now spiritually understood, "am dead to the law"—that law obviously which is understood carnally. And since this is so, "I am dead to the carnal law" because I understand the law spiritually, "so that I live to God." For what it means for someone to live to God is that he understands those precepts contained in the law not carnally but spiritually, that is, what it is to be truly circumcised and what the true sabbath is.

(Verse 19) For I through the law am dead to the law, that I might live unto God. To die to the law, is to die to the law as a rule of justification. Who dies to the law, lives to God. Before his conversion, the apostle found experience answer to the word of the Lord. The commandment, which was ordained to life, he found to be unto death. The same enlightening Spirit gives a sight of the hateful nature of sin, and the deceitfulness of the heart. Therefore it is said in Hosea: 'From me is your fruit found' (Hosea 14:9). To whom the mystical interpretation is well applied: 'Who is a wise man and understands these things, and a prudent man and knows them?' Therefore, by the spiritual law, one dies to the law of the letter and lives to God, since he is not without the law of God, but is under the law of Christ. But whoever dies to the law because of sins, although he is dead, it cannot be said of him that he lives to God. But there is another spiritual law beyond the law of the letter, as the Apostle elsewhere teaches, saying: Therefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good (Rom. VII, 12). And Ezekiel speaks in the person of God: I brought them out, that is, the people of Judah, from the land of Egypt: and I led them into the desert: and I gave them my commandments, and showed them my justifications: which if a man do, he shall live in them (Ezek. XX, 10). But about that law which works wrath, to which even the Apostle is dead, afterward he says: And I gave them commands that are not good, and justifications in which they will not live (Ibid., 25). The same is also signified in the Psalter: Because I did not know literature, I will enter into the strength of the Lord (Ps. LXX, 51).

I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me. (Galatians 2:20)

"For I through the Law died unto the Law."

This may be viewed in two ways; it is either the law of grace which he speaks of, for he is wont to call this a law, as in the words, "For the law of the Spirit of life made me free:" (Rom. viii: 2) or it is the old Law, of which he says, that by the Law itself he has become dead to the Law. That is to say, the Law itself has taught me no longer to obey itself, and therefore if I do so, I shall be transgressing even its teaching. How, in what way has it so taught? Moses says, speaking of Christ, "The Lord God will raise up unto thee a Prophet from the midst of thee of thy brethren, like unto me; unto Him shall ye hearken." (Deut. xviii: 15) Therefore they who do not obey Him, transgress the Law. Again, the expression, "I through the Law died unto the Law," may be understood in another sense: the Law commands all its precepts to be performed, and punishes the transgressor; therefore we are all dead to it, for no man has fulfilled it. Here observe, how guardedly he assails it; he says not, "the Law is dead to me;" but, "I am dead to the Law;" the meaning of which is, that, as it is impossible for a dead corpse to obey the commands of the Law, so also is it for me who have perished by its curse, for by its word am I slain. Let it not therefore lay commands on the dead, dead by its own act, dead not in body only, but in soul, which has involved the death of the body. This he shows in what follows.

This has a double meaning. For he speaks either of the law of grace, or only the old law, indicating that it is through this law that he died to the law. Actually what he says is this: The law itself led me to pay attention to him. If then in my attempt to pay attention to him I transgress it how and it what manner did Moses say the following, applying it to Christ, namely, That the Lord will raise a prophet from you from your brethren like me, and you shall listen to Him? So those who do not believe in Him, they transgress the Law. But what is the meaning of the statement, "I die to the Law?" Just as the dead are not subject to the commandments of the Law, likewise neither am I who, as one who has died to the curse of that Law. For the Law made all accursed those who did not fulfill the things of the Law. Indeed, no one was able to fulfill it completely.

"Yet I." I, he says, persuaded by that law itself, made myself dead to the law. For the law announced Christ to me, and to him indeed I am dead (for I no longer live according to that one), but I follow the doctrines of this one.

"through the law died to the law." Or, I died to the Mosaic law through the law of the Gospel. How then shall I, being dead and lifeless toward it, keep it? Or by its law, and the burdensome observances in it, I have become dead in regard to sin through it. Therefore is the one who killed it worthy of being observed?

"that I might live for God." That is, the immortal and ageless life.

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

He explains in what manner he abandoned the law, and says: through the law of grace and the Gospel I died to the law of Moses, or I died, he says, to the law through the law; that is, the law itself led me to no longer observe it, having led me to Christ through the Mosaic and prophetic word. Therefore, if I again begin to observe it, I will again violate it. Or in this way: the law commanded that the one who does not fulfill its prescriptions be punished and put to death. And since it could not be fulfilled, by its power I was subjected to death. Therefore let it not command me, as one already dead both in soul, because I sinned, being unable to fulfill the works of the law, and in body, inasmuch as this depended on the condemnation by the law. How then after this shall I still hold to that which put me to death?

Lest anyone should say: how then do you live, if you have died? – he says that although the law put me to death while I was living, Christ, having found me dead, made me alive, having been mystically co-crucified with Him and having died with Him through baptism. A twofold miracle: He gave life to one who was dead, and gave life through death.

Here the Apostle amplifies the solution given above. First, he explains the solution. Secondly, he concludes to his principal proposition (v. 21). It should be noted that the Apostle proceeds in a very thorough manner, leaving no doubt unexamined. Hence his words, although they seem involved, nevertheless, if they are carefully considered, say nothing without a purpose. This is plain from the words he uses. Therefore, he does three things:

First, he manifests the solution;

Secondly, he explains his manifestation of the solution (v. 19): "with Christ I am nailed to the cross";

Thirdly, he settles the question (v. 20): "That I live now in the flesh."

Therefore, because the Apostle had said, "For, if I build up again the things which I have destroyed," which is understood to refer to the Old Law, for one might regard him as a destroyer of the Law and consequently impious according to Psalm (118:126): "They have dissipated thy law," for that reason the Apostle wishes to show how he destroys the Law without being impious, saying, "For I, through the law, am dead to the law." Here it should be noted that when anyone destroys a law by means of the law itself, he is indeed a prevaricator of the law, but not impious. For a law is destroyed by means of the law when the law itself contains some local or temporary precept, such that the law should be observed for such a time or in such a place and no other, and this fact is expressed in the law. If someone, therefore, after that time or outside that place, does not use the law, he destroys the law by means of the law itself, and in this way the Apostle destroyed the Law. Hence he says: I somehow destroyed the Law, but by means of the Law; because "through the Law I am dead to the Law," i.e., by the authority of the Law I have rejected the Law, as being dead to the Law. For the authority of the Law, through which he is dead to the Law, is cited in many places in Sacred Scripture. For example, although not in so many words, it is had in Jeremiah (31:31): "I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel"; "The Lord will raise up to thee a prophet of thy brethren like unto me" (Deut 18:15), and in many other places. Therefore the Apostle is not a destroyer of the Law in the sense of a transgressor of the Law.

Or else, "I by the law" spiritual "am dead to the law" carnal. For he dies to the Law when, being freed by the Law, he casts it aside, according to Romans (7:2): "If her husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband." Now inasmuch as the Apostle was subject to the spiritual law, he says that he is dead to the Law, i.e., loosed from the observances of the Law: "For the law of the spirit of life, in Christ Jesus, hath delivered me from the law of sin and of death" (Rom 8:2). Again there is another possible way of setting the law aside without prevarication, because, namely, a law, when it is written on a scroll is called a dead law, and when it is in the mind of the lawgiver it is called a living law. Now it is plain that if someone were to act according to the word of the lawgiver against the written law and break the law, he would both be set free of the dead law and be acting according to the command of the lawgiver.

He says, therefore, along these lines, "I am dead to the law," which is written and dead, i.e., I am loosed from it "that I may live to God," i.e., that I may guide my movements according to His precepts and be ordained to His honor. For a law that has been passed does, indeed, hand down something in writing on account of those outside and of those who cannot hear the words spoken by the lawgiver; but for those in his presence he does not lay it down in writing but in words alone. For in the beginning, men were weak and unable to approach unto God; hence it was necessary for the precepts of the Law to be given to them in writing, so that by the Law, as by a pedagogue, they might be led by the hand to the point where they might hear the things He commands, according to the words given below: "the law was our pedagogue in Christ, that we might be justified by faith" (3:24). But after we have access to the Father through Christ, as is said in Romans (5:2), we are not instructed about the commands of God through the Law, but by God Himself. Hence he says: Through the Law leading me by the hand I have died to the written law, in order that I may live unto God, i.e., to the maker of the Law, i.e., to be instructed and directed by Him.

This means, "Not I, who once ate from the earth [like Adam]. Not I who was once grass, as all flesh is grass, but Christ who lives in me. That is, there lives that living bread which comes from heaven, there lives wisdom, there lives righteousness, there lives the resurrection."

One who is fixed to the cross of Christ is one who, in imitation of his footsteps, is not ensnared by any worldly desire. Living to God, he appears dead to the world.

There is no doubt that Christ lives in the one who is delivered from death by faith. When Christ forgives the sins of one who is worthy of death, he himself lives in that person, since by his protection the person is snatched from death.

Christ is the true Son, and so when we receive the Spirit, we are made sons. For it says; 'you did not receive the spirit of slavery leading you back into fear, but you have received the Spirit of adopted sonship' [Romans 8:15]. But when we are made sons in the Spirit, it is clear that we are called children of God in Christ... And when the Spirit is given to us-the Saviour said: 'Receive the Holy Spirit' [John 20:22]- God [The Father] is in us... But when God is in us, the Son is also in us. For the Lord Himself said: 'I and the Father will come and make our home with him' [John 14:23]. Next, the Son is life-for He said: 'I am the life' [John 14:6]- and so we are said to be given life in the Spirit... But when we are given life in the Spirit, Christ Himself is said to live in us. For it says: 'I am crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me.' (Galatians 2:19-20). - "Letters to Separion On the Spirit, Letter 1, Chapter 19"

The human spirit, cleaving to the Spirit of God, struggles against the flesh that is, against itself and on its own behalf. Those impulses natural to humanity, whether in the flesh or in the soul, which remain because of our acquired debility, are restrained by discipline for the sake of obtaining salvation. So the human being who does not live according to human nature can already say, "I live, yet not I, but Christ lives in me." For where I am not I, I am more happily I. Thus when any reprobate impulse arises according to my old human nature, to which I who serve the law of God with my mind do not consent, I may now say this: "now I am not the one doing that."

I judge that because Paul already at that time walked in the spirit, and in his mind consented to the law of God because it is good (Rom 7:16); for this reason he deemed this very mind of his, as a certain principal and supreme part of himself, worthy to be designated rather by the name of himself than of any possession of his; but the remainder, which is established to be of an inferior nature and therefore to cling to the inferior and cheaper essence, which is the body; not only by the office of vivifying and giving sensation, but also by the desire of nourishing and cherishing: this, I say, being sensual and carnal, the spiritual man, judging it unworthy of the appellation of himself, reckoned it should rather be counted among his possessions than that he should be personally expressed through it. "When I say 'me,'" he says, "understand that which is more excellent in me, in which I also stand by the grace of God, that is, the mind and reason. When I speak of 'my soul,' take it in the lower sense, that which you see accommodated to animating the flesh, and even joined to it in concupiscence. That I was this, but now am no longer, I acknowledge, because I no longer walk according to the flesh, but according to the spirit" (Rom 8:4). "I live, now not I, but Christ lives in me" (Gal 2:20). According to the mind, I; according to the flesh, not I. For what if the soul even now desires carnally? "It is no longer I that do it, but sin that dwells in me" (Rom 7:17). And therefore I would call what in me savors carnally not indeed myself, but nevertheless mine, and that nothing other than the soul itself. For truly the carnal affection of the soul is a portion of it, and the life which it administers to the body. This soul, therefore, Paul despised in comparison with himself, prepared for the Lord's sake not only to be bound but also to die in Jerusalem, and so to lose his soul according to the Lord's counsel.

But the way is none other than through the most burning love of the Crucified, who so transformed Paul, caught up to the third heaven, into Christ, that he said: I have been crucified with Christ; yet I live, now not I; but Christ lives in me; who also so absorbed the mind of Francis that his mind was made manifest in his flesh, when he bore the most sacred stigmata of the Passion in his body for two years before his death.

It is an old and pious saying that Christ died not only for Man but for each man, just as much as if each had been the only man there was. Can I not believe the same of this creative act—which, as spread out in time, we call destiny or history? It is for the sake of each human soul. Each is an end.

It was not for societies or states that Christ died, but for men. In that sense Christianity must seem to secular collectivists to involve an almost frantic assertion of individuality. But then it is not the individual as such who will share Christ's victory over death. We shall share the victory by being in the Victor. A rejection, or in Scripture's strong language, a crucifixion of the natural self is the passport to everlasting life. Nothing that has not died will be resurrected.

And let me make it quite clear that when Christians say the Christ-life is in them, they do not mean simply something mental or moral. When they speak of being 'in Christ' or of Christ being 'in them', this is not simply a way of saying that they are thinking about Christ or copying Him. They mean that Christ is actually operating through them; that the whole mass of Christians are the physical organism through which Christ acts—that we are His fingers and muscles, the cells of His body.

And, in yet another sense, handing everything over to Christ does not, of course, mean that you stop trying. To trust Him means, of course, trying to do all that He says. There would be no sense in saying you trusted a person if you would not take his advice. Thus if you have really handed yourself over to Him, it must follow that you are trying to obey Him. But trying in a new way, a less worried way. Not doing these things in order to be saved, but because He has begun to save you already. Not hoping to get to Heaven as a reward for your actions, but inevitably wanting to act in a certain way because a first faint gleam of Heaven is already inside you.

God is not hurried along in the Time-stream of this universe any more than an author is hurried along in the imaginary time of his own novel. He has infinite attention to spare for each one of us. He does not have to deal with us in the mass. You are as much alone with Him as if you were the only being He had ever created. When Christ died, He died for you individually just as much as if you had been the only man in the world.

The more we get what we now call 'ourselves' out of the way and let Him take us over, the more truly ourselves we become... It is no good trying to 'be myself' without Him. The more I resist Him and try to live on my own, the more I become dominated by my own heredity and upbringing and surroundings and natural desires... It is when I turn to Christ, when I give myself up to His Personality, that I first begin to have a real personality of my own.

Let us consider how Paul had denied himself, who said: "Yet I live, now not I." For that savage persecutor had been extinguished, and the devout preacher had begun to live. For if he himself were still that same person, he would certainly not be devout. But let him who denies that he lives say from where it is that he proclaims holy words through the teaching of truth. He immediately adds: "But Christ lives in me." As if he were saying openly: I indeed have been extinguished from myself because I do not live carnally; yet I have not died essentially because I live spiritually in Christ.

I no longer wish to live after the manner of men, and my desire shall be fulfilled if ye consent. "I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet no longer I, since Christ liveth in me." I entreat you in this brief letter: do not refuse me; believe me that I love Jesus, who was delivered [to death] for my sake. "What shall I render to the Lord for all His benefits towards me?" Now God, even the Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ, shall reveal these things to you, [so that ye shall know] that I speak truly. And do ye pray along with me, that I may attain my aim in the Holy Spirit. I have not written to you according to the flesh, but according to the will of God. If I shall suffer, ye have loved me; but if I am rejected, ye have hated me.

Judas and the priests, with the princes, handed him over, and Pilate, to whom he was finally handed over, handed him over again. But the Father handed him over that he might save the abandoned world. Jesus gave himself, that he might do the Father's will. But Judas and the priests and elders of the people and Pilate unwittingly handed over their lives to death.

(Verse 20.) But I no longer live; Christ lives in me. The person who once lived under the law no longer lives, for they persecuted the Church. But Christ lives in them, providing wisdom, strength, speech, peace, joy, and other virtues. The one who does not possess these virtues cannot say, 'Christ lives in me.' And all of this is said in opposition to Peter, directed at Peter.

But as for now, I live in the flesh. To be in the flesh is one thing, and to live in the flesh is another. For those who are in the flesh cannot please God (Rom. VIII, 8, 9). Therefore, it is said to those who live well: However, you are not in the flesh.

I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. He speaks about God to the Romans, that he did not spare his own Son, but gave him up for us. Now, about Christ, that he gave himself up: 'He loved me,' he says, 'and gave himself for me.' In the Gospel, where the apostles are listed, it is stated: 'And Judas Iscariot ((also Scariot)), who betrayed him' (Luke 6:16). Again, in the same Gospel: 'Look, the one who will betray me is approaching' (Matthew 26:46). But the Scriptures mention the high priests and elders of the people, who condemned Jesus to death and, binding him, led him and delivered him to Pilate the governor (ibid., XXVII, and Mark XV). And afterwards about Pilate: He released Barabbas to them, but Jesus, after being flogged, he handed over to them to crucify (John XIX). Therefore, the Father handed over the Son, and the Son himself handed over, and Judas and the priests handed him over to the rulers, and finally, having been handed over to him, Pilate himself delivered him. But the Father handed over, in order to save the lost world: Jesus himself handed himself over, in order to do the will of the Father and his own: However, Judas and the priests and the elders of the people, and Pilate, delivered him, ignorant of life unto death. And when she also handed herself over for our salvation, blessed and very happy is he who, with Christ living in him, can say through every thought and action: I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me and delivered himself for me.

Observe him then, how he felt towards the whole world. "The world is crucified unto me," he says, "and I unto the world": I am dead to the world, and the world is dead to me. And again: "It is no longer I that live, but Christ liveth in me." And, to show you that he was as it were in solitude, and so looked upon the things present, hear himself saying, "While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen." What sayest thou? Answer me. And yet what thou sayest is the contrary; thou seest the things invisible, and the visible thou seest not. Such eyes as thou hadst gotten, such are the eyes which are given by Christ: for as these bodily eyes see indeed the things that are seen, but things unseen they see not: so those (heavenly eyes) do the contrary: none that beholds the invisible things, beholds the visible: no one beholding the things seen, beholds the invisible. Or is not this the case with us also? For when having turned our mind inwards we think of any of the unseen things, our views become raised above the things on earth.

"That I might live unto God, I have been crucified with Christ." Having said, "I am dead," lest it should be objected, how then dost thou live? he adds the cause of his living, and shows that when alive the Law slew him, but that when dead Christ through death restored him to life. He shows the wonder to be twofold; that by Christ both the dead was begotten into life, and that by means of death. He here means the immortal life, for this is the meaning of the words, "That I might live unto God I am crucified with Christ" How, it is asked, can a man now living and breathing have been crucified? That Christ hath been crucified is manifest, but how canst thou have been crucified, and yet live? He explains it thus;

"Yet I live; and yet no longer I, but Christ liveth in me."

In these words, "I am crucified with Christ," he alludes to Baptism and in the words "nevertheless I live, yet not I," our subsequent manner of life whereby our members are mortified. By saying "Christ liveth in me," he means nothing is done by me, which Christ disapproves; for as by death he signifies not what is commonly understood, but a death to sin; so by life, he signifies a delivery from sin. For a man cannot live to God, otherwise than by dying to sin; and as Christ suffered bodily death, so does Paul a death to sin. "Mortify," says he "your members which are upon the earth; fornication, uncleanness, passion;" (Col. iii: 5), and again, "our old man was crucified," (Rom. vi: 6) which took place in the Bath. After which, if thou remainest dead to sin, thou livest to God, but if thou let it live again, thou art the ruin of thy new life. This however did not Paul, but continued wholly dead; if then, he says, I live to God a life other than that in the Law, and am dead to the Law, I cannot possibly keep any part of the Law. Consider how perfect was his walk, and thou wilt be transported with admiration of this blessed soul. He says not, "I live," but, "Christ liveth in me;" who is bold enough to utter such words? Paul indeed, who had harnessed himself to Christ's yoke, and cast away all worldly things, and was paying universal obedience to His will, says not, "I live to Christ," but what is far higher, "Christ liveth in me." As sin, when it has the mastery, is itself the vital principle, and leads the soul whither it will, so, when it is slain and the will of Christ obeyed, this life is no longer earthly, but Christ liveth, that is, works, has mastery within us. His saying, "I am crucified with Him" "I no longer live," but "am dead," seeming incredible to many, he adds,

"And that life which I now live in the flesh, I live in faith, the faith which is in the Son of God."

The foregoing, says he, relates to our spiritual life, but this life of sense too, if considered, will be found owing to my faith in Christ. For as regards the former Dispensation and Law, I had incurred the severest punishment, and had long ago perished, "for all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God." (Rom. iii: 23) And we, who lay under sentence, have been liberated by Christ, for all of us are dead, if not in fact, at least by sentence; and He has delivered us from the expected blow. When the Law had accused, and God condemned us, Christ came, and by giving Himself up to death, rescued us all from death. So that "the life which I now live in the flesh, I live in faith." Had not this been, nothing could have averted a destruction as general as that which took place at the flood, but His advent arrested the wrath of God, and caused us to live by faith. That such is his meaning appears from what follows. After saying, that "the life which I now live in the flesh, I live in faith," he adds,

"In the Son of God, Who loved me, and gave Himself up for me."

How is this, O Paul! why dost thou appropriate a general benefit, and make thine own what was done for the whole world's sake? for he says not, "Who loved us," but, "Who loved me." And besides the Evangelist says, "God so loved the world;" (John iii: 16) and Paul himself, "He that spared not His own Son, but delivered Him up, not for Paul only, but, "for us all;" (Rom. viii: 32) and again, "that He might purify unto himself a people for his own possession, (Tit. ii: 14) But considering the desperate condition of human nature, and the ineffably tender solicitude of Christ, in what He delivered us from, and what He freely gave us, and kindled by the yearning of affection towards Him, he thus expresses himself. Thus the Prophets often appropriate to themselves Him who is God of all, as in the words, "O God, thou art my God, early will I seek Thee." (Psalm lxiii: 1) Moreover, this language teaches that each individual justly owes as a great debt of gratitude to Christ, as if He had come for his sake alone, for He would not have grudged this His condescension though but for one, so that the measure of His love to each is as great as to the whole world. Truly the Sacrifice was offered for all mankind, and was sufficient to save all, but those who enjoy the blessing are the believing only. Nevertheless it did not deter Him from His so great condescension, that not all would come; but He acted after the pattern of the supper in the Gospel, which He prepared for all, (Luke xiv: 16) yet when the guests came not, instead of withdrawing the viands, He called in others. So too He did not despise that sheep, though one only, which had strayed from the ninety and nine. (Mat. xviii: 12) This too in like manner St. Paul intimates, when he says, speaking about the Jews, "For what if some were without faith, shall their want of faith make of none effect the faithfulness of God? God forbid: yea let God be found true, but every man a liar." (Rom. iii: 3, 4) When He so loved thee as to give Himself up to bring thee who wast without hope to a life so great and blessed, canst thou, thus gifted, have recourse to things gone by? His reasoning being completed, he concludes with a vehement asseveration...

To the Law he says or inasmuch as it pertains to the Law.

"With Christ" I have been crucified together through baptism. The law, therefore, killed what was upon it, but Christ gave life. How then shall I keep the law?

"I no longer live." Through the following constitution, by which his limbs were paralyzed. "For you have died," he says, "to the members of you that are on earth." (Col. 3:5)

"Christ lives in me." Acting, he says, as master, becoming all things to me himself; and in this he lives in me, that nothing may become from me of those things that do not seem to him.

"I now live in the flesh." And not only, he says, do I live the spiritual life through Christ, but also the earthly life. How? Being under condemnation because of the law, we were about, he says, to die carnally as in the Flood. But Christ made us to live, having redeemed us from the curse of the law. Therefore not only the spiritual life, but also the earthly life was granted to us through faith in Christ. How then do we return again to the law?

"and gave himself up for me." He makes it a common property, showing that each one must acknowledge such great grace to Christ, as if he had become man for him alone.

Since Christ was in Paul, who will doubt that he was also likewise in Peter and John and in every individual among the saints, and not only in those who are on earth but also in those in heaven? For it is absurd to say that Christ was in Peter and Paul but not in the archangel Michael or Gabriel.

We will set these matters in order, one after the other, and we will show where it is meet that the disciple should begin, and how he should advance and ascend all the grades of the Christian life and conduct, until he arriveth at the topmost step of love, from whence he shall ascend to the grade of perfection. Then will the spiritual land of the joy of Christ receive him, and when he hath stood upon it he will be free from passions, and will be delivered from lusts, and he will have subdued all his enemies under his feet, and that man will speak with boldness the word of the Apostle, saying, "Yet I live; and yet no longer I, but Christ liveth in me": to Whom be glory for ever. Amen.

By the words "I am crucified with Christ" he indicated baptism, and by the words "it is no longer I who live" – the life after this, through which our body dies. "But Christ lives in me," that is, there is nothing in us that is not pleasing to Christ, but He accomplishes everything in us, governing and ruling. And our will has died, and His lives and governs our life. Therefore, if I live for God a life distinct from life under the law, and have died to the law, then I cannot observe anything from the law.

What I have said, I said about the spiritual life, but you will find the sensible life also in me, existing from Christ. For the law being transgressed subjected all to sin and punishment, and nothing prevented, as in the times of the flood, all from perishing as transgressors; but Christ, having appeared, delivered us from condemnation, having justified us by His death. So that even this very thing – the sensible and fleshly life – we have through faith in Christ, – faith that justifies us and delivers us from condemnation.

Although He gave Himself for all and loved all, Paul, having reflected on what Christ freed us from and what He bestowed, and having been kindled with love, ascribes what is common to himself, just as the prophets say: "O God, my God." And at the same time he also shows that each person ought to render such gratitude to Christ as if He had died for him alone. But only those who believed in Him benefited from these gifts. So that the one who clings to the law shows that Christ did not die for him. How then are you not afraid of this, but return again to the law, showing the death of the Lord to be useless for you? And note the expression "who gave Himself" — on account of the Arians.

Then when he says, "with Christ I am nailed to the cross," he amplifies what he said. Now he had said that he died to the Law and lives unto God. Hence he explains these two things:

First, that he died to the Law, he explains by saying that "with Christ I am nailed to the cross";

Secondly, that he lives unto God, when he says: "I live, now not I, but Christ liveth in me."

The first point can be explained in two ways. In one way, as in a Gloss, thus: every man according to carnal origin is born a child of wrath: "By nature we were children of wrath, even as the rest" (Eph 2:3). He is also born in the oldness of sin: "Thou art grown old in a strange country" (Bar. 3:11). This oldness of sin is removed by the cross of Christ, and the newness of spiritual life is conferred. Therefore the Apostle says, "with Christ I am nailed to the cross," i.e., concupiscence or the inclination to sin, and all such have been put to death in me through the cross of Christ: "Our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin may be destroyed" (Rom 6:6). Also from the fact that I am crucified with Christ and have died to sin; and because Christ rose again, I, too, have risen with Him rising: "Who was delivered up for our sins, and rose again for our justification" (Rom 4:25). Thus, therefore, does Christ beget a new life in us, after the oldness of sin has been destroyed. Hence he says, "And I live," i.e., because I am nailed to the cross of Christ, I have the strength to act well, "now not I" according to the flesh, because I no longer have the oldness which I formerly had, "but Christ liveth in me," i.e., the newness which has been given to us through Christ.

Or, in another way: a man is said to live according to that in which he chiefly puts his affection and in which he is mainly delighted. Hence men who take their greatest pleasure in study or in hunting say that this is their life. However, each man has his own private interest by which he seeks that which is his own. Therefore, when someone lives seeking only what is his own, he lives only unto himself; but when he seeks the good of others, he is said to live for them. Accordingly, because the Apostle had set aside his love of self through the cross of Christ, he said that he was dead so far as love of self was concerned, declaring that "with Christ I am nailed to the cross," i.e., through the cross of Christ my own private love has been removed from me. Hence he says "God forbid that I should glory save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ" (6:14): "If one died for all, then all were dead. And Christ died for all, that they also who live may not now live to themselves, but unto him who died for them" (2 Cor 5:14). "And I live, now not I," i.e., I no longer live as though having any interest in my own good, "but Christ liveth in me," i.e., I have Christ alone in my affection and Christ Himself is my life: "To me, to live is Christ; and to die is gain" (Phil 1:21).

Then when he says, "And that I live now in the flesh, I live in the faith of the Son of God," he answers a twofold difficulty that might arise from his words. One is how he lives and yet it is not he who lives; the second is how he is nailed to the cross. Therefore he clears up these two points. First of all, the first one, namely, how he lives and yet it is not he who lives. He answers this when he says "And that I live now in the flesh I live in the faith of the Son of God." Here it should be noted that, strictly speaking, those things are said to live which are moved by an inner principle. Now the soul of Paul was set between his body and God; the body, indeed, was vivified and moved by the soul of Paul, but his soul by Christ. Hence as to the life of the flesh, Paul himself lived and this is what he says, namely, "and that I live now in the flesh," i.e., by the life of the flesh; but as to his relation to God, Christ lived in Paul. Therefore he says, "I live in the faith of the Son of God" through which He dwells in me and moves me: "But the just shall live in his faith" (Hab. 2:4). And note that he says "in the flesh," not "by the flesh," because this is evil.

Secondly, he shows that he is nailed to the cross, saying: Because the love of Christ, which He showed to me in dying on the cross for me, brings it about that I am always nailed with Him. And this is what he says, "who loved me": "He first loved us" (1 Jn 4:10). And He loved me to the extent of "giving himself" and not some other sacrifice "for me": "He loved us and washed us from our sins in his own blood" (Rev 1:5); "As Christ loved the church and delivered himself up for it, that he might sanctify it, cleansing it by the laver of water in the word of life" (Eph 5:25).

But it should be noted that the Son delivered Himself, and the Father His Son: "He spared not even his own Son, but delivered him up for us" (Rom 8:32). Judas, too, delivered Him up, as is said in Matthew (26:48). It is all one event, but the intention is not the same, because the Father did so out of love, the Son out of obedience along with love, but Judas out of avarice and treachery.