Jerome

(Verse 20.) However, I wish to be with you soon and change my voice, for I am confused among you. The divine scripture builds and is read; but it is much more beneficial if it is translated from letters into voice, so that the one who taught through the letter may instruct those who are present. Indeed, the living voice has great power: a voice that resonates from its author's mouth, which is uttered and distinguished with the same pronunciation it was generated in the author's heart. Therefore, knowing that the Apostle has greater power in the spoken word that is done in the present, he desires to exchange the Epistolary voice, which is comprehended in letters, into presence: and because this was more expedient for those who had been corrupted in error, he wanted to bring them back to the truth while they were still alive with his speech. And the reason for this was because he was confused among them, which is more properly said in Greek. For I am perplexed, not so much by the confusion, which is called αἰσχύνη or σύγχυσις among them, as by the sense of need and poverty. Therefore, this is the meaning: I wish I could be present with you now and speak the voice of letters myself, because I am in need of you. For I do not have the fruits that teachers usually have from their students, and without cause the seed of teachings has been sown, I am compelled to suffer poverty among you, so that I may be able to burst forth with the voice of Jeremiah: I have not profited, nor has anyone profited me (Jerem. XXIII, 23). This passage can be interpreted in another way: Paul the apostle, who became a Jew to the Jews in order to gain Jews for himself (I Cor. IX), and to those who were under the Law, as if he himself were under the Law, and to the weak, as if he were weak, in order to gain the weak. According to the condition of those whom he desired to save, he changed his voice and transformed himself into the likeness of actors (indeed, he became a spectacle to the world, and to angels, and to men (I Cor. IV)), assuming different forms and voices. Not because it was what it pretended to be, but because it only appeared to be what it benefited others. He sees that the Galatians need different teaching, a different way of salvation, not the one by which they were first brought to the faith of Christ from Gentile customs. And he is forced to say: I wish I could be with you now and change my tone, because I am confused about you. No, he says, I don't see that I am of any benefit if I speak the same things that I spoke before, because I am ignorant of what I should do, and torn apart and confused, I am torn to pieces and destroyed. And in the same way that doctors, when they see that the force of their art is not sufficient for a cure, pass on to another remedy, and experiment with many things until they arrive at a cure, so I, because I am confused among you and distracted here and there by ignorance, would like to speak the voice of letters directly from my mouth, so that I myself might firmly rebuke you; since a letter cannot express the voice of one who rebukes; it is not able to echo the clamor of one who is angry, nor to explain the pain of the heart with the points of a pen. However, it can also be understood more simply: I have used gentle words with you, saying: Brothers, I beseech you. And: My little children, of whom I travail in birth again until Christ be formed in you; but I am gentle and mild, who have spoken to you as a father, with that love by which I do not allow my children to perish and wander forever. I wish I could be present now if the bonds of my confession did not bind me, and change a gentle voice into words of rebuke. Nor is it insincerity, if now I flatter, now I become angry; love urges me on, pain urges me on, to speak with different emotions. For I do not know into which words I should first burst forth, and with what remedy I should heal you, because I am confused by you.

(Verse 22, 23.) For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by a slave woman and one by a free woman. But the son of the slave was born according to the flesh, while the son of the free woman was born through the promise. It is of great difficulty to demonstrate that only Isaac, who was born of Sarah, was generated through the promise, and not also Ishmael, who was born of the Egyptian slave Hagar. For the Scripture refers that when Hagar, fleeing from Sarah, who was mistreating her, came to her in the desert, an angel appeared to her and instructed her to submit to her mistress's authority. This same angel also spoke these words: "I will surely multiply your offspring exceedingly, so that they will not be counted for multitude" (Genesis 16:10). And afterwards concerning Ishmael (of which surely no one doubted the words of the promise): He will be a rustic man, his hand against everyone, and everyone's hand against him, and he will dwell opposite the face of all his brothers. But it can be answered that the promise of an angel is of less authority than that of God himself. For just as a star, when the sun rises, does not shine: so the words of angels are obscured, and vanish, and are considered as nothing in comparison to the promise of God. Indeed, this response seems to have some importance; but it is immediately countered by the authority of the following Scripture. For it is written: And Abraham said to God: May Ismael live in your sight (Ibid., XVII, 18 seqq.); and God answered him as follows: Behold, your wife Sara shall bear you a son, and you shall name him Isaac, and I will establish my covenant with him, as an everlasting covenant, and with his descendants after him. And regarding Ismael: Behold, I have heard you, and behold, I have blessed him, and I will multiply him, and increase him greatly. Twelve nations will he beget, and I will make him into a great nation. But my covenant I will establish with Isaac, whom Sarah will bear to you at this time next year. From these statements of God it is evident that Ishmael was also born according to the promise. But this is how it is resolved: the promise is properly fulfilled in the giving of the covenant, and it is different to bless, increase, and multiply greatly, which is written concerning Ishmael. It is different to make someone an heir through the covenant, which is said regarding Isaac: I will establish my covenant with him as an everlasting covenant, and with his descendants after him. And in the following: But my covenant I will establish with Isaac, whom Sarah shall bear to you (Gen., XVII, 19). And how different are gifts from assets: different are bequests from inheritance (for we read that gifts were given to the sons of Abraham by his concubines, but the inheritance of all his assets was left to the son of Sarah); so, as we have said, blessings and bequests are different from a covenant. But this can also be said of Ishmael, after his conception, whether by an angel or by God speaking. But concerning Isaac, before he was conceived in Sarah's womb, God had promised. These things, however, let them be said as much as the modesty of our intelligence allows. But if anyone can find something greater, how is it that Ishmael, who was born of a slave woman, is not the son of the promise, but Isaac, who was born of a free woman: he should rather be heard. And if anything, says the Apostle, you think differently, and God has revealed this to you. Now, briefly, we must strive for higher things, so that we may say that each one of us is born first, not according to the promise, as long as he is instructed by the simple words of the Scriptures and still delights in Jewish explanations: but when he surpasses to higher things and understands the spiritual law, then he is generated from the promise: and, to speak more clearly, every day those who do the works of Abraham are born from Abraham. But those who have the spirit of slavery, again in fear, are born of the Egyptian servant girl; but those who have received the spirit of adoption, are free through Sarah: by this freedom we are given by Christ. The Lord speaks to the Jews who still preferred to be the sons of the servant girl: If you remain in my word, you will truly be my disciples, and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free (John 8:31-32). So, those ignorant of the mystery that was being spoken, say: We are descendants of Abraham, and we have never been slaves to anyone: how can you say that we will be set free? Jesus answered them: Amen, amen I say to you, whoever commits sin is the slave of sin. But a slave does not remain in the house forever; but the son remains forever. If therefore we are the servants of sin, Agar has begotten us, the Egyptian: if sin reigns not in our mortal body, we are the sons of God indeed.

(Verse 24.) These things are spoken in allegory. Allegory properly belongs to the art of grammar, and we learn in elementary schools how it differs from metaphor or other figures of speech. One thing is presented in words, another thing is signified in meaning. The books of orators (Sup. in allegories) and poets are full of them. The divine scripture is also, to a considerable extent, woven together by this. Which understanding the Apostle Paul (who also had some contact with secular literature) used the very word "figure" in order to call it allegory, as it is said among his own people: in order to show, namely, the misuse of this Greek expression in a more meaningful way. But Paul, although not perfectly, knew secular literature, as his own words attest: "One of them, a prophet of their own, said, 'Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons.'" (Titus 1:12). This is a heroic verse of the poet Epimenides, which both Plato and other ancient writers mention. Also, when he was speaking in the Areopagus in Athens, he added this: "For we are indeed his offspring" as certain of your poets have said. (Acts 17:28). This hemistich is attributed to Aratus, who wrote about the sky and the stars. Also this: Bad company corrupts good morals (1 Cor. XV, 33); it is written in trimeter iambic from Menander's comedy. From these and other examples, it is evident that Paul was not ignorant of secular literature, and what he called allegory here, he called spiritual understanding elsewhere. Like here: For we know that the Law is spiritual (Rom. VII, 14), meaning allegory, or allegorically expressed. And elsewhere: All ate the same spiritual food and drank the same spiritual drink. They drank from the spiritual rock that followed them, and the rock was Christ (I Cor. X, 34). That the manna here, and the sudden gushing forth of the spring, and the rock itself that followed, must be understood allegorically, no one doubts. I know what objection can be made on the other side: Brothers, if a man is overtaken in any trespass, you who are spiritual should restore him in a spirit of gentleness (Gal. 6, 1). And in another place: But the spiritual man judges all things; yet he himself is judged by no one (1 Corinthians 2:15); so that, what we said above may be clearly understood as a spiritual word. But we call him a spiritual man, who, understanding all the sacraments of the Scriptures, interprets them in a sublime manner, and seeing Christ in the divine books, admits nothing of the Jewish tradition in them.

(Verses 25, 26.) For this is Hagar arising from Mount Sinai, in servitude, which is Agar. For Sinai is a mountain in Arabia, which corresponds to the present Jerusalem, and is in servitude with her children. But the Jerusalem above is free, which is the mother of us all. For it is written: Rejoice, barren one who does not bear, break forth and shout, you who do not travail, for many are the children of the desolate, more numerous than those of the one who has a husband. She did not conceive for a long time, before Christ was born of the Virgin, and she was barren: not yet with the laughter of the world did Isaac, born of the chosen father, resound with the voice of sublime teachings. For Abraham, also interpreted in our language as the chosen father, is referred to with resounding sound. But Hagar, which is interpreted as sojourning, that is, inhabiting, or pilgrimage, or stay, gives birth to Ishmael, who only hears God's commandments and does not become a rustic, bloodthirsty man, roaming the desert. He is an enemy to all his brothers born of a free woman and resists them with a hostile face. It is not surprising that the old Testament, which was established and written on Mount Sinai, which is in Arabia and is adjacent to the now existing Jerusalem, is not eternal: since the inhabitance is different from perpetual possession, and the name of Mount Sinai signifies temptation, and Arabia signifies decline: and on the contrary, the Jerusalem that is above, which is the free and mother of all saints, demonstrates that the present Jerusalem is below, and immersed in lowliness and humility. There are those who understand the two Testaments and other things in different ways: some interpret the divine Scripture, both the old and the new, according to the diversity of their own sense and judgment, either as a slave or as a free woman, and those who still serve the letter and have the spirit of fear in servitude, wish to be born of Hagar the Egyptian; but those who ascend to higher things and wish to understand allegorically what is written, are the children of Sarah, which in our language is translated as 'princess', in the feminine gender. And they claim this because of that necessity (or, let Al. claim it): that it would be unfair to consider Moses and all the prophets as being born from a slave woman, and indeed, any of the Gentiles as being born from a free woman. Hence, it is better that not only regarding those who are in the Church, according to the diversity of intellects as we said above, we consider some as slaves and others as free: but also regarding the same man, as long as he follows the story, we consider him the son of a slave woman; but when Jesus opens the Scriptures, his heart is set on fire and in the breaking of the bread, he sees Him whom he did not see before (Luke 24): then also Sara's son is called his. Marcion and Manichaeus did not want to remove this passage, in which the Apostle said, 'These things are allegorical,' and the rest that follow, from their own book, thinking that it would be left against us. This is because the Law should be understood differently than it is written, even though it is to be understood allegorically (which we also confess, and Paul teaches). It is not to be understood according to the will of the reader, but according to the authority of the one who wrote it. And by this very fact, they who seemed to want to preserve it against us, are destroyed. For Moses, the servant of the creator God, wrote spiritual things, as the Apostle also teaches, whom they themselves assert to be the preacher of another Christ and a better God.

(Verse 27.) For it is written: rejoice, O you barren one, who does not bear; break forth and cry out, you who are not in labor; for the children of the desolate one will be more than those of the one who has a husband. (Isaiah 54:1.) The Synagogue had a husband, the Law; and according to the prophecy of Anna, she who was once barren in children was fertile. (1 Samuel 1.) But the Church, barren without Christ, without any conversation with the bridegroom, lay for a long time in the desert. But after she received the book of divorce into her hands, and turned all the ornaments of the husband into the idol's adornment: then the husband, with the previous belt decaying, wove another belt for his loins from the Gentiles: as soon as she was joined to the husband, she conceived and bore a child. And the Lord cries out through the prophet: 'If a nation is born at once' (Isaiah XLIX, 54): when in one day in the Acts of the Apostles three thousand, and five thousand men believed (Acts III, etc.) I do not think it necessary to speak about the multitude of Christians and the paucity of Jews, when the banners of the cross shine throughout the whole world, and a Jew appears scarce and remarkable in cities.

(Vers. 29-31.) But as then he that was born according to the flesh persecuted him that was born according to the spirit, even so it is now. But what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman. So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free. In this liberty Christ hath made us free. I do not think it impossible to find where Ishmael persecuted Isaac; but only this, that when the son of the Egyptian, who was elder, played with Isaac, Sara was indignant, and said to Abraham: Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with my son Isaac. (Gen. XXI, 10). And certainly, a simple game among children is unworthy of expulsion and abandonment. But the Apostle, like a Hebrew among Hebrews, and instructed at the feet of the teacher Gamaliel, who once restrained the raging Pharisees against the Lord by council, understood from the words of Sarah saying: for the son of the maidservant will not inherit with my son Isaac, that that simple game was not. But because perhaps Ishmael, as the older one, and at that time already circumcised when he could understand and feel what he suffered, claimed for himself the right of the firstborn, the Scripture called the quarrel of the little ones a game. Unable to bear these words, Sarah, not enduring the custom of the firstborn claiming the rights of a slave woman's son from a young age, burst out in a voice: Cast out the slave woman and her son, for the son of the slave woman shall not inherit with my son Isaac. When this seemed harsh to Abraham (for greater things are always due to the firstborn), not only did Ishmael cease to be the firstborn, but he did not even receive an equal portion with his younger brother: God, who wanted the free woman to be inside and the slave woman to be expelled, confirms Sarah's words and speaks to Abraham: Let it not be harsh in your sight concerning the boy and the slave woman. Everything that Sara tells you, listen to her voice: for it is through Isaac that you will have descendants. Just as in the past, the older brother Ishmael persecuted the infant Isaac, claiming the privilege of circumcision and the rights of the firstborn; so now, according to the flesh, Israel (formerly Ishmael) rises up against the younger brother, the Christian people from the nations. Let us consider the foolishness of the Jews, who killed the Lord, persecuted the prophets and apostles, and opposed the will of God; and we will see much greater persecutions, as History also teaches us, stirred up by the Jews against the Christians than by the Gentiles. Do we marvel at the Jews? Even today, those who are born again in Christ and live spiritually are persecuted by those who still live in the flesh. And as they rise with Christ, they seek the things that are above, not the things that are below. Let them do what they want: let them persecute Isaac with Ishmael; let them cast out the bondwoman and her Egyptian mother. They will not inherit the promise, which only those who are born of the promise will obtain. And elegantly also, he who is born according to the flesh persecutes the spiritual. For the spiritual does not pursue the carnal; but forgives him as to a country brother: he knows that he can improve over time. And if at any time he sees the Egyptian son angry, he remembers the one father who created light, cattle, and mosquitoes: and in a great house, there are not only golden and silver vessels; but also wooden and earthen vessels. Therefore, let us say with the Apostle Paul: We are not slaves of the son, but free (2 Timothy 2); and being renewed in Christ, let us hear the words of the Lord speaking to the Jews: If you abide in my word, you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free (John 8:31, 32). The Apostle, liberated by this freedom, used to say: 'For although I am free from all, he who sins is a slave of sin' (I Cor. IX, 19). He, knowing himself free from all vices, from every desire and error, rightly rejoiced in the freedom of Christ saying: 'We are not slaves, but free: in this freedom Christ has set us free' (John VIII, 34).

(Chapter 5, Verse 1) Stand fast, and be not held again under the yoke of bondage. And from this it is shown that he who cleaves to the yoke of servitude does not stand. And because he who has been granted freedom by Christ has been under the yoke as long as he has had the spirit of servitude in fear, and has followed the beginnings of the Law. But when he says, stand, he exhorts firm and stable faith in Christ, so that the churches of Galatia may remain rooted in the Savior. About this, and in another place, the righteous one speaks: 'He has set my feet upon a rock' (Ps. 39:3), because it is upon Christ. So that the teachings may not be carried about by every wind and may be carried off in different directions (Eph. 4). Hence it is also said to those who are standing: 'And let anyone who stands take heed lest he fall' (1 Cor. 10:12). And in another place: 'Stand firm, act like men, be strong' (Ibid. 16:13), so that they may stand with Him whom Stephen, persevering in martyrdom, saw standing at the right hand of the Father (Acts 7), and also the one who spoke to Moses: 'But you, stand with me' (Exod. 34:2). But he calls the yoke of servitude a harsh, difficult, laborious law, which consumes its cultivators with heavy work day and night. Just as Peter says in the Acts of the Apostles: Why do you attempt to impose a heavy yoke upon the neck of the brothers, which neither we nor our fathers were able to bear (Acts 15:10)? But what he has added, do not burden yourselves again, not that the Galatians were keeping the Law before; but so that the heavy yoke of idolatry, by which the Egyptian people were oppressed and plunged like lead into the Red Sea (Exodus 15), may not be repeated. According to the sense of which he had said above, How do you turn again to weak and needy elements, which you desire again to serve, observing days, and months, and times, and years? For the Galatians, who, after the preaching of Paul the Apostle, had forsaken the idols and at once ascended to the grace of the Gospel, did not return to the servitude of the Jewish Law, which they had never known before: but wishing to observe times, to be circumcised in the flesh, and to offer corporeal sacrifices, they were in a certain way returning to the same worship to which they had previously served in idolatry. For both the Egyptian priests and the Ishmaelites and the Midianites are said to not have a foreskin. However, if only we did not know that the nations observe days, months, and years, so that we may never have any mixed festivities with them.

(Verse 2.) Behold, I, Paul, say to you: if you are circumcised, Christ will be of no benefit to you. In the Gospel, the Savior speaks to his disciples. Whoever listens to you, listens to me; whoever welcomes you, welcomes me (Luke 10:16). And the Apostle testifies, saying: I live, yet not I, but Christ lives in me (Galatians 2:20); and elsewhere: Do you seek a proof of Christ speaking in me? (2 Corinthians 13:3) From which it is clearly proven what he now says: Behold, I Paul say to you, not as if only Paul's words are to be received, but the Lord's. For when he had already stated in his first letter to the Corinthians: Now to the married I command, yet not I but the Lord (I Cor. 7:10); and immediately added: But to the rest I, not the Lord, say (Ibid., 12), so that his authority would not be considered insignificant: I think, he says, that I also have the spirit of God, so that by speaking in the spirit and in Christ, he who imitates the prophets would not be considered contemptible, saying: Thus says the Lord Almighty. But something greater will be made of what was said: Behold, I Paul say to you: if you are circumcised, Christ profits you nothing, if joined with the law, in which it says: Paul, an apostle not from men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and the rest: so that hearing, they are moved not so much by the authority of the sender as by that of the one who sends. Someone may say: The opposite of what is written in this passage is what is written to the Romans: Circumcision indeed profits, if you keep the law (Rom. II, 25); and below: What, then, is greater for the Jew, or what is the advantage of circumcision? By all means, it is first because the words of God were entrusted to them (Ibid., 1, 2). For if Christ is of no benefit to those who are circumcised, how does circumcision benefit those who keep the Law? This question is solved by this response, namely, that the Epistle written to the Romans is addressed to those who believed from both the Jews and the Gentiles, and Paul did this so that neither group would be offended, so that each people would possess their own privilege, and so that the Gentiles would not be circumcised and the circumcised would not have to be uncircumcised. But when he wrote to the Galatians, he used a different argument. For they were not of circumcision, but from the Gentiles who believed. And circumcision could not profit them who would return to the elements of the Law after the grace of the Gospel. And in the Acts of the Apostles (Acts XV) it narrates the story: when certain men arose from circumcision and asserted that those who believed from the Gentiles must be circumcised and keep the law of Moses, the elders who were in Jerusalem and the apostles gathered together and determined by letters that no yoke of the Law should be imposed on them, nor should they observe any longer except to keep themselves from idols, and from blood, and from fornication, or as it is written in some manuscripts, and from what is strangled. And so that there be no doubt, that circumcision is of no use, but rather, on account of those who believed from the Jews, he tempered his judgment on circumcision to the Romans, gradually descending to the later letters of the Epistles, he showed that neither circumcision nor uncircumcision have any value, saying: Circumcision therefore is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the observation of God's commandments (I Cor. VII, 19). For circumcision is nothing to such an extent that it profited nothing even to the Israelite house boasting of circumcision, as the prophet says: All the uncircumcised nations in flesh, but the house of Israel in uncircumcision of the heart (Ezech. XLIV, 9), and Melchisedec, who was uncircumcised, blessed Abraham who was circumcised. For as it says: If you are circumcised (Gen. XLIV); it is such, as if he wanted to say, if you are circumcised in the flesh. Which in another place he does not call circumcision, but mutilation, saying: See mutilation. For we are the circumcision, who serve God in the spirit, and boast in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh (Philippians III, 2, 3). He does not have confidence in the flesh, who expects all benefit from Christ, and does not sow in the flesh, so as to reap corruption from the flesh; but in the spirit, from which eternal life is generated. A more subtle thought must be considered: If you are circumcised, Christ is of no benefit to you. Not only does circumcision itself not profit those who are circumcised, but even if they seem to have other virtues apart from circumcision in Christ, they will perish completely after having faith in Christ and being circumcised. So what then? Did circumcision profit Timothy nothing? By all means greatly. For he was not circumcised in order to consider that he could obtain any advantage from circumcision itself, but rather to benefit others. A Jew became a Jew in order to convert the Jews to the faith of Christ through their circumcision. However, circumcision is not profitable, since it is considered to bring something of its own usefulness.