Vita in Christo, non in lege
Life in Christ, not the law
2:19 Ego enim per legem, legi mortuus sum, ut Deo vivam: Christo confixus sum cruci. [n. 102]
2:19 For I, through the law, am dead to the law, that I may live to God; with Christ I am nailed to the cross. [n. 102]
2:20 Vivo autem, jam non ego: vivit vero in me Christus. Quod autem nunc vivo in carne: in fide vivo Filii Dei, qui dilexit me, et tradidit semetipsum pro me. [n. 108]
2:20 But I do not live now: but Christ lives in me. But that I live now in the flesh: I live in the faith of the Son of God, who loved me and delivered himself for me. [n. 108]
2:21 Non abjicio gratiam Dei. Si enim per legem justitia, ergo gratis Christus mortuus est. [n. 111]
2:21 I do not cast away the grace of God. For if justice be by the law, then Christ died in vain. [n. 111]
102. Hic Apostolus solutionem superius assignatam manifestat. Et
102. Here the Apostle amplifies the solution given above.
primo ponit solutionis manifestationem;
First, he explains the solution.
secundo concludit principale intentum, ibi non abiicio gratiam Dei, et cetera.
Second, he concludes to his principal proposition, at I do not cast away the grace of God.
Sed attendendum est, quod Apostolus inquirendo procedens, nullum dubium indiscussum relinquit. Et ideo verba eius licet videantur intricata, tamen si diligenter advertantur, nihil sine causa dicit, et hoc apparet in verbis propositis. Ubi tria facit:
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:
primo manifestat solutionem;
first, he manifests the solution;
secundo explicat solutionis manifestationem, ibi Christo confixus sum cruci, etc.;
second, he explains his manifestation of the solution, at with Christ I am nailed to the cross;
tertio removet dubitationem, ibi quod autem vivo, et cetera.
third, he settles the question, at that I live now in the flesh.
103. Quia ergo Apostolus dixerat si enim quae destruxi, etc., quod intelligitur de veteri lege, posset enim ab aliquo reputari legis destructor, et per consequens iniquus, secundum illud Ps. CXVIII, 126: dissipaverunt iniqui legem tuam, ideo Apostolus vult ostendere quomodo legem destruat, et tamen non est iniquus, dicens ego enim per legem, et cetera.
103. Therefore, because the Apostle had said, for, if I build up again the things which I have destroyed (Gal 2:18), which is understood to refer to the old law, for one might regard him as a destroyer of the law and consequently impious: they have dissipated your law (Ps 119:126), 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.
Ubi sciendum est, quod quando aliquis dissipat legem per ipsam legem, talis est praevaricator legis, non iniquus. Dissipatur autem lex per legem, quando in lege datur aliquod praeceptum locale seu temporale, ut scilicet lex illa tali tempore, seu tali loco servetur, et non alio, et hoc ipsum exprimatur in lege. Si quis tunc in illo tempore, seu in illo loco lege non utitur, destruit legem per ipsam legem, et hoc modo Apostolus destruxit legem. Unde destruxi, inquit, quodammodo legem, tamen per legem, quia ego mortuus sum legi per legem, id est, per auctoritatem legis ipsam dimisi, quasi legi mortuus.
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.
Auctoritas enim legis, per quam mortuus est legi, in multis Sacrae Scripturae locis habetur; Ier. XXXI, 31, tamen sub aliis verbis: confirmabo testamentum novum super domum Israel, etc.; Deut. XVIII, 15: prophetam suscitabit Dominus de fratribus vestris, etc.; et multis aliis locis; non est ergo transgressor Apostolus legem destruendo.
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: I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel (Jer 31:31); the Lord will raise up to you a prophet of your 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.
104. Vel aliter: ego per legem, scilicet spiritualem, mortuus sum legi carnali. Tunc enim moritur legi, quando abiicit legem solutus a lege. Iuxta illud Rom. VII, 2: mortuo viro, soluta est mulier a lege viri. Inquantum vero Apostolus subiectus erat legi spirituali, dicit se mortuum legi, id est, solutum a legis observatione. Rom. VIII, 2: lex Spiritus vitae, et cetera.
104. Or else, I, through the spiritual law, am dead to the carnal law. For he dies to the law when, being freed by the law, he casts it aside: if her husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband (Rom 7:2). 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, has delivered me from the law of sin and of death (Rom 8:2).
105. Alius modus dimittendi legem sine praevaricatione esse potest, quia videlicet lex aliqua quando est scripta in charta, tunc dicitur lex mortua, et quando est in mente legislatoris, tunc dicitur lex viva. Constat autem, quod si aliquis secundum verbum legislatoris operaretur contra legem scriptam, et solveret legem, et solveretur a lege mortua, et servaret legem vivam secundum imperium legislatoris.
105. Again there is another possible way of setting the law aside without prevarication, namely, because, 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.
Dicit ergo, secundum hoc, mortuus sum legi scriptae et mortuae, id est solutus sum ab ea, ut Deo vivam, id est, motus meos secundum dicta ipsius dirigam, et ad honorem eius ordiner. Lex enim statuta in scriptis aliquid tradit propter extraneos, et eos qui ab eo verbotenus audire non possunt; sed his qui coram eo sunt, non dicit eam scriptis, sed verbo tantum.
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.
A principio enim homines infirmi erant, ad Deum accedere non valentes. Et ideo necesse fuit eis praecepta legis in scriptis dare, ut per legem quasi per paedagogum manu ducerentur ad hoc, quod ab eo praecepta eius audirent, secundum quod dicitur infra III, 24: lex paedagogus noster fuit in Christo, et cetera. Sed postquam habemus accessum ad Patrem per Christum, ut dicitur Rom. V, 2, non instruimur per legem de mandatis Dei, sed ab ipso Deo. Et ideo dicit: per legem manuducentem mortuus sum legi scriptae, ut vivam Deo, scilicet ipsi factori legis, id est, ut ab ipso instruar et dirigar.
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 (Gal 3:24). But after we have access to the Father through Christ (Rom 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.
106. Consequenter cum dicit Christo confixus sum, etc., explicat quae dixit.
106. Then when he says, with Christ I am nailed to the cross, he amplifies what he said.
Dixerat autem quod est mortuus legi, et quod vivit Deo. Et ista duo manifestat. Et primo quod sit mortuus legi, per hoc quod dicit Christo confixus sum cruci; secundo quod vivit Deo, cum dicit vivo ego, iam non ego, et cetera.
Now he had said that he died to the law and lives to 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; second, that he lives to God, when he says: but I do not live now, but Christ lives in me.
Et primum quidem potest exponi dupliciter.
The first point can be explained in two ways.
Uno modo sicut in Glossa, sic: quilibet homo secundum carnalem originem nascitur filius irae, Eph. II, 3: eramus enim natura filii irae, et cetera. Nascitur etiam in vetustate peccati, Bar. III, 11: inveterasti in terra aliena, et cetera. Quae quidem vetustas peccati tollitur per crucem Christi, et confertur novitas vitae spiritualis.
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: you are 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.
Dicit ergo Apostolus Christo confixus sum cruci, id est, concupiscentia seu fomes peccati, et omne huiusmodi, mortuum est in me per crucem Christi. Rom. VI, 6: vetus homo noster simul crucifixus est, et cetera. Item ex quo cum Christo confixus sum cruci, et mortuus sum peccato, et Christus resurrexit, cum resurgente etiam resurrexi. Rom. IV, 25: traditus est, et cetera. Sic ergo Christus in nobis renovat vitam novam, destructa vetustate peccati. Et ideo dicit vivo autem, id est, quia Christo confixus sum cruci, vigorem bene operandi habeo, iam non ego secundum carnem, quia iam non habeo vetustatem quam prius habui, sed vivit in me Christus, id est, novitas, quae per Christum nobis data est.
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, but I do not live, i.e., because I am nailed to the cross of Christ, I have the strength to act well, now according to the flesh, because I no longer have the oldness which I formerly had, but Christ lives in me, i.e., the newness which has been given to us through Christ.
107. Vel aliter: homo quantum ad illud dicitur vivere, in quo principaliter firmat suum affectum, et in quo maxime delectatur. Unde et homines qui in studio seu in venationibus maxime delectantur, dicunt hoc eorum vitam esse. Quilibet autem homo habet quemdam privatum affectum, quo quaerit quod suum est; dum ergo aliquis vivit quaerens tantum quod suum est, soli sibi vivit, cum vero quaerit bona aliorum, dicitur etiam illis vivere.
107. 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.
Quia ergo Apostolus proprium affectum deposuerat per crucem Christi, dicebat se mortuum proprio affectui, dicens Christo confixus sum cruci, id est, per crucem Christi remotus est a me proprius affectus sive privatus. Unde dicebat infra ult.: mihi absit gloriari nisi in cruce Domini nostri, etc., II Cor. V, 14 s.: si unus pro omnibus mortuus est, ergo omnes mortui sunt. Et pro omnibus mortuus est Christus, ut et qui vivunt iam non sibi vivant, sed ei, et cetera. Vivo autem, id est, iam non vivo ego, quasi in affectu habens proprium bonum, sed vivit in me Christus, id est tantum Christum habeo in affectu, et ipse Christus est vita mea. Phil. I, 21: mihi vivere Christus est, et mori lucrum.
Accordingly, because the Apostle had set aside his love of self through the cross of Christ, he said that be 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 (Gal 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 I do not live, i.e., I no longer live as though having any interest in my own good, but Christ lives 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).
108. Consequenter autem cum dicit quod autem nunc vivo, etc., respondet dubitationi quae poterat esse duplex ex praemisso verbo. Una est quomodo ipse vivit, et non est ille, scilicet qui vivit; secunda quomodo confixus est cruci. Et ideo haec duo aperit.
108. Then when he says, but that I live now in the flesh, 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.
109. Et primo primum, quomodo scilicet vivit, et non ipse vivit, dicens quod autem nunc vivo, et cetera.
109. First of all, the first one, namely, how he lives and yet it is not he who lives. He answers this when he says but that I live now in the flesh: I live in the faith of the Son of God.
Ubi notandum est, quod illa proprie dicuntur vivere, quae moventur a principio intrinseco. Anima autem Pauli constituta erat inter Deum et corpus, et corpus quidem vivificabatur et movebatur ab anima Pauli, sed anima eius a Christo. Quantum ergo ad vitam carnis vivebat ipse Paulus, et hoc est quod dicit quod autem nunc vivo in carne, id est, vita carnis; sed quantum ad relationem ad Deum, Christus vivebat in Paulo, et ideo dicit in fide vivo Filii Dei, per quam habitat in me et movet me. Hab. II, 4: iustus autem meus ex fide vivit.
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, but 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).
Et nota quod dicit, in carne, non ex carne, quia hoc malum est.
And note that he says in the flesh, not by the flesh, because this is evil.
110. Secundo ostendit quod confixus est cruci, dicens: quia amor Christi quem ostendit mihi in cruce moriens pro me, facit ut semper ei configar. Et hoc est quod dicit qui dilexit me. I Io. IV, 10: ipse prior dilexit nos. Et intantum dilexit me, quod tradidit semetipsum pro me, et non aliud sacrificium. Apoc. I, 5: dilexit nos, et lavit nos a peccatis nostris in sanguine suo. Eph. c. V, 25: sicut Christus dilexit Ecclesiam, et semetipsum tradidit pro ea, et cetera.
110. Second, 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 (I John 4:10). And he loved me to the extent that he delivered 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 (Eph 5:25).
Sed attendendum est, quod ipse Filius tradidit se, et Pater tradidit Filium, Rom. VIII, v. 32: qui proprio Filio non pepercit, sed pro nobis omnibus tradidit illum; et Iudas tradidit eum, ut dicitur Matth. XXVI, 48: et totum una res est, sed non una intentio, quia Pater ex caritate, Filius ex obedientia simul et cum caritate, Iudas vero ex cupiditate et proditorie.
But it should be noted that the Son delivered himself, and the Father delivered his Son: he spared not even his own Son, but delivered him up for us (Rom 8:32). Judas, too, delivered him up (Matt 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.
111. Consequenter cum dicit non abiicio gratiam Dei, infert conclusionem principalem. Et primo inducit conclusionem; secundo manifestat modum.
111. Then when he says, I do not cast away the grace of God, he draws the principal conclusion. First, he draws the conclusion; second, he explains it.
Dicit ergo: ex quo tantam gratiam recepi a Deo quod tradidit se, et ego vivo in fide Filii Dei, non abiicio gratiam Filii Dei, id est, non repudio, nec ingratum me exhibeo. I Cor. XV, 10: gratia Dei in me vacua non fuit, et cetera.
He says, therefore: because I have received from God so great a grace that he delivered himself, and I live in the faith of the Son of God, I do not cast away the grace of God, i.e., I do not repudiate it or show myself ungrateful: the grace of God in me has not been void, but I have labored more abundantly than all they (1 Cor 15:10).
Unde et alia littera habet. Non sum ingratus gratiae Dei (Hebr. XII, 15: contemplantes ne quis desit gratiae Dei), scilicet per ingratitudinem se indignum fatendo.
Hence another version has, I am not ungrateful for the grace of God. Looking diligently lest any man be wanting to the grace of God (Heb 12:15), i.e., by showing myself unworthy because of ingratitude.
112. Modus autem abiiciendi et ingratitudinis est, si dicerem quod lex esset necessaria ad iustificandum. Et ideo dicit si enim per legem iustitia, ergo Christus gratis est mortuus, id est, si sufficiens sit lex, id est, opera legis sufficiunt ad iustificandum hominem, Christus sine causa mortuus est, et frustra, quia ad hoc mortuus est, ut nos iustificaret. I Petr. III, 18: Christus semel pro peccatis nostris mortuus est, et cetera.
112. A form of repudiation and of ingratitude would exist, if I were to say that the law is necessary in order to be justified. Hence he says, for if justice be by the law, then Christ died in vain, i.e., if the law is sufficient, i.e., if the works of the law suffice to justify a man, Christ died to no purpose and in vain, because he died in order to make us just: Christ also died once for our sins, the just for the unjust, that he might offer us to God (1 Pet 3:18).