Bad Advertisement?
Are you a Christian?
Online Store:Visit Our Store
| On the Epistle to the Galatians. The Abolition of the Ordinances of the Mosaic Law No Proof of Another God. The Divine Lawgiver, the Creator Himself, Was the Abrogator. The Apostle's Doctrine in the First Chapter Shown to Accord with the Teaching of the Old Testament. The Acts of the Apostles Shown to Be Genuine Against Marcion. This Book Agrees with the Pauline Epistles.
PREVIOUS SECTION - NEXT SECTION - HELP 
Chapter
II.—On the Epistle to the Galatians. The Abolition of the
Ordinances of the Mosaic Law No Proof of Another God. The Divine
Lawgiver, the Creator Himself, Was the Abrogator. The Apostle’s
Doctrine in the First Chapter Shown to Accord with the Teaching of the
Old Testament. The Acts of the Apostles Shown to Be Genuine Against
Marcion. This Book Agrees with the Pauline Epistles.
The epistle which we also allow to be the most
decisive5236
against Judaism, is
that wherein the apostle instructs the Galatians. For the abolition of
the ancient law we fully admit, and hold that it actually proceeds from
the dispensation of the Creator,—a point which we have already
often treated in the course of our discussion, when we showed that the
innovation was foretold by the prophets of our God.5237
| 5237 See above, in book i.
chap. xx., also in book iv. chap. i. | Now, if the Creator indeed promised that
“the ancient things should pass away,”5238
| 5238 Comp. Isa. xliii. 18, 19, and lxv. 17, with 2 Cor. v.
17. | to be superseded by a new course of things
which should arise, whilst Christ marks the period of the separation
when He says, “The law and the prophets were until
John”5239
—thus making
the Baptist the limit between the two dispensations of the old things
then terminating—and the new things then beginning, the apostle
cannot of course do otherwise, (coming as he does) in Christ, who was
revealed after John, than invalidate “the old things” and
confirm “the new,” and yet promote thereby the faith of no
other god than the Creator, at whose instance5240
it
was foretold that the ancient things should pass away. Therefore both
the abrogation of the law and the establishment of the gospel help my
argument even in this epistle, wherein they both have reference to the
fond assumption of the Galatians, which led them to suppose that faith
in Christ (the Creator’s Christ, of course) was obligatory, but
without annulling the law, because it still appeared to them a thing
incredible that the law should be set aside by its own author.
Again,5241
if they had at all
heard of any other god from the apostle, would they not have concluded
at once, of themselves, that they must give up the law of that God whom
they had left, in order to follow another? For what man would be
long in learning, that he ought to pursue a new discipline, after he
had taken up with a new god? Since, however,5242
the same God was declared in the gospel which had always been so well
known in the law, the only change being in the dispensation,5243
the sole point of the question to be
discussed was, whether the law of the Creator ought by the gospel to be
excluded in the Christ of the Creator? Take away this point, and the
controversy falls to the ground. Now, since they would all know of
themselves,5244
on the withdrawal
of this point, that they must of course renounce all submission to the
Creator by reason of their faith in another god, there could have
been no call for the apostle to teach them so earnestly that which
their own belief must have spontaneously suggested to them. Therefore
the entire purport of this epistle is simply to show us that the
supersession5245
of the law comes
from the appointment of the Creator—a point, which we shall still
have to keep in mind.5246
| 5246 Ut adhuc
suggeremus. | Since also he makes
mention of no other god (and he could have found no other opportunity
of doing so, more suitable than when his purpose was to set forth the
reason for the abolition of the law—especially as the
prescription of a new god would have afforded a singularly good and
most sufficient reason), it is clear enough in what sense he writes,
“I marvel that ye are so soon removed from Him who hath called
you to His grace to another gospel”5247
—He means) “another” as to
the conduct it prescribes, not in respect of its worship;
“another” as to the discipline it teaches, not in respect
of its divinity; because it is the office of5248
Christ’s gospel to call men from the law to grace, not from the
Creator to another god. For nobody had induced them to apostatize
from5249
the Creator, that they should seem to
“be removed to another gospel,” simply when they return
again to the Creator. When he adds, too, the words, “which
is not another,”5250
he confirms the
fact that the gospel which he maintains is the Creator’s. For the
Creator Himself promises the gospel, when He says by Isaiah: “Get
thee up into the high mountain, thou that bringest to Sion good
tidings; lift up thy voice with strength, thou that bringest the gospel
to Jerusalem.”5251
Also when, with
respect to the apostles personally, He says, “How beautiful are
the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, that bring good
tidings of good”5252
—even
proclaiming the gospel to the Gentiles, because He also says, “In
His name shall the Gentiles trust;”5253
| 5253 We have here an
instance of the high authority of the Septuagint version. It comes from
the Seventy: Καὶ
ἐπὶ τῷ
ὀνοματι
αὐτοῦ ἔθνη
ἐλπιοῦσιν
(Isa. xlii. 4.) From this Tertullian, as usual, quoted
it. But what is much more important, St. Matthew has adopted it; see
chap. xii, ver. 21. This beautiful promise of the Creator
does not occur in its well-known form in the Hebrew original. |
that is, in the name of Christ, to whom He says, “I have given
thee as a light of the Gentiles.”5254
However, you will have it that it is the gospel of a new god which was
then set forth by the apostle. So that there are two gospels
for5255
two gods; and the apostle made a great
mistake when he said that “there is not another”
gospel,5256
since there is (on
the hypothesis)5257
another; and so he
might have made a better defence of his gospel, by rather demonstrating
this, than by insisting on its being but one. But perhaps, to avoid
this difficulty, you will say that he therefore added just afterwards,
“Though an angel from heaven preach any other gospel, let him be
accursed,”5258
because he was
aware that the Creator was going to introduce a gospel! But you thus
entangle yourself still more. For this is now the mesh in which you are
caught. To affirm that there are two gospels, is not the part of a man
who has already denied that there is another. His meaning, however, is
clear, for he has mentioned himself first (in the anathema): “But
though we or an angel from heaven preach any other
gospel.”5259
It is by way of an
example that he has expressed himself. If even he himself might not
preach any other gospel, then neither might an angel. He said
“angel” in this way, that he might show how much more men
ought not to be believed, when neither an angel nor an apostle ought to
be; not that he meant to apply5260
an angel to the
gospel of the Creator. He then cursorily touches on his own
conversion from a persecutor to an apostle—confirming thereby the
Acts of the Apostles,5261
| 5261 A similar remark
occurs in Præscript. Hæretic. c. xxiii. p. 253. | in which book may
be found the very subject5262
of this epistle,
how that certain persons interposed, and said that men ought to be
circumcised, and that the law of Moses was to be observed; and how the
apostles, when consulted, determined, by the authority of the Holy
Ghost, that “a yoke should not be put upon men’s necks
which their fathers even had not been able to bear.”5263
Now, since the Acts of the Apostles thus
agree with Paul, it becomes apparent why you reject them. It is because
they declare no other God than the Creator, and prove Christ to belong
to no other God than the Creator; whilst the promise of the Holy Ghost
is shown to have been fulfilled in no other document than the Acts of
the Apostles. Now, it is not very likely that these5264
| 5264 “The Acts
of the Apostles” is always a plural phrase in
Tertullian. | should be found in agreement with the
apostle, on the one hand, when they described his career in accordance
with his own statement; but should, on the other hand, be at variance
with him when they announce the (attribute of) divinity in the
Creator’s Christ—as if Paul did not follow5265
the preaching of the apostles when he received from them the
prescription5266
of not teaching the
Law.5267
| 5267 Dedocendæ legis;
i.e., of Moses. | E.C.F. INDEX & SEARCH
|
