I'm trying to determine if the perfect tense of οἶδα indicates that this type of 'knowing' can not cease. Is there any way to use Logos to determine whether this hypothesis is valid?
I'm trying to determine if the perfect tense of οἶδα indicates that this type of 'knowing' can not cease.
I'm having trouble understanding what your hypothesis means. Furthermore, does the use of a perfect tense alone communicate this much?
FWIW, I'd start with a word search of οἶδα in the Greek text, to check whether various instances of it tend to prove or disprove your hypothesis.
I would start with a search:
But in general "perfect" refers to relevance in the present not future.
I was wondering if there is a way to search what words modify οἶδα and thereby determine if any adverb used with οἶδα indicates such knowledge could every cease.
You could try a syntax search for any adverb modifying οἶδα then sort the results
Peace to you, Andrew! I just had a lovely time doing a Bible Word Study from one of the 394 passages that uses οἶδα.
Have you tried that? *smile* Do you need any help doing a Word Study? I think the Word Study might just be one vehicle that can help you with your hypothesis.....
Also, Louw-Nida 28.1 might be something that you might want to study if you have that resource...
Please get back to us; and we can chat about how you might like to proceed ...
A Know1 (28.1–28.16)
28.1 γινώσκωa; οἶδαa; γνωρίζωa; γνῶσιςa, εως f: to possess information about—‘to know, to know about, to have knowledge of, to be acquainted with, acquaintance.’
γινώσκωa: διότι γνόντες τὸν θεὸν οὐκ ὡς θεὸν ἐδόξασαν ‘since, although they knew about God, they did not honor him as God’ or ‘… they did not give him the honor that belongs to him’ Ro 1:21; ὑμεῖς ἐστε οἱ δικαιοῦντες ἑαυτοὺς ἐνώπιον τῶν ἀνθρώπων, ὁ δὲ θεὸς
γινώσκει τὰς καρδίας ὑμῶν ‘you are the ones who make yourselves look right in people’s sight, but God knows your hearts’ Lk 16:15.2
οἶδαa: γρηγορεῖτε οὖν, ὅτι οὐκ οἴδατε τὴν ἡμέραν οὐδὲ τὴν ὥραν ‘watch out, then, because you do not know the day or hour’ Mt 25:13; τὰς ἐντολὰς οἶδας ‘you know the commandments’ Mk 10:19.
γνωρίζωa: τί αἱρήσομαι οὐ γνωρίζω ‘which I shall choose, I do not know’ Php 1:22.
γνῶσιςa: τοῦ δοῦναι γνῶσιν σωτηρίας τῷ λαῷ αὐτοῦ ‘to let his people know that they will be saved’ Lk 1:77.[1]
1 1 The meanings in Domain 28 Know are rarely expressed or represented by figurative lexical items, since expressions for ‘know, known, make known’ are fundamentally semantic primitives. In some languages, however, the ‘eye’ is regarded as the organ of knowledge, and to know something may be literally ‘to hold in the eye.’ A few languages also employ a term for ‘liver’ in idiomatic expressions relating to knowing and knowledge.
f feminine
2 2 In Jn 8:23 (γνώσεσθε τὴν ἀλήθειαν, καὶ ἡ ἀλήθεια ἐλευθερώσει ὑμᾶς ‘you will know the truth and the truth will make you free’), it is also possible to understand γινώσκω as ‘to find out’ or ‘to learn’ (27.2).
[1] Louw, J. P., & Nida, E. A. (1996). Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament: based on semantic domains. New York: United Bible Societies.
I don't think you need Logos for that, just a good Greek grammar.
The perfect tense indicates completed action that continues into the present. That's it. There is no guarantee that such action (indicated by the perfect tense) is now eternal / everlasting. To draw a further conclusion is reading into the language what isn't there.
I guess my question is how to run that search...
I don't think you need Logos for that, just a good Greek grammar. The perfect tense indicates completed action that continues into the present. That's it. There is no guarantee that such action (indicated by the perfect tense) is now eternal / everlasting. To draw a further conclusion is reading into the language what isn't there.
Can one un-know something? My understanding is that οἶδα doesn't generally refer to experiential knowledge which would indicate to me that this isn't the type of knowledge that fades through neglect (eg. speaking a language). If something or someone is οἶδα and that continues into the present, doesn't that mean it can't be un-known?
Peace to you, Andrew! I just had a lovely time doing a Bible Word Study from one of the 394 passages that uses οἶδα. Have you tried that? *smile* Do you need any help doing a Word Study? I think the Word Study might just be one vehicle that can help you with your hypothesis.....
Thank you - I hadn't worked with the grammatical relationships section of the Bible Word Study before and the adverb sub-section does indeed seem to answer this specific question.
I am, however, still interested in a good tutorial on syntax searches...Preferably a written tutorial rather than a series of videos.
Can one un-know something?
Uh, I forgot. [;)]
My understanding is that οἶδα doesn't generally refer to experiential knowledge which would indicate to me that this isn't the type of knowledge that fades through neglect (eg. speaking a language).
But οἶδα is not necessarily not experiential either. For example, the usage in Matt 15:12 suggests they knew what they knew about the Pharisees because the saw the expression on their faces themselves. Peter's use of this term in Matt. 25:70,ff, suggests that it does include personal knowledge (and BDAG agrees). This term doesn't stress the experiential side of knowing (as does γινώσκω), but it certainly doesn't exclude it either. We should see the two terms (οἶδα & γινώσκω) as overlapping synonyms, rather than sharply divided concepts, even if they tend to stress different aspects of knowing.
If something or someone is οἶδα and that continues into the present, doesn't that mean it can't be un-known?
You're asking about the nature of knowledge and memory here, as opposed to a Greek word in a given tense. The answer would have to connect several academic disciplines for an adequate response to the question as you present it: theology, philosophy and psychology (at least). The fact that God remembers our sins no more (Heb. 10:17 / Jer. 31:34), certainly suggests that God has the ability to 'un-know' something. Being God He may be able to do what we can't. (There are a few things I wish I could forget!) So there's at least one possibility that a thing once known can be un-known.
There are a lot of things I knew, having learned them in class enough to pass a test, that I no longer know. For example, I no longer know what "iambic pentameter" means, though I once did (I do remember it has something to do with Shakespeare and how he wrote). At one point I knew all the Hebrew words that occurred 500 times or more in the OT and could translate directly from Hebrew into English. I have a seminary degree to prove it. But I don't know enough Hebrew to do it anymore. There are some even more esoteric, highly theoretical matters (decidedly not experiential) I learned to pass a test or exam, but I could not recount them to you anymore, e.g., mathematical formulae for solving quadratic equations (I was actually pretty good at it in high school, but I don't think I could do it again without having to re-learn the whole thing!).
Now maybe that last paragraph is a sign that I should start on some sort of medication. But I think it's perfectly normal to not remember everything we've ever known (regardless of whether we learned it through direct experience or some other way).
[I hope you see this response as a friendly debate, rather than an "attack" on your position. I rather enjoy this sort of discussion and trust I am treating you and your position honorably, even while disagreeing.]
Don't worry - I am certainly not offended.
There are a lot of things I knew, having learned them in class enough to pass a test, that I no longer know.
Perhaps I can rephrase my question. I can say in English "I knew" which implies I no longer know. In fact, you used 'knew' in this manner in your response. My question, then, is whether Koine Greek ever uses οἶδα in this sense. Is there any example of someone οἶδα (knowing) something and then not οἶδα (knowing) it at some later point? My observation regarding tense is simply that if οἶδα only appears in the perfect, perhaps this Greek term (unlike our English 'know') can not be un-known since there are no imperfect or aorist forms.
I am also still interested interested in a good tutorial on syntax searches...Preferably a written tutorial rather than a series of videos.
Peace to all! This has the makings of a good thread! *smile*
I'll be back tomorrow or Monday, hopefully!
Perhaps I can rephrase my question. I can say in English "I knew" which implies I no longer know.
I knew that. [I knew it before it was mentioned.]
I also knew Humphrey Wanamaker's uncle [who passed away]
Syntagmatics and context.
I knew that. [I knew it before it was mentioned.] I also knew Humphrey Wanamaker's uncle [who passed away] Syntagmatics and context.
Although the English past tense of know does not necessarily imply such knowing has ended, it can imply precisely that.
I am simply using an English example to explain the concept. At the end of the day, I only care whether this works in Koine Greek which is why I'm trying to determine if there are any examples of οἶδα referring to something that is no longer known. οἶδα is a relatively frequent term, so a lack of examples would be significant though not conclusive.
That's exactly the kind of argument you can validly make if you cite examples of actual usage, which you did! This is also what you need to do with your hypothesis.
I hope this page helps you: http://wiki.logos.com/Detailed_Search_Help#Simple_Search_Syntax
Out of curiosity, what occurrence of the word has precipitated this study? What passage?
I don't think you need Logos for that, just a good Greek grammar. The perfect tense indicates completed action that continues into the present. That's it. There is no guarantee that such action (indicated by the perfect tense) is now eternal / everlasting. To draw a further conclusion is reading into the language what isn't there. Can one un-know something? My understanding is that οἶδα doesn't generally refer to experiential knowledge which would indicate to me that this isn't the type of knowledge that fades through neglect (eg. speaking a language). If something or someone is οἶδα and that continues into the present, doesn't that mean it can't be un-known?
Paul would seem to imply that one can "un-know" something when he states
Ἡ ἀγάπη οὐδέποτε πίπτει· εἴτε δὲ προφητεῖαι, καταργηθήσονται· εἴτε γλῶσσαι, παύσονται· εἴτε γνῶσις, καταργηθήσεται.
1 Cor 13.8
I don't, however, think we should understand that in quite the sense that one could "un-know" something.
BTW: You should realize that οἶδα is the perfect of a verb which actually means "to see" [from εἰδ* from which the Latin video is derived]. While I don't put much trust in etymologies, it would appear that once one has "seen" something he then "knows" it. To use the Greek, however, to derive some ontological status for something seems somewhat perverse and beyond what the scriptures intend. All that can really be derived from such a study is the way the ancients viewed matters rather than some structure of reality.
for what it is worth
oida is always verbal with 282 results in Perfect tense. When modified adverbially there are 112 results.
Unordered means the following Clause Functions appear in any order, with any separation (within the parent Clause).
Thanks!
George, please forgive me if I'm stating the obvious. When Paul in 1 Corinthians 13:8 states that love will never cease in contrast to prophecy, tongues and knowledge, he is not talking about a future state of un-knowing but explaining that in the eschaton the gifts of the Spirit will not be needed as means to learn the will of God/Jesus because we will see God/Jesus "face to face". At least, that's how I understand it.
That would be my understanding as well. He does nevertheless say that it will cease.
In some sense we see knowledge ending every day... I read recently that in the technical fields every two years the data for the field has exponentially increased. The article went on to say that by the time one graduated half of what one had learned was obsolete!In a very real sense then things that were known and in the common knowledge of subsets of our society, have ceased to be common knowledge by the future representatives of the same subsets.
I'm trying to find all Greek NT sentences that contain at least 2 identical prepositions and at least 1 conjunction. However, the search I have designed yields no results.
Peace to all! So very, very much indeed depends upon context! So many of our responses to the OP end up as generalisations because we aren't really aware what the concerns of the OP are -- over against this Greek Word....
So, I most certainly agree with this post that I am quoting and wonder myself the same question:
I have many worthwhile commentaries and I'd like to "check it out" ( *smile* ) as well as study it
Blessings! *smile*
So, I most certainly agree with this post that I am quoting and wonder myself the same question: Out of curiosity, what occurrence of the word has precipitated this study? What passage? I have many worthwhile commentaries and I'd like to "check it out" ( *smile* ) as well as study it Blessings! *smile*
Hi,
I am currently looking at Galatians 6:16. The question is whether the syntax there (with the repeated preposition επι) equates or distinguishes between "all those who follow this rule" and "the Israel of God". To establish this, I'd like to find all NT examples of sentences that include the same preposition twice as well as και. I believe the syntax search is the perfect tool to answer this question, but I'm having difficulty finding a detailed help file on the syntax search feature.
The initial verses I was trying to understanding using Syntax Search was Galatians 4:8-9 - Specifically the shift from οἶδα to γινώσκω.
Peace and Every Blessing, Andrew! Thanks for sharing! It's been a long day, and I won't be doing too much more studying yet this evening, so soon ......... tomorrow .........? next day .............>? soon, and am looking forward to it ...
If I end up with anything to share, I will most certainly do so! *smile*
Wow! I see what you mean! What a truly fascinating play on words and concepts ... will require much reflection, methinks!
*smile*
8 Ἀλλὰ τότε μὲν οὐκ εἰδότες θεὸν ἐδουλεύσατε τοῖς φύσει μὴ οὖσιν θεοῖς· 9 νῦν δὲ γνόντες θεόν, μᾶλλον δὲ γνωσθέντες ὑπὸ θεοῦ, πῶς ἐπιστρέφετε πάλιν ἐπὶ τὰ ἀσθενῆ καὶ πτωχὰ στοιχεῖα οἷς πάλιν ἄνωθεν δουλεύειν θέλετε;
Incredible, Andrew! *smile* I want to quit studying for the day but having difficulty stopping....
I thought I'd check out my Lenski before I gave it up for the evening ... I'm Lutheran and my first taste of any commentary really was Lenski -- and I remember at Concordia Seminary, St. Louis, Missouri in the late 1950's and early 60's that when we quoted Lenski in a "paper" or an assignment (well or even not so well! *smile* ) ... that our Professors took note and we may have even received a higher grade when quoting Lenski - so quote we did! *smile*
BTW - I have almost all of the various commentaries Logos sells, but I started with Lenski for sentimental reasons ... will tackle the others later and in good order ....
and HERE is a great quote from Lenski that I really appreciated indeed! I'm attaching it here in case you do not have Lenski ...
Blessings, and kindest personal greetings! *smile* Peace!
8) In contrasting the condition under the law with that when one is freed from the law Paul used a comparison (v. 1) which applied directly to the Jewish Christians and indirectly (v. 3, “the elements of the world”) to the Gentile Christians. He now completes this by doing the reverse, by speaking directly about the Gentile and indirectly about the Jewish Christians.
Paul has said of the former that they, too, are “sons” who are not minors (v. 6), that everyone is an “heir” in possession of the inheritance and not a slave (v. 7), i. e., a minor who does not differ from a slave (v. 1). Just what had the position of the Gentile Christians been before they became Christians? Now at the time, not knowing God, you slaved for those who by nature are not gods.
Ἀλλά is merely copulative and adds the further fact (R. 1185, etc.); it is not adversative, does not mean “but.” Τότε μέν, “then” or “at that time,” is in contrast with νῦν δέ (v. 9), “but now.” The condition of the Gentile Christians before their conversion and during the whole time when the Jews were still in the position of minors is described by the constative participle, “not knowing God.” Οὐκ instead of μή makes the participial negation more clear-cut, R. 1137. It is a simple fact, the Gentiles did not even know the true God; they lived in utter pagan darkness and blindness. The Galatians will not question that fact.
In correspondence with that ignorance “you slaved for those who by nature are not gods.” In this way these Gentiles were most miserable slaves; they slaved for idols. Note the likeness: under the Mosaic regulations even the Old Testament believers were in a position that was no better than that of a slave (v. 1); the Gentiles, who were ignorant of God, were outright slaves under idols. There was, indeed, a difference: the Mosaic law was divinely given while the false gods were human inventions; Jewish believers had sonship as minors, pagans had nothing. Yet a certain likeness existed regarding the point of slavery. The frightful condition of the slavery of the Gentiles was the fact that “they slaved (constative aorist, expressing the entire action as a unit) for those who by nature are not gods.” They were imaginary beings, fictitious gods. The negative with the participle is the common μή, which, however, does not express only Paul’s judgment; it negates the fact in the ordinary way.
All of the paganism found in the world today presents the same picture of the vilest and the most pitiful slavery. The pagan gods are not gods in any true sense of the word. The thought that Paul expresses a certain measure of excuse for the Gentiles because they did not know God contradicts Rom. 1:19–32, especially v. 19–21. The context is against the idea of an excuse, for the idea to be expressed is that of a most wretched and base condition.
9) But now, having come to know God, rather having come to be known by God, how are you turning back to the weak and beggarly elements for which you are wanting to slave over again?
The two participles are good examples of the ingressive aorist. We have trouble in conveying by translation what these two participles mean in distinction from the one used in v. 8. C.-K. 388 distinguishes: εἰδέναι = the knowing of an object which enters the perception of a subject; γινώσκειν = the attitude or relation of self to the object that is known. The latter is not exact enough. The Lutheran fathers defined the latter as nosse cum affectu et effectu. They also gave the same meaning to the Hebrew yada’, “to know with affect and effect,” a knowing with approval and love, with full acceptance, John 10:27; 2 Tim. 2:19. In Matt. 7:23: “I never knew you,” means I never knew you in love as my own. God, of course, knew them intellectually or mentally.
Note that both οὐκ εἰδότες and γνόντες have the identical object, and these are direct objects. This is one of the evidences for the view that in the case of the latter the basic idea of knowing remains and is never altered to signify an act only of the will: to choose or elect, a synonym of ἐκλέγεσθαι. R., W. P., expresses this predestinarian idea when he comments on the passive participle “known by God”: “God’s elective grace.” Does Paul say that we elected God, and that we were elected by God? The question answers itself.
“Rather having come to be known by God” is not intended to cancel “having come to know God” nor to correct the active by means of the passive. The addition is a fuller statement as to how the great change with regard to the Gentiles came about. They got to know God as their own in faith and in love but not by their own ability and effort. God wrought upon them so that he could know them as his own in love, and so these Gentiles got to know God of whom they had been totally ignorant before. The change of voice in the two expressions is most effective. Luther states it in a fine way: non ideo cognoscuntur quia cognoscunt, sed contra, quia cogniti sunt, ideo cognoscunt.
The ingressive aorist participles speak of the start the Galatians have made and thus leave room for the question, “What about the present and the future until the end?” “How are you turning back” = how is it that you are turning back? The first meaning of πάλιν is “back” (place), the second “again” (time); both are used here. Observe the two present tenses “are you turning—you are wanting”: the defection was not yet accomplished, it had just recently begun. Are the Galatians turning back “to the weak and beggarly elements”? Here we have the same term that was used in v. 3 (which see), and the relative clause, “for which you are wanting to slave anew,” attaches the same thought of slavery. These elements make slaves (passive in v. 3), and men are willing to slave for them (active here in v. 9). The Mosaic law formerly held the Jews to “the elements of the world,” regulations about food, drink, and all kinds of material things and outward actions. They were no better than slaves. The Galatians were formerly in a similar state, the Gentiles among them being tied in slavery to their pagan religion with all its material, cheap earthly elements of sacrifices, temples, ceremonies, etc. God’s Son bought them all free (v. 4), and the Galatian Christians, Jewish and Gentile, had, by faith in the Son, entered on this freedom, the great and complete sonship. Paul asks how they can possibly now turn back and become slaves again, actually willing slaves in a slavery they had so happily left.[1]
R A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, by A. T. Robertson, fourth edition.
C.-K Biblisch-theologisches Woerterbuch der Neutestamentlichen Graezitaet von D. Dr. Hermann Cremer, zehnte, etc., Auflage, herausgegeben von D. Dr. Julius Koegel.
R., Word Pictures in the New Testament by Archibald Thomas Robertson.
W. P. Word Pictures in the New Testament by Archibald Thomas Robertson.
[1] Lenski, R. C. H. (1937). The interpretation of St. Paul’s Epistles to the Galatians, to the Ephesians and to the Philippians (pp. 209–212). Columbus, O.: Lutheran Book Concern.
While I generally prefer newer commentaries which demonstrate a fuller understanding of the grammar and meaning of the words in the text, sometimes THE MASTER needs to be consulted.
9. But now, after that ye have known God. No language can express the base ingratitude of departing from God, when he has once been known. What is it but to forsake, p 123 of our own accord, the light, the life, the fountain of all benefits,—"to forsake," as Jeremiah complains, "the fountain of living waters, and hew out cisterns, broken cisterns, that can hold no water!" (Jer. 2:13.) Still farther to heighten the blame, he corrects his language, and says, or rather have been known by God; for the greater the grace of God is towards us, our guilt in despising it must be the heavier. Paul reminds the Galatians whence they had derived the knowledge of God. He affirms that they did not obtain it by their own exertions, by the acuteness or industry of their own minds, but because, when they were at the farthest possible remove from thinking of him, God visited them in his mercy. What is said of the Galatians may be extended to all; for in all are fulfilled the words of Isaiah, "I am sought by them that asked not for me: I am found by them that sought me not." (Isaiah 65:1.) The origin of our calling is the free election of God, which predestinates us to life before we are born. On this depends our calling, our faith, our whole salvation.
Calvin, John, and William Pringle. Commentaries on the Epistles of Paul to the Galatians and Ephesians. Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 2010.
It is not dependent upon us. It is rather dependent upon God whose knowledge never fails.
Peace, George! And Every Blessing!
Great idea! Thanks very much for the quote: Way to go indeed!
.... and, Andrew, in case you do NOT have Luther's Works, here is a wee bit of Luther's Famous and Classical Commentary on Galatians:
I really appreciate the "prompt" for me - myself! - to look at the "knowing" you brought up and how it's used in different ways and senses by the Holy Spirit of God!
Long Live Logos Bible Software, eh?! *smile*
Luther:
Now it is time to turn your eyes away from the Law, from works, and from your own feelings and conscience, to lay hold of the Gospel, and to depend solely on the promise of God. Then there is emitted a little sigh, which silences and drowns out that violent roaring; and nothing remains in your heart but the sigh that says: “Abba! Father! However much the Law may accuse me, and sin and death may terrify me, nevertheless Thou, O God, dost promise grace, righteousness, and eternal life through Christ.” And so the promise produces the sigh that cries: “Father!”
I have nothing against it when some explain that the one name is Greek and the other Hebrew; that Paul purposely wanted to use both because of the twofold nature of the church as gathered from Gentiles and Jews; and that Gentiles and Jews do indeed call God “Father” in different languages, but the cry of both is the same, since both cry: “Father!”22
7. So through God you are no longer a slave but a son.
This is a rhetorical exclamation23 and a conclusion, as though Paul were saying: “Now that it is established that we have received the Spirit through the hearing of the Word and that we can cry in our hearts: ‘Abba! Father!’ then it is surely defined in heaven that there is no slavery anymore, but sheer liberty, adoption, and sonship.” Who produces it? The sigh. How? Because it is the V 26, p 390 Father who promises. But He is not a Father to me unless I respond to Him as a son. First the Father offers me grace and fatherhood by means of His promises; all that remains is that I accept it. This happens when I cry out with that sigh and when I respond to His voice with the heart of a son, saying: “Father!” Then Father and son come together, and a marriage is contracted without any ceremony or pomp. That is, nothing comes in the way: no Law, no work is demanded here. For what would a man do in these terrors and in this horrible darkness of trial? There is only the Father here, promising and calling me His son through Christ, who was born under the Law. And I for my part accept, reply with a sigh, and say: “Father!” There is no demand here, but only the sigh of the son, who grows confident in the midst of tribulation and says: “Thou dost promise and dost call me ‘son’ on account of Christ. I accept and call Thee ‘Father.’ ” This is becoming a son completely without works. But these things cannot be understood without the experience.
Paul is not applying the term “slave” here as he does earlier, in Gal. 3:28, when he says: “There is neither slave nor free.” But here he is thinking of the slave of the Law, that is, of the one who is subject to the Law, as he says a little earlier (4:3): “We were slaves to the elements of the world.” Therefore to be a slave, according to what Paul says here, means to be sentenced and imprisoned under the Law, under the wrath of God, and under death; it means to acknowledge God, not as God or as Father but as a tormentor, an enemy, a tyrant. This is truly to live in slavery and in a Babylonian captivity, and to be cruelly tormented in it. For the more someone performs works under the Law, the more he is oppressed by its slavery. That slavery, he says, has ended; it does not strain and oppress us any longer. Paul speaks in the concrete: “You are no longer a slave.” But the meaning is clearer if we restate it in the abstract this way: There is no slavery in Christ, but only sonship; for when faith comes, the slavery ends, as he also says earlier, in Gal. 3:25.
Here Paul shows clearly that no terror, wrath, disturbance, or death—that is, no function or jurisdiction of the Law—is to be permitted into the Christian conscience. Much less are the monsters and sacrileges of human traditions to be permitted. For in the matter of justification I must be ignorant of the divine Law and not permit it to rule in any way over my conscience. Much less V 26, p 391 shall I permit my conscience to be dominated by the filth of the pope, regardless of how much he may “roar like a lion” (Rev. 10:3) and threaten that I shall incur the indignation of Almighty God. Here I must say: “Law, your obedience will not penetrate to the throne where Christ, my Lord, is sitting. Here I will not listen to you. (Much less, Antichrist, will I listen to your monstrous teachings!) For I am a free man and a son, who does not have to be subject to any slavery or any Law of slavery.” Therefore do not let Moses—much less the pope—enter the bridegroom’s chamber to lie there, that is, to reign over the conscience which Christ has delivered from the Law to make it free of any slavery. Let the slaves remain in the valley with the ass, and let Isaac ascend the mountain along with Abraham, his father.24 That is, let the Law have its dominion over the flesh and the old self; let this be under the Law; let this permit the burden to be laid upon it; let this permit itself to be disciplined and vexed by the Law; let the Law prescribe to this what it should do and accomplish, and how it should deal with other men. But let the Law not pollute the chamber in which Christ alone should take His rest and sleep; that is, let it not disturb the conscience, which should live only with Christ, its Bridegroom, in the realm of freedom and sonship.
“If you cry: ‘Abba! Father!’ ” he says, “then certainly you are no longer slaves; then you are free men and sons. Therefore you are without the Law, without sin, and without death; that is, you are saved and have nothing more of anything evil.” Therefore sonship brings with it the eternal kingdom and all the inheritance of heaven. How great the measure and the glory of this gift is, the human mind cannot even conceive in this life; much less can it express this. Meanwhile we see this dimly (1 Cor. 13:12). We have this faint sigh and this tiny faith, which depends only on hearing the sound of the voice of Christ as He promises. According to sense, therefore, this is only the center of the circle; but in fact it is a very large and infinite sphere. What a Christian has is in fact something very large and infinite, but according to his view and sense it is very small and finite. Therefore we must not measure this by human reason and sense; we must measure it by another circle, that is, by the promise of God; just as He is infinite, so His promise is infinite, even though meanwhile it is enclosed in these V 26, p 392 narrow limits and in what I might call the Word of the center. Now we see the center; eventually we shall see the circumference as well. Therefore there is nothing left that is in a position to accuse, terrify, and bind the conscience. There is no slavery any longer; there is only sonship, which brings us not only freedom from the Law, sin, and death but also the inheritance of eternal life, as now follows.
If a son, then an heir through Christ.
Whoever is a son must be an heir as well. For merely by being born he deserves to be an heir. No work and no merit brings him the inheritance, but only his birth. Thus he obtains the inheritance in a purely passive, not in an active way; that is, just his being born, not his producing or working or worrying, makes him an heir. He does not do anything toward his being born but merely lets it happen. Therefore we come to these eternal goods—the forgiveness of sins, righteousness, the glory of the resurrection, and eternal life—not actively but passively. Nothing whatever interferes here; faith alone takes hold of the offered promise. Therefore just as in society a son becomes an heir merely by being born, so here faith alone makes men sons of God, born of the Word, which is the divine womb in which we are conceived, carried, born, reared, etc. By this birth and this patience or passivity which makes us Christians we also become sons and heirs. But being heirs, we are free of death and the devil, and we have righteousness and eternal life. This comes to us in a purely passive way; for we do not do anything, but we let ourselves be made and formed as a new creation through faith in the Word.
Now it transcends all the capacity of the human mind when he says “heirs,” not of some very wealthy and powerful king, not of the emperor, not of the world, but of Almighty God, the Creator of all. Therefore this inheritance of ours is, as Paul says elsewhere (2 Cor. 9:15), “inexpressible.” If someone could believe with a certain and constant faith, and could understand the magnitude of it all, that he is the son and heir of God, he could regard all the power and wealth of all the kingdoms of the world as filth and refuse in comparison with his heavenly inheritance. Whatever the world has that is sublime and glorious would make him sick. And the greater the pomp and glory of the world is, the more detestable it would be to him. In other words, whatever the world admires and exalts most, V 26, p 393 that is foul and worthless in his eyes. For what is the whole world with its power, wealth, and glory in comparison with God, whose heir and son he is? He also desires anxiously to depart with Paul and to be with Christ (Phil. 1:23). Nothing more delightful could happen to him than a premature death, which he would embrace as the most joyous peace; for he would know that it is the end of all his evils and that through it he comes into his inheritance. In fact, a man who believed this completely would not go on living very long but would soon be consumed by his overwhelming joy.
But the law in our members at war with the law of our mind (Rom. 7:23) does not permit faith to be perfect. This is why we need the aid and comfort of the Holy Spirit, who, in our anxiety, intercedes for us with a sigh too deep for words (Rom. 8:26), as was said earlier. Sin still clings to the flesh, continually disturbing the conscience and hindering faith, so that we cannot joyfully see and desire the eternal wealth granted to us by God through Christ. When he experiences this conflict of the flesh against the Spirit, Paul himself exclaims (Rom. 7:24): “Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death?” He accuses his “body,” which he really should have loved, and gives it a very ugly name, calling it his “death,” as though he were saying: “My body afflicts and harasses me more than death itself.” Even in his case this interrupted the joy of the Spirit. He did not always have pleasant and happy thoughts about his future inheritance in heaven, but over and over he experienced sadness of the spirit and fear.
From this it is evident how difficult a thing faith is; it is not learned and grasped as easily and quickly as those sated and scornful spirits imagine who immediately exhaust everything contained in the Scriptures.25 The weakness and struggle of the flesh with the spirit in the saints is ample testimony how weak their faith still is. For a perfect faith would soon bring a perfect contempt and scorn for this present life. If we could grasp and believe for a certainty that God is our Father and that we are His sons and heirs, the world would immediately seem vile to us, with everything that it regards as precious, such as righteousness, wisdom, kingdoms, power, crowns, gold, glory, riches, pleasure, and the like. We would not be so concerned about food. We would not attach our hearts so firmly to physical things that their presence would give us confidence and V 26, p 394 their removal would produce dejection and even despair. But we would do everything with complete love, humility, and patience. Of course, the heretics boast of these things; but in fact there is nothing more cruel, proud, and impatient than they are. But now, as long as our flesh is powerful, our faith weak, and our spirit infirm, we act in the opposite way. Therefore Paul says correctly that in this life we have only the first fruits of the Spirit (Rom. 8:23) and that we shall have the tithes later.
Through Christ.
Paul always has Christ on his lips and cannot forget Him. For he foresaw that in the world, even among those who claimed to be Christians, nothing would be less well known than Christ and His Gospel. Therefore he continually inculcates Him and presents Him to our view. Whenever he speaks about grace, righteousness, the promise, sonship, and the inheritance, he always makes a practice of adding “in” or “through” Christ, at the same time taking a sidelong look at the Law, as though he were saying: “We do not obtain these things through the Law and its works, much less through our own abilities or the works of human tradition, but through Christ alone.”
8. Formerly, when you did not know God, you were in bondage to beings that by nature are no gods;
9. but now that you have come to know God, or rather to be known by God, how can you turn back again to the weak and beggarly elements, whose slaves you want to be once more?
This is the conclusion of Paul’s argument. From here until the end of the epistle he will not argue very much but will set forth commandments about morality. But first he scolds the Galatians in great indignation for having let this divine and heavenly doctrine be stolen from their hearts so quickly and easily; it is as though he were saying: “You have teachers who want to lead you back into the slavery of the Law. I did not do this, but by my doctrine I ‘called you out of darkness into the marvelous light’ (1 Peter 2:9); I set you free from slavery and established you in the liberty of the sons of God. I did not proclaim the works of the Law and the merits of men to you; I proclaimed righteousness and the free gift of heavenly and eternal possessions through Christ. Since this is how things are, V 26, p 395 why do you forsake the light and return so easily to the darkness? Why do you permit yourselves to be dragged down with such ease from grace to the Law and from liberty to slavery?”
Here we see again, as I have warned earlier, that it is very easy to fall from faith. The example of the Galatians attests to this; so does the example of the Sacramentarians, the Anabaptists, and others today. With great zeal and diligence we inculcate, urge, and emphasize the teaching of the faith by speaking, reading, and writing; we distinguish the Gospel from the Law in a very pure way. And yet we accomplish very little. The fault is the devil’s, who is wondrously skilled at seducing people; and there is nothing he finds more intolerable than the true knowledge of grace and faith in Christ. To remove Christ from the gaze and from the heart, he produces other specters, by which he gradually leads men from faith and the knowledge of grace to the discussion of the Law. When he has achieved this, Christ has been removed. It is not without purpose, therefore, when Paul inculcates Christ in almost every verse; nor when he sets forth the teaching of faith so purely, attributing righteousness solely to it, and detracts from the Law, showing that it has exactly the opposite effect, namely, that it works wrath and increases sin. He would want to persuade us not to let Christ be torn out of our hearts by any means. Let not the bride send the Groom away from her embrace, but let her always cling to Him; for as long as He is present, there is no danger, but only the sighing (Rom. 8:26), Fatherhood, sonship, and the inheritance.
But why does Paul say that the Galatians are “turning back to the weak and beggarly elements,” that is, to the Law, when they never had the Law, since they were Gentiles (even though, as we shall say later, he writes this also to Jews)? Or why does he not rather speak this way: “Once, when you did not know God, you were in bondage to beings that by nature are no gods. But now that you know God, why do you forsake the true God and turn back again to the worship of idols?” Is defecting from the promise to the Law and from faith to works the same for Paul as serving gods that by nature are no gods? I reply: Whoever falls from the doctrine of justification is ignorant of God and is an idolater. Therefore it is all the same whether he then returns to the Law or to the worship of idols; it is all the same whether he is called a monk or a Turk or a Jew or an Anabaptist. For once this doctrine is undermined, nothing more remains but sheer error, hypocrisy, wickedness, V 26, p 396 and idolatry, regardless of how great the sanctity that appears on the outside.
The reason is this: God does not want to be known except through Christ; nor, according to John 1:18, can He be known any other way. Christ is the Offspring promised to Abraham; on Him God founded all His promises. Therefore Christ alone is the means, the life, and the mirror through which we see God and know His will.
Through Christ God announces His favor and mercy to us. In Christ we see that God is not a wrathful taskmaster and judge but a gracious and kind Father, who blesses us, that is, who delivers us from the Law, sin, death, and every evil, and endows us with righteousness and eternal life through Christ. This is a sure knowledge of God and a true divine conviction, which does not deceive us but portrays God Himself in a specific form, apart from which there is no God.[1]
22 Augustine, Expositio Epistolae ad Galatas, 31, Patrologia, Series Latina, XXXV, 2126–2127.
23 An epiphonema was a rhetorical exclamation; of. Quintilian, Institutiones Oratoriae, VIII, 5, 11.
24 Cf. p. 116, note 34.
25 See a similar statement of 1530 in Luther’s Works, 14, p. 7.
[1] Luther, M. (1999). Luther’s works, vol. 26: Lectures on Galatians, 1535, Chapters 1-4. (J. J. Pelikan, H. C. Oswald, & H. T. Lehmann, Eds.) (Vol. 26, pp. 389–396). Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House.
