Desiring to be teachers of the law, understanding neither the things they say, nor whereof they affirm.

“For both the law and the Gospel are the energy of one Lord, who is "the power and wisdom of God;" and the terror which the law begets is merciful and in order to salvation. "Let not alms, and faith, and truth fail thee, but hang them around thy neck." In the same way as Paul, prophecy upbraids the people with not understanding the law. "Destruction and misery are in their ways, and the way of peace have they not known." "There is no fear of God before their eyes." "Professing themselves wise, they became fools." "And we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully." "Desiring to be teachers of the law, they understand," says the apostle, "neither what they say, nor whereof they affirm." "Now the end of the commandment is charity out of a pure heart, and a good conscience, and faith unfeigned."”

“It is encouraging to the faithful but distressing to the heretical to see these heresies overthrown. Moreover, their further question, "whether the Unoriginated be one or two," shows how false are their views, how treacherous and full of guile. It is not for the Father's honor that they say this but for the dishonor of the Word. Accordingly, if any one should answer, unaware of their craft, that "the Unoriginated is one," they immediately spurt out their own venom, saying, " 'Therefore the Son is among things originated,' and well have we said, 'He was not before his generation.' " This in turn elicits all sorts of disturbances and confusions, separating the Son from the Father and reckoning the Framer of all among his works. Now first they may be convicted on this score, that, while blaming the Nicene bishops for their use of phrases not in Scripture, though these are not injurious but subversive of their irreligion, they themselves went off upon the same fault, that is, using words not in Scripture, and those that show contempt for the Lord, being "without understanding either what they are saying or the things about which they make assertions."”

“"Desiring to be teachers of the law." Here we see another cause of evil, the love of power. Wherefore Christ said, "Be not ye called Rabbi" (Matt. xxiii. 8); and the Apostle again, "For neither do they keep the law, but that they may glory in your flesh." (Gal. vi. 13.) They desire preeminence, he means, and on that account disregard truth. "Understanding neither what they say, nor whereof they affirm." Here he censures them, because they know not the end and aim of the Law, nor the period for which it was to have authority. But if it was from ignorance, why is it called a sin? Because it was incurred not only from their desiring to be teachers of the law, but from their not retaining love. Nay, and their very ignorance arose from these causes. For when the soul abandons itself to carnal things, the clearness of its vision is dimmed, and falling from love it drops into contentiousness, and the eye of the mind is blinded. For he that is possessed by any desire for these temporal things intoxicated, as he is, with passion, cannot be an impartial judge of truth. "Not knowing whereof they affirm." For it is probable that they spoke of the law, and enlarged on its purifications and other bodily rites. The Apostle then forbearing to censure these, as either nothing, or at best a shadow and figure of spiritual things, proceeds in a more engaging way to praise the law, calling the Decalogue here the law, and by means of it discarding the rest. For if even these precepts punish transgressors, and become useless to us, much more the others.”

“Two walls must adhere to the cornerstone in order to preserve "the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace"—one from the Jews and the other from the Gentiles. We mustn't let our minds be put off by the great number of reprobate Jews, among whom were the builders; those, that is, who "wished to be teachers of the law," but as the apostle says about them, "do not understand either what they are saying or the things about which they are making their assertions." It was as a result of this mental blindness, after all, that they rejected the stone which was put at the head of the corner. But it wouldn't be put at the head of the corner unless it offered to the two peoples coming from different points a peaceful joining, a coupling of grace.”

“Above he showed the dignity and usefulness of the virtues; here he declares the necessity of these, because whoever departs from these falls into the danger of false doctrine. And concerning this he does two things: first, the falsity of the doctrine into which they fall is set forth; second, the condition of those who teach falsely, at the words wishing to be. He says therefore: the end of the commandment, etc., and these are the chief things of the law, from which certain persons depart. Ps. 11:2: they have spoken vain things, etc. And note that departure from charity is the cause of false doctrine, because those who do not love charity fall into falsehood. 2 Thess. 2:11: who did not believe the truth, but consented to iniquity. Likewise those who let go of purity of heart. For those having a heart infected with the passions judge according to the affection of these, and not according to God. 1 Cor. 2:14: the animal man does not perceive the things that are of God, etc. Likewise those having an evil conscience, because they cannot rest in the truth. And hence it is that they seek false things, that they may rest in them. Below, in the same place: having faith and a good conscience. Likewise he who has a feigned trust. Is. 21:2: he who is unbelieving acts unfaithfully. Then, when he says wishing, etc., the condition of those teaching falsely is set forth, and first their disordered ambition; second their defect. As to the first he says wishing to be, etc. Matt. 23:6: they love the first places at feasts, and to be called by men, Rabbi, etc. James 3:1: be not many masters, etc. As to the second he says understanding neither. Ps. 81:5: they have not known, neither have they understood; they walk on in darkness. Wis. 5:6: the sun of understanding has not risen upon us. Nor the things which they speak by authorities, which they do not understand, nor the things about which they affirm, namely, by way of concluding. Then, when he says but we know, etc., he sets forth the condition of the law as to two things. First, as to the goodness of the law; second, as to the end and intention of the lawgiver, at the words knowing. He says therefore we know, namely with certainty, that the law is good, not evil, as the heretics say. Ps. 18:7: the law of the Lord is unspotted, etc. Rom. 7:12: the law indeed is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good. But it happens that someone uses a good thing badly. Since therefore the law is good, it is required that man use it well. And therefore he says if a man use it rightly. Otherwise death comes to him from it, as is said in Rom. 8. For in the law there are certain moral precepts, and certain ceremonial ones. The ceremonial ones indeed were given as a figure of Christ and the Church, but they need to be understood not only carnally, but also spiritually; and as a figure of things to come, and so that you may know that they are not to be kept forever, but cease when the truth comes. Jer. 31:31: and I will strike with the house of Israel and the house of Judah a new covenant, not according to the covenant which I made with your fathers, etc. And thus the Gloss expounds it. But the Apostle seems to be speaking of the moral precepts, because he adds that the law was made because of sins, and these are the moral precepts. The lawful use of these is that man not attribute to them more than what is contained in them. The law was given so that sin might be known. Rom. 7:7: for unless the law had said, you shall not covet, I would not have known concupiscence, etc.; which is said in the Decalogue. There is not, therefore, in them hope of justification, but in faith alone. Rom. 3:28: we reckon a man to be justified by faith without the works of the law. Then, when he says knowing, he shows the condition of the law as to the intention of the lawgiver; and first he sets forth the supposed intention; second he sets forth the true intention, at the words but for the unjust. The supposed intention is excluded, when he says for the just, etc. Here there could be a twofold false understanding. One, that the just man does not keep the law, which is false, because unless he kept it as to the moral precepts, he would not be just. Hence Christ too was made under the law. The other, that the just man is not bound to the precepts of the law, and would not sin if he acted against them. But the following sense is true, supposing that what is imposed on someone is imposed as a burden; for the law is not imposed on the just as a burden, because their interior habit inclines them to that to which the law inclines, and therefore it is not a burden to them. Rom. 2:14: they are a law to themselves. Or otherwise: the law was not made for the just, but for the unjust; as if to say: if all were just, there would be no need of giving a law, because all would be a law to themselves. The intention of good men ought to be that they lead others to the virtues. Now some are of themselves well disposed to the virtues; others have a mind well disposed, but through another, and for these a fatherly admonition suffices, not a coercive one; others, however, are well disposed neither of themselves nor through another; therefore for them a law is altogether necessary, as is clear in the Ethics. Then, when he says but for the unjust, etc., he sets forth the true intention; and first he describes in general those for whom the law is necessary; second in particular, at the words for murderers of fathers. Now it should be known that, as is said in 1 John 3:4, all sin is iniquity, and therefore it is opposed to some right. But since right is twofold, namely natural and positive, to the natural is opposed what is evil in itself, and to the positive is opposed what is evil because forbidden. As to the first he says but for the unjust, namely those who act against natural right. Is. 24:5: they have transgressed the laws, changed the right, broken the everlasting covenant, etc. As to the second he says not subject, namely to human precept. Rom. 1:30: disobedient to parents. And these two regard the notion of sin. He then sets forth others, which are taken by comparison to that, and this is either against God, or against one's neighbor, or in oneself. Against God it is called impiety, because piety implies the worship of God; therefore he says for the ungodly. Against one's neighbor, thus he says for sinners. Ps. 1:5: the wicked shall not rise again in judgment, etc. Gal. 2:15: we by nature are Jews, and not sinners of the Gentiles. But according to Augustine, in On Christian Doctrine, sins are distinguished into two, namely spiritual ones, which are called crimes, and carnal ones, and these are called shameful deeds; and therefore he says for the wicked, as to the spiritual. Prov. 17:9: he who hides crimes, etc. As to the carnal he says for the defiled. Mal. 2:11: Judah has profaned the sanctification of the Lord, etc. Then he enumerates the sins in particular. And first he names certain ones in particular; second he gathers the rest in general, at the words and if there be any other. First he sets forth sins of deed; second sins of the mouth, at the words for liars, etc. Concerning the first he sets forth, first, as to crimes; second, as to shameful deeds. Crimes are said to be those which are to the harm of one's neighbor. And the more closely joined the neighbor is, the graver their sin is, because we are more bound to them. And therefore he speaks first of the father, second of the mother. Ex. 20:12: honor your father and your mother, etc., and afterward 21:15: he who strikes his father or mother shall die the death; then he continues concerning other killings of neighbors, saying; Ex. 21:14: if anyone kill his neighbor by design, etc. Then he sets forth the shameful deeds, and first those which are according to nature, when he says for fornicators. Heb., last chapter: fornicators and adulterers God will judge. Second, those against nature, saying for those who lie with males. 1 Cor. 6:10: nor those who lie with males shall possess the kingdom of God. Then he sets forth the harms of the mouth, and first as to simple lying, saying for liars. Eph. 4:25: putting away lying, speak the truth, etc. Second as to swearing, saying for perjurers. And then he gathers the rest in general, saying and if there be any other thing to sound doctrine, etc. Job 6:30: you will not find iniquity in my tongue, nor will folly sound in my mouth, etc. Tit. 2:1: speak the things that become sound doctrine. Then, when he says which is according to the Gospel, he shows that the Gospel imparts sound doctrine, which he describes in three ways. And first from the end, when he says of glory, namely which it announces, Ps. 95:3: declare his glory among the nations. Second from the author of the glory, when he says of the blessed God. Below, at the end: whom in his own time he shall show, who is the blessed and only mighty King of kings, etc. Third from the minister, when he says which was committed to me. Gal. 2:7: when they had seen that the Gospel of the uncircumcision was committed to me, etc. Then, when he says I give thanks, he proves by experience in himself what he himself had been in the time of the law and what he had obtained in the time of grace. And first he shows what was done concerning himself in each time; second he leads Timothy to imitate him, at the words this precept. Concerning the first he does two things: first he shows what was given to him in the law, and what was given to him in the Gospel; second he assigns the reason, at the words a faithful saying. Likewise the first part is divided into three particles, because first he sets forth the dignity which he obtained in the Gospel; second the sins under which he lay in the state of the law, at the words who before was; third how he was freed, at the words but mercy, etc. But for someone to be a minister of the Gospel, three things are required. First, that it be committed to him. Rom. 10:15: how shall they preach, unless they be sent, etc. Second, fitness, that is, that he be faithful. 1 Cor. 4:2: here now it is required among stewards, that a man be found faithful. Likewise, that he be strong to carry it through. And these three he sets forth in reverse order, and first the third, saying who has strengthened me, etc., namely to carry through the office enjoined on him. Ez. 3:14: the hand of the Lord was with me, strengthening me. The second he sets forth at the words because he counted me faithful, etc. Matt. 24:45: a faithful and prudent servant, whom his lord has set over his household. And this because he sought only the things that were God's. The first indeed he shows, when he says in the ministry, that is, committing this ministry to me. Acts 13:2: separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have taken them. 2 Cor. 11:23: are they ministers of Christ? So am I. But what sort of man was he in the state of the law? A sinner. And first against God, when he says who before was a blasphemer, namely of the name of Christ. Lev. 24:14: bring forth the blasphemer outside the camp, and let all who heard him lay their hands upon his head, and let all the people stone him. Hence that applied to himself. Likewise against his neighbor, when he says and a persecutor. 1 Cor. 15:9: I am not worthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the Church of God. Likewise and injurious, in words and deeds. Jer. 20:10: I heard the reproaches of many, etc. Then, when he says but the mercy of God, he shows how he was freed through Christ. And concerning this he does two things: first he sets forth the mercy that freed him; second he shows that he was superabundantly filled with good things, at the words but it superabounded. As to the first he says but I obtained the mercy of God. Lam. 3:22: it is of the mercies of the Lord that we are not consumed. Rom. 9:18: he has mercy on whom he will, and whom he will he hardens. But on my part there is some excuse of the sin, because I did it ignorantly. He says less, but signifies more, because it is one thing to act unknowingly, another through ignorance; for he acts unknowingly who does not know what he is doing, yet if he knew, he would still do it, as one who, believing he is killing a wild beast, kills his enemy, whom nevertheless he would have killed even more gladly, had he recognized him. But he acts through ignorance who does something that he would not do, if he knew, as one killing his father, whom, if he knew him, he would not kill, whom nevertheless he kills, because he believes him to be an enemy. But Paul acted through ignorance, because if he had known that Christ was the Son of God, he would not have done this. But the Jews did not kill Christ through ignorance, but unknowingly, because if they had known him to be the Christ, they would have killed him even more gladly. Lk. 12:47: the servant who knew the will of his lord, and did not prepare himself, nor did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes, etc. But as to the second he says it superabounded, etc. Rom. 5:20: where sin abounded, grace also superabounded. With faith and love. For there he produced the effect of faith through love working, which is in Christ Jesus. Gal. 3:14: in Christ Jesus, that we may receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.”

“Desiring to be teachers of the law,.... They were very fond of being called Rabbi, Rabbi, and styled doctors of the law, and of being thought to have skill in interpreting the law, and good talents in expounding it, and preaching upon it; which was now most in vogue, and gained the greatest applause, when the preaching of the Gospel was treated with contempt, not only by the unbelieving Jews, but by judaizing Christians, and carnal professors, Understanding neither what they say, nor whereof they affirm: they did not understand the law, the nature and end, the purity and spirituality, and perfection of it, which they were so fond of teaching, and went into many foolish and unlearned questions about it; see Ti2 2:23, and which they as foolishly answered: these are the ignorant and unlearned men, who, notwithstanding their vain show of learning, and pretence to skill in interpreting the law, wrested the Scriptures to their own destruction, and that of others; they were ignorant of the things they talked of, and knew not by what arguments to confirm them, and yet were very bold and confident in their assertions: and generally speaking so it is, that those who can prove least assert most, and that with the greatest assurance.”

“Teachers of the law - To be esteemed or celebrated as rabbins; to be reputed cunning in solving knotty questions and enigmas, which answered no end to true religion. Of such the rabbinical teaching was full. Understanding neither what they say - This is evident from almost all the Jewish comments which yet remain. Things are asserted which are either false or dubious; words, the import of which they did not understand, were brought to illustrate them: so that it may be said, They understand not what they say, nor whereof they affirm. I will give one instance from the Jerusalem Targum, on Gen 1:15 : And God made two great lights, and they were equal in splendor twenty-one years, the six hundred and seventy-second part of an hour excepted: and afterwards the moon brought a false accusation against the sun, and therefore she was lessened; and God made the sun the greater light to superintend the day, etc. I could produce a thousand of a similar complexion.”

“Sample of their "vain talk" (Ti1 1:6). Desiring--They are would-be teachers, not really so. the law--the Jewish law (Tit 1:14; Tit 3:9). The Judaizers here meant seem to be distinct from those impugned in the Epistles to the Galatians and Romans, who made the works of the law necessary to justification in opposition to Gospel grace. The Judaizers here meant corrupted the law with "fables," which they pretended to found on it, subversive of morals as well as of truth. Their error was not in maintaining the obligation of the law, but in abusing it by fabulous and immoral interpretations of, and additions to, it. neither what they say, nor whereof--neither understanding their own assertions, nor the object itself about which they make them. They understand as little about the one as the other [ALFORD].”