> ‎Chapter 5‎ > ‎Chapter 6‎ > ‎   

 

 

 

Galatians 4:1-3

 

1 Now, I say: As long as the heir is a child, he differeth nothing from a servant, though he be lord of all,

2 But is under tutors and governors until the time appointed by the father.

3 So we also, when we were children, were serving under the elements of the world.

After pointing out the shortcoming of the Law, the Apostle then shows here the dignity of grace. First, with a human example; secondly, with an example from Scripture (v. 21).

Regarding the first he does three things:

 

First, he shows the pre-eminence of grace over the primitive state of the Old Law by a simile taken from human law;

Secondly, he shows that they have been made partakers of this pre-eminence through faith (v. 6);

Thirdly, he censures them for disdaining this pre6minence (v. 8).

As to the first, he does two things:

First, he lays down the simile;

Secondly, he adapts it to his proposition (v. 3).

It should be noted that the Apostle touches four things in the simile he proposes. First of all, eminence, because he speaks not of a servant but of an heir. Hence he says, As long as the heir is a child. This is applied and referred both to the Jewish people—who were the heirs of the promise to Abraham: “For the Lord hath chosen Jacob unto himself; Israel for his own possession” (Ps 134:4)—and to Christ, Who is the heir of all things: “whom he hath appointed heir of all things” (Heb 1:2).

Secondly, smallness; hence he says, is a child, because the Jews were children according to the state of the Law: “Who shall raise up Jacob, for he is a little one?” (Am 7:5). Similarly, Christ, too, was become a child through the Incarnation: “For a child is born to us and a son is given to us” (Is 9:6). But note that the Apostle sometimes compares the state of the Law to a child, as he does here, and sometimes the state of the present life: “When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child” (1 Cor 13:11). The reason for this is that the state of the Old Law, because of the imperfection of knowledge, is as a child, compared to the state of grace and truth which came through Christ. In like manner, the state of the present life, in which we see through a mirror in a dark manner, is as a child, compared to the state of the future life, in which there is perfect knowledge of God, because He is seen as He Is

Thirdly, subjection, when he says, he differeth nothing from a servant, though he be lord of all: but is under tutors and governors. For a servant is one who is subject to a lord. But a boy, as long as he is a child, because he does not have fulness of knowledge and use of free will through lack of years, is committed to the care of others who defend his possessions—and these are called tutors—and who handle his affairs-and these are called governors. Therefore, though he be lord of all his things, yet, in so far as he is subject to others, he differs nothing from a servant, because he does not have free will but is in fact constrained. And this is applied to the Jewish people: “And now hear, O Jacob, my servant” (Is 44:1).

Here it should be noted that among the Jewish people some were servants in the strict sense; those, namely, who observed the Law through fear of punishment and through a desire for the temporal things which the Law promised. But there were others who were not servants in the strict sense, but living as servants, were really sons and heirs. These, although outwardly attending to temporal things and avoiding punishments, did not place their end in them but took them as a figure of spiritual goods. Hence, even though on the surface they seemed to differ nothing from servants, inasmuch as they observed the ceremonies and other commandments of the Law, they were, nevertheless, lords, because they did not use them with the same frame of mind as servants; for they used them for love of the spiritual goods they prefigured, whereas servants used them chiefly through fear of punishment and with a desire for earthly convenience. Christ, too was like a servant, because although He is the Lord of all things according to Psalm (109:1): “The Lord said to my Lord,” nevertheless outwardly, as man, He seemed to differ nothing from a servant: “He emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men, and in habit found as a man” (Phil 2:7). Furthermore, he was under tutors and governors, because He was made under the Law, as is said below: made under the law (v. 4); He was also subject to men, as is said in Luke (2:51): “He was subject to them.”

Fourthly, he touches on the correspondence of time, when he says, until the time appointed by the father, because just as the heir is under tutors for a definite period of time fixed by the father, so the Law had a time fixed by God determining how long it was to endure and how long the heir, i.e., the Jewish people, where to be under it. Similarly, there was a time fixed by the Father during which Christ was not to perform miracles or show the Lordship of His divine power: “My hour is not yet come” (in. 2:4).

He applies this simile when he says, So we also, when we were children, were serving under the elements of the world.

First, he applies it as touching the Jews;

Secondly, as touching Christ (v. 4).

He says therefore: I say that as long as the heir is a child he differeth nothing from a servant; so, we Jews also, when we were children in the state of the Old Law, were serving under the elements of the world, i.e., under the Law which promised temporal things—“If you be willing, and will hearken to me, you shall eat the good things of the land” (Is 1:19)—and threatened temporal punishments.

Or the Old Law is called “element,” because just as boys who are to be trained in a science are first taught the elements of that science and through them are brought to the fulness of science, so to the Jews was proposed the Old Law through which they would be brought to faith and justice: the law was our pedagogue in Christ (3:24). Or, under the elements, i.e., the corporeo-religious usages which they observed, such as days of the moon, new moons and the Sabbath. But one should not object that on this account they differed nothing from the pagans who served the elements of this world, for the Jews did not serve them or pay them worship; but under them they served and worshipped God, whereas the pagans in serving the elements rendered them divine worship: “They worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever” (Rom 1:25). Furthermore, it was necessary that the Jews serve God under the elements of this world, because such an order is in harmony with human nature which is led from sensible to intelligible things.

 

Galatians 4:4-5

 

4 But, when the fulness of the time was come, God sent his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,

5 That he might redeem them who were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons.

Here the Apostle applies to Christ the simile he has pro posed.

First, he makes the application;

Secondly, he discloses the purpose of the reality that corresponds to the simile (v. 5).

It should be noted that above, in the simile he proposed, there were four items pointed out in order, as has been said. But now, in applying them to Christ, he begins with the last, namely, the fixing of a time. The reason for this is that the time in which Christ was humiliated and in which the faithful were exalted turns out to be the same. Hence he says: But, when the fulness of the time was come, i.e., after the time fixed by God the Father for sending His Son had been accomplished. This is bow it is taken in Luke (2:6): “Her days were accomplished, that she should be delivered.” This time is called “full” because of the fulness of the graces that are given in it, according to Psalm (64:10): “The river of God is filled with water; thou hast prepared their food: for so is its preparation.” Also because of the fulfillment of the figures of the Old Law: I am not come to destroy but to fulfill” (Mt 5:17). And because of the fulfillment of the promises: “And he shall confirm the covenant with many, in one week” (Dan. 9:27). However, the fact that he likewise says, But, when the fulness of time was come, in other places of Scripture where the time respecting Christ is said to be accomplished, should not be explained in terms of a necessity imposed by fate, but in terms of a divine ordinance, concerning which Psalm (118:91) states: “By thy ordinance the day goeth on; for all things serve thee.”

Two reasons are given why that time was pre-ordained for the coming of Christ. One is taken from His greatness: for since He that was to come was great, it was fitting that men be made ready for His coming by many indications and many preparations. “God, who, at sundry times and in divers manners, spoke in times past to the fathers by the prophets, last of all in these days hath spoken to us by his Son” (Heb 1: 1). The other is taken from the role of the one coming: for since a physician was to come, it was fitting that before his coming, men should be keenly aware of their infirmity, both as to their lack of knowledge during the Law of nature and as to their lack of virtue during the written Law. Therefore it was fitting that both, namely, the Law of nature and the written Law, precede the coming of Christ.

Secondly, he applies it as to His dignity as heir, when he says, God sent his Son, namely, His own natural Son; and if a son, then an heir also. He says, his Son, i.e., His own, natural, only begotten but not adopted, Son: “God so loved the world as to give his only begotten Son” (Jn 3:16). He sent Him, I say, without His being separated from Him, for He was sent by assuming human nature, and yet He was in the bosom of the Father: “The only begotten Son, Who is in the bosom of the Father” eternally (Jn 1:18); “And no man hath ascended into heaven, but he that descended from heaven, the Son of Man, who is in heaven,” Who, although He descended by assuming flesh is, nevertheless, in heaven (Jn 3:13). Again, He sent Him, not to be where before He Was not; because, although He came unto His own by His presence in the flesh, yet by the presence of His Godhead, He was in the world, as is said in John (1:14). Furthermore, He did not send Him as a minister, because His mission was the assuming of flesh, not the putting off of majesty. God, therefore, sent His Son, I say, to heal the errantry of the concupiscible part and to illumine the ignorance of the rational part: “He sent his word and healed them: and delivered them from their destructions” (Ps 106:20). He sent Him also to deliver them from the power of the devil against the infirmity of the irascible part: “He shall send them a Savior and defender to deliver them” (Is 19:20). Also as a deliverer from the chains of eternal death: I will deliver them out of the hand of death. I will redeem them from death: O death, I will be thy death”’ (Hos. 13:14). Also to save them from their sins: “For God sent not his Son into the world to judge the world but that the world may be saved by him” (Jn 3:17).

Thirdly, he applies the simile as to smallness, when he says, made of a woman: “For a child is born to us” (Is 9:6); “He emptied himself taking the form of a servant” (Phil 2:7). He made Himself small not by putting off greatness, but by taking on smallness.

In interpreting the passage, made of woman, two errors must be avoided; namely, that of Photinus, who said that Christ was solely man and received the beginning of His existence from the Virgin; in other words, that Christ was made of a woman as though deriving his beginning entirely from her. But this is false, because it contradicts what is said in Romans (1:3): “Who was made to him of the seed of David, according to the flesh”; he does not say “according to His person,” which exists from eternity, namely, the hypostasis of the Son of God. Hence, just as when a shield newly comes to be white, it is not proper to say that the very substance of the shield newly came to be, but that the whiteness newly accrued to it; so from the fact that the Son of God newly assumed flesh, it is not proper to say that the person of Christ newly came to be, but that a human nature newly accrued to that person, as when certain things affect a body without that body itself being changed. For certain items affect a thing and change it, such as forms and absolute qualities; but certain other items affect it without changing it. Of this sort is the assuming of flesh precisely as bespeaking a relationship. Hence the person of the Word is in no way changed by it. That is why in divine matters we employ in a temporal sense terms that signify a relationship; thus, we say in Psalm (89:1): “Lord, thou hast been our refuge”; or we say that God became man. But we do not thus use forms and absolute qualities, so as to say: God was made good or wise and so on.

Secondly, one must avoid the error of Ebion, who said that Christ was born of the seed of Joseph, and who was led to this by the saying, born of a woman. For according to him the word “woman” always implies defloration. But this is erroneous, for in Sacred Scripture “woman” also denotes the natural sex, according to Genesis (3:12): “Adam said: The woman who thou gavest me to be my companion gave me of the tree.” Here he calls her a woman while she was still a virgin.

Furthermore, by saying made of a woman two errors are destroyed, namely, that of Nestorious saying that Christ did not take His body of the Virgin but of the heavens and that He passed through the Blessed Virgin as through a corridor or channel. But this is false, for if it were true, He would not, as the Apostle says, have been made of a woman. By the preposition “of” [ex] the material cause is denoted. Likewise, the error of Nestorious saying that the Blessed Virgin is not the mother of the Son of God but of the son of a man. But this is shown to be false by the words of the Apostle here, that God sent his Son made of a woman. Now one who is made of a woman is her son. Therefore, if the Son of God was made of a woman, namely, of the Blessed Virgin, it is obvious that the Blessed Virgin is the Mother of the Son of God.

Moreover, although he might have said “born of a woman,” he distinctly says made, and not “born.” Indeed, for something to be born it must not only be produced of a principle conjoined to it but be made from a principle separate from it. Thus a wooden chest is made by an artisan, but fruit is born from a tree. Now the principle of human generation is twofold, namely, material—and as to this, Christ proceeded from a conjoined principle, because He took the matter of His body from the Virgin; and it is according to this that He is said to be born of her: “Of whom [Mary] was born Jesus Who is called Christ” (Mt 1:16).—The other is the active principle, which in the case of Christ, so far as He had a principle, i.e., as to the forming of the body, was not conjoined but separate, because the power of the Holy Spirit formed it. And with respect to this He is not said to have been born of a woman, but made, as it were, from an extrinsic principle. From this it is obvious that the saying, of a woman, does not denote a defloration; otherwise he would have said “born’ and not “made.”

Fourthly, he applies the simile as to its aspect of subjection when he says, made under the law. But here a difficulty comes to mind from what is said below, namely: If you are led by the spirit, you are not under the law (5:18). Hence if Christ is not only spiritual but the giver of the Spirit, it seems unbecoming to say that He was made under the Law. I answer that “to be under the Law” can be taken in two ways: in one way so that “under” denotes the mere observance of the Law, and in this sense Christ was made under the Law, because He was circumcised and presented in the temple: “I am not come to destroy but to fulfill” (Mt 5:17). In another way so that “under” denotes oppression. And in this way one is said to be under the Law if he is oppressed by fear of the Law. But neither Christ nor spiritual men are said to be under the Law in this way.

Then when he says, that he might redeem them who were under the law, he sets down the fruit of the reality in which the simile is applied, namely, that the reason why He willed they be subject during that time was that they might become heirs great and free. And he mentions both of these things. First, the fruit of freedom as against subjection; hence he says, that he might redeem them who were under the law, i.e., under the curse and burden of the Law; Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us (3:13). Secondly, the fruit of being made great, inasmuch as we are adopted as sons of God by receiving the Spirit of God and being conformed to Him: “Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of His” (Rom 8:9). This adoption belongs in a special way to Christ, because we cannot become adopted sons unless we are conformed to the natural son: “For whom he foreknew, he also predestinated to be made conformable to the image of his Son” (Rom 8:29). With this in mind, he says, that we might receive the adoption of sons, i.e., that through the natural Son of God we might be made adopted sons according to grace through Christ.

 

Galatians 4:6-7

 

6 And, because you are sons, God hath sent the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying: Abba, Father.

7 Therefore, now he is not a servant, but a son. And, if a son, an heir also through God.

Above, the Apostle revealed the gift bestowed on the Jews; here he shows that this gift pertains also to the Gentiles.

First, he mentions the gift;

Secondly, the means of obtaining it (v. 6);

Thirdly, he discloses the fruit of this gift (v. 7).

He says therefore that the gift of adoption of sons pertains not only to those who were under the Law but to the Gentiles as well. Hence he says: because you are sons of God, i.e., you are the sons of God, because not only the Jews but all others who believe in the Son of God are adopted as sons: “He gave them power to be made sons of God, to them that believe in his name” (Jn 1:12). The manner in which that gift is obtained is by the sending of the Spirit of the Son of God into your hearts.

Augustine says, however, that Christ, existing in the flesh, preached in a principal manner to the Jews, but to the Gentiles as a matter of course: “For I say that Christ Jesus was minister of the circumcision for the truth of God to confirm the promises made unto the fathers” (Rom 15:8). Accordingly, whatever pertains to the condition of the Jews is fittingly adapted to Christ.

And because they might have said that the Galatians had not been adopted as sons of God, since Christ did not assume flesh from them or preach to them, for that reason the Apostle, elucidating the manner of this adoption, says that although they were not related to Christ according to the flesh, i.e., according to race, or by reason of preaching, yet they were united to him through the Spirit and thereby adopted and made sons of God. Hence the conversion of the Gentiles is in “a special way attributed to the Holy Spirit. Consequently, Peter, when he was blamed by the Jews for going to preach to the Gentiles, excused himself through the Holy Spirit, saying (Acts 11) that he could not resist the Holy Spirit by Whose inspiration he had done thIs And so, because God the Father sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, i.e., the hearts of the Jews and Gentiles, we are united to Christ and by that fact are adopted as sons of God.

But it should be noted that if in certain passages of Scripture the Holy Spirit is said to be sent by the Father—“But the Paraclete, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name” (Jn 14:26)—and in others to be sent by the Son—“But when the Paraclete cometh, whom I will send you from the Father” (Jn 15:26)—the Holy Spirit is none the less common to Father and Son and proceeds from Both and is sent by Both. Accordingly, wherever it is said that the Father sends the Holy Spirit, mention is made of the Son, as in the aforesaid passage: “Whom the Father will send in my name”; and where He is said to be sent by the Son, mention is made of the Father; hence He says, “Whom I will send to you from the Father.” Even here, when he says, God the Father hath sent the Holy Spirit, mention is made at once of the Son, for he adds, of his Son. Nor does it matter that at times the Holy Spirit is only said to proceed from the Father, for the fact that the Son sends Him shows that He proceeds from Him. Accordingly, the Holy Spirit is called the Spirit of the Son as of the One sending and as of the One from Whom He proceeds, as well as of the One from Whom the Holy Spirit has whatever He has, just as of the Father: “He shall glorify me, because He shall receive of mine” (Jn 16:14).

But he says, into your hearts, because there is a twofold generation: one is carnal and comes about through fleshly seed sent to the place of generation. This seed, small as it is, contains in effect the whole. The other is spiritual, which comes about by spiritual seed transmitted to the place of spiritual generation, i.e., man’s mind or heart, because they are born sons of God through a renewal of the mind. Furthermore, the spiritual seed is the grace of the Holy Spirit: “Whosoever is born of God sinneth not: but the generation of God preserveth him and the wicked one toucheth him not” (1 Jn 5:18). This seed contains, in effect, the whole perfection of beatitude; hence it is called the pledge and earnest of beatitude (Eph 1:14); “I will put a new spirit within you” (Ez 36:26).

Crying, i.e., making us cry, Abba, Father, not with a loudness of voice but with a great fervor of love. For we cry, Abba, Father, when our affections are kindled by the warmth of the Holy Spirit to desire God: “You have not received the spirit of bondage again in fear; but you have received the spirit of adoption of sons, whereby we cry, Abba (Father)” (Rom 8:15). Abba in Hebrew and Pater in Greek have the same meaning of “father.” And he makes mention of both to show that the grace of the Holy Spirit, as such, is related in a common way to both.

Then when he says, Therefore, now he is not a servant, but a son, he mentions the fruit of this gift. First, as to removing all evil, from which we are freed through adoption by the Holy Spirit. This is freedom from bondage. With respect to this he says: Therefore, i.e., because the Spirit cries “Father” in us, now, from the time of grace, he, i.e., each one of us who believes in Christ, is not a servant, i.e., serving in fear—“I will not now call you servants but friends” (Jn 15:15); “You have not received the spirit of bondage again in fear: but you have received the spirit of adoption of sons” (Rom 8:15)—but a son: “For the Spirit himself giveth testimony to our spirit that we are the sons of God” (Rom 8:16). For although we be in the condition of servants (because it is said in Luke (17:10): “When you shall have done all these things that are commanded you, say: We are unprofitable servants”), we are not ill-disposed servants, i.e., serving in fear—for such a servant is deserving of torture and chains—but we are good and faithful servants, serving out of love. For that reason we obtain freedom through the Son: “If, therefore, the son shall make you free, you shall be free indeed” (Jn 8:36).

Secondly, he mentions the fruit as to its effect of attaining every good. With regard to this he says: And, if a son, an heir also through God: “And if sons, heirs also: heirs indeed of God and joint heirs with Christ” (Rom 8:17). Now this inheritance is the fulness of all good, for it is nothing other than God Himself, according to Psalm (15:5): “The Lord is the portion of my inheritance.” He said to Abraham: “I am thy reward exceeding great” (Gen 15:1). He says, through God, because as the Jews obtained the inheritance through the promise and justice of God, so the Gentiles too received it through God, i.e., through the mercy of God: “But the Gentiles are to glorify God for his mercy” (Rom 15:9). Or, through God, i.e., through the working of God: “Thou hast wrought all our works for us, O Lord” (Is 26:12).

 

Galatians 4:8-12

 

8. But then indeed, not knowing God, you served them who, by nature, are not gods.

9 But now, after that you have known God, or rather are known by God; how turn you again to the weak and needy elements which you desire to serve again?

10 You observe days and months and times, and years.

11 I am afraid of you, lest perhaps I have laboured in vain among you.

12a Be ye as I, because I also am as you.

Having disclosed the pre-eminence of the gift of grace and explained it with a human example, the Apostle here censures the Galatians, who scorned this grace, for being ungrateful for so great a gift.

First, he censures them for ingratitude;

Secondly, he excuses himself, explaining that he does not do this out of hatred or spite (v. 12b).

As to the first he does three things:

First, he calls to mind their earlier state;

Secondly, he extols and commends the gift they have received (v. 9);

Thirdly, he amplifies the sin committed (v. 9): how turn you again to the weak and needy elements?

He says therefore: But then indeed, not knowing God, you served them who, by nature, are not gods. As if to say: You are now sons and heirs through God; But then indeed, when you were heathens—“You were heretofore darkness, but now light in the Lord” (Eph 5:8)—not knowing God, through lack of faith, you served with the worship of latria, them who by nature are not gods, but by the opinion of men: “You know that when you were heathens, you went to dumb idols, according as you were led” (1 Cor 12:2); “They served the creature rather than the Creator.” (Rom 1:25). His statement, who by nature are not gods, serves to refute the Arians who said that Christ, the Son of God, is not God by nature. For if this were true, it would not be right to render Him latria, and whoever rendered it would be an idolater.

But someone might object that we adore the flesh and humanity of Christ; consequently, we are idolaters. I answer that even though we adore the flesh or humanity of Christ, we adore it as united to the person of the divine Word, Who is a divine hypostasis Hence, since adoration is due to a person of the divine nature, whatever is adored in Christ is done without error.

Then when he says, But now, after that you have known God, or rather are known by God, he reminds them of the gift received. As if to say: If you had been ignorant and sinned, it could have been tolerated; for other things being equal, sin in a Christian is more grievous than in a pagan. But now, since you have known God, i.e., were brought to a knowledge of God, you sin more gravely than of old by serving and setting your hope on things you ought not: “All shall know me, from the least of them even to the greatest” (Jer 31:34).

But the statement, after you are known by God, seems to cause a difficulty, for God has known all things from eternity: “All things were known to the Lord God before they were create&’ (Sir 23:29). 1 answer that this is said causally, so that the sense is: you are known by God, i.e., God has caused you to know Him. In this way, God is said to know inasmuch as He is the cause of our knowledge. Hence, because he had previously said, after that you have known God, which was a true statement, he immediately amends and explains it with a figure of speech by intimating that we cannot know God of ourselves save by Him: “No man hath seen God at any time: the only begotten Son, Who is in the bosom of the Father, He hath declared him” (Jn 1: 18).

Then he upbraids them for the sin committed, saying: how turn you again to the weak and needy elements?

First, he amplifies their sin;

Secondly, he shows their imminent danger (v. 11);

Thirdly, he draws them back to a state of safety (v. 12a).

As to the first, he does two things:

First, he mentions the sin committed;

Secondly, he convinces them of it (v. 10).

It should be pointed out that this passage is interpreted in two ways: in one way, that those Galatians had turned from the faith to idolatry. For this reason he says, how turn you from the faith again, i.e., a second time. “For it had been better for them not to have known the way of justice than, after they have known it, to turn back from that holy commandment which was delivered to them” (2 Pet. 2:21); “They are turned back” (Is 42:17). To the elements, namely, of the world, which are weak, unable by themselves to subsist, because they would lapse into nothingness unless upheld by the hand which rules all things—“Upholding all things by the word of his power” (Heb 1:3)—and needy, because they need God and one another to fill out the universe, which, namely, the elements, you desire to serve with the service of latria again, i.e., for a second time. And the proof of this is obvious, because You observe days, auspicious and inauspicious, and months and times and years, i.e., the constellations and the course of the heavenly bodies, all of which observances spring from idolatry, against which Jeremias (10:2) says: “Be not afraid of the signs of heaven which the heathens fear.”

That observances of this sort are evil and contrary to the worship of the Christian religion is plain, because the distinction of days, months, years and times is based on the course of the sun and moon. Therefore, those who observe such distinctions of times are venerating heavenly bodies and arranging their activities according to the evidence of the stars, which have no direct influence on the human will or on things that depend on free will. By this practice they are put in grave danger. Hence he says: I am afraid lest perhaps it was in vain, i.e., fruitlessly, that I labored among you. Therefore the faithful must avoid observing such things. Indeed, no suggestion of these things should be found among them, for whatever is done simply out of devotion to God can turn out prosperously.

But is it never lawful to look for the influence of the stars on certain things? I answer that heavenly bodies are the cause of certain effects, namely, bodily. In such things it is lawful to consider their influence. But they are not the cause of certain other things, i.e., of things that depend on free will or on good and bad fortune. Hence in such cases to look for the influence of the stars pertains to idolatry.

But although this interpretation might be upheld, it does not accord with the Apostle’s intention. For since in the entire section preceding this passage, as well as in all that follows it, he is censuring the Galatians for removing themselves from the faith and turning to the observances of the Law, it is more in keeping with his intention to expound it as referring to their turning to the legal observances. Hence he says: After that you have known God through faith, how turn you from the faith to the elements, i.e., to the literal observance of the Law? It is called an element, because the Law was the prime institution of divine worship. To elements, I say, that are weak, because they do not bring to perfection by justifying: “For the law brought nothing to perfection” (Heb 7:19), and needy, because they do not confer virtues and grace or offer any help of themselves.

But what does he mean by are you turned? For to say this, as well as to say, again, seems inappropriate, for they neither were Jews nor had they formerly observed the Law. I answer that the Jewish worship is midway between the worship of the Christians and that of the Gentiles: for the Gentiles worshipped the elements as though they were living things; the Jews, on the other hand, did not serve the elements but served God under the elements, inasmuch as they rendered worship, to God by the observances of bodily elements: We were serving under the elements of the world (v. 3); but Christians serve God under Christ, i.e., in the faith of Christ. Now when a person reaches a terminus after passing through the middle, if he then decides to return to the middle, it seems to be the same as returning to the very beginning. Therefore, because they had already reached the terminus, namely, faith in Christ, and then returned to the middle, i.e., to the Jewish worship, then because of a resemblance of middle to beginning, the Apostle says that they are turned to the elements and are serving them again.

That this is so, he proves when he says: You observe the days of the Jewish rite, namely, Sabbaths and the tenth day of the month and such things, which are mentioned in a Gloss, and months, i.e., new moons, as the first and seventh month, as is had in Leviticus (Ch. 25), and times, namely, of the exodus from Egypt, and the practice of going to Jerusalem three times a year, and years of jubilee and the seventh year of remission. From this arises a danger because faith in Christ profits nothing from it. Hence he says: I am afraid of you, lest perhaps I have labored in vain among you; and further on: If you be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing (5:2).

Then when he says, Be ye as I, because I also am as you, he guides them back to the state of salvation. As if to say: I am afraid for you, lest I have labored in vain among you. But lest this be so, Be ye as I. In a Gloss this is taken in three ways. In the first way thus: Be ye as I, namely, abandon the Law as I have abandoned it. In a second way thus: Be ye as I, namely, correcting the old error, as I have corrected mine. And this you can do, because I am as you, and yet I have been corrected of my error. In the third way thus: Be ye as I, i.e., live without the Law, because I, who had the Law and was born in the Law, am now as you formerly were, namely, without the Law.

 

Galatians 4:12-18

 

12b Brethren, I beseech you. You have not injured me at all.

13 And you know how, through infirmity of the flesh, I preached the gospel to you heretofore; and your temptation in my flesh

14 You despised not, nor rejected; but received me as an angel of God, even as Christ Jesus.

15 Where is then your blessedness? For I bear you witness that, if it could be done, you would have plucked out your own eyes and would have given them to me.

16 Am I then become your enemy, because I tell you the truth?

17 They are zealous in your regard not well; but they would exclude you, that you might be zealous for them.

18 But be zealous for that which is good in a good thing always; and not only when I am present with you.

After censuring the Galatians, the Apostle here shows that he did not do so out of hatred. And

First, he shows that he has no true cause of hatred toward them;

Secondly, that he has no supposed cause (v. 16);

Thirdly, he tells precisely why he rebuked them (v. 19).

As to the first, he does two things:

First, he shows that he has no reason for hating them;

Secondly, that contrariwise he has reason for loving them (v. 13).

With respect to the first it should be noted that it is customary for a good pastor in correcting his subjects to mingle gentleness with severity, lest they be discouraged by too great severity. For it is written in Luke (10) that the Samaritan in caring for the wounded man poured in oil and wine. On the other hand, it is written of evil pastors in Ezechiel (34:4): “You ruled over them with vigor.” Therefore, as a good prelate, the Apostle shows that he does not rebuke them in a spirit of hatred, for his words are gentle in three respects. First, as to the charitable name he uses, for he says, Brethren: “Behold how good and how pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in unity” (Ps 132:1). Secondly, as to his suppliant language, when he says: I beseech you: “The poor will speak with supplications” (Prov 18:28). Thirdly, as to freeing them of blame; hence he says, You have not injured me at all, and I am not the type of person who hates those who do not offend me.

Secondly, he shows that he has reason to love them, when he says: you know how, through infirmity of the flesh, I preached the gospel to you heretofore. Here he touches on three things that usually cause men to love one another. The first is the mutual help of fellowship, and this is also the cause of love being consolidated among men, according to Luke (22:28): “And you are they who have continued with me in my temptations; and I dispose to you as my Father hath disposed to me, a kingdom.” Touching this he says: And you know how, through infirmity of the flesh, I preached the gospel to you heretofore. Herein he does two things:

First, he recalls the tribulation he suffered among them;

Secondly, he shows how they stood by him (v. 13).

He says, therefore, with respect to the first: I say that You have not injured me at all; rather you have come to my aid. For you know, i.e., are able to recall, that I preached the gospel to you heretofore, i.e., in times past, through infirmity of the flesh, i.e., with infirmity and affliction in my flesh, or with the many tribulations I suffered from the Jews who are of my flesh and persecuted me: “And I was with you in weakness and in fear and in much tribulation” (1 Cor 2:3); “Power is made perfect in infirmity” (2 Cor 12:9). And although this infirmity might have been reason for scorning me and a cause of temptation for you, according to Zacharias (13:7): “Strike the shepherd and the sheep will be scattered”: nevertheless, your temptation, which was in my flesh, i.e., my tribulation, which was a source of temptation for you, you despised not: “Despise not a man for his look” (Sir 11:2) because as the Lord says in Luke (10:16): “He that despiseth you, despiseth me.” Neither did you reject me and my teaching, but you were willing to share my tribulations: “Woe to you that despisest, shall you not also be despised?” (Is 33:1).

The second thing that strengthens love among men is mutual love and affection toward one another, according to Proverbs (8:17): 1 love them that love me.” As to this he says: but you received me as an angel of God, i.e., with the honor accorded to a messenger announcing God’s words: “When you received of us the word of the hearing of God, you received it not as the word of men but (as it is indeed) the word of God” (1 Thes 2:13). For this reason preachers are called angels: “They shall seek the law at the priest’s mouth, because he is the angel of the Lord of hosts” (Mal 2:7). And not only as an angel did you receive me, but even as Christ Jesus, i.e., as though Christ Himself had come, Who, indeed, had come to them in him and spoke in him, according to 2 Corinthians (13:3): “Do you seek a proof of Christ that speaketh in me?” “He that receiveth you receiveth me” (Mt 10:40). But he then rebukes them for their change of heart; hence he says, Where is then your blessedness? As if to say: Did not men think you blessed for honoring me and accepting my preaching? “Where is thy fear, thy fortitude, thy patience and the perfection of thy ways?” (Job 4:6).

The third thing that strengthens love is doing good to one another. As to this he says: For I bear you witness that, if it could be done, i.e., had been just to do so (for that can be done which it is just to do) or had been to the advantage of the Church, you would have plucked out your own eyes and would have given them to me. As if to say: You loved me so much that you would have given me not only your external goods but your very eyes.

Then when he says: Am I then become your enemy, because I tell you the truth?, he states the cause of a supposed hatred.

First, the cause on the part of the Apostle;

Secondly, on the part of the false brethren (v. 17).

He says therefore: If you have done me so much good, are you to believe that I am become your enemy because I tell you the truth? The word enemy used here can be interpreted in two ways: in one way as meaning that he hates them; in this case the interpretation is have I become your enemy, i.e., hate you? Hence what follows, namely, because I tell you the truth, can be taken as an indication of hatred, even though telling the truth at the proper time and place is a sign of love. In another way, the word enemy can be taken in a passive sense, i.e., so that he is hated by them; then have I become your enemy is interpreted as Do you hate me? and this because I tell you the truth, so that telling the truth is set down as the cause of hatred. For men who tell the truth are hated by evil men, since the truth engenders hatred: “They have hated him that rebuketh in the gate: and I have abhorred him that speaketh perfectly” (Am 5: 10).

But on the other hand, it is said in Proverbs (28:23): “He that rebuketh a man shall afterward find favor with him more then he that by a flattering tongue deceiveth him.” I answer that the solution to this can be gathered from what is said in Proverbs (9:9): “Rebuke not a scorner, lest he hate thee. Rebuke a wise man and he will love thee.” For if the one corrected loves the corrector, it is a sign of virtue; conversely, it is a sign of malice, if he should hate him. For since a man naturally hates what is contrary to what he loves, then if you hate one who corrects you for evil, it is obvious that you love the evil; but if you love him, you indicate that you hate sin. For at first, when men are corrected, they are attached to their sins—that is why a sinner’s first reaction is to hate the one correcting him; but after the correction he puts aside his attachment to sin and loves the one correcting him. And therefore the passage from Proverbs expressly says that later he will find favor with him.

Then when he says, They are zealous in your regard not well, he states another supposed cause, namely, on the part of the false brethren.

First, he states it;

Secondly, he refutes it (v. 18).

As to the first it should be noted that, as has been said above, c ertain false brethren, converted from Judaism, went about the churches of the Gentiles, preaching the observance of the Law. Because Paul opposed them, they slandered him. They did this not so much with an eye to their salvation as to get rid of Paul. Hence the Apostle says, They are zealous in your regard, i.e., they do not allow you (whom they love with a love not of friendship but of self-interest) to associate with us. For jealous rivalry is zeal that arises from any love whatsoever and does not brook what is loved to be shared. But because their love for them was not good: first of all, because they did not love them so as to advantage them but for their own gain—and this is obvious from the fact that they wanted to keep the Apostle away from them as one opposed to their own advantage—and secondly, because this was a source of harm to the Gentiles—for they sought from them an advantage by which the latter would suffer harm; for these reasons he says, They are zealous in your regard but not well, because they are not interested in your welfare. And this is obvious, because they would exclude you that you might be zealous for them, i.e., that you might admit none but them: “Envy not the unjust man and do not follow his ways” (Prov 3:31); “Let not thy heart envy sinners” (Prov 23:17).

But he rejects this when he says, But be zealous for that which is good in a good thing always. As if to say: You ought not to be zealous for them in their teaching; but be zealous for a good teacher, i.e., for me and those like me: “And who is he that can hurt you if you be zealous of the good?” (1 Pet. 3:13). But because there can be evil in a good teacher, he adds, be zealous of the good teacher, yet say in a good thing, i.e., in that which is good: “Follow after charity and be zealous for spiritual goods” (1 Cor 14:1).

Now, although the Apostle speaks of himself, according to a Gloss, when he says, be zealous of the good, yet he adds in a good thing, because as he says: “I am not conscious of any thing, yet I am not hereby justified” (1 Cor 4:4). But because some are zealous for a good teacher in his presence alone, he adds: always, and not only when I am present with you; because zeal for the good, if it continues even when the teacher is absent, is an indication that it proceeds from love and fear of God Who sees all: “Servants, obey in all things your masters according to the flesh, not serving to the eye, as pleasing men, but in simplicity of heart, fearing God” (Col 3:22).

 

Galatians 4:19-20

 

19 My little children, of whom I am in labour again, until Christ be formed in you.

20 And I would willingly be present with you now and change my voice; because I am ashamed for you.

Above, the Apostle dismissed the false cause of his correcting the Galatians; here he discloses the true cause, which is sorrow for their imperfection.

 

First, he expresses the heartfelt sorrow of which he spoke;

Secondly, a desire to manifest this sorrow (v. 20);

Thirdly, he gives the cause of the sorrow (v. 20): be. cause I am ashamed for you.

This sorrow proceeded from charity, because be grieved for their sins: I beheld the transgressors and I pined away; because they kept not thy word” (Ps 118:158). And so he addresses them in words of charity, saying, My little children. He purposely does not call them sons, but little children, to indicate the imperfection whereby they had become small: “As unto little ones in Christ, I gave you milk to drink, not meat” (1 Cor 3:1).

It should be noted that during parturition a child is called a little one. And this is what they were, because they needed to be born again, even though parents according to the flesh bring forth their child only once. Accordingly he says to them, of whom I am in labor again. For he was in labor of them during their first conversion; but since they had now turned from the one who called them, to another gospel, they needed to be brought forth anew. Hence he says, I am in labor, i.e., with labor and pain I bring them forth into the light of faith. In these words the Apostle bares his grief. Hence a man’s conversion is called a birth: “They bow themselves to bring forth young” (Job 39:3); “And being with child she cried, travailing in birth and was in pain to be delivered” (Rev 12:2). Therefore it is because of his pain that he rebukes them so sharply, as a woman cries aloud because of the pains of childbirth: I will speak now as a woman in labor” (Is 42:14).

The reason for the iterated travail is that you are not perfectly formed. Hence he says: until Christ be formed in you, i.e., until you receive His likeness, which you have lost through your sin. He does not say, “That you may be formed in Christ,” but until Christ be formed in you, to make it resound more terrifyingly on their ears. For Christ is formed in the heart by “formed faith”: “That Christ might dwell in your hearts by faith” (Eph 3:17). But when one does not have “formed faith,” Christ has already died in him: “Until the day dawn and the day star arise in your hearts” (2 Petr. 1:19). Thus Christ grows in a man according to his progress in the faith; conversely, as it diminishes, He recedes. Therefore, when the faith of a man is rendered “unformed” by sin, Christ is not formed in him; and so, because there’ was not a formed faith in them, they needed to be brought forth in the womb again until Christ be formed in them through faith, i.e., “formed faith,” which works through love. Or, until Christ be formed in you, i.e., through you Christ appear finely formed to others.

Here someone might say: “Away from us you say these things, but if you were with us, you would not say them,” according to 2 Corinthians (10:10): “His bodily presence is weak and his speech contemptible.” Therefore, he expresses a desire to manifest his grief more vividly, saying, I would willingly be present with you now and change my voice. As if to say: I use gentle language now, calling you friends and sons, in my absence; but if I were present among you, I would correct you more sharply. For if I were present and speaking the things I am now writing in a letter, the correction would be more severe; because I would then be able to express the scolding tones of my rebuke and the cries of my anger and the pain in my heart, much better than I can convey them by letter. And a living voice would more effectively stir your hearts to shame for your error and my anxiety.

And the cause of this sorrow is that I am ashamed for you, i.e., I blush for you in the presence of others; for as it is said in Sirach (22:3): “A son ill taught is the confusion of the father.” For since a son is a thing of the father, and a disciple as such is a thing of his master, a master rejoices in the good he sees reflected in him and glories in it as though it were his own. Conversely, he is pained at evil and is ashamed. Hence because they had been turned from good to evil, for that reason the Apostle is ashamed.

 

Galatians 4:21-24

 

21 Tell me, you that desire to be under the law, have you not read the law?

22 For it is written that Abraham had two sons: the one by a bondwoman and the other by a free woman.

23 But he who was of the bondwoman was born according to the flesh; but be of the free woman was by promise.

24a Which things are said by an allegory.

Above, the Apostle showed the pre-eminence of grace by a human example; here he proves it on the authority of the Scripture.

First, he proposes a fact;

Secondly, he expounds its mystery (v. 24);

Thirdly, he concludes his proposition (v. 31).

As to the first, he does two things:

First, he elicits their attention;

Secondly, he sets forth his intention (v. 22).

He says therefore: Tell me, you that desire to be under the law, have you not read the law? As if to say: If you are wise, consider my objections; if you cannot answer them, yield: “Answer, I beseech you, without contention: and speaking that which is just, answer me” (Job 6:29). Now I raise this objection to you. You have either read the Law or not. If you have read it, you ought to know the things written in it. But those things prove that it should be abandoned. If you have not read it, you ought not accept what you do not know: “Let thy eyelids go before thy steps” (Prov 4:25). He says under the law, i.e., under the burden of the Law. For to shoulder something light is not a feat; but to assume a heavy burden, such as the burden of the Law, seems to be a mark of exceeding stupidity: “This is a yoke which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear” (Acts 15:10); which is to be understood of those who wish to live according to the flesh under the Law.

Then when he says, It is written that Abraham had two sons, he sets forth his intention, saying: The reason I ask whether you have read the Law is that it contains certain things which clearly indicate that the Law must not be retained. And the Apostle mentions specifically the two sons of Abraham. First, he states one point in which they are alike. Secondly, two points in which they differ.

They are alike in having the same father. Hence he says, It is written that Abraham had two sons. In fact he had more than two, because after Sara’s death, he fathered other sons of Cetura, as is stated in Genesis (Ch. 25). But the Apostle does not mention them because they have no role in this allegory. Now two peoples, the Jews and the Gentiles, can be signified by those two, i.e., the son of the bondwoman and the son of the free woman—and by the other sons of Cetura, schismatics and heretics. These two peoples are alike in having one father, for the Jews are the children of Abraham according to the flesh, but the Gentiles, by imitating him in faith. Or, they are the sons of Abraham, i.e., of God, Who is the Father of all: “Have we not all one father?” (Mal 2:10); “Is he the God of the Jews only?” (Rom 3:29).

But they differ in two respects: namely, in the condition of their mother, because one is of a bondwoman, as is said in Genesis (Ch. 21) (yet Abraham did not sin by lying with her, because he approached her in conjugal affection and under God’s ordinance); the other, namely, Isaac, whom Sara, his wife, begot unto him was born of a free woman: “I will return and come to thee at this time, life accompanying, and Sara thy wife shall have a son” (Gen 18:10). Also, they differ as to the manner of procreation, because the son of the bondwoman, i.e., Ishmael, was born according to the flesh, but the one of the free woman, i.e., Isaac, according to the promise.

Here a twofold misinterpretation must be avoided. The first is lest we understand born according to the flesh as though “flesh” refers here to an act of sin, as it does in Romans (8:13): “If you live according to the flesh, you shall die,” and 2 Corinthians (10:3): “For although we walk in the flesh, we do not war according to the flesh”—as though Abraham sinned in begetting Ishmael. The other is lest we suppose, when it is said, by promise, that Isaac was not born according to the flesh, i.e., through a carnal union, but by the Holy Spirit.

Therefore, it must be said that Ishmael was born according to the flesh, i.e., according to the nature of the flesh. For it is natural among men that from a fertile young woman, such as Hagar was, and a man advanced in years a son be born. But that Isaac be born according to promise is beyond the nature of the flesh: for the nature of the flesh cannot achieve that a son be born of an old man and a barren old woman, as Sara was. In Ishmael are signified the Jewish people, who were born according to the flesh; in Isaac are signified the Gentiles, who were born according to the promise, in which Abraham was promised that he would be the father of many nations: “In thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed” (Gen 22:18).

Then he discloses the mystery when he says, Which things are said by an allegory.

First, he tells what sort of mystery it is;

Secondly, he explains it (v. 24).

He says therefore: These things which are written about the two sons are said by an allegory, i.e., the understanding of one thing under the image of another. For an allegory is a figure of speech or a manner of narrating, in which one thing is said and something else is understood. Hence “allegory” is derived from “alos” (alien) and “goge” (a leading), leading, as it were, to a different understanding.

Here it should be noted that “allegory” is sometimes taken for any mystical meaning: sometimes for only one of the four, which are the historical, allegorical, mystical and the anagogical, which are the four senses of Sacred Scripture, all of which differ in signification. For signification is twofold: one is through words; the other through the things signified by the words. And this is peculiar to the sacred writings and no others, since their author is God in Whose power it lies not only to employ words to signify (which man can also do), but things as well. Consequently, in the other sciences handed down by men, in which only words can be employed to signify, the words alone signify. But it is peculiar to Scripture that words and the very things signified by them signify something. Consequently this science can have many senses. For that signification by which the words signify something pertains to the literal or historical sense. But the signification whereby the things signified by the words further signify other things pertains to the mystical sense.

There are two ways in which something can be signified by the literal sense: either according to the usual construction, as when I say, “the man smiles”; or according to a likeness or metaphor, as when I say, “the meadow smiles.” Both of these are used in Sacred Scripture; as when we say, according to the first, that Jesus ascended, and when we say according to the second, that He sits at the right hand of God. Therefore, under the literal sense is included the parabolic or metaphorical.

However, the mystical or spiritual sense is divided into three types. First, as when the Apostle says that the Old Law is the figure of the New Law. Hence, insofar as the things of the Old Law signify things of the New Law, it is the allegorical sense. Then, according to Dionysius in the book On The Heavenly Hierarchy, the New Law is a figure of future glory; accordingly, insofar as things in the New Law and in Christ signify things which are in heaven, it is the anagogical sense. Furthermore, in the New Law the things performed by the Head are examples of things we ought to do—because “What things soever were written were written for our learning” (Rom 15:3) —accordingly insofar as the things which in the New Law were done in Christ and done in things that signify Christ are signs of things we ought to do, it is the moral sense. Examples will clarify each of these. For when I say, “Let there be light,” referring literally to corporeal light, it is the literal sense. But if it be taken to mean “Let Christ be born in the Church,” it pertains to the allegorical sense. But if one says, “Let there be light,” i.e., “Let us be conducted to glory through Christ,” it pertains to the anagogical sense. Finally, if it is said “Let there be light,” i.e., “Let us be illumined in mind and inflamed in heart through Christ,” it pertains to the moral sense.

 

Galatians 4:24-27

 

24b For these are the two testaments. The one from mount Sinai, engendering unto bondage, which is Hagar.

25 For Sinai is a mountain in Arabia, which hath affinity to that Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children.

26 But that Jerusalem which is above is free; which is our mother.

27 For it is written: Rejoice thou barren, that bearest not; break forth and cry, thou that travailest not; for many are the children of the desolate, more than of her that hath a husband.

Above, the Apostle spoke of the mystical sense; here he discloses the mystery:

First, as to the mothers;

Secondly, as to the sons (v. 28).

By the two mothers he understands the two testaments. Therefore,

First, he states the thing signified;

Secondly, he explains it (v. 24): The one from mount Sinai.

He says therefore, These, i.e., the two wives, the bondwoman and the free woman, are the two testaments, the Old and the New: “I will make with the house of Israel a new covenant” (behold, the New Testament), “not according to the covenant which I made with their fathers” (behold the Old Testament) (Jer 31:31). For the free woman signifies the New Testament and the bondwoman the Old.

To understand what a testament is, we should consider that a testament is a pact or agreement dealing with matters which are confirmed by witnesses. Hence in Scripture in many places in lieu of testament is put pact or agreement. Now, whenever a pact or agreement is struck, a promise is made. Therefore, according to the diversity of promises there is a diversity of testaments. But two things have been promised to us: temporal things in the Old Law, and eternal things in the New: “Rejoice and be glad because your reward is great in heaven” (Mt 5:12). Hence these two promises are the two testaments. Hence the Apostle, when he says, The one from mount Sinai, engendering unto bondage, explains them.

First, as to the Old;

Secondly, as to the New (v. 26).

To understand this text, it must be noted with respect to the first that a citizen of a city is called its son, and the city itself his mother: “Daughters of Jerusalem, weep not for me” (Lk 23:28); “The noble sons of Sion” (Lam 4:2). Therefore, by the fact that certain ones become citizens of a city, they are made its sons. Now there is a twofold city of God: the one of earth, called the earthly Jerusalem, and the other of Heaven, called the heavenly Jerusalem. Furthermore, men were made citizens of the earthly city through the Old Testament, but of the heavenly through the New. Therefore as to this he does two things:

First, he expounds the mystery;

Secondly, he accounts for the mystical explanation (v. 25).

He says therefore first: I say that it signifies the two Testaments, namely, the Old and the New. And with respect to this he says: The one from mount Sinai, engendering unto bondage. Wherein is mentioned first of all the place in which it was given, namely, on Mount Sinai, as is recorded in Exodus (Ch. 20). According to a Gloss the mystical rendition of this is that Sinai is interpreted “Commandment.” Hence in Ephesians (Ch. 2) the Old Law is called by the Apostle the law of the Commandments. Now a mountain signifies pride: “Before your feet stumble upon the dark mountains” (Jer. 13:16). Hence by this mountain on which the Law was given a twofold pride of the Jews is signified: one by which they were arrogant against God: I know thy obstinacy and thy most stiff neck” (Deut 31:27); the other by which they boasted at the expense of other nations, thus perverting what is said in Psalm (147:20): “He hath not done in like manner to every nation; and his judgments he hath not made manifest to them.”

Secondly, he explains the end for which it was given, namely, not to make them free, but to make them children of a bondwoman, engendering unto bondage, which is Hagar, i.e., which is signified by Hagar, who engenders unto bondage, namely, the Old Testament. And this it does with respect to three things; namely, feeling, understanding and fruit. As to understanding, indeed, according to knowledge: because in man is a twofold knowledge. One is free, when he knows the truth of things according to themselves; the other is servile, i.e., veiled under figures, as was the knowledge of the Old Testament. As to feeling, the New Law engenders the feeling of love, which pertains to freedom: for one who loves is moved by his own initiative. The Old, on the other hand, engenders the feeling of fear in which is servitude; for one who fears is moved not by his own initiative but by that of another: “You have not received the spirit of bondage again in fear; but you have received the spirit of adoption of sons” (Rom 8:15). But as to the fruit, the New Law begets sons to whom is owed the inheritance, whereas to those whom the Old Law engenders are owed small presents as to servants: “The servant abideth not in the house forever; but the son abideth forever” (Jn 8:35).

Then he gives the explanation of the mystery when he says: Sinai is a mountain in Arabia, which hath affinity to that Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children. But here a difficulty arises: for since Sinai is almost twenty days journey from Jerusalem, it seems false that Sinai has affinity to [borders on] Jerusalem, as the Apostle says here. To this a Gloss responds in a mystical manner that Sinai is in Arabia, which stands for the abjection or affliction under which the Old Testament was given, because the men under it were oppressed by carnal observances after the manner of slaves and foreigners: “This is a yoke which neither we nor our fathers were able to bear” (Acts 15:10). This mountain neighbors on Jerusalem not by a spatial continuity but by a likeness to that Jerusalem which now is, i.e., to the Jewish people, because just as they love earthly things and for the sake of temporal things are under the bondage of sin, so that mountain engendered unto bondage.

But this does not seem to be the Apostle’s intention. For he wants to bring out that from the very place of bondage the Old Testament, which was given on Mount Sinai, engenders unto bondage, because it was given on Sinai not as a place where the children of Israel were to remain, but as a stage in their journey to the promised land. For Jerusalem, too, engenders sons unto bondage. Hence it is with respect to this that Mount Sinai is continuous with her. And this is what he says: which hath affinity to that (i.e., by being part of the continuous route followed by those going to Jerusalem) Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children, i.e., the bondage of legal observances (from which Christ redeemed us) and of various sins—“He that commits sins is the servant of sin” (Jn 8:34)—and, literally, from bondage under the Romans who were their masters.

Then when he says, But that Jerusalem which is above is free, he discloses the mystery of the free woman.

First, he discloses the mystery;

Secondly, he refers to a prophecy (v. 27).

The first can be understood in two ways, accordingly as we understand this mother to be the one by whom we are engendered, which is the Church Militant, or the mother whose sons we become, which is the Church Triumphant: “He hath regenerated us unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead” (1 Pet. 1:3). Hence we are so generated in the present Church Militant as to arrive at the Triumphant. Therefore in explaining it thus, our mother is described by four things: by her sublimity, when he says, above; secondly, by name, when he says, Jerusalem; thirdly by her freedom, when he says, is free, fourthly, by her fecundity when he says, our mother.

She is sublime on account of the face to face vision of God and the perfect enjoyment of God; and this, as to the Church Triumphant: “Then shalt thou see, and abound, and thy heart shall wonder and be enlarged” (Is 60:5); “Mind the things that are above” (Col 3:2). Again she is sublime through faith and hope as to the Church Militant: “Our conversation is in heaven” (Phil 3:20); “Who is this that cometh up from the desert, flowing with delights?” (Cant 8:5). Further, she is a peacemaker, because she is Jerusalem, i.e., vision of peace. This belongs to the Church Triumphant as having perfect peace: “Who hath placed peace in thy borders” (Ps 147:14); “My people shall sit in the beauty of peace” (Is 32:18). Likewise it pertains to the Church Militant which possesses the peace of resting in Christ: “In me you shall have peace” (Jn 16:33). Furthermore, she is free: “Because the creature also itself shall be delivered from the servitude of corruption” (Rom 8:21). And this both as to the Church Triumphant and the Church Militant according to Apoc (21:2): 1 saw the holy city, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God.” Finally, she is fruitful, because she is our mother: Militant as engendering; Triumphant as the one whose sons we become: “Shall Sion say: This man and that man is born of her” (Ps 86:5); “Thy sons shall come from afar, and thy daughters shall rise up at thy side” (Is 60:4).

For it is written, namely in Isaiah (54:1) according to the Septuagint. Here is mentioned the prophecy through which is proved, first of all, that the mother referred to is free, and secondly, that she is fruitful. With respect to the first, it should be noted that in a fertile woman there is first sorrow in giving birth, but this is followed by joy in beholding the child: “A woman when she is in labor hath sorrow, because her hour is come; but when she hath brought forth the child, she remembereth no more her anguish for joy that a man is born into the world” (Jn 16:21). But a barren woman neither suffers the pangs of birth nor has joy in a child. Again there is a difference between bearing and travailing. For the latter refers to the effort to bear, whereas the former refers to the releasing of the foetus now formed. Therefore the fertile woman experiences pain in travail but joy in bearing; the sterile woman, on the other hand, experiences neither the pain of travail nor the joy of bearing.

But these are the two things which the prophet announces to the barren woman: Rejoice, thou barren, that bearest not: break forth and cry, thou that travailest not. Herein he speaks of Jerusalem, which he calls free and is signified by the barren Sara. For the Church was barren, namely, the Church Militant, of the Gentiles before their conversion when they offered their sons not to God but to the devil. Hence it is said to Babylon: “Barrenness and widowhood will come upon thee, because of the multitude of thy sorceries” (Is 47:9). The Church Triumphant, too, was barren before the passion of Christ, because to her were born no sons who entered into glory, save in hope. For a mighty engine of war blocked the entrance to Paradise, so that no one might enter. To this barren one he says: Rejoice thou that bearest not. As if to say: The barren, as has been said, are sorrowful, not because they bear, but because they bear not: “As Anna had her heart full of grief, she prayed to the Lord, shedding many tears” (I Kg. 1:10). But you shall rejoice in the great number of your children: “Then shall thy heart wonder and be enlarged,” i.e., you will show the joy in your soul outwardly (Is 60:5). For there are two things in childbirth: the pain from the rupturing of the membrane enclosing the child in the womb, and the crying from pain. Hence he says, thou that travailest not, i.e., the Church Militant, that makes no effort to bear through desire, and the Church Triumphant, that does not cry for travail; or because the time for having sons has not yet come, break forth, i.e., show outwardly the joy you have within and cry with sounds of praise: “Cry, cease not, lift up thy voice like a trumpet” (Is 58:1). These two things, namely, to cry and to break forth, pertain to freedom.—Thus the freedom of the mother is made manifest.

He follows with the fruitfulness: for many are the children of the desolate, more than of her that hath a husband. But since it was said above that the free Church is signified by Sara, there seems to be some doubt whether Sara was desolate. I answer that she was made desolate by Abraham, as it is said here, not by a divorce but with respect to the work of the flesh. For Abraham resorted to the work of the flesh not for the pleasure but to obtain a child. Therefore when he learned that Sara was barren, he abandoned her; not by forsaking the marriage bed, but by not resorting to her from precisely the time that Sara introduced the bondwoman to him. By this we are given to understand that the Church of the Gentiles was left desolate by Christ, because Christ had not yet come; and that the Church Triumphant was desolate of men, for whom no means of entry was open. Of this desolate woman, i.e., the Church of the Gentiles, there are many children, i.e., more than of her, namely, the synagogue, that hath a husband, namely, Moses: “The barren hath borne many: and she that had many children is weakened” (I Kg. 2:5). And this is due to the coming of the spouse, namely, Christ, by Whom she had been left desolate not by want of love, but because the bearing of children had been delayed.

 

Galatians 4:28-31

 

 

28 Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise.

29 But as then he that was born according to the flesh persecuted him that was after the spirit; so also it is now.

30 But what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son; for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the free woman.

31 So then, brethren, we are not the children of the bondwoman but of the free; by the freedom wherewith Christ has made us free.

Having disclosed the mystery as to the mothers, he now discloses it as to the sons.

First, he differentiates between the sons;

Secondly, he sets down the main conclusion (v. 31).

He distinguishes the sons on three counts:

First, as to the manner of origin;

Secondly, as to the feeling of love (v. 29).

Thirdly, as to their right to the inheritance (v. 30).

The manner of origin, according to which the sons of Abraham are born, is twofold: one is by origin according to the flesh, as Ishmael, of the bondwoman; the other not according to the flesh, as Isaac, of the free woman-not because he was not born in the way of nature, but because, as has been said, it was beyond the natural power of the flesh for a son to be born of a barren old woman. Two people are understood by these two sons: by Ishmael is understood the Jewish people, who derived from Abraham by carnal propagation; but by Isaac, the people of the Gentiles, who descended from Abraham by imitation of his faith. Hence he says: Now we, brethren, i.e., the faithful, both Jew and Gentile, as Isaac was, i.e., in the line of Isaac, are the children of the promise that was made to Abraham: “They that are the children of the promise are accounted for the seed” (Gen 21; Rom 9:8). But note that the children of Abraham according to the flesh are, literally, the Jewish people; but, mystically, the ones who come to the faith for the sake of carnal and temporal goods.

Secondly, they are distinguished according to affection, because he that was born according to the flesh persecuted him that was after the spirit. But this raises a difficulty. First, because it is not recorded that Ishmael persecuted Isaac, but only that they played together: “When Sara had seen the son of Hagar, the Egyptian, playing with Isaac her son, she said to Abraham: Cast out this bondwoman and her son” (Gen 21:9). I answer that the Apostle calls this playing a persecution, because there is deception when an older person plays with a younger one; since the older person, in playing with the younger, intends to deceive him. Or, as some say, Ishmael compelled Isaac to adore the clay images he fashioned. By this he was teaching him to be turned from the worship of the one God; and this was a considerable persecution, since it is a greater evil to cause spiritual death than bodily. Furthermore, in Genesis this is called a game because he did this under the guise of a game.

There is another difficulty, namely, how the children according to the flesh persecuted and do persecute the children according to the spirit? The answer is that from the beginning of the early Church the Jews persecuted Christians, as is obvious in the Acts of the Apostles, and they would do the same even now, if they were able. Now, however, those who are carnal persecute spiritual men in the Church even as to the body; those, namely, who seek glory and temporal gain in the Church. Hence a Gloss says that “all who seek from the Lord earthly aggrandizement in the Church pertain to this Ishmael. They are the ones who oppose those who are making spiritual progress and slander them. They have iniquity in their mouth, and craft and deceit on their tongues.” But the ones who spiritually persecute the spiritual sons are the haughty and the hypocrites. For sometimes they who are plainly carnal and evil recognize their guilt and humble themselves before the good; but the foolish persecute in others the goodness they themselves lack.

A further question arises from the fact that heretics whom we persecute say that they are the ones born according to the spirit and we according to the flesh. I answer that there are two kinds of persecution: the good one is that in which a person persecutes another to lead him back to good. And this is what just men do to evil men, and spiritual men to carnal men; either to correct them, if they want to be converted, or, if they are obstinate, to destroy them, lest they contaminate the flock of the Lord. The other type of persecution is evil, namely, when a person persecutes another in order to pervert him; and this is what those who are born according to the flesh do to those who are born according to the spirit.

Finally, as to their right to the inheritance, they are distinguished by the authority of Scripture: Cast out the bondwoman and her son (Gen 21:10). By this we are given to understand that the Jews and persecutors of the Christian religion, as well as carnal and evil Christians, will be cast out from the kingdom of heaven: “Many shall come from the east and the west and shall sit down with Abraham and Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven” (Mt 8:11); “Without are dogs and sorcerers” (Rev 22:15). Furthermore, the bondwoman, i.e., vice and sin itself, will be cast out: “Every work that is corruptible shall fail in the end” (Sir 14:20). The reason for all this is added, because the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the free woman. For in this world the good are mingled with the wicked and the wicked with the good: “As the lily among thorns, so is my love among the daughters” (Cant 2:2). But in the eternal fatherland there will be only the good. In Judges (11:2) it is said to Jephtah: “Thou canst not inherit in the house of our father, because thou art born of a harlot.” This freedom we obtain from Christ; hence he says, by the freedom wherewith Christ has made us free: “If therefore the son shall make you free, you shall be free indeed” (Jn 8:36).