St John Chrysostom’s Commentary on Galatians 5:16-25

This appears to be an actual commentary rather than a homiletic commentary.

Ver. 16. “But I say, Walk by the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh.”

Here he points out another¹³¹ path which makes duty easy, and secures what had been said, a path whereby love is generated, and which is fenced in by love. For nothing, nothing I say, renders us so susceptible of love, as to be spiritual, and nothing is such an inducement to the Spirit to abide in us, as the strength of love. Therefore he says, “Walk by the Spirit and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh:” having spoken of the cause of the disease, he likewise mentions the remedy which confers health. And what is this, what is the destruction of the evils we have spoken of, but the life in the Spirit? hence he says, “Walk by the Spirit and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh.”

Ver. 17. “For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh, for these are contrary the one to the other: that ye may not do the things that ye would.”

Here some make the charge that the Apostle has divided man into two parts, and that he states the essence of which he is compounded to be conflicting with itself, and that the body has a contest with the soul. But this is not so, most certainly; for by “the flesh,” he does not mean the body; if he did, what would be the sense of the clause immediately following, “for it lusteth,” he says, “against the Spirit?” yet the body moves not, but is moved, is not an agent, but is acted upon. How then does it lust, for lust belongs to the soul not to the body, for in another place it is said, “My soul longeth,” (Ps 84:2) and, “Whatsoever thy soul desireth, I will even do it for thee,” (1 Sam 20:4.) and, “Walk not according to the desires of thy heart,” and, “So panteth my soul.” (Ps 42:1.) Wherefore then does Paul say, “the flesh lusteth against the Spirit?” he is wont to call the flesh, not the natural body but the depraved will, as where he says, “But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit,” (Rom 8:8-9) and again, “They that are in the flesh cannot please God.” What then? Is the flesh to be destroyed? was not he who thus spoke clothed with flesh? such doctrines are not of the flesh, but from the Devil, for “he was a murderer from the beginning.” (John 8:44.) What then is his meaning? it is the earthly mind, slothful and careless, that he here calls the flesh, and this is not an accusation of the body, but a charge against the slothful soul. The flesh is an instrument, and no one feels aversion and hatred to an instrument, but to him who abuses it. For it is not the iron instrument but the murderer, whom we hate and punish. But it may be said that the very calling of the faults of the soul by the name of the flesh is in itself an accusation of the body. And I admit that the flesh is inferior to the soul, yet it too is good, for that which is inferior to what is good may itself be good, but evil is not inferior to good, but opposed to it. Now if you are able to prove to me that evil originates from the body, you are at liberty to accuse it; but if your endeavor is to turn its name into a charge against it, you ought to accuse the soul likewise. For he that is deprived of the truth is called “the natural man.” (1 Cor 11:14.)¹³² and the race of demons “the spirits of wickedness.” (Eph 6:12.)

Again, the Scripture is wont to give the name of the Flesh to the Mysteries of the Eucharist, and to the whole Church, calling them the Body of Christ. (Col 1:24.) Nay, to induce you to give the name of blessings to the things of which the flesh is the medium, you have only to imagine the extinction of the senses, and you will find the soul deprived of all discernment, and ignorant of what it before knew. For if the power of God is since “the creation of the world clearly seen, being perceived through the things that are made,” (Rom 1:20.) how could we see them without eyes? and if “faith cometh of hearing,” (Rom 10:17.) how shall we hear without ears? and preaching depends on making circuits wherein the tongue and feet are employed. “For how shall they preach, except they be sent?” (Rom 10:15.) In the same way writing is performed by means of the hands. Do you not see that the ministry of the flesh produces for us a thousand benefits? In his expression, “the flesh lusteth against the Spirit,” he means two mental states. For these are opposed to each other, namely virtue and vice, not the soul and the body. Were the two latter so opposed they would be destructive of one another, as fire of water, and darkness of light. But if the soul cares for the body, and takes great forethought on its account, and suffers a thousand things in order not to leave it, and resists being separated from it, and if the body too ministers to the soul, and conveys to it much knowledge, and is adapted to its operations, how can they be contrary, and conflicting with each other? For my part, I perceive by their acts that they are not only not contrary but closely accordant and attached one to another. It is not therefore of these that he speaks as opposed to each other, but he refers to the contest of bad and good principles. (Compare Rom 7:23.) To will and not to will belongs to the soul; wherefore he says, “these are contrary the one to the other,” that you may not suffer the soul to proceed in its evil desires. For he speaks this like a Master and Teacher in a threatening way.

Ver. 18. “But if ye are led by the Spirit, ye are not under the Law.”¹³³

If it be asked in what way are these two connected, I answer, closely and plainly; for he that hath the Spirit as he ought, quenches thereby every evil desire, and he that is released from these needs no help from the Law, but is exalted far above its precepts. He who is never angry, what need has he to hear the command, Thou shalt not kill? He who never casts unchaste looks, what need hath he of the admonition, Thou shalt not commit adultery? Who would discourse about the fruits of wickedness with him who had plucked up the root itself? for anger is the root of murder, and of adultery the inquisitive gazing into faces. Hence he says, “If ye are led by the Spirit, ye are not under the Law;” wherein he appears to me to have pronounced a high and striking eulogy of the Law, if, at least, the Law stood, according to its power, in the place of the Spirit before the Spirit’s coming upon us. But we are not on that account obliged to continue apart with our schoolmaster. Then we were justly subject to the Law, that by fear we might chasten our lusts, the Spirit not being manifested; but now that grace is given, which not only commands us to abstain from them, but both quenches them, and leads us to a higher rule of life, what more need is there of the Law? He who has attained an exalted excellence from an inner impulse, has no occasion for a schoolmaster, nor does any one, if he is a philosopher, require a grammarian. Why then do ye so degrade yourselves, as now to listen to the Law, having previously given yourselves to the Spirit?

Ver. 19, 20, 21. “Now the works of the flesh are manifest,¹³⁴ which are these; fornication,¹³⁵ uncleanness, lasciviousness, idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousies, wrath, factions, divisions, heresies, envyings, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I forewarn you even as I did forewarn you, that they which practice such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.”

Answer me now, thou that accusest thine own flesh, and supposest that this is said of it as of an enemy and adversary. Let it be allowed that adultery and fornication proceed, as you assert, from the flesh; yet hatred, variance, emulations, strife, heresies, and witchcraft, these arise merely from a depraved moral choice. And so it is with the others also, for how can they belong to the flesh? you observe that he is not here speaking of the flesh, but of earthly thoughts, which trail upon the ground. Wherefore also he alarms them by saying, that “they which practice such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.” If these things belonged to nature and not to a bad moral choice, his expression, “they practice,” is inappropriate, it should be, “they suffer.” And why should they be cast out of the kingdom, for rewards and punishments relate not to what proceeds from nature but from choice?

Ver. 22. “But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace.”

He says not, “the work of the Spirit,” but, “the fruit of the Spirit.” Is the soul, however, superfluous? the flesh and the Spirit are mentioned, but where is the soul? is he discoursing of beings without a soul? for if the things of the flesh be evil, and those of the Spirit good, the soul must be superfluous. By no means, for the mastery of the passions belongs to her, and concerns her; and being placed amid vice and virtue, if she has used the body fitly, she has wrought it to be spiritual, but if she separate from the Spirit and give herself up to evil desires, she makes herself more earthly. You observe throughout that his discourse does not relate to the substance of the flesh, but to the moral choice, which is or is not vicious. And why does he say, “the fruit¹³⁶ of the Spirit?” it is because evil works originate in ourselves alone, and therefore he calls them “works,” but good works require not only our diligence but God’s loving kindness. He places first the root of these good things, and then proceeds to recount them, in these words, “Love, joy, peace, long-suffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, meekness, temperance; against such there is no law.” For who would lay any command on him who hath all things within himself, and who hath love for the finished mistress of philosophy? As horses, who are docile and do every thing of their own accord, need not the lash, so neither does the soul, which by the Spirit hath attained to excellence, need the admonitions of the Law. Here too he completely and strikingly casts out the Law, not as bad, but as inferior to the philosophy given by the Spirit.

Ver. 24. “And they that are of Christ Jesus¹³⁷ have crucified the flesh with the passions and the lusts thereof.”

That they might not object, “And who is such a man as this?” he points out by their works those who have attained to this perfection, here again giving the name of the “flesh” to evil actions. He does not mean that they had destroyed their flesh, otherwise how were they going to live? for that which is crucified is dead and inoperative, but he indicates the perfect rule of life. For the desires, although they are troublesome, rage in vain. Since then such is the power of the Spirit, let us live therein and be content therewith, as he adds himself,

Ver. 25. “If we live¹³⁸ by the Spirit, by the Spirit let us also walk,”

-being governed by His laws. For this is the force of the words “let us walk,” that is, let us be content with the power of the Spirit, and seek no help from the Law. Then, signifying that those who would fain have introduced circumcision were actuated by ambitious motives, he says,

Ver. 26. “Let us not be vainglorious,”¹³⁹ which is the cause of all evils, “provoking¹⁴⁰ one another” to contentions and strife, “envying one another,” for from vainglory comes envy and from envy all these countless evils. (source)

Bernardin de Piconio on Galatians 5:16-25

16. And I say: walk by the Spirit; and the desires of the flesh vou shall not fulfil.
17. For the flesh lusts against the spirit, and the spirit against the flesh; for these are antagonistic to one another, so that you do not everything you wish.
18. But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under law.

16. And I say, to emphasize what follows. As he has just reduced all the precepts of the law to the one precept of charity, so now he brings all the means of making charity perfect under one rule. Walk by the Spirit. Live according to the dictate of the Holy Spirit, and you will not fulfil the desires of the flesh. By the flesh, in this passage, is signified desire, either that of the physical appetites, as gluttony or luxury: or of irascible feeling, as envy, malice, or resentment: or of the rational appetite, as the desire of fame or distinction. Although these desires all influence the soul, they are called collectively the flesh, because for the most part it is from the animal
nature that they arise. But the Apostle does not say, the desires of the flesh you shall not feel, or be sensible of, because this is in this life inevitable, but you shall not fulfill them, either by internal consent or outward act, for this you will easily avoid, by living according to the impulse of the Spirit of God.

17. The Syriac version reads this verse: Inasmuch as the flesh desires that which injures the spirit, and the spirit that which injures the flesh; and these two are contrary to one another, so that you do not what you would. The flesh desires what is pleasant and agreeable, the spirit what is holy; the flesh desires what is carnal, earthly, and temporal, the spirit what is spiritual,,
celestial, and eternal. And these are so opposed that frequently we cannot do all we would. We would not desire, yet in spite of ourselves we do desire. We would do good with fervour and alacrity, but the flesh resists the impulse of the will, and weighs down the soul, and makes us tepid and inactive.

These opposite moments of nature and of grace are described, with great simplicity of language, but with great force and truth, in the third book of the Imitation of Christ, cap. 54. Saint Augustine vividly describes the same conflict as carried on within himself, in the eighth .book of the Confessions; and the final victory of the spirit, and overthrow of rebellion against its authority, in his commentary on Psalm 75.

It must be observed that in this passage, as elsewhere in the writings of St. Paul, the spirit does not signify the intellectual faculties of human nature as distinguished from the animal faculties; a sense in which the term is sometimes used in modern philosophy; for the mind and body are so mysteriously allied and related that the same or similar impulses and motives govern both. The spirit means the supernatural power of the Spirit of God upon the human heart, the reality of which is proved by its results, though the mode of its action cannot ordinarily be traced.

18. If you are led by the Spirit you are not under law. A parenthetical statement, importing that we have here the real solution of the controversy about the law. Led by the Spirit, you do of your own accord, and from the motive of affection, that which the law prescribes, and exacts by menace of penalty to be incurred by transgression. You are above the law, and beyond it, and there is no law opposed to you. If all Christians walked by the Spirit, and all mankind were Christians, no laws would be required. You have in that case, what the law cannot impart, the spirit of sons, not servants. We shall find this statement repeated in verse 23.

19. And the works of the flesh are manifest, which are fornication, uncleanness, immodesty, luxury,
20. Service of idols, magic, enmities, contentions, emulations, anger, quarrels, dissensions, sects,
21. Jealousies, homicides, drunkenness, revelling, and things like these: which I declare to you, as I have already declared, that they who do such things will not attain the kingdom of God.
22. And the fruit of the Spirit is charity, joy, peace, patience, benignity, goodness, long-suffering.
23. Gentleness, fidelity, modesty, continence, chastity; against such there is no law.

19. Lest there should be any doubt, amid the general corruption of pagan society then prevailing, as to what is meant by the flesh and the spirit, or any should pretend to doubt, the Apostle proceeds to enumerate the effects of each; observing that the works of the flesh are plainly manifest to all who have eyes to see. The four named in verse 19 do not exactly correspond with the Greek, which has, adultery, fornication, uncleanness, luxury; this last term the Vulgate appears to divide into two. Idolatry and magic were temptations of powerful influence in ancient times, though now in some degree out of date. Magic charms were supposed to control persons at a distance, or secure affection, or do injury to persons or property, and the pretenders to such powers as these made a profitable trade out of the wickedness and credulity of those who trusted to them. The Greek word for sects is heresies. It is interesting to observe that the Apostle considers that the motives which prompt men to cavil at the faith, and set up parties in opposition to the Church of God, have their origin in this world, and in man’s fallen nature, so that he classes these among the works of the flesh. Those who do these things, or things like them, shall not attain, in the Greek inherit, the kingdom of God, or a kingdom of  God. This is a statement which Christians not infrequently loss sight of. Of the seven mortal sins, or classes of mortal sin, two only, luxury and gluttony, have directly reference to the body. The others are spirituals Yet most people, as is evident by their confessions, d0 penance only for sins of the body, and pass over all the others as immaterial. And yet it is of all alike that the Apostle says, that they who do such things shall not inherit God’s kingdom.

22. Saint Paul speaks of the works of the flesh, and the fruits of the Spirit. Carnal and worldly passions move and work tumultuously in the soul, and produce crime, death,and ruin. But the Holy Spirit acts powerfully, yet insensibly, and is seen only in his effects, as the influence of the sunshine is seen in the harvest and the vintage. The fruits of his presence are charity, joy, peace, and the others. Patience, modesty, and chastity, given in the list in the Vulgate, are wanting in the Greek, and in the same list as given both by Saint Jerome and Saint Augustine. The Greek text gives, therefore, nine fruits of the Spirit, the Vulgate, twelve. The Syriac version also gives only
nine; Ambrose includes ten. The Greek list is : charity joy, peace, patience, benignity, goodness, fidelity, meekness, continence. It would seem, and is observed by Estius, that the Greek word μακροθυμία is translated in the Vulgate by the two words patience and long-suffering, πρᾳότης   by gentleness and modesty, and ἐγκράτεια by continence and chastity; thus increasing the list as given in the Greek by three. Charity is the principal fruit of the Spirit; and charity does no ill. The fruits of the Spirit are opposed in general and in detail to the works of the flesh. Joy is opposed to envy, which is pain at another’s happiness; peace to enmity; patience to strife and quarreling: goodness to magic and homicide; continence to luxury and
gluttony.

Against such there is no law. Laws are not enacted for the just. The law is given for those who err, says Ambrose. If all men were such as the Apostle here describes, penal legislation would be altogether unnecessary.

It is to be observed that while the works of the flesh enumerated by the Apostle, are the ordinary and natural result of the passions and desires of human nature, directed to objects belonging to this mortal life, and not controlled by grace, the fruits of Spirit are all supernatural and the effect of the grace of the H0ly Spirit acting on the powers and faculties of human nature.

24. And they who are of Christ crucified the flesh with the vices and concupiscences.

This enumeration of the works of the flesh and the fruits of the Spirit (in the previous verses) now enables the Apostle to place the combatants in array, distinguishing the soldiers of Christ from those who are devoted to the interests of this world. Those who belong to Christ crucify the aims, ambitions, and desires that belong to this mortal life, or contribute to the satisfaction of our animal nature. The verb is used by the Apostle in the Greek text, in the aorist, and may possibly have a general sense as regards time present, past, or future. The Vulgate reads crucifixerunt. A man crucified is bound to the cross, his body torn and dislocated, his life blood drained, life itself by slow degrees extinguished. So the Christian crucifies concupiscence, binds, crushes, enfeebles it to death. The flesh of Christ on the cross is the exemplar of Christian mortification. The Apostle does not say that the Christian crucifies the body, for the body is often thereby rendered stronger and more effective for the service of God; and the body will be raised one day from the grave to eternal strength and immortality. What is crucified, or mortified, is the flesh in a figurative sense, all desires, affections, and inclinations which find their satisfaction in anything that is limited and measured by this mortal life. And as Christ died for our sins in pain and suffering, so not without pain and suffering can sin be crucified in us.

25. If we live by spirit, by  spirit also let us walk.

St. Paul repeats in this verse what he said in verse 16. Walk by the Spirit, and you will not fulfil the desires of the flesh. To crucify the flesh, walk by the guidance of God’s Spirit, whose presence is the life of the soul.

 

 

 

Cornelius a Lapide’s Commentary on Galatians 5:16-25

Gal 5:16  I say then: Walk in the spirit: and you shall not fulfill the lusts of the flesh.

I say then: Walk in the Spirit. The summary, the one aim of the whole of this Epistle, is this: Walk not in the law, not in the flesh, but in the Spirit. The root of all your trouble is want of the Spirit: if you had Him, you would shut out as well the legal as the carnal life.

To walk in the Spirit is to order our whole life after the impulse of the Spirit, who inspired us to works of piety, to prayer, faith, charity, and works of mercy. This Spirit the Apostles received abundantly at Pentecost, as did the first Christians, and they added to the gift they then received by loyally following His workings, by labouring and suffering everything, if only they might bring others to Christ, by fiery charity and burning zeal. Whither has fled that Spirit now? Lord Jesus, kindle in us that fire which Thou camest to send on earth, and which Thou didst will to burn vehemently.

Gal 5:17  For the flesh lusteth against the spirit: and the spirit against the flesh: For these are contrary one to another: so that you do not the things that you would.

For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit. From this the Manichæans inferred that man has two souls—one spiritual, which is good and the gift of a good god, and another carnal, which is evil and the gift of an evil god. Some philosophers, too, hold that man has two souls—one sensational, by which he feels, eats, and generates as do the beasts; and another rational, by which he reasons and understands as do the angels; and they depend for this conclusion on the contrary appetites and mental operations found in the same individual.

1. But it is certain that in man there is but one soul, and that a rational one, but which also in a special degree embraces vegetative and sensational powers. Hence, as man has in him both sets of powers, it is no wonder if he experiences contrary appetites, carrying him to diverse objects, and exciting him to action when they are present. In its powers the soul of man is twofold or rather threefold.

2. The word flesh stands by metonymy for that concupiscence which is in the flesh, impressing on it its own ideas and desires.

3. This concupiscence resides not only in the sensitive appetite, but also in the rational, as S. Augustine points out (Conf. viii. 5); for as in the domain of desire, it excites the appetites of hunger and procreation, in the domain of self-protective instinct the passions of envy and hatred, so in the domain of reason it arouses the desire to excel and the spirit of curiosity. All our mental powers are infected by the leaven of original sin, but they are described as the flesh, because the desires of the flesh are those that are most frequently and most violently aroused, and so are the principal part of our desires, and give their name to the whole. Hence the Apostle uses the phrase “works of the flesh,” i.e., of concupiscence, not only for fornication, drunkenness, and revellings, which are strictly fleshly sins, but also for such things as the service of idols and envy, which are strictly sins of the rational part of our nature.

For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, because it lusteth for carnal things, and the Spirit against the flesh, because it desires spiritual goods. This warfare is carried on within between the flesh and the Spirit; their forces are marshalled by the Apostle when he says, on the one side (vs 19), The works of the flesh are manifest, which are, &c., and on the other (vs 22), But the fruit of the Spirit is charity, joy, &c. Prudentius gives a vivid description of this warfare in his Psychomachia, and S. Augustine in his “Confessions” (viii. 11). Cassian (Collat. iv. 11) describes it as follows: “The flesh delights in lust and lasciviousness; the spirit can hardly be brought to acknowledge the existence of these natural desires. The flesh seeks for sleep and food; the spirit is so engaged in fasting and watching that with difficulty it brings itself to consent to the necessities of nature. The flesh would abound in this world’s goods; the spirit is content with the slenderest provision of daily bread. The flesh loves the baths, and troops of flatterers; the spirit rejoices in squalor, and in the silence of the desert. The flesh is fed on honours and praises; the spirit joys in the persecutions and injuries inflicted on it.” See to the motives of grace and of nature depicted by Thomas à Kempis in his “Imitation of Christ” (lib. iii. c. 59), in his own simple but vigorous style.

The Abbot Pamenius, in his “Lives of the Fathers” (vii. 27), rightly describes concupiscence as “an evil will, a devil attacking us;” or, as Abbot Achilles in the same passage puts it, as “a handle of the devil.”

Augustine at one time thought that this warfare was waged in a sinner under the law, not in one living under grace; but he afterwards modified this opinion (Retract. i. 24). It is beyond question that it is found in the Saints, nay, is the more fierce in proportion as they strive to live more spiritually. Accordingly, S. Augustine says (Serm. 43 de Verbis Domini): “The Spirit lusteth against the flesh in good men, not in evil men, who have not the spirit of God for the flesh to lust against.”

Again, commenting on Psa_76:2. (A.V.), S. Augustine says: “You have to meet an attack not only from the wiles of the devil, but also from within yourself—against your bad habits, against your old evil life, which is ever drawing you to its wonted courses. On the other hand you are held back by the new life, while you still belong to the old. Hence you are lifted up by the joy of the new, you are weighed down by the burden of the old. The war is against yourself; but just where it is irksome to yourself it is pleasing to God, and where it is pleasing to God you gain power to conquer, for He is with you who overcometh all things. Hear what the Apostle saith: ‘With my mind I serve the law of God, but with the flesh the law of sin.’ How with the mind? Because your evil life is hateful to you. How with the flesh? Bemuse you are beset by evil suggestions and delights. But from union with God comes victory. In part you go before; in part you follow after. Betake yourself to Him who will lift you up. Being weighed down with the burden of the old man, cry aloud and say: ’0 wretched man that I am; who shall deliver me from the body of this death, from the burden which is weighing me down’—for the body which is corrupted weigheth down the soul. But why is this warfare permitted to last so long, even till all evil lusts are swallowed up? It is that you may understand that the punishment is in yourself. Your scourge is in yourself, and proceeds from yourself, and therefore your quarrel is against yourself. This is the penalty imposed on any one who rebels against God, that as he would not have peace with God he shall have war within himself. But do you hold your members bound against your evil lusts. If anger, for example, is roused, remain close to God and hold your hand. It will not do more than rise if it finds no weapons. The attack is on the side of anger; the arms, however, are with you; let the attacking force find no arms, and he will soon learn not to rise if he finds that his rising is to no purpose.” Cf. my comments on Rom 7 in fine.

These are contrary one to another: so that you do not the things that you would.  You would wish to be free from the feelings of lust, anger, and gluttony, so as not to be hindered from charity, temperance, chastity, and prayer; and yet you are not free, nor can be free in this life. Or, on the other hand, you would wish to do cheerfully heroic deeds of virtue, but often you cannot, because the flesh is contrary. Anselm well says: “Your lusts do not allow you to do what you wish; do not permit them to do what they wish, and then neither you nor they will attain your ends. Although lusts rise in you, yet they are not consummated if you withhold your consent. In the same way, though there may be in you good works of the Spirit, yet they are not consummated either, because you cannot do them cheerfully and perfectly, while you have the pain of resisting your lusts.”

Gal 5:18  But if you are led by the spirit, you are not under the law.

This anticipates a possible objection of the Galatians that they had apparently only exchanged one yoke for another heavier one, under which they had constantly to fight a tedious and irksome battle. The Apostle replies to this that if they were led by the Spirit they were not the slaves of concupiscence but its masters, and so were not under the law, inasmuch as they kept its provisions not from fear, but by spontaneously doing what it bade, and restraining the motions of concupiscence forbidden by it.

The Galatians were not, says S. Paul, under the law as a compelling force, still less under it as accusing and condemning, but they were under it as binding the conscience. Even so, however, they kept the law of their own accord, and so might be said to be outside the law, or above the law; not under it, but rather under the Spirit. This is why, after enumerating the fruits of the Spirit, he adds, Against such there is no law (vs 23).

Gal 5:19  Now the works of the flesh are manifest: which are fornication, uncleanness, immodesty, luxury,

Now the works of the flesh are manifest. The works that spring from the flesh, i.e., from concupiscence, as I said in the note to ver. 17.

Fornication. On the works of the flesh in detail, see Jerome, Anselm, and S. Thomas.

Uncleanness. Effeminacy. The effeminate are guilty of mutual pollution, contrary to the instincts of nature.

Luxury. Any wanton, and, according to Jerome, extraordinary form of lust. He adds: “The works of the married even, if not done with delicacy and modesty, as in the sight of God, and if merely for the procreation of children, come under the Apostle’s description of uncleanness and lasciviousness.” This, of course, must be understood of mortal sin; cf., e.g., the act of matrimony is performed otherwise than nature dictates, or if its consummation is purposely prevented; for then both are guilty of mortal sin, excluding them from the Kingdom of heaven. Otherwise lust in the married is only venial.

Gal 5:20  Idolatry, witchcrafts, enmities, contentions, emulations, wraths, quarrels, dissensions, sects,

Wraths. Anger is the desire for revenge, and is a deadly sin when a bitter revenge is sought, or an object on which to bestow the angry feelings. It is venial only when it is instinctive, or when it aims at some slight revenge. The Apostle, therefore, is dealing here with the various sins enumerated in their highest and extremest form, for it is then only that they exclude from the Kingdom of heaven (ver. 21).

Sects. Greek, αιρεσεις (hairesis = Heresies). Acts of private judgment against the teaching of the Church. These evince great temerity and presumption.

Gal 5:21  Envies, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like. Of the which I foretell you, as I have foretold to you, that they who do such things shall not obtain the kingdom of God.

Revellings. This seems to teach that immoderate indulgence in the pleasures of the table is a mortal sin, as it excludes from the Kingdom of heaven. On this I remark that some Theologians hold from this verse that gluttony and lust are mortal sins, not only if they impair the use of reason, but if they be excessive. They rely on the case of the rich man in the parable, who was condemned, not because he was a drunkard, but because he fared sumptuously every day; on the words of Isaiah (Isa 5:22), where woe, i.e., eternal damnation, is threatened against those who are mighty to drink strong drink; on the fact that excess in eating may be more than bestial; and they ask why should gluttony, so degrading to reason as it is, not be a mortal sin, if pollution is.

But the common opinion of doctors is in favour of a milder view, viz., that excess in eating is not a deadly sin, except when it seriously impairs the health, or causes some disease; or when a man eats with the object of vomiting, so as to commence again—and even this some hold to be not a deadly sin.

1. Note that revelings represents the Greek word κω̃μοι, which stands for the lascivious words and actions of drunkards, for obscene songs, dances, and kisses. Hence Bacchus is called Comus, and κωμάζειν is to revel, or to be wanton. Cf. notes to Rom_13:13.
2. If the word is to be understood of banquetings, then it must be also understood of them in their most extreme and finished form, when men sit at table till they are overcome with excess. Cf. Isa_28:8. As in the preceding words the Apostle subjoins variance to wrath, and heresies to seditions, and murders to envyings, so here he subjoins revellings to drunkenness, the second member in each case showing what the first tends to end in. Cf. Prov 23:20.

1. As to the opinions referred to above, I remark as follows. (a) to fare sumptuously is by itself a venial sin, and becomes mortal only when it leads to vomiting and similar excesses. (b) It also becomes a mortal sinner per accidens, i.e., when it is united to drunkenness, lust, slander, cruelty, and contempt for the poor. This last was the sin of Dives.

2. The denunciation of Isa 5:22 is directed against those who mix their drinks so as to make them more intoxicating, and who make a point of making themselves and their guests drunken, and think their hospitality disgraced if they fail in this.

3. Undoubtedly gluttony is a base thing in itself, but so are all our bodily functions; but they are not entirely contrary to right reason, unless indeed they deprive reason of its power to act. The case is different with aberrations of the generative powers. The act of copulation is ordained for a special end, and in its proper method. To defeat this, or to elude the end, is to go contrary to the workings of God, and is therefore a deadly sin.

Gal 5:22  But the fruit of the Spirit is, charity, joy, peace, patience, benignity, goodness, longanimity,
Gal 5:23  Mildness, faith, modesty, continency, chastity. Against such there is no law.

But the fruit of the Spirit is charity. The works of the Spirit are opposed to the works of the flesh, i.e., those works which are performed through the influence of the Holy Spirit, by which we merit that kingdom from which the works of the flesh exclude those who do them.

Observe that these fruits are different dispositions, or rather acts, of the different virtues—the acts that the virtues beget in the soul, such as joy and peace. Observe, too, that the Apostle does not give a complete catalogue of all these fruits, but only of the more conspicuous ones, and of such as are opposed to the works of the flesh just specified. And in the third place, notice that the first fruit of the Spirit is charity, it being the parent of all the rest.

Joy. The joy which springs from a clear conscience, one free from guilt and from mental disturbances. A contented mind is a perpetual feast. Cyprian (lib. de Disciplinâ et Bono Pudicitiæ) says “The greatest pleasure is to have conquered pleasure; and there is no greater victory than that that is obtained over our lusts.” On the other hand, the fruit of concupiscence is grief and sorrow. As Chrysostom says (Hom. 13 in Acts), “impure pleasure is like that obtained by a scrofulous man when he scratches himself. For to this pleasure, so short-lived, there succeeds a more enduring pain.”

Peace. The peace, says Jerome, enjoyed by the mind that is free from all passions. The pure mind, undisturbed by fear of punishments, or remorse for past sins, is in friendship with God, enjoys a wonderful calmness, and inspires its tranquillity into others, so that, as much as possible, it lives at peace with all men. This is a peace that passeth all understanding (Phil 4:7); and even if holy living brought no other reward than this, it yet would be quite sufficient of itself to stir us up to endure all sufferings, and undergo all labours.

Patience. To have peace with ourselves and with others, we have need of patience to bear cheerfully every ill, especially those arising from the rough, haughty, or peevish tempers of others.

Benignity. A man may be good and generous, and yet lack that courtesy and gentleness in word and deed which is one token of holiness. Cf. Wisd. 7:22. Hence the common people are wont to gauge a man’s holiness by his gentle courtesy, and to suffer themselves to be guided in their actions by one who shows this fruit of the Spirit.

Goodness. A disposition to do kindnesses to others, goodness being much the same as beneficence. Jerome says that Zeno defines this latter thus: “Goodness is a virtue which does good to others, or a virtue from which usefulness to others springs, or a disposition which makes a man the benefactor of his fellows.” This is an evident token of the Holy Spirit, and was most manifest in Christ. Cf. Act_10:38: If you have His Spirit, do harm to no one, do good to all.

Meekness. One, says Anselm, that is tractable, versatile, not self-opinionated; as opposed to one who is headstrong, who will bear no yoke, who is prompt to revenge an injury, and give blow for blow.

Faith. This, says Jerome, is a theological virtue, opposed to heresy, which makes us believe all that we ought to believe, even when opposed to nature, sense, and reason. But this faith is not so much a fruit of spiritual grace as its root and beginning. Accordingly, Anselm’s explanation is better, who says that faith is loyal adherence to our promises, as opposed to dishonesty and lying. As the Holy Spirit is :steadfast, certain, sure [Wisd. vii. 23], He makes His followers, like Himself, faithful and true. Or, thirdly, faith here may be taken for the disposition to believe what others say, for the spirit that is free from suspicion and distrust, for that charity which believeth all things, for the candid, open, and receptive mind.

Modesty. Modesty is the virtue which imposes a mode or rule to all external actions, and controls our speech, laughter, sport. It proceeds from the inward power we have to control our passions. Ambrose (0ffic. i. 18) says. “According to our external actions the hidden man of the heart is judged. From them he is declared to be light, or boastful, or heady, or earnest, or firm, or pure, or of good judgment.” Cf. also Ecclus. 19:27. Hence S. Augustine’s counsel (Reg. 3): “In all your actions let there be nothing to offend the eyes of any one, but only what becometh holiness.”

Continence. Abstinence, says Vatablus, from food and drink, or, as Anselm says, continence, i.e., abstinence from lust. Continence differs from chastity, as war differs from peace. Hence continence is in the militant stage, and is but chastity inchoate. But it would be better to take temperance, with Aristotle, as a general virtuous habit of the soul, restraining man from all lusts and passions.  S. Jerome says: “Temperance has to do not only with sexual appetite, but also with food and drink, with anger, and menial disturbance, and the love of detraction. There is this difference between modesty and temperance, that the former is found in the perfect, of whom the Saviour says, ‘Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth,’ just as He says of Himself’, ‘Learn of Me, for I am meek and lowly of heart.’ But temperance is found in those that are in the way of virtue, who have not yet arrived at the goal; in whose minds impure thought and desires arise, but only to be checked; whose souls are polluted, but not overcome; in whom act does not follow evil suggestion. It is not enough, however, that the desires should be under the power of temperance; it must rule also over the three other emotions of sorrow, joy, and fear.”

N.B.—The Greek MSS. here are imperfect, and want the word for modesty, and hence give only nine fruits of the Spirit, in which they are followed by Augustine and Jerome. On these fruits of the Spirit, see the remarks of S. Thomas in the Secunda Secundæ, of his Summa, where he deals with them in detail.

Against such there is no law. There is no law to condemn those who show these fruits of the Spirit, and accordingly those who are led by the Spirit are not under the law, as was said in ver. 18.

Gal 5:24  And they that are Christ’s have crucified their flesh, with the vices and concupiscences.

And they that are Christ’s, &c. This sets out the preceding antithesis between the works of the flesh and the works of the Spirit. Two armies are ranged in battle array; but Christ’s soldier crucifies his flesh with its affections and lusts, and not only these, but by fastings, hair-shirts, labours, and penances, he crucifies the corrupt flesh itself, as being the seed-ground of lust. So Anselm; but it is, better to take flesh, not properly, but as standing for the concupiscence residing in the flesh, as in ver. 17. Those who are led by the Spirit of Christ have crucified their lust, their corrupt nature with its vicious tendencies and actual vices. “They have subdued it,” says S. Augustine, “out of that holy fear which abideth for ever, which makes us afraid of offending Him whom we love with all our heart and soul and mind.”

Note that concupiscence here is, as it were, a soul: its vices are its faculties; its concupiscences are its acts. Christians crucify these, i.e., crush them with such pain as that endured by Christ when He was crucified. This they do (a) by the fear of hell and of God; (b) by reason, and a constant will, and a firm purpose of pleasing God; (c) by a vigilant watch over their eyes and their senses; (d) by prayer; and (e) by fastings, watchings, and other acts of austerity.

Gal 5:25  If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit.

If we live in the Spirit. If we have this inward life of grace, let us live outwardly as the Spirit dictates. The Greek word used here denotes to follow a settled plan or order. Cf. notes to chap iv. 25. But according to Chrysostom and Theophylact, it is an exhortation to follow the rule of the Spirit of Christ, and not deviate into the ways of Judaism.

Father Callan’s Commentary on Galatians 4:1-7

This post includes Father Callan’s brief summary of Galatians 4:1-7, followed by his notes on those verses.

UNDER THE LAW THE JEWS WERE, LIKE MINORS, IN AN INFERIOR POSITION; BUT CHRIST’S COMING HAS MADE THEM ADOPTED SONS OF GOD WITH FULL RIGHTS TO THE INHERITANCE

A Summary of Galatians 4:1-7~St. Paul here returns to the discussion broken off at 3:25, namely, the opposition between the promise and the Law. Already he has likened the former to a testament and the latter to a pedagogue; and now he asks what was the condition of mankind during the period that intervened between the giving of the promise and its realization. The answer is that, until the coming of Christ, the Jews, although in reality sons and heirs to the inheritance, were like minors, under guardians and stewards, enslaved by the elementary rules that pertained to things merely external. And if such was the inferior state of the Jews, how much worse was that of the Gentiles! All, therefore, Jews and Gentiles, were, like children who had lost their father, waiting for the expiration of the time of their minority and the entrance upon the possession of their inheritance. And when the fulness of the time fixed by the Father arrived, God sent His Son, that He might redeem those in bondage, making through His grace all believers to become His adopted sons and thus heirs of the promised inheritance.

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

As long as the Jews were under the tutelage of the Law they were like young children, minors, who were heirs indeed to the inheritance bequeathed them by their Father, but, so far as regarded the free use and disposition of their inheritance, differing nothing from servants who have no right to the property.

The figure supposes the father to be dead, but St. Paul is making only a comparison, and every comparison is imperfect. The figure need not suppose this, though it can be taken in this way. Note that in his comment on the word “tutors” in the next verse Fr. Callan defines them as guardians, adding the caveat “if the father is supposed to be dead.”

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

Tutors, i.e., guardians, if the father is supposed to be dead.

Governors (οικονομους) , i.e., administrators, as of property, whether material or spiritual; here, perhaps, the term simply means attendants. The plural, tutors and governors, is used to signify the various guardians and attendants appointed by the father at the same time, or, more probably, in succession.

Until the time, etc. In Roman Law ordinarily a minor was under a tutor till fourteen, and under a curator till twenty-five (cf. Ramsay, Gal., p. 392). See Lagrange, h. 1.

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

Application of the foregoing comparison is now made. See on verse 1.

We, i.e., St. Paul and the Jewish Christians only (St. Chrys., Theod., St. Thomas, Cornely, etc.). Others say there is question here of Gentile, as well as Jewish converts, (a) because, instead of speaking of the Law, St. Paul here uses terms that apply to both Jews and Gentiles (“elements of the world”), and (b) because, according to the Apostle’s uniform teaching, carnal descent from Abraham gave no right to the inheritance which was promised to those who would have faith like Abraham (Lagr., Light., Bousset, etc.).

When . . . children, i.e., before the coming of Christ and the Gospel, when mankind were all in a state of infancy and helplessness described above.

Elements of the world. The meaning is the same as in Col 2:8, 20, namely, the elementary principles of natural conduct, such as the religious laws and rites of the Jews, and the various ceremonies of the heathen, all of which inspired fear and servitude, rather than love and a sense of freedom which have come with the Gospel (St. Jerome, Lagr., Light., etc.). The phrase does not mean (a) the four material elements of the ancients: water, fire, earth and air (against Zahn, Toussaint); nor (b) the celestial bodies (against Bousset, Lipsius); nor (c) spiritual beings, such as angels, directing heavenly bodies and physical elements (against Loisy).

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

With the coming of Christ all was changed regarding our relations with God.

The fulness of time, i.e., the time fixed from eternity by the Eternal Father when the servitude and fear of the Law should give way to the liberty and love of the Gospel. There is no hint here of what brought about this fulness of time.

God sent his son (εξαπεστειλεν) . The compound of the verb in Greek indicates close union between the Father and the Son, and consequently the eternal preexistence of the latter, one in nature with the Father (John 1:1 ff.; 10:30). The word “son” also implies the eternal procession of the Second Person from the Father (John 3:16; 8:42).

Made of a woman, i.e., born of a woman with our human nature, and under the Mosaic Law, like other Jews. St. Paul wishes to show here the abasement of the Son of God who took upon Himself our human nature and subjected Himself to the Law. There does not seem to be any proof in the present passage of our Lord’s virginal conception (Lagr.).

The reading “made of woman” is that of all the best MSS., (εκ γυναικος γενομενον).

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

Here we have stated the purpose of the Son’s supernatural mission in this world: He was born under the Law that he might redeem them, i.e., the Jews, who were under the law; He was born of a woman that, by assuming our nature, He might become our brother, and thus elevate us all to the dignity of adopted sons of God.

We refers to all believers, Jews and Gentiles.

Might receive (απολαβωμεν) , as a right conferred by God Himself.

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

Because you are, etc., i.e., as a proof that you Galatians, pagans as well as Jews, are now adopted sons of the Father God hath sent, etc. The connective on is probably demonstrative rather than causal.

The Spirit, etc., i.e., the Holy Ghost, who, as sent by the Father, is distinct from Him, and as the Spirit of the Son, is distinct also from the Son. This text affords a proof that the Holy Ghost proceeds alike from the Father and the Son.

Your hearts should be “our hearts,” as in the Greek.

Crying is attributed to the Holy Spirit in the hearts of the faithful.

Abba, Father is expressive of deepest feeling. This was perhaps a consecrated formula handed down from our Lord’s prayer in the Garden of Gethsemani (Mark 14:36). The Jews were a bilingual people in the time of Christ, and this would explain why our Lord should use the two synonymous terms (Abba,  ο πατηρ) in His prayer. However, see on Rom 8:15. Here is what Fr. Callan wrote in Rom 8:15~Abba is an Aramaic word which the Apostle here tells us means Father, ο πατηρ (cf. Mark 14:36; Gal 4:6). Some think the term pertained to an official prayer, but more probably it was only an expression of tenderness toward God, the Father.

The vestra of the Vulgate should be nostra, in conformity with the Greek.

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

The conclusion is now drawn that if, as has been proved above, the Galatians are adopted sons of God, they have the rights of sons, and so are heirs to the inheritance through God’s goodness and mercy.

 

 

 

Sunday, Sept. 11: Father Callan’s Commentary on Galatians 3:16-22 for Sunday Mass (Extraordinary Form)

.

To see more commentary and resources for both the Ordinary and Extraordinary Forms of the Roman Rite go here.

This post contains Father Callans summary of Galatians 3:1-5:12 and is followed by his commentary on the reading for the day (I’ve included his notes on verses 15, 23, 24) Text in red, if any, are my additions.

THE SECOND, OR DOGMATIC PART OF THE EPISTLE

A Summary of Galatians 3:1-5:12~Since Christ was the fulfillment of the promise made to Abraham, and since the entire revelation of the Old Testament was a preparation for, and a leading up to Christ, it could most reasonably occur to the Galatians that the ancient Scriptures, including the Law of Moses, were sacred, and that the Gospel, with its perfect revelation, had grown out of them, like the fruit out of the vine. Would it not follow, then, that the observance of the Law was necessary to salvation also for Christians, and that thus only is justification to be obtained?

It is beyond doubt that the Gentiles were partakers of the salvation foreshadowed in the Old Testament, but as heirs of the promise and blessing made to Abraham long centuries before the Law was given. The Law was only an intermediate measure for the Jewish people, a special help to lead them to Christ and to the fruition of those blessings which were promised to the father of their race. To return to the Law after having found Christ would be to go backwards; it would be to give up the end and return to a particular means which were intended for a particular people.

St. Paul, therefore, after having reviewed the history of his divine call and mission, and having shown the conformity of his Gospel with that of the other Apostles, passes on now, in the second part of his letter, to prove that the doctrine and fact of justification are not dependent on the works of the Law, but only on faith in Jesus Christ (3:1-5:12). See Introduction, VIII.

THE RELATION OF THE PROMISE TO THE LAW; THE LATTER DID NOT ANNUL THE FORMER

In verses 15-18 St. Paul illustrates the inviolability of the promise made to Abraham by an allusion to a human custom. No one adds to or takes from a man’s will when once it is ratified. Likewise, the covenant made by God with Abraham cannot be annulled by the Law which was given four hundred and thirty years later.

15. Brethren (I speak after the manner of man), yet a man’s testament, if it be confirmed, no man despiseth, nor addeth to it.

Brethren. St. Paul speaks now with the affection of a master for his disciples, and not as in verse 1.

After the manner of man, i.e., according to human custom and practice; or, according to the relation of man to man. The Apostle uses human terms and methods to illustrate and explain the ways of God.

Testament, i.e., a will, or solemn disposition. This is the sense of διαθηκην in classic Greek, in inscriptions and papyri (Cornely, Lagrange). Some object to the word will as connoting death, which διαθηκην does not necessarily include; hence these scholars translate, “deed of gift” (Williams). Others prefer to give the term the meaning of covenant or contract, in which sense it is used in the LXX to signify the alliance between God and Israel. Doubtless disposition comes nearest the Apostle’s meaning, since he is speaking of the great disposition made by God which regulates all His dealings with Abraham and his descendants.

If it be confirmed, etc. Better, “When it hath been ratified,” i.e., officially recognized by proper public authority. The disposition of property by a testator was regarded by the Romans as radically emanating from the power of the State, and consequently as inviolable when enacted according to required legal form; no one could add to or subtract from it in any way.

16. To Abraham were the promises made and to his seed. He saith not, And to his seeds, as of many: but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.

This verse is really the minor premise of a syllogism, of which the major is in the preceding verse, and the conclusion in the verse that follows. A testator’s disposition of his property is sacred and inviolable; but to Abraham and his issue God made the promises, after the manner of a last will or testament; therefore nothing can interfere with those promises.

The promises. The plural is used because the promise, which had the character of a last will or testament, was not only renewed to Isaac and Jacob, but was several times addressed to Abraham himself (Gen 12:7; Gen 13:15; Gen 15:18; Gen 17:7-10; Gen 22:16 ff.; Gen 24:7). The Apostle is directly alluding to the promise found in Gen 13:15; Gen 17:8: “All the land that thou beholdest, I will give to thee and to thy seed,” etc. These words, in their proper sense, refer to the land of Canaan, the country of Palestine, which God promised as an eternal inheritance to Abraham and his descendants, and which St. Paul is here taking in a spiritual sense, as signifying the Messianic Kingdom, the Church of Christ here below and the Kingdom of Heaven hereafter. Hence the Apostle is here speaking of a spiritual inheritance to which the spiritual descendants of Abraham are heirs. But all of Abraham’s spiritual descendants are summed up in one person who was Christ, to whom, as to their head, all Christians are united through faith and charity, forming one mystical body (Gal 3:28; 1 Cor 12:12).

His seed, i.e., his issue.

He saith not, i.e., God, who spoke to Abraham, saith not.

To his seeds, etc. In order to show the unity between Christ and the faithful, God, when making the promise, made use of a collective word in the singular, indicating unity rather than plurality. The promise was given to Abraham and his issue, i.e., Christ; and hence none can have part in this inheritance except in Christ, i.e., as united to Christ by faith and love.

The Vulgate should have autem (i.e., but, on the other hand, moreover, however, also) after Abraham at the beginning of the verse to represent the δε of the best Greek MSS., and thus connect this verse with the preceding.

17. Now this I say, that the testament which was confirmed by God, the law which was made after four hundred and thirty years, doth not disannul, to make the promise of no effect.

The argument of the two preceding verses is concluded.

The testament or disposition made by God to Abraham, and ratified by God with an oath (Gen 22:16; Heb 6:17-18) long centuries before the Law was given, and independently of it, is not rendered void by the promulgation of the latter.

The addition of “in Christ” after “God,” which is found in some MSS., is a gloss.

Four hundred and thirty years. This is the period of time allowed by Paul between the making of the promise and the giving of the Law. The statement, while causing a difficulty, does not interfere with the Apostle’s argument given above. It is generally supposed that about 200 years elapsed between the promise made to Abraham and the entrance of the Israelites into Egypt; and on this supposition St. Paul should have said 630 years. Different explanations are given of the difficulty.

(a) The chronology of this verse is practically that of the Septuagint of Exodus 12:40, of the Samaritan Pentateuch, and of Josephus (Antiq. ii. 15, 2), which authorities allow 430 years between the entrance of Abraham into Canaan and the departure of the Jews from Egypt, (b) St. Paul is counting from the last renewal of the promise, which was made to Jacob (Gen 46:3-4), and the giving of the Law, i.e., he is speaking of the period during which the Jews were in Egypt, which, according to the Hebrew of Exodus 12:40, was 430 years.

18. For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise. But
God gave it to Abraham by promise.

See on Rom 4:13-16. So radically different are the Law and the promise that it is impossible for the inheritance pledged in the “testament” to come from the former without ceasing altogether to be from the latter. But the inheritance is of promise, and therefore not of the Law.

The inheritance originally and directly meant the land of Canaan, but is here used in a purely spiritual sense, as embracing all the blessings of which Christ is the source; of these spiritual gifts the land of Canaan was a figure and a type.

Be of the law, i.e., if the inheritance be the reward of observing the Law, it is no more of promise, i.e., it is no longer a gratuitous gift of God. Since, therefore, the blessings and gifts of which Christ is the source are entirely gratuitous, depending on no condition, it is clear that they are not the result of observing the Law.

THE LAW WAS GIVEN TO THE JEWS AS A GUIDE TO CHRIST

In verses 19-24 St Paul argues that although the Law was powerless to alter the promise in any way, yet it was a divine institution and in nowise opposed to the promise. It was given as a protection to the Jews, and as a moral guide to lead them to Christ.

19. Why then was the law? It was set because of transgressions, until the seed should come, to whom he made the promise, being ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.

Why then, etc., i.e., what was the purpose of the Law? what end had God in view when He gave it?

It was set because, etc., i.e., the Law was added to (προσετεθη) the promise, not as a codicil to modify a testament, but as a temporary disposition to repress and restrain sins, and, by the revelations it made to the Jews of their weakness and sinfulness, to make them long for the grace and help of the Redeemer (St. Chrys., St. Jerome, etc.). The Law was good in itself, but it revealed to man his many sins and infirmities without giving him the grace and help he needed to overcome his evil nature and perform his duties (Rom 7:7). Thus indirectly the Law multiplied transgressions and increased man’s sins (Rom 4:13-15; Rom 7:7-13; 1 Cor 15:56, etc.).

Until the seed, etc., i.e., the Law was only transitory, serving as a teacher and guide until the coming of Christ and the establishment of His Kingdom, the Church (verse 16).

To whom he made the promise. Better, “To whom the promise was made.”

Being ordained, etc., i.e., the Law was not, like the promise, given directly by God, but indirectly, through angels first (Acts 7:53; Heb 2:2), and then through Moses, who was the mediator between God and the Jewish people (1 Tim 2:5; Heb 8:6; Heb 9:15; Heb 12:24). There was a Jewish tradition, based on Deut 33:2 (cf. Acts 7:53; Heb 2:2, where this tradition is presupposed), that angels had a part in making the Law of Moses.

In the hand refers to the reception of the tables of the Law into the hands of Moses (Exodus 31:15).

In showing the transitoriness of the Law and the indirectness with which it was given St. Paul is calling attention to its inferiority as compared with the promise. The promise was given directly by God to Abraham. The giving of the Law, on the contrary, was performed by angels on behalf of God, and by Moses on behalf of the people.

20. Now a mediator is not of one: but God is one.

A mediator is not of one, i.e., where there is a mediator there are at least two parties who are brought together by the mediator. This was the case in the giving of the Mosaic Law, which was a bilateral contract between God and the Jewish people. In virtue of this contract God promised to give blessings to the people; and they, in turn, pledged themselves to the observance of the precepts of the Law (Deut 5:25). The blessings of the Law were therefore dependent upon the observance of the Law (verse 12).

But God is one. In the promise, on the contrary, God acted alone, and in accordance with the unity of His nature, without the assistance of a mediator. Accordingly He obligated Himself, independently of any condition, to confer the blessings of the promise. Hence the Law is able neither to nullify the promise, nor to act as a substitute for it. Such seems to be the most probable explanation of this difficult verse, of which, it is said, some 430 interpretations have been given. Cf. Cornely, Lagrange, h. l.

If it be objected that even in the promise there is a mediator, namely, Christ, we reply that St. Paul is here regarding Christ as God, as a Divine Person who is God. It is true that in 1 Tim 2:5, the Apostle speaks of Christ as the “mediator” between God and man, but there, as his words indicate, he is considering our Lord’s humanity.

21. Was the law then against the promises of God? God forbid. For if there had been a law given which could give life, verily justice should have been by the law.

A difficulty arises. What is to be concluded from the two preceding verses? If the giving of the Law has increased and multiplied transgressions (verse 19), and if for salvation it has imposed an onerous condition (the obligation of observing its precepts), which was not required in the promise (verse 20), does it not follow that the Law is opposed to the promise of God which contained a blessing to be given gratuitously and absolutely?

God forbid. The inference is manifestly false.

For if, etc., i.e., “if a law had ever been given” (ει γαρ εδοθη νομος) which of itself could give the life of grace and glory, then in reality (“verily”,οντως) such a law would have been the principle of a justice which St. Paul considers the starting-point of a life of grace and glory (Rom 5:10). In such a case faith would have been useless, because salvation would not be a gratuitous gift, but a reward deserved. But it was not so, as appears from the following verse.

22. But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise, by the faith of Jesus Christ, might be given to them that believe.

But the scripture. Contrary to the supposition of the preceding verse the entire Old Testament, including the Law, i.e., various texts and passages throughout the Old Testament, show that all men, Jews as well as Gentiles, were held as enslaved by the tyranny of sin. See on Rom 3:10-20. This proves how powerless the Law was of itself to give spiritual life to its subjects; it only enslaved and emprisoned them.

That the promise, etc. The Law, and the Scripture in general, prove that all mankind were under sin, in order that the inheritance promised to Abraham might be given to all who believe, i.e., to all who seek salvation, not through the works of the Law, but in union with Christ, through faith and love.

St. Paul is not saying that none of those who had the Law attained salvation, but only that the external Law did not secure to the individual internal morality and justice (Loisy). Those of the Old Dispensation who were justified obtained their justification by imitating the faith of their forefather Abraham.

23. But before the faith came, we were kept under the law shut up, unto that faith which was to be revealed.

Before the faith came, i.e., before the advent of Christ, the author and object of our faith, we, i.e., the Jewish Christians, were by means of the precepts, threats and promises of the Law kept . . . shut up, as prisoners and captives, against the danger of idolatry and the other pagan vices that surrounded us. The various precepts and restrictions of the Law acted as a wall to the Israelites, as a hedge, to protect them from the sins of the heathen (St. Chrysostom, Theodoret).

Unto that faith, etc. The tyranny and severity of the Law was for the good of the Jews. Its purpose was, by preserving the revelation given, by keeping alive the Messianic hope, and by making manifest the impotency of unassisted nature to attain to the perfection it required, to prepare its subjects for that fulness of faith which was to be revealed in Christ, and which in the souls of the faithful would be a new regime, opposed to the Law (Lagrange).

24. Wherefore the law was our pedagogue in Christ, that we might be
justified by faith.

The conclusion now follows clearly and naturally. To change the metaphor from the idea of a jailer to that of an instructor and tutor St. Paul now says, the law was our pedagogue, literally, “child-leader” (παιδαγωγος). In Greek and Roman households the pedagogue was a faithful slave charged chiefly with the moral and disciplinary protection of the young children; and in this sense the term is here applied to the Law. The Law instructed and disciplined the Jews, showing them by its restraints and prohibitions what sin really was, but affording them no help to avoid or escape from it. This desperate situation of slavery produced by the Law, together with the impotency of reason to liberate from sin, forced mankind, as it were, to have recourse to faith in Christ that they might be justified.

In Christ (εις χριστον) marks the term or end which God the Father had in view as the Messiah and Redeemer of His people enslaved by the Law. Therefore the Law led to Christ, the Redeemer, rather than to Christ the Teacher and Doctor (Lagrange).

 

Bernardin de Piconio on Galatians 4:22-31 for Sunday Mass, April 3, (4th Sunday of Lent, Extraordinary Form)

Since de Piconio begins a new section of his commentary with verse 21 I’ve included it in these notes.

21. Tell me, you who would be under the law, have you not read the law?
22. For it is written; that Abraham had two sons, one of a maid-servant, and one of a freewoman.
23. But he who was born of a maid-servant, was born according to the flesh: and he who of the free, through the promise.
24. Which is said in allegory. For these are the two Testaments; one indeed in Mount Sina (Sinai), generating to bondage, which is Agar (Hagar).
25. For Sina is a mountain in Arabia, which is joined to that Jerusalem which is now, and serves with her
sons.
26. But that Jerusalem which is above, is free, who is our mother.

(vs 21) Since I do not know, at this distance, your disposition towards me, or how far you are prepared to listen to what I say, tell me at least, you who are so anxious to be under the control of the law, have you not read it, the law to
which you defer? The Greek, heard it? (vs 22) For it is written in the law (Gen 16:15, 21:2-3), that Abraham had a son by Agar, and another by Sara.  Agar was young (vs 23a), and fit to become a mother, and in the birth of her son there was nothing remarkable, or beyond the ordinary course of nature. Sara was old and sterile (vs 23b), and the birth of Isaac was supernatural and miraculous, in fulfilment of the promise God had made to him long before. But these facts (vs 24), beyond their historical sense, have a higher and figurative meaning, contemplated and intended by the Holy Spirit, who dictated these inspired and ancient records. These two mothers are the Old Testament, or covenant, and the New. One in, or (in the Greek) given from Mount Sina in Arabia, has brought forth the Jews, under the yoke of the law, serving God, but doing so as slaves, and for fear of punishment.

In verse 25 the Greek text reads: Agar is Mount Sina in Arabia; and so the Syriac. The name Agar, on the testimony of St. Chrysostom and Thcophylact, is the Arabian appellation of Mount Sina, and is therefore an additional illustration of the allegory; and Grotius says the mountain, or the region in which it rises, is so called because it contains the town of Agar, or Agara, for which statement he cites Pliny, Dion, and Strabo. Hence the term Agarenes, Ps 83:7.

Mount Sina is distant from Jerusalem twenty days’ journey, and is therefore only figuratively joined to Jerusalem. The Greek text and all the interpreters have corresponds with, or answers to. The Jerusalem which now is, is a slave, like Agar, and can only be the mother of slaves. She serves with her sons.

(Vs 26)  Sara is a figure of the New Testament, or of the Church of Christ, a statement which, as being obviously implied, and therefore unnecessary, the Apostle has omitted. This is the Jerusalem which is above, or on high. I John, saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, descending from God, out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband, Rev 21:1, because the Son of God, descending from heaven, founded the Church on earth. Jerusalem signifies the vision of peace. Peace I leave to you, my peace I give you, Jn 14:27. This Jerusalem is free, bearing children to freedom, by the spirit of adoption of sons, by which we cry Abba, Father. Lastly, she is the fruitful mother of us all, Jews and Gentiles. “Lift thine eyes all around and see; these all are assembled and come to thee; thy sons shall come from far, and thy daughters shall spring up at thy side. Then shalt thou see, and overflow, and thy heart shall be enlarged, when the multitude of the sea shall be turned unto thee, and the might of the nations has come to thee. Who are these that fly as a cloud, and as doves to their windows ? (Isa 60:4, 5, 8.) “Thy deserts and solitudes, and the land of thy ruin, shall be too narrow for its inhabitants. And the sons of thy sterility shall say in thine ears: the place is too narrow, give us space to dwell. And thou shalt say in thy heart, Who has begotten me these?” (Isa 49:19, 20.)

27. For it is written; Rejoice sterile one, who bearest not; break forth and cry, thou who dost not bring forth children; for many are the sons of the forsaken, more than of her who has a husband.

For it is written: Isa 54:1. The sterile one and the forsaken is the Gentile world, which before the coming of Christ brought forth no fruit to God. She who has a husband is the synagogue, and the prophecy implies that the children of the Catholic Church would be beyond all comparison more numerous than the Jewish nation, a prediction which had only begun to be fulfilled when these words of Saint Paul were written. The Apostle proceeds
to give three applications of his parable.

28. And we, brethren, like Isaac are sons of promise.

We, like Isaac, are the children of promise, the fulfilment of God’s promise to Abraham that in him, and in Christ, who was to descend from him, all nations should be blessed. This the Jews cannot claim, for the benediction of all nations is through Christ alone; any more than Ismael could claim it of old.

29. But as then he who was born after the flesh persecuted him who was born after the spirit, so also now.

He who was born after the flesh persecuted him who was born after the Spirit. The words referred to in Gen 21:9, are, Sara saw the son of Agar the Egyptian playing with Isaac her son. This is variously explained as a quarrel about the inheritance, in which Isaac, as the younger, would of course be worsted; or that Ismael mocked at the piety of Isaac; or that Ismael had made
gods of clay, after the Egyptian fashion, and endeavoured to induce Isaac to worship them; or by other conjectures. It was undoubtedly persecution, corporal or spiritual, and stands for a figurative representation of the persecution of the early Christian Church by the Jews. So also now.

30. But what says the Scripture? Cast out the maidservant and her son; for the son of the maidservant shall not be heir, with the son of the free.

What says the Scripture? Gen 21:10: Cast out the maidservant and her son. This is the third and principal application of the allegory, and signifies the exclusion of the synagogue and the unbelieving portion of the Jewish nation from the communion of the Church of God, into which admittance can be found only through faith in Christ. The Galatians could not but see that the synagogue being cast out, or repudiated, they had reason to dread the loss of their inheritance, like Ishmael, if by persisting; in legal observances, they made themselves children of the synagogue, and therefore slaves.

31. Therefore, brethren, we are not sons of the maidservant, but of the free; for with this liberty Christ has made us free.

You therefore, Galatian Christians, are not sons of the synagogue, nor bound to the rites and obligations of the Jewish law; but to the commands of God, as your Father, and the precepts of the Church of Christ, your spiritual mother, who is free. And this freedom we owe, not to merit of our own, but to the grace of Christ, who by his passion and death has emancipated us from the
yoke of that law which, in fulfilling, he has abrogated and done away with.

It may be observed, with reference to this allegory, that the Scriptures of the Old Testament have throughout a prophetic reference to the New, and are intended to be read with that fact in view. This prophetic meaning was doubtless not always known to the ancient writers, who could not have had within their mental vision the whole series of the events of future times; but it was known to, and intended by, the Spirit of God, who inspired and dictated the sacred records. Neither is it confined to such notices and references to the Old Testament as the writings of the New Testament contain; for the whole of the ancient narrative is full of such applications, which may often be found by those who look for them diligently, and are sometimes striking and startling. Nevertheless, this imposes upon students of the Old Testament the obligation of carefully observing that these typical correspondences and coincidences are to be found and noted for edification only, and as probable and reasonable conjectures, and are never absolutely certain, except where
they are confirmed by the authority of Christ, or the sacred writers of the New Testament, or other writers of approved authority. Subject to this caution, any reader can find many for himself, or study with profit and pleasure those which have been collected by Catholic writers. The acts and proceedings of the patriarchs, kings, and leaders of the ancient people of Israel, very often have this prophetic character, and the incidents in their lives which have not, are generally omitted in the sacred narrative, in which many are inserted which, but for this prophetic reference, would not seem to be greatly important ; such as the comparatively trivial incident of Esau’s pretending to sell his birthright for pottage.

 

Cornelius a Lapide on Galatians 4:22-31 for the Fourth Sunday of Lent (Extraordinary Form)

Gal 4:22  For it is written that Abraham had two sons: the one by a bondwoman and the other by a free woman.

Abraham had two sons. Ishmael, by his handmaiden, Hagar, who was, therefore, but a wife of secondary rank; and Isaac, by Sarah, his wife of honour. The latter was his heir; the former received such gifts as the father chose to give him. Cf. Gen 25:5, 6.

Gal 4:23  But he who was of the bondwoman was born according to the flesh: but he of the free woman was by promise.

He who was of the bondwoman. Ishmael was born according to the laws of natural generation, by which Abraham, though an old man, was able to raise up seed from his youthful bondwoman, Hagar.

He of the freewoman was by promise. Isaac was not born according to the usual laws of generation, for Sarah, his mother, was then sterile by age, so that Abraham could not in the order of nature beget a son by her. He was born by promise, i.e., by the supernatural power of God, in fulfilment of the promise made to Abraham.

Gal 4:24  Which things are said by an allegory. For these are the two testaments. The one from Mount Sinai, engendering unto bondage, which is Agar (i.e., Hagar).

Which things are said by an allegory. An allegory with rhetoricians is a continued metaphor. With ecclesiastical writers it is identical with a type or figure in which things and events of the Old Testament represented their parallels in the New.

For these are the two testaments. Sarah and Hagar signify respectively the two covenants, the New and the Old. There are four senses of Scripture: (1.) The literal, as e.g., when it is said that Abraham begat Ishmael of Hagar naturally, and Isaac of Sarah supernaturally; (2.) the allegorical, as when it is said, “These are the two testaments;” (3.) the tropological, of which we find an example in verse 29; (4.) the anagogical, which is used in verse 26.

The first covenant referred to here is that made by God with Moses on Mount Sinai, in which God promised to be the God of the Hebrews, and to give them the land of Canaan, and the Hebrews on their part promised to keep the law of their God, whether moral, judicial, or ceremonial. The second covenant is that made with Christ and Christians at Jerusalem, in which God promised to be the God of the Christians, and to give them a heavenly inheritance; and the Christians on their part promised by Christ and His Apostles to preserve the faith of Christ, and to obey His precepts. This latter appears throughout the Gospels, and especially in the record of the Last Supper, given by S. John in chap. xiii. et seq. There Christ confirmed this covenant in His own blood, as is narrated by SS. Matthew, Mark, Luke, and Paul.

The one from the Mount Sinai. The Old Covenant, given from Mount Sinai, made slaves of the Jews, by bringing them under the shadows of burdensome ceremonies, obliging them to obedience under fear of punishment, or by the promise of earthly goods, such as abundance of corn and wine and oil.

Which is Agar. Hagar the slave typifies the covenant of slavery.

Gal 4:25  For Sinai is a mountain in Arabia, which hath affinity to that Jerusalem which now is: and is in bondage with her children.

For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia. Mount Sinai was called Hagar by the Arabs, according to Chrysostom and others. But this explanation is forced, and leaves a gap in the argument. As we have just seen, Hagar represents the Old Covenant given on Mount Sinai, and this is the sense of the passage.

In Arabia. Even the Arabs typify this Jewish slavery, for they themselves are subject to it. Hence the saying, “the Arabian pipe,” mentioned by Julius Pollux, which shows their servile condition, since slaves only (and they for the most part came from Arabia) used to practise the art of music. The Old Covenant of slavery was, therefore, fitly entered into in Arabia, i.e., on Mount Sinai. Chrysostom adds: “Hagar in Hebrew denotes dwelling, Sinai temptation, Arabia falling, Ishmael the hearing of God.” Jerome says: “Hagar shows by its meaning that the Old Covenant would not be for ever; Sinai, that it would be a temptation; Arabia, that it would perish; Ishmael, as the name of one who heard only the commandments of God but did not do them, a rough man, a man of blood, the enemy of his brethren, that the Jews would be hard and harsh, enemies of Christians, hearers only of the law, and not doers.”

S. Jerome again says tropologically: “Those Christians are born of Hagar who look only at the shell of Holy Scripture, and serve the Lord in fear. Those are born of Sarah who treat the Old Covenant as an allegory, and seek for its spirit, and who serve the Lord in love.” See also the remarks of S. Augustine (contra Duas Epp. Pelag. cap. 4), where he lays down that Abraham, Noah, Moses, and all the righteous men of the Old Covenant, were really children of the New, inasmuch as they were justified by the same faith in the Incarnation and Passion of Christ as Christians, and lived by the same grace and the same love of Christ; while, on the other hand, Christians who keep the law from fear of punishment are children of the Old and not of the New Covenant.

Which hath affinity to that Jerusalem which now is. So the Vulgate. S. Jerome and Chrysostom take it of a literal vicinity to Jerusalem, inasmuch as Jerusalem borders on the desert in which Sinai is situated, the hills of Idumæa alone intervening. But these hills comprise the whole of Idumæa, which is a large tract, and, therefore, it cannot be said Sinai is joined to Judæa. It would be more accurate to say that it was widely separated from it.

S. Thomas interprets it to mean that Sinai is joined to Jerusalem, not by nearness, but by a continuous road, because the Hebrews went from Egypt by a straight road through Sinai into Judæa. But this is too far fetched. In the same way the Red Sea, and Egypt itself, might be said to be joined to Judæa.

Accordingly, it is better to understand the words to mean that the conjunction is not of place but of likeness.

With this agrees the Greek word here, συστοιχεί, which means kinship or likeness. Στοίχειν means to go forward in order, or to stand in one’s place. So grammarians call the letters of the alphabet στοιχει̃α, because they are joined in a certain order. Philosophers call the elements—earth, air, fire, and water—by the same name, because each of them has its due place, and its relation to the others. Also verses are called στίχοι, and lines in order, στίχαι. Hence, as Budæus says, kindred things are called σύστοιχα, and συστοιχία is a series of similar things duly arranged. So here, of Mount Sinai it is said that it, συστοιχει̃, i.e., it has a similarity, it is in the same series or order of things as Jerusalem, because it represents it by a convenient type.

This it does (1.) because, as Mount Sinai is sterile in the desert, so is Jerusalem in its ceremonies. Moreover, the law was given in the first, preserved in the second. (2.) Sinai was outside the Promised land; the Jerusalem of the law is outside the Church of Christ, whether militant or triumphant. (3.) Which is more germane to the Apostle’s purpose; as Sinai nourished and brought up slaves whether Jews or Arabs, and as from it proceeded a servile law, with the sound of the trumpet, with thundering and earthquake, which, therefore, suitably drove its votaries into obedience by fear; so is now Jerusalem, so far as its life and doctrine are concerned, Sinaitic, and produces slaves to the shadows of the law, who obey through fear only. (4.) Sinai is related to Jerusalem also, because the Jews, who received the law at Sinai, were the fathers of those who kept it in Jerusalem; and as the I fathers were, so are the sons.

By metonymy, Sinai and Jerusalem are put for their inhabitants. As Hagar the bondwoman signified the bondage of the Old Covenant, so Mount Sinai, in bringing forth slaves, typified Jerusalem, which did the same. Such as Sinai was, such is Jerusalem. The former was the parent of the slaves, so too is the latter.

Thus there were two wives: Agar the bondwoman and Sarah the freewoman.

There were two sons: Ishmael, a slave born after the flesh and Issac, born according to the promise.

There were two covenants: the Law given at Sinai, and the Gospel given at Sion.

There were two cities: the earthly Jerusalem, the synagogue of the Jews in bondage, and the heavenly Jerusalem, by grace the mother of all the faithful, free.

There were two sons: the Jews immersed in the shadow of the ceremonial law, and the faithful who enjoy the grace of Christ.

Jerusalem which now is. The earthly Jerusalem is contrasted with the heavenly, the transitory with that which is to endure for ever.

It may be noted that Jerusalem is not compounded of Jebus and Salem, as Erasmus and others have thought, but of a Hebrew word meaning he shall see, and Salem, in allusion to Gen 22:14. Hence the meaning of the word is the vision of peace.

And is in bondage with her children. The reference is of course to Hager. As she, a bondwoman, bore Ishmael, he and his descendants inherit their mother’s status; so does the Old Covenant, typified by her, bring forth bondmen. On the other hand, as Sarah was a free woman, her children are free, as are the children of the New Covenant.

The slavery of the Old Covenant consisted mainly in two things, in its obliging men to obedience by fear, and in burdening them with a multitude of dumb ceremonies, which were of no avail to justification. On the other hand, the liberty of the Gospel consists in its leading us to obedience through love, and in teaching us to worship God in spirit and in truth. It has no doubt its own ceremonies, nut they are all aids only to the spiritual life.

Gal 4:26  But that Jerusalem which is above is free: which is our mother.

But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is our mother. The Christian Church, typified by Sarah, the mistress, is contrasted with the Jewish synagogue, typified by Hagar, the bondwoman, in four points: It is above; it is Jerusalem; it is free; it is a fruitful mother.

1. Why is it said to be above? Because (a) Christ, its Head, descended from heaven, and thither ascended to rule the Church from above. (b) Because the Church is perfected by heavenly things, faith, hope, and charity, which come from above (c) Because, the efficacy of the Sacraments is from above, and shows God Himself present in His Church, as though He had come down from above. (d) Because her conversation is in heaven, and there with her Spouse are her heart and treasure. (e) Because she is striving for her eternal crown laid up in heaven. Cf. Rev 21:2.

2. Why is she called Jerusalem? Because Jerusalem means the vision of peace. This God provides for His Church, so that she rejoices, not in earthly but in heavenly peace, according to the promise of her Lord. “Peace I leave with you, My peace I give unto you” (S. John 14:27). This peace comes from a good conscience towards God, self, and all men. Literally too the Church is entitled to be called Jerusalem, because there she had her beginning, as the Jewish Church had at Sinai. Hence the prophets repeatedly designate the Christian Church by the names of Sion or Jerusalem.

3. Why is she called free? Freedom is fourfold: (a) Civil, to which is opposed the status of slaves. (b) Moral, by which is excluded slavery to passion and lust, to the fear of adversity. In this the Stoics placed the perfection of happiness, and desired that every man should be able to say of himself: Though the world were shattered around him, its fragments would strike, but not daunt him (Hor. Odes, iii. 3, 7). (c) Spiritual, springing from that perfect charity which casts out fear, by which we are able to serve God, not in servile fear, but in filial love; not with material ceremonies, but in spirit and in truth. This is the freedom in the Apostle’s mind here. (d) Celestial, which excludes all slavery of mind or body to pain, and is the perfect bliss of mankind.

The Church already enjoys moral and spiritual liberty; by hope and desire it tastes beforehand the heavenly freedom it is one day to possess.

4. Why is she called a mother? Because out of Gentile barrenness, which was subject to devils, the Church has been collected, and has borne, and still bears, many spiritual children to Christ, and this not from Jews alone, but from Jews and Gentiles, without distinction.

Gal 4:27  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.

Rejoice, thou barren. Rejoice, 0 Church, called out of the Gentiles; thou who wast once barren, without faith in God, and formerly not wont to bear children to Him—now that thou art espoused to Him break forth and cry. The synagogue, whose husband was the law, or even God Himself, not as a father tender, but as a lawgiver terrible, brought forth Jews only according to the flesh. But the Church embraces as a mother all the nations that believe on Christ. Therefore the synagogue has borne to God comparatively a small number of spiritual children. She bare the Prophets, the Patriarchs, and a few other righteous men, and that not in her own strength, but by the power of Christ, the father of the New Covenant.

The Apostle quotes Isa. liv. 1. The Jews indeed interpret the passage of their return to the earthly Jerusalem. The Millenarians understood it of the thousand years of sensual happiness which they pretended that the Saints would spend on earth after the Day of judgment, as Jerome testifies of them. S. Paul, however, makes it clear that Isaiah was speaking of the happiness and fruitfulness of the Christian Church. Of this S. Ambrose writes very beautifully (de Virgin. lib. i.): “The Church is immaculate in conception, fruitful in offspring, a virgin in chastity, a mother in her family. We are born of a virgin who has been impregnated, not by a man but by the Spirit; who brings forth, not with bodily pain but with angelic rejoicing; who feeds her children with milk, not of earth but of the Apostles. She is a virgin in the Sacraments, and a mother in the virtues she produces. She is a mother to the nations, and Scripture testifies to her fruitfulness, saying: ‘The desolate hath many more children than she which hath an husband.’ Whether we interpret this of the Church among the nations, or the soul of each individual, in either case she is married to her heavenly Spouse by the word of God, without any deviation from the path of chastity.”  S. Jerome, too, says, in his comments on this passage: “The Church, long time barren, bore no children before Christ was born of the Virgin; but when she bore to Abraham, i.e., the elect father, Christ as Isaac, the laughter of the world, whose very name spoke of heavenly mysteries, then she brought forth many children to God.”

Abraham in Hebrew is (according to Jerome) the elect father, with a mighty sound.

1. Abraham was first called Abram, the lofty father, and as such begat Ishmael from Hagar. Then when he entered into a covenant with God, and received the promise of the birth of Isaac, and of the possession by his seed of the land of Canaan, his name was changed to Abraham, the father of a great multitude, i.e., of a numerous offspring, to be begotten of Isaac according to the flesh, and of Christ according to the spirit. This is a sounder interpretation of the name than that given by Jerome.

2. Symbolically, Abraham represents God. From Hagar, the bondwoman, i.e., from the synagogue, he begat Ishmael, the bondservant, i.e., Moses and the Jews, who were under subjection to the Old Law. To them Abraham was a lofty father, giving the law in thunder from the heights of Sinai, and manifesting himself as a great and terrible Lord. On the other band, Abraham, i.e., God, begat from Sarah, the freewoman, i.e., the Church, Isaac, laughter, who represented Christ and His followers, heirs of the promises. To them Abraham was the father of a great multitude, gathered by Christ out of all nations, and regenerated by faith and baptism. Or if we take S. Jerome’s interpretation of Abraham as denoting the elect father with a mighty sound, then we see the fulfilment of the name in the preaching of John Baptist, of Christ, and the Apostles, who with a loud voice called all nations to enter into the kingdom of God.

3. Isaac, i.e., Christ, is said to be born of Sarah, i.e., the Church, not as though the Church were actually the mother of Christ, or existed before Him, but because, in the Divine mind, the Church was, as it were, prior to Christ, and stood for His mother. For God first called the synagogue into existence, and then substituted for it the Church. Consequently, He had in His mind the idea of the synagogue first, of the Church second; and out of this He decreed that Moses should be born as the eldest son of this idea, and that he should reduce to actuality the remaining parts of the idea by instituting the synagogue. Similarly, He willed the creation of the Church, and the birth of Christ, as the first-born of His idea of the Church, who should carry out the idea, and found the Church of which He should be Himself the chief cornerstone. Hence Christ and Christians are called children of the promise and of the predestined purpose of God, because their existence was the product of the Divine will as the father, and of the Divine thought as the mother.

Gal 4:28  Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise.

Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise. Since he was born of one barren through age—not according to the flesh, but according to the promise of God.

Gal 4:29  But as then he that was born according to the flesh persecuted him that was after the spirit: so also it is now.

He that was born according to the flesh. Ishmael, born naturally of Hagar, persecuted Isaac, born supernaturally of Sarah, according to the Divine promise, and so a type of the spiritual children of the New Law. The reference is to Gen 21:9. From a comparison of these two passages it is evident that the mockery mentioned was a sort of persecution, the sort of sport that cats have with mice. So in 2 Sam 2:14: “Abner said to Joab, Let the young men now arise and play before us,” where the play was a mortal combat. Jerome and others think that the reason why Ishmael persecuted Isaac was because his envy was stirred up by the festivities indulged in at Isaac’s weaning, and because he was jealous of the birthright assigned to his brother by promise. Hence it appears that he was hostile to the promised Seed, i.e., to Christ.

So also it is now. As formerly Ishmael mocked and persecuted Isaac, so now have the Jews mocked and crucified Christ, the King of liberty, and are still pursuing with bitter hatred His followers. So too are they persecuting you, 0 Galatians, that they may enslave you, and turn you from the right way. See the comments of Jerome and Rupert on Gen 21:9.

Gal 4:30  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.

but what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son. Although Abraham shrank from this proposal of Sarah, yet God approved it, and bade Abraham do as Sarah demanded, not only because her demand was lawful and right, but also because his action would be a type of future events. The rejection of Hagar and Ishmael would typify the rejection of the Jewish synagogue, and its exclusion from the blessings of the Church, for persecuting Christ and His followers. Allegorically, Christians, as freemen, are inheritors of Abraham’s blessing, while the Jews are shut out from it, because they are envious bondmen, persecutors of Christian freemen, just as Ishmael was forbidden to share with Isaac the paternal roof. The bondman was driven away from the freeman.

Gal 4:31  So then, brethren, we are not the children of the bondwoman but of the free: by the freedom wherewith Christ has made us free.

Mass Resources for the Fourth Sunday of Lent (Ordinary and Extraordinary Forms)

This post contains resources (mostly biblical) for both the Ordinary and Extraordinary Forms of the Roman rite.

This post will be updated latter today and throughout the rest of the week. These will be marked UPDATE.

*************************Ordinary Form***************************

Readings.

UPDATE: Homily on Psalm 23.

Father Callan’s Commentary on Ephesians 5:8-14 for the Fourth Sunday of Lent.

UPDATE: Dr. Peter Williamson on the Sunday Epistle. A brief excerpt from his book EPHESIANS, a volume in the Catholic Commentary on Sacred Scripture (concerning which, see here).

Father MacIntyre’s Commentary on John 9:1-41 for the Fourth Sunday of Lent.

UPDATE: Navarre Bible Commentary:

• First Reading/Commentary.
• Second Reading/Commentary.
• Gospel Reading/Commentary.

UPDATE: The Figure of a Blind Man in the Light Papyrological Evidence.  A scholarly  article which appeared in the Journal BIBLICA in 2010Scrool down below the abstract for the text. Requires Greek font download. See “font instructions” in the left sidebar.

UPDATE: To Worship the Johannine ‘Son of Man.’ John 9:38 as Refocusing on the Father. Another scholarly article from BIBLICA. Also requires a Greek font download.

UPDATE: Reflection for the Fourth Sunday of Lent. From the perspective of Ignatian Spirituality.

Catholic Matters. Readings with brief commentary.

Bible Study. St Charles Borromeo Parish.

Dr Scott Hahn Podcast. Brief, does good job of highlighting the themes of the reading.

St Martha’s Podcast. Looks at all the readings in some detail.

Franciscan Sisters Bible Study Podcast. Usually posted on Thursdays. Looks at all the readings.

Father Robert Barron’s Audio Homily. Fr. Barron is a well known and respected theologian and speaker.

Word Sunday:

• MP3 PODCAST In this week’s audio podcast, we discuss why people are skeptical of miracles. Why don’t people believe? Is it fear or pride, cynicism or laziness?
• FIRST READING In the reading from First Samuel, God directed the prophet-judge to anoint a new king. The emphasis here is on God’s initiative. He measures the human heart. He is the one who works his will for the good of all.
• PSALM Psalm 23 spoke to an utter dependance upon the Lord. He is my shepherd and he cares for me, even through the “valley of the shadow of death.” He is Lord on the pilgrim’s journey
• SECOND READING In his letter to the Ephesians, St. Paul urged the faithful to “walk in the light,” to live a private life that was as moral as the public persona that Christianity demanded.
• GOSPEL In the second narrative of John’s great gospel trilogy, a blind man was cured by Jesus, only to be questioned and rejected by family, neighbors, and the leadership of his synagogue. John used the controversy to highlight the connection between physical sight and spiritual sight. In the end, the man received both.
• CHILDREN’S READINGS In the First Reading, Sara saw a new sight in the forest that took her breathe away. In the Gospel Reading, Jake knew what sight meant to a blind person: freedom!
• CATECHISM LINK In the Catechism Link, we discuss faith in the Church, with its four marks and three images.
• FAMILY ACTIVITY Play a variation of the game “Marco Polo.” Blind fold a family member and have that person “Find Jesus” in the midst of others speaking nonsense phrases.

Gospel Meditation. Gospel reading with brief meditation and prayer.

Lector Notes. Brief, helpful historical and theological background. Can be printed out and used as a bulletin insert.

Historical Cultural Context.

Thoughts From the Early Church. Excerpt from St Ambrose.

Scripture in Depth.

******************EXTRAORDINARY FORM***********************

UPDATE: Roman Missal for the Fourth Sunday of Lent. (English and Latin).

UPDATE: Cornelius a Lapide on Galatians 4:22-31.

UPDATE: St John Chrysostom on Galatians 4. This is on the entire chapter.

UPDATE: Bernardin de Piconio on Galatians 4:22-31.

UPDATE: St Augustine on John 6:1-15.

UPDATE: St John Chrysostom’s Homily on John 6:1-7.

UPDATE: Aquinas’ Catena Aurea on John 6:1-15.

THE FOLLOWING links were added Thursday, Mar 31. Most are on the Gospel (Jn 6:1-15), but a couple are on the Epistle (Gal 4:22-31).

Homily on the Real Presence. Gospel.

Homily on the Epistle.

Homily on the Gospel.

Agar and Sara as Types Respectively of the Jewish and Christian Church. Epistle.

The Miraculous Multiplication of the Loaves and Fishes. Gospel.

The Firm Purpose of Amendment. Gospel.

The Lenten Masses. Gospel.

Five Loaves of Bread for the Sanctification of Man. Gospel.

How We Are to go to Communion. Gospel.

Christian Benevolence. Gospel.

 

Resources for Sunday Mass, Dec 26~Feast of the Holy Family

This post contains resources (mostly biblical) for both the Ordinary and Extraordinary Forms of the Roman Rite. The readings for the two forms often differ, such is the case this week. It is generally my practice to post these “Resources for Sunday Mass” on the preceding Wednesdays and, when possible, update them during the remainder of the week. If you’re looking for resources for Christmas Mass, go here.

ORDINARY FORM
FEAST OF THE HOLY FAMILY
********************************************************************

Readings (NAB). Time sensitive link.

Readings (NJB). Time sensitive link.

Bernardin de Piconio on Colossians 3:12-21.

Aquinas’ Catena Aurea on Matt 2:13-15, 19-23.

Franciscan Sisters Bible Study Podcast. They post the study on Thursdays.

Dr. Scott Hahn Podcast. Brief, relates the theme(s) of the readings.

St Martha’s Podcast. Usually very thorough, examines all three readings.

Word Sunday:

• MP3 Podcast
• First Reading
• Psalm
• Second Reading
• Gospel
• Children’s Readings
• Family Activity

Navarre Bible Commentary. Not yet available.

Lector Notes. Can be printed for bulletin insert. Gives historical and theological background.

Thoughts From the Early Church. Excerpt from St John Chrysostom.

Scripture in Depth. Usually very good.

Summary of the Gospel with Life Implications. St Vincent’s Archabbey.

The Gospel Today. Brief meditation.

A Lectio Divina Reading of the Gospel. Meditation, prayer, reflection in the Carmelite tradition.

Bible Study. St Charles Borromeo Parish.

Sunday Reflections. Fr. Eugene Lobo, S.J.

EXTRAORDINARY FORM
SUNDAY AFTER CHRISTMAS
*********************************************************************

Berardin de Piconio on Galatians 4:1-7.

Aquinas’ Catena Aurea on Luke 2:33-40.

Note: Many of the following links are to online books. You can use the site’s zoom feature (magnifying glass icon) to increase text size. You can also collapse the icons by clicking on the black down pointing arrow on the right side of the page.

Sermon Plans: Can be used for Sermon ideas, points for meditation, subjects for further study.

• The Fullnessof Time. On Gal 4:4.
• Heresies on the Incarnation. Also on Gal 4:4.
• On Simeon’s Prophecy. On Luke 2:34-35.
• The Divine Infancy. On Luke 2:39.

Homily on the Epistle. Bishop Bonomelli.

Homily on the Gospel. Bishop Bonomelli.

St John Chrysostom’s Exegetical Homily on Gal 4:1-7.

St John Chrysostom on Galatians 4:1-7

Gal 4:1-3. “But I say, that so long as the heir is a child, he differeth nothing from a bond-servant, though he is lord of all; but is under guardians and stewards, until the term appointed of the father. So we also when we were children, were held in bondage under the rudiments of the world.”

The word “child” in this place denotes not age but understanding; meaning that God had from the beginning designed for us these gifts, but, as we yet continued childish, He let us be under the elements of the world, that is, new moons and sabbaths, for these days are regulated by the course of sun and moon. If then also now they bring you under law they do nothing else but lead you backward now in the time of your perfect age and maturity. And see what is the consequence of observing days; the Lord, the Master of the house, the Sovereign Ruler, is thereby reduced to the rank of aservant.

Gal 4:4-5. “But when the fulness of the time came God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, under the Law that he might redeem them which were under the Law, that we might receive the adoption of sons.”

Here he states two objects and effects of the Incarnation, deliverance from evil and supply of good, things which none could compass but Christ. They are these; deliverance from the curse of the Law, and promotion to sonship. Fitly does he say, that we might “receive,” “[be paid,]” implying that it was due; for the promise was of old time made for these objects to Abraham, as the Apostle has himself shown at great length. And how does it appear that we have become sons? he has told us one mode, in that we have put on Christ who is the Son; and now he mentions another, in that we have received the Spirit of adoption.

Gal 4:6-7. “And because ye are sons, God sent forth the Spirit of His Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father. So that thou art no longer a bond-servant, but a son; and if a son, then an heir through God.”

Had not we been first made sons, we could not have called Him Father. If then grace hath made us freemen instead of slaves, men instead of children, heirs and sons instead of aliens, is it not utter absurdity and stupidity to desert this grace, and to turn away backwards?