The following was translated using ChatGPT. Text in red are my additions.
Gal 4:4–5. From that state of servitude, Christ has now redeemed us: “But when the fullness of time came, God sent forth his Son, born of a woman, born under the Law, in order that he might redeem those who were under the Law, so that we might attain adoption as sons.”
The expression τὸ πλήρωμα τοῦ χρόνου (the fullness of time) corresponds exactly to ἄχρι τῆς προθεσμίας τοῦ πατρός (until the time appointed by the father, v. 2). One may therefore say: when that moment arrived through which the period of time became full— which God in his wisdom had fixed as the time of preparation for redemption, as the childhood of the world from eternity, and had made known through the Law and the Prophets—then he sent forth his Son, with whose earthly appearance humanity entered into the period of maturity, into full manhood. Concerning the profound meaning of the expression πλήρωμα τοῦ χρόνου (fullness of time), which in sense does not differ from πλήρωμα τῶν καιρῶν (fullness of the seasons, cf. Eph 1:10), Theophylact aptly writes: ὅτε πᾶσα ἐξ ἀρχῆς διαίρεσις καὶ ἡ τῶν καιρῶν πορεία ἐτελείωται (“when every division from the beginning and the course of the times had reached completion”). And not without reason does the Apostle write here and in v. 6: ἐξαπέστειλεν (sent forth): the Father sent forth the Son and the Holy Spirit from himself. The sending of the Son and of the Holy Spirit into the world was only the temporal aspect of the eternal procession of both from the divine essence, from the bosom of the Father; or, in other words, the temporal self-manifestation of the divine Trinity to the world corresponded to the inner real distinction of the three divine Persons. Just as the Son has his personal origin in the Father and is begotten from him, so he also goes forth temporally from the Father and is sent in time, in free submission to the will and mission of the Father. And just as the Holy Spirit has his personal origin in the Father and the Son together and proceeds from both, so he too is sent in time from the Father and the Son.
Instead of γενόμενον (having become / born), several Fathers read γεννηθέντα (having been begotten); but apart from the fact that this reading is not attested by any important manuscript, it is grammatically untenable because of the present participle. The Vulgate has factum ex muliere (“made from a woman”), and most Latin commentators argue, on the one hand, that factum differs from natum, and on the other hand that ex is to be distinguished from per. Thus Estius says: “The Apostle preferred to say ‘made from a woman’ rather than ‘born,’ in order to signify that Christ was conceived and formed not in the common manner of those who are born, but by the operation of the Holy Spirit, without male seed. Of Eve we read that she was made from a man, because she was made and formed from his substance; thus the Son of God was made from a woman, because he took flesh from the substance of the woman.” According to this interpretation, the Fathers used this passage both against Nestorianism, to prove that the Son of God was truly born of Mary, and against the Eutychians, to affirm the reality of Christ’s human nature. Yet in Greek no difference of meaning is found between γενόμενον and γεννηθέντα, and ἐκ (from) is the completely usual preposition to denote being born (cf. John 3:6; Matt 1:16; 1 Pet 1:22). Nor is it at all the Apostle’s intention here to point expressly to the supernatural conception of Christ; rather, he wishes simply to express that Christ, although Son of God, truly became Son of Man, and he emphasizes this as the first condition for carrying out the divine plan of salvation (cf. Rom 8:3; Phil 2:7).
The second condition is expressed by γενόμενον ὑπὸ νόμον (born under the Law): Christ was “born under the Law,” so that he was subject to circumcision and all the other ordinances of the Law, like every other Jewish child—yet with this difference, that in his case we must think not of a merely external observance of the Law, but of a free and inward submission to it. The two clauses that follow in v. 5 correspond to these two elements in such a way that ἵνα τοὺς ὑπὸ νόμον ἐξαγοράσῃ (“that he might redeem those under the Law”) refers back to γενόμενον ὑπὸ νόμον, while ἵνα τὴν υἱοθεσίαν ἀπολάβωμεν (“that we might receive adoption as sons”) refers back to γενόμενον ἐκ γυναικός.
He became Son of Man in order to make all human beings once again sons of God; he became subject to the Law in order to free the Jews from the yoke of the Law and thus unite them with the Gentiles into one people, into one mystical Son of God (cf. Rom 15:8). The latter purpose is the condition for the former universal purpose; hence the chiastic structure of the two clauses, and in the last clause the transition to the first person plural, ἀπολάβωμεν (“that we might receive”), which embraces Jews and Gentiles alike.
The phrase ἐκ γυναικός (from a woman) does not speak against the virginity of the Most Blessed Virgin, but signifies woman merely as a designation of sex. Thus Augustine says: “By the term ‘woman’ the virginity of the flesh is not denied, but the female sex is indicated.” The Vulgate correctly renders υἱοθεσία everywhere as adoptio filiorum (“adoption of sons”; cf. Rom 8:15; 9:4; Eph 1:5), for it does not primarily denote sonship itself, but adoption. Christ alone, as the God-man, is the Filius naturalis Dei (natural Son of God); all those who through faith and baptism are reborn from Christ and grafted into him stand in relation to God as adopted sons. Before slaves of the Law and of sin, they have been adopted by God and have become υἱοὶ τοῦ Θεοῦ (sons of God). In the expression ἀπολάβωμεν (that we might receive), the Apostle, according to St Augustine, alludes to the sonship lost in Adam: “to receive again”—hence the Vulgate’s reciperemus.
If, on the other hand, one takes ἐν not in the sense of “that,” but—together with the Vulgate—as meaning “because,” the sense and the logical connection of this verse (Gal 4:6) become entirely different. If we adopt the meaning “that,” a kind of proof by experience (Probatio per experientiam) is introduced: “But that you truly are sons of God is evident from this, that God has sent the Spirit of his Son,” and so forth (cf. Rückert, Galater, p. 546). Thus many older and more recent commentators.
According to this view, we would have here a proof drawn from the inner experience of the readers, namely that the doctrine of υἱοθεσία (adoption) just discussed is indeed correct. Appeal is made in support of this interpretation to Romans 8:16: “The Spirit himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God,” and also to Romans 8:14, according to which life in the Spirit is a mark of divine sonship.
Yet this supplement appears highly arbitrary, and it would be difficult to demonstrate elsewhere that such a logical leap (Beweislogik) is characteristic of Paul. Much simpler is it to take ἐν as quoniam (“because”), as in 1 Corinthians 3:13; 12:15f.:
Gal 4:6 “Because you are sons, God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, who cries: Abba, Father!”
Thus the meaning is this: precisely because the Galatians have been adopted by God as sons in Christ, the Holy Spirit is given to them as the seal (σφραγίς) of this adoption and as the pledge (ἀρραβών) of their future full inheritance (cf. Eph 1:13–14).
In the second person singular, Paul now addresses the Galatians as Jews and Gentile Christians together; even the Gentiles have been received into sonship without circumcision—something which Paul’s Judaizing opponents were calling into question. The sudden transition from the second person to the first person plural in ἡμῶν (“our hearts”)—for this reading is supported by the most weighty witnesses (א A C D*, several minuscules, and some manuscripts of the Vulgate), not ὑμῶν, as in the textus receptus—arises quite naturally from Paul’s own vivid consciousness of this blessed reality (cf. Romans 7:4).
Once again, as in verse 4, note the parallelism between τὸ πλήρωμα τοῦ χρόνου (the fullness of time) and τὸ πνεῦμα τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ (the Spirit of his Son). Because the Father, from all eternity, breathes forth the Holy Spirit from his very being, he also sends him forth in time from himself; and because the Holy Spirit also proceeds from the Son (per spirationem), and therefore is likewise sent by the Son (cf. John 15:26; Acts 2:33), he is rightly called “the Spirit of the Son.” God sends “the Spirit of his Son into our hearts.” See note at end of post.
The gracious indwelling (ἐνοίκησις) of the Holy Spirit within us is therefore not merely κατ᾽ ἐνέργειαν (by operation), but κατ᾽ οὐσίαν (by presence) (cf. Romans 8:9). Those reborn in Christ are thus truly temples of the Holy Spirit in the proper and strict sense (cf. 1 Corinthians 6:19).
Concerning the cry Ἀββᾶ ὁ πατήρ (Abba, the Father), what is essential has already been said on Romans 8:15.
From what has been stated in verses 5 and 6, Paul now draws the conclusion in verse 7:
Gal 4:7 “So then you are no longer a slave but a son; and if a son, then also an heir through God.”
At the close, the textual tradition oscillates between several readings: κληρονόμος διὰ θεοῦ, κληρονόμος θεοῦ διὰ Χριστοῦ, κληρονόμος διὰ Χριστοῦ, (a. heir through God, b. heir of God through Christ, c. heir through Christ) and κληρονόμος μὲν θεοῦ, συγκληρονόμος δὲ Χριστοῦ ("heir of God, and joint-heir with Christ", cf. Romans 8:17). Since the first reading (a. heir through God) has the strongest external attestation (A B C* 17, the Vulgate, and many Fathers), we follow it, together with Lachmann and Tischendorf.
By the use of the second person singular in verse 7, the address becomes more individualized and therefore more vivid:
“Therefore, because you—that is, each individual reader for whom what has been said applies—have received the Spirit of the Son of God, who cries in you ‘Abba, Father,’ you are no longer a slave, as you once were in your pre-Christian condition, when you lived in bondage under the στοιχεῖα τοῦ κόσμου (elements of the world, Gal 4:3, 9; see footnote to NABRE) but a son. And if you are a son, then you are also an heir—namely, an heir of the messianic salvation—not through the Law or through fleshly descent, but through God, who has adopted you as a son in Christ and has perfected your sonship through the gift of the Holy Spirit.”
Finally, it should be noted (with Meyer) that the conclusion εἰ δὲ υἱός, καὶ κληρονόμος (and if [or, but if] a son, then an heir) is not based on Jewish inheritance law, according to which only sons—and among them the firstborn with a double portion—were heirs, while slaves were excluded, but rather on Roman testamentary law. Paul, as a Roman citizen, was familiar with this legal framework, according to which sons and daughters alike, whether natural or adopted, were equal heirs under a will.
What is being said here is drawing together Paul’s language in Galatians 4 with classical Trinitarian theology, especially as it was later articulated by the Fathers and scholastic theologians. The point is subtle but important, because it shows how Paul’s seemingly simple phrases already presuppose a rich understanding of God’s inner life and of salvation history.
In Galatians 4:4 Paul says that “when τὸ πλήρωμα τοῦ χρόνου (to plērōma tou chronou, ‘the fullness of time’) had come, God sent forth his Son.” In verse 6 he says, “God sent τὸ πνεῦμα τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ (to pneuma tou huiou autou, ‘the Spirit of his Son’) into our hearts.” The commentator notices a deliberate parallelism: in both cases Paul speaks of a divine “sending” (ἐξαπέστειλεν), and in both cases what is sent already belongs eternally to God. The Son is sent in time because he is eternally Son; the Spirit is sent in time because he eternally proceeds as Spirit.
The explanation begins with the Father. According to Catholic Trinitarian doctrine, the Father eternally “breathes forth” (spirat) the Holy Spirit from his own being. This eternal breathing-forth is what theology calls processio (procession): it happens not in time, but in God’s eternal life. Because the Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father, it is fitting—and not accidental—that the Father also sends the Spirit in time, into the hearts of believers. The temporal mission reflects the eternal procession.
But the text goes further and explains why Paul can call the Spirit “the Spirit of the Son.” The Holy Spirit does not proceed from the Father alone, but also from the Son per spirationem (“by spiration,” that is, by a single act of breathing forth shared by Father and Son). This is the doctrine expressed later by the Filioque. Because the Spirit proceeds eternally from the Son as well as from the Father, he can also be said to be sent by the Son in time. Scripture itself supports this: in John 15:26 Jesus says that he will send the Paraclete from the Father, and in Acts 2:33 the risen Christ pours out the Spirit at Pentecost. Temporal mission again mirrors eternal origin.
This is why the title τὸ πνεῦμα τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ (“the Spirit of his Son”) is theologically precise. The Spirit is not merely “given by” the Son as an external gift; he is the Spirit who belongs to the Son because he eternally proceeds from him. Paul’s phrase thus quietly distinguishes the persons of the Trinity: the Father sends, the Son is Son and sender, and the Spirit is distinct from both yet related to both by origin.
Finally, when Paul says that God sends this Spirit “into our hearts,” the commentator emphasizes that this is not a merely moral or symbolic presence. The Spirit’s indwelling is real and personal. Just as the Son truly assumed flesh when he was sent “born of a woman” at the fullness of time, so the Spirit truly comes to dwell in believers. This indwelling grounds the believer’s filial cry, Ἀββᾶ ὁ πατήρ (Abba ho Patēr, “Abba, Father”), because the Spirit who cries within us is the very Spirit who eternally unites the Son to the Father.
In short, the passage is saying that Paul’s language about the Spirit’s mission is not accidental or merely devotional. It presupposes the eternal relations within the Trinity and shows that our adoption as sons is nothing less than a participation, by grace, in the Son’s own relationship to the Father, brought about through the real indwelling of the Holy Spirit.
CONTINUE
Comments
Post a Comment