Father Cornely, S.J. was a prominent 19th century German priest, theologian and biblical scholar known for his extensive commentaries on St. Paul's Epistles and his role as an influential editor for the Jesuit journal Stimmen aus Maria Laach,
becoming a key figure in Catholic biblical studies during the late 19th
century. He taught scripture and Oriental languages, and his work
emphasized Scripture as the core of theology, influencing Catholic
thought leading into the 20th century. This was translated using ChatGPT.
Gal 4:4 “But when the fullness of time had come, God sent (ἐξαπέστειλεν) his Son, born of a woman, born under the law.”
By his eternal counsel God had fixed beforehand a definite time at which the Law—established because of transgressions and given to the sons of Israel as a kind of pedagogue—would reach its end, manifesting human weakness and awakening and increasing the desire for a redeemer. This time is conceived, as it were, as a measure which, as the years passed, had to be filled up; and the fullness of the appointed time (τὸ πλήρωμα τοῦ χρόνου, or κατὰ καιρόν, Eph 1:10) arrived when that period assigned for preparation was brought to its close. Attending well to God’s aim and purpose, Vezc. (cf. also Mopsu., Theoph., etc.) rightly remarks: “Just as Christ, so that he may be the whole and perfect fullness, gathers together the members that are scattered and thus becomes the fullness (Eph 1:23), so in the same way the fullness of times then came to be, when, all being ripened for faith and sins having risen to their height, a remedy necessary for averting the death of all things was being sought.” As for what some of the more ancient writers find in this phrase in addition—namely, a fullness of graces brought by Christ, or the fulfillment of the figures of the old Law or of the promises (cf. Thom., etc.)—these are neither indicated by the words nor demanded by the context. For the Apostle, applying only the final member of his comparison (“until the time appointed by the father”), by his words designates that same time which elsewhere he calls “the consummation of the ages,” “the ends of the ages,” and the like (cf. on 1 Cor 10:11).
When therefore the predetermined time had arrived, the people of Israel were to be vindicated from the servitude of the Law, and the whole seed of Abraham was to become a participant in the promised inheritance. To this end God the Father, in order that he himself might fulfill the promises which he himself had given, sent his only-begotten Son (John 3:16). More expressive and more beautiful than the simple Latin misit (“sent”) is the compound Greek verb ἐξαπέστειλεν, which is used again immediately (v. 6) of the sending of the Holy Spirit. For although Luke and others use it of any mission whatsoever, Paul—who employs it in only two sentences—seems to have attended to the two prepositions (ἐκ and ἀπό), so as in some way to suggest, together with the temporal mission of the two Persons, their eternal procession from the Father: the Father sent into the world from heaven (καταβέβηκα ἀπὸ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ, John 6:38) the Son who proceeds from himself (ἐκ ἐμαυτοῦ, John 8:42), when namely the Word, who in the beginning was with God, in the bosom of the Father, was made flesh (John 1:14): born of a woman (γενόμενον ἐκ γυναικός; cf. Rom 1:3, γενόμενον ἐκ σπέρματος Δαυίδ κατὰ σάρκα). By these words the Fathers already refuted the errors of Valentinus and others, who said that Christ brought his body from heaven, and of the Docetists, who attributed to him only a phantom body, no less than the heresy of Nestorius, who denied that the Blessed Virgin is Theotokos (God-bearer) (against the former cf. Tertullian, De carne Christi 20; St Basil, De Spir. S. 5,12; Jerome, etc.; against the latter St Cyril of Alexandria, Adv. nolentes confiteri quod B. Virgo sit Deipara 26; Theodoret, Contra Nestorium, M. 83,1160, etc.). Against the Ebionites as well and other detractors of the perpetual virginity of the holy Mother of God, the Fathers observed that Paul used the term woman in the same way as the Evangelists also use it; “for it was not necessary,” says Jerome, “always to speak cautiously and timidly of a virgin, since woman signifies sex rather than the union with a man, and according to Greek usage can be interpreted as meaning either wife or woman” (cf. Tertullian, De vel. virg. 6; Victor of Antioch, etc.). Paul used this term here especially because he wished above all to teach that the Son of God truly became the son of man and that a true human nature, assumed, entered into the human race (cf. Job 14:1; Matt 11:11); yet he spoke so carefully that he not only did not exclude but even insinuated the virginal conception of the Lord (which he taught neophytes in his catechesis, as is clear from Luke’s Gospel; cf. Luke 1:26 ff.). Many therefore rightly say with Pelagius: “In that he says of a woman, he shows that Christ assumed the incarnation of man not in the usual way from the union of man and woman, but through the Holy Spirit, from the mother alone.” For, as in other places of Scripture where Christ’s human origin is treated, here too only the mother is named, while the idea of a human father is deliberately excluded (cf. Knabenbauer, Comm. in Is. I, p. 175).
Just as God willed his Son to be born of a woman, so also he willed him to be born under the Law: born under the Law, so that he might be not only a true man, but also subject to the Law from his very entrance into the world. That Paul expounded this carefully in his catechesis we again learn from the Gospel of his disciple, in which alone it is reported how precisely Christ fulfilled the Law from the moment of his birth—circumcised on the eighth day, presented in the temple on the fortieth day, and from his twelfth year ascending yearly to Jerusalem for the feast of Passover (Luke 2:21 ff.). From our passage, moreover, it becomes clear why Paul taught neophytes with such care Christ’s incarnation and his subjection under the Law: for these are the foundations of that doctrine which he is accustomed to call his Gospel, concerning the abolition of the Law through Christ’s death and the universality of salvation brought through Christ.
Gal 4:5 This, indeed, he now intimates by setting forth the twofold end which God wished to attain in that mission of his Son which he has described: “that he might redeem those who were under the Law, so that we might receive adoption as sons” (Gal 4:5). In the same way as above (Gal 3:13), the two clauses, both introduced by the same final particle (ἵνα), are parallel to one another; and in a similar way their subjects differ, since in the former only those who are under the Law are spoken of, whereas in the latter all human beings, whether Jews or Gentiles, are meant. They are also referred chiastically to the two preceding members (born of a woman, born under the Law), so that the former corresponds to the latter clause, and the latter to the former. For God sent his Son born under the Law, so that by himself fulfilling it and taking its curse upon himself he might redeem, at a price paid, those who were under the Law both from its curse (cf. Gal 3:13) and from its servitude (Gal 4:3); but he sent his Son born of a woman, so that through him all of us who belong to the human race into which he entered by the incarnation might receive adoption as sons (cf. Gal 3:14). Nor was it without reason that Paul employed the figure of chiasm; he wished, namely, to preserve accurately, as one might say, the just chronological order in both clauses. For just as the incarnation (born of a woman) preceded Christ’s subjection under the Law (born under the Law), so the Jews had first to be freed from the servitude of the Law in order that free access to the promises might lie open to all; for only when the wall that separated the Gentiles from the Jews had been removed could the Gentiles, together with those who had first received the promises, become participants in them (cf. on Gal 3:14; Eph 2:18 ff.). The liberation of the Jews from the servitude of the Law was therefore an intermediate and secondary end of Christ’s mission; the ultimate and supreme end of the incarnation was adoption as sons. This meaning also suits the Greek word (cf. Luke 6:36; 15:32, etc.), but the Greek explanation seems preferable because it is more in harmony with the context and because through the incarnation we received a grace and dignity higher than that which we lost in Adam.
By the term υἱοθεσία (adoption as sons) the Apostle understands all the goods promised to Abraham and to his seed, because adoption, as the highest and most perfect of all divine benefits, in a way includes all the rest—presupposing some as necessary conditions and drawing others after it as natural consequences. For “we cannot become adopted sons unless we are conformed to the natural Son of God” (Thomas; cf. Rom 8:29); but we are conformed to the natural Son if, washed and sanctified by baptism, we put on Christ (3:27); and being conformed to and grafted into Christ we become heirs according to the promise (3:29). Hence the Fathers too, when they speak of the fruits of the incarnation, frequently allude to our passage and set adoption forth as the complete end of the incarnation in relation to us. That adoption was already contained in the promises Chrysostom and other Greeks infer from the verb used, ἀπολάβωμεν (“that we might receive”): “he said receive back,” says Theophylact (cf. Eusebius of Emesa, Oecumenius, etc.), “indicating that it already belonged to us beforehand by promise, even though it was not given to us because of the infancy of our understanding.” And indeed the verb ἀπολαμβάνειν not infrequently signifies “to receive that which is due as a reward or from a promise,” just as ἀποδιδόναι signifies “to pay what is owed, whether reward or promise” (Luke 23:41; Rom 1:27, etc.). Attending to the Latin wording, Augustine remarks: “He did not say let us receive (accipiamus), but let us receive back (recipiamus), to signify that we had lost this in Adam”; and this meaning also belongs to the Greek word (cf. Luke 6:36; 15:32, etc.), but the Greek explanation seems to be preferable, because it is more in keeping with the context and because through the incarnation we received a grace and dignity higher than that which we lost in Adam. Moreover, in order to confirm that the Galatians have truly been made sons of God, the Apostle recalls to their memory the mission of the Holy Spirit, who was given to them as a kind of seal of adoption:
Gal 4:6. “And because you are sons, God sent the Spirit of his Son into your hearts” (read: our hearts, cf. the variant readings), “crying: Abba, Father.”
Together with all the Greeks (Chrysostom, Theodore of Mopsuestia, Theodoret, etc.), many Latins as well (Ambrosiaster, Thomas Aquinas, etc.; Justinian, Estius, etc.), and some modern writers (Meyer, Ewald, Palmieri, Rückert, Philippi, etc.), understand the particle ὅτι (quoniam, “because”) as causal, denying any brevity of expression or ellipsis and wishing to see here a kind of new argument by which adoption is proved: “that you are sons is evident from this, that God sent the Spirit into our hearts” (cf. Gal 3:11). The sense is indeed fitting, but the construction is extremely harsh, nor is any similar example of such ellipsis or brevity found in Scripture. Therefore, with the Vulgate and most modern commentators, we rightly retain the causal force of the conjunction ὅτι (“because”), since the sense of the sentence is not greatly altered even if the other construction were admitted. For Paul considers the mission of the Spirit as most intimately connected with adoption, in such a way that all and only those who are adopted as sons immediately receive the Spirit in their hearts; hence the mission of the Spirit is the divine seal of accomplished adoption and the pledge (arrha) of the future inheritance (cf. Eph 1:13, 18). And indeed the Spirit, crying in our hearts Abba, Father, “bears witness to our spirit that we are children of God” (Rom 8:16). In this sense Lapide writes: “Because you are sons, therefore God sent his Spirit—not to make you sons, but to teach you, already made sons, to cry Abba, Father” (similarly Windischmann, Bisping, Reithmayr, Lightfoot, Schäfer, Meyer, Sieffert, etc.).
As regards the details, attention must first be paid to the change of persons. From the third person plural, by which he had designated the Jews placed under the Law, and from the first person plural, by which he had included all believers who had obtained adoption (Gal 4:5), the Apostle now passes to the second person plural (you are sons), in order, by addressing the Galatians directly, to appeal as it were to their own experience; for they knew that they had received the Spirit (Gal 3:2, 5). Now Paul adds that they received him for this very reason—that they were sons—so that they might conclude that they had obtained, without the Law, the same dignity which the Judaizers proclaimed to be the reward of observing the Law, and which Jewish Christians themselves had obtained only after the abrogation of the Law (Gal 4:5). Yet he does not remain with the second person plural, but returns to the first (into our hearts), because he does not wish to exclude either himself or his fellow countrymen from so great a benefit; for the Spirit is given to all adopted sons, whether Jews or converts from the Gentiles. Furthermore, some theologians bid us note that it is said in the same way: God sent (ἐξαπέστειλεν) the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, as it was said: God sent (ἐξαπέστειλεν) his Son, born of a woman; therefore the person of the Holy Spirit is spoken of just as the person of the Son is. Hence they conclude that, in a manner similar to that in which the person of the Son assumed flesh from a woman, so the person of the Spirit dwells in the hearts of adopted sons, and that to the Spirit there belongs an indwelling “according to hypostasis, not according to essence alone” (Petavius, De Trin. VIII, 6, 6; cf. on 1 Cor 6:19). The Spirit here is expressly distinguished both from the Son, whose Spirit he is said to be, and from the Father, by whom he is said to be sent; and at the same time it is insinuated that he proceeds from both. For he would not rightly be called the Spirit of the Son unless he had from him whatever he has; nor could he be sent by the Father unless he proceeded from the Father. Moreover, the very name “Spirit of the Son” already sufficiently insinuates the Son’s procession from the Father; so that in these few words—God sent the Spirit of his Son—the Catholic doctrine concerning the procession of the second and third Persons of the Most Holy Trinity is confirmed.
Furthermore, it must be noted that the Spirit is sent into our hearts in order to make us more certain of our adoption, since he stirs us and impels us to invoke God with the same name by which the Son, while dwelling on this earth, once invoked him (Mark 14:36), crying Abba, Father. This cry is attributed to the Spirit, because it proceeds from him as from its principle (cf. Rom 8:26), and because “through him we receive the confidence to call God our Father; for God sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts crying Abba, Father, so that his voice becomes the proper voice of those who have received him” (St Basil, De Spir. S. 24, 51). Finally, to those who ask why the Apostle doubled the name Father, adding the Greek (ὁ πατήρ) to the Hebrew, or rather Aramaic (Ἀββᾶ), Augustine replies that “it was not without reason that he placed words of two languages signifying the same thing, on account of the whole people who were called into the unity of faith from Jews and Gentiles alike; so that the Hebrew word might pertain to the Jews, the Greek to the Gentiles, while the identical meaning of both words might belong to the unity of the same faith and Spirit.” Others prefer to answer that Paul used this double appellation because it was customary in the churches; for converts from the Gentiles too were accustomed to use that name by which the Lord himself had addressed his Father and by which he had taught his first disciples to pray (Matt 6:9). To this name, consecrated by the Lord’s own usage, they added the Greek interpretation, so that by this repetition the confidence with which they prayed to God might be expressed more clearly.
From this final exposition of Paul it follows of itself that the time of the Law, as a time of childhood and servitude, has come to an end. The Jews who had been under the Law were transferred from the state of minors, in which they did not differ from slaves, to the state of adult and emancipated sons, and were freed from the dominion of the Law through Christ, who fulfilled it for them and took its curse upon himself. The Gentiles, on the other hand, who until then had lived in a harsher servitude (cf. Gal 4:8), were brought into the same state of emancipated sons when, believing, they put on Christ in baptism and in him fulfilled the Law, being circumcised with a circumcision not made by hands. Finally, both alike, as a seal of perfect adoption by which they have become adult sons of God, possess the Holy Spirit dwelling in their hearts. Hence Paul, addressing with great force not so much the community as individual believers—whether they have come from Judaism or from the Gentiles—concludes:
Gal 4:7. “So then you are no longer a slave, but a son; and if a son, then an heir through God.” This conclusion is almost a repetition of what preceded (Gal 3:29): all the faithful, in the same way, are grafted into Christ, the natural Son of God, raised to the dignity of adopted sons, and are equal and on the same footing among themselves; in the same way they therefore belong to the seed of Abraham, which is Christ, and in the same way have a right to the promises made to Abraham and to his seed. But no one among them—neither a convert from the Gentiles nor a convert from the Jews—owes this lofty dignity and this splendid right to his own powers or to the works of the Law; rather, each and all owe these benefits to the mercy of God and to the grace of God: as you are a son, so you are an heir through God, who alone can raise a creature to so great a dignity.
CONTINUE
Comments
Post a Comment