Thomas Aquinas Commentary Galatians 4

After pointing out the shortcoming of the Law, the Apostle now shows the dignity of grace in two ways:

1. with a human example;
2. with an example from Scripture (v. 21).

Regarding the first example, he does three things:

1. He shows the preeminence of grace over the primitive state of the Old Law by a simile taken from human law.
2. He shows that they have been made partakers of this preeminence through faith (v. 6).
3. He censures them for disdaining this preeminence (v. 8).

Concerning the first point, he does two things:

1. He lays down the simile.
2. He applies it to his proposition (v. 3).

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

Second is smallness. Hence he says, is a child, because the Jews were children according to the state of the Law: “Who shall raise up Jacob? For he is a little one” (Amos 7:5). Similarly, Christ also had become a child through the Incarnation: “For a child is born to us, and a son is given to us” (Isaiah 9:6).

Note that the Apostle sometimes compares the state of the Law to a child, as he does here, and sometimes the state of the present life: “When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child” (1 Corinthians 13:11). The reason for this is that the state of the Old Law, because of its imperfect knowledge, is like a child compared to the state of grace and truth that came through Christ. In the same way, the state of the present life, in which we see through a mirror in a dark manner, is like a child compared to the state of the future life, in which there is perfect knowledge of God, because He is seen as He is.

Third is subjection. He says, he is no different from a servant, though he is lord of all, but is under tutors and governors. A servant is one who is subject to a lord. But a boy, as long as he is a child, lacks the fullness of knowledge and use of free will due to his age. He is therefore committed to the care of others who defend his possessions—these are called tutors—and who handle his affairs—these are called governors. Therefore, even though he is lord of all his things, he is no different from a servant insofar as he is subject to others, because he does not have free will but is in fact constrained. This is applied to the Jewish people: “And now hear, O Jacob, my servant” (Isaiah 44:1).

Here it should be noted that among the Jewish people, some were servants in the strict sense—namely, those who observed the Law out of fear of punishment and desire for the temporal things the Law promised. But there were others who were not servants in the strict sense but, living as servants, were really sons and heirs. Although they outwardly attended to temporal things and avoided punishments, they did not place their ultimate hope in them but took them as a figure of spiritual goods. Therefore, even though on the surface they seemed to be no different from servants, insofar as they observed the ceremonies and other commandments of the Law, they were nevertheless lords, because they did not follow them with the same frame of mind as servants. They followed them out of love for the spiritual goods they prefigured, whereas servants acted chiefly out of fear of punishment and a desire for earthly convenience.

Christ, too, was like a servant. Although He is the Lord of all things, according to the Psalm, “The Lord said to my Lord” (Psalms 109:1), nevertheless outwardly, as a man, He seemed to be no different from a servant: “He emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men, and in habit found as a man” (Philippians 2:7). Furthermore, he was under tutors and governors, because He was made under the Law, as is said below: made under the law (v. 4). He was also subject to men, as is said in Luke: “He was subject to them” (Luke 2:51).

Fourth, he touches on the correspondence of time when he says, until the time appointed by the father. Just as the heir is under tutors for a definite period fixed by the father, so the Law had a time fixed by God determining how long it was to endure and how long the heir—that is, the Jewish people—were to be under it. Similarly, there was a time fixed by the Father during which Christ would not perform miracles or show the lordship of His divine power: “My hour has not yet come” (John 2:4).

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

1. regarding the Jews;
2. regarding Christ (v. 4).

He says, therefore: Just as as long as the heir is a child he is no different from a servant, so we Jews also, when we were children in the state of the Old Law, were serving under the elements of the world. This means we were under the Law, which promised temporal things—“If you are willing, and will hearken to me, you shall eat the good things of the land” (Isaiah 1:19)—and threatened temporal punishments.

Alternatively, the Old Law is called an “element” because just as boys who are to be trained in a science are first taught its elements and through them are brought to the fullness of that science, so the Old Law was proposed to the Jews to bring them to faith and justice: the law was our tutor leading to Christ (Galatians 3:24). Or, it means they were under the “elements,” that is, the physical religious observances they kept, such as days of the moon, new moons, and the Sabbath.

However, one should not object that on this account they were no different from the pagans who served the elements of this world. The Jews did not serve the elements or pay them worship; rather, under them, they served and worshiped God. The pagans, in contrast, rendered divine worship to the elements themselves: “They worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever” (Romans 1:25). Furthermore, it was necessary for the Jews to serve God under the elements of this world, because such an order is in harmony with human nature, which is led from sensible things to intelligible things.

Here the Apostle applies to Christ the simile he has proposed.

He does two things:

1. First, he makes the application.
2. Second, he discloses the purpose of the reality that corresponds to the simile (verse 5).

It should be noted that in the simile proposed earlier, four items were pointed out in order. But now, in applying them to Christ, the Apostle begins with the last one: the setting of a time. The reason for this is that the time in which Christ was humiliated and the faithful were exalted is the same. Hence he says, But, when the fulness of the time was come, meaning, after the time set by God the Father for sending His Son had been accomplished. This is how the phrase is used in Luke 2:6: “Her days were accomplished, that she should be delivered.”

This time is called “full” for several reasons. It is full because of the fullness of the graces given in it, according to Psalm 64:10: “The river of God is filled with water; thou hast prepared their food: for so is its preparation.” It is also full because it is the fulfillment of the figures of the Old Law: “I am not come to destroy but to fulfill” (Matthew 5:17). And it is full because of the fulfillment of the promises: “And he shall confirm the covenant with many, in one week” (Daniel 9:27).

However, when Scripture says that the time concerning Christ was accomplished, as in the phrase, But, when the fulness of time was come, this should not be explained as a necessity imposed by fate. Rather, it should be understood as a divine ordinance, about which Psalm 118:91 states: “By thy ordinance the day goeth on; for all things serve thee.”

Two reasons are given for why that time was preordained for the coming of Christ. The first relates to His greatness; since He who was to come was great, it was fitting that people be prepared for His coming by many signs and preparations. As it is written, “God, who, at sundry times and in divers manners, spoke in times past to the fathers by the prophets, last of all in these days hath spoken to us by his Son” (Hebrews 1:1). The second reason relates to the role of the One who was coming. Since a physician was to come, it was fitting that before His arrival, people should be keenly aware of their infirmity—both regarding their lack of knowledge under the law of nature and their lack of virtue under the written Law. Therefore, it was fitting that both the law of nature and the written Law should precede the coming of Christ.

Second, he applies the simile regarding Christ’s dignity as heir when he says, God sent his Son. This refers to His own natural Son; and if a son, then also an heir. He says, his Son—that is, His own, natural, only-begotten Son, not an adopted one: “God so loved the world as to give his only begotten Son” (John 3:16).

God sent Him, I say, without the Son being separated from the Father. He was sent by assuming human nature, yet He remained in the bosom of the Father: “The only begotten Son, Who is in the bosom of the Father” eternally (John 1:18). And again, “And no man hath ascended into heaven, but he that descended from heaven, the Son of Man, who is in heaven” (John 3:13). Although He descended by assuming flesh, He is nevertheless in heaven. He was sent, not to be where He was not before, because even though He came to His own in the flesh, He was already in the world by the presence of His divinity, as is said in John 1:14. Furthermore, God did not send Him as a mere servant, because His mission was the assumption of flesh, not the setting aside of majesty.

Therefore, God sent His Son to heal the error of the desiring part of our nature and to illumine the ignorance of the rational part: “He sent his word and healed them: and delivered them from their destructions” (Psalms 106:20). He also sent Him to deliver them from the power of the devil, which preys on the weakness of the aggressive part of our nature: “He shall send them a Savior and defender to deliver them” (Isaiah 19:20). He was sent as a deliverer from the chains of eternal death: “I will deliver them out of the hand of death. I will redeem them from death: O death, I will be thy death” (Hosea 13:14). And He was sent to save them from their sins: “For God sent not his Son into the world to judge the world but that the world may be saved by him” (John 3:17).

Third, he applies the simile regarding Christ’s smallness when he says, made of a woman. As it is written, “For a child is born to us” (Isaiah 9:6), and, “He emptied himself taking the form of a servant” (Philippians 2:7). He made Himself small not by setting aside His greatness, but by taking on smallness.

In interpreting the phrase made of a woman, two errors must be avoided. The first is that of Photinus, who said that Christ was only a man and received the beginning of His existence from the Virgin—in other words, that Christ was “made of a woman” as though His existence began entirely from her. This is false because it contradicts what is said in Romans 1:3: “Who was made to him of the seed of David, according to the flesh.” The Apostle does not say “according to His person,” for His person, the hypostasis of the Son of God, exists from eternity.

An analogy may help. When a shield has just become white, it is not proper to say that the substance of the shield itself has just come into being, but that whiteness has been newly added to it. In the same way, from the fact that the Son of God newly assumed flesh, it is not proper to say that the person of Christ has just come into being, but that a human nature has been newly added to that eternal person. This is like certain things that affect a body without changing the body itself. Some things, like forms and absolute qualities, affect an object and change it, while other things affect it without changing it. The assumption of flesh is of this latter sort, as it signifies a relationship. Therefore, the person of the Word is in no way changed by it.

This is why, in divine matters, we use terms that signify a relationship in a temporal sense. For example, we say in Psalm 89:1, “Lord, thou hast been our refuge,” or we say that God became man. But we do not use terms signifying forms and absolute qualities in this way, so as to say that God was made good or wise, and so on.

The second error to avoid is that of Ebion, who said that Christ was born from the seed of Joseph. He was led to this by the phrase “born of a woman,” because according to him, the word “woman” always implies a loss of virginity. But this is wrong, for in Sacred Scripture, “woman” can also simply denote the female sex, as in Genesis 3:12: “Adam said: The woman who thou gavest me to be my companion gave me of the tree.” Here Adam calls her a woman while she was still a virgin.

Furthermore, the phrase made of a woman destroys two other errors. First is the error of Nestorius, who said that Christ did not take His body from the Virgin but from the heavens, and that He passed through the Blessed Virgin as through a corridor or channel. This is false, for if it were true, He would not have been, as the Apostle says, made of a woman. The preposition “of” [ex] denotes the material cause.

Likewise, this phrase refutes the Nestorian error that the Blessed Virgin is not the mother of the Son of God but only of a human son. This is shown to be false by the Apostle’s words here, that God sent His Son, made of a woman. Now, one who is made of a woman is her son. Therefore, if the Son of God was made of a woman—namely, the Blessed Virgin—it is clear that the Blessed Virgin is the Mother of the Son of God.

Moreover, although the Apostle could have said “born of a woman,” he distinctly says made, not “born.” To be “born” implies being produced from a principle conjoined to it (as fruit is born from a tree), while to be “made” can imply production from a principle separate from it (as a wooden chest is made by an artisan).

The principle of human generation is twofold. First is the material principle. In this regard, Christ proceeded from a conjoined principle, because He took the matter of His body from the Virgin. It is according to this that He is said to be born of her: “Of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ” (Matthew 1:16). The other is the active principle. In Christ’s case, this principle (that is, the power that formed His body) was not conjoined but separate, for the power of the Holy Spirit formed it. In this respect, He is not said to have been “born” of a woman, but “made,” as if from an external principle. From this, it is also clear that the phrase “of a woman” does not imply a loss of virginity; otherwise, the Apostle would have said “born” and not “made.”

Fourth, he applies the simile regarding the aspect of subjection when he says, made under the law. A difficulty arises here from what is said later: “If you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law” (Galatians 5:18). If Christ is not only spiritual but is also the giver of the Spirit, it seems unfitting to say that He was made under the Law. I answer that “to be under the Law” can be understood in two ways. In one way, “under” denotes the mere observance of the Law. In this sense, Christ was under the Law, because He was circumcised and presented in the temple: “I am not come to destroy but to fulfill” (Matthew 5:17). In another way, “under” denotes oppression. In this sense, one is under the Law if one is oppressed by fear of it. Neither Christ nor spiritual people are under the Law in this second way.

Finally, when the Apostle says, that he might redeem them who were under the law, he presents the fruit of Christ’s work. The reason He willed His people to be subject for a time was so that they might become great and free heirs. The Apostle mentions two aspects of this fruit.

First is the fruit of freedom from subjection. He says, that he might redeem them who were under the law—that is, from under the curse and burden of the Law. As he says elsewhere, “Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us” (Galatians 3:13). Second is the fruit of being made great, inasmuch as we are adopted as sons of God by receiving the Spirit of God and being conformed to Him: “Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his” (Romans 8:9).

This adoption is related to Christ in a special way, because we cannot become adopted sons unless we are conformed to the natural Son: “For whom he foreknew, he also predestinated to be made conformable to the image of his Son” (Romans 8:29). With this in mind, the Apostle concludes, that we might receive the adoption of sons. This means that through the natural Son of God, we are made adopted sons by grace through Christ.

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

The Apostle's argument unfolds in three stages:

1. First, he mentions the gift.
2. Second, he explains the means of obtaining it (verse 6).
3. Third, he discloses the fruit of this gift (verse 7).

He says, therefore, that the gift of adoption as sons pertains not only to those who were under the Law but to the Gentiles as well. This is because you are sons of God; for not only the Jews but all who believe in the Son of God are adopted as sons: “He gave them power to be made sons of God, to them that believe in his name” (John 1:12). This gift is obtained through the sending of the Spirit of the Son of God into your hearts.

Augustine says, however, that Christ, existing in the flesh, preached primarily to the Jews, but to the Gentiles secondarily: “For I say that Christ Jesus was minister of the circumcision for the truth of God to confirm the promises made unto the fathers” (Romans 15:8). Accordingly, whatever pertains to the condition of the Jews fittingly applies to Christ.

The Galatians might have argued that they had not been adopted as sons of God, since Christ did not take on their flesh or preach to them. For this reason, the Apostle explains the manner of this adoption. He says that although they were not related to Christ physically—that is, by race or through His earthly preaching—they were nevertheless united to Him through the Spirit and were thereby adopted and made sons of God.

Hence, the conversion of the Gentiles is attributed in a special way to the Holy Spirit. Consequently, when Peter was blamed by the Jews for preaching to the Gentiles, he defended himself by appealing to the Holy Spirit, saying that he could not resist the Spirit by whose inspiration he had acted (Acts 11). And so, because God the Father sent the Spirit of His Son into our hearts—that is, the hearts of both Jews and Gentiles—we are united to Christ and are thereby adopted as sons of God.

It should be noted that while some passages of Scripture say the Holy Spirit is sent by the Father—“But the Paraclete, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name” (John 14:26)—and others say He is sent by the Son—“But when the Paraclete cometh, whom I will send you from the Father” (John 15:26)—the Holy Spirit is nevertheless common to both the Father and the Son, proceeding from and sent by Both. Accordingly, wherever it is said that the Father sends the Holy Spirit, mention is made of the Son, as in the passage above: “Whom the Father will send in my name.” And where He is said to be sent by the Son, mention is made of the Father; hence He says, “Whom I will send to you from the Father.” Even here, when he says God the Father has sent the Holy Spirit, mention is made at once of the Son, for he adds, of his Son. Nor does it matter that the Holy Spirit is sometimes said to proceed only from the Father, for the fact that the Son also sends Him shows that the Spirit proceeds from the Son as well. Accordingly, the Holy Spirit is called the Spirit of the Son as of the One sending Him and as of the One from whom He proceeds, as well as of the One from whom the Holy Spirit has whatever He has, just as from the Father: “He shall glorify me, because He shall receive of mine” (John 16:14).

He says, into your hearts, because there are two kinds of generation. The first is carnal, which comes about through physical seed sent to the place of generation. This seed, as small as it is, contains in essence the whole person. The second is spiritual, which comes about by a spiritual seed transmitted to the place of spiritual generation—that is, the human mind or heart—because people are born as sons of God through a renewal of the mind. Furthermore, this spiritual seed is the grace of the Holy Spirit: “Whosoever is born of God sinneth not: but the generation of God preserveth him and the wicked one toucheth him not” (1 John 5:18). This seed contains, in essence, the entire perfection of beatitude; for this reason, it is called the pledge and guarantee of beatitude (Ephesians 1:14). As it is written, “I will put a new spirit within you” (Ezekiel 36:26).

This crying—that is, the Spirit making us cry out, “Abba, Father”—is not a matter of vocal volume but of a great fervor of love. For we cry, “Abba, Father,” when our affections are kindled by the warmth of the Holy Spirit to desire God: “You have not received the spirit of bondage again in fear; but you have received the spirit of adoption of sons, whereby we cry, Abba (Father)” (Romans 8:15). “Abba” in Hebrew and “Pater” in Greek both mean “father.” The author mentions both to show that the grace of the Holy Spirit is common to both peoples.

Then, with the words, Therefore, now he is not a servant, but a son, the Apostle mentions the fruit of this gift. The first fruit is the removal of all evil, as we are freed from bondage through adoption by the Holy Spirit. In this respect, he says: Therefore—that is, because the Spirit cries “Father” in us—now, in this time of grace, each one of us who believes in Christ is no longer a servant who serves in fear. As Scripture says, “I will not now call you servants but friends” (John 15:15), and, “You have not received the spirit of bondage again in fear: but you have received the spirit of adoption of sons” (Romans 8:15). Instead, we are sons: “For the Spirit himself giveth testimony to our spirit that we are the sons of God” (Romans 8:16).

Although we are still in the condition of servants (for it is said in Luke 17:10, “When you shall have done all these things that are commanded you, say: We are unprofitable servants”), we are not servants who serve unwillingly out of fear, for such a servant deserves torture and chains. Rather, we are good and faithful servants who serve out of love. For this reason, we obtain freedom through the Son: “If, therefore, the son shall make you free, you shall be free indeed” (John 8:36).

Second, he mentions the fruit as it pertains to attaining every good. In this regard he says: And, if a son, an heir also through God. As it is written, “And if sons, heirs also: heirs indeed of God and joint heirs with Christ” (Romans 8:17). Now this inheritance is the fullness of all good, for it is nothing other than God Himself, according to the Psalm: “The Lord is the portion of my inheritance” (Psalms 15:5). He said to Abraham: “I am thy reward exceeding great” (Genesis 15:1). He says, through God, because just as the Jews obtained the inheritance through God's promise and justice, so the Gentiles too received it through God—that is, through the mercy of God: “But the Gentiles are to glorify God for his mercy” (Romans 15:9). Or, it is through God because it is through the working of God: “Thou hast wrought all our works for us, O Lord” (Isaiah 26:12).

Having revealed the preeminence of the gift of grace and explained it with a human example, the Apostle here rebukes the Galatians, who scorned this grace, for being ungrateful for such a great gift.

First, he rebukes them for ingratitude.

Second, he excuses himself, explaining that he does not do this out of hatred or spite (Galatians 4:12b).

Regarding the first point, he does three things:

1. He reminds them of their earlier state.
2. He extols and commends the gift they have received (Galatians 4:9).
3. He amplifies the sin they committed (Galatians 4:9): how can you turn again to the weak and needy elements?

He says, therefore: But then, indeed, not knowing God, you served those who, by nature, are not gods. It is as if he is saying: You are now sons and heirs through God. But at that time, when you were heathens—“You were previously darkness, but now you are light in the Lord” (Ephesians 5:8)—not knowing God, through a lack of faith, you served with the worship of latria those who by nature are not gods, but only by human opinion. “You know that when you were Gentiles, you were carried away to these dumb idols, however you were led” (1 Corinthians 12:2); “They served the creature rather than the Creator” (Romans 1:25).

His statement, who by nature are not gods, serves to refute the Arians who said that Christ, the Son of God, is not God by nature. For if this were true, it would not be right to render Him latria, and whoever did so would be an idolater.

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

Then when he says, But now, after you have known God, or rather are known by God, he reminds them of the gift they received. It is as if to say: If you had been ignorant and had sinned, it could have been tolerated, for all other things being equal, sin in a Christian is more serious than in a pagan. But now, since you have known God—that is, were brought to a knowledge of God—you sin more gravely than before by serving and placing your hope in things you should not. “All shall know me, from the least of them to the greatest” (Jeremiah 31:34).

But the statement, after you are known by God, seems to present a difficulty, for God has known all things from eternity: “All things were known to the Lord God before they were created” . I answer that this is said in a causal sense, so that the meaning is: you are known by God, that is, God has caused you to know Him. In this way, God is said to “know” in that He is the cause of our knowledge. Therefore, because he had previously said, after you have known God, which was a true statement, he immediately corrects and explains it with a figure of speech, suggesting that we cannot know God by ourselves, but only through Him: “No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him” (John 1:18).

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

1. He amplifies their sin.
2. He shows their imminent danger (Galatians 4:11).
3. He draws them back to a state of safety (Galatians 4:12a).

Regarding the first point, he does two things:

1. He mentions the sin committed.
2. He proves it (Galatians 4:10).

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

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

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

Although this interpretation could be defended, it does not align with the Apostle’s intention. In the entire section preceding this passage, as well as in all that follows, the Apostle is rebuking the Galatians for abandoning the faith and turning to the observances of the Law. Therefore, it is more consistent with his intention to interpret this passage as referring to their return to legal observances. Thus, he says: After you have known God through faith, how can you turn from the faith to the elements, that is, to the literal observance of the Law? It is called an “element” because the Law was the first institution of divine worship. To elements, I say, that are weak, because they do not bring anyone to perfection by justifying them—“For the law brought nothing to perfection” (Hebrews 7:19)—and needy, because they do not confer virtue and grace or offer any help by themselves.

But what does he mean by are you turned? Saying this, as well as saying again, seems inappropriate, because they were not Jews and had not formerly observed the Law. I answer that Jewish worship is midway between Christian and Gentile worship. The Gentiles worshiped the elements as though they were living things; the Jews, on the other hand, did not serve the elements but served God under the elements, in that they rendered worship to God through the observance of physical elements. “We were serving under the elements of the world” (Galatians 4:3). Christians, however, serve God under Christ, that is, in the faith of Christ. Now, when a person reaches a destination after passing through a midpoint, if he then decides to return to that midpoint, it is like returning to the very beginning. Therefore, because they had already reached the destination (faith in Christ) and then returned to the midpoint (Jewish worship), the Apostle says that they have turned to the elements and are serving them again due to the resemblance between the midpoint and the beginning.

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

Then, when he says, Be ye as I, because I also am as you, he guides them back to a state of salvation. It is as if he is saying: I am afraid for you, that I may have labored in vain among you. But so that this does not happen, Be ye as I. In a Gloss, this is understood in three ways:

1. First, it means: Be as I am, that is, abandon the Law as I have abandoned it.
2. Second, it means: Be as I am, that is, correct the old error, as I have corrected mine. And this you can do, because I am as you are, and yet I have been corrected of my error.
3. Third, it means: Be as I am, that is, live without the Law, because I, who had the Law and was born in the Law, am now as you formerly were, namely, without the Law.

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

1. He shows that he has no true cause of hatred toward them.
2. He shows that he has no supposed cause (verse 16).
3. He tells them precisely why he rebuked them (verse 19).

Regarding the first point, he does two things:

1. He shows that he has no reason for hating them.
2. On the contrary, he shows that he has a reason for loving them (verse 13).

Concerning the first point, it should be noted that it is customary for a good pastor, when correcting his people, to mix gentleness with severity so that they are not discouraged by excessive harshness. For it is written in Luke 10 that the Samaritan, in caring for the wounded man, poured in oil and wine. On the other hand, it is written of evil pastors in Ezekiel 34:4: “You ruled over them with vigor.”

Therefore, as a good leader, the Apostle shows that he does not rebuke them in a spirit of hatred, for his words are gentle in three respects:

1. In the charitable name he uses, for he says, Brethren, and as the Psalm says, “Behold how good and how pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in unity” (Psalms 132:1).
2. In his pleading language, when he says, I implore you, for “The poor will speak with supplications” (Proverbs 18:28).
3. In freeing them from blame, for he says, You have not injured me at all, and I am not the type of person who hates those who do not offend me.

Second, he shows that he has a reason to love them when he says, you know how through weakness of the flesh I preached the gospel to you at the first. Here he touches on three things that usually cause people to love one another. The first is the mutual help of fellowship, which is also a cause for love to be strengthened among people, according to Luke 22:28: “But you are those who have continued with me in my trials. And I bestow upon you a kingdom, just as my Father bestowed one upon me.”

Regarding this, he says, And you know how through weakness of the flesh I preached the gospel to you at the first. In this, he does two things:

1. He recalls the tribulation he suffered among them.
2. He shows how they stood by him (verse 13).

Therefore, regarding the first point, he says: I say that You have not injured me at all; rather, you came to my aid. For you know, that is, you are able to recall, that I preached the gospel to you previously through weakness of the flesh. This means it was with weakness and affliction in my flesh, or with the many tribulations I suffered from the Jews who are of my own flesh and who persecuted me. As Paul says elsewhere, “I was with you in weakness, in fear, and in much trembling” (1 Corinthians 2:3), and “My grace is sufficient for you, for My strength is made perfect in weakness” (2 Corinthians 12:9).

And although this weakness might have been a reason to scorn me and a cause of temptation for you—according to Zechariah 13:7, “Strike the Shepherd, and the sheep will be scattered”—nevertheless, your trial which was in my flesh you did not despise or reject. For it is written, “Do not despise a man for his appearance” , and as the Lord says in Luke 10:16, “He who despises you despises Me.” Neither did you reject me or my teaching, but you were willing to share my tribulations. As Isaiah says, “Woe to you who plunder, will you not be plundered?” (Isaiah 33:1).

The second thing that strengthens love among people is mutual love and affection for one another, according to Proverbs 8:17: “I love those who love me.” Regarding this, he says, but you received me as an angel of God. This means you received me with the honor given to a messenger announcing God’s words, as it is written: “When you received the word of God which you heard from us, you welcomed it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God” (1 Thessalonians 2:13). For this reason, preachers are called angels: “For the lips of a priest should keep knowledge, and people should seek the law from his mouth; for he is the messenger of the LORD of hosts” (Malachi 2:7).

And not only did you receive me as an angel, but even as Christ Jesus—that is, as though Christ Himself had come. Indeed, Christ had come to them in Paul and spoke in him, according to 2 Corinthians 13:3: “Do you seek a proof of Christ speaking in me?” And as Christ said, “He who receives you receives Me” (Matthew 10:40).

But Paul then rebukes them for their change of heart, asking, Where is then the blessedness you spoke of? It is as if he is saying: “Did people not consider you blessed for honoring me and accepting my preaching?” As Job asks, “Where is your fear, your confidence, your hope, and the integrity of your ways?” (Job 4:6).

The third thing that strengthens love is doing good for one another. Regarding this, Paul says, For I bear you witness that, if possible, you would have plucked out your own eyes and given them to me. The phrase “if possible” means if it had been just to do so (for that which is just is what can be done) or if it had been to the advantage of the Church. It is as if to say: You loved me so much that you would have given me not only your material possessions but your very eyes.

Then, when he asks, Have I therefore become your enemy because I tell you the truth?, he addresses the supposed cause of hatred. He considers this from two perspectives:

1. The cause on the part of the Apostle.
2. The cause on the part of the false brethren (verse 17).

He says, therefore: If you have done so much good for me, should you believe that I have become your enemy because I tell you the truth? The word “enemy” here can be interpreted in two ways. In one sense, it can mean that Paul hates them. In this case, the question “have I become your enemy?” means “do I hate you?” What follows, “because I tell you the truth,” could then be taken as an indication of hatred, even though telling the truth at the proper time and place is a sign of love.

Alternatively, the word “enemy” can be taken in a passive sense, meaning that he is hated by them. In that case, “have I become your enemy?” is interpreted as “do you hate me?” This would be “because I tell you the truth,” making truth-telling the cause of their hatred. For people who tell the truth are hated by the wicked, since truth creates hatred: “They hate the one who rebukes in the gate, and they abhor the one who speaks uprightly” (Amos 5:10).

On the other hand, it is said in Proverbs 28:23: “He who rebukes a man will find more favor afterward than he who flatters with the tongue.” I answer that the solution to this can be gathered from what is said in Proverbs 9:8: “Do not correct a scoffer, lest he hate you; rebuke a wise man, and he will love you.”

For if the one who is corrected loves the corrector, it is a sign of virtue; conversely, if he should hate him, it is a sign of malice. Since a person naturally hates what is contrary to what he loves, then if you hate someone who corrects you for doing evil, it is obvious that you love the evil. But if you love the corrector, you indicate that you hate sin.

At first, when people are corrected, they are often attached to their sins—which is why a sinner’s first reaction is to hate the one correcting him. But after the correction, he puts aside his attachment to sin and comes to love the one who corrected him. Therefore, the passage from Proverbs expressly says that afterward he will find favor with him.

Then, when Paul says, They are zealous for you, but not well, he states another supposed cause of their alienation, this time on the part of the false brethren. First, he states their motive, and second, he refutes it (verse 18).

Regarding the first point, it should be noted that, as has been said before, certain false brethren converted from Judaism went throughout the churches of the Gentiles, preaching the observance of the Law. Because Paul opposed them, they slandered him. They did this not so much for the sake of the Gentiles’ salvation as to get rid of Paul. Hence the Apostle says, They are zealous for you, meaning they jealously guard you (whom they love not with a love of friendship but of self-interest) and do not allow you to associate with us.

For jealousy is a zeal that arises from any kind of love and cannot bear to share what is loved. But their love for the Galatians was not good. First, they did not love them for their benefit but for their own gain. This is obvious from the fact that they wanted to keep the Apostle away from them, as he was opposed to their own advantage. Second, this was a source of harm to the Gentiles, for the false brethren sought an advantage from them by which the Gentiles themselves would suffer harm.

For these reasons, he says, They are zealous for you, but not well, because they are not interested in your welfare. This is obvious, because they want to exclude you, that you may be zealous for them—that is, so that you might accept no one but them. As it is written, “Do not envy the oppressor, and choose none of his ways” (Proverbs 3:31), and, “Do not let your heart envy sinners” (Proverbs 23:17).

But Paul rejects this when he says, But it is good to be zealous in a good thing always. It is as if he is saying: You ought not to be zealous for them and their teaching, but you should be zealous for a good teacher—that is, for me and those like me. As Peter writes, “And who is he who will harm you if you become followers of what is good?” (1 Peter 3:13). But because there can be evil even in a good teacher, Paul adds that one should be zealous for the good teacher, yet only in a good thing—that is, in that which is good. As he says elsewhere, “Pursue love, and desire spiritual gifts” (1 Corinthians 14:1).

Now, although the Apostle speaks of himself (according to a gloss) when he says to be zealous for the good, he adds in a good thing because, as he says elsewhere, “For I know of nothing against myself, yet I am not justified by this” (1 Corinthians 4:4). And because some are zealous for a good teacher only in his presence, he adds, always, and not only when I am present with you. Zeal for what is good, if it continues even when the teacher is absent, is an indication that it comes from a love and fear of God, who sees all. As it is written, “Bondservants, obey in all things your masters according to the flesh, not with eyeservice, as men-pleasers, but in sincerity of heart, fearing God” (Colossians 3:22).