chapter 4
chapter 4
SLAVES AND SONS
4:1–7
1 But I say that so long as the heir is a child, he differeth nothing from a bondservant though he is lord of all;
2 but is under guardians and stewards until the day appointed of the father.
3 So we also, when we were children, were held in bondage under the rudiments of the world:
4 but when the fulness of the time came, God sent forth his son, born of a woman, born under the law,
5 that he might redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons.
6 And because ye are sons, God sent forth the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, Abba, Father.
7 So that thou art no longer a bondservant, but a son; and if a son, then an heir through God.
Once again the apostle, by making use of a figure of speech, sets forth the great change that has taken place with the coming of Christ over against being subject to the law. In these verses, too, the great theme of the letter continues.
1–2 The point of connection with the preceding context is the word heir. Paul had called those who are in Christ heirs in 3:29. This concept gives him the opportunity once more to make the distinction between the before and the after. Consequently, the present freedom of believers is not in conflict with the former service. That can happen for an heir. For everything depends upon whether he has already come into his rights. The question at issue in this connection, in which the figure of the pedagogue is still shining through, is whether or not he has arrived at his majority. So long as he is a minor, he differeth nothing from a bondservant, so far at least as his having a voice is concerned. The comparison with a bondservant is made here because of the former subservience of those who now believe in Christ (verses 3 and 5, and 3:23 ff.). Although destined for freedom in Christ, they were before His coming made entirely subject to the law. Still such a minor heir is lord of all, that is, by right. The figure is presumably that of a son whose father has died at an early age. By the guardians and stewards those are meant who supervise the minor, and guard his possessions. But such guardianship and stewardship is in force only until the period stipulated by the father has elapsed. To this thought the apostle will return in verse 4, when he speaks of the fulness of the time.
3 In this verse various features of the figure of speech are carried over. Here, too, the apostle speaks of Jews and Gentiles in a comprehensive sense (cf. the Exposition of 3:13), this time not as both being subject to the law but to the rudiments (or elements) of the world. The meaning of this much-discussed passage is not clear. As we see it, the passage has reference to definite principles or axioms (cf. Heb. 5:12), according to which men lived before Christ, without finding redemption in them. The world has not the meaning of the original creation (as those suppose who think of the “elements” as pertinent to the “law of Paradise”), but of the world in its lost estate and need of redemption (cf. Col. 2:8). Presumably these principles or axioms comprise what men thought they possessed in the way of potentials for redemption outside of Christ. And since the apostle speaks of being held in bondage under these rudiments, we shall probably have to think of the prescriptions and ordinances to which religious man outside of Christ surrendered himself, and by means of which he tried to achieve redemption. Before the coming of Christ the whole world was slavishly subjected to these rudiments or elements, also those who by means of the works of the law tried to earn their justification before God. For, even though the law itself was of divine origin, the use that men made of it was wrong. Those who lived under the law in this unwarranted way lived in the same condition of bondage as that under which the Gentiles, for all their exertion, also pined.
4–5 The fourth verse speaks of the end of the period of bondage designated in the foregoing. This period of time is now spoken of as the fulness of the time, that is to say, the moment in which the previously determined time-limit (cf. verse 2) was reached. Beneath this thought lies the assumption that the time runs out according to a fixed plan, that time, in short, is governed. We can ask ourselves to what extent we are also to think in this connection of a process of development taking place in time, in preparation for what would happen in the fulness of time. Now it is true that God controls time, and determines the moment of the pleroma. And this carries with it the implication that the moment of the pleroma was the most suitable for what was now about to happen. But no emphasis is put upon this aspect of the matter. Nor can we prove on convincing grounds why this time was the most suitable for the coming of Christ. In any event, these words lend no support for the view that the development of time should be able to explain the advent of the Son. This advent does not have its motif in what works and ferments in time. It has its motif in what God disposes and does—though this does not at all exclude the possibility of a preparation in time. When this moment, determined by the counsel of God had come, God sent His Son. The word translated sent forth comprises two thoughts: the going forth of the Son from a place at which He was before; and His being invested with divine authority. By this the profound and glorious significance of Christ’s coming in the world is indicated. He was the Son of the Father, who stood by His Father’s side already before the sending (cf. 1 Cor. 8:6, 2 Cor. 8:9, Phil. 2:6, and Col. 1:15). The Sonship designates not merely an official but also an ontological relationship (cf. Phil. 2:6). The words, born of a woman, do not refer to the beginning of his existence as Son, but as the child of a woman. The expression serves to suggest the weak, the human, the condescending. The woman was not only the medium of His coming into the flesh, but from her He took all that belongs to the human. She was in the full sense His mother. That Paul in these words is also reflecting on the virgin birth is, as we see it, highly doubtful. For, as is evident from the absence of the article in the Greek, Paul is not putting the emphasis on His being born of Mary. Besides, the expression elsewhere is used to designate the human and nothing besides (cf. Job 14:1 and Matt. 11:11).
The words, born under the law, in this context, where the law and its significance is the subject, are of special importance. By His birth from a woman, the Son also took the yoke of the law upon Himself. He took it upon Himself not only at the time of the circumcision or of His education: His birth, too, immediately placed Him under the law. The importance Paul attaches to this fact becomes evident from the following words: that he might redeem … The thought is formulated more generally here than in 3:13, where the subject was the redemption from the curse of the law. And, although this is certainly also intended here, still in this context the being-under-the-law is the constant bone of contention. It is this which makes man a minor without rights, a slave. Undoubtedly this is so because the law brings sinful man no redemption but only curse. The curse expresses itself also in ethical impotence or inability (see Exposition above). Christ however subjected Himself to the law in order to redeem those enslaved by it: He removed the curse for them and made them ethically free. Paul has not only the Jews in mind, but also the Gentiles. They too, though in a different way from the Jews, are subject to the law.
The second that gives a more specific delineation of what constitutes the redemption: the receiving of the adoption of sons. By this, according to verses 1 and 3, is meant sons who reached majority. Instead of the slavish yoke of the law, which set itself up between God and man, and cut off man’s approach to God, Christ has wrought and has given the freedom contained in Sonship (cf. verse 6).
6 Now the apostle returns to the thought he had recalled earlier (3:2 ff.), namely, that the Galatians have received the Holy Spirit. This is fruit and evidence of the truth that God has received them as sons. The Holy Spirit is here named the Spirit of His Son. This form is used, presumably, because the subject at the moment is the sonship of believers (cf., however, 2 Cor. 3:17). The operation of the Spirit is characterized by this that He brings the believers to the Father, and grants them the assurance of kinship, just as the Son Himself lives in unbroken communion with the Father. Hence at one time the sonship of the believers may be called the ground for the receiving of the Spirit; at another, the gift of the Spirit may be designated as the means through which the believers become conscious of their kinship (cf. Rom. 8:15). In this there is no contradiction but the evidence of the reciprocity of the gift of the Spirit and sonship. Further, the reference to the sending of the Spirit here is not merely a reference to Pentecost, but to the share that every believer has in the operation of the Spirit, thanks to divine initiative. Some think that Paul has particularly the institution of baptism in mind. We cannot say, however, that Paul identifies the moment of receiving the Spirit with the time of baptism.
Concerning the Spirit, we read further that God has sent Him into our hearts. In distinction from the law, which is solely an external authority and cannot change the heart, the Spirit, as the gift of the New Testament, penetrates the hearts in order to quicken and renew them (cf. 3:21 and 2 Cor. 3:6, 17). This is the Spirit who is crying Abba, Father. This cry points to the passionate, violent operation of the Spirit. At this point, the cry presumably refers to the joy of the redemption. The Spirit Himself is the subject of this crying. It is He who together with the believers, and in the believers, cries out to God (compare Rom. 8:26–27), and teaches them to cry out. So far as the double Abba, Father goes, we are not to think of an ecstatic chant in which unarticulated and unintelligible speech is used. A more plausible view is to regard the use of the Aramaic word as an expression of the deepest and most original experience of faith on the part of the apostle and the primitive Christian church—a word which, in a letter to non-Jews naturally called up the Greek equivalent. Without doubt this Abba also goes back to the exordium of the Christian prayer, the “Our Father.” The Spirit teaches the believers to understand and pray the prayer which Jesus taught His disciples in all its comprehensive, redemptive bearing.
7 From the receiving and the operation of the Spirit, it becomes apparent that the believer is no longer a slave but has become a son. After verse 6 this seems to be arguing in a circle. That only seems so, however. For one thing, verse 7 is the summary not merely of verse 6 but also of all that has gone before. We have in short arrived at one of the great themes of the letter. And further, so far as the connection between verses 6 and 7 is concerned: the Sonship is not the result of the operation of the Spirit, but is rather its basis. In that sense the because of verse 6 designates the cause or ground. At the same time, the operation of the Spirit is evidence of sonship; it is the basis of knowledge of the Sonship, even as the latter is the basis of the existence of the former (cf. on vs. 6).
The conclusion is that the believer as son is also heir. This is a return to the subject of verse 1 (3:29, 18). The argument is still concerned to prove that the inheritance guaranteed to Abraham is also intended for the believers from the Gentiles, though solely through God’s gracious disposal and the divine purpose unto salvation.
WHY FALL BACK NOW?
4:8–11
8 Howbeit at that time, not knowing God, ye were in bondage to them that by nature are no gods:
9 but now that ye have come to know God, or rather to be known by God, how turn ye back again to the weak and beggarly rudiments, whereunto ye desire to be in bondage over again?
10 Ye observe days, and months, and seasons, and years.
11 I am afraid of you, lest by any means I have bestowed labor upon you in vain.
Now the apostle returns to that point of departure which constitutes the occasion of the whole letter, and on the basis of which he, in 3:1, called the Galatians back so sharply to their duty: their return to the works of the law. After having, on all sorts of grounds, rejected this course of action (3:1 and 4:7), and after having established the sonship and the freedom of all who believe in Christ, he can now make the application in full force.
8–9 In verse 8 two sets of contrasts are in play. Formerly the Galatians were in a state of bondage. In a sense this could be understood: they did not know God. Now they may rejoice in freedom. If they do not do so—well, that cannot be understood. For they have now come to the knowledge of God.
What the Gentiles in their unconverted condition knew about God (Rom. 1:19–21) was not the true knowledge of God that is possible only through faith in Christ. From this want of true knowledge issued the life of slavish fear, and a worship of them that by nature are no gods. The apostle calls them gods, for so they were generally referred to. But in the same breath he says that in essence, according to their real nature, they are not gods. The reference is to the idols of polytheistic paganism which the Galatians had formerly served.
Now however there is no explanation to be given of their conduct, or any justification of it. They have learned to know God, have come to know God, that is, as He is in Christ. Better still: they have been known by God. The bond uniting them with God was not established by them but by God Himself. He had wanted to know them as His own, interested Himself in their behalf, had chosen them. There lay the real secret of the change. And the inexplicable thing now is that they are again letting themselves be tyrannized, not under duress but by choice; in fact, they seem to be deliberately planning it. Not that this time they want to serve idols: instead they want to subject themselves to all sorts of legalistic stipulations. The common element in what they did formerly and are now doing is that they are turning to “the rudiments” (cf. verse 3). These are now called weak and beggarly because they give no firm ground and comfort. And do they now wish to serve these all over again?
10 Verse 10 tells us in what this service of the rudiments consists, namely, in the observation of all kinds of ceremonial regulations, most specifically the one stipulating holy seasons Inasmuch as Paul’s argument is entirely directed against Judaism, the days presumably refer to sabbath-days, the months to the days of the new moon, the seasons to the Jewish feasts, and the years to the sabbath and jubilee years. Whether the years were still being celebrated by the Jews in Palestine is highly uncertain. The intent of the apostle is to say that they had taken over the whole system. The summing up of them all, the cumulative heaping up, is intended to express what is quantitatively legalistic in their course of conduct. And all this they are now busy painstakingly reintroducing.
11 Paul expresses the fear that the trouble he has gone to for their sakes has been bestowed in vain. For the issue is one of basic principle. It is not the observation of religious usages as such (cf. 1 Cor. 16:2 and Acts 20:7) that is the bone of contention, but the basis of the justification before God. The issue is: Judaism with its autosoteriological, legalistic scheme of redemption or the gospel of free grace. These two are unreconcilable. They must choose between them. Otherwise all of Paul’s trouble and exertion for their sakes will prove futile.
AN URGENT APPEAL
4:12–20
12 I beseech you, brethren, become as I am, for I also am become as ye are. Ye did me no wrong
13 but ye know that because of an infirmity of the flesh I preached the gospel unto you the first time:
14 and that which was a temptation in my flesh ye despised not, nor rejected; but ye received me as an angel of God, even as Christ Jesus.
15 Where then is that gratulation of yourselves? for I bear you witness, that, if possible, ye would have plucked out your eyes and given them to me.
16 So then am I become your enemy, by telling you the truth?
17 They zealously seek you in no good way; nay, they desire to shut you out, that ye may seek them.
18 But it is good to be zealously sought in a good matter at all times, and not only when I am present with you.
19 My little children, of whom I am again in travail until Christ be formed in you—
20 But I could wish to be present with you now, and to change my tone; for I am perplexed about you.
This portion of the letter has a strongly personal quality about it. Paul is not merely contending and arguing. He makes an appeal to the old bond between him and the churches. He wrestles for their love and loyalty.
12 With a strong upsurge of love, the apostle beseeches that they become as he is. We cannot be sure just what is meant by this. Most probably we are to think of the freedom in which Paul stands over against the law. The Galatians—such is his prayer—must disentangle themselves from their bondage, and become such as he is. This is borne in upon them by the words: for I also (am become) as ye (are). Presumably we are to take this as meaning that Paul also tore himself loose from the legalistic position and became as they. He too had wished to be saved in no other way than the Gentiles, who could not appeal before God to a single work of the law. And now that the Galatians have fallen into the hands of the Judaizers, the exact opposite must take place. They must bid farewell to their proud, legalistic pretentions, and become as he.
The words ye did me no wrong strike us rather abruptly and as unprepared for. Paul’s sequence of thoughts is marked by abruptness. All of a sudden he returns to the past, and that, as the following verses indicate, to his former stay among the Galatians. At that time he had been treated so very well at their hands. And in the light of that treatment, their present changed attitude is all the more painful and inexplicable.
13 Paul in this verse probes that past experience more deeply, reminds them of events they share in common. At their first meeting the apostle had not been in a prepossessing condition. He speaks of an infirmity of the flesh as the circumstance under which, or the cause for which, the foundation preaching of the gospel had taken place among them. If we are right in concluding that Paul is addressing himself to the churches in the province of Galatia, we can think of this infirmity as the result of what Paul had suffered from his enemies when he brought the gospel there (cf. Acts 14:19 ff., and 2 Tim. 3:11). If so, the infirmity refers not to a particular disease or ailment, but to an exhausted and weakened condition owing to the molestation that he had undergone. This interpretation suits very well the Greek word involved (see the Introduction, IV).
14 This infirmity is further characterized by Paul as something which was a temptation to you in my flesh—a temptation, that is, to despise him, and to pay no attention to what he had to say. Illness, physical infirmity, and adversity were regarded even by the Jews, as representing the opposition and penalty of the deity, but more so by the Gentiles (cf. Acts 28:4). But instead of turning aside from him, they had received him as an angel from heaven, indeed, as Christ, the Son of God Himself. So great had their respect and confidence been at that time.
15 But now the question must follow: Where then is that gratulation of yourselves? Once they had regarded Paul’s coming as a great privilege, and had considered themselves favored because of it. So much was quite apparent from the way they had treated him. Even now the apostle can say to their credit that they would have sacrificed everything for him, even the apple of their eye (cf. Mt. 5:29 and Ps. 17:8).
16 However, this intimate relationship has now given place to another. Paul can find no other explanation than that they apparently do not want to hear the truth from him anymore. Just what Paul has in mind cannot be definitely made out. It has been held that Paul is referring to a previous letter which had disconcerted the Galatians. Less hypothetical is the view that at his second visit Paul had warned the churches. In any event, he must have plainly given them his judgment, before writing this letter, of the heretical teaching that had invaded their communion (cf. 1:7–9). This they had not taken in a good spirit. Hence Paul asks them now whether they no longer want to hear the truth from him.
17 The clauses of this verse are intricately complex, and in part they are hard to translate. The apostle is now introducing a third party into the argument—beyond doubt, the heretical teachers. He is talking about their motives, not about their teaching. In the first place, he says that they are making a play for the confidence of the Galatians and for a favorite attitude. This happens in no good way, that is, it is not purely motivated, not based on good intentions. The object that they very consciously have in mind is to shut out the Galatians. They want to isolate the churches, cut them off from other influences. Presumably the first of these other influences is that of Paul and his preaching of the gospel. The zeal which they pour into this effort is, however, purely egoistical. They do so that ye may seek them. After a while the roles will be reversed. Once the Galatians have been estranged from Paul, they will be dependent upon the heretical teachers, and then they will have to work under those teachers as their spiritual fathers and overseers. That is their purpose. For the moment they are zealously bidding for the favorable attention of the Galatians, in order after a while to lord it over them.
18 A right understanding of verse 18 is even more difficult, and finds expression also in the uncertainty of the text. The question is as to the object of to be zealously sought, Paul or the Galatians? As we see it, verse 18b is determinative of this. Verse 18a is so generally cast that it could pertain to Paul as well as to the Galatians. But 18b seems to be concerned rather more with the devotion he would like to receive from the Galatians in his absence than with the devotion he offers them in such absence. There is no doubting the latter; it is not in dispute. The sense of the whole passage is this, then, that Paul, thinking of the efforts of the heretical teachers, admits it to be a good and desirable thing to desire the favor and love of the churches. Paul wants these himself also, but only in a good matter. Nor does he want to have it when he is with them, only to be forgotten and rejected by them when he has gone away.
19 In an affecting way, the passionate love surging in the apostle as he struggles for the preservation of the church breaks through. This is evident from the vocative my little children as well as from the expression that he is again in travail for them. In this Paul’s passionate endeavor for the Galatians reaches out for the language of the tenderest mother’s concern. If our view of the meaning of verse 18 be right, the transition from verse 18 to 19 follows easily. The longing to be again fully desired and trusted by the Galatians brings him to this new turn of the argument, in which as the climax of this whole passage all that moves Paul in his concern for the erring churches converges on one point. The expression to be in travail tells of the new pain and exertion which it is costing him to give birth to the Galatians as his spiritual children. The words until Christ be formed in you sustain that basic figure of speech. The spiritual struggle of the apostle is determined by this end, and the struggle will not cease until the end has been reached. But it is a struggle aggravated by strong misgivings as to whether the end can be attained. The pain of not having arrived at this deeply desired purpose is the dominant one. This purpose, further, is not to be interpreted as a mysterious birth of Christ in the believers, but rather, in the manifestation of their lives. It is in their lives that the form of Christ must appear in the sense that the life of the believers must be ruled by Christ, quite as much in their absolute dependence upon His righteousness as in a life according to His commands.
20 In this painful situation Paul feels the need of being able to speak to the churches personally. I could wish gives expression to a wish which for the time being cannot be fulfilled. We do not know why not. Presumably the distance was too great to permit his leaving his present duties. Nonetheless, in this decisive moment, the apostle would like to be present with them. He expects more from personal contact than from written communication. Presumably, it is in this light, too, that we are to understand the phrase: to change my tone. Very probably we are to think of the advantages that the living voice has over the written word. The point is not that he would be less exacting, but that in a personal conference with them he could make the readers feel what it is that moves him in their regard. For I am perplexed about you: the force of that is that Paul no longer knows what he must do about them and think about them in view of their baffling conduct.
HAGAR AND SARAH
4:21–31
21 Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law?
22 For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, one by the handmaid, and one by the freewoman.
23 Howbeit the son by the handmaid is born after the flesh; but the son by the freewoman is born through promise:
24 Which things contain an allegory: for these women are two covenants; one from mount Sinai, bearing children unto bondage, which is Hagar.
25 Now this Hagar is mount Sinai in Arabia and answereth to the Jerusalem that now is: for she is in bondage with her children.
26 But the Jerusalem that is above is free, which is our mother.
27 For it is written,
Rejoice thou barren that bearest not;
Break forth and cry, thou that travailest not:
For more are the children of the desolate than of
her that hath the husband.
28 Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are children of the promise.
29 But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, so also it is now.
30 Howbeit what saith the scripture? Cast out the handmaid and her son: for the son of the handmaid shall not inherit with the son of the freewoman.
31 Wherefore, brethren, we are not children of a handmaid, but of the freewoman.
So far as the tone of the writing goes, the conclusion of Chapter 4 differs strikingly from what has gone before. The affecting and strongly personal quality of verses 12 to 20 gives way to a more objective argument. In it, Paul once more, and now for the last time, sheds light on the great theme: the law and the gospel. Some think that this scriptural evidence occurred to Paul only after he had finished the argument of Chapter 3, that it probably presupposes further a reading in the Septuagint, and that we are to think of a kind of pause in the dictation as intervening between verses 20 and 21. Such guesses are not necessary. We may suppose just as well that Paul has saved this part of his argument for purposes of climax and capstone. The profound and striking allegory in any event once more puts the whole issue at stake between him and his opponents in the light of the sacred history. And it constitutes an excellent transition to what still needs to be said in the sequel.
21 Tell me: the tone is still lively and penetrating, though less tender, and more commanding now. It sounds a call to responsibility. Ye that desire to be under the law: their conduct suggests that such is their desire (cf. the Exposition of verse 10). The reference is to being under the law in a demanding, prescriptive sense. There is a touch of irony here. For—such is the argument—if you wish that so much, why do you not listen more attentively to what the law says? For the Torah contains much besides stipulated commands. And whoever reads the whole of the Torah will discover that its bearing is quite different from the one the Galatians are apparently at present inclined to believe.
22 Paul now begins to argue out of the Torah in the broad sense, that is, out of the whole of the five books of Moses, to which the history of the patriarchs also belongs. From it he again takes the history of Abraham as an example (cf. the Exposition of 3:6), this time, however, in terms of what is written in Gen. 16 and 21. Although Abraham had more sons (Gen. 25:1 and 2), it is clear that the two here designated are Ishmael and Isaac. In the life of these two, most particularly in their birth, the apostle sees the same opposition manifesting itself as the one which obtains between those who live out of the law and those who live out of faith. After all—such is the trend of the argument—one can be a child of Abraham in more than one sense. Hence, there is basis for this allegorization in history. The household of Abraham comprised in nucleus the people of God. And its history is characteristic of, and fundamental for, the whole history of revelation.
23 Although both children were sons of Abraham, there was a big difference between them, evident in two ways. The one was a child of a bondwoman, and was born after the flesh; the other was the child of the freewoman, and was born through the promise. The two contrasts are interdependent. But the manner of the begetting is the determinative thing. Ishmael was begotten according to the order, or law, of the flesh, that is, according to the natural procreative process. When Hagar conceived a child by Abraham, he had not yet become an old man (cf. Gen. 16:2–4, 17:17, 18:11–12). Whether the expression after the flesh has ethical significance in the sense of living in carnal ways without acknowledgement of God’s will and promise, is something which, as we see it, cannot be ascertained. The important thing is the natural character of Ishmael’s birth. It stands in contrast to Isaac’s birth through the promise. The preposition through indicates that the promise in this instance called life into being. In verse 29 through the promise becomes after the Spirit. Thus the effectual power of the promise becomes characterized as the power of the Spirit. In this, in the power of the Holy Spirit, which makes alive and regenerates, the real secret of the covenant of the promise consists, and in that it has its reason and its fulfillment. The promise is not simply an offer made on stipulated conditions. To this contrast between what man supposes he can do in his own strength and what God alone can give, Paul’s conflict with the Judaizers also goes back. It is the contrast which from the very beginning has, on the one hand, accompanied and, on the other, opposed the fulfillment of the promise from the human point of view.
By his born through the promise, Paul obviously assumes that God qualified Abraham and Sarah for the sexual act so that they could bring forth a child (cf. Heb. 11:11). We are not to think of a fatherless birth, as some Jewish theologians construe the birth of Isaac. Nor are we to think of the speculations of other Jewish teachers according to which Abraham and Sarah were sexless, and only later received the organs of procreation.
24 The allegory spoken of in this verse is not merely the product of exegesis but is plainly indicated in the history of Abraham’s sons. The two women named in verse 23, Hagar and Sarah, are (that is to say, represent) two covenants. The reference is to the covenant with Abraham, characterized by the promise, and the covenant of Sinai, which gets its nature from the law (see the Exposition of 3:18). At bottom there were not two covenants, but two dispensations of one and the same covenant of grace (cf. Ex. 20:2). Still these two can be contrasted to each other here. For, irrespective of the fact that the covenant made at Sinai was a privilege for Israel, inasmuch as there the Lord accepted Israel as His people and they were thus established (Ex. 19:6), still the nature of this dispensation was determined by the law. And this law, however much it was the evidence of God’s gracious concern for Israel, could itself bring no redemption: for sinful man, indeed, it was a yoke which he could not bear. The idea of bondage, which played so great a role in earlier verses (cf. 3:23 and 4:7), comes back in full force now, this time in connection with Hagar, the bondwoman. Just as she could bear Abraham only a slave-child, because in the birth of her son it was not the power of the divine promise that operated, but that of natural procreation, so the law, for as long as it was oriented to human strength—and so it was among the Jews—could only foster the spirit of subservience, the mentality of a slave (cf. Rom. 8:15). Hence it can be said of the covenant that is from mount Sinai, characterized as it is by the mount of lawgiving, that it is Hagar. What it brought forth was in origin and result the same that Hagar brought forth. She represented the same life-principle and life-type. Concerning the other woman, Sarah, and her significance, only verse 28 speaks.
25 The meaning of this verse in the context is far from clear. The difficulty has a relationship to the uncertainty of the text. As it seems to us the attempt is a mistaken one which finds in the name Hagar (if this name is, indeed, original in this context) the explanation for the similarity posited in verse 24 between Hagar and Sinai. Rather, this verse is intended to make clear to Gentile readers the connection between Hagar and the present-day Jerusalem. The first part of verse 25 continues to draw the line from Sinai to Jerusalem, and has a sort of concessive force. It is true that this Hagar represents mount Sinai in Arabia, but she is, however, to be identified with the Jerusalem so strongly propagated by the heretical teachers. The purpose of this verse, consequently, is to continue the old contrast of verse 24 and to enhance it. In present day Jerusalem that is taking place which once proceeded from Sinai: the bondage of the law. For she is in bondage with her children. The figure of the mother is sustained. Present day Jerusalem also propagates bondage, for it knows no other redemption than the law. The word children in this predication refers to fleshly Israel, seen as a single unit, and seeking its hope in the works of the law. These children are set in contrast, of course, to the free seed pre-figured in Sarah’s child, concerning whom more is now to be said.
26 Over against the Jerusalem that now is the apostle sets the Jerusalem that is above. The temporal definition has its opposite in the spatial one. One might have expected that instead of above we would have had another temporal designation, say, that will be. But this other Jerusalem already is, though in another way than the Jerusalem of the bondage. It is above, that is, in heaven, and not like the earthly one to be empirically approached. By this other Jerusalem Paul means not merely the assembly of those who have left the earthly struggle to enter heaven: he means also the central point from which believers are gathered, nourished, and governed, and the manner in which all this takes place. That is above, for Christ is there, and there is the citizenship of believers (Phil. 3:20). It is their spiritual gathering place (Heb. 12:22). This is the free Jerusalem. Those who belong to its community are not born for bondage, but for freedom, and are educated in it. Not the law, nor the thing they themselves must do, but grace, that which they have received in Christ, determines their life. Hence Paul can refer to this Jerusalem as to a mother, for those who belong to it owe their spiritual existence to it. For the gospel of Christ is a redeeming, emancipating, and quickening word of power.
27 In support of the foregoing, Paul cites Isaiah 54:1. This quotation is taken from the prophecy of Zion’s restoration and magnitude after the captivity. In this prophecy the promise is made that she that is barren and forsaken, like a woman separated from her husband and without children, will have more children than in the time when she, before the captivity, had not yet been forsaken by the Lord. This the apostle applies to the relation between the present Jerusalem and the heavenly one. The last is a mother by the grace of God, even as Zion was after the captivity. Her progeny does not depend upon natural development or exertion, but upon the divine miraculous power which grants life where it seemed impossible, and that in such abundance that it far surpasses the possibilities offered by the flesh. Paul sees the fulfillment of this promise in the gathering of the believers in Christ. It is a gathering made not from among the Jews only, but from among the Gentiles also. The apostle comprises in one glance the divine word of power directed to the barren Sarah, the promise to an Israel sunken away in captivity, and the preaching of the gospel both to the Jews and to the Gentiles. The common element in them all is the power of the divine word, by which they receive life, freedom, and eternal redemption. This is the seed of Abraham, the people of God, the true Jerusalem. This Christocentric view of history gives new insight into the fulfillment of prophecy. Still, all this is not merely an interpretation and a point of view over against Scripture. It is a laying bare of the true sense of the Scripture: for it is written, which rests on the unity of the divine work of redemption in history.
Isaiah 54:1 characterizes Zion as a barren woman. In the last two lines the figure of speech is shifted a little. The cause of the childlessness is sought for in the husband’s desertion. Not all of the implications of this permit themselves to be particularly applied to the reality of the situation. The main thing is the blessing of children which comes from the miraculous power of God. The whole history of the people of God, from Abraham on, is full of that miracle. The Church is the fruit of God’s regenerating grace, not of human effort. And this truth is to be developed further in the letter.
28 Now Paul makes the application to his readers. His tone is mild again, and persuasive. They who have fallen into the clutches of Judaism must understand that they are children of Abraham in the manner of Isaac. That had been the subject all along: sonship in Abraham. But the manner in which one is born to Abraham as his child, and the way in which one belongs to him, determines everything. As Isaac was points not only to the similarity but also to the nature of the genetic bond. So much can be deduced from the children of promise, that is, children who owe their existence to the promise, they who were called into being by the life-giving, miraculous word of God. In Isaac this became apparent from the circumstance of birth; in believers it becomes apparent in the quickening, the regenerating, of the Spirit (cf. verse 29). But in both instances, God’s power and sovereign grace is the cause of the birth. Hence the zeal to bring the Galatians under the law again is a profanation of the divine work, also as that work operated in history. Hence, too, the allegory is not arbitrary. The household of Abraham is the prototype of the church of God. The promise which accrued to him is the secret of the maintenance of the church. Ishmael’s and Isaac’s birth represent the two attitudes towards the promise: that of human self-vindication and that of faith.
29 The allegory is developed still further. The analogy appears not only in the way in which the two kinds of seed are born, but also in the way the one kind treats the other. In the days of Abraham, too, the fleshly seed persecuted the spiritual. The reference is to the enmity between Ishmael and Isaac (cf. Gen. 21:9). In this context, the word persecuted means—as is evident from the comment so also it is now—not so much a threat to life as one to freedom and security. It was so that Ishmael had persecuted Isaac. He did not leave Isaac in peace, grudged him his priorities, his privileges. And it is just this that the apostle finds in the action of the Judaizers against the believers. They are not content to be different themselves, but cannot bear the others. In this that old principle manifests itself which throughout the ages has operated also among the people of God. That which is fleshly lays snares for that which is spiritual.
Very important again is the characterization of the dual conflict by means of the words born after the flesh and (born) after the Spirit. What in verse 23 had been called born through promise and in verse 28 children of promise is here designated as born after the Spirit. For it is the Holy Spirit who makes the promise effectual. And just as this Spirit quickened life in Sarah’s aged womb, so now the children of the promise are they whom the Spirit has made alive (cf. 3:21), regenerated, and these now manifest themselves as such.
30 Scripture teaches also however that the threats and enmity of the fleshly seed must be resisted. The apostle appeals in this connection to Sarah’s words of Gen. 21:10, which, according to Gen. 21:12 are approved by the Lord, and therefore are valid as an authoritative Scriptural statement. Sarah sees in Ishmael’s presence a constant threat to her son Isaac. She requests that Hagar and Ishmael be sent away, and that he be excluded from the inheritance.
This passage of Scripture should serve to warn the Galatians not to let themselves succumb to the clutches of the Judaizers. Rather, they must avoid this contact with a slave-principle, and defend themselves against it. Else the inheritance may escape them.
31 The wherefore is not so much designed to draw a conclusion from the immediately preceding as to offer a general summary of attitude after all that has been said in verses 21 to 31. Again there is the shift to the first person: it includes Paul, the Galatians, and everyone who accepted the gospel. On this basis in the sequel the apostle will point out the obligations that issue from such acceptance.
In this separation of the two kinds of seed, a separation which cannot be obliterated, both the divine disposition and human responsibility manifest themselves. God’s covenant with Abraham, the seed of Abraham, the obtaining of the inheritance—these are realized most deeply in the quickening power of the promise, that is, by the Holy Spirit. The gulf between the one seed and the other, between the children of the bondwoman and the children of the free, depends upon the good pleasure of the divinely initiated covenant and upon His promise. It does not depend on human accomplishment.
The promises determine the conduct of those who receive them. That is how it is, and not the other way around, as though the promise were determined by the conduct of those who receive it. But this does not absolve man of his human responsibility. Wanting to inherit the promise in some other way than in that of faith disparages the divine work and is therefore culpable. Hence, in the claim, we are children of the freewoman, there is no ground for glorying at all. But there is in it an incentive to watchfulness not to let the received grace slip away.
νήπιος: in this context, under age.
ἐπίτροπος: a more general term; someone to whom the whole care of the under-aged boy is entrusted: guardian.
οἰκονόμος: the one who has the financial responsibility, often a slave (cf. Luke 12:42, 16:1, and Rom. 16:23).
The words translated heir, guardians, stewards, and child in our version have sometimes been construed as technical terms in a particular litigation, and an effort has been made to identify them more specifically as such. It seems more probable, however, that the apostle is accommodating himself at this point to a generally current usage, and is not thinking of a special (Jewish, Hellenistic, Roman, or even Celtic) legal procedure. In any event, in Roman law the age of majority and of entering upon his privileges as of an heir was not left to the father to determine.
στοιχεῖον (derived from στοῖχος: layer, or row): that which has its position in a series or row, such as letters of the alphabet, or figures in a column. Hence: the elementary; plural: the elements, or principia. Most of the newer commentators take this consequently as referring to the elements of the heavens, the stars, which, according to the pagan-mythological conception were inhabited by demons or spirits. The star-forces or powers are then interpreted as the tyrants of mankind in the period of its minority before the coming of Christ. Paul is then representing Jewry, in its bondage to the law, as co-subject to these spiritual forces. Others put a good deal of emphasis on the fact that according to Jewish thought the angels were the mediators of the law. These are, accordingly, being represented—the argument is—as στοιχεῖα τοῦ κόσμου who stood behind the law and behind all extra-Christian worship of God. Such arguments, however, rest on very uncertain ground. For one thing, the expression which Paul uses here can be found nowhere else. One cannot speak of an established linguistic practice. Next, it is very doubtful that the spirits associated with the στοιχεῖα (in the sense of heavenly bodies) are themselves also called στοιχεῖα. But there are serious objections, too, to the material argument. How can Paul conceivably characterize, not only the life of the Gentiles, but also his own former life as a Jew under the law, as a life lived under the aegis of star-spirits? For, whenever in paganism these spirits are spoken of, the subject in question is not the maintenance of the moral law. True, Paul speaks of a connection between the angels and the law (cf. 3:19). But, according to the Jewish representation of this thing, the angels are not powers who tyrannize men, but rather as those who add even greater lustre to the law. That Paul had a very different personal conception of this matter cannot be proved. Hence, it seems to us quite unacceptable to suppose that Paul should in this context (4:9) speak of the angels as of the weak and beggarly rudiments. True, in the connection in which that expression occurs in Col. 2 there is reference also to enemy “principalities and powers,” (verse 15) and of a “worshipping of the angels” which Paul must counteract. But we cannot deduce from this that the στοιχεῖα in verses 8 and 20 also refers to angels. Rather, it would seem that the expression of Col. 2:8 is being used synonymously with “the tradition of men,” an objective and abstract, rather than a personal and concrete matter (See also, my contribution to the volume Arcana Revelata, pp. 92–94, and the literature named there).
ἠμέθα δεδουλωμένοι: the periphrastic and the perfect participle suggest a continuing condition: we had become slaves in the most complete sense of the word.
According to some, the πλήρωμα is used here in the active sense: “that, which fills” (so Burton). Generally, however, it has a passive sense: that which has been completed, the fulfilled. This passive meaning suits the context well. The picture is that of a vessel that is being poured full and at a given moment is brimful. The pleroma is not merely that last bit that fills the vessel but the whole brimful content of the container.
χρόνος points to a longer duration of time (cf. Rev. 10:6); καιρός points to a definitely limited moment of time.
ἐξαποστέλλω.
Hence ἐκ, not διά.
For relevant rabbinical literature, see Strack-Billerbeck, op, cit., III, p. 570.
ἡμῶν, not ὑμῶν, despite the harmonizing textual variants. This change of person means nothing more than that Paul is constantly reintroducing himself into the import of the argument.
ὥστε
This time, it is the singular εἶ, very personal and individuating. It applies to each separately.
διὰ Θεοῦ: this is an unexpected reading, and is therefore to be maintained over against other textual evidences. The διά points to God as Author; usually it refers to Christ as Mediator (cf. 1 Cor. 8:6). Hence the many corrections.
οὐκ εἰδότες is not merely temporal, but causal also.
The ignorance discussed here does not merely designate a continuing condition, but consists also in a total estrangement from God—a separation, that is, involving the whole of human existence, and not the intellect only.
This time γνόντες, not εἰδότες, is used. It points out the beginning of the great change. Moreover, the γνόντες, like the εἰδότες, speaks of a very particular relationship, such as that which God effects (see the Exposition of the passage). This knowledge has not the quality of a mystical union in the sense of the Hellenistic cultus-mysticism, but signifies the acceptance of God’s grace on the basis of what happened at Christ’s coming.
Compare Rom. 8:29, Amos 3:2, and Hos. 13:5.
Those who interpret στοιχεῖα as star-spirits (see the Exposition of verse 3) see a connection between the stars and the time-divisions. The planets are presumed to regulate the calendar. As we see it, this relationship is quite unfounded. There is no evidence anywhere to show that Paul traces the origin and character of the Jewish ceremonial law to the dominion of the planetary spirits.
Some have said that it is not so much Judaism as syncretism that Paul is attacking. The assumption is that the Galatians, in their appeal to the Jewish ceremonial law, which they interpreted syncretistically, were participating in the Hellenistic cultus. The days, months, and the like, are accordingly interpreted as pagan festival and religious rites (cf. L. Batelaan, “De strijd van Paulus tegen het syncretisme,” a contribution to Arcana Revelata, published in honor of F. W. Grosheide, 1951, pp. 9–21). Although the observation of Jewish law must have taken place with some modifications among the Gentiles, it can hardly be assumed that the Galatian share in the pagan cultus would be interpreted as the observation of the Torah, and be interpreted and attacked as such by Paul. The Jewish religion was altogether too exclusive for that, precisely because of its regulations (cf. 2:15); and for that also Paul stood too diametrically opposed to any sharing in the pagan cultus (cf. 1 Cor. 10:20) to characterize it as a careful observance of the Torah.
The καί … καί … καί … has an almost ironical tinge.
παρατηρεῖσθαι: to regard painstakingly; also, to observe (Luke 17:20).
The ὑμᾶς following φοβοῦμαι in the sense of I fear for you, or, have fears in respect of you, is unusual. Still, that is unmistakably the meaning. The added πως implies that what the apostle fears is not yet certain, at least not in full scope and consequence.
This lies contained in κοπιᾶν.
We must think of ἐγενόμην as following ὡς ἡμεῖς (cf. 1 Cor. 9:22). Others want to interpolate ἤμην, and interpret as follows: “be free as I am free, for I too was once bound as ye are.” We may question, however, whether the verb can be omitted at a juncture such as this in which a condition of the past no longer exists in the present, especially since that past condition contains no motive or explanation of the present. Perhaps we can accept the view then that Paul is referring to something which he now has in common with his readers, and which ought to serve as an inspiration to them to follow his example.
That under other circumstances Paul also honored the observation of the Jewish ceremonies (cf. 1 Cor. 9:20, Acts 16:3 and 21:26) is to be regarded as a temporary accommodation to a point of view not yet quite established, and takes nothing away from his conviction in principle (cf. Gal. 2:11 ff.).
Some have wanted to take these words as a reaction to a claim made by the Galatians that they had done Paul no wrong. Paul is then understood as saying, “Formerly not, but now, Yes.” All this is, however, too hypothetical. Such an abrupt turn in the argument as this is happens often in Paul’s writings.
οὐδέν με ἠδικήσατε is a kind of litotes: I cannot say that I had reason to complain of you.
The διʼ ἀσθένειαν may be interpreted as simply speaking of this infirmity as an accompanying circumstance, just as elsewhere διά plus the genitive is used (cf. Acts 14:22). It can also be construed causally (as in the ASV). Then the infirmity or illness becomes the occasion or cause of Paul’s preaching the gospel to the Galatians. He may, for example, have been prevented by it from travelling farther, or he may have taken and found refuge from it among them. We prefer the first interpretation of διά.
Whether we translate the τὸ πρότερον as the first time or as formerly will be affected, of course, by just which Galatian churches we suppose are being addressed in the letter. The first translation assumes that Paul since that time had again visited the Galatians and preached to them. The second translation does not necessarily have to assume this. If we hold to the first time, we are adopting the South Galatian hypothesis. Before Paul wrote this letter, he had twice visited the churches in the province of Galatia (cf. Acts 13 ff. and Acts 16). That Paul had twice preached the gospel in the northern territory is, however, very uncertain (see the Introduction). And since, on the basis of general considerations, the translation the first time seems more plausible than formerly (in view of the fact that such a comment would be superfluous here), we can presumably with full right appeal to the evidence of this τὸ πρότερον as support for the South Galatian theory.
For the rest a good many hypotheses about Paul’s “disease” have put in their appearance. Some have connected it with verse 15, and construed it as an affliction of the eyes. This one is quite arbitrary, inasmuch as verse 15 has nothing to do with Paul’s infirmity. More widespread is the idea that Paul was an epileptic. The alleged basis for that is 2 Cor. 12:7. In the first place there is no basis in that text for diagnosing Paul’s infirmity as epilepsy; and, in the second place, it is by no means certain that the affliction of Gal. 4:13 and 2 Cor. 12 is the same.
ἐξουθενεῖν: to regard as good for nothing, ἐκπτύειν: literally, to spew out. According to Oepke we are to think of a “defence-rite” based on animistic assumptions, but also applied to ordinary illnesses. It can also be interpreted metaphorically. Since the ἐκπτύειν follows the ἐξουθενεῖν this seems the likeliest view.
Many manuscripts have τίς instead of ποῦ, and some have ἦν following the οὖν. According to this last reading the apostle is asking: What (at the time) was your basis for being gratified? Answer: It was not a superficial one, for … (verse 15b). Both readings make good sense. Probably the ποῦ in this context was not always clear, and so τίς came in as a secondary and easier usage.
ὑμῶν can be subjective genitive as well as objective genitive. In any event the Galatians themselves considered themselves fortunate.
ἐξορύξαντες ἐδώκατε: as plastic as possible.
As is evident from ὥστε.
ζηλοῦν: busy themselves, bring about something. The word can be used in bonam and in malam partem.
θέλουσιν: a deliberate act of the will.
The ζηλοῦσθε instead of ζηλοῦσθαι in some of the manuscripts must probably be considered as an itacism. The τό preceding the ζηλοῦσθαι in other manuscripts accentuates the infinitive form and probably was introduced for that reason.
What is certain, however, is that the ζηλοῦσθαι of verse 18 must be translated passively, in view of the reiterated active of verse 17, although the passive occurs very infrequently.
If Paul is the object, the sense is approximately this: “It is a beautiful thing to be the object of such zeal. I once too experienced that. But then it must be expressed in the right way, and must not cease when the person is no longer present.” If the Galatians are the object, the following would be the purport: “It is a beautiful thing for you to be the object of loving care and exertion, that is, if all this happens from right motivation, and does not stop as of a given moment. So I wrought for you, and not merely when I was still among you.”
ὠδίνω: to be in the pains of travail.
In 1 Cor. 4:15 he speaks of his spiritual fatherhood (γεννᾶν).
In the Greek the word is used without the article: the stress is on the qualitative, normative.
ἔσχεν: received. The whole emphasis on the manner of the receiving.
παιδίσκη: a young girl, and thence, as here: a slave girl.
κατὰ σάρκα
διά with the genitive. One can consider whether the article belongs in the text. It is missing in א A C P46. Without the article the whole emphasis falls on the qualitative aspect of the promise. When read with the article, the meaning again becomes the particular promise which God gave to Abraham.
ἀλληγορέω can mean either (a) to speak in allegory, or (b) to expound in allegory. Here the first meaning is in place.
Two questions are involved. The first is whether or not Ἁγάρ belongs to the text. The second is whether δέ or γάρ follows the τό at the beginning of the verse. The comparative value of the several textual authorities gives no help here. In the Exposition we take account of the translated version which accepts Ἁγάρ, even though the reading without Ἁγάρ seems to us the right one. See below.
The big difficulty is that nobody can say how Ἁγάρ can, linguistically considered, be a designation of Sinai. Chrysostom says that mount Sinai, in the language of the natives, was spoken of as Hagar. We do not know on what basis this statement of Chrysostom rests. Others point to the Arabian hadjar, which means rock or stone, and even today serves to designate particular rocks in the Sinai range. And it is considered possible, accordingly, that Paul, perhaps on the basis of rumors picked up during his Arabian journey, came to think of hadjar as a name for Sinai. Obviously this would be to lay down a very arbitrary relationship between Hagar and Sinai, the more so because it should become evident from this relationship that Sinai, like Hagar, gives birth to slave children. And all this then would have to be ascribed to the allegorical method. Quite rightly, Zahn writes that such a thing might be conceivable for an Alexandrian but not for Paul. And in the cited materials there really is no evidence for such a view at all. And on the ground of this impossibility of finding in the name Hagar a connection with Sinai, many suppose the Ἁγάρ is an interpolation. As we see it this conclusion has much in its favor. We can ask, however, whether it is not possible to give another exegesis of the text with Hagar. See the Exposition above.
This interpretation is even more plausible if the Ἁγάρ is left out of the text: “For (or: now) Sinai is (it is true) a mount in Arabia, but …” Others, who prefer the version without Ἁγάρ, think that in the words for Sinai is a mountain in Arabia there lies the explanation of what has gone before, namely, that Sinai brings forth children unto slavery. They point to the subjection of the tribes of Arabia, who regard themselves as descendants from Hagar; or they point to the location of the mountain outside the pale of the promised land, and suggest that therefore this whole Sinai-dispensation lies outside the domain of the fulfillment. But these explanations seem very forced. Arabia cannot simply be called a country of slavery and bondage. And as for the location of Sinai outside the territory of the holy land, that can hardly serve as evidence of its inability to effect freedom. Jerusalem, in the heart of the promised land, could not grant freedom either. Hence, as we see it, the concessive meaning of verse 25a is greatly to be preferred. The writer is then explaining how he arrives from Hagar by way of Sinai at Jerusalem. And then it is not a matter of major importance whether we read γάρ or δέ, for the γάρ need not refer solely to the first part of the clause. If in 25a we read δέ, the word would have only a connective, and not an adversative, force.
According to the text of LXX, that is, though with only minor variants from the Hebrew.
κατὰ Ἰσαάκ.
It has been held that the incident referred to here cannot without qualification be called persecution, and that Paul is following the rabbinical halacha, according to which Sarah would have been aware that Ishmael as in a bit of fun bore down on Isaac with bow and arrow (cf. Strack-Billerbeck, op. cit., III, p. 575 ff.). It is very questionable, however, whether one may use a tradition, which arose only in the post-Christian Palestinian Judaism, as an explanation. Paul’s word reflects nothing of the kind. Nor can one hang such a theory on the ἐδίωκε. As is also suggested by the comparison which Paul makes (so also it is now), it can better be regarded in a somewhat mitigated sense.
ὁ κατὰ σάρκα γεννηθείς.
τὸν κατὰ πνεῦμα.
οὐ μὴ κληρονομήσει: definitely a negation. Some manuscripts, instead of the future indicative have the aorist subjunctive, which would be expected after μή, and probably therefore is due to correction.
Compare Schniewind, TWNT, II, p. 579, under ἐπαγγελία.