Galatians · Chapter 4

V. 1. Now-To illustrate by a plain similitude the preeminence of the Christian, over the legal, dispensation.

The heir, as long as he is a child-As he is under age. Differeth nothing from a servant-Not being at liberty either to use or enjoy his estate.

Though he be lord-Proprietor of it all.

Verse 1. The heir, as long as He is a child] Though he be appointed by his father’s will heir of all his possessions yet till he arrive at the legal age he is master of nothing, and does not differ from one of the common domestics.

Verses 1-3. The apostle, having established the consolatory doctrine that believers, in every age and country of the world, are heirs of the promises made to Abraham and to his seed, goes on in this chapter to answer an inquiry which he knew would naturally occur to his readers, but which, according to his manner, he does not formally state; namely, Since all believers, from the beginning, were heirs of the promises, as well as of the things promised, why were they not put in possession of the promises from the beginning, by sending Christ into the world, and introducing the gospel dispensation in the first age; that the promises, especially the promise of pardon and eternal life through faith, might have been published universally, and preserved for the benefit of the heirs in every age; and why were mankind left for so many ages to the direction of the laws of nature and of Moses, neither of which gave them any hope of pardon and eternal life? To this inquiry the apostle answers, that in not giving the heirs the knowledge of the promises, by introducing the gospel dispensation immediately after the fall, God treated them as a prudent father treats his son while under age. During his nonage, he does not allow him to possess the estate, of which he is the heir, because he has not discretion to use it aright; but keeps him in the condition of a bond-man. In the same manner, though believers from the beginning were heirs of the promises, God did not, in the early ages, put them in possession of them, by immediately setting up the gospel dispensation; because, in the first ages, the state of the world did not admit of either the universal publication of the gospel, or of its preservation. And that, as the heir of a great estate must be prepared by a proper education for managing and enjoying it, and is therefore in his childhood placed under persons who instruct him, manage his estate, and supply him with necessaries, till the time appointed in his father’s will for taking possession of his inheritance; so, to prepare believers for the actual inheritance of the gospel dispensation, God judged it proper to continue them for a long time under the bondage of the laws of nature, and of the patriarchal and Mosaic dispensations, that by experiencing the hardships of that bondage, they might be the more sensible of the happiness which they were to derive from the liberty of the gospel. This is the sense of the three first verses, as appears by the following short paraphrase. Now — To illustrate, by a plain similitude, the pre-eminence of the Christian over the legal dispensation; I say that the heir — Of any estate, however large; as long as he is a child — Or is under age; differeth nothing from a servant — With respect to the free use and enjoyment of his estate; though he be lord of all — Proprietor of it all, by right of inheritance; but is placed under tutors — As to his person; and governors — Oikonomouv, stewards, as to his substance; until the time appointed of the father — When he shall be deemed of age, and be at liberty to manage his affairs himself. So we — The church of God, heirs of the promises; when we were children — In our minority, were not put in possession of the promises, by the introduction of the gospel dispensation, but, to fit us for it, were placed in bondage — In a kind of servile state; under the elements of the world — Under the typical observances of the patriarchal and Mosaic dispensations, which were like the first elements of grammar, the ABC of children; and were of so gross a nature as hardly to carry men’s thoughts beyond this world. Seeing the apostle, in the close of the preceding chapter, declared that all who have put on Christ, (see on verses 27-29,) whether they be Jews or Gentiles, are Christ’s brethren, and heirs according to God’s promise, “it is evident that in this chapter, when he speaks concerning the heir, and describes the treatment which, by his father’s appointment, he receives during his minority, his discourse cannot be restricted to the Jews, as if they were the only heirs, but must comprehend the Gentiles also, describing their condition under the discipline of the law of nature, verse 8. In like manner the persons in bondage to the elements of the world, (verse 3,) and under the law, (verse 5,) who are said to be bought off by Christ, (verse 5,) must be the Gentiles as well as the Jews; because Jews and Gentiles equally were under the discipline [and curse] of law. And having been bought off by Christ, (Galatians 3:13,) they were both of them, after his death, placed under the gospel dispensation, which is the discipline of sons. See verse 5.” — Macknight.

Verse 1-3. The heir, as long as he is a child, and a minor, differeth nothing from a servant, though he be lord of all. He is under guardians, till the year appointed by the will of his father. This allegory applies to the jews, who though they were the seed of Abraham, were still in their minority. Though they were the heirs, they were still under the law, till the appointed time should come. So we also have been under the elements of this world, subject to the laws of our nonage, and the rudiments of men.

1. The heir—Whether the father be living or not, he is heir. The divine Father ever lives. Child—Literally, an infant; but the word is intended to cover the whole period of minority, which, by Roman law, terminated at twenty-five. Differeth nothing from a servant—That is, in the respects mentioned in the next verse. Lord of all—That is, inherently and by law; though externally subjected for his own good to the judgment of others. So the child of God, a servant in exterior, is interior heir of God, and lord of all the blessedness of eternity.

Ver. 1. But I say; introduces a new point, as in Galatians 5:16; 3:17. For so long time as: exact co-extension of time, as in Romans 7:1; 1 Corinthians 7:39.

Child: usually one under ten years old. Same word in 1 Corinthians 3:1; 13:11; Ephesians 4:14; Hebrews 5:13f; Romans 2:20; Matthew 11:25; Luke 10:21.

Servant, or slave: see under Romans 1:1.

Lord: one having control over men or things, correlative to a servant who is under the control of his lord. Cp. Matthew 10:24f. Even if the father was still living the heir was in some sense lord of all, as already possessing a relation to the father which will some day put the estate under his control. But the contrast between the child’s apparent and virtual position is more conspicuous if we conceive the father to be dead. For then the estate has no owner except one who is himself under the control of others. And, that our Father in heaven ever lives, does not exclude this thought. For the analogy is quoted merely to show that outward dependence is consistent with real and great wealth.

V. 2. But is under tutors-As to his person. And stewards-As to his substance.

Verse 2. But is under tutors] epitropouv. Guardians and governors; oikonomouv. those who have the charge of the family. These words are nearly similar; but we may consider the first as executor, the last as the person who superintends the concerns of the family and estate till the heir become of age; such as we call trustee.

Until the time appointed of the father.] The time mentioned in the father’s will or testament.

Verses 1-3. The apostle, having established the consolatory doctrine that believers, in every age and country of the world, are heirs of the promises made to Abraham and to his seed, goes on in this chapter to answer an inquiry which he knew would naturally occur to his readers, but which, according to his manner, he does not formally state; namely, Since all believers, from the beginning, were heirs of the promises, as well as of the things promised, why were they not put in possession of the promises from the beginning, by sending Christ into the world, and introducing the gospel dispensation in the first age; that the promises, especially the promise of pardon and eternal life through faith, might have been published universally, and preserved for the benefit of the heirs in every age; and why were mankind left for so many ages to the direction of the laws of nature and of Moses, neither of which gave them any hope of pardon and eternal life? To this inquiry the apostle answers, that in not giving the heirs the knowledge of the promises, by introducing the gospel dispensation immediately after the fall, God treated them as a prudent father treats his son while under age. During his nonage, he does not allow him to possess the estate, of which he is the heir, because he has not discretion to use it aright; but keeps him in the condition of a bond-man. In the same manner, though believers from the beginning were heirs of the promises, God did not, in the early ages, put them in possession of them, by immediately setting up the gospel dispensation; because, in the first ages, the state of the world did not admit of either the universal publication of the gospel, or of its preservation. And that, as the heir of a great estate must be prepared by a proper education for managing and enjoying it, and is therefore in his childhood placed under persons who instruct him, manage his estate, and supply him with necessaries, till the time appointed in his father’s will for taking possession of his inheritance; so, to prepare believers for the actual inheritance of the gospel dispensation, God judged it proper to continue them for a long time under the bondage of the laws of nature, and of the patriarchal and Mosaic dispensations, that by experiencing the hardships of that bondage, they might be the more sensible of the happiness which they were to derive from the liberty of the gospel. This is the sense of the three first verses, as appears by the following short paraphrase. Now — To illustrate, by a plain similitude, the pre-eminence of the Christian over the legal dispensation; I say that the heir — Of any estate, however large; as long as he is a child — Or is under age; differeth nothing from a servant — With respect to the free use and enjoyment of his estate; though he be lord of all — Proprietor of it all, by right of inheritance; but is placed under tutors — As to his person; and governors — Oikonomouv, stewards, as to his substance; until the time appointed of the father — When he shall be deemed of age, and be at liberty to manage his affairs himself. So we — The church of God, heirs of the promises; when we were children — In our minority, were not put in possession of the promises, by the introduction of the gospel dispensation, but, to fit us for it, were placed in bondage — In a kind of servile state; under the elements of the world — Under the typical observances of the patriarchal and Mosaic dispensations, which were like the first elements of grammar, the ABC of children; and were of so gross a nature as hardly to carry men’s thoughts beyond this world. Seeing the apostle, in the close of the preceding chapter, declared that all who have put on Christ, (see on verses 27-29,) whether they be Jews or Gentiles, are Christ’s brethren, and heirs according to God’s promise, “it is evident that in this chapter, when he speaks concerning the heir, and describes the treatment which, by his father’s appointment, he receives during his minority, his discourse cannot be restricted to the Jews, as if they were the only heirs, but must comprehend the Gentiles also, describing their condition under the discipline of the law of nature, verse 8. In like manner the persons in bondage to the elements of the world, (verse 3,) and under the law, (verse 5,) who are said to be bought off by Christ, (verse 5,) must be the Gentiles as well as the Jews; because Jews and Gentiles equally were under the discipline [and curse] of law. And having been bought off by Christ, (Galatians 3:13,) they were both of them, after his death, placed under the gospel dispensation, which is the discipline of sons. See verse 5.” — Macknight.

Verse 1-3. The heir, as long as he is a child, and a minor, differeth nothing from a servant, though he be lord of all. He is under guardians, till the year appointed by the will of his father. This allegory applies to the jews, who though they were the seed of Abraham, were still in their minority. Though they were the heirs, they were still under the law, till the appointed time should come. So we also have been under the elements of this world, subject to the laws of our nonage, and the rudiments of men.

2. But—The items of his servile external conditions. Under tutors—The guardians of his person. And governors—The trustees of his property. He is thus a prisoner in his own domains, a servant in his own lordship. Time appointed—His close of twenty-five years’ minority—the time appointed by law. Of the father—This does not mean that the father appoints the time; but it is the time by which the father is limited, and grants him the rights of majority.

Ver. 2. Further description of the child’s position.

Guardians: literally, men to whose care something or someone is committed. Same word in Matthew 20:8; Luke 8:3. It is a wider term than stewards, which denotes (e.g. 1 Corinthians 4:1f; Romans 16:23) one who has charge of the property of another, in this case, that of the heir. This narrower sense of stewards suggests that guardians refers chiefly to those in charge of the child himself. Whether in Roman law the father could determine the time when his heir should take possession, is immaterial. For Paul is now passing from the metaphor to its underlying reality. The son, although virtually possessing the whole estate, is under the control of others until a certain fixed time comes. Paul remembers that for us this was

the Father’s predetermined time, i.e. a time fixed by our Father in heaven. Similarly, in English law a father can determine by will at what age his son shall receive from the trustees full control over the inheritance.

V. 3. So we-The church of God.

When we were children-In our minority, under the legal dispensation. Were in bondage-In a kind of servile state.

Under the elements of the world-Under the typical observances of the law, which were like the first elements of grammar, the A, B, C, of children; and were of so gross a nature, as hardly to carry our thoughts beyond this world.

Verse 3. Even so we] The whole Jewish people were in a state of nonage while under the law.

The elements of the world] A mere Jewish phrase, hzh µlw[ ydwsy yesodey olam hazzeh, “the principles of this world;” that is, the rudiments or principles of the Jewish religion. The apostle intimates that the law was not the science of salvation, it was only the elements or alphabet of it; and in the Gospel this alphabet is composed into a most glorious system of Divine knowledge: but as the alphabet is nothing of itself, unless compounded into syllables, words, sentences, and discourses; so the law, taken by itself, gives no salvation; it contains indeed the outlines of the Gospel, but it is the Gospel alone that fills up these outlines.

Verses 1-3. The apostle, having established the consolatory doctrine that believers, in every age and country of the world, are heirs of the promises made to Abraham and to his seed, goes on in this chapter to answer an inquiry which he knew would naturally occur to his readers, but which, according to his manner, he does not formally state; namely, Since all believers, from the beginning, were heirs of the promises, as well as of the things promised, why were they not put in possession of the promises from the beginning, by sending Christ into the world, and introducing the gospel dispensation in the first age; that the promises, especially the promise of pardon and eternal life through faith, might have been published universally, and preserved for the benefit of the heirs in every age; and why were mankind left for so many ages to the direction of the laws of nature and of Moses, neither of which gave them any hope of pardon and eternal life? To this inquiry the apostle answers, that in not giving the heirs the knowledge of the promises, by introducing the gospel dispensation immediately after the fall, God treated them as a prudent father treats his son while under age. During his nonage, he does not allow him to possess the estate, of which he is the heir, because he has not discretion to use it aright; but keeps him in the condition of a bond-man. In the same manner, though believers from the beginning were heirs of the promises, God did not, in the early ages, put them in possession of them, by immediately setting up the gospel dispensation; because, in the first ages, the state of the world did not admit of either the universal publication of the gospel, or of its preservation. And that, as the heir of a great estate must be prepared by a proper education for managing and enjoying it, and is therefore in his childhood placed under persons who instruct him, manage his estate, and supply him with necessaries, till the time appointed in his father’s will for taking possession of his inheritance; so, to prepare believers for the actual inheritance of the gospel dispensation, God judged it proper to continue them for a long time under the bondage of the laws of nature, and of the patriarchal and Mosaic dispensations, that by experiencing the hardships of that bondage, they might be the more sensible of the happiness which they were to derive from the liberty of the gospel. This is the sense of the three first verses, as appears by the following short paraphrase. Now — To illustrate, by a plain similitude, the pre-eminence of the Christian over the legal dispensation; I say that the heir — Of any estate, however large; as long as he is a child — Or is under age; differeth nothing from a servant — With respect to the free use and enjoyment of his estate; though he be lord of all — Proprietor of it all, by right of inheritance; but is placed under tutors — As to his person; and governors — Oikonomouv, stewards, as to his substance; until the time appointed of the father — When he shall be deemed of age, and be at liberty to manage his affairs himself. So we — The church of God, heirs of the promises; when we were children — In our minority, were not put in possession of the promises, by the introduction of the gospel dispensation, but, to fit us for it, were placed in bondage — In a kind of servile state; under the elements of the world — Under the typical observances of the patriarchal and Mosaic dispensations, which were like the first elements of grammar, the ABC of children; and were of so gross a nature as hardly to carry men’s thoughts beyond this world. Seeing the apostle, in the close of the preceding chapter, declared that all who have put on Christ, (see on verses 27-29,) whether they be Jews or Gentiles, are Christ’s brethren, and heirs according to God’s promise, “it is evident that in this chapter, when he speaks concerning the heir, and describes the treatment which, by his father’s appointment, he receives during his minority, his discourse cannot be restricted to the Jews, as if they were the only heirs, but must comprehend the Gentiles also, describing their condition under the discipline of the law of nature, verse 8. In like manner the persons in bondage to the elements of the world, (verse 3,) and under the law, (verse 5,) who are said to be bought off by Christ, (verse 5,) must be the Gentiles as well as the Jews; because Jews and Gentiles equally were under the discipline [and curse] of law. And having been bought off by Christ, (Galatians 3:13,) they were both of them, after his death, placed under the gospel dispensation, which is the discipline of sons. See verse 5.” — Macknight.

Verse 1-3. The heir, as long as he is a child, and a minor, differeth nothing from a servant, though he be lord of all. He is under guardians, till the year appointed by the will of his father. This allegory applies to the jews, who though they were the seed of Abraham, were still in their minority. Though they were the heirs, they were still under the law, till the appointed time should come. So we also have been under the elements of this world, subject to the laws of our nonage, and the rudiments of men.

3. Even so—Introducing the parallel growth of the child and of race in religion. The nice adjustment of parallel terms and phrases must be specially marked. Children answers to child, verse 1; bondage to servant; elements to tutors and governors. We—That Gentiles as well as Jews are included as children and heirs is clear from verse 8. Gentilism is thus viewed in its aspect of a preparatory dispensation, a previous stage to Christianity. See notes on Acts 17:22, 23. Elements—The Greek word is derived from a root signifying a row, or any objects standing in rows, ranks, or orders. Hence it became a term for the letters of the alphabet. And as nature is viewed in rows and orders, so it came to signify the elements of nature, which were then held to be earth, air, fire, and water. Thence, from their visible order, or from their orderly measurement of time, the term was applied to the heavenly bodies, the sun, moon, and stars. By the phrase elements of the world, here, most of the ancient interpreters understood the heavenly bodies, as objects of worship among Gentiles. But that does not fit the parallelism between the child and the early human race. The parallelism requires that alphabetic elements should be understood, adjusted to under tutors. These elements are of the world in that sense of the world in which it is in antithesis to the Christian Church, and so includes Judaism in its adverse aspect, as well as Gentilism. The latter is viewed in its most favourable aspect in order to its being associated with Judaism. Both, then, are viewed as unknowing Christ, yet preparatory to Christ.

Ver. 3. Application of the foregoing comparison.

Also we: as well as the heir to an estate. That both Jewish and Gentile readers are included, is made quite certain by Galatians 4:5 and Galatians 4:8, 9.

When we were children: as implied in the word tutor in Galatians 3:24. It is the point of the foregoing comparison. Virtually it is explained and justified in the following words, which are evidence of spiritual childhood. In another sense, i.e. in contrast to the maturity of heaven, even believers ( 1 Corinthians 13:11) are children.

Rudiments, or elements: primarily, the letters of the alphabet; then the simplest component parts of the material world, as in 2 Peter 3:10, 12; Wisdom 7:17; 19:17, and especially earth, air, fire, water; then the simplest beginnings of any branch of knowledge, as in Hebrews 5:12. If we render elements, then the elements of the world (so Colossians 2:8, 20) will denote the constituent parts composing the material world around us. But this would give no sense consistent with Paul’s teaching. For unbelievers, though in bondage to the material world around them, are in no special bondage to its component parts. Consequently, the inserted word elements would be meaningless. It remains therefore that here and in Colossians 2:8, 20 Paul thinks of rudiments, i.e. of the simplest beginnings of spiritual education. So Hebrews 5:12. And, if so, since the world cannot possibly be the entire lesson, of which the rudiments are the beginning, these last words must be taken as conveying a complete idea, as in Galatians 4:9; and of the world must denote the matter of which the rudiments, these simplest beginnings, consist. The material world, with its various material objects, was the great lesson-book of pictures laid open by the great Father before the eyes of the infant human race, that men might read therein His name, and to some extent His nature and His will concerning them. Even to the heathen God revealed Himself (Romans 1:20) through the material world; and thus laid a foundation of moral obligation. And God’s revelation to Israel was conveyed through material objects, viz. the holy things of the Old Covenant. For this reason, the worship both of Jews and Gentiles took a material form. And since, by God’s design, both heathenism and Judaism were on their better sides a preparation for the Gospel, Paul embraces them here, overlooking for the moment their vast differences, under this one designation. The writings of Greece and Rome reveal some progress in these rudiments of religion. All this is not disproved by Paul’s description of idolatry, on its worse side, as ( 1 Corinthians 10:20) a worship of demons and as hostile to the Gospel. For in Galatians 4:10 even the divinely-ordained Mosaic ritual is treated as apostacy; and frequently those who claimed for it continued validity are denounced in strongest terms. And this we can understand. For they who place above and against the perfect teaching of Christ the rudimentary teaching of material forms pervert into positive error even divinely-given truth.

Since, both in Jews and Gentiles, these rudiments of religion assume the form of law, i.e. of a rule of conduct with rewards and punishments, they were a superior power under which in earlier ages our race lay, against which there was no rising up, and from which no escape.

Held-in-bondage: graphic description, expounding the word under; cognate to servant in Galatians 4:1. It recalls Galatians 3:22. The rudimentary teaching given to Jews and Gentiles in material forms belonging to the world around reveals God’s will that we obey Him, and the penalty awaiting disobedience; and, by prompting efforts after obedience, reveals our powerlessness to obey, and the presence of a power hostile to God forcing us to sin and from which we cannot free ourselves. Hence all who have only this rudimentary teaching are held-in-bondage: for they cannot do what their best judgment approves. This idea of bondage will be more fully developed in § 18.

That, in contrast to the saved, the unsaved are here called children, and that they are placed by the Father under a tutor, implies that they stand in special relation to Him, and indeed in some sense are already His sons. For it is a man’s own sons whom he puts under a tutor. This relation of all men to God rests upon their creation and the death of Christ for all men. We must therefore not think that our faith evokes God’s paternal love to us. That love rested on us before time began; and manifested itself in the death of Christ for us even when we were sinners. Yet, in the New Testament, believers and no others are called (Galatians 3:26, Romans 8:14; John 1:12) sons of God. This limitation was probably designed to warn us that they who reject Christ are in a real sense, and unless saved by faith will be in every sense, outside the family of God.

V. 4. But when the fulness of the time-Appointed by the Father, Galatians 4:2.

Was come, God sent forth-From his own bosom.

His Son, miraculously made of the substance of a woman-A virgin, without the concurrence of a man.

Made under the law-Both under the precept, and under the curse, of it.

Verse 4. When the fulness of the time was come] The time which God in his infinite wisdom counted best; in which all his counsels were filled up; and the time which his Spirit, by the prophets, had specified; and the time to which he intended the Mosaic institutions should extend, and beyond which they should be of no avail.

God sent forth his Son] Him who came immediately from God himself, made of a woman, according to the promise, Genesis 3:15; produced by the power of God in the womb of the Virgin Mary without any intervention of man; hence he was called the Son of God. See Luke, Luke 1:35, and the note there.

Made under the law] In subjection to it, that in him all its designs might be fulfilled, and by his death the whole might be abolished; the law dying when the Son of God expired upon the cross.

Verses 4-7. But when the fulness of time — Appointed by the Father, (verse 2,) and marked out by the predictions of the prophets for the accomplishment of this great event; was come — And we were arrived at the age proper for our entering on our adult state, and being put in possession of the promises, by the introduction of the gospel dispensation; God sent forth — From heaven into our world; his Son — Miraculously made, or rather, born, as the word genomenon may, with equal propriety, be translated; because, although Christ, as to his body, or his human nature in general, might be said to have been made of a woman, and of the seed of David, (Romans 1:3,) yet as he was the Son of God, sent forth from the Father, he was not made at all, much less of a woman. See on Hebrews 1:3-6; 7:3. Or the clause may be read, made flesh of a woman, namely, of a virgin, without the concurrence of a man. Made under the law — Under its discipline, in all its rigour; subject not only to the precepts, but to the curse of the law, even the Mosaic law; to redeem them that were under the law — From the curse of it, which he bore in their stead, and from that low, servile state in which they were before; and that he might bring them into a happy liberty from any future obligation to observe its ceremonial institutions. It must be observed, however, that the apostle had not only the Jews in his view here, but the Gentiles also, as is evident from verse 8, where they are addressed in particular. The law from which all are redeemed, or bought off, was not the law of Moses alone, but the law of nature, as a rule of justification: see note on Galatians 3:13. From both these laws, with the religious institutions attached to them, Christ hath redeemed mankind by his death, that he might place them under the gracious dispensation of his gospel. That we — Whether Jews or Gentiles, who believe; might receive the adoption of sons — Might stand related to God, not only as his people, his true and spiritual worshippers, his subjects and his servants, but also as his sons and daughters; might be peculiarly near and dear to him; made partakers of his nature, favoured with his special guidance, protection, and care; might have continual liberty of access to him and intercourse with him; might have all our wants, ghostly and bodily, supplied by him here, and might be constituted joint heirs with his beloved Son of the heavenly inheritance hereafter. See on John 1:12; Romans 8:14-17. Observe, reader, it is the privilege of true believers in the present life to have the assurance of God’s love, peace of conscience, protection from their spiritual enemies, assistance in times of trial and temptation, and the certain hope of eternal life. And because ye are thus made his sons — By adoption and regeneration; God hath sent forth — From heaven, as he sent forth his Son from thence; the Spirit of his Son — The very same Spirit of truth, holiness, and consolation, which dwelt in his Son; into your hearts — To take up his abode there; crying, Abba, Father — Enabling you to call God your reconciled Father in truth and with assurance, and to call upon him both with the confidence and temper of dutiful children. The Hebrew and Greek word signifying father are here joined together, to express the joint cry of Jews and Gentiles. Wherefore thou — Who believest in Christ, and art a true member of the gospel church, whether born a Jew or a Gentile; art no more — No longer; a servant — As formerly, in a state of bondage, whether to the legal dispensation of Moses, or to the law of nature, and the ceremonial institutions attached to it, by custom or divine appointment; but a son — Of mature age; and if a son, an heir of God — Entitled to the everlasting inheritance, and even to the enjoyment of the all-sufficient God himself; through Christ — Through his sacrifice and intercession, and my interest therein by faith.

Ver. 4, 5. When the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, who had eternally subsisted in the bosom of the Father. He who led Jacob like a flock, foresaw that the dark and ruder ages were not prepared for the Messiah. He had said, “Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.” Isaiah 40:3. Those ages were enlightened by Hebrew schools, and by Grecian literature. The rough places were levelled by the Roman conquests, the scriptures were translated into Greek, synagogues were established, and proselytes to judaism were made in all the great cities of the empire. Add to these, that the weeks of Daniel were accomplished, the sceptre was departed from Judah, and all men were in expectation of the Messiah. The heavens and the earth, the sea and the dry land having been shaken by the Roman wars, the Desire of all nations came in the Augustine age of universal peace.

By using the word proqesmia, the time “appointed,” and the “fulness” of time, St. Paul had no doubt in view the chronological notices of the prophets, which confer lustre on the fidelity of God in sending his Son at the promised time. Habakkuk says, “The vision is yet for an appointed time:” Habakkuk 2:3. Daniel names “the latter days:” Daniel 10:14. These were the days when Jehovah, for whom the jews waited, should come to his temple. Malachi 3:1. The days when the new temple, built with living stones, should be exalted above the hills, and when all gentile nations should run to it, and be incorporated with the seed of Israel. This is the consequent conclusion, that the God of Abraham, who was faithful in calling Israel out of Egypt at the promised period, was equally faithful in sending his Son into the world, to redeem us from the bondage of servants, and give us the high prerogative of sons, being born of God. John 1:12.

4. Fulness… time—Parallel to the time appointed, verse 2, at which the minor became major in age. The fulness of the time is, therefore, the completion of the maturing period, in which the nations are ready for the advent of Christ and Christianity. The historic process is going on until “the wheels of time” have completed their revolution, and the clock of time points to the second and strikes the hour. God is prompt to the instant. Sent forth his Son—For the purpose of emancipating the heir from his tutors and governors. Roman law had its processes for this purpose; the divine law has a method of its own. The divine Father sends an elder brother to assume subjection and emancipate us, the child, with himself. Made of a woman—That he might be our brother. Under the law— Rather, under law, the article not being in the Greek. Made of a woman is parallel to child, ver. 1; made under law is parallel to under tutors and governors, verse 2.

Verse 4. The word rendered time, (same word in Galatians 4:1,) which differs from that in Ephesians 1:10, suggests the long delay of Christ’s coming.

The fulness of the time: as though a long space were marked out to be filled up by successive moments. Cp. Mark 1:15; Luke 21:24; John 7:8; Genesis 29:21. It was the Father’s predetermined time. On what principles this space of time was marked out, Paul does not say. But doubtless the purpose of the delay was that the Law written on the hearts of men and on the tables of stone might have full scope, and thus prove itself powerless to save and in this way reveal man’s helpless bondage under sin; and that human nature might have time and opportunity to put forth all its powers, under the influence of law more or less fully understood, and thus find out its inability to attain for itself happiness. When Christ came, the civilisation and religious teaching of the ancient world were utterly worn out; and in spite of them society was rapidly sinking into ruin.

Sent forth; recalls the surroundings from the midst of which, and away from which, Christ came to earth.

His Son: as in Romans 1:3; 8:3. That this title is used here as a sufficient designation of Christ, implies that it belongs to Him in a unique sense, i.e. that He holds a relation to the Father shared by none else. See my Romans Diss. i. 7. And, since this august title is evidently chosen to mark the dignity of Him whom God sent forth, it implies the pre-existence of Christ. This proof is not invalidated by John 1:6, which certainly does not imply the preexistence of John: for these very different words are fully accounted for by John’s designation from birth for a special office: cp. Luke 1:15; Jeremiah 1:5.

Born from woman: bodily derivation of the earthly life into which God sent His Son. It is similar to, but wider than, Romans 1:3: see notes. Under law: Galatians 4:21; 5:18; Romans 6:14; 1 Corinthians 9:20. Christ entered by birth a state of subjection to a prescribed rule of conduct. By being born a Jew, He took upon Himself the obligation to keep, in every sense, the Law of Moses; and accepted obedience to law as the condition of the approval of God.

V. 5. To redeem those under the law-From the curse of it, and from that low, servile state.

That we-Jews who believe.

Might receive the adoption-All the privileges of adult sons.

Verse 5. To redeem them] exagorash. To pay down a price for them, and thus buy them off from the necessity of observing circumcision, offering brute sacrifices, performing different ablutions, &c., &c. That we might receive the adoption of sons.] Which adoption we could not obtain by the law; for it is the Gospel only that puts us among the children, and gives us a place in the heavenly family. On the nature of adoption see Clarke’s notes on “Romans 8:15”.

Verses 4-7. But when the fulness of time — Appointed by the Father, (verse 2,) and marked out by the predictions of the prophets for the accomplishment of this great event; was come — And we were arrived at the age proper for our entering on our adult state, and being put in possession of the promises, by the introduction of the gospel dispensation; God sent forth — From heaven into our world; his Son — Miraculously made, or rather, born, as the word genomenon may, with equal propriety, be translated; because, although Christ, as to his body, or his human nature in general, might be said to have been made of a woman, and of the seed of David, (Romans 1:3,) yet as he was the Son of God, sent forth from the Father, he was not made at all, much less of a woman. See on Hebrews 1:3-6; 7:3. Or the clause may be read, made flesh of a woman, namely, of a virgin, without the concurrence of a man. Made under the law — Under its discipline, in all its rigour; subject not only to the precepts, but to the curse of the law, even the Mosaic law; to redeem them that were under the law — From the curse of it, which he bore in their stead, and from that low, servile state in which they were before; and that he might bring them into a happy liberty from any future obligation to observe its ceremonial institutions. It must be observed, however, that the apostle had not only the Jews in his view here, but the Gentiles also, as is evident from verse 8, where they are addressed in particular. The law from which all are redeemed, or bought off, was not the law of Moses alone, but the law of nature, as a rule of justification: see note on Galatians 3:13. From both these laws, with the religious institutions attached to them, Christ hath redeemed mankind by his death, that he might place them under the gracious dispensation of his gospel. That we — Whether Jews or Gentiles, who believe; might receive the adoption of sons — Might stand related to God, not only as his people, his true and spiritual worshippers, his subjects and his servants, but also as his sons and daughters; might be peculiarly near and dear to him; made partakers of his nature, favoured with his special guidance, protection, and care; might have continual liberty of access to him and intercourse with him; might have all our wants, ghostly and bodily, supplied by him here, and might be constituted joint heirs with his beloved Son of the heavenly inheritance hereafter. See on John 1:12; Romans 8:14-17. Observe, reader, it is the privilege of true believers in the present life to have the assurance of God’s love, peace of conscience, protection from their spiritual enemies, assistance in times of trial and temptation, and the certain hope of eternal life. And because ye are thus made his sons — By adoption and regeneration; God hath sent forth — From heaven, as he sent forth his Son from thence; the Spirit of his Son — The very same Spirit of truth, holiness, and consolation, which dwelt in his Son; into your hearts — To take up his abode there; crying, Abba, Father — Enabling you to call God your reconciled Father in truth and with assurance, and to call upon him both with the confidence and temper of dutiful children. The Hebrew and Greek word signifying father are here joined together, to express the joint cry of Jews and Gentiles. Wherefore thou — Who believest in Christ, and art a true member of the gospel church, whether born a Jew or a Gentile; art no more — No longer; a servant — As formerly, in a state of bondage, whether to the legal dispensation of Moses, or to the law of nature, and the ceremonial institutions attached to it, by custom or divine appointment; but a son — Of mature age; and if a son, an heir of God — Entitled to the everlasting inheritance, and even to the enjoyment of the all-sufficient God himself; through Christ — Through his sacrifice and intercession, and my interest therein by faith.

Ver. 4, 5. When the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, who had eternally subsisted in the bosom of the Father. He who led Jacob like a flock, foresaw that the dark and ruder ages were not prepared for the Messiah. He had said, “Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.” Isaiah 40:3. Those ages were enlightened by Hebrew schools, and by Grecian literature. The rough places were levelled by the Roman conquests, the scriptures were translated into Greek, synagogues were established, and proselytes to judaism were made in all the great cities of the empire. Add to these, that the weeks of Daniel were accomplished, the sceptre was departed from Judah, and all men were in expectation of the Messiah. The heavens and the earth, the sea and the dry land having been shaken by the Roman wars, the Desire of all nations came in the Augustine age of universal peace.

By using the word proqesmia, the time “appointed,” and the “fulness” of time, St. Paul had no doubt in view the chronological notices of the prophets, which confer lustre on the fidelity of God in sending his Son at the promised time. Habakkuk says, “The vision is yet for an appointed time:” Habakkuk 2:3. Daniel names “the latter days:” Daniel 10:14. These were the days when Jehovah, for whom the jews waited, should come to his temple. Malachi 3:1. The days when the new temple, built with living stones, should be exalted above the hills, and when all gentile nations should run to it, and be incorporated with the seed of Israel. This is the consequent conclusion, that the God of Abraham, who was faithful in calling Israel out of Egypt at the promised period, was equally faithful in sending his Son into the world, to redeem us from the bondage of servants, and give us the high prerogative of sons, being born of God. John 1:12.

5. Them—The we of verse 3. Receive the adoption of sons—Parallel to the emancipating the child from his servile minor state as a servant into his free sonship and inheritance.

Ver. 5. Purpose for which Christ was born under obligation to keep law. Those under law: the Jews. A close verbal and real parallel is in 1 Corinthians 9:20, where a servant imitates His Master. In a wider yet correct sense all men are under law. For all are subject (Romans 2:14) to a rule of conduct by which they will be judged. Actually, those under obligation to keep the Law are also under its curse. For, all men have broken the Law. From this curse, Christ came to buy us off, (same word in Galatians 3:13,) by Himself enduring it. This purpose implies that Christ’s assumed obligation to keep the Law, and therefore His perfect obedience, were needful for man’s deliverance from the penalty of sin, i.e. needful to reconcile (Romans 3:26) his deliverance with God’s justice. It thus involves the active obedience of Christ as an essential element of man’s salvation. But this element Paul does not make prominent. He attributes salvation, always to the death, never to the obedient life, of Christ.

The adoption: literally the son-making, the act in which God makes us His sons. See my Romans p. 238.

Receive; reminds us that this act of God is an enrichment to us. We: not emphatic, yet reminding us that the adoption is for both born Jews and Paul’s Gentile readers. This further purpose implies that only those bought off from the curse of the Law can receive the adoption, i.e. that this curse excludes from the family of God. It gives also the ultimate object of the mission of the Son, which is not negative, i.e. to save us from death, but positive, i.e. to bring us to God. In order that we might enter His family, God sent His Son to liberate us, at the cost of His own life, from the penalty of the broken Law. Cp. Galatians 3:13, 14.

V. 6. And because ye-Gentiles who believe, are also thus made his adult sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts likewise, crying, Abba, Father-Enabling you to call upon God both with the confidence, and the tempers, of dutiful children. The Hebrew and Greek word are joined together, to express the joint cry of the Jews and Gentiles.

Verse 6. And because ye are sons] By faith in Christ Jesus, being redeemed both from the bondage and curse of the law; GOD-the Father, called generally the first person of the glorious TRINITY, hath sent forth the SPIRIT-the Holy Ghost, the second person of that Trinity, of his SON-Jesus Christ, the third person of the Trinity-crying, Abba, Father! from the fullest and most satisfactory evidence that God, the Father, Son, and Spirit, had become their portion. For the explanation of the phrase, and why the Greek and Syriac terms are joined together here, see Clarke’s notes on “Mr 14:36”; and “Romans 8:15”.

Verses 4-7. But when the fulness of time — Appointed by the Father, (verse 2,) and marked out by the predictions of the prophets for the accomplishment of this great event; was come — And we were arrived at the age proper for our entering on our adult state, and being put in possession of the promises, by the introduction of the gospel dispensation; God sent forth — From heaven into our world; his Son — Miraculously made, or rather, born, as the word genomenon may, with equal propriety, be translated; because, although Christ, as to his body, or his human nature in general, might be said to have been made of a woman, and of the seed of David, (Romans 1:3,) yet as he was the Son of God, sent forth from the Father, he was not made at all, much less of a woman. See on Hebrews 1:3-6; 7:3. Or the clause may be read, made flesh of a woman, namely, of a virgin, without the concurrence of a man. Made under the law — Under its discipline, in all its rigour; subject not only to the precepts, but to the curse of the law, even the Mosaic law; to redeem them that were under the law — From the curse of it, which he bore in their stead, and from that low, servile state in which they were before; and that he might bring them into a happy liberty from any future obligation to observe its ceremonial institutions. It must be observed, however, that the apostle had not only the Jews in his view here, but the Gentiles also, as is evident from verse 8, where they are addressed in particular. The law from which all are redeemed, or bought off, was not the law of Moses alone, but the law of nature, as a rule of justification: see note on Galatians 3:13. From both these laws, with the religious institutions attached to them, Christ hath redeemed mankind by his death, that he might place them under the gracious dispensation of his gospel. That we — Whether Jews or Gentiles, who believe; might receive the adoption of sons — Might stand related to God, not only as his people, his true and spiritual worshippers, his subjects and his servants, but also as his sons and daughters; might be peculiarly near and dear to him; made partakers of his nature, favoured with his special guidance, protection, and care; might have continual liberty of access to him and intercourse with him; might have all our wants, ghostly and bodily, supplied by him here, and might be constituted joint heirs with his beloved Son of the heavenly inheritance hereafter. See on John 1:12; Romans 8:14-17. Observe, reader, it is the privilege of true believers in the present life to have the assurance of God’s love, peace of conscience, protection from their spiritual enemies, assistance in times of trial and temptation, and the certain hope of eternal life. And because ye are thus made his sons — By adoption and regeneration; God hath sent forth — From heaven, as he sent forth his Son from thence; the Spirit of his Son — The very same Spirit of truth, holiness, and consolation, which dwelt in his Son; into your hearts — To take up his abode there; crying, Abba, Father — Enabling you to call God your reconciled Father in truth and with assurance, and to call upon him both with the confidence and temper of dutiful children. The Hebrew and Greek word signifying father are here joined together, to express the joint cry of Jews and Gentiles. Wherefore thou — Who believest in Christ, and art a true member of the gospel church, whether born a Jew or a Gentile; art no more — No longer; a servant — As formerly, in a state of bondage, whether to the legal dispensation of Moses, or to the law of nature, and the ceremonial institutions attached to it, by custom or divine appointment; but a son — Of mature age; and if a son, an heir of God — Entitled to the everlasting inheritance, and even to the enjoyment of the all-sufficient God himself; through Christ — Through his sacrifice and intercession, and my interest therein by faith.

Ver. 6. Because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts. The Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father and the Son, is the river of life flowing from the throne of God and of the Lamb. Revelation 22:1, 2. Having, on believing, received power to become the sons of God, which is confirmed by the will, the testament, and promises of the Father, the Spirit comes to testify what God has done. He gives the power to say what we could not say before, — Abba Father, in all the glory of worship, and liberty of access to a throne of grace. 2 Corinthians 1:22. This Spirit is the earnest and pledge of our adoption. This earnest is the love of God shed abroad in our hearts. It is a strong persuasion of God’s paternal love, and by consequence an assurance of our adoption. If that evidence be weak, for the Spirit diversifies his operations, let us still pray, “that he would pour into our hearts such love towards him, that we may love him above all things, and obtain the promises which exceed all that we can desire.” Collect for sixth Sunday after Trinity.

6. Ye are sons—As the minor does not cease to be a son upon attaining his majority. The Spirit of his Son—Not merely in the rationalistic interpretation—”the temper of a true Christian”—but the divine Spirit indwelling. So Bishop Pearson: “Here the Son is distinguished from the Father, as sent by him; and the Spirit of the Son is distinguished from the Father, as sent by the Father after he had sent the Son. And this our Saviour hath taught us several times. John 14:26; 15:26. Hence we conclude that the Holy Ghost, although he be truly and properly God, is neither God the Father nor God the Son.” So also Mr. Locke: “He could not be called the Spirit of the Son any otherwise than as proceeding from the Son; so that it is evident he proceeds from the Father and the Son.” Into your hearts—See note on Romans 8:26. Crying—It is the very Spirit itself which in our hearts utters the cry. Not only is there a groaning, (Romans 8:26,) as for a deliverance, but there is a cry, as ascending from our hearts to the Father on high. Abba, Father—Both the popular Hebrew and the Greek form of the name are given in undoubted symbol; we think that both Jew and Gentile are united in this blessed co-sonship with the Son. In the heart of either alike the indwelling Spirit sendeth up the filial cry. Yet this mode of double wording arose from the fact that Hebrews largely spoke two languages, and Greeks would, in approximate Christianity, often become Hebraized. Schoettgen is quoted by Lightfoot as giving a specimen of the title my lord, addressed in both Hebrew and Greek by a Jewish woman to a judge. Compare Mark 14:36, and Romans 8:15.

The word abba, signifying father in Hebrew, is the original of the ecclesiastical terms abbot, abbe, and abbey, in modern European languages.

Ver. 6. A spiritual event in the hearts of Paul’s readers analogous to, and consequent upon, the above historical event.

Ye are sons: as already stated in Galatians 3:26. This implies that the purpose of the sending of the Son, stated in Galatians 4:5, has been actually accomplished. And, because to be sons of God and yet not have the Spirit of His Son would be incongruous, God sent-forth, etc. Notice the stately parallel of Galatians 4:4 and 6: cp. Romans 1:3, 4. The Spirit of His Son: so Spirit of Christ, Romans 8:9; 1 Peter 1:11. An uncommon term, yet easily understood. For, that the Spirit is sent both by (John 14:26; 15:26) the Son and the Father, suggests His similar relation to the Father and the Son. And the analogy of our own spirit in 1 Corinthians 2:11 suggests that the Son, like the Father, sends forth, in the person of the Holy Spirit, the animating principle of His own divine life to be the animating principle of His servants’ life. Thus the presence of the Spirit is virtually the presence of Christ Himself within us: Romans 8:9f; Ephesians 3:17; John 14:18. That this animating principle is a Person distinct from the Son and the Father, (see under 1 Corinthians 12:11,) belongs to the mystery of the Holy Trinity.

Sent forth: or has-sent forth. The Greek tense does not suggest, as does the English preterite, some definite time, e.g. Pentecost. By personal faith (Galatians 3:26) Paul’s readers became sons of God; and, because of this, received the Spirit of His Son. The Spirit, thus received, works a new birth: John 3:5. Consequently, the recipients are born from God: 1 John 3:9; 5:1, 18; James 1:18; cp. 1 Peter 1:23. But of this new birth Paul speaks only in the casual reference in Titus 3:5. He attributes the new life directly to the presence and activity of the Spirit: Galatians 5:16ff. Since the Spirit is the source of this cry, He is said Himself to cry: cp. Romans 8:26. So do evil spirits, in Matthew 8:31. Since men are the mouthpiece of the cry, it is also attributed to them: in whom we cry, Romans 8:15.

Abba, Father: see under Romans 8:15. The Eternal Son, as He looks at God, cries Father. This cry the Spirit of the Son, sent forth by God, puts into the hearts of His people. And, while they utter it, they are conscious that their own cry is the voice in them of the Spirit of the Son of God. This inward voice is thus a proof to them that they are sons of God. See under Romans 8:17.

V. 7. Wherefore thou-Who believest in Christ. Art no more a servant-Like those who are under the law. But a son-Of mature age.

And if a son, then an heir of all the promises, and of the all-sufficient God himself.

Verse 7. Thou art no more a servant] Thou who hast believed in Christ art no longer a slave, either under the dominion of sin or under obligation to the Mosaic ritual; but a son of God, adopted into the heavenly family. And if a son, then an heir] Having a right to the inheritance, because one of the family, for none can inherit but the children; but this heirship is the most extraordinary of all: it is not an heirship of any tangible possession, either in heaven or earth; it is not to possess a part or even the whole of either, it is to possess Him who made all things; not God’s works, but God himself: heirs of GOD through Christ.

Verses 4-7. But when the fulness of time — Appointed by the Father, (verse 2,) and marked out by the predictions of the prophets for the accomplishment of this great event; was come — And we were arrived at the age proper for our entering on our adult state, and being put in possession of the promises, by the introduction of the gospel dispensation; God sent forth — From heaven into our world; his Son — Miraculously made, or rather, born, as the word genomenon may, with equal propriety, be translated; because, although Christ, as to his body, or his human nature in general, might be said to have been made of a woman, and of the seed of David, (Romans 1:3,) yet as he was the Son of God, sent forth from the Father, he was not made at all, much less of a woman. See on Hebrews 1:3-6; 7:3. Or the clause may be read, made flesh of a woman, namely, of a virgin, without the concurrence of a man. Made under the law — Under its discipline, in all its rigour; subject not only to the precepts, but to the curse of the law, even the Mosaic law; to redeem them that were under the law — From the curse of it, which he bore in their stead, and from that low, servile state in which they were before; and that he might bring them into a happy liberty from any future obligation to observe its ceremonial institutions. It must be observed, however, that the apostle had not only the Jews in his view here, but the Gentiles also, as is evident from verse 8, where they are addressed in particular. The law from which all are redeemed, or bought off, was not the law of Moses alone, but the law of nature, as a rule of justification: see note on Galatians 3:13. From both these laws, with the religious institutions attached to them, Christ hath redeemed mankind by his death, that he might place them under the gracious dispensation of his gospel. That we — Whether Jews or Gentiles, who believe; might receive the adoption of sons — Might stand related to God, not only as his people, his true and spiritual worshippers, his subjects and his servants, but also as his sons and daughters; might be peculiarly near and dear to him; made partakers of his nature, favoured with his special guidance, protection, and care; might have continual liberty of access to him and intercourse with him; might have all our wants, ghostly and bodily, supplied by him here, and might be constituted joint heirs with his beloved Son of the heavenly inheritance hereafter. See on John 1:12; Romans 8:14-17. Observe, reader, it is the privilege of true believers in the present life to have the assurance of God’s love, peace of conscience, protection from their spiritual enemies, assistance in times of trial and temptation, and the certain hope of eternal life. And because ye are thus made his sons — By adoption and regeneration; God hath sent forth — From heaven, as he sent forth his Son from thence; the Spirit of his Son — The very same Spirit of truth, holiness, and consolation, which dwelt in his Son; into your hearts — To take up his abode there; crying, Abba, Father — Enabling you to call God your reconciled Father in truth and with assurance, and to call upon him both with the confidence and temper of dutiful children. The Hebrew and Greek word signifying father are here joined together, to express the joint cry of Jews and Gentiles. Wherefore thou — Who believest in Christ, and art a true member of the gospel church, whether born a Jew or a Gentile; art no more — No longer; a servant — As formerly, in a state of bondage, whether to the legal dispensation of Moses, or to the law of nature, and the ceremonial institutions attached to it, by custom or divine appointment; but a son — Of mature age; and if a son, an heir of God — Entitled to the everlasting inheritance, and even to the enjoyment of the all-sufficient God himself; through Christ — Through his sacrifice and intercession, and my interest therein by faith.

7. No more a servant—Even in form and law like the minor child in verse

1. A son—In the full privileges of thy majority, and the full abundance of thy inheritance.

Ver. 7. Logical result of Galatians 4:6.

No longer: in contrast to Galatians 4:3. Although, as doing the work of God, we are (see under Romans 1:1) His servants, yet the word servant is no longer an accurate description of our position. The servant has become an adopted son. And, to be a son, is to be also an heir. In Roman law the adopted sons of an intestate father shared his property equally with the born sons. And they who believe in Christ will enjoy for ever, in virtue of their relation to God, His infinite wealth. So Romans 8:17.

Through God, or by the agency of God: cp. Galatians 1:1, through God, the Father, who raised, etc.: and see notes. By sending His Son that we might receive the adoption, and by sending the Spirit of His Son to assure us of this, God is not only the ultimate source but Himself an immediate agent of our heirship.

The apparent contradiction between no longer a servant and Romans 1:1; 1 Corinthians 7:22 results from the weakness of human language to set forth the many-sided truths of God; and warns us to use the utmost caution in interpreting solitary statements in the Bible. Neglect of this has given rise to innumerable and serious errors. Fortunately the chief doctrines of the New Testament are stated so frequently that, as here, one statement supplies the imperfection of another.

SECTION 15 completes Paul’s teaching about the sons of God, teaching very conspicuous in Romans and Galatians but elsewhere rare (2 Corinthians 6:18; Ephesians 1:5; <504415> Philippians 2:15) with Paul. It is very similar to John 1:12; 1 John 3:1f, and akin to Christ’s words in Matthew 5:45; Luke 20:36, and to His frequent teaching that God is our Father. We are said to be His children, not by creation but by adoption through faith into His family. Before our faith we were in bondage. But this is not inconsistent with our present relation to God. For even a born son is, during his minority, in the position of a servant. To us now these days of servitude are past. So important in the eyes of God was our new relation to Him that to bring it about He sent forth from the glories of heaven His Eternal Son. And, to make the adopted sons like the Firstborn and to set an inward seal upon their adoption, God sent forth into their hearts the Spirit of His Son. So that now, by the immediate agency of God, we are His sons and heirs of His wealth.

V. 8. Indeed then when ye knew not God, ye served them that by nature-That is, in reality.

Are no gods-And so were under a far worse bondage than even that of the Jews. For they did serve the true God, though in a low, slavish manner.

Verse 8. When ye knew not God] Though it is evident, from the complexion of the whole of this epistle, that the great body of the Christians in the Churches of Galatia were converts from among the Jews or proselytes to Judaism; yet from this verse it appears that there were some who had been converted from heathenism; unless we suppose that the apostle here particularly addresses those who had been proselytes to Judaism and thence converted to Christianity; which appears to be most likely from the following verses.

Verses 8-11. Howbeit — Alla, but, or however, that ye Gentiles may not foolishly reject, neglect, or forfeit your privileges, as the sons of God, you ought to remember what your condition was while under the elements of the world, and compare it with your present happy state: that then, when ye knew not the one living and true God, ye did service — Performed many degrading, burdensome, irrational, and abominable acts of worship and service, unto them which by nature are no gods — “This is a true description of the idols worshipped by the heathen, for either they had no existence, being mere creatures of the imagination; or, if any of them existed, they were dead men, or evil spirits, or the luminaries of the heavens, [or other creatures of God, as most of the idols of Egypt were,] deified by human folly: and being destitute of divine perfections, they were utterly incapable of bestowing any blessing whatever on their worshippers.” But now, after ye have known the only true God — And his mind and will; or rather are known of God — Are acknowledged, approved, and accepted, as his children; how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements — Weak, utterly unable to purge your conscience from guilt, and to inspire you with filial confidence in God, or to change your nature, transform you into his likeness, and to enable you to do and suffer his will: beggarly, or poor; that is, incapable of enriching your souls with such wisdom, holiness, and happiness, as ye are heirs to, or to give you a hope of a blessed immortality after death; whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage — Though of another kind: now to these elements, as before to those idols; changing indeed the form and object of your ceremonies, but retaining many of the same low, perplexing, and unprofitable observances. Ye observe days — Jewish sabbaths; and months — New moons; and times — As that of the passover, pentecost, and the feast of tabernacles; and years — Annual solemnities. The word does not here mean sabbatic years: these were not to be observed out of the land of Canaan. This was addressed to such of the Galatians as had embraced Judaism. Some think this verse should be read interrogatively, Do ye observe? &c, because it seems to intimate a hope that it might be otherwise. As a question, it likewise expresses the apostle’s surprise that the Galatians observed these days. I am afraid of you — See on 2 Corinthians 11:2, 3; lest I have bestowed upon you labour in vain — As will be the case if you continue the use of these ceremonies and think to be justified by them together with Christ, Galatians 5:2.

8. Ye knew not God—Alluding to the fact that the main body of the Galatian Church had been pagans. Did service—You were not merely like the slave of verse 1, but were actual slaves and worshippers of false tutors and governors, namely, them which are no gods. By nature—But only in the fancy of their worshippers.

6. Consequent folly of their relapse from faith-justification into old legalism, 9-20.

GALATIANS

SECTION 16. — THEN TURN NOT BACK TO

THINGS LEFT BEHIND. CH. 4:8-11.

Nevertheless at that time, not knowing God, ye were in bondage to those who by nature are not gods. But now, having come to know God, or rather having become known by God, how are ye turning again to the weak and poor rudiments to which, beginning anew, ye wish to be again in bondage? Days ye observe, and months, and seasons, and years. I fear you, lest in any way I have in vain laboured for you.

Practical and personal application to the Galatian Christians, closing the argument introduced in Galatians 3:1.

Ver. 8.-9. Startling and sad contrast to Galatians 4:7. The contrast is to be sought, not in the bygone detail ye were servants, but in turning back again to the rudiments, which is the chief matter of § 16 and indeed (Galatians 1:6; 4:21; 5:4) of the whole Epistle, and which was actually going on as Paul wrote, in almost tragic contrast to Galatians 4:7. Paul might have said nevertheless ye are turning back: but, as his manner (e.g. Romans 6:17; 8:15) was, he preludes his chief point by other matter which throws it into stronger relief. Then, after the interval thus caused, instead of an assertion, he puts in Galatians 4:9 his chief point in the form of an astonished question.

Not knowing God: 1 Thessalonians 4:5; John 17:25; contrast Romans 1:21. In each case the extent of the knowledge is determined by the context. The personal God who revealed Himself to Israel (Psalms 76:1Psalm 76:1) was not known, in the same sense, to the heathen. Yet they derived from Nature such knowledge of Him as should have prompted further search, and actually left them without excuse. On the other hand, only they who believe the Gospel, and in proportion to their faith, know God so as to rest and rejoice in Him. Cp. John 17:3. The heathens’ scantier opportunities of knowing God, as compared with the Jews’, were a palliation of their service of idols: but this palliation at that time aggravates by its absence now the guilt of turning back to the old rudiments of heathenism.

Were-in-bondage or were-servants: same word in Galatians 4:25; 5:13; Romans 6:6; 7:6, 25; Ephesians 6:7. It involves the two ideas of doing work (cp. Galatians 5:13) for others and of being (cp. Galatians 4:25) under others’ control. By performing the ritual of idolatry, the heathen acknowledged themselves to be servants under the control of their supposed deities. And whether idols be looked upon as mere images or as demons, idolatry is service and bondage to objects which by nature, i.e. by their mode of existence, are no gods. The word nature (see under Romans 2:14) suggests the essential and infinite difference between God and the no-gods.

V. 9. But now being known of God-As his beloved children. How turn ye back to the weak and poor elements-Weak, utterly unable to purge your conscience from guilt, or to give that filial confidence in God.

Poor-incapable of enriching the soul with such holiness and happiness as ye are heirs to.

Ye desire to be again in bondage-Though of another kind; now to these elements, as before to those idols.

Verse 9. Now, after that ye have known God] After having been brought to the knowledge of God as your Saviour.

Or rather are known of God] Are approved of him, having received the adoption of sons.

To the weak and beggarly elements] After receiving all this, will ye turn again to the ineffectual rites and ceremonies of the Mosaic law-rites too weak to counteract your sinful habits, and too poor to purchase pardon and eternal life for you? If the Galatians were turning again to them, it is evident that they had been once addicted to them. And this they might have been, allowing that they had become converts from heathenism to Judaism, and from Judaism to Christianity. This makes the sense consistent between the 8th and 9th verses. {Galatians 4:8-9.}

Verses 8-11. Howbeit — Alla, but, or however, that ye Gentiles may not foolishly reject, neglect, or forfeit your privileges, as the sons of God, you ought to remember what your condition was while under the elements of the world, and compare it with your present happy state: that then, when ye knew not the one living and true God, ye did service — Performed many degrading, burdensome, irrational, and abominable acts of worship and service, unto them which by nature are no gods — “This is a true description of the idols worshipped by the heathen, for either they had no existence, being mere creatures of the imagination; or, if any of them existed, they were dead men, or evil spirits, or the luminaries of the heavens, [or other creatures of God, as most of the idols of Egypt were,] deified by human folly: and being destitute of divine perfections, they were utterly incapable of bestowing any blessing whatever on their worshippers.” But now, after ye have known the only true God — And his mind and will; or rather are known of God — Are acknowledged, approved, and accepted, as his children; how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements — Weak, utterly unable to purge your conscience from guilt, and to inspire you with filial confidence in God, or to change your nature, transform you into his likeness, and to enable you to do and suffer his will: beggarly, or poor; that is, incapable of enriching your souls with such wisdom, holiness, and happiness, as ye are heirs to, or to give you a hope of a blessed immortality after death; whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage — Though of another kind: now to these elements, as before to those idols; changing indeed the form and object of your ceremonies, but retaining many of the same low, perplexing, and unprofitable observances. Ye observe days — Jewish sabbaths; and months — New moons; and times — As that of the passover, pentecost, and the feast of tabernacles; and years — Annual solemnities. The word does not here mean sabbatic years: these were not to be observed out of the land of Canaan. This was addressed to such of the Galatians as had embraced Judaism. Some think this verse should be read interrogatively, Do ye observe? &c, because it seems to intimate a hope that it might be otherwise. As a question, it likewise expresses the apostle’s surprise that the Galatians observed these days. I am afraid of you — See on 2 Corinthians 11:2, 3; lest I have bestowed upon you labour in vain — As will be the case if you continue the use of these ceremonies and think to be justified by them together with Christ, Galatians 5:2.

Ver. 9. But now — how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage? The observance of hebrew and gentile feasts reputed holy, as though you had forgotten the glory of Christ, and the fulness of the gospel. This great master knew how to speak to men in error.

9. But now—After your adult growth and knowledge. Known God—Not merely as a false Jupiter or a dim Jehovah, but as father through Christ. Rather… known of God—No longer like children committed to governors and tutors, and overlooked by their father; but like children to whom the Father hath sent the Spirit of sonship, who hears them crying, and knows them as his sons. How—Imperative rebuke! How can so preposterous a turn be made. Weak—As childhood. Beggarly—Penniless as the minor state. Elements—The first letters, hieroglyphs, and child-pictures of pupilage. That is the circumcision, the holidays, and the rituals of either Judaism or paganism. Weak—Impotent to strengthen spiritually the soul in its full growth. Beggarly—Poor in any thing that can satisfy an immortal spirit.

Ver. 9. But now; a marked feature of Paul’s phraseology and thought, the contrast of past and present; see under Romans 6:22. Having-come-to-know God: as implied in Galatians 4:6. Known by God: see under 1 Corinthians 8:3. Paul remembers that the change has its ultimate source, not in the mind of man as though by his intelligence he had found out God, but in the mind of God who in mercy has looked upon man. Therefore, leaving out of sight for a moment God’s eternal knowledge of all men, which lay at that time outside his readers’ thought, Paul speaks here as though they had lately come within the embrace of this divine knowledge. They can now say, as once they never said, God knows me.

How: as in Galatians 2:14: by what process is so remarkable a retrogression taking place?

Are turning: the apostacy now going on, and therefore not yet complete. See under Galatians 1:6. Same word in 2 Corinthians 3:16; 1 Thessalonians 1:9: often used of turning to God, here the opposite. Again; recalls Galatians 4:3.

Weak: unable to achieve results.

Poor: unable to enrich.

Again… again: emphatic reference to Galatians 4:3, reminding us that to go to the Law for salvation was to go again to something already tried and found unable to save.

Beginning-anew: as though recommencing the severe discipline of their spiritual childhood.

To-be-in-bondage: as in Galatians 4:8. Cp. Galatians 5:1. Since to seek salvation from law is essentially bondage, (for it is a vain effort to free ourselves from a terrible curse,) all desire for the Law as a means of salvation is practically a wish to be again in bondage to it. Cp. Acts 15:10. And this practical result of the present conduct of the Galatian Christians reveals its folly. They deliberately prefer now a path already tried, for which the only excuse at that time was their then ignorance of God.

Paul assumes that both himself (Galatians 4:3) and his Gentile readers (Galatians 4:8, 9) were formerly under the same rudiments, and in bondage to them. This implies, not only that Judaism was powerless to save and to enrich, but that heathenism, as well as Judaism, was in some sense and measure a preparation for the Gospel. Heathen sages taught the great principles of right and wrong, and that God’s favour was to be obtained only by doing right: and even the rites of heathenism, deeply corrupt as many of them were, contained elements expressive of man’s felt need of salvation and of God. In other words, the Old Covenant did but reveal, with greater distinctness and depth and certainty, truths already revealed, in Nature and in the law written on the heart, to the nations around; and added to these moral truths a prophecy of future salvation of which only the faintest outline was known to the heathen world. Consequently, to seek salvation by the Mosaic Covenant of works, was to go back, ignoring the noblest element in the earlier revelation, e.g. Genesis 15:6; Habakkuk 2:4; Jeremiah 31:31ff; Ezekiel 36:25ff, to that which in a lower degree heathenism had in common with Judaism, to that which both Jews and Gentiles had found unable to save them. That the Law is here called weak and poor. (cp. Romans 8:3) does not deny its infinite worth as a means (Galatians 3:24) of leading men to Christ. Cp. Romans 7:12. It is good as a stepping stone to the Gospel; but is utterly ruinous when chosen as a means of salvation in preference to the salvation proclaimed in the Gospel.

This assumption that to go to the Mosaic Law for salvation was a return to the moral powerlessness and poverty of heathenism, although perfectly true and embodying a principle of immense importance, helps to explain the intense hatred of the Jews to a teacher of Jewish race who used such words.

V. 10. Ye observe days-Jewish sabbaths.

And months-New moons.

And times-As that of the passover, pentecost, and the feast of tabernacles. And years-Annual solemnities. It does not mean sabbatic years. These were not to be observed out of the land of Canaan.

Verse 10. Ye observe days] Ye superstitiously regard the Sabbaths and particular days of your own appointment;

And months] New moons; times-festivals, such as those of tabernacles, dedication, passover, &c.

Years.] Annual atonements, sabbatical years, and jubilees.

Verses 8-11. Howbeit — Alla, but, or however, that ye Gentiles may not foolishly reject, neglect, or forfeit your privileges, as the sons of God, you ought to remember what your condition was while under the elements of the world, and compare it with your present happy state: that then, when ye knew not the one living and true God, ye did service — Performed many degrading, burdensome, irrational, and abominable acts of worship and service, unto them which by nature are no gods — “This is a true description of the idols worshipped by the heathen, for either they had no existence, being mere creatures of the imagination; or, if any of them existed, they were dead men, or evil spirits, or the luminaries of the heavens, [or other creatures of God, as most of the idols of Egypt were,] deified by human folly: and being destitute of divine perfections, they were utterly incapable of bestowing any blessing whatever on their worshippers.” But now, after ye have known the only true God — And his mind and will; or rather are known of God — Are acknowledged, approved, and accepted, as his children; how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements — Weak, utterly unable to purge your conscience from guilt, and to inspire you with filial confidence in God, or to change your nature, transform you into his likeness, and to enable you to do and suffer his will: beggarly, or poor; that is, incapable of enriching your souls with such wisdom, holiness, and happiness, as ye are heirs to, or to give you a hope of a blessed immortality after death; whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage — Though of another kind: now to these elements, as before to those idols; changing indeed the form and object of your ceremonies, but retaining many of the same low, perplexing, and unprofitable observances. Ye observe days — Jewish sabbaths; and months — New moons; and times — As that of the passover, pentecost, and the feast of tabernacles; and years — Annual solemnities. The word does not here mean sabbatic years: these were not to be observed out of the land of Canaan. This was addressed to such of the Galatians as had embraced Judaism. Some think this verse should be read interrogatively, Do ye observe? &c, because it seems to intimate a hope that it might be otherwise. As a question, it likewise expresses the apostle’s surprise that the Galatians observed these days. I am afraid of you — See on 2 Corinthians 11:2, 3; lest I have bestowed upon you labour in vain — As will be the case if you continue the use of these ceremonies and think to be justified by them together with Christ, Galatians 5:2.

10. Observe days—The sabbaths of Judaism, the ritual days of paganism. That the heathen also observe days we have a striking illustration from the fact that the days of our Christian week bear each the name of a pagan divinity, as, indeed, do some of our months. Months—The feasts of new moons. Times—Seasons, as passover, pentecost, etc. Years—The sabbatic, or seventh year; the jubilee, every fiftieth year. Wieseler reckons that the then passing year was a sabbatic. But the jubilee was then truly no longer observed. Paul enumerates all these, not as being actually kept, but because the Galatians were making up with puerile system their whole ritual calendar. It seems, perhaps, strange that Paul does not name circumcision as one of the beggarly elements. But against that he warns them in verse 2; in words implying that they had not yet gone so far as that.

Ver. 10. Simple statement of fact. It explains and justifies the charge involved in the question of Galatians 4:9.

Days: cp. Romans 14:5: the weekly Sabbath; but including probably the great days (John 7:37; 19:31) of the yearly festivals. Cp. Colossians 2:16; where, in the inverse order of frequency, we have the weekly sabbath indisputably, the beginnings of months, and the yearly feasts. It is thrown conspicuously forward to the beginning of Galatians 4:10, suggesting that these sacred days were a chief feature of the Jewish ritual adopted by the Galatian Christians.

Observe: attend to them with scrupulous care. Same word in Josephus, Antiq. bk. iii. 5. 5, “to observe the seventh days;” in reference to the fourth commandment.

Months: probably the new moons, which are constantly mentioned with the weekly Sabbath; Numbers 28:11; Isaiah 1:13; Hosea 2:11; 1 Chronicles 23:31, also Numbers 10:10; Psalms 81:3Psalm 81:3. Philo speaks (vol. ii. 286) of the seventh month as specially honoured by containing “the greatest of feasts.” But he says this chiefly to glorify the number seven. Moreover, this long festival is included in the seasons: and the new moons, a conspicuous feature of Jewish ritual, are unmentioned unless referred to as months. That only the beginnings of the months, but the whole of the days and seasons, were sacred, is an unimportant difference.

Seasons: same word in Leviticus 23:4, introducing regulations for the Passover, Pentecost, and feast of Tabernacles. And to these feasts occupying several days, Paul probably refers here.

Years: the seventh Sabbatic year. The plural number, making the reference general, forbids us to infer that Paul wrote during a sacred year. He merely says that, to observe the year when it came round, was part of his readers’ Judaizing programme.

V. 11. The apostle here, dropping the argument, applies to the affections, Galatians 4:11-20, and humbles himself to the Galatians, with an inexpressible tenderness.

Verse 11. I am afraid of you] I begin now to be seriously alarmed for you, and think you are so thoroughly perverted from the Gospel of Christ, that all my pains and labour in your conversion have been thrown away.

Verses 8-11. Howbeit — Alla, but, or however, that ye Gentiles may not foolishly reject, neglect, or forfeit your privileges, as the sons of God, you ought to remember what your condition was while under the elements of the world, and compare it with your present happy state: that then, when ye knew not the one living and true God, ye did service — Performed many degrading, burdensome, irrational, and abominable acts of worship and service, unto them which by nature are no gods — “This is a true description of the idols worshipped by the heathen, for either they had no existence, being mere creatures of the imagination; or, if any of them existed, they were dead men, or evil spirits, or the luminaries of the heavens, [or other creatures of God, as most of the idols of Egypt were,] deified by human folly: and being destitute of divine perfections, they were utterly incapable of bestowing any blessing whatever on their worshippers.” But now, after ye have known the only true God — And his mind and will; or rather are known of God — Are acknowledged, approved, and accepted, as his children; how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements — Weak, utterly unable to purge your conscience from guilt, and to inspire you with filial confidence in God, or to change your nature, transform you into his likeness, and to enable you to do and suffer his will: beggarly, or poor; that is, incapable of enriching your souls with such wisdom, holiness, and happiness, as ye are heirs to, or to give you a hope of a blessed immortality after death; whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage — Though of another kind: now to these elements, as before to those idols; changing indeed the form and object of your ceremonies, but retaining many of the same low, perplexing, and unprofitable observances. Ye observe days — Jewish sabbaths; and months — New moons; and times — As that of the passover, pentecost, and the feast of tabernacles; and years — Annual solemnities. The word does not here mean sabbatic years: these were not to be observed out of the land of Canaan. This was addressed to such of the Galatians as had embraced Judaism. Some think this verse should be read interrogatively, Do ye observe? &c, because it seems to intimate a hope that it might be otherwise. As a question, it likewise expresses the apostle’s surprise that the Galatians observed these days. I am afraid of you — See on 2 Corinthians 11:2, 3; lest I have bestowed upon you labour in vain — As will be the case if you continue the use of these ceremonies and think to be justified by them together with Christ, Galatians 5:2.

11. I am afraid of you, lest—The Greek indicative implies that he assumes that which he fears was an accomplished fact.

a. Earnest expostulation in view of his and their past mutual history and the conduct of his opponents, 12-20.

Paul tenderly reminds the Galatians of their cordial reception of his first preaching, 12-16; hints the selfishness of their seducers, 17, 18; and makes appeal to their sympathetic emotions, vv. 19, 20.

Ver. 11. Result, in Paul’s heart, of the conduct described in Galatians 4:10. His own converts were objects filling him with fear. For, their present conduct threatened to render fruitless his toil for them and thus to inflict upon him, eager for success, i.e. for their salvation, a severe blow. He was therefore in some sense at their mercy. This fear reveals their tremendous danger and Paul’s deep interest in them.

In-any-way: as in Galatians 4:2; 1 Thessalonians 3:5. He thinks of the variety of ways in which his labours may become fruitless. The emphatic word is in-vain: cp. Galatians 3:4. For the result is still contingent; whereas Paul’s labours are already matter of fact, and therefore beyond reach of fear. [This explains sufficiently the perfect indicative, without supposing that Paul assumes that his fear is already realised.] VERSE 10 is Paul’s first plain statement of the nature of the incipient apostacy from which in this Epistle he seeks to recall his readers. Observance of the Jewish festivals and even of the Jewish Sabbath, though all these were ordained by God, is described as a turning back to the powerless rudiments of spiritual education and as a desire to return to bondage, and is said to inspire in Paul fear lest his labours for them be in vain. This reveals the vast issues at stake in this observance, and its tremendous significance. Evidently it implied that the Law of Moses was still binding as a condition, and therefore the only means of obtaining, the blessings of the New Covenant. This inference from the observance of Jewish ritual is plainly stated in Galatians 5:3. Cp. Acts 15:1, 5. It explains the question in Galatians 3:2, and the argument following; and is the only conceivable explanation of them.

This logical inference from these Jewish practices would produce various results in various persons. Since the Law contains moral precepts involving broad principles which reach to the inmost sources of human action, and thus reveals a morality far beyond reach of the best men who come to the Law for salvation, the result to earnest seekers would be a sense of condemnation deepening into despair. Of this, Paul had himself been an example: cp. Romans 7:24. Others would direct and limit their attention to those parts of the Law which seemed easy of fulfilment, especially the details of its ritual, e.g. observance of sacred days. And on such observance they would rely for the favour of God, silencing the voice of conscience by increased punctiliousness in small details. Of this false reliance a lowered moral tone is an inevitable result. In each case the result would be subversive of the Gospel and of Christianity. Yet these sacred days were ordained by God, in order to prepare a way, both as means of spiritual education and by their felt inability to save, for the salvation revealed by Christ. To retrace our steps in the path of life, is the way to destruction.

In Acts 21:24 we find Paul himself doing that which in the Galatian Christians caused him so much fear. See Diss. i. 5. As a born Jew, to conciliate Jews and to avoid appearance of denying the divine origin of the Mosaic Law, Paul himself obeyed its requirements. But he taught strenuously that such observance was not needful for salvation, or in any way binding on Gentile converts. Thus Paul’s conduct and teaching were consistent, although easily misunderstood and misrepresented. REVIEW of §§ 9-16, the central argument of the Epistle.

Some men in Galatia had taught that Christians are bound to be circumcised and to keep Jewish sacred seasons. Without discussing these details, Paul goes at once to a broad and erroneous principle underlying them, viz. that observance of the Law is still a condition of the favour of God. In disproof of this, he appeals to his readers’ earlier Christian life which was derived, as memory testifies, not from obedience to law but from belief of a preached word. He asks whether a life begun by reception of the Spirit is to be perfected by ordinances pertaining to mere bodily life. With his readers’ experience agrees the story of Abraham, who obtained by faith blessings for himself and promises for all nations. These promises are fulfilled in those who believe the Gospel, and in them only. For, on all who come to it for salvation the Law pronounces a curse. From this curse Christ bought us off, by Himself undergoing it, that by faith we might obtain the blessings promised to Abraham. if the Law be a condition of salvation, God has nullified His promises to Abraham by adding to them a later and impossible condition; which even human morality forbids. Paul notices incidentally that the heirs of the promises are uniformly designated by a word in the singular number, in close harmony with the fulfilment of these promises in Christ. The real purpose of the Law was to create in man consciousness of helpless bondage under the power of sin, in order to compel him to seek salvation by faith in Christ. The days of bondage are now past. By union with Christ we are sons of God, a relation in which all human distinctions fade; and heirs of Abraham’s promises. The former days were the bondage of childhood: but now that the set time has come we are adopted sons of God; and, in token of this, God has put in our hearts the filial cry of His Firstborn Son. In view of all this, Paul asks why his readers wish to begin over again the discipline and bondage of their earlier days, and expresses a fear lest they will rob him of the fruits of his toil on their behalf.

THE weekly SABBATH is, as we have seen, included, and probably referred to specially, in the evidently sad statement of Galatians 4:10. This agrees with Colossians 2:16, where the Sabbath, which must be chiefly the weekly rest, is joined to feasts and new moons and distinctions of food as a matter in which sentence must not be pronounced upon Christians; and with Romans 14:5, where the superiority of one day above another is left an open question. The relation therefore of the Jewish Sabbath to Christianity demands our attention.

The word Sabbath is an English form of a Hebrew word denoting always a sacred rest. The corresponding verb denotes sometimes simply to cease or rest, as in Genesis 8:22; Joshua 5:12; Jeremiah 31:36; Proverbs 22:10; Job 32:1; Nehemiah 6:3; and sometimes to keep a sacred rest, as in Genesis 2:2 and He kept Sabbath on the seventh day from all His work which He did, Exodus 16:30; 23:12; 34:21; Leviticus 23:32; 25:2.

Although there are several festal days in which servile work was forbidden, e.g. Leviticus 23:7f, and in a few places, e.g. Leviticus 23:11, 15, these seem to be called Sabbaths or are indisputably called (so Leviticus 23:24) by the cognate name Shabbathon, yet the weekly Sabbath and the Day of Atonement are raised above all other days as (Leviticus 23:3, 31f) a cessation from all work and are designated by a special superlative name Sabbath of Sabbath-keeping or Rest of Resting, in A.V. Sabbath of Rest. When not otherwise defined, the word Sabbath is a sufficient and frequent designation of the weekly rest. Thus the usage of words gives to the seventh day a unique place of honour among the many sacred days of the Law of Moses.

Amid many other ordinances, the weekly Sabbath is very conspicuous as being the special sign of the Mosaic Covenant: Exodus 31:12-17; cp. Ezekiel 20:12. It thus takes in some sense the place of circumcision (Genesis 17:10-14) in the covenant with Abraham. The frequent and regular recurrence of the weekly rest made it a very appropriate test and visible expression of loyalty to the covenant with God.

Still further is the weekly Sabbath raised above all other ritual prescriptions by its place in the Decalogue, among commandments valid every one for all time and all men; and by being based in the Decalogue and in Genesis 2:3; Exodus 31:17 upon God’s work in creation. Of the close relation of the Sabbath to moral precepts, Isaiah 56:1-6 affords remarkable proof.

That the weekly rest was ordained before Moses, is not proved by Genesis 2:3: for even after a lapse of time an institution may have been ordained to commemorate a bygone event. Against this, the consecutive order of Gen. 2 cannot be appealed to for after the ordinance of the Sabbath in Genesis 2:3 we have in Genesis 2:7 the creation of man. Nor is it disproved by Ezekiel 20:12: for an already existing institution might at the Exodus have been made by God a sign of the new covenant then given to Israel. That the princes of Israel in the wilderness (Exodus 16:22) did not understand the double supply of manna, suggests perhaps that the Sabbath was not then known to them. On the other hand, Genesis 8:10, 12 and 29:27 suggest that a period of seven days was already used as a division of time: and, although this does not imply a weekly day of sacred rest, the division of time into weeks is much more easy to understand if the weeks were separated by a sacred day. The word remember in Exodus 20:8, if it is anything more than an emphatic form of the parallel phrase keep the Sabbath day in Deuteronomy 4:12, refers doubtless to the institution of the Sabbath in Exodus 16:29, 30. Certainly it is no proof or suggestion that the Sabbath was ordained earlier than the departure from Egypt. Indeed, taken together, the above casual and uncertain notes have little weight as evidence either that the Sabbath was not, or was, ordained earlier than the Exodus. But the double supply of manna on the sixth day with no manna on the seventh, and the solemn ordinance of the Sabbath in Exodus 16:25-30 before the giving of the Decalogue, are additional marks of honour to the weekly Day of Rest.

The week itself was unknown to the early Greeks and Romans, and apparently to the heathen world generally. But that something like it was known to the Babylonians and Assyrians, is proved by a Babylonian calendar for a sacred month written in the Assyrian language, in which amid sacrifices for other days, the 7th, 14th, 19th, 21st, and 28th days have a uniform description as “days unlawful to work on,” and the king is forbidden to eat his ordinary food or change his dress or do his ordinary royal duties on them. See Smith’s Chaldaean Account of Genesis p. 89; Records of the Past, vol. vii. p. 159; Schrader, Keilinschriften und A.T. 2nd ed. p. 18. Since these were days of a lunar month, which contains 29½ days, they would not coincide with the Jewish Sabbath, which is each seventh day all the year round independently of the moon. But the similarity is worthy of notice. An Assyrian form of the word Sabbath has been found; (see Records of the Past, vol. vii. p. 157;) and is explained as “day of rest of heart.” But it is not used in the calendar mentioned above other Babylonian inscriptions reveal the sacredness of the number seven. A seven-fold division of time is also mentioned in the Indian Vedas. So Rig-veda i. 50, in a hymn to the Sun-god: “Clear-sighted god of day, thy seven ruddy mares bear on thy rushing car. With these thy self-yoked steeds, seven daughters of thy chariot, onward thou dost advance.” Also Atharva-veda xix. 53, in a hymn to Time: “Time, like a brilliant steed with seven rays… Time, like a seven-wheeled, seven-naved car, moves on.” But I learn from a reliable authority that these are the only references to a seven-fold division of time in Indian literature earlier than our era; and that there is no reference there to a weekly rest. But in later days the week became known in India.

Similar scanty references are found in the literature of China. Dion Cassius (Roman History bk. 37. 16-18) states that in his day the division of time into weeks was universal, though not of early date among the Greeks and Romans, and that they received it from the Egyptians. But we have not, so far as I know, any reliable traces of a weekly day of rest among the Egyptians. And indeed the evidence of a weekly division of time earlier than the Christian era and outside Israel is at present very scanty and somewhat uncertain.

The early Christian writers assume that the Sabbath did not exist before Moses. So Justin (Dialogue with Trypho ch. 19) says in argument with a Jew, referring to Adam, Abel, Enoch, and Melchizedec: “All these were just men and righteous in the sight of God without even keeping the Sabbath.” And Irenæus in his work Against Heresies (bk. iv. 16. 2) writes “Without circumcision and without observance of the Sabbath Abraham believed God and it was reckoned to him for righteousness.” Probably these quotations represent the opinion of the Apostolic Church. But the distance of time and absence of independent sources of information deprive this opinion of any critical value as evidence of the date of the first institution of the weekly rest.

The above casual references leave us unable to determine with confidence whether the Sabbath was earlier than the Mosaic Covenant. And the matter is unimportant. For, that the Jewish Sabbath rested on a basis broader than the Mosaic Covenant, is proved by its connection with God’s work at the Creation.

The importance of the Sabbath in the Old Covenant is attested by Jeremiah 17:21-27; Ezekiel 20:12; Nehemiah 10:31; 13:15-22. Its worth in the eyes of the more pious of the later Jews is seen in 1 Macc. i. 39; ii. 34, 38, 41.

Yet that which to Israel of the Old Covenant was an obligatory mark of loyalty to God, was, in the Gentile Christians of Galatia, called by Paul a return to spiritual bondage. Indeed the prominent position in Galatians 4:10 of the word days suggests that their observance of the weekly Sabbath was a chief mark of their apostacy. And this, Paul’s foregoing argument enables us to understand. For it implies that the Galatian Christians kept the Jewish Sabbath as an essential condition of salvation. But this was an acknowledgment that the Mosaic Law is still binding as a condition of the favour of God. For the entire Law, including ritual and moral commands, was given by the same authority. Now Paul has proved that the Law pronounces a universal curse, and excludes from the blessings promised to Abraham all those under its domain. Consequently, the continued validity of the Law would close to all men the way of salvation. And this was involved in the observance by the Galatians of the Jewish Sabbath. This observance was therefore utterly subversive of the Gospel proclaimed by Christ. Hence Paul’s fear lest his labours in Galatia be in vain.

All this implies that, like the distinction of food, (Mark 7:15, 18; Acts 10:15,) so marked a feature of the Mosaic Covenant, also the command to keep sacred the seventh day was in some sense annulled by Christ, and that the great principle of Romans 6:14; 1 Corinthians 9:20, that we are not under law but under grace, includes the Sabbath Law. This inference compels us to consider now the relation of the Lord’s day to the Jewish Sabbath.

In marked contrast to the comparative disregard of the day so highly honoured in the Old Covenant, we find in the New Testament special honour paid to another day. On the day following the Jewish Sabbath Christ rose from the dead; and on the evening of the same day (John 20:19) appeared to the assembled disciples. On the same day of the next week He appeared to them again. And on the same day six weeks later He founded His Church by pouring upon the assembled disciples the Holy Spirit. The infinite importance of these events gives to the first day of the week a glory never conferred on the seventh day.

Accordingly we find in Acts 20:7 a Christian meeting held on the first day of the week; and in 1 Corinthians 16:2 Paul prescribes it as the day for laying by money for a charitable purpose. In Revelation 1:10, we read of the Lord’s Day, which is honoured by a special revelation to John. And the distinction already given to the first day of the week makes us quite certain that this was the Lord’s Day.

All this is confirmed by early Christian writers. The lately discovered Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, written probably early in the second century, says in ch. 14: “Each Lord’s Day come together and break bread and give thanks,” i.e. celebrate the Eucharist. So the Epistle of Barnabas, probably a few years later, ch. 15, where after a long reference to the Sabbath we read: “For which cause also we keep the eighth day for gladness, in which Jesus rose from the dead.” Justin writes in the middle of the century, First Apology ch. 67: “On what is called Sunday there is a coming together to one place of all who dwell in town or country, and the memoirs of the Apostles and the writings of the Prophets are read;” and says that this is followed by exhortation and the Lord’s Supper, adding: “On Sunday we all make our common gathering since it is the first day in which God changed darkness and crude matter and made the world: and Jesus Christ our Saviour on the same day rose from the dead.” A succession of later writers removes all doubt that the first day of the week was called the Lord’s Day, and was a special day of worship in the early Church.

We have already seen that unique honour to one day of the week was a marked feature of the Old Covenant; and that, by its reference to the work of Creation and its place in that Decalogue, the Jewish Sabbath was placed on a basis broader than the Mosaic Law. We now find in the New Covenant still more conspicuous honour paid to one day of the week; but not to the same day. The change of day marks a transition from the Old Covenant to the New. And the honour paid in each covenant to one day in seven suggests that a common element underlies both, and that the Lord’s Day bears to the Jewish Sabbath a relation similar to that of the New Covenant to the Old. That this is actually the case, is, I think, fully proved by the following considerations.

We find by experience that the weekly day of rest is of incalculable and many-sided benefit. The gain to the body of regular intervals of rest from the monotonous toil of daily life can never be estimated. Still more valuable is the leisure thus obtained, amid the imperious demands of the present life, for contemplation of the eternal realities of the life to come. Moreover, the observance of this sacred rest in spite of these pressing cares is an acknowledgment, in view of many who through forgetfulness of God are slaves of the world around, of the greater importance of the world above us. Thus, like the Lord’s Supper, the Lord’s Day gives visible form to the service of God. Moreover, the observance by all Christians of the same day of rest renders united worship possible; and makes the outward aspect of society a recognition of God. For these reasons, (and they might be multiplied indefinitely and they have much more force than appears on the surface,) were there no divine obligation it would be expedient for our highest interests to keep a frequent and regularly recurring day of rest, and that all Christians should observe the same day. This reveals the gain actually derived from the prevalent belief, whatever be its grounds, that the day of rest was ordained by God. Indeed, it is not easy to conceive how otherwise all Christians would agree to keep the same day. Consequently, either this belief is correct or an error has been to the world a manifold and incalculable benefit. This benefit is an element of good in the Jewish Sabbath suitable to all nations and all ages.

These spiritual gains go a long way to prove, or rather strongly confirm our other abundant proof of, the divine origin of the Mosaic Covenant. Certainly, the teacher who gave to his nation and institution so rich in blessing for all mankind was indeed taught by God.

Admitting now the divine origin of the Jewish Sabbath, as we are compelled to do unless we reject the plain and repeated historical statements of the Old Testament, and observing the immense gain to all men of a weekly day of sacred rest, we are irresistibly driven to infer that the rest ordained at Sinai was designed for all mankind; or, in other words, that this gain is by divine purpose. While enjoying the benefits of the Lord’s Day, we feel that these benefits are God’s gift. And this wider purpose of Israel’s Day of Rest is the easiest explanation of its place in the Decalogue and of its reference there to the Creation of the World. Indeed we can well conceive that the great benefit it was designed to confer on Israel and on the world moved God to select the Sabbath, whether previously existing or not, as the special sign of the Mosaic Covenant. For, by thus selecting it, He gave it a sure place in the national life. If the above inference and explanation be correct, by keeping the Lord’s Day we are doing the will of God and are receiving benefits designed by Him for us. To neglect it, would be to trample under foot a precious and divine gift. We therefore keep it, not as a condition or means of the favour of God or under fear of penalty, but with gratitude for so great a gift and desirous to obtain all the blessings it is designed to convey. And this desire will determine our mode of spending the Sacred Day.

In the above discussion we have left out of sight the symbolic significance which belongs to the Sabbath in common with the entire Mosaic ritual. This significance is embodied in the words holy and sanctify, which are everywhere given to every part of that ritual. God claimed from Israel for Himself one tribe out of twelve, one day in seven, and one-tenth of all produce, in order to assert His universal ownership. He now claims, in the New Covenant, that every man be His servant and priest, that all our possessions be consecrated to Him, and every day and hour be spent for Him. To us, therefore, in the highest conceivable sense every day is holy to the Lord. But this by no means lessens the benefit of separating, from the secular toil which forms so large a part of the work God has allotted to most of us, a portion of time for meditation and evangelical work. This separation of a part greatly aids us to spend our whole time for God. We understand now the relation to Christianity of the Jewish Sabbath. Whenever instituted, it was commanded in the Law; and was made a sign, and a conspicuous feature, of the Old Covenant of works. Consequently, as commanded by God, it was binding on every Israelite under pain of God’s displeasure. And they who sought salvation by law sought it in part by strict observance of the Sabbath. This is the legal aspect of the Jewish Sabbath. Again, like the entire Mosiac ritual, the Sabbath was a symbol of the Christian life. In these two aspects, the legal and the symbolic, the Jewish Sabbath passed away; or rather has attained its goal in the fuller revelation of the New Covenant. Instead of one day sanctified for Jehovah, every day is now spent for Christ. The Law has led us to Christ. And the Voice which once condemned us for past disobedience, and made the favour of God impossible by reason of our powerlessness to obey in the future, has been silenced by the Voice from the Cross. In these two senses the Law, even the law of the Sabbath, is to us as completely a thing of the past as is the schooling of our childhood.

But underneath the legal and symbolic aspects of the Sabbath, which pertain only to the Old Covenant, lay an element of universal and abiding value, viz. the manifold benefit of the weekly rest. To secure this benefit for Israel, and through Israel for the world, God embodied the Sabbath in the Law and Ritual of the Old Covenant. And when the Old Covenant was superseded by the New, Christ secured for His Church the same advantages by paying special honour to the first day of the week. But, like everything in the Gospel, the Lord’s Day is not so much a law as a free gift of God. While keeping it we think, not of the penalty of disobedience, but of the great benefits received thereby in the kind providence of God: and we spend the day, not according to a written prescription, but in such way as seems to us most conducive to our spiritual growth. Thus the Lord’s Day is a Christian counterpart of the Jewish Sabbath; and differs from it only as the Gospel differs from the Law.

Similarly, as a visible embodiment of the truth that our salvation comes through the shed blood of the innocent, the Jewish sacrifices have in some sense a Christian counterpart in the Lord’s Supper. And the rite of Infant Baptism, which is not expressly enjoined in the New Testament, reproduces in the Christian Church, by recognising the relation of little ones to the God of their fathers, a part of the spiritual significance of circumcision.

We understand now Paul’s indifference in Romans 14:5 whether we esteem one day above another, or all days equally. Seen in the full light of the Gospel, all days are equal: for all are spent for Christ. And the service we render Him in the common duties of daily life is as precious in His sight and as rich an outflow of Christian life as are the meditation and evangelical activity of the Lord’s Day. This is perfectly consistent with the consecration of one day a week for the latter, and the equal consecration of six days for the former, kind of service.

Nor is the absence from the New Testament of any express teaching about the relation of the Lord’s Day to the Jewish Sabbath and the Fourth Commandment difficult to understand. Any such teaching in the Epistle before us would have seriously blunted, by inevitable misinterpretation, Paul’s resistance to the advocates of the Mosaic Law as still binding on Christians. Abundant proofs of this relation were stored in the sacred volume. The inference from these proofs was left to be observed, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, in the later ages of the Church. And in the meantime, by Christ and by the apostolic Church an unique honour was paid to the first day of the week which marked it out unmistakably as the Day of Days.

In exact accord with the above exposition is the usage of early Christian writers. The first day of the week is constantly called the Lord’s Day, and spoken of as specially honoured and as the chosen day of Christian worship. But, so far as I know, not until the Council of Macon in A.D. 585 have we any hint of a transfer of the sacred rest from the seventh to the first day, or of obligation to keep the Lord’s Day on the ground of the Fourth Commandment. Very interesting is Augustine’s note on Psalms 91:1Psalm 91:1, where he contrasts the Jews’ Sabbath, which he says they waste in bodily idleness, with the Christians’ inward rest, which he calls the Sabbath of the heart. The whole note makes us almost certain that Augustine did not look upon the Lord’s Day as a Christian counterpart of the Jewish Sabbath. Equally interesting is a treatise of doubtful authorship and date on The Sabbath and Circumcision attributed to Athanasius, in which, although the Lord’s Day is not called a Sabbath or placed in any relation to the Fourth Commandment, it is nevertheless shown to stand in close relation to the Jewish Sabbath. See also the much earlier quotation on p. 118 from the Epistle of Barnabas.

The first Christian Emperor, Constantine, decreed, in A.D. 321, that all judges and people residing in cities rest from work on Sunday, permitting only agriculture. He thus recognised publicly the Day of Rest as a Christian institution.

But neither imperial decrees nor command of the ancient Law of God nor tradition of the Early Church are needed by those who have experienced the great and various benefit of the rest and leisure of the Lord’s Day. The greatness of the benefit is to them abundant proof of the divine origin and authority of the Christian Day of Rest.

V. 12. Brethren, I beseech you, be as I am-Meet me in mutual love. For I am as ye were-I still love you as affectionately as ye once loved me. Why should I not?

Ye have not injured me at all-I have received no personal injury from you.

Verse 12. Be as I am] Thoroughly addicted to the Christian faith and worship, from the deepest conviction of its truth.

For I am as ye are] I was formerly a Jew, and as zealously addicted to the rites and ceremonies of Judaism as ye are, but I am saved from that mean and unprofitable dependence: “Be therefore as I am now; who was once as you now are.” Others think the sense to be this: “Be as affectionate to me as I am to you; for ye were once as loving to me as I am now to you.” Ye have not injured me at all.] I do not thus earnestly entreat you to return to your Christian profession because your perversion has been any loss to me, nor because your conversion can be to me any gain: ye have not injured me at all, ye only injure yourselves; and I entreat you, through the intense love I bear to you, as my once beloved brethren in Christ Jesus, to return to him from whom ye have revolted.

Verses 12-14. I beseech you, be as I am — Follow my example in laying aside your opinion of the necessity of the law; for I am — Or rather, I was; as ye are — That is, I was once as zealous of the law as you are; but by the grace of God I am now of another mind: be you so too. See Philippians 3:7, 8. Or, as some understand the verse, I beseech you to maintain the same affectionate regard for me as I bear toward you, and candidly to receive those sentiments which I, to whose authority in the church ye can be no strangers, have been inculcating upon you. Ye have not injured me at all — As if he had said, What I have spoken proceeds purely out of love, and not from any anger or ill-will, for which indeed you have given me no occasion, as I have received no personal injury from you. “The apostle having sharply rebuked the Galatians for their attachment to Judaism, checks himself, and turns his discourse into the most affectionate entreaties and expostulations, in which he shows himself to have had a great knowledge of human nature. For he mentions such things as must have deeply affected the Galatians, especially as he expressed them in a simplicity and energy of language which is inimitable.” — Macknight. Ye know how through, or in, infirmity of the flesh — That is, in great bodily weakness, and under great disadvantage from the despicableness of my outward appearance; I preached the gospel to you at the first. And my temptation, which was in my flesh — The peculiar trial wherewith I was exercised, namely, my thorn in the flesh, see on 2 Corinthians 12:7; ye despised not — Ye did not slight, or disdain me; nor rejected my person or ministry on account of it; but received me as an angel of God — As though I had been a superior being come down from heaven; even as Christ Jesus — With as much affection and submission as it can be supposed you would have shown to Christ himself, if, instead of sending me as his messenger, he had visited you in person. The veneration with which the Galatians regarded the apostle at his first coming among them, cannot be more strongly painted than by these expressions.

12. Brethren—Beginning, as at 3:15, a new and gentler strain. Be— Omitting the interpolated italic words, we render, Become as I, because I as you. The meaning is, become as I became when I left Judaism and rejected these beggarly elements; because I became as you then were, when you, as Gentiles, rejected them. Let us agree as we agreed when I first preached the gospel to you. Ye have—The Greek aorist omits the have. Render, Ye did not wrong me at all; that is, when I first preached to you. So, verse 14, ye despised not… but received.

GALATIANS

SECTION 17. — PERSONAL APPEAL TO THE

GALATIANS CH. 4:12-20.

Become as I am, because also I have become as ye are, brethren, I beg you. No injustice have ye done me. And ye know that because of weakness of the flesh I preached the Gospel to you the first time: and your temptation in my flesh ye did not despise nor loathe, but as an angel of God ye welcomed me, as Christ Jesus. Where then is your professed holiness? For I bear you witness that, if possible, your own eyes ye would have dug out and given to me. So then am I become your enemy by speaking truth to you?

Zealously they care for you, not in a good way: but they wish to shut you out, that ye may care for them zealously. And a good thing it is to be zealously cared for in a good matter always, and not only when I am present with you, my little children, for whom I am again in travail until Christ be formed in you. I could wish to be present with you now, and to change my voice: because I am perplexed about you. After the application to the readers, in § 16, of the foregoing argument, now follows (Galatians 4:12-16) a personal and loving appeal based on their welcome to Paul on his first visit to Galatia: then comes (Galatians 4:17-20) the first direct reference, after Galatians 1:7, to the men who were leading them astray.

Ver. 12. A direct appeal prompted by Paul’s fear lest his labours for his readers be without result.

Become as I am: i.e. free from the legal bondage implied in their observance (Galatians 4:10) of sacred days: not do as I do; for (see under Galatians 4:11) Paul himself kept the Jewish ritual. His motive in so doing differed infinitely from that of his opponents: cp. 1 Corinthians 9:20 with Acts 15:1, 5.

Because also I, etc.: a fact added to the foregoing entreaty, as a reason for it. By recognising the emptiness of Jewish prerogatives and thus laying them aside, Paul, a born Jew, placed himself on the spiritual level of his readers, who were born Gentiles. He now entreats them to come down, by laying aside the fancied superiority of Jewish proselytes, to the common level which he has long ago accepted. Thus Paul brings to bear, on those who as strangers were seeking prerogatives which were his by birth and to which from childhood he had been taught to cling proudly, the example of his own surrender of these prerogatives as worthless. Similar appeals to his own example, in 1 Corinthians 8:13; 10:33. Those to whom he appeals, he, a born Jew, recognises as brethren.

No injustice; so literally: or no injury, without thought of injustice, as in Luke 10:19: for, as the derivation of the words suggests, injury is usually injustice. A close parallel, in 2 Corinthians 12:13. The utter obscurity now of these words points to facts known to the readers but not to us. The emphasis rests, not on me in contrast to others, but on the negative: in NOTHING have ye done me injustice. Nor does this emphatic and unexpected denial refer necessarily to Paul’s visit to Galatia. [The Greek aorist covers the entire past to the moment of writing.] This denial was suggested naturally by Paul’s loving appeal; and suitably prefaces his mention of the, welcome given to him by the Galatians on his first visit.

V. 13. I preached to you, notwithstanding infirmity of the flesh-That is, notwithstanding bodily weakness, and under great disadvantage from the despicableness of my outward appearance.

Verse 13. Ye know how through infirmity] The apostle seems to say that he was much afflicted in body when he first preached the Gospel to them. And is this any strange thing, that a minister, so laborious as St. Paul was, should be sometimes overdone and overcome by the severity of his labours? Surely not. This might have been only an occasional affliction, while labouring in that part of Asia Minor; and not a continual and incurable infirmity, as some have too hastily conjectured.

Verses 12-14. I beseech you, be as I am — Follow my example in laying aside your opinion of the necessity of the law; for I am — Or rather, I was; as ye are — That is, I was once as zealous of the law as you are; but by the grace of God I am now of another mind: be you so too. See Philippians 3:7, 8. Or, as some understand the verse, I beseech you to maintain the same affectionate regard for me as I bear toward you, and candidly to receive those sentiments which I, to whose authority in the church ye can be no strangers, have been inculcating upon you. Ye have not injured me at all — As if he had said, What I have spoken proceeds purely out of love, and not from any anger or ill-will, for which indeed you have given me no occasion, as I have received no personal injury from you. “The apostle having sharply rebuked the Galatians for their attachment to Judaism, checks himself, and turns his discourse into the most affectionate entreaties and expostulations, in which he shows himself to have had a great knowledge of human nature. For he mentions such things as must have deeply affected the Galatians, especially as he expressed them in a simplicity and energy of language which is inimitable.” — Macknight. Ye know how through, or in, infirmity of the flesh — That is, in great bodily weakness, and under great disadvantage from the despicableness of my outward appearance; I preached the gospel to you at the first. And my temptation, which was in my flesh — The peculiar trial wherewith I was exercised, namely, my thorn in the flesh, see on 2 Corinthians 12:7; ye despised not — Ye did not slight, or disdain me; nor rejected my person or ministry on account of it; but received me as an angel of God — As though I had been a superior being come down from heaven; even as Christ Jesus — With as much affection and submission as it can be supposed you would have shown to Christ himself, if, instead of sending me as his messenger, he had visited you in person. The veneration with which the Galatians regarded the apostle at his first coming among them, cannot be more strongly painted than by these expressions.

Ver. 13. Ye know how through infirmity of the flesh I preached to you at the first. See the notes on 2 Corinthians 10:10. 12:7.

13. Through infirmity—Rather, on account of infirmity, or bodily illness. A visitation of St. Paul’s thorn in the flesh (note, 2 Corinthians 12:7) detained him at Galatia; and in spite of its drawback on his oratory the Galatians cordially received him and his message. At the first—The Greek meaning seems to be, at the former of two visits.

Ver. 13.-14. Not only had his readers done Paul no injustice or injury, but on his first visit, although it was occasioned merely by sickness, they welcomed him with eager affection. This he recalls in order to arouse now a similar affection, and thus strengthen his own appeal.

Weakness: absence of strength, of any kind. It is the usual term for sickness, of which absence of bodily strength is a constant mark: so <507726> Philippians 2:26f; 2 Timothy 4:20; Matthew 10:8; Mark 6:56; Luke 4:40; John 11:1-6; Acts 4:9; 5:15f. And this is the only meaning which will make sense here.

Of the flesh: the material of our bodies, which by its nature is in various ways (cp. Romans 8:3; Matthew 26:41) weak or liable to weakness.

Because of weakness, etc.: i.e. detained in Galatia by some sickness. This led him to preach the Gospel and found Churches there. Thus Paul’s sickness brought good-news (see under Galatians 1:6) to his readers. The first time: or literally the former-time. It contrasts a former with a later visit. And, since contrast with the present was needless, (for this is sufficiently indicated by preached-the-Gospel,) it implies that twice Paul had preached in Galatia. If so, these words give definiteness to the statement in Galatians 4:13: otherwise they are meaningless. The first recorded visit of Paul to Galatia is that mentioned in Acts 16:6, on his second missionary journey. And we have no difficulty in supposing that then he was detained in Galatia by illness. and founded Churches there. Another visit, on his third journey, is recorded in Acts 18:23. And we cannot well conceive any other earlier visit. Consequently, not earlier than this last visit was the letter before us written. See Diss. iii. That the Gospel was first preached to the Galatians by a man who lingered among them merely because of bodily weakness, put to a severe test their readiness to receive the truth. Many hearers would have turned away from a Gospel proclaimed by a sick man. Consequently, the sickness in Paul’s flesh was a trial or temptation (see under 1 Corinthians 10:13) to his readers. And, since the afflicted man was an embodiment of this trial, had they turned from him with disgust, they would have despised and loathed the temptation which God had laid upon them. Instead of this, they welcomed him (literally received with outstretched right hand) as though he were a visitant from heaven, an angel of mercy from God. Nay more. They welcomed him with the reverence they would have paid to his divine Master, to Christ Jesus. The words despise and loathe suggest that Paul’s sickness was of a kind calculated to evoke contempt and disgust.

V. 14. And ye did not slight my temptation-That is, ye did not slight or disdain me for my temptation, my thorn in the flesh.

Verse 14. And my temptation which was in my flesh] On this verse there are a great many various readings, as there are various opinions. Instead of mou, MY temptation, ABC*D*FG, some others, with the Coptic, Vulgate, Itala, and several of the primitive fathers, have umwn, YOUR temptation.

The word peirasmon, which we translate temptation, signifies trial of any kind. The verse therefore may be read, “Ye despised not the trial which was in my flesh;” or, “Ye despised not your trial, which was in my flesh:” i.e. what my flesh suffered on your account, the afflictions I passed through in consequence of my severe labours on your account. You did not consider me less an apostle of God on account of my sinking for a time under the weight of my work. Had they been disaffected towards him at that time, they would have used this to the prejudice of his apostolic mission. “What! do you pretend to be an extraordinary messenger from God, and yet are suffered to fall into sickness under the severity of your labour? If God sent you, would he not sustain you?” This would have been quite natural, had they not been well affected toward him. But, on the contrary, notwithstanding these afflictions, they received him as an angel of God-as a messenger from heaven, and as Jesus Christ himself. This appears to me to be the simple meaning of the apostle, and that he neither alludes to a bodily nor mental infirmity, which generally or periodically afflicted him, as some have imagined. Nor does he appear at all to speak of the same case as that mentioned 2 Corinthians 12:7, where I wish the reader to consult the notes. That St. Paul had frequent and severe afflictions, in consequence of his constant and severe exertions in the Gospel ministry, we may readily believe, and of this his own words bear sufficient testimony.

See his affecting account, 2 Corinthians 11:23-29, and the notes there.

Verses 12-14. I beseech you, be as I am — Follow my example in laying aside your opinion of the necessity of the law; for I am — Or rather, I was; as ye are — That is, I was once as zealous of the law as you are; but by the grace of God I am now of another mind: be you so too. See Philippians 3:7, 8. Or, as some understand the verse, I beseech you to maintain the same affectionate regard for me as I bear toward you, and candidly to receive those sentiments which I, to whose authority in the church ye can be no strangers, have been inculcating upon you. Ye have not injured me at all — As if he had said, What I have spoken proceeds purely out of love, and not from any anger or ill-will, for which indeed you have given me no occasion, as I have received no personal injury from you. “The apostle having sharply rebuked the Galatians for their attachment to Judaism, checks himself, and turns his discourse into the most affectionate entreaties and expostulations, in which he shows himself to have had a great knowledge of human nature. For he mentions such things as must have deeply affected the Galatians, especially as he expressed them in a simplicity and energy of language which is inimitable.” — Macknight. Ye know how through, or in, infirmity of the flesh — That is, in great bodily weakness, and under great disadvantage from the despicableness of my outward appearance; I preached the gospel to you at the first. And my temptation, which was in my flesh — The peculiar trial wherewith I was exercised, namely, my thorn in the flesh, see on 2 Corinthians 12:7; ye despised not — Ye did not slight, or disdain me; nor rejected my person or ministry on account of it; but received me as an angel of God — As though I had been a superior being come down from heaven; even as Christ Jesus — With as much affection and submission as it can be supposed you would have shown to Christ himself, if, instead of sending me as his messenger, he had visited you in person. The veneration with which the Galatians regarded the apostle at his first coming among them, cannot be more strongly painted than by these expressions.

14. My temptation—The truer reading seems to be, your temptation. That is, your temptation, from my infirmity, to reject me with contempt. Ye despised not—This verb seems to require that Paul considers temptation to be a sort of designation of his infirmity:—your temptation, to wit, my infirmity, you despised not. The Greek for despised not is an idiomatic term for that meaning; exeptusate, ye spit not out. As an angel—So divine seemed my message that ye treated me as a divine messenger. As Christ Jesus—Lord of all angels, whose testimony stands, even though contradicted by an angel, 1:8.

Ver. 13.-14. Not only had his readers done Paul no injustice or injury, but on his first visit, although it was occasioned merely by sickness, they welcomed him with eager affection. This he recalls in order to arouse now a similar affection, and thus strengthen his own appeal.

Weakness: absence of strength, of any kind. It is the usual term for sickness, of which absence of bodily strength is a constant mark: so <507726> Philippians 2:26f; 2 Timothy 4:20; Matthew 10:8; Mark 6:56; Luke 4:40; John 11:1-6; Acts 4:9; 5:15f. And this is the only meaning which will make sense here.

Of the flesh: the material of our bodies, which by its nature is in various ways (cp. Romans 8:3; Matthew 26:41) weak or liable to weakness.

Because of weakness, etc.: i.e. detained in Galatia by some sickness. This led him to preach the Gospel and found Churches there. Thus Paul’s sickness brought good-news (see under Galatians 1:6) to his readers. The first time: or literally the former-time. It contrasts a former with a later visit. And, since contrast with the present was needless, (for this is sufficiently indicated by preached-the-Gospel,) it implies that twice Paul had preached in Galatia. If so, these words give definiteness to the statement in Galatians 4:13: otherwise they are meaningless. The first recorded visit of Paul to Galatia is that mentioned in Acts 16:6, on his second missionary journey. And we have no difficulty in supposing that then he was detained in Galatia by illness. and founded Churches there. Another visit, on his third journey, is recorded in Acts 18:23. And we cannot well conceive any other earlier visit. Consequently, not earlier than this last visit was the letter before us written. See Diss. iii. That the Gospel was first preached to the Galatians by a man who lingered among them merely because of bodily weakness, put to a severe test their readiness to receive the truth. Many hearers would have turned away from a Gospel proclaimed by a sick man. Consequently, the sickness in Paul’s flesh was a trial or temptation (see under 1 Corinthians 10:13) to his readers. And, since the afflicted man was an embodiment of this trial, had they turned from him with disgust, they would have despised and loathed the temptation which God had laid upon them. Instead of this, they welcomed him (literally received with outstretched right hand) as though he were a visitant from heaven, an angel of mercy from God. Nay more. They welcomed him with the reverence they would have paid to his divine Master, to Christ Jesus. The words despise and loathe suggest that Paul’s sickness was of a kind calculated to evoke contempt and disgust.

V. 15. What was then the blessedness ye spake of-On which ye so congratulated one another.

Verse 15. Where is then the blessedness ye spake of?] Ye spake of should be in italics, there being no corresponding word in the Greek text. Perhaps there is not a sentence in the New Testament more variously translated than this. I shall give the original: tiv oun hn o makarismov umwn. What was then your blessedness! Or, How great was your happiness at that time! Or, What blessings did ye then pour on me! It is worthy of remark, that, instead of tiv, what, ABCFG, several others, the older Syriac, the later Syriac in the margin, the Armenian, Vulgate, one copy of the Itala, and some of the fathers, have pou, where; and hn, was, is omitted by ACD, several others, also the Vulgate, Itala, and the Latin fathers. According to these authorities the text should be read thus: Where then is your blessedness? Having renounced the Gospel, you have lost your happiness. What have your false teachers given you to compensate the loss of communion with God, or that Spirit of adoption, that Spirit of Christ, by which you cried Abba, Father! If, however, we understand the words as implying the benedictions they then heaped on the apostle, the sense will be sufficiently natural, and agree well with the concluding part of the verse; for I bear you record, that, if possible, ye would have plucked out your own eyes, and have given them to me. You had then the strongest affection for me; you loved God, and you loved me for God’s sake, and were ready to give me the most unequivocal proof of your love. Dearer than one’s eyes, or to profess to give one’s eyes for the sake of a person, appears to have been a proverbial expression, intimating the highest tokens of the strongest affection. We find a similar form of speech in Terence, Adelphi, act iv., scene 5, ver. 67.

————————————Di me pater

Omnes oderint, ni magis te quam oculos nunc ego amo meos. “O father, may all the gods hate me,

if I do not love you now more than my own eyes.”

Verses 15, 16. Where is then the blessedness ye spake of — On which ye so congratulated one another? Since ye once thought yourselves so happy in my presence with, and my preaching among you, how happens it that you are now so alienated from me? For if it had been possible — If it had been a thing allowable, and I could have received any benefit by it; ye would have plucked out your eyes, and have given them to me — As a convincing proof of your affection for me. Am I become your enemy — Or have you any reason to account me such; because I tell you the truth? — And bear a faithful testimony to the uncorrupted gospel, which I desire to maintain among you in all the purity in which I planted it? “The apostle’s address, in thus putting the Galatians in mind of their former affection and gratitude to him, as their spiritual father, and his contrasting it in this verse with their present temper of mind, is admirable.”

Ver. 15. Where is then the blessedness ye spake of, the love of which you once boasted. Where is now your love, your first love, when you would have given me your eyes? Think me not your enemy, because I tell you the truth. The figure of interrogation is the last power of eloquence.

15. Where… blessedness—The blessedness is the self-felicitation expressed by the Galatians in their first joy in the gospel. They have grown cold, and St. Paul now demands what has become of that first joy and love. For—In illustration of the original glow of that blessedness. If… possible—If I could have been adequately benefitted by so costly a gift. Eyes—We see not the slightest reason to infer from this expression, with Alford, that St. Paul had himself weak eyes. The passage is the hyperbole of passionate affection.

Ver. 15. Question prompted by the foregoing statement.

Where then: as in Romans 3:27; cp. 1 Corinthians 1:20; 12:17, 19; 15:55. It implies that their gratulation had vanished from view. Your professed happiness: literally your pronouncing-happy, or blessed. Same word in Romans 4:6, 9; see note: cognate word in Romans 4:7f; Matthew 5:3-11. They pronounced themselves happy, i.e. fortunate in the highest and holiest sense, because Paul had visited them. Of this felt good fortune, the enthusiasm of their welcome (Galatians 4:14) was proof and measure. Paul therefore supports his question by the following emphatic statement.

Paul is able to bear-witness in his reader’s favour. Your, is not emphatic, as though in contrast with Paul’s eyes. Consequently, these words in no way suggest that Paul’s complaint was in his eyes.

Dug-out your eyes: same words (LXX.) in 1 Samuel 11:2; cp. Judges 16:21: graphic description of a painful and ruinous operation. Even this costly, and in fact impossible, gift would not have been too great in their view to express the benefits they had received from the preaching of Paul. This testimony, the readers knew to be true. Paul asks therefore what has become of this recognition of spiritual benefits.

Verse 16. Amos I therefore become your enemy] How is it that you are so much altered towards me, that you now treat me as an enemy, who formerly loved me with the most fervent affection? Is it because I tell you the truth; that very truth for which you at first so ardently loved me?

Verses 15, 16. Where is then the blessedness ye spake of — On which ye so congratulated one another? Since ye once thought yourselves so happy in my presence with, and my preaching among you, how happens it that you are now so alienated from me? For if it had been possible — If it had been a thing allowable, and I could have received any benefit by it; ye would have plucked out your eyes, and have given them to me — As a convincing proof of your affection for me. Am I become your enemy — Or have you any reason to account me such; because I tell you the truth? — And bear a faithful testimony to the uncorrupted gospel, which I desire to maintain among you in all the purity in which I planted it? “The apostle’s address, in thus putting the Galatians in mind of their former affection and gratitude to him, as their spiritual father, and his contrasting it in this verse with their present temper of mind, is admirable.”

16. Therefore… enemy—Is it inferable from the immense change on your part? The truth—For telling them the truth is he who was once their angel now their enemy? The change was neither in the truth nor its apostle, but in themselves. So is it with backsliders and apostates; the truth and its minister they once loved they often now dread and hate. When was it that he so spoke the truth as to incur this enmity? Not at his first visit, commentators reply, for then he was as an angel to them. Nor in this letter, for they have not as yet read it. Therefore, at his second visit. Acts 18:23, it is said. Nevertheless he told them no new truth at that second visit. The very reason why he is now deemed their enemy is, because he is the fixed representative of the same unchanging truth, at his first visit, his second, and in this epistle.

Ver. 16. An inference from Galatians 4:15, thrown because of its unlikeliness into the form of a question.

Your enemy: or an enemy of yours: one intent on doing you harm. Paul’s earnestness suggests this rather than the weaker sense, one hated by you. The Galatians treated Paul as though he were actually hostile to them. And, since he was formerly so valued a friend, if he be now an enemy, as his readers suppose or act as though they supposed, he has become such: i.e. a change has taken place. Paul asks the reason. He has done nothing but speak-truth. Is this then the cause of the change? The precise reference of Paul’s question is unknown to us. It cannot be the letter he is now writing: for he refers to his readers’ present judgment about him. The easiest explanation is that on his second visit Paul rebuked a tendency to Judaism then visible: and that this rebuke was used by his enemies to alienate from him the Galatian Christians. He asks whether words which they know to be true have made a valued friend into an enemy.

Review of Galatians 4:12-16. Moved by fear which their observance of Jewish festivals inspires, Paul reminds his readers that he a born Jew has laid aside all Jewish prerogatives; and makes a brotherly appeal to them to lay aside the Jewish entanglements which were bringing them into bondage. He recalls the eagerness with which at the first they welcomed him, when as a sick man he lingered among them. Their devotion to the preacher knew no limits: and it proclaimed the benefits they had received from his preaching. Since then, all that Paul has done has been to speak what they know to be true. He asks if this has made their former friend into a foe. The above is, like Galatians 3:1, 2, an appeal to the readers’ early Christian life in proof of the truth of the word they then received. It is also a welcome addition to the narrative of Paul’s life. We see him detained by serious illness (for no other would hinder him) among people of strange nationality and speech. We can imagine him preaching to them in great bodily weakness. But his word produced immediate and wonderful results. The preacher was welcomed with enthusiasm. And various scattered but flourishing Churches were formed among the Keltic settlers of Galatia. We have also an indication of a second visit: and Paul’s silence suggests that even then his converts’ loyalty to their great teacher had begun to decline.

These biographical notes agree with Acts 16:6 where we find Paul passing through Galatia; and with Acts 18:23 where we find him visiting disciples in the Galatian country.

Whether Paul’s sickness in Galatia had any relation to his probably much earlier stake in the flesh, is quite uncertain. See Under 2 Corinthians 12:7. But this abiding affliction reveals some kind of bodily unsoundness: and this might easily give rise to a passing illness which would detain the apostle.

V. 17. They-The judaizing teachers who are come among you. Zealously affect you-Express an extraordinary regard for you. But not well-Their zeal is not according to knowledge; neither have they a single eye to your spiritual advantage.

Yea, they would exclude you-From me and from the blessings of the gospel.

That ye might affect-Love and esteem them.

Verse 17. They zealously affect you, but not well] It is difficult for common readers to understand the meaning of these words: perhaps it would be better to translate zhlousin umav ou kalwv, these false teachers endeavour to conciliate your esteem, but not in honest or true principles; they work themselves into your good graces; they wish you to place all your affection upon themselves.

They would exclude you] They wish to shut you out from the affection of your apostle, that you might affect them, ina autouv zhloute, that you might love them alone, hear them alone, abide by their directions only, and totally abandon him who called you into the grace of the Gospel of Christ. Some MSS. read hmav, us, instead of umav, you; they wish to shut us entirely out from among you, that you may receive and believe them alone. The sense is nearly the same but the former appears to be the more authentic reading.

Verses 17, 18. They zealously affect you — The Judaizing teachers who are come among you express an extraordinary regard for you; but not well — Their zeal is not according to knowledge, neither have they a single eye to God’s glory, and your spiritual advantage. Yea, they would exclude you — From me and from the blessings of the gospel; that ye might effect — Might love and esteem them. Or, as some read this clause, they would exclude us, that is, me, your spiritual father, and my fellow-labourers in the gospel, from your affection, that ye may love them ardently, as the only faithful teachers of the gospel. But it is good — Kalon, comely, honourable, and commendable; to be zealously affected always in a good thing — In what is really worthy of our zeal: for as the beauty and excellence of zeal is to be estimated not by the degree of it, considered in itself, but by the object to which it is directed; so too the warmth of your affection toward an object truly worthy of it, should be, at all times, equally maintained; and the same fervent zeal which you have formerly expressed, ought to be manifested by you, not only when I am present with you, but in my absence also, if you really think me to deserve your regards, and have indeed received the truth in the love of it. It may be proper to observe, that the original expression “may refer either to a good person or a good thing, and may be understood of their continuing zealous in their affection, either to himself, or to the truth which he preached; but as he had been speaking of himself in the foregoing verses, he likewise seems to have still in view the warmth of their affection to him when he was present with them; though he expresses it in a graceful way, with such a latitude as may include their zeal for his doctrine as well as for his person.” — Doddridge.

Ver. 17, 18. They zealously affect you, but not well. The Greek seems obscure, the versions vary. The English is nearly as in Beza. Affectant enim vos non bene. They, the false apostles, affect you, but not rightly; they would exclude or seduce you from the faith. Dr. Hammond quotes here the king’s manuscript, which has umav; and he reads, “they woo you very earnestly.” Then the sense will be, that the judaizing teachers wheedle you with beguiling arguments, to draw you away from the hope of the gospel. But, on the contrary, it is good to be zealously affected always in a good cause; and not only when I am present with you.

17. They—The unnamed propagators of Judaism in the Galatian Church. Affect you—Court you, flatter you, zealously cultivate you. But not well—Not honourably for them, not beneficially to you. I am your enemy, for-sooth, for telling truth; they your friends, by telling untruth. Exclude you—Shut you off from Christ, his Church, and me, to themselves alone. Ye might affect—Court, be zealous partisans for them. St. Paul holds the cross of Christ as the true centre, from which these separatists wished to form a clique of followers.

Ver. 17. A silent reference to Paul’s opponents in Galatia. That he does not find it needful to mention them expressly, proves that they are already present to his thought. Cp. Galatians 5:10; 6:12f. And direct mention of them would be unpleasant.

Zealously-care-for you: or they-are-zealous or jealous-about you: same word and construction in 1 Corinthians 12:31, Be zealous for the greater gifts; and 2 Corinthians 11:2, I am jealous about you. They are very eager about you; i.e. for your benefit apparently, and for your favour.

Not-in-a-good-way, or manner: expounded by they wish, etc., which states the motive of their earnest effort. From whom or what, the false teachers wish to-shut-out the Galatian Christians, Paul does not say. He fixes attention simply on the designed isolation. The practical effect of the false teaching will be exclusion from Christ, from the Gospel and its blessings, and from the community of faithful Christians. But a special reference to these last is not required by the emphatic word them, as though the false teachers were compared with those from whom they would shut out the Galatian Christians: for it is simply a contrast to you, the excluders and the excluded being thus brought face to face. And Paul’s exact reference remains uncertain, and not very important. If the Galatian Christians yield to the disturbers and become circumcised, they will be shut out of that element in which they have found life and peace; and will become dependent on the favour and help of those who have led them astray. Consequently, the seduced will be compelled to court their seducers. And this Paul declares to be (that ye may, etc.) the purpose of the seduction.

Since the last word of Galatians 4:17 is the first word of 1 Corinthians 12:31, the four Greek-Latin uncials insert after it But be zealous for the better gifts: an interesting example of the way in which error has crept into our MSS.

V. 18. In a good thing-In what is really worthy our zeal. True zeal is only fervent love.

Verse 18. It is good to be zealously affected] It is well to have a determined mind and an ardent heart in reference to things which are laudable and good.

Not only when I am present] You were thus attached to me when I was among you, but now ye have lost both your reverence and affection for me. Your false teachers pretended great concern for you, that you might put all your confidence in them; they have gained their end; they have estranged you from me, and got you to renounce the Gospel, and have brought you again into your former bondage.

Verses 17, 18. They zealously affect you — The Judaizing teachers who are come among you express an extraordinary regard for you; but not well — Their zeal is not according to knowledge, neither have they a single eye to God’s glory, and your spiritual advantage. Yea, they would exclude you — From me and from the blessings of the gospel; that ye might effect — Might love and esteem them. Or, as some read this clause, they would exclude us, that is, me, your spiritual father, and my fellow-labourers in the gospel, from your affection, that ye may love them ardently, as the only faithful teachers of the gospel. But it is good — Kalon, comely, honourable, and commendable; to be zealously affected always in a good thing — In what is really worthy of our zeal: for as the beauty and excellence of zeal is to be estimated not by the degree of it, considered in itself, but by the object to which it is directed; so too the warmth of your affection toward an object truly worthy of it, should be, at all times, equally maintained; and the same fervent zeal which you have formerly expressed, ought to be manifested by you, not only when I am present with you, but in my absence also, if you really think me to deserve your regards, and have indeed received the truth in the love of it. It may be proper to observe, that the original expression “may refer either to a good person or a good thing, and may be understood of their continuing zealous in their affection, either to himself, or to the truth which he preached; but as he had been speaking of himself in the foregoing verses, he likewise seems to have still in view the warmth of their affection to him when he was present with them; though he expresses it in a graceful way, with such a latitude as may include their zeal for his doctrine as well as for his person.” — Doddridge.

Ver. 17, 18. They zealously affect you, but not well. The Greek seems obscure, the versions vary. The English is nearly as in Beza. Affectant enim vos non bene. They, the false apostles, affect you, but not rightly; they would exclude or seduce you from the faith. Dr. Hammond quotes here the king’s manuscript, which has umav; and he reads, “they woo you very earnestly.” Then the sense will be, that the judaizing teachers wheedle you with beguiling arguments, to draw you away from the hope of the gospel. But, on the contrary, it is good to be zealously affected always in a good cause; and not only when I am present with you.

18. Zealously affected—Rather courted, treated with friendly zeal. In a good thing—In a right way, for a good purpose. Connect always with and not only as antithetical. I admit that the being treated with zealous attentions, if rightly done, is a good thing; and that not only when I am present with you to render them, but always, my little children, of whom I travail in birth until Christ is imaged in your characters. It will be seen that this paraphrase connects verse 17 to 18, as a single sentence, as Ellicott, Lightfoot, and Wordsworth. This avoids a detachment of verses 19, 20 into a separate fragment, and connects both clauses present with you in the same paragraph.

Ver. 18. A general statement suggested by the zealous efforts of these false friends to gain the Galatian Christians. It glides imperceptibly into a description of Paul’s own zeal for them, which is an example of the general statement. A good thing it is to be an object of earnest attention, provided it be in a good matter, i.e. with a good aim, this aim looked upon as the element of the earnest effort. Paul’s aim is (2 Corinthians 11:2) to present a pure maiden to Christ. The word always has no perceptible reference to the false teachers, (for we have no hint that their zeal was not constant,) but completes the transition, through this general remark, from Paul’s opponents to himself; and records a marked feature of his own zeal, viz. its constancy. This thought is further developed, without any reference to the false teachers, in the words following. Paul’s care for his readers is not limited to his presence with them. Indeed it prompts him now to write this earnest letter, and makes him wishful (Galatians 4:20) to be with them again.

[Zhlousqai is passive, corresponding to the active forms in Galatians 4:17, and in the same sense: for a change of sense would need to be clearly marked, as in Romans 14:13, to avoid mistake; especially here where the same sense gives an intelligent meaning. Moreover the middle voice of this verb is unknown elsewhere; and would have here practically the same sense as the active voice, and be therefore inexplicable. The emphasis is not on me, as though contrasting Paul with the false teachers, but on pareinai, contrasting Paul’s presence with his absence. This is confirmed by the appearance of the same word in Galatians 4:20.]

V. 19. My little children-He speaks as a parent, both with authority, and the most tender sympathy, toward weak and sickly children. Of whom I travail in birth again-As I did before, Galatians 4:13, in vehement pain, sorrow, desire, prayer.

Till Christ be formed in you-Till there be in you all the mind that was in him.

Verse 19. My little children] teknia mou. My beloved children. As their conversion to God had been the fruit of much labour, prayers, and tears, so he felt them as his children, and peculiarly dear to him, because he had been the means of bringing them to the knowledge of the truth; therefore he represents himself as suffering the same anxiety and distress which he endured at first when he preached the Gospel to them, when their conversion to Christianity was a matter of great doubt and uncertainty. The metaphor which he uses needs no explanation.

Until Christ be formed in you] Till you once more receive the Spirit and unction of Christ in your hearts, from which you are fallen, by your rejection of the spirit of the Gospel.

Verses 19, 20. My little children — Converted to the faith by my ministry. He speaks as a parent, both with authority and the most tender sympathy toward weak and sickly children: of whom I travail in birth again — As I did before, (verse 13,) in vehement pain, sorrow, desire, prayer; till Christ be formed in you — Till you be made fully acquainted with, and established in, the belief of every part of his doctrine; and till you be so endowed with the graces of his Spirit, that all the mind is in you that was in him. The image here used by the apostle is beautiful and expressive. He alludes to a mother, who, having undergone the labour and pains of childbearing, cannot but be concerned for the safety and welfare of the children, in the birth of which she had suffered so much: and if the life or health of any of them be in imminent danger, suffers distress and anguish of mind, nearly, if not altogether, equal or even superior, to the pain and torture of body she endured in bearing them. So the apostle, who had once before suffered labour and pains like those of childbearing, when he converted the Galatians to the truth, now suffered those pangs a second time, while he endeavoured to bring them back to that faith of the gospel from which they had departed. It is not possible by words to express the anxiety of desire and affection which he felt on this occasion more strongly than he has done by this image; and what a lesson does this teach every minister of the gospel, intrusted with the care of immortal souls! What distress ought they to feel, how deeply ought they to be concerned, when they observe any of the souls that they had gained, backsliding from the truth and grace of God, and drawing back unto perdition! and what anxiety should they manifest, and what pains should they take, to recover and restore them. I desire — Or I could wish; to be present with you now — Particularly in this exigence; and to change my voice — To adapt my manner of speaking to the state you are in; for I stand in doubt of you — So that I am at a loss how to speak at this distance; for though I do not absolutely despair of your recovery and establishment, yet I am not without very discouraging apprehensions, lest, after all the pains that I have taken with you, the good effects of my labours among you should in a great measure be lost.

Ver. 19. My little children, of whom I travail in birth again, to see in you all the christian temper which I once saw. I feel the same anxiety for your restoration to the simplicity of the gospel which I formerly felt for your conversion. Listen no more to the voice of seducers, turn a deaf ear to their words, that brotherly love may again glow in your hearts. The seducers want to make you all bloody Ishmaels, instead of pious Isaacs, and revive the strife which disturbed the house of Abraham.

19. My little children—My darlings. An expression of endearment repeatedly used by St. John, but here alone by St. Paul. Little children he may well call them; for he is now in figure their mother, in pangs of childbirth, to bring them forth in the likeness of Christ. Again—Clearly expressing the thought of a second regeneration.

Ver. 19. An expression of Paul’s love for his readers, and a proof of the intensity of his effort on their behalf. As being a sort of climax, it is most easily joined to the foregoing sentence. [And the preposition de in Galatians 4:20 suggests, but does not prove that it begins a new sentence.] The Vat., Sinai, and Greek-Latin MSS., a combination seldom in error, read my children, as in 1 Corinthians 4:14, using a word very common with Paul. But the Alex., Ephraim, and later MSS., a combination often in evident error, read my little-children, as in 1 John 2:1: cp. little-children in John 13:33; 1 John 2:12, 28; 3:7, 18; 4:4; 5:21. The difference is only one small letter. So appropriate here is the tender expression little-children, nowhere else found in Paul, and so easily changed to the common word children, that Westcott prefers it, placing in his margin my children, which last, is read by Tischendorf and without note by Tregelles. Thus external and internal evidence are at variance, which rarely happens. Perhaps probability inclines to my little-children. But certain decision is impossible. Paul’s earnest and constant efforts for his readers remind him that they are helpless as little children needing a parent’s care, and that they are his own little children. He therefore accosts them with a father’s affection and solicitude. Cp. 1 Corinthians 4:14; Philemon 1:10.

The undeveloped spiritual life of the Galatian Christians, Paul compares to the undeveloped state of an unborn embryo; and compares his own painful anxiety for them to a mother’s birth-pangs, which can cease only when the development of the embryo is complete. For, till his readers show a Christian character in some degree mature, Paul’s anxiety will continue. Again: as though a mother were twice enduring birth-pangs for the same offspring. The desired development, Paul describes as

Christ formed in you: i.e. the Spirit of Christ dwelling in them (Galatians 2:20) changing their outer life into moral likeness to Christ. Thus in them men will see the form of Christ, a visible manifestation of His actual inward presence. See under Romans 2:20: cp. Romans 12:2; 2 Corinthians 3:18; <501706> Philippians 2:6f; 2 Timothy 3:5. This comparison reveals how intense is Paul’s effort (Galatians 4:18) for his readers, and how pure his motive.

V. 20. I could wish to be present with you now-Particularly in this exigence.

And to change-Variously to attemper.

My voice-He writes with much softness; but he would speak with more. The voice may more easily be varied according to the occasion than a letter can.

For I stand in doubt of you-So that I am at a loss how to speak at this distance.

Verse 20. I desire to be present with you] I wish to accommodate my doctrine to your state; I know not whether you need stronger reprehension, or to be dealt with more leniently.

I stand in doubt of you.] I have doubts concerning your state; the progress of error and conviction among you, which I cannot fully know without being among you, This appears to be the apostle’s meaning, and tends much to soften and render palatable the severity of his reproofs.

Verses 19, 20. My little children — Converted to the faith by my ministry. He speaks as a parent, both with authority and the most tender sympathy toward weak and sickly children: of whom I travail in birth again — As I did before, (verse 13,) in vehement pain, sorrow, desire, prayer; till Christ be formed in you — Till you be made fully acquainted with, and established in, the belief of every part of his doctrine; and till you be so endowed with the graces of his Spirit, that all the mind is in you that was in him. The image here used by the apostle is beautiful and expressive. He alludes to a mother, who, having undergone the labour and pains of childbearing, cannot but be concerned for the safety and welfare of the children, in the birth of which she had suffered so much: and if the life or health of any of them be in imminent danger, suffers distress and anguish of mind, nearly, if not altogether, equal or even superior, to the pain and torture of body she endured in bearing them. So the apostle, who had once before suffered labour and pains like those of childbearing, when he converted the Galatians to the truth, now suffered those pangs a second time, while he endeavoured to bring them back to that faith of the gospel from which they had departed. It is not possible by words to express the anxiety of desire and affection which he felt on this occasion more strongly than he has done by this image; and what a lesson does this teach every minister of the gospel, intrusted with the care of immortal souls! What distress ought they to feel, how deeply ought they to be concerned, when they observe any of the souls that they had gained, backsliding from the truth and grace of God, and drawing back unto perdition! and what anxiety should they manifest, and what pains should they take, to recover and restore them. I desire — Or I could wish; to be present with you now — Particularly in this exigence; and to change my voice — To adapt my manner of speaking to the state you are in; for I stand in doubt of you — So that I am at a loss how to speak at this distance; for though I do not absolutely despair of your recovery and establishment, yet I am not without very discouraging apprehensions, lest, after all the pains that I have taken with you, the good effects of my labours among you should in a great measure be lost.

20. Desire… be present—The mention of being present in verse 18 now recurs to him in the form of a most affectionate wish. Change my voice— From doubt and rebuke to confidence and commendation. For—With my present view of you at this distance. I stand… doubt—My sad position is, that your Christian perseverance is a dubious matter.

8. Superiority of faith over legalism illustrated by the history of Sarah and Hagar, 21-5:1.

Ver. 20. A wish prompted by the readers’ undeveloped state and by Paul’s anxiety about them. Would that I were present with you now! a wish, felt to be vain, suggested by the words present with you in Galatians 4:18, which recall Paul’s earnest efforts for their good when he was in Galatia. He could wish to be with them now, (this last word emphatic,) instead of merely writing to them from a distance.

And to change my voice: purpose of this impracticable wish. Paul’s love suggests that if he were himself with his readers he could bring them to a better mind, which would enable him to speak to them in a voice different from his present severity.

Perplexed: not knowing which way to go. Same word in 2 Corinthians 4:8; Luke 24:4; Acts 25:20; John 13:22. That Paul does not know what to do to restore his relapsing converts, is the cause of his consciously futile wish to be with them now. Thus, like § 16, so § 17 closes with dark foreboding.

Only for a moment does Paul refer to the false teachers, as though reluctant to give them a place on his pages. But his few words lay bare the selfish motive of their earnestness. Still greater earnestness for the Galatian Christians, with a motive as pure as theirs is selfish, does Paul whether present or absent ever cherish. For they are his own children. And till they bear the image of Christ there is nothing but anguish for him. His present perplexity makes him long to be with them now, hoping that his presence would effect the change he so earnestly desires.

V. 21. Do ye not hear the law-Regard what it says.

Verse 21. Ye that desire to be under the law] Ye who desire to incorporate the Mosaic institutions with Christianity, and thus bring yourselves into bondage to circumcision, and a great variety of oppressive rites.

Do ye not hear the law?] Do ye not understand what is written in the Pentateuch relative to Abraham and his children. It is evident that the word law is used in two senses in this verse. It first means the Mosaic institutions; secondly, the Pentateuch, where the history is recorded to which the apostle refers.

Verses 21-23. Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law — Of Moses, as the rule of your justification; do ye not hear the law? — Regard what it says? how it teaches that Abraham’s children, by faith, who are heirs of the promises, are free from the bondage of the law? “The argument the apostle is going to use being taken from the law of Moses, was urged with much propriety, not only against the Judaizers, who affirmed that obedience to the law of Moses was necessary to men’s salvation, but against those Gentiles also whom the Judaizers had seduced to receive the law. For if the apostle made it evident, from the law of Moses itself, that Abraham’s children, by faith, were free from the bondage of the law, no further argument was necessary to prove that obedience to the law is not necessary to justification.” — Macknight. It is written that Abraham had two sons — Here he illustrates the doctrine of justification by faith, and of the abolition of the legal dispensation, by the history of Abraham’s family, in which it was prefigured. The plain import of what he advances is this: That as in Abraham’s family there were two mothers, and two sorts of children, which were differently treated; so, in the visible church, there are two sorts of professors; some that seek justification by the works of the law, who are in a servile and miserable condition, and shall at last be cast out from the presence of God, and the society of the saints; others that seek justification by faith in Christ, and in the promises of God through him: and these are the free sons of God’s family, and in a happy condition, and shall at last certainly obtain the inheritance of eternal life. The one — Namely, Ishmael, by Hagar, a bond-maid, the other — Namely, Isaac, by Sarah, a free-woman. But there was a great difference between them; for he who was of the bond-woman — That is, Ishmael; was born only after the flesh — In the common order of nature, without any particular promise of God, or any unusual interposition of his power and providence. But he of the free-woman — That is, Isaac; was by promise — Through the strength supernaturally communicated to his parents by the promise, Lo Sarah, thy wife, shall have a son; and, like his mother, being free, was his father’s heir.

21. Tell me—As if after an interval since writing the last tenderer paragraph, St. Paul resumes the more severe and imperative strain of Galatians 2:1-7. Desire… under the law—The observers of seasons, as in verse 10. Hear the law—The Jews did hear the law read to them in the synagogue every sabbath; but Paul demands now whether they will hear it with the earnest ear of the soul. He is going to frame for these legalists an argument after the style and manner of their own legal teachers. The ensuing allegorical exposition of the Abrahamic history was shaped after a form of composition current in the Jewish schools. The passage has been much attacked by adverse criticism, and even evangelical expositors. It is asked, Was this Old Testament narrative allegory, and not true history? Or, if true history, can we suppose that this combination of events and characters was divinely framed to evolve this lesson deduced by St. Paul?

All these difficulties would have vanished, we think, in a moment if our commentators had noted—what none of them seems to have done—that Paul has merely here put into an allegorical form the very same thought as in logical form he gives in Romans 9:6-10, (where see our notes.) The thought simply is this: That Christianity does, by its very nature, disclose an underlying subsense in the Old Testament; not only in its ritual, but in its history. And an allegory is simply an external surface history under which there lies an internal subsense.

GALATIANS

SECTION 18. — THE COVENANTS OF BONDAGE

AND OF FREEDOM. CH. 4:21-5:1.

Tell me, ye who wish to be under law, do ye not hear the Law? For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by the maid and one by the free woman. Yet he by the maid was born according to flesh: but he by the free woman, through promise. Which things contain an allegory. For these women are two covenants; one from Mount Sinai bearing children for bondage, which is Hagar. Now this Hagar: Mount Sinai in Arabia; and stands in line with the Jerusalem that now is: for she is in bondage with her children. But the Jerusalem above is free, which is our mother. For it is written, “Rejoice, barren one that bearest not; burst forth and shout, thou that dost not travail in birth. For many are the children of the desolate woman, more than of her who has the husband.” (Isaiah 54:1). And we, brethren, like Isaac are children of promise.

But just as then he that was born according to flesh was persecuting him born according to Spirit, so also now. So But what says the Scripture? “Cast out the maid and her son: for the son of the maid shall not inherit with the son of the free woman.” (Genesis 21:10.) For which cause, brethren, we are not children of a maid but of the free woman. For freedom, Christ has made us free. Stand then, and be not again held fast by a yoke of bondage.

Another appeal, an argument based upon facts recorded in the Book of the Law taken in connection with the teaching in Galatians 3:23; 4:1-3 that all who are under law are in bondage.

Ver. 21. Law: the general principle, Do this and live.

Under law: as in Galatians 4:4; Romans 6:14. Wish to be under law; describes suitably an apostacy now going on, as do the present tenses in Galatians 1:6; 4:9; 5:3, 4; 6:12, 13. They desire to have as the basis of their relation to God, and as the means of obtaining His favour, a prescribed rule of conduct, viz. the rule embodied in the five Books of Moses: i.e. practically, they wish to stand, or rather to lie in helpless bondage, under the authority of law.

Hear the Law: cp. Romans 2:13, John 12:34. It recalls vividly the public reading in the synagogues, when this was, for Jews and proselytes, the chief means of acquaintance with the Jewish Scriptures. Paul asks of those who wish to be under a prescribed rule, Do you not hear what is said by those Books which are an authoritative embodiment of such rule?

V. 22. Genesis 21:2, 9.

Verse 22. For it is written] Viz. in Genesis 16:15; 22:1, &c., that Abraham had two sons, Ishmael and Isaac; the one; Ishmael, by a bond maid, Hagar; the other, Isaac, by a free woman, Sarah.

Verses 21-23. Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law — Of Moses, as the rule of your justification; do ye not hear the law? — Regard what it says? how it teaches that Abraham’s children, by faith, who are heirs of the promises, are free from the bondage of the law? “The argument the apostle is going to use being taken from the law of Moses, was urged with much propriety, not only against the Judaizers, who affirmed that obedience to the law of Moses was necessary to men’s salvation, but against those Gentiles also whom the Judaizers had seduced to receive the law. For if the apostle made it evident, from the law of Moses itself, that Abraham’s children, by faith, were free from the bondage of the law, no further argument was necessary to prove that obedience to the law is not necessary to justification.” — Macknight. It is written that Abraham had two sons — Here he illustrates the doctrine of justification by faith, and of the abolition of the legal dispensation, by the history of Abraham’s family, in which it was prefigured. The plain import of what he advances is this: That as in Abraham’s family there were two mothers, and two sorts of children, which were differently treated; so, in the visible church, there are two sorts of professors; some that seek justification by the works of the law, who are in a servile and miserable condition, and shall at last be cast out from the presence of God, and the society of the saints; others that seek justification by faith in Christ, and in the promises of God through him: and these are the free sons of God’s family, and in a happy condition, and shall at last certainly obtain the inheritance of eternal life. The one — Namely, Ishmael, by Hagar, a bond-maid, the other — Namely, Isaac, by Sarah, a free-woman. But there was a great difference between them; for he who was of the bond-woman — That is, Ishmael; was born only after the flesh — In the common order of nature, without any particular promise of God, or any unusual interposition of his power and providence. But he of the free-woman — That is, Isaac; was by promise — Through the strength supernaturally communicated to his parents by the promise, Lo Sarah, thy wife, shall have a son; and, like his mother, being free, was his father’s heir.

Ver. 22. It is written, that Abraham had two sons. The one according to the flesh, the other according to promise. These things are an allegory, or continuation of metaphors. This he proves from the bondage of sin under the old covenant, and the liberation from sin under the new. He had authority to say that the rock of Horeb was a figure of Christ, and that the manna indicated heavenly food for the soul, ideas much improved by the marrow and fatness of the prophets, and by their present allusion to Christ as the rock of ages. See the Reflections below.

22. It is written—The ordinary deferential form of quotation from the old canon. Genesis 16 and 21. Abraham—The great representative of the covenants, both old and new. Two sons—That Ishmael. the natural-born, as distinguished from Isaac, as miracle-born, represents the unregenerate as distinguished from the Church of the regenerate, and especially represents the falsely regenerate, who seek salvation by work and law as distinguished from the truly regenerate, who seek salvation by faith in Christ, we have explicitly shown in our note on Romans 9:8. And it is from this standpoint that the false expositions of Stuart, and Calvinistic interpreters in general, of Romans 9:8, is clearly shown; and by consequence the falseness of their entire interpretation of the book of Romans. The correspondent points between the outer and inner meaning of the history appear in the following synopsis:

HAGAR, the old covenant. SARAH, the new covenant.

ISHMAEL and the legalists. ISAAC and the justified by faith. Sinai. Zion?

Old Jerusalem. Heavenly Jerusalem.

In bondage. In freedom.

Cast out of heirship. Heirs with the Son.

The doctrine of this programme is equally clear and true. Isaac, as miraculously, under promise, born of Sarah, is type of all the faithful, who are freely justified by faith, and heirs of the new Jerusalem; while Ishmael, as born of the alien bond-woman, is palpable type of the falsely regenerate by law and works, who are still adhering to old Jerusalem, are in legal bondage, and bound to be cast out of the inheritance. And St. Paul has as much right to frame this into a full allegory, giving it a conceptual form to occupy the imagination and memory of his readers, as any man would to shape it into a metaphor, a poem, or a parable.

Ver. 22.-23. The foregoing question will now be justified by a fact about Abraham recorded in the Books of the Law.

Two sons; prepares us for a difference between them.

Maid: same word in Genesis 16:1, 3, 5f, 8; 21:10, 12f; Matthew 26:69; Acts 12:13; 16:16: in N. T. always a maid-servant, but not so Ruth 4:12. The word free implies that here the maid was a slave. Abraham had one son by the well-known maid-servant, and one by the well-known free woman.

According to flesh: the process of birth corresponding to the constitution of human or animal bodies. This reminds us that Ishmael stood to Abraham in the same relation as the Jews of Paul’s day, viz. that of natural descent. This is embodied in the argument of Romans 9:8. [The Greek perfect tense intimates that the birth of Ishmael according to flesh has abiding significance. So 1 Corinthians 15:4, 14, 27. In reference to events so definite, the English language, which has no tense corresponding to the Greek perfect, uses the preterite, was born.]

Through, or by means of, promise. Not only was Isaac’s birth a fulfilment of promise, but the faith elicited by the promise was an essential condition, according to the principles of the kingdom of God, of the putting forth of divine power and of the fulfilment of the promise. Hence the promise was the channel through which the power of God operated, producing first faith, in Abraham, and then the birth of Isaac. Similarly, in the birth of Jesus a promise to Mary was the vehicle through which the Spirit of God operated. ‘Although both were sons of Abraham, yet the offspring of the slave girl was born (and the significance of this fact remains) according to the ordinary laws of human bodies, the offspring of the free woman was produced by the special voice of God, by the word of promise which Abraham believed.’

V. 23. Was born after the flesh-In a natural way. By promise-Through that supernatural strength which was given Abraham in consequence of the promise.

Verse 23. Was born after the flesh] Ishmael was born according to the course of nature, his parents being both of a proper age, so that there was nothing uncommon or supernatural in his birth: this is the proper meaning of the apostle’s kata sarka, after or according to the flesh, and answers to the Hebrew phrase, rcb krd l[ al derec basar, according to the manner of the flesh, i.e. naturally, according to the common process of nature.

By promise.] Both Abraham and Sarah had passed that age in which the procreation of children was possible on natural principles. The birth, therefore, of Isaac was supernatural; it was the effect of an especial promise of God; and it was only on the ground of that promise that it was either credible or possible.

Verses 21-23. Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law — Of Moses, as the rule of your justification; do ye not hear the law? — Regard what it says? how it teaches that Abraham’s children, by faith, who are heirs of the promises, are free from the bondage of the law? “The argument the apostle is going to use being taken from the law of Moses, was urged with much propriety, not only against the Judaizers, who affirmed that obedience to the law of Moses was necessary to men’s salvation, but against those Gentiles also whom the Judaizers had seduced to receive the law. For if the apostle made it evident, from the law of Moses itself, that Abraham’s children, by faith, were free from the bondage of the law, no further argument was necessary to prove that obedience to the law is not necessary to justification.” — Macknight. It is written that Abraham had two sons — Here he illustrates the doctrine of justification by faith, and of the abolition of the legal dispensation, by the history of Abraham’s family, in which it was prefigured. The plain import of what he advances is this: That as in Abraham’s family there were two mothers, and two sorts of children, which were differently treated; so, in the visible church, there are two sorts of professors; some that seek justification by the works of the law, who are in a servile and miserable condition, and shall at last be cast out from the presence of God, and the society of the saints; others that seek justification by faith in Christ, and in the promises of God through him: and these are the free sons of God’s family, and in a happy condition, and shall at last certainly obtain the inheritance of eternal life. The one — Namely, Ishmael, by Hagar, a bond-maid, the other — Namely, Isaac, by Sarah, a free-woman. But there was a great difference between them; for he who was of the bond-woman — That is, Ishmael; was born only after the flesh — In the common order of nature, without any particular promise of God, or any unusual interposition of his power and providence. But he of the free-woman — That is, Isaac; was by promise — Through the strength supernaturally communicated to his parents by the promise, Lo Sarah, thy wife, shall have a son; and, like his mother, being free, was his father’s heir.

23. After the flesh—Not by miracle and promise, as Isaac was, but in the ordinary mode. And so he is suitable type of the unregenerate; and, as under bondage, he is type of the falsely regenerate under law and works; just like their Judaizing apostles and all their converts in Galatia or elsewhere. See note, Romans 9:8.

Ver. 22.-23. The foregoing question will now be justified by a fact about Abraham recorded in the Books of the Law.

Two sons; prepares us for a difference between them.

Maid: same word in Genesis 16:1, 3, 5f, 8; 21:10, 12f; Matthew 26:69; Acts 12:13; 16:16: in N. T. always a maid-servant, but not so Ruth 4:12. The word free implies that here the maid was a slave. Abraham had one son by the well-known maid-servant, and one by the well-known free woman.

According to flesh: the process of birth corresponding to the constitution of human or animal bodies. This reminds us that Ishmael stood to Abraham in the same relation as the Jews of Paul’s day, viz. that of natural descent. This is embodied in the argument of Romans 9:8. [The Greek perfect tense intimates that the birth of Ishmael according to flesh has abiding significance. So 1 Corinthians 15:4, 14, 27. In reference to events so definite, the English language, which has no tense corresponding to the Greek perfect, uses the preterite, was born.]

Through, or by means of, promise. Not only was Isaac’s birth a fulfilment of promise, but the faith elicited by the promise was an essential condition, according to the principles of the kingdom of God, of the putting forth of divine power and of the fulfilment of the promise. Hence the promise was the channel through which the power of God operated, producing first faith, in Abraham, and then the birth of Isaac. Similarly, in the birth of Jesus a promise to Mary was the vehicle through which the Spirit of God operated. ‘Although both were sons of Abraham, yet the offspring of the slave girl was born (and the significance of this fact remains) according to the ordinary laws of human bodies, the offspring of the free woman was produced by the special voice of God, by the word of promise which Abraham believed.’

V. 24. Which things are an allegory-An allegory is a figurative speech, wherein one thing is expressed, and another intended.

For those two sons are types of the two covenants. One covenant is that given from mount Sinai, which beareth children to bondage-That is, all who are under this, the Jewish covenant, are in bondage. Which covenant is typified by Agar.

Verse 24. Which things are an allegory] They are to be understood spiritually; more being intended in the account than meets the eye. Allegory, from allov, another, and agorew, or agopeuw, to speak, signifies a thing that is a representative of another, where the literal sense is the representative of a spiritual meaning; or, as the glossary expresses it, eterwv kata metafrasin nooumena, kai ou kata thn anagnwsin. “where the thing is to be understood differently in the interpretation than it appears in the reading.”

Allegories are frequent in all countries, and are used by all writers. In the life of Homer, the author, speaking of the marriage of Jupiter and Juno, related by that poet, says: dokei tauta allhgoreisqai, oti hJra men noeitai o ahr-zeuv de, o aiqhr. “It appears that these things are to be understood allegorically; for Juno means the air, Jupiter the æther.” Plutarch, in his treatise Deuteronomy Iside et Osir., says: wsper eJllhnev kronon allhgorousi ton cronon. “As the Greeks allegorize Cronos (Saturn) into Chronos (Time.)” It is well known how fond the Jews were of allegorizing. Every thing in the law was with them an allegory. Their Talmud is full of these; and one of their most sober and best educated writers, Philo, abounds with them. Speaking (Deuteronomy Migrat. Abrah., page 420) of the five daughters of Zelophehad, he says: av allhgorountev aisqhseiv einai famen. “which, allegorizing, we assert to be the five senses!”

It is very likely, therefore, that the allegory produced here, St. Paul had borrowed from the Jewish writings; and he brings it in to convict the Judaizing Galatians on their own principles; and neither he nor we have any thing farther to do with this allegory than as it applies to the subject for which it is quoted; nor does it give any license to those men of vain and superficial minds who endeavour to find out allegories in every portion of the sacred writings, and, by what they term spiritualizing, which is more properly carnalizing, have brought the testimonies of God into disgrace. May the spirit of silence be poured out upon all such corrupters of the word of God!

For these are the two covenants] These signify two different systems of religion; the one by Moses, the other by the Messiah.

The one from the Mount Sinai] On which the law was published; which was typified by Hagar, Abraham’s bond maid.

Which gendereth to bondage] For as the bond maid or slave could only gender-bring forth her children, in a state of slavery, and subject also to become slaves, so all that are born and live under those Mosaic institutions are born and live in a state of bondage-a bondage to various rites and ceremonies; under the obligation to keep the whole law, yet, from its severity and their frailness, obliged to live in the habitual breach of it, and in consequence exposed to the curse which it pronounces.

Verse 24. Which things are an allegory — That is, a figurative speech, wherein one thing is expressed, and another intended. Or, as Macknight explains the expression more at large: “Properly, an allegory is, when persons and events, present or near at hand, with their qualities and circumstances, are considered as types or representations of persons and events more remote, to which they have a resemblance. Of this kind were the histories of some persons and events recorded in the Old Testament. For the qualities and circumstances of these persons were, it seems, so ordered by God, as to be apt representations of such future persons and events as God intended should attract the attention of mankind. This, however, is to be laid down as a fixed rule, that no ancient history is to be considered as allegorical but those which God himself, or persons inspired by him, have interpreted allegorically. Wherefore, since the apostle tells us that what Moses hath written concerning the wives of Abraham is an allegorical representation of the two covenants by which men are made the church and people of God, and that his sons, by these wives, represent the persons born under the two covenants, together with the treatment they are to receive from God, he must be believed, on account of the inspiration by which he wrote; especially as, in verse 27, he hath appealed to the prophet Isaiah, as giving the same account of these matters, Isaiah 54:1. And seeing the prophet, as well as the apostle, (verse 26,) considers Sarah as the mother of all true believers, may we not suppose she was made to conceive her son supernaturally, that she might be a type of the covenant under which believers are regenerated by the power of God; and that her son might be a type of all who by regeneration become members of the true church of God, called, (verse 26,) the Jerusalem above, which is free, both from the bondage and from the curse of the law? In like manner, Abraham’s son, by Hagar the bond-maid, may have been begotten by the natural strength of his parents, and born in bondage, that he might be a proper representation of such of Abraham’s children as are God’s visible church merely by being his children according to the flesh; consequently a type, or allegorical representation of the Jerusalem which existed when the apostle wrote, or of the then present Jewish church, which was in bondage to the law.” For these two persons — Hagar and Sarah; are — That is, may well be considered as representing the two covenants — Or the two dispensations of the law and gospel, the tenor of which is so different: the one covenant given from mount Sinai, which beareth children to bondage — That is, by this covenant the Israelites were made the visible church of God, and put in bondage to the law, and were, by its curse, excluded from the heavenly inheritance, if they had no other relation to Abraham than that of natural descent; which covenant is typified by Agar. — “The Jews are very properly said to have been brought forth into bondage by the covenant from Sinai, because the worship enjoined in that covenant was extremely troublesome and expensive; particularly their frequent separations on account of uncleanness, their purifications and washings, their numerous sacrifices, and especially their three annual journeys to Jerusalem;” all which things were the more grievous, in that they did not obtain for them justification before God, or peace of conscience; but with whatever anxious care and trouble the Jews that were piously disposed performed these things, their sense of sin and dread of punishment remained as great as before, Hebrews 9:9, 10; 10:1-3. “Besides, the covenant from Sinai rendered all that were under it slaves, by the rigour of its precepts, and the terror of its curse. But the covenant or law, which went forth from mount Zion, (Isaiah 2:3,) the gospel covenant, by abolishing these ineffectual rites of worship, and by erecting the Christian Church with its spiritual worship, makes all its members freemen and sons, who obey God from love, and who can address him with confidence by the endearing appellation of Father.”

24. Which things—Not the Greek pronoun a, which, but atina, which sort of things. The Old Testament histories of this kind. Christian verity underlies the whole old dispensation. Are an allegory—A literal history with a spiritual subsense. The Greek word allhgoroumena, may signify either are spoken allegorically, or, are allegorized. The latter is the meaning here; implying that the literal history is by Christian truth thus spiritualized. This spiritualizing arises from the very relation of the new dispensation to the old; the latter infusing a new and grander import into the former. These—Hagar and Sarah. Are—That is, represent. Their position in the history assigns them that typism. Two covenants—That of law and works, and that of gospel and faith; yet the latter really underlying the former through the whole old history. See note on Romans 9:5-13. From the mount Sinai—For the decalogue is THE LAW; all the rest of the Old Testament, the ritual, the history, and the prophecy, being but adjuncts to give that law power and effect. Gendereth to bondage—As Hagar bore children to bondage, so does the Sinaitic covenant produce sons under circumcisional bondage to the heavy ritual. Under this bondage the Galatians are perversely ambitious to place themselves. Which is— Corresponds to.

Ver. 24. Which things: or rather, which class of things. Contain an allegory, or are-allegorized: they have another meaning beside the historical one. Same word and tense in Philo, vol. i. p. 143: “The cherubim are, according to one manner, in this way allegorized.” So Clement of Alex., Exhortation ch. xi. “The serpent is allegorized as pleasure, crawling upon its belly, an earthly vice, turning to matter.” That the narratives of Genesis are fact, Paul ever assumes: see my Romans, Diss. iii. He now declares that under the facts (as Philo says of the cherubim) lies spiritual significance. This significance, the rest of Galatians 4:24 explains.

Are two covenants: cp. 1 Corinthians 11:25. This cup is the New Covenant. In a mutual relation similar to the relation of these two women there actually are two covenants. Therefore, in Paul’s thought, and in objective reality, (for the relationships are real,) the women and the covenants are the same. So the word is, denoting practical identity, in Romans 1:12, 16; 1 John 5:3, 4; Matthew 13:37-39. The two covenants; recalls 2 Corinthians 3:6, written probably shortly before this letter.

Of these two covenants, one is expounded in Galatians 4:24b, 25; the other, under an altered form of speech, in Galatians 4:26-28. The Old Covenant, an abiding possession, was received from God speaking on Mount Sinai.

Bearing children for bondage: just as children of a slave-mother are also slaves. This metaphor is the more easy because the word rendered covenant is feminine. They who accept the Law as the basis of their relation to God, and whose religious life is derived from and determined by it, are children of the Covenant (cp. sons of the Covenant, Acts 3:25) which had its origin at Sinai. And Paul has shown (Galatians 3:10-4:3) that, in consequence of the nature of the covenant then given, such persons are, and must be, in bondage. Thus their position is analogous to that of the boy who, though Abraham’s offspring, yet, because his mother was a servant, was not a sharer of the rights of Abraham’s son. For, the religious life derived from the Law, a life of bondage, was derived from God who gave the Law at Sinai. That Ishmael was not actually a slave, does not weaken this comparison. For, because he was a slave’s child, he could not claim a son’s rights. And this defect of Ishmael, the Jews eagerly asserted.

V. 25. For this is mount Sinai in Arabia-That is, the type of mount Sinai.

And answereth to-Resembles Jerusalem that now is, and is in bondage-Like Agar, both to the law and to the Romans.

Verse 25. For this Agar is Mount Sinai in Arabia] to gar agar sina orov estin en th arabia. This is the common reading; but it is read differently in some of the most respectable MSS., versions, and fathers; thus: to gar sina orov estin en th arabia, for this Sinai is a mountain of Arabia; the word agar, Agar, being omitted. This reading is supported by CFG, some others, the Æthiopic, Armenian, Vulgate, and one copy of the Itala; by Epiphanius, Damascenus, Ambrosiaster, Jerome, Augustine, Hilary, Sedulius, and Bede; and the word is sometimes, though not always, omitted by Cyril and Origen, which proves that in their time there were doubts concerning the common reading.

Of the word Agar in this verse, which renders the passage very obscure and difficult, Professor White says, forsitan delendum, “probably it should be expunged.” Griesbach has left it in the text with a note of doubtfulness. Answereth to Jerusalem] Hagar, the bond maid, bringing forth children in a state of slavery, answereth to Jerusalem that now is, sustoicei, points out, or, bears a similitude to, Jerusalem in her present state of subjection; which, with her children-her citizens, is not only in bondage to the Romans, but in a worse bondage to the law, to its oppressive ordinances, and to the heavy curse which it has pronounced against all those who do not keep them.

Verses 25-27. For this Agar is mount Sinai — That is, is a type of that mount. The whole of that mountainous ridge in Arabia Petrea, of which Sinai was a part, was called Horeb, probably on account of its excessive dryness. It was called by Moses, the mountain of God, (Exodus 3:1,) because on it God gave the law to the Israelites. Grotius says, Sinai is called Hagar, or Agar, synecdochically, because in that mountain there was a city which bare Hagar’s name. It is by Pliny called Agra, and by Dio, Agara, and its inhabitants were named Hagarenes, Psalms 83:6Psalm 83:6. Whitby thinks the allusion is taken from the meaning of the word Hagar, which, in the Hebrew, signifies a rock. And answereth — Namely, in the allegory; or resembles, Jerusalem, which now is, and is in bondage — As being in subjection to so many ritual observances, and under a sentence of wrath on the commission of the least wilful offence, and as being also in bondage to the Romans. But Jerusalem, which is above — The church of Christ, so called, because its most perfect state will be in heaven; is free — Eleuqera esti, is the free woman, that is, is represented by Sarah; who is the mother of us all — Who believe. The Jerusalem above, the spiritual Jerusalem, or church of Christ, consisting of believers of all nations, with the covenant on which it is formed, is fitly typified by Isaac, and his mother Sarah, the free-woman, because she was constituted by God the mother of all believers, on account of her bringing forth Isaac supernaturally, by virtue of the promise. For it is written, &c. — As if he had said, My interpretation of the things respecting Abraham’s wives and sons is not new; it is alluded to by Isaiah 54:1; Rejoice, thou barren, that bearest not — Ye heathen nations, who, like a barren woman, were destitute for many ages of a seed to serve the Lord; break forth, &c., thou that, in former ages, travailest not, for such is now thy happy state, that the desolate, &c. — Ye, that were so long utterly desolate, shall at length bear more children than the Jewish Church, which was of old espoused to God.

25. For—To give proof of this correspondence. This Agar—The this is the Greek article in the neuter gender, and can agree with Hagar only as a thing; that is, as an element or factor in this allegory. Is—Represents. The neuter verb often implies representation; as “the candlesticks are the seven Churches,” “the stars are the angels of the Churches.” And in Christ’s words, this bread is my body. Answereth—Co-ordinates with, or stands in parallel row with. Jerusalem—St. Paul here uses the old Hebrew word for Jerusalem, not the modern Greek form, indicating thereby that he speaks not so much of the present concrete Jerusalem—of walls and houses—as of the conceptual Jerusalem, symbolized by this material Jerusalem, namely, fallen Judaism, the obsolete theocracy. Now is—Not the Jerusalem of the holy old past, nor of the future; but the faded Jerusalem of the present, deserted by God, effete and enslaved, and bound to a speedy destruction. In bondage—Bound in the fetters of the law, after the grace and glory in the law have departed. Her children—The Judaistic apostles and their Galatian converts. Of the clause this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, we have given what we conceive to be the true interpretation. But, 1. By another reading, adopted by Lightfoot, the first words of the verse are, For the mountain Sinai is in Arabia. The phrase in Arabia, is then made to signify that the connexion between Hagar and Sinai is, that both are Arabian. To the Sinaitic peninsula, apparently, Hagar fled, Genesis 16:7-14. The Arabians are called sons of Hagar, (Baruch, 3:23;) Hagar’s name is illustrious in Arabian legends; and Arab tribes are called Hagarenes, Psalms 83:7Psalm 83:7, and Hagarites, 1 Chronicles 5:19. Hence Hagar represents Sinai, as both being Arabian. All this is far-fetched and feeble. 2. Chrysostom is quoted as saying that Hagar means rock, and thus Sinai is named Hagar—rock in the Arabic language. Hence it is said, that in Arabia, means in the language of Arabia; and so St. Paul identifies Hagar and Sinai here by oneness of name. But, first, there is no sufficient proof that Sinai was called Hagar in Arabic, and the word Hagar does not etymologically signify rock, but one who flees, being cognate with hegira, the term for the flight of Mohammed. The word for rock is not Hagar, but Chagar. See Lightfoot’s learned dissertation.

Ver. 25. Between readings (1) Now this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia and (2) For Sinai is a mountain in Arabia, evidence is almost equally balanced. We find r. 1 in the Vat. and Alex. MSS., the Latin part of the Clermont MS., and the Coptic version; evidence perhaps slightly stronger than that for r. 2, viz. the Sinai and Ephraim MSS., two Greek-Latin uncials, and the Latin Vulgate Version. Uniting these two readings, the later Greek MSS. and the Syriac Version which often accompanies them read (3) for this Hagar is Mount Sinai, etc. Chrysostom read, as the tenor of his exposition proves, this Hagar is Mount Sinai. And existing copies of his exposition read also for this Hagar, etc. But the difference between now and for does not affect his argument. Consequently, in view of the great frequency of this last reading in later copies, we cannot be sure that Chrysostom himself accepted it. It seems to me that the documentary evidence for r. 1 preponderates slightly over that for r. 2. The difference is only three Greek letters, which must have been wrongly either inserted or omitted. Their accidental insertion is perhaps rather the more easy to conceive. For the insertion of A, making GAR into AGAR, might have been suggested by the same word at the end of Galatians 4:24: and the need for a particle would suggest the insertion of DE. But this possibility only counterbalances the slightly preponderant documentary evidence.

Of Critical Editors, Lachmann gives r. 2 in his text, r. 1 in his margin. Tischendorf gave r. 3 in his 7th, and gives r. 2 in his 8th, edition. Tregelles places r. 3 in his text and r. 1 in his margin. Even the joint editors part company here, Westcott preferring r. 2 and Hort r. 1: but, like the R.V., their joint text gives r. 1, with r. 2 in the margin.

Amid this conflict of evidence and opinion, I shall further test the readings by endeavouring to expound them.

Reading 1. This Hagar: i.e. Hagar looked upon, not as a woman, but simply as an abstract object of thought and comparison. Already Paul has said that one covenant is Hagar. With Hagar he now links in his allegory Mount Sinai, from which (Galatians 4:24) the covenant was received. Is: as in Galatians 4:24: in the allegory, Hagar and Sinai are the same. To assert this practical identity, is the purpose of Galatians 4:25a. In Arabia; recalls the geographical position of Sinai, where in solitary grandeur, away from the land promised to Abraham, the rugged mountain looks down upon the wilderness home of the children of Hagar. The position of Sinai reveals the appropriateness of the allegory. And this sufficiently accounts for these words, without the exposition of Chrysostom: “The bondwoman was called Hagar; and Mount Sinai is thus interpreted in the language of the locality.” For this last statement we have hardly any confirmatory evidence. Some Arabian tribes bore their mother’s name: e.g. Psalms 83:6Psalm 83:6; 1 Chronicles 5:10, 20; Eratosthenes in Strabo bk. xvi. 767. Possibly this tribal name may have been heard by Paul during his sojourn in Arabia, and have suggested the contrast of the sons of Hagar and of Sarah. But even this supposition is needless. We notice, however, that the Epistle which tells of Paul’s journey to Arabia contains this comparison. It may have been suggested by meditations on the spot. Goes in the same line: like soldiers in file. It recalls (Aristotle, Nicom. Ethics bk. i. 6. 7) the Pythagorean Lists of corresponding Opposites. In such a list, Hagar, Ishmael, Sinai, the Old Covenant, the now Jerusalem would stand opposite to Sarah, Isaac, Golgotha, the New Covenant, the Jerusalem above. Paul has just said that in his allegory Hagar, the mother of the alien race, is identical with Mount Sinai whence they who trust in the Law derive their spiritual life. He now takes the allegory a step further by saying that Hagar is in the same line with Jerusalem that now is, or the now Jerusalem, the metropolis of the Jewish state and seat of the old Theocracy. This statement, the following words prove.

Is in bondage: viz. Jerusalem, as proved by the contrast with Jerusalem above which is free. Moreover, to say that Hagar is in bondage, etc., would merely and needlessly repeat Galatians 4:24b, and would do nothing to prove that either she or Mount Sinai goes in the same line with the now Jerusalem: whereas, that Jerusalem is in bondage, etc., as practically proved in Galatians 3:23-4:9, places the Mother-City of the Jews in line with Hagar and her banished offspring; which is the chief point of this allegory.

With her children: cp. Matthew 23:37: with those who look up to the old Theocratic state as their political and spiritual mother. For these are under the Law, and therefore (cp. Galatians 3:23ff) in spiritual bondage; by the very nature of the Theocracy to which they owe their spiritual life.

Reading 2 should probably be rendered For Sinai is a mountain in Arabia. It calls attention to the geographical position of Sinai, giving definiteness to our conception of the great mountain and silently reminding us that it was the home of Hagar’s children. Paul then, without further mention of Hagar, says that Sinai belongs to the same category as the present Jerusalem. For this statement, the following proof still holds good: for, that Jerusalem is in bondage with her children, places her in the same line both with the mother of the exiled race and with the mountain in Arabia whence Israel derived its spiritual life.

Since it was more important, for Paul’s argument, to place Jerusalem in relation with Hagar, whom all Jews regarded as an alien, as in r. 1, rather than with Sinai, on which all looked with reverence, and since for r. 1 the documentary evidence slightly preponderates, we may perhaps accept it, with the R.V., as slightly the more likely.

If we had proof that Sinai was actually called Hagar, we might take Galatians 4:25a to mean that in Arabia Hagar is a name given to Sinai. But, as we have seen, this is needless for the argument. For, that Mount Sinai is in the land of Hagar’s children, whether or not the mountain bore her name, reveals in clear light the appropriateness of Paul’s allegory.

V. 26. But the other covenant is derived from Jerusalem that is above, which is free-Like Sarah from all inward and outward bondage, and is the mother of us all-That is, all who believe in Christ, are free citizens of the New Jerusalem.

Verse 26. But Jerusalem which is above] The apostle still follows the Jewish allegory, showing not only how the story of Hagar and Sarah, Ishmael and Isaac, was allegorized, but pointing out also that even Jerusalem was the subject of allegory; for it was a maxim among the rabbins, that “whatsoever was in the earth, the same was also found in heaven for there is no matter, howsoever small, in this world, that has not something similar to it in the spiritual world.” On this maxim, the Jews imagine that every earthly thing has its representative in heaven; and especially whatever concerns Jerusalem, the law, and its ordinances. Rab. Kimchi, speaking of Melchizedec, king of Salem, says: מעלה lv ירושלם wz zu Yerushalem shel malah, “This is the Jerusalem that is from above.” This phrase frequently occurs among these writers, as may be seen in Schoettgen, who has written an express dissertation upon the subject. Hor. Hebr., vol. i. page 1205.

Is free, which is the mother of us all.] There is a spiritual Jerusalem, of which this is the type; and this Jerusalem, in which the souls of all the righteous are, is free from all bondage and sin: or by this, probably, the kingdom of the Messiah was intended; and this certainly answers best to the apostle’s meaning, as the subsequent verse shows. There is an earthly Jerusalem, but this earthly Jerusalem typifies a heavenly Jerusalem: the former, with all her citizens, is in bondage; the latter is a free city, and all her inhabitants are free also. And this Jerusalem is our mother; it signifies the Church of Christ, the metropolis of Christianity, or rather the state of liberty into which all true believers are brought. The word pantwn, of all, is omitted by almost every MS. and version of antiquity and importance, and by the most eminent of the fathers who quote this place; it is undoubtedly spurious, and the text should be read thus: But Jerusalem, which is above, is free, which is our mother.

Verses 25-27. For this Agar is mount Sinai — That is, is a type of that mount. The whole of that mountainous ridge in Arabia Petrea, of which Sinai was a part, was called Horeb, probably on account of its excessive dryness. It was called by Moses, the mountain of God, (Exodus 3:1,) because on it God gave the law to the Israelites. Grotius says, Sinai is called Hagar, or Agar, synecdochically, because in that mountain there was a city which bare Hagar’s name. It is by Pliny called Agra, and by Dio, Agara, and its inhabitants were named Hagarenes, Psalms 83:6Psalm 83:6. Whitby thinks the allusion is taken from the meaning of the word Hagar, which, in the Hebrew, signifies a rock. And answereth — Namely, in the allegory; or resembles, Jerusalem, which now is, and is in bondage — As being in subjection to so many ritual observances, and under a sentence of wrath on the commission of the least wilful offence, and as being also in bondage to the Romans. But Jerusalem, which is above — The church of Christ, so called, because its most perfect state will be in heaven; is free — Eleuqera esti, is the free woman, that is, is represented by Sarah; who is the mother of us all — Who believe. The Jerusalem above, the spiritual Jerusalem, or church of Christ, consisting of believers of all nations, with the covenant on which it is formed, is fitly typified by Isaac, and his mother Sarah, the free-woman, because she was constituted by God the mother of all believers, on account of her bringing forth Isaac supernaturally, by virtue of the promise. For it is written, &c. — As if he had said, My interpretation of the things respecting Abraham’s wives and sons is not new; it is alluded to by Isaiah 54:1; Rejoice, thou barren, that bearest not — Ye heathen nations, who, like a barren woman, were destitute for many ages of a seed to serve the Lord; break forth, &c., thou that, in former ages, travailest not, for such is now thy happy state, that the desolate, &c. — Ye, that were so long utterly desolate, shall at length bear more children than the Jewish Church, which was of old espoused to God.

26. Jerusalem… above—Literally, the above, or upper Jerusalem. The same Greek phrase Josephus uses to designate the upper city of Jerusalem; and a parallel phrase, the upper city, was used in Athens to designate the Acropolis. Paul does not, however, mean the upper part of the then present Jerusalem, but a spiritual Jerusalem, higher, not only than the material one, but higher than the conceptual one,—the old theocracy;—namely, the new theocracy, the Church of the New Testament. This is called in Hebrews 12:22, the heavenly Jerusalem: not because it is heavenly in locality, but heavenly in nature. And in Revelation 21, John beholds the glorified counterpart of this earthly-heavenly Jerusalem descend from heaven, and identify itself with the earthly-heavenly Jerusalem, (the beloved city of Revelation 20:9.) In Paul’s allegory the correspondent item to Sinai is not formally supplied, and, as the above synopsis shows, Zion seems to be needed. Yet St. Paul skips it, really because, though needed to make out a regular programme, it is not needed for the complete exhibition of the truth. Wieseler furnishes in good Greek the apostle’s “missing link” (as quoted by Schmoller) thus: “The second covenant from mount Zion, bearing children unto freedom, which is Sarah. For Zion is a mountain in the Land of Promise, and corresponds to Jerusalem, for she is free with her children.” Is free—Her legal bonds are fallen off. She is like Sarah, whose name meant princess—free and queenly. Mother of us all—Not a barren princess, as Sarai was, but a miraculously fertile mother of countless free and princely sons. They are the very progeny predicted by Jehovah, to be as numerous as the stars of heaven.

Ver. 26. The second of the two Covenants, described in an altered form suggested by the foregoing words.

Jerusalem above: or the above Jerusalem. Cp. the heavenly Jerusalem, Hebrews 12:22; the new Jerusalem coming down out of heaven, Revelation 21:2; the city having the foundations, Hebrews 11:10; the city to come, Hebrews 13:14. It is the future home of the saved, looked upon as a city and a metropolis. The above different conceptions of it, we may harmonize by conceiving it as already existing in the purpose and forethought of God and influencing the thought and action of men. This city is free, with all that pertains to it. Restraint is needless there, and unknown.

Our mother: that city is a mother, and we are her children. For it is the source, by the laws of spiritual generation, of our spiritual life; a life which partakes the nature of its source: in other words, our spiritual life is an outflow of the eternal and divine forces which will find their visible and necessary manifestation in that future city. Moreover, the city will be an integral part of the place of glory where already, surrounded by angels, the Risen Saviour sits enthroned. Therefore, to that future city we already look up as our mother. That city is no mere idea we are endeavouring to realise, and whose realisation is contingent; but actual reality, infinitely more real than the things we see around us. This eternal and spotless City stands in absolute contrast to that towards which the men of the Old Covenant looked up with filial reverence or fanatical devotion.

V. 27. For it is written-Those words in the primary sense promise a flourishing state to Judea, after its desolation by the Chaldeans. Rejoice, thou barren, that bearest not-Ye heathen nations, who, like a barren woman, were destitute, for many ages, of a seed to serve the Lord. Break forth and cry aloud for joy, thou that, in former time, travailedst not: for the desolate hath many more children than she that hath an husband-For ye that were so long utterly desolate shall at length bear more children than the Jewish church, which was of old espoused to God. Isaiah 54:1.

Verse 27. Rejoice, thou barren that bearest not] This quotation is taken from Isaiah 54:1, and is certainly a promise which relates to the conversion of the Gentiles, as the following clause proves; for the desolate-the Gentile world, hath many more children-is a much larger and more numerous Church, than she-Jerusalem, the Jewish state, which hath a husband-has been so long in covenant with God, living under his continual protection, and in possession of a great variety of spiritual advantages; and especially those offered to her by the Gospel, which she has rejected, and which the Gentiles have accepted.

Verses 25-27. For this Agar is mount Sinai — That is, is a type of that mount. The whole of that mountainous ridge in Arabia Petrea, of which Sinai was a part, was called Horeb, probably on account of its excessive dryness. It was called by Moses, the mountain of God, (Exodus 3:1,) because on it God gave the law to the Israelites. Grotius says, Sinai is called Hagar, or Agar, synecdochically, because in that mountain there was a city which bare Hagar’s name. It is by Pliny called Agra, and by Dio, Agara, and its inhabitants were named Hagarenes, Psalms 83:6Psalm 83:6. Whitby thinks the allusion is taken from the meaning of the word Hagar, which, in the Hebrew, signifies a rock. And answereth — Namely, in the allegory; or resembles, Jerusalem, which now is, and is in bondage — As being in subjection to so many ritual observances, and under a sentence of wrath on the commission of the least wilful offence, and as being also in bondage to the Romans. But Jerusalem, which is above — The church of Christ, so called, because its most perfect state will be in heaven; is free — Eleuqera esti, is the free woman, that is, is represented by Sarah; who is the mother of us all — Who believe. The Jerusalem above, the spiritual Jerusalem, or church of Christ, consisting of believers of all nations, with the covenant on which it is formed, is fitly typified by Isaac, and his mother Sarah, the free-woman, because she was constituted by God the mother of all believers, on account of her bringing forth Isaac supernaturally, by virtue of the promise. For it is written, &c. — As if he had said, My interpretation of the things respecting Abraham’s wives and sons is not new; it is alluded to by Isaiah 54:1; Rejoice, thou barren, that bearest not — Ye heathen nations, who, like a barren woman, were destitute for many ages of a seed to serve the Lord; break forth, &c., thou that, in former ages, travailest not, for such is now thy happy state, that the desolate, &c. — Ye, that were so long utterly desolate, shall at length bear more children than the Jewish Church, which was of old espoused to God.

27. Written—St. Paul adorns his allegory with a choice gem from old prophetic poetry. Isaiah 54:1. The passage is clearly Messianic, and is spoken in view of the gathering in of the Gentiles, verse 3. She who was barren, and that travailed not, has now a numerous offspring. The barrenness, according to Paul, is the effeteness of fallen Judaism, and the new fertility is the life and increase of new Christianity.

Ver. 27. Proof that the Jerusalem above is a mother, and we her children. It is word for word (LXX.) from Isaiah 54:1; and recalls Isaiah 49:17-23; 51:17-20; 52:1, 2; 54:4-13; 60:4; 62:4, 5; 66:7, 8. It is also an outburst of song evoked by this momentary vision of the heavenly city, and suitably clothed in the language of ancient prophecy.

Barren: a past state spoken of as if now present, for vivid contrast with the actual present.

She that does not bear: an abiding and melancholy characteristic. Burst forth: with joy, as implied by the word rejoice. The Hebrew reads shout for joy… break forth a joyful shout.

Does not travail with child: more graphic than does not bear. (Cp. Isaiah 66:7.)

Desolate: not only barren but without a husband, in lonely solitude. Yet she has many children, more even than some other woman who with her husband are (in the LXX.) definite objects of the prophet’s thought. After his vision of the smitten Servant of Jehovah, who bore the sin of many, Isaiah bursts into song, in view of the glory which will follow. in this song he bids Jerusalem join, describing her as a woman once without children and even without husband, but now having many sons. For, God (Isaiah 54:5) is her husband: and her sons will be taught by Him and have great peace. The prophet’s words imply sudden and unexpected and great increase of the citizens of the Kingdom of God; and infinite splendour and blessing awaiting them. These words found no adequate fulfilment in the exiles returning from captivity. But Paul had seen thousands of aliens and heathens turning to God, entering by the power of God a new life derived from above, and becoming children of God. And he looked forward to the day when these lately born children of the one Father will tread the streets of that city which from afar Isaiah saw. Already, in the unchangeable purpose of God, and to the eye of faith, the city stands secure in heaven, the eternal home of freedom, its future inhabitants look up to it with longing eyes; and from it derive all their hopes. In this wondrous accession to the people of God Paul sees fulfilled the ancient prophecy: and the vision moves him to re-echo the prophet’s song. The prophecy also justifies his assertion that Jerusalem above is mother of his readers and himself.

Whatever may have been Isaiah’s own thought, Paul’s exposition points to the reality which in indistinct and distant outline the prophet saw. His exposition is, therefore, in the highest sense correct. it is reproduced by Justin, 1st Apology, ch. 53.

V. 28. Now we-Who believe, whether Jews or Gentiles. Are children of the promise-Not born in a natural way, but by the supernatural power of God. And as such we are heirs of the promise made to believing Abraham.

Verse 28. Now we] Who believe in the Lord Jesus, are the children of promise-are the spiritual offspring of the Messiah, the seed of Abraham, in whom the promise stated that all the nations of the earth should be blessed.

Verses 28-30. Now — That I may apply what has just been advanced to ourselves; we, brethren — Who believe, whether Jews or Gentiles; as Isaac was — Kata Isaak, after the manner of Isaac; are children of promise — Are children of God, being children of Abraham and Sarah, by the promise which made him the father, and her the mother, of nations. In other words, we are children, not born in a natural way, but by the supernatural power of God; and as such, we are heirs of the promise made to believing Abraham. And, “if believers, after the manner of Isaac, are children begotten to Abraham by the divine power accompanying the promise, can it be doubted that they were typified by Isaac, and that his procreation was deferred till the bodies of his parents were dead as to these things, that being supernaturally begotten, he might be a fit type of those who by divine power become the seed of Abraham, through faith.” But — Indeed the parallel holds further still; for as then, he that was born after the flesh — That is, Ishmael, in whose production there was nothing beyond the common course of nature, and who was related to Abraham by natural descent only; persecuted him who was born after the Spirit — That is, Isaac, who was produced by the special energy of God’s miraculous power; even so it is now — The carnal Jews, who are the seed of Abraham after the flesh, abuse and persecute us who believe in Christ, and are therefore Abraham’s seed after the Spirit. Ishmael’s persecution of Isaac consisted in his mocking at the feast of his weaning, Genesis 21:9. “No doubt he pretended that by right of primogeniture he was his father’s heir, and therefore he ridiculed the feast made in honour of Isaac as the heir, together with Sarah’s laying claim to the whole of the inheritance for her son. This action was typical of the contempt with which the Jews, Abraham’s natural posterity, would treat his spiritual seed, and their hopes of salvation through faith; typical also of the claim which the natural seed would set up, of being the only heirs of God, because they were first his people.” But what saith the Scripture — Showing the consequence of this? Cast out the bond-woman and her son — Who mocked Isaac. Which sentence, however grievous it might be to Abraham, when pronounced by Sarah, God confirmed, and they were cast out of Abraham’s family. And so, as the apostle’s discourse implies, shall all who reject Christ, and seek justification and salvation by the law of Moses, notwithstanding their boasted descent from Abraham, be cast out of the church and family of God, and rejected from being his people; especially if they persecute them who are his children by faith; and they shall not be permitted to be heirs of his promise with them. So that, as in his birth and condition, his character and actions; so likewise in his being cast out of his father’s house, Ishmael was a fit type of the unbelieving and disobedient Jews. So then — To sum up all; we — Who believe; are not the children of the bond-woman — Are not under subjection to the servile dispensation of the law, nor have any thing to do with it; but we are children of the free-woman — And have the privilege of being called into a state of liberty under the spiritual covenant of the gospel, being free from the curse and bond of the law, and from the power of sin and Satan.

Ver. 28. We, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise. The great divisions in the province of Galatia, had grieved and wounded the spirit of St. Paul beyond all that had ever happened to him. He wished that the judaizing teachers were even cut off that had troubled them. Those teachers had pleaded the prophecies as all the rabbins still do, that the gentiles were to be proselyted to judaism. These arguments the apostle here rebuts by affirming, that the spiritual Jerusalem is the mother of us all. Her sons are heirs, not of Jerusalem about to be destroyed, but of the inheritance incorruptible, undefiled, and that fadeth not away. He resumes the subject in a very decided manner, in Hebrews 12:22-33. Those ministers of our own times, and of our own nation, who plead for the unqualified return of the jews to Jerusalem, had better weigh St. Paul’s arguments. Do not certain sermons tend to retard the conversion of that interesting nation, now wandering on the face of the earth, by holding out to them a hope that they are to be gathered to their own land in a state of unbelief; and when besieged by infidel powers, they are to be delivered, and converted by the personal appearance of Christ, who shall destroy all their enemies. If those ideas are founded in truth, how can we expect any conversions among that nation till the appointed time? Can we wish the jews a greater calamity than a present return to a barren land? St. Paul’s words are, “If they abide not still in unbelief, God is able to graft them in.”

28. We, brethren—The direct application of the allegory to the present company. We—Not as seeking circumcision, but as reposing faith in Christ. As Isaac… children of promise—Isaac’s miraculous generation is type of our miraculous regeneration. The promise of his birth, first made by Jehovah to Abraham, is part of the covenant by which man is regenerate through Christ.

Ver. 28. As Galatians 4:27 justified the word mother in Galatians 4:26, so Galatians 4:28 justifies the word our by proving that Paul and his readers are among the children foretold by Isaiah. The reading we or ye is uncertain and unimportant.

Like Isaac: on the model of Isaac, our birth corresponding with his. Children of promise: almost the same words in Romans 9:8, proving how familiar to Paul was this thought. it recalls Galatians 4:23b. Of promise: viz. the Gospel, the instrument by which God brought into being His children in Galatia. Cp. 1 Corinthians 4:15; James 1:18. Now, only in those whom by the Gospel promise God adds to His family does the above-quoted prophecy of Isaiah find fulfilment. Consequently, not only is (Galatians 4:26) the Jerusalem above a mother but she is our mother.

V. 29. But as then, he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, so it is now also-And so it will be in all ages and nations to the end of the world.

Verse 29. But as then he] Ishmael, who was born after the flesh-whose birth had nothing supernatural in it, but was according to the ordinary course of nature,

Persecuted him] Isaac, who was born after the Spirit-who had a supernatural birth, according to the promise, and through the efficacy, of the Holy Spirit, giving effect to that promise-Sarah shall have a son, Genesis 17:16-21; 21:1, &c.

Persecuted him; the persecution here referred to is that mentioned Genesis 21:9. It consisted in mocking his brother Isaac. Even so it is now.] So the Jews, in every place, persecute the Christians; and show thereby that they are rather of the posterity of Hagar than of Sarah.

Verses 28-30. Now — That I may apply what has just been advanced to ourselves; we, brethren — Who believe, whether Jews or Gentiles; as Isaac was — Kata Isaak, after the manner of Isaac; are children of promise — Are children of God, being children of Abraham and Sarah, by the promise which made him the father, and her the mother, of nations. In other words, we are children, not born in a natural way, but by the supernatural power of God; and as such, we are heirs of the promise made to believing Abraham. And, “if believers, after the manner of Isaac, are children begotten to Abraham by the divine power accompanying the promise, can it be doubted that they were typified by Isaac, and that his procreation was deferred till the bodies of his parents were dead as to these things, that being supernaturally begotten, he might be a fit type of those who by divine power become the seed of Abraham, through faith.” But — Indeed the parallel holds further still; for as then, he that was born after the flesh — That is, Ishmael, in whose production there was nothing beyond the common course of nature, and who was related to Abraham by natural descent only; persecuted him who was born after the Spirit — That is, Isaac, who was produced by the special energy of God’s miraculous power; even so it is now — The carnal Jews, who are the seed of Abraham after the flesh, abuse and persecute us who believe in Christ, and are therefore Abraham’s seed after the Spirit. Ishmael’s persecution of Isaac consisted in his mocking at the feast of his weaning, Genesis 21:9. “No doubt he pretended that by right of primogeniture he was his father’s heir, and therefore he ridiculed the feast made in honour of Isaac as the heir, together with Sarah’s laying claim to the whole of the inheritance for her son. This action was typical of the contempt with which the Jews, Abraham’s natural posterity, would treat his spiritual seed, and their hopes of salvation through faith; typical also of the claim which the natural seed would set up, of being the only heirs of God, because they were first his people.” But what saith the Scripture — Showing the consequence of this? Cast out the bond-woman and her son — Who mocked Isaac. Which sentence, however grievous it might be to Abraham, when pronounced by Sarah, God confirmed, and they were cast out of Abraham’s family. And so, as the apostle’s discourse implies, shall all who reject Christ, and seek justification and salvation by the law of Moses, notwithstanding their boasted descent from Abraham, be cast out of the church and family of God, and rejected from being his people; especially if they persecute them who are his children by faith; and they shall not be permitted to be heirs of his promise with them. So that, as in his birth and condition, his character and actions; so likewise in his being cast out of his father’s house, Ishmael was a fit type of the unbelieving and disobedient Jews. So then — To sum up all; we — Who believe; are not the children of the bond-woman — Are not under subjection to the servile dispensation of the law, nor have any thing to do with it; but we are children of the free-woman — And have the privilege of being called into a state of liberty under the spiritual covenant of the gospel, being free from the curse and bond of the law, and from the power of sin and Satan.

29. Then… now—The persecution of Isaac by Ishmael is identical with the persecution of faithful Christians by circumcised Jews and Judaists. Isaac and the faithful Christians are alike the born after the flesh, as Ishmael and the Judaists are alike the born after the flesh. And this verities the statement of our note on Romans 9:8. Persecuted, seems, at first, to be a severe word for mocking, (in Genesis 21:9,) describing Ishmael’s demeanour to Isaac; and still more for the Hebrew, which is “laughing,” and the Septuagint, which is “playing.” But, somehow, it was Ishmaelite playing; arousing the indignation of Sarah, confirmed by Jehovah; was the type of future wars between the two races, and, as here, the type, of the persecution of the good by the bad.

Ver. 29. A further development of the analogy, a contrast and a comparison.

But, or nevertheless: although children of promise, yet, just-as Isaac was then, so we also now are exposed to persecution.

Born according to flesh: the point of contrast (Galatians 4:23) with Isaac.

According to Spirit; Romans 8:4, 5: the Holy Spirit as a standard determining the manner of birth. For He (John 3:5) is the agent of the new birth: and all His works correspond with His nature. (Notice that whatever comes through belief of a promise is wrought by the Spirit, the divine Agent of all supernatural good.) The word here is suggested by Paul’s constant contrast of flesh and Spirit: Galatians 3:3; Galatians 5:16, 17; 6:8; Romans 8:4. The Hebrew text of Genesis 21:9 reads, Sarah saw the son of Hagar… mocking: but the LXX. reads, playing with Isaac her son. Sarah’s demand, made at the festival, implies some aggravation from Ishmael: and her comparison of the two boys suggests that the aggravation was something done to Isaac. And this idea was taken up by Jewish tradition. This ridicule from Ishmael Paul describes, in order to place the Christians of his day in line with Isaac, by the word persecuted, which recalls the many persecutions aroused against Christians by Jews: cp. 1 Thessalonians 2:14; Acts 13:50; 14:5, 19.

V. 30. But what saith the scripture-Showing the consequence of this. Cast out the bondwoman and her son-Who mocked Isaac. In like manner will God cast out all who seek to be justified by the law; especially if they persecute them who are his children by faith. Genesis 21:10.

Verse 30. What saith the Scripture?] (In Genesis 21:10:) Cast out the bond woman and her son: and what does this imply in the present case? Why, that the present Jerusalem and her children shall be cast out of the favour of God, and shall not be heirs with the son of the free woman-shall not inherit the blessings promised to Abraham, because they believe not in the promised seed.

Verses 28-30. Now — That I may apply what has just been advanced to ourselves; we, brethren — Who believe, whether Jews or Gentiles; as Isaac was — Kata Isaak, after the manner of Isaac; are children of promise — Are children of God, being children of Abraham and Sarah, by the promise which made him the father, and her the mother, of nations. In other words, we are children, not born in a natural way, but by the supernatural power of God; and as such, we are heirs of the promise made to believing Abraham. And, “if believers, after the manner of Isaac, are children begotten to Abraham by the divine power accompanying the promise, can it be doubted that they were typified by Isaac, and that his procreation was deferred till the bodies of his parents were dead as to these things, that being supernaturally begotten, he might be a fit type of those who by divine power become the seed of Abraham, through faith.” But — Indeed the parallel holds further still; for as then, he that was born after the flesh — That is, Ishmael, in whose production there was nothing beyond the common course of nature, and who was related to Abraham by natural descent only; persecuted him who was born after the Spirit — That is, Isaac, who was produced by the special energy of God’s miraculous power; even so it is now — The carnal Jews, who are the seed of Abraham after the flesh, abuse and persecute us who believe in Christ, and are therefore Abraham’s seed after the Spirit. Ishmael’s persecution of Isaac consisted in his mocking at the feast of his weaning, Genesis 21:9. “No doubt he pretended that by right of primogeniture he was his father’s heir, and therefore he ridiculed the feast made in honour of Isaac as the heir, together with Sarah’s laying claim to the whole of the inheritance for her son. This action was typical of the contempt with which the Jews, Abraham’s natural posterity, would treat his spiritual seed, and their hopes of salvation through faith; typical also of the claim which the natural seed would set up, of being the only heirs of God, because they were first his people.” But what saith the Scripture — Showing the consequence of this? Cast out the bond-woman and her son — Who mocked Isaac. Which sentence, however grievous it might be to Abraham, when pronounced by Sarah, God confirmed, and they were cast out of Abraham’s family. And so, as the apostle’s discourse implies, shall all who reject Christ, and seek justification and salvation by the law of Moses, notwithstanding their boasted descent from Abraham, be cast out of the church and family of God, and rejected from being his people; especially if they persecute them who are his children by faith; and they shall not be permitted to be heirs of his promise with them. So that, as in his birth and condition, his character and actions; so likewise in his being cast out of his father’s house, Ishmael was a fit type of the unbelieving and disobedient Jews. So then — To sum up all; we — Who believe; are not the children of the bond-woman — Are not under subjection to the servile dispensation of the law, nor have any thing to do with it; but we are children of the free-woman — And have the privilege of being called into a state of liberty under the spiritual covenant of the gospel, being free from the curse and bond of the law, and from the power of sin and Satan.

30. Nevertheless—In spite of the apparent triumph of these persecutions. Cast out—It is the destiny of the persecutor to be rejected and reprobated. The bondwoman—The rejected Jewish Church. Her son—The converts they make in Galatia to circumcision. Shall not be heir—Shall not inherit the kingdom of God by faith. Free woman—The New Testament Churches; free because released from the heavy yoke of Judaism.

Ver. 30. But: or nevertheless, as in Galatians 4:29: a complete and now triumphant contrast. The words of Sarah, (Genesis 21:10 nearly word for word from the LXX.,) inasmuch as her request was approved by God, are introduced simply as the Scripture says: so Romans 9:17; 10:11; cp. Galatians 3:8, 22. This implies that for Paul the Scripture had the authority of God. He quotes that authority in the literary form in which it lay before him. That Sarah’s petulant request obtained God’s sanction, and that a trifling sport of Ishmael caused his expulsion from Abraham’s home lest his presence should interfere with the unique honour due to Isaac, reveal in clearest light the infinite difference of position between the two sons. This difference gives great force to the contrast in Galatians 4:23-28. The last words of Galatians 4:30 are changed from with my son, even with Isaac to with the son of the free woman, to suit Paul’s quotation. The change also places the two mothers in conspicuous contrast, the maid or slave girl and the free woman. Inherit: Genesis 15:3, 4, 7, 8; 17:8; receive, in virtue of relation to Abraham, the blessings promised to Abraham’s children.

V. 31. So then-To sum up all.

We-Who believe.

Are not children of the bondwoman-Have nothing to do with the servile Mosaic dispensation.

But of the free-Being free from the curse and the bond of that law, and from the power of sin and Satan.

Verse 31. So then] We-Jews and Gentiles, who believe on the Lord Jesus, are not children of the bond woman-are not in subjection to the Jewish law, but of the free; and, consequently, are delivered from all its bondage, obligation, and curse.

Thus the apostle, from their own Scripture, explained by their own allegory, proves that it is only by Jesus Christ that they can have redemption; and because they have not believed in him, therefore they continue to be in bondage; and that shortly God will deliver them up into a long and grievous captivity: for we may naturally suppose that the apostle has reference to what had been so often foretold by the prophets, and confirmed by Jesus Christ himself; and this was the strongest argument he could use, to show the Galatians their folly and their danger in submitting again to the bondage from which they had escaped, and exposing themselves to the most dreadful calamities of an earthly kind, as well as to the final ruin of their souls. They desired to be under the law; then they must take all the consequences; and these the apostle sets fairly before them.

1. WE sometimes pity the Jews, who continue to reject the Gospel. Many who do so have no pity for themselves; for is not the state of a Jew, who systematically rejects Christ, because he does not believe him to be the promised Messiah, infinitely better than his, who, believing every thing that the Scripture teaches concerning Christ, lives under the power and guilt of sin? If the Jews be in a state of nonage, because they believe not the doctrines of Christianity, he is in a worse state than that of infancy who is not born again by the power of the Holy Ghost. Reader, whosoever thou art, lay this to heart.

2. The 4th, 5th, 6th, and 7th verses of this chapter (Galatians 4:4-7) contain the sum and marrow of Christian divinity. (1.) The determination of God to redeem the world by the incarnation of his Son. (2.) The manifestation of this Son in the fulness of time. (3.) The circumstances in which this Son appeared: sent forth; made of a woman; made under the law; to be a sufferer; and to die as a sacrifice. (4.) The redemption of the world, by the death of Christ: he came to redeem them that were under the law, who were condemned and cursed by it. (5.) By the redemption price he purchases sonship or adoption for mankind. (6.) He, God the Father, sends the Spirit, God the Holy Ghost, of God the Son, into the hearts of believers, by which they, through the full confidence of their adoption, call him their Father. (7.) Being made children, they become heirs, and God is their portion throughout eternity. Thus, in a few words, the whole doctrine of grace is contained, and an astonishing display made of the unutterable mercy of God. See the notes on these verses.

3. While the Jews were rejecting the easy yoke of Christ, they were painfully observing days, and months, and times and years. Superstition has far more labour to perform than true religion has; and at last profits nothing! Most men, either from false views of religion, or through the power and prevalency of their own evil passions and habits, have ten thousand times more trouble to get to hell, than the followers of God have to get to heaven.

4. Even in the perverted Galatians the apostle finds some good; and he mentions with great feeling those amiable qualities which they once possessed. The only way to encourage men to seek farther good is to show them what they have got, and to make this a reason why they should seek more. He who wishes to do good to men, and is constantly dwelling on their bad qualities and graceless state, either irritates or drives them to despair. There is, perhaps, no sinner on this side perdition who has not something good in him. Mention the good-it is God’s work; and show what a pity it is that he should not have more, and how ready God is to supply all his wants through Christ Jesus. This plan should especially be used in addressing Christian societies, and particularly those which are in a declining state.

5. The Galatians were once the firm friends of the apostle, and loved him so well that they would have even plucked out their eyes for him; and yet these very people cast him off, and counted and treated him as an enemy! O sad fickleness of human nature! O uncertainty of human friendships! An undesigned word, or look, or action, becomes the reason to a fickle heart why it should divest itself of the spirit of friendship; and he who was as dear to them as their own souls, is neglected and forgotten! Blessed God! hast thou not said that there is a friend that sticketh closer than a brother? Where is he? Can such a one be trusted long on this unkindly earth? He is fit for the society of angels and the spirits of just men made perfect; and thou takest him in mercy lest he should lose his friendly heart, or lest his own heart should be broken in losing that of his friend. Hasten, Lord, a more perfect state, where the spirit of thy own love in thy followers shall expand, without control or hinderance, throughout eternity! Amen.

6. On allegorizing, in explaining the word of God, something has already been said, under Galatians 4:24; but on the subject of allegory in general much might be said. The very learned and accurate critic, Dr. Lowth, in his work, Deuteronomy Sacra Poesi Hebræorum, has entered at large into the subject of allegory, as existing in the sacred writings, in which he has discovered three species of this rhetorical figure. 1. That which rhetoricians term a continued metaphor. See Solomon’s portraiture of old age, Ecclesiastes 12:2-6. A second kind of allegory is that which, in a more proper and restricted sense, may be called parable. See Matthew 13, and the note on “Matthew 13:3”, &c. The third species of allegory is that in which a double meaning is couched under the same words. These are called mystical allegories, and the two meanings are termed the literal and mystical senses. For examples of all these kinds I must refer to the learned prelate above named.

GALATIANS

31. So then—Wherefore. That is, it results as an inference from all this that we, uncircumcised believers. The bondwoman—In the Greek the article is significantly omitted from bondwoman, but inserted before free. There are many Churches in bondage, but there is but one Church free through Christ. The various false religions, even though they had not circumcision, had still severer rites, (see note Galatians 5:12,) and quite as cumbrous rituals; Christianity is the free religion of the heart. Professor Lightfoot gives in illustration an allegory on the same passage of Old Testament history by the eminent Jewish theologian of Alexandria, the contemporary (though earlier) of Paul, Philo.

Philo makes the allegory illustrate the principle that divine wisdom, in order to be fruitful to the human soul, must be aided by human science; a true and valuable doctrine. Abraham is the human soul; he marries Sarah, whose name, signifying “princess,” shows that she represents divine wisdom; but the marriage is barren. Divine wisdom advises that he form connection with Hagar, who comes from Egypt, the land of science, and whose name—”sojourning”—indicates the human and transitory. Then, first, this marriage is fruitful, and the result is, that the barren becomes more prolific than the previously fruitful.

Professor Lightfoot shows several points in which Philo’s allegory is inferior; but one is most important of all; which is, that while Philo’s allegory is unbased, Paul’s is really contained in the history. The correspondences in Philo are imaginary, while in Paul they are real.

Ver. 31. Result, not inference, from Galatians 4:30. [For dio always points back to a cause or motive, of which it introduces an actual or desired result.] Galatians 4:30 embodies an essential principle of the Kingdom of God which found historic expression in the story of the two sons of Abraham, viz. that the blessings of the Kingdom are for the free and for these only, and that freedom or bondage depends upon the source of our spiritual life. For this cause, i.e. that we may obtain the inheritance possessed only by the free, God gave us a spiritual life derived from the Gospel, the mother of freemen, not from the Law which by its nature can produce only slaves. The negative side is put generally: we are not a slave girl’s children, i.e. our relation to Abraham and to God is not derived from a source which involves us in bondage, as the Law would. The positive side is definite, the free woman: for there is only one mother of spiritual freemen.