1 Now I say, That the heir, as long as he is a child, differeth nothing from a servant, though he be lord of all; 2 But is under tutors and governors until the time appointed of the father. 3 Even so we, when we were children, were in bondage under the elements of the world: 4 But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,
After showing that God’s promise to Abraham was fulfilled in Christ and not the Law, the Apostle employs an analogy to solidify his point. In antiquity, the first-born child was set to inherit his father’s estate, but until he matured to the appointed age, he was nothing. Sure, he enjoyed special privileges and favor under the tutors and stewards of his father, but until the time came that the father bestowed the inheritance blessing, the child-heir was neither free nor potentiated. Although heirs, Abraham and his seed were kept under the Law (Gal 3:23), under a schoolmaster (Gal 3:24-25), under tutors and governors until the time appointed by the Father (v2, Gal 3:19).
The Law was bondage (douloo) over the heirs; we were its servants (doulos – slaves), forced under its many kosmos elements which strictly regulated life in the flesh (v9). This picture aligns with being shut up, or imprisoned by the Law (Gal 3:23). At the appointed time, Christ came to redeem them that were under the Law by adopting all those of faith as His sons (Gal 3:29) so that these might receive the Inheritance. These make strong evidences that the era of the Law has ended and that we are no longer shut up under its rules and stipulations.
Some commentators extrapolate the phrase, the elements of the world, to mean Law in its several general forms, such as the Law of Cause and Effect. To them, the Law of Grace has made the former Law of no effect. This is biblical misstep, for this very epistle establishes the Law of sowing and reaping (Gal 6:7-9). The subject of this passage is the Law of Moses, not Law as any general system.
Jesus was sent to the world when the fulness of time was come, which is to say, at the exact pre-appointed time, when the days had been completely fulfilled, in the dispensation of the fulness of times (Eph 1:10; Luke 2:43; Acts 2:1). The coming of a Redeemer had been first promised back at the Garden of Eden and was reaffirmed by many later prophecies, but it was the remarkable seventy week prophecy of Daniel that pinpointed the date for His coming (Dan 9:25-27). Surely the scribes had calculated and understood by books the number of years (Dan 9:2), for there was a latent Messianic expectancy in 1st century Judaism (see note Mat 2). But when Jesus came, He was so different from their pre-conceived ideas that they rejected Him.
Jesus was made (ginomai) of a woman. This detail is precisely true, for Jesus had no earthly father. In the beginning God said that Eve’s seed (not Adam’s) would one day bruise the serpent’s head (Gen 3:15). This earliest and most fascinating prophecy was exactly fulfilled by the virgin birth of Christ. It is one of many evidences that the Scripture is divinely authored, for who among men would dare to advance the impossible case of a virgin conceiving a child? It is an altogether preposterous story that would be rejected immediately in all other scenarios. But with Jesus Christ, the Son of God, it fits the testimonies of Mary and Joseph, and the recorded prophecies of God (Is 7:14). The red heifer sacrifice contains a remarkable type of Jesus’ humanity, for there is nothing so human as being born of a woman (see my note for Heb 9:13). The Holy Spirit showed the Apostles the proofs of the virgin birth which is engraved in the Holy Scriptures.
Jesus was also made under the Law. He was born to Jewish parents, circumcised and brought up according to the Law, and duly presented in the Temple. The purpose for this was revealed in the previous chapter, which showed that Jesus was made a curse under the Law in order to redeem those that were under the Law (Gal 3:13). By dying under the Law, Jesus has freed us from the curse that is the Law of sin and death (Rom 7:1-5; 8:2).
5 To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons.
All those who Jesus has redeemed receive the adoption of sons and are therefore His heirs (see notes for Rom 8:15-17). This includes the natural-blood Jews who were once under the Law, yet who are no more natural children of God than the Gentiles are. A blood Jew should never think that because he is in the lineage of Abraham he is closer to being a child of God (Luke 3:8). In Christ’s Kingdom, the children are all adopted and in that way are true sons of Abraham. A Jew is not determined by earthly features of blood and lineage, but by the inward features of a pure heart praising God (Rom 2:29).
The Calvinist idea of this verse is presented by John Gill in this way, “The law was given to Adam as a covenant of works, and not to him as a single person, but as a federal head to all his posterity; hence he sinning, and they in him, they all came under its sentence of condemnation and death, God’s elect not excepted, and who are the persons said to be redeemed; for Christ was not sent to redeem all that were under the law; for as all mankind were included in it as a covenant of works made with Adam, and all are transgressors of it, the whole world is pronounced guilty before God by it, and liable to the curse of it.”
The gaps of logic in this statement are flagrant and do harm to the character of God. The Scriptures do not say Adam was given a covenant of works, nor do they say that “he, in sinning, and they in him” were all sentenced to death. Adam didn’t even have a conscience when he sinned, nor did he have even the knowledge of good and evil. His sin was not like our sins (Rom 5:14). Additionally, to extract such from this verse that is clearly directed to the Jews is clear mishandling of the Word of Truth (2Cor 4:2). Satan was the cause for Mankind’s fall. If he had not deceived Eve, Adam would never have listened to her (see note for Gal 5:17).
6 And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father.
The proof of sonship is the indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit in every saved heart. The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God (Rom 8:16). It is another evidence that the Law has truly passed away, for under the Old Covenant the Spirit came only sporadically upon man. However, the prophets had foretold a day when the Spirit would be poured out upon all flesh (Joel 2:28-29). This suddenly became real to the disciples at Pentecost (Acts 2:16-18). It was a tremendous sign of high significance which Paul brought to their minds earlier (Gal 3:2-3). No doubt some in Galatia were present in Jerusalem on that amazing day when they heard unlearned men speak in foreign tongues (Acts 2:5-12).
The word Abba means “Father” in the Hebrew language. Abba Pater – perhaps Paul used the Hebrew and Greek forms together to tightly link the Jews and Gentiles as equal sons of God. Jesus prayed to Abba in Gethsemane (Mark 14:36). The idea of God as our Father is virtually foreign to the Old Testament because the adoption of sons did not come under the Law. Jesus portrayed God as our Father many times (Mat 6:9). See note for Romans 8:15, where the apostle Paul makes a similar statement.
7 Wherefore thou art no more a servant, but a son; and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ. 8 Howbeit then, when ye knew not God, ye did service unto them which by nature are no gods. 9 But now, after that ye have known God, or rather are known of God, how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage?
Under the Law, Paul says, we Jews were no more than slaves (Gal 4:1), but now we can become true sons of God through Christ. Before, the Jews were in bondage (douleuo) to the Law (v9) and even did service (douleuo) to idols – which pretend to be gods but are not (1Cor 8:4-5). In some strange way the Law, in spite of its very strong injunctions against idolatry, actually seemed to provoke the Jews to worship gods and idols. They were a constant temptation and point of downfall for the children of Israel until the Babylonian Captivity.
But now, in the fulness of time, God has revealed Himself to all the world through His Son, Jesus Christ, who has inaugurated a new, better covenant (Heb 8:6) through the adoption of sons. Why then would the Galatians entertain the idea of returning to serve the weak and beggarly (ptochos) elements of the Law? (cf v3). Those ordinances regulated bodily activities (Col 2:20-22) and obligated the observance of religious days and ceremonial months (v10). These things cannot justify a man (Gal 2:16), which makes the Law a form of bondage (Gal 4:24; Rom 8:21; Gal 5:1; Rom 8:15; Heb 2:15; Gal 4:3).
The Greek word for elements (stoicheion) simply means “basic, fundamental things.” It is used in a variety of contexts in the New Testament (Col 2:8; Gal 4:3; Heb 5:12; Col 2:20; 2Pet 3:10), but does not appear in the Septuagint. The verb form appears later in this book (Gal 5:25; 6:16). The Law required hundreds of simple physical exercises that had a shew of wisdom in neglecting the body, but they provided no aid against the satisfying of the flesh (Col 2:23).
“No longer a servant, but a son!” How powerful those words should ring in our minds. Jesus Christ has redeemed us from the slave market of sin to be His very own sons and daughters. He has given us a name and blessed us with bountiful gifts and rewards! Remember that thou wast a bondmen in the land of Egypt, and the Lord thy God redeemed thee (Deut 15:15).
10 Ye observe days, and months, and times, and years. 11 I am afraid of you, lest I have bestowed upon you labour in vain.
The Law of Moses set strict requirements for the weekly sabbath (Ex 20:8-10; 31:13-17). It also commanded ceremonies upon certain dates of the month and mandated exactly ordered feasts to be kept at set times of the year. Three times every year all males were to assemble at the temple in Jerusalem and every fiftieth year was a Jubilee (Lev 25:8-13). Christ’s New Covenant put an end to those rules and rituals which God had carefully established to predict and confirm the New. The seven yearly feasts, for instance, were intricately designed to foreshadow key spiritual details in the New Covenant. The same is true for all the ceremonies, sacrifices and rituals. Even the law of the sabbath ended with Christ, although the New Testament does fix the eighth day in commemoration of Christ’s resurrection upon that day (see note for Mat 12:8).
It was understandably hard for the Jews who believed on Christ to completely leave their Old Covenant rules and rites. However, it was essential to realize that doing those works of the Law did not commend them to God; it made them neither better nor worse (1Cor 8:8). To keep on observing details of the Law may be a matter of personal conscience (see Rom 14), but it would be wrong for the churches of Christ to require loyalty to a Law which had been done away in Christ. Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days (Col 2:16-18).
The Apostle shows his concern. He had brought the good news of Christ to Galatia and had labored long and hard there – was it all in vain? (cf 1Thes 3:5). “I fear for you.” I stand in doubt of you (Gal 4:20).
12 Brethren, I beseech you, be as I am; for I am as ye are: ye have not injured me at all. 13 Ye know how through infirmity of the flesh I preached the gospel unto you at the first. 14 And my temptation which was in my flesh ye despised not, nor rejected; but received me as an angel of God, even as Christ Jesus. 15 Where is then the blessedness ye spake of? for I bear you record, that, if it had been possible, ye would have plucked out your own eyes, and have given them to me.
The Apostle Paul holds himself up as an example, for he was a Jew too – I am as ye are (see 1Cor 11:1). And if any man might have reason to believe that God would notice him for who he was, it would have been Saul, the blameless, pedigreed Hebrew. But after he chose to believe in Christ, Paul rejected those works of the Law and counted them but dung (Php 3:4-8). The Galatian Christians were not injuring him by returning to the Law; they were injuring Christ (cf 1Sam 8:7).
Paul remembers how they had graciously received him when he and Barnabas preached the Gospel in Galatia. Although suffering from an unnamed physical infirmity, they did not despise him; they had accepted him as an angel of God. This temptation (peirasmos) which was in my flesh was likely the famous, life-long thorn in the flesh that God allowed to buffet him so that he would not be exalted above measure (2Cor 12:7-9). Some think this infirmity was a result of the stoning which he suffered on this very mission trip (Acts 14:19-20). Paul says the Galatians were so concerned for him that they would have plucked out (their) own eyes to help him – from which some infer that his problem had to do with his eyes. Perhaps, but it could be a simple figure of speech.
The physical condition which best fits the descriptions we have of Paul’s thorn in the flesh would be some kind of dyskinesia, or involuntary body movements (which often does affect the eyes). Uncontrollable hand movements would also explain why Paul dictated his letters instead of writing them himself. However, he did close each letter with a salutation in his own hand, and hinted at a writing difficulty: This is the token in every epistle: so I write (1Cor 16:21; Col 4:18; 2Thes 3:17). In this, his first letter, Paul wrote with his own hand, but once again seems to suggest that his writing was odd – with large letters (Gal 6:11, YLT). Dyskinesia would also explain his statement that some found his bodily presence and speech to be weak and contemptible (2Cor 10:10).
16 Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth? 17 They zealously affect you, but not well; yea, they would exclude you, that ye might affect them. 18 But it is good to be zealously affected always in a good thing, and not only when I am present with you.
Will you count me an enemy for telling you the truth? Effectively speaking the truth is not always easy. Many will be offended just hearing it (John 6:61-66; Mat 15:12; Luke 7:23). Someone has said that most people would rather be ruined by false praise than refined by truthful criticism. Knowing how to present the truth is an important science. There’s a time to speak it loudly and a time to speak it softly, a time to wield it like a hammer and a time to let it slowly do its work. Speaking the truth in love (Eph 4:15) gets to the bottom of the matter – the purpose is not to win the argument for Christ, but to win the person to Christ.
My thought translation: “The false teachers are zealous to have you, but not for good cause; they want to exclude you from us and include you with them, they want you to be zealous for them. Now, it is good to be zealous in good things – but always, and not just when I am with you.” There are a couple of soft criticisms hidden in those words. The word zealous is zeloo, which is translated jealous in 2Cor 11:2.
19 My little children, of whom I travail in birth again until Christ be formed in you, 20 I desire to be present with you now, and to change my voice; for I stand in doubt of you.
Paul had brought the Gospel to the the region of Galatia only a couple years prior to this letter. In spite of great threats and dangers, he and Barnabas had started many churches among the Jews and Gentiles (see Acts 13-14). Now, upon hearing that the Galatian Christians had reverted to putting themselves under the Law, Paul stands in doubt of them. He is back to work evangelizing among them, laboring in birth all over again with them. The Apostle Paul used this euphemism of the Corinthians too (1Cor 4:15).
The Apostle’s feelings mirror those of many good ministers in the churches of Christ as they labor in their flocks. They begin to wonder if they are laboring in vain with certain ones; they sorrow to see that in spite of their long, hard efforts of love, some need to born all over again. “O my little children! I stand in doubt of you! Have I labored in vain? (v11). I travail again with you, teaching you of Christ as before. How I desire to change my voice!”
Paul revealed his ministerial heart often in his epistles. He was not an evangelist in today’s sense of the word, traveling to preach for a day, a week or a month and then going home to rest and comfort. Never Paul! He poured out his heart in care and love for each church (2Cor 11:27-28), he prayed daily for them (Rom 1:9; Eph 1:16; 1Thes 1:2), he burned for every offended soul (2Cor 11:29).
21 Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law? 22 For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman. 23 But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise. 24 Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.
In this book, the Apostle has given strong proofs that the Law is no longer in effect. Now he shows that the historical details of God’s covenant with Abraham form a typological prediction of this fact. The two covenants, the old Mosaic one and the new covenant of Christ, are represented in Sarah and Hagar. Which things are an allegory – there is a deeper meaning to the account of Abraham, Sarah and Hagar; the events of that narrative portray in allegorical form the true spiritual situation. While Jesus often devised new parables to teach spiritual truths, Paul liked to pull types and shadows from the Old Testament for the same purpose.
Abraham’s two wives and their sons, Ishmael and Isaac, respectively represent the Covenant of the Law and the Covenant of Christ. Interestingly, the Apostle assigns the Covenant of the Law to Hagar and Ishmael even though his descendants were never part of the Law. As we shall see, he does this by employing these two symbols in their higher, spiritual reality rather than according to the visual physical reality.
Ishmael was Abraham’s first son, born to Hagar the bondwoman, which corresponds to literal Jerusalem which is in bondage with her children (v25) on account of them being in servitude to the Law (Gal 4:3-9). Ishmael stands for the Covenant of the Law and all who attempt to live according to the Flesh. Isaac was Abraham’s second son, promised and born to Sarah the freewoman. He represents all those born after the Spirit (Gal 4:29), those that are of Faith as the spiritual children of Christ (Gal 4:31). The symbolism is logical and clear: two covenants, one according to the Flesh and the other according to the Spirit. However, this fact means that the Jews with their mount Sinai belong to Ishmael, who, although never having blood sons under the Law, is nevertheless their spiritual father under the allegory of bondage.
` The parallel of the two births is also compelling. Ishmael was born after the flesh, but Isaac’s birth was the miraculous fulfillment of a Promise. Ishmael was born by human planning and innovation outside of God’s blessing, while Isaac was born on account of Divine intervention. This makes Sarah and Hagar to be key symbols in this allegory, for the seed of promise was through Sarah, whose miraculous conception after being barren for 90 years matches the miraculous conception of the virgin Mary.
And finally, the typological meaning of the number two, which is often associated with God’s choice, strengthens this allegory. Hagar corresponds to the first covenant of the Law given at Mount Sinai, because her son Ishmael was the firstborn and she a bondwoman. Sarah corresponds to the second covenant instituted by Christ, because her son was second-born and she the freewoman. This pattern is seen often in the Scriptures. Not Cain, but Abel was righteous; God did not choose Aaron, but Moses; not Esau, but Jacob; not Ishmael, but Isaac; not the first Adam, but the second (1Cor 15:45). This does not deny that Jesus is the firstborn in the celestial sense (Col 1:15-18; Heb 12:23), but that by human standards, Adam was the first man.
25 For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children. 26 But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all. 27 For it is written, Rejoice, thou barren that bearest not; break forth and cry, thou that travailest not: for the desolate hath many more children than she which hath an husband.
The allegory of the two covenants is consistent with the Scripture’s two meanings for “Jerusalem.” First, Jerusalem is a literal city in the land of Israel that is populated by Jews who are under bondage to the Law. Second, Jerusalem is the spiritual, heavenly city where the saints of God dwell and who is the mother of all things truly free (Heb 12:22-24). In one of his transcendental visions of the Apocalypse, John saw this new Jerusalem coming down from God out of heaven at the end of time, its citizens praising God and dwelling in perfect safety and communion forever (Rev 21:1-5). While Sarah through her son Isaac (v28) represents the heavenly Jerusalem, Hagar answers to the earth-bound Jerusalem, which is in bondage with her children.
Mount Sinai is in Arabia, which is quite outside the borders of Israel. In fact, it is located in the land of the Arabians, who are the physical descendants of Ishmael. Strangely, it was there in Arabia that the Law was given and to that first covenant the people of literal Jerusalem continue under bondage. Hagar herself fled into the very region of Arabia where Mt Sinai is located (Gen 21:14-21) and some say the word Hagar in Arabic means rock, in reference to the Mount Sinai (see JFB). The blood Jews who rested their hope of salvation on lineage would have found this to be a most offensive association.
Because of the work of Christ, the heavenly, spiritual Jerusalem has become the mother of all the spiritual children of Abraham – Jews, Greeks, free, bond, male or female (Gal 3:28). Meanwhile, the earthly, physical Jerusalem can boast only of being the mother of the physical, blood children of Abraham – cast out and in bondage. The Apostle quotes the prophet Isaiah, of God choosing to marry a barren, desolate woman which He would bless with abundant children.
The prophecy of Isaiah 54 is an astonishing allegory of two unnamed women: one is a barren, desolate, rejected widow, and the other is a chosen, married woman with many children. Coming right after Isaiah’s phenomenal prophecy of the suffering Messiah (Isa 53), it continues that most remarkable stretch of Old Testament prophecies of the Messiah and His new people. The married wife is Old Testament Israel, chosen and blessed by God in antiquity but rejected by Him on account of their adultery and treachery (Is 54:1). Meanwhile, the barren woman, once forsaken and grieved (Is 54:6), is New Testament Israel, which is suddenly called in everlasting kindness (Is 54:8) and will inherit the Gentiles (Is 54:3). These are the true Israel of God (Gal 6:16), the adopted children of Abraham who have inherited the Promise. Thus, the barren woman is blessed with more children than the wife, even though she did not travail with child (Is 54:1). This monumental event is as the waters of Noah unto Me (Is 54:9), unchangeable and forever. It is a remarkably clear description of that long-hidden mystery of Christ, that His people would be Jews and Greeks of all nations under heaven.
Some dispensationalist teachers ignore the context and clarity of this prophecy and, leaping over many centuries of time, make it apply to a speculated future re-choosing of the blood Jews by God. Yet, how can those Jews “inherit the Gentiles” when that has already taken place? It’s old news to us, long-ago fulfilled and done. The Apostle Paul affirms the New Covenant fulfillment of Isaiah’s prophecy.
28 Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise. 29 But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now.
By “we” the Apostle means all the spiritual seed of Abraham, or as he said earlier, the seed…to whom the promise was made (Gal 3:19; Acts 2:39). Ishmael, the firstborn, came by human planning (v23) and his lineage represents the children of the flesh (Rom 9:7-8), while the promised seed was through Isaac – as God told Abraham, In Isaac shall thy seed be called (Gen 21:12; Heb 11:18). The lineage of Ishmael persecuted the lineage of Isaac for long centuries, and that bad practice continued in the Church Age. The people of the fleshly covenant (the Jews) persecuted those of the new covenant (the Christians). This detail is also visible in allegory in the Genesis account, which describes Ishmael mocking Isaac to the point that Hagar and Ishmael were cast out of the family of Abraham (Gen 21:9-21). Ishmael is a type of the flesh.
God told Abraham that both Ishmael and Isaac would become fathers of many nations, but that the Covenant with all its spiritual promises and blessings would be extended only to the seed of Isaac, born to the freewoman (Gen 16:10; 17:19-21; 21:12). Interestingly, in Christ’s Covenant the children of Ishmael have been re-integrated into the family of Abraham.
30 Nevertheless what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman. 31 So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free.
Concluding this extraordinary analogy, the Apostle shows that Abraham casting out the bondwoman and her son prefigures the rejection of the Israelite nation and its fleshly covenant at the time of Christ (see Mat 8:12; 21:19; 21:40-45). Only one of these two sons of Abraham would be his heir – and contrary to the natural order of things, it was not the firstborn. Of course, God did not cast away all of the Israelites, for a remnant according to the election of grace did believe on Jesus and were saved (Rom 11:1-7). The natural Jews, or Israel according to the flesh, did not receive the promises; wonderfully however, the casting away of them (resulted) in the reconciling of the world (Rom 11:15). And even an unbelieving Jew can be grafted back into God’s olive tree (Rom 11:23).
The two covenants are often presented as two distinct covenants, but they are so closely associated that we could say they are the same covenant (see note Gal 3:17). They are administered by the same Authority and offered to the same people, yet on the basis of Faith instead of blood. Thus, the Law was a tutor for the people of the Covenant until Christ came and the heir received the promised blessings of the Covenant. In that sense we see just one true covenant, initiated with Abraham and then expanded in content, extent and revelation by Jesus Christ. On the other hand, the Apostle makes it plain that the first covenant of Flesh and the second covenant of Faith are not equally valid options, nor can they be mixed together as the Galatians thought. One is either enslaved to the Jewish Covenant, or he is free under the New Covenant.
In ancient times, the greatest womanly sorrow was to be barren, but a man with no child was an even greater grief, for it meant that his name would end and a stranger would inherit his wealth. As the years went by, this surely weighed heavy in Abraham’s mind, yet he remained the faithful husband of one wife. But finally, at the age of 86 and pressured by his wife Sarah, he decided to take matters into his own hands and have a son by another woman. However, that son and his descendants would be wild…against every man and every man’s hand against him (Gen 16:12). Later, Esau would marry into the Ishmaelites (Gen 28:9) and those people constantly and greatly hindered the children of Israel. Herod the Great was an Edomite.