Tell me, you that desire to be under the law, don’t you listen to the law? For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by the servant, and one by the free woman. However, the son by the servant was born according to the flesh, but the son by the free woman was born through promise. These things contain an allegory, for these are two covenants. One is from Mount Sinai, bearing children to bondage, which is Hagar. For this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia, and answers to the Jerusalem that exists now, for she is in bondage with her children. But the Jerusalem that is above is free, which is the mother of us all.
For it is written, “Rejoice, you barren who don’t bear. Break out and shout, you who don’t travail. For the desolate have more children than her who has a husband.”
Now we, brothers, as Isaac was, are children of promise. But as then, he who was born according to the flesh persecuted him who was born according to the Spirit, so also it is now. However what does the Scripture say? “Throw out the servant and her son, for the son of the servant will not inherit with the son of the free woman.” So then, brothers, we are not children of a servant, but of the free woman.
Martin Luther 1535 · Public Domain On vv21–31 VERSE 21. Tell me, ye that desire to be…
VERSE 21. Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law?
Here Paul would have closed his Epistle because he did not know what else to say. He wishes he could see the Galatians in person and straighten out their difficulties. But he is not sure whether the Galatians have fully understood the difference between the Gospel and the Law. To make sure, he introduces another illustration. He knows people like illustrations and stories. He knows that Christ Himself made ample use of parables.
Read full note →
Paul is an expert at allegories. They are dangerous things. Unless a person has a thorough knowledge of Christian doctrine he had better leave allegories alone.
The allegory which Paul is about to bring is taken from the Book of Genesis which he calls the Law. True, that book contains no mention of the Law. Paul simply follows the custom of the Jews who included the first book of Moses in the collective term, "Law." Jesus even included the Psalms.
Martin Luther — Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians (1535), English translation by Theodore Graebner (Zondervan, 1939) — public domain (U.S. copyright not renewed). Text from a community e-Sword module.
John Calvin 1540 · Public Domain On vv21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 29, 30, 31 21. Tell me. Having given exhortations adapted to touch…
21. Tell me. Having given exhortations adapted to touch the feelings, he follows up his former doctrine by an illustration of great beauty. Viewed simply as an argument, it would not be very powerful; but, as a confirmation added to a most satisfactory chain of reasoning, it is not unworthy of attention.
To be under the law, signifies here, to come under the yoke of the law, on the condition that God will act toward you according to the covenant of the law, and that you, in return, bind yourself to keep the law. In any other sense than this, all believers are under the law; but the apostle treats, as we have already said, of the law with its appendages.
John Calvin's Commentaries (1540-1563) — public domain. Text from the Calvin Translation Society English edition (1840s-50s) via the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (ccel.org). Calvin's coverage is partial (roughly two-thirds of the Bible); uncommented books and verses are honest gaps, never fabricated. The 19th-century editor's footnotes and remarks are omitted so the notes are faithfully Calvin's own voice.
Geneva Bible translators 1599 · Public Domain On vv21, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 31 Because the false apostles always urged this, that unless…
Because the false apostles always urged this, that unless the Gentiles were circumcised, Christ could profit them nothing at all, and this dissension of them which believed of the circumcision against them which believed of the uncircumcision, was full of offense: the Apostle, after divers arguments whereby he hath refuted their error, bringeth forth an allegory, wherein he saith the holy Ghost did shadow not unto us, all these mysteries: to wit, that it should come to pass, that two sorts of sons should have Abraham a father common to them both, but not with like success: for as Abraham begat Ishmael, by the common course of nature, of Hagar his bondmaid and a stranger, and begat Isaac of Sarah a free woman by the virtue of the promise and by grace only, and the first was not only not heir, but also persecuted the heir: So there are two covenants, and as it were two sons born to Abraham of those two covenants, as it were of two mothers. The one was made in Sinai, without the land of promise according to which covenant Abraham’s children according to the flesh were begotten: to wit, the Jews which seek righteousness by that covenant, that is, by the Law: but they are not heirs, nay they shall at length be cast out of the house, as they that persecute the true heirs. The other was made in that high Jerusalem or in Zion (to wit, by the sacrifice of Christ) which begetteth children of promise, to wit, believers by the virtue of the holy Ghost which children (as Abraham) do rest themselves in the free promise, and they only by the right of children shall be partakers of the father’s inheritance, and those servants shall be shut out.
That desire so greatly.
Geneva Bible (1599) marginal notes — public domain.
John Trapp 1656 · Public Domain On vv21–31 21 Tell me, ye that desire to be under…
21 Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law?
Ver. 21. Ye that desire, &c.] That are ambitious of slavery, of beggary, Gal 4:9. How many have we at this day that rejoice in their bondage and dance to hell in their bolts!
John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Matthew Poole 1685 · Public Domain On vv21–31 Tell me, ye that desire to be under the…
Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law; you that cannot be content to receive Jesus Christ alone, for justification; but have a mind to maintain a necessity of obedience to the law of circumcision, and other Judaical rites;
do ye not hear the law, that law which curseth every one who continueth not in all that is therein written to do it? Or rather, the story which follows; which is taken out of one of the books of the law, which the apostle makes a mystical revelation of the Divine will, that there should come a time when circumcision should be cast out.
Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
William Burkitt 1703 · Public Domain On vv21, 24, 27, 28, 30, 31 Our apostle here proceeds to the end of this…
Our apostle here proceeds to the end of this chapter, in showing the Galatians that it was the design of God, at the coming of Christ, to abolish the legal dispensation, and free men from the servitude and bondage of that law.
And, first, he argues with them from the nature of the law they were so willing, yea, so desirous, to be under, Ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law? That is, "Ye that desire to be justified by your legal performances, by observing circumcision, &c. do you not hear and take notice how the very law itself doth sentence, curse, and condemn you? And do you not find in the Old Testament, the story of Sarah and Hagar, of Ishmael and Isaac? Are you ignorant that Abraham had two sons, Ishmael by Hagar the bond-woman, and Isaac by Sarah the free-woman? Ishmael the bond-woman’s son was born after the flesh; that is, by the ordinary strength of nature in generation, Hagar being young, and Abraham being strong. But Isaac was the son of the promise; God gave him, by virtue of his promise made to Abraham when his body was dead, unfit for generation, and Sarah past conception also."
Read full note →
Now from this history of Abraham’s family, considered in itself, (without the mystery prefigured by it,) we learn,
1. That the best of men are imperfect men; the holy patriarchs lived in the sin of polygamy, or taking more wives than one, contrary to the first institution of marriage, either not knowing or not considering it was a sin. Abraham had two wives.
Learn, 2. That the truth and veracity of God engages him to fulfil and make good all his promises, though all ordinary means and secondary causes fail, and become impotent and unable to bring about the thing promised.
Thus here, a promise being made to Abraham, that Sarah should have a child, she conceiveth and beareth Isaac; not according to the course of nature, but through virtue of the promise: He of the free-woman was by promise.
William Burkitt's Expository Notes on the New Testament (1700–1703) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Matthew Henry 1710 · Public Domain On v21 In these verses the apostle illustrates the difference between…
In these verses the apostle illustrates the difference between believers who rested in Christ only and those judaizers who trusted in the law, by a comparison taken from the story of Isaac and Ishmael. This he introduces in such a manner as was proper to strike and impress their minds, and to convince them of their great weakness in departing from the truth, and suffering themselves to be deprived of the liberty of the gospel: Tell me, says he, you that desire to be under the law, do you not hear the law? He takes it for granted that they did hear the law, for among the Jews it was wont to be read in their public assemblies every sabbath day; and, since they were so very fond of being under it, he would have them duly to consider what is written therein (referring to what is recorded Gen. 16 and 21), for, if they would do this, they might soon see how little reason they had to trust in it. And here, 1. He sets before them the history itself (Gal 4:22, Gal 4:23): For it is written, Abraham had two sons, etc. Here he represents the different state and condition of these two sons of Abraham - that the one, Ishmael, was by a bond-maid, and the other, Isaac, by a free-woman; and that whereas the former was born after the flesh, or by the ordinary course of nature, the other was by promise, when in the course of nature there was no reason to expect that Sarah should have a son. 2. He acquaints them with the meaning and design of this history, or the use which he intended to make of it (Gal 4:24-27): These things, says he, are an allegory, wherein, besides the literal and historical sense of the words, the Spirit of God might design to signify something further to us, and that was, That these two, Agar and Sarah, are the two covenants, or were intended to typify and prefigure the two different dispensations of the covenant. The former, Agar, represented that which was given from mount Sinai, and which gendereth to bondage, which, though it was a dispensation of grace, yet, in comparison of the gospel state, was a dispensation of bondage, and became more so to the Jews, through their mistake of the design of it, and expecting to be justified by the works of it. For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia (mount Sinai was then called Agar by the Arabians), and it answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children; that is, it justly represents the present state of the Jews, who, continuing in their infidelity and adhering to that covenant, are still in bondage with their children. But the other, Sarah, was intended to prefigure Jerusalem which is above, or the state of Christians under the new and better dispensation of the covenant, which is free both from the curse of the moral and the bondage of the ceremonial law, and is the mother of us all - a state into which all, both Jews and Gentiles, are admitted, upon their believing in Christ. And to this greater freedom and enlargement of the church under the gospel dispensation, which was typified by Sarah the mother of the promised seed, the apostle refers that of the prophet, Isa 54:1, where 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 who hath a husband. 3. He applies the history thus explained to the present case (Gal 4:28); Now we, brethren, says he, as Isaac was, are the children of the promise. We Christians, who have accepted Christ, and rely upon him, and look for justification and salvation by him alone, as hereby we become the spiritual, though we are not the natural, seed of Abraham, so we are entitled to the promised inheritance and interested in the blessings of it. But lest these Christians should be stumbled at the opposition they might meet with from the Jews, who were so tenacious of their law as to be ready to persecute those who would not submit to it, he tells them that this was no more than what was pointed to in the type; for as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, they must expect it would be so now. But, for their comfort in this case, he desires them to consider what the scripture saith (Gen 21:10), Cast out the bond-woman and her son, for the son of the bond-woman shall not be heir with the son of the free-woman. Though the judaizers should persecute and hate them, yet the issue would be that Judaism would sink, and wither, and perish; but true Christianity should flourish and last for ever. And then, as a general inference from the whole of the sum of what he had said, he concludes (Gal 4:31), So then, brethren, we are not children of the bond-woman, but of the free.
Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible (1708–1710) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.
John Gill 1763 · Public Domain On vv21–30 For it is written,.... In Gen 16:15
For it is written,.... In Gen 16:15
that Abraham had two sons, not two sons only; for besides the two referred to, he had six more, Gen 25:2 but it being only pertinent to the apostle's purpose to take notice of these two, he mentions no more, though he does not deny that he had any more. These two sons were Ishmael and Isaac:
Read full note →
the one by a bondmaid. Ishmael was by Hagar, Sarah's servant, who represented the covenant the Jewish nation was under the bondage of.
The other by a free woman. Isaac was by Sarah, Abraham's proper and lawful wife, who was mistress of the family, and represented in figure the covenant, and Gospel church state, and all believers, Gentiles as well as Jews, as under the liberty thereof.
John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.
John Wesley 1765 · Public Domain On vv21–31 Do ye not hear the law - Regard what…
Do ye not hear the law - Regard what it says.
John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.
Adam Clarke 1810 · Public Domain On vv21–31 Verse 21. Ye that desire to be under the…
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.
Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
Joseph Benson 1811 · Public Domain On vv21, 24, 25, 28 Gal 4:21-23. Tell me, ye that desire to be…
Gal 4:21-23. 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.
Joseph Benson's Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1811–1818) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Albert Barnes 1834 · Public Domain On vv21–31 Tell me ... - In order to show fully…
Tell me ... - In order to show fully the nature and the effect of the Law, Paul here introduces an illustration from an important fact in the Jewish history. This allegory has given great perplexity to expositors, and, in some respects, it is attended with real difficulty. An examination of the difficulties will be found in the larger commentaries. My object, without examining the expositions which have been proposed, will be to state, in as few words as possible, the simple meaning and design of the allegory. The design it is not difficult to understand. It is to show the effect of being under the bondage or servitude of the Jewish law, compared with the freedom which the gospel imparts. Paul had addressed the Galatians as having a real desire to be under bondage, or to be servants; the note at Gal 4:9. He had represented Christianity as a state of freedom, and Christians as the sons of God - not servants, but freemen.
To show the difference of the two conditions, he appeals to two cases which would furnish a striking illustration of them. The one was the case of Hagar and her son. The effect of bondage was well illustrated there. She and her son were treated with severity, and were cast out and persecuted. This was a fair illustration of bondage under the Law; of the servitude to the laws of Moses; and was a fit representation of Jerusalem as it was in the time of Paul. The other case was that of Isaac. He was the son of a free woman, and was treated accordingly. He was regarded as a son, not as a servant. And he was a fair illustration of the case of those who were made free by the gospel. They enjoyed a similar freedom and sonship, and should not seek a state of servitude or bondage. The condition of Isaac was a fit illustration of the New Jerusalem; the heavenly city; the true kingdom of God. But Paul does not mean to say, as I suppose, that the history of the son of Hagar and of the son of Rebecca was mere allegory, or that the narrative by Moses was designed to represent the different condition of those who were under the Law and under the gospel.
Read full note →
He uses it simply, as showing the difference between servitude and freedom, and as a striking illustration of the nature of the bondage to the Jewish law, and of the freedom of the gospel, just as anyone may use a striking historical fact to illustrate a principle. These general remarks will constitute the basis of my interpretation of this celebrated allegory. The expression “tell me,” is one of affectionate remonstrance and reasoning; see Luk 7:42, “Tell me, therefore, which of these will love him most?” Compare Isa 1:18, “Come, now, and let us reason together, saith the Lord.”
Ye that desire to be under the law - See the note at Gal 4:9. You who wish to yield obedience to the laws of Moses. You who maintain that conformity to those laws is necessary to justification.
Do ye not hear the law? - Do you not understand what the Law says? Will you not listen to its own admonitions, and the instruction which may be derived from the Law on the subject? The word “law” here refers not to the commands that were uttered on Mount Sinai, but to the book of the Law. The passage to which reference is made is in the Book of Genesis; but; all the five books of Moses were by the Jews classed under the general name of the Law; see the note at Luk 24:44. The sense is, “Will you not listen to a narrative found in one of the books of the Law itself, fully illustrating the nature of that servitude which you wish?”
Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
Haydock's Catholic Bible Commentary 1859 · Public Domain On vv22, 25, 29 It is written in the law, that is, in…
It is written in the law, that is, in Genesis, (chap. xvi. and chap. xxi.) that Abraham had two sons, &c. that his two sons, Ismael, born of his servant, Agar, and Isaac of his wife, Sara, in an allegorical sense, represent the two testaments or covenants, which God made with his people: that by Ismael was represented that covenant of the former law delivered to Moses on Mount Sina, by which the Jews were made his elect people, yet as it were his servants, to be kept to their duty by fear of punishments; but by Isaac is represented the new covenant or testament of Christ, given at Jerusalem, where he suffered, where the new law was first published; by which law, they who believe in Christ were made the spiritual children of Abraham, the sons of God, and heirs of the blessings promised to Abraham: that Sina, the mountain in Arabia, hath[3] an affinity with Jerusalem, and with here children, who remain under the servitude of the law of Moses: we cannot understand a conjunction, or an affinity, as to place and situation, Sina and Jerusalem being nearly twenty days’ journey distant from each other; therefore it can only be an affinity in a mystical signification, inasmuch as Jerusalem was the capital of the Jews, where the children of those who received the law on Mount Sina lived still under the servitude of the same law: but Christians, who believe in Christ, must look upon themselves as belonging to Jerusalem, and not to the city of Jerusalem upon earth, but to the celestial Jerusalem in heaven, which is our mother, now no longer servants and slaves to the former law, but free, being made the sons of God by the grace of Christ, and heirs of heaven. And these blessings were promised to all nations, not only to the Jews, of which the much greater part remained obstinate, and refused to believe in Christ, but also particularly to the Gentiles, according to the prophecy of Isaias, (chap. liv.) rejoice thou that hast been barren, like Sara, for a long time; i.e. rejoice, you Gentiles, hitherto left in idolatry, without knowledge or worship of the true God, now you shall have more children among you than among the Jews, who were his chosen people. (Witham)
George Leo Haydock (1774–1849), Haydock's Catholic Family Bible and Commentary, 1859 edition — public domain. Excludes Psalms (Douay-Rheims chapter numbering differs from Protestant) and Deuterocanonical books (Catholic canon only).
Lange's Commentary on the Holy Scriptures 1864 · Public Domain On v31 E. Admonition to perseverance in Christian freedom—with a threatening…
E. Admonition to perseverance in Christian freedom—with a threatening allusion to the pernicious consequences of the opposite course
Gal_4:31 to Gal_5:6
Read full note →
31So then [Wherefore],41 brethren, we are not children of the [a] bondwoman, but 5 of the free. 1Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free [Stand fast therefore in the liberty for which Christ made us free, or For freedom Christ made Us free. Stand fast therefore],42 and be not entangled again with 2[in] the yoke of bondage. Behold, I Paul43 say unto you, that if ye be circumcised 3[i. e., submit to circumcision],44 Christ shall [will] profit you nothing. For [Moreover, δέ continuative] I testify again to every man that is circumcised [who has himself circumcised], that he is a debtor to do the whole law. 4Christ is become of no effect unto you [Ye are separated from Christ],45 whosoever of you are justified [being justified] by [in] the law; ye are fallen [fallen away] from grace. 5For we through 6[by] the Spirit wait46 for the hope of righteousness by [from] faith. For in Jesus Christ [Christ Jesus] neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by [working through] love.
F. Renewed lamentation over the apostasy of the Galatians. Sharp testimony against the misleading misrepresentations of his preaching on the part of the false teachers
Gal_5:7-12
7Ye did run [were running] well; who did hinder47 you that ye should not obey 8, 9the truth?48 This [The] persuasion cometh not of him that calleth you. A little 10leaven leaveneth49 the whole lump. I [I, for my part] have confidence in [as regards] you through [in] the Lord, that ye will be none [in nothing] otherwise 11minded: but he that troubleth you shall bear his judgment, whosoever he be. And [But] I, brethren, if I yet [still] preach circumcision, why do I yet [still] suffer persecution? then is the offence of the cross ceased [the scandal of the cross done away with]. 12I would they were even cut off which trouble you [I would that they who are unsettling you would even mutilate themselves, or would even cut themselves off from you].50
EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL
Gal_4:31. Wherefore, brethren, we are not children of a bondwoman.—Paul, after the indirect warning in Gal_4:29-30, sums up the contents of Gal_4:22 sq. once more, in an exact form, appealing to the Christian sense of dignity =you will therefore surely not suffer yourselves to be reduced to children of the bondwoman. [Notice the omission of the article: “not of any bondwoman,” Judaism or any form of heathenism (Lightfoot, Meyer, Ellicott). This explanation is more striking and appropriate than that of Alford, who is disposed to think παιδίσκης is anarthrous, because emphatically prefixed to its governing noun.—R.]—But of the free,—therefore ourselves free. This Paul expressly states in the following sentence.
Gal_5:1, refers the freedom of Christians to Christ; yet the main idea is no longer the fact or method of their having become free, but the end, namely: τῇ ἐλευθερίᾳ, for freedom, for being and remaining free. Then follows the admonition itself; στήκετε, used absolutely, without any modifying clause=remain firm. [Schmoller follows Lachmann, in beginning a new sentence with στήκετε; of course if a different punctuation is adopted, the verb is modified by the preceding clause, without altering its meaning however. He also takes τῇ ἐλευθερία as dative commodi, “for freedom,” not instrumental, “with freedom” (so Alford). It must be remarked that this pointing makes the style very abrupt, and that since the stress in this interpretation rests on for freedom, the end of their being made free, so emphatic a thought would scarcely be expressed by a dative of doubtful force, for as Lightfoot observes, the dative is awkward, in whatever way it is taken. Even Meyer explains the passage far more satisfactorily, on the theory that the other reading is correct. Following this reading, we render: “Stand fast therefore in the liberty for” or “with which Christ made us free.” The prominent dative then denotes “the sphere in which and to which the action is limited” (Ellicott); and the relative ῇ is either dative commodi (Winer, Ellicott) or ablative (instrumental, Luther, Beza, Calvin). Meyer thinks this latter usage is uncommon with Paul. The former is safer. The sense is then: therefore stand fast in that liberty (which is our state as children of the freewoman, and) for which, to remain in which, Christ made us free.—R.]
Be not entangled again.—As Gentiles they had not formerly been under the yoke of the Mosaic law, but for all that had certainly (see Gal_4:8) been in bondage; having now become free from it by their faith in Christ, they ought not to allow themselves to be enslaved again by a yoke. [In the yoke of bondage.—“In” it, because the thought is of being ensnared; they were to stand upright, not to bow to the yoke (Lightfoot); “bondage” was its predominant nature (Ellicott).—R.] All that preceded, doctrinal exposition and expostulation, pointed to this exhortation: to remain free. But just because this lies at the foundation of everything preceding, the brief, plain utterance in this verse suffices, and the Apostle at once turns to a warning menace in case the admonition should not be heeded, and the Galatians instead should go so far as to submit to circumcision.
Gal_5:2. Behold I Paul say unto you that if ye be circumcised.—Rousing personal attention with “Behold” and with the interposition of his personal authority,11 “I Paul,” he warns them against the final step, not yet taken by them, which would bring them completely under the yoke of the law, namely, the receiving of circumcision. [It is highly probable that some of them had been circumcised, and that the present points to the continuance of this course of conduct among them (Alford, Ellicott). He does not mean that the fact of a man’s being a circumcised man would prevent his being a Christian, but if after all this instruction and warning, they resorted to this rite as necessary to salvation, “Christ will,” etc.—R.] They would then have had no advantage of Christ, because they would have sought salvation, in circumcision and not of Christ.—Will profit you nothing.—The future is probably (as in Gal_5:5) to be referred to the παρουσία and the establishment of the Messianic kingdom. [So Meyer, who finds in this a reference to its nearness. But he is fond of such references. Ellicott with more propriety says: “it simply marks the certain result of such a course of practice; ‘Christ (as you will find) will never profit you anything.’ ”—R.]
Gal_5:3. Moreover I testify again.—Paul strengthens his warning by referring to a further consequence of receiving circumcision. It obliges to the observance of the whole law; “for circumcision makes one a full participant in the covenant of law, a proselyte of righteousness, and the law demands of the one that is held to it its complete fulfilment (Gal_3:10).” Meyer. At the same time Paul gives with this a more precise explanation of “Christ will profit you nothing” so much the more certainly will this be the case, because a man by receiving circumcision becomes a debtor to do the whole law, and therefore is not at liberty to persuade himself, that he does not mean to erect again the law as a whole, but only to accept one point. But all, who are “of the works of the law are under the curse,” Gal_3:10.—In view of the solemnity of the asseveration we must suppose that the false teachers designedly concealed this perilous consequence of circumcision or sought to soften it. “Again” alludes to the earlier (second) presence of the Apostle.
Gal_5:4. Ye are separated from Christ.—“Paul by speaking asyndetically and recurring to the second person speaks so much the more emphatically and vividly.”—Meyer.—The verse expresses the consequence of becoming “a debtor to do the whole law” (for ἐν νόμῳ δικαιοῦσθαι is substantially identically with this). This is the καταργ. ἀπὸ τοῦ Χρισποῦ which completes the explanation of the declaration in Gal_5:2.—Καταργεῖσθαι ἀπό τινος, a pregnant expression = the connection in which one stands with any one is done away, and so one is loose from him.—Justification by the law and justification for Christ’s sake are mutually exclusive; whoever seeks the first falls out of fellowship with Christ. Justified, here of course an expression representing the view of the persons concerned, who think “through the law we shall be justified.”—Ye are fallen away from grace.—Here he expressly names the benefit the loss of which they suffer by “being justified in the law” and the resulting separation from Christ. A cutting contrast: they think that they are being justified, but by this very means instead they are fallen away from grace, so far is an actual justification from being possible in this way.12 Ἐκπίπτειν τῆς χάριτος opposed to ἑστηκέναι ἐν τῇ χάριτι (Rom_5:2).
Gal_5:5. For we by the spirit wait for the hope of righteousness from faith.—“A justification of the judgment passed in Gal_5:4 upon those that seek to be justified through the law, drawn e contrario, i. e., from the entirely different manner in which Paul and those like him wish to be justified.” Meyer. [“We” i. e. those who have not sought justification in the law, and fallen from grace; the contrast is not very strongly marked in the subject however (δέ is not used), for Paul addresses the Galatians, not as those who had fallen, but were in danger of falling, and the subject “we” may include them also.—R.] Πνεύματι is used neither of the human spirit in itself, nor of the spirit of man enlightened by the Holy Ghost, but of the Spirit of God as the objective principle of the Christian life. As it is from the Holy Spirit working in believers, that the whole Christian life proceeds, so in particular the persevering Christian hope is thus wrought, of the fulfilment of which he also gives pledge (2Co_1:22; 2Co_5:5, Eph_1:14; Rom_3:11-23). So Wieseler and Meyer. But of course this hope of future righteousness proceeds from the Holy Ghost only so far as it rests upon a right basis. This basis is then stated in ἐκ πίστεως, which is meant to express that Christians ground their hope of future righteousness not upon the works of the law, but precisely on faith alone, that they hope to be justified not in the law but by faith. [Ἐκπίστεως does not therefore describe πνεύματι (Luther), but the latter sets forth the agent: “by the spirit,” the former the origin or source (Schmoller says with less exactness, the ground) of their hope. “By faith” cannot qualify “righteousness,” as the order of the E. V. seems to indicate.—R.] Δικαιοσύνη is here also of course, Righteousness before God = δικαίωσις. But this is here represented for Christians as something future; we are therefore not to understand it of that which takes place in time, but of the δικαίωσις which comes to completion only at the final judgment. But it is a difficulty that it does not simply read: ἐλπίδα δικ. ἔχομεν, but ἐλπ. ἀπεκδ. whereby the hope itself is presented in turn as an object of hope. Ἐλπίς is therefore here to be understood as the object of hope, res sperata, as in Col_1:5; Tit_2:13, and δικαιοσύνης as genitive of apposition. Ἀπεκδέχεσθαι is more precisely not = ἐλπίζειν itself, but = to wait for, to expect perseveringly (Wieseler). [This view of the passage, which is that of Wieseler, avoids the seeming pleonasm, “wait for the hope,” but is open to one serious objection, viz.: that the genitive is never thus used with ἐλπίς (Meyer). Besides ἐλπίδα ἀπεκδεχόμεθα is not pleonastic, but forcible and almost poetical, the accusative being cognate (Ellicott). The genitive may be regarded as 1) subjecti; the hoped for reward of righteousness, sc. eternal life (so Beza, Bengel and most older commentators). This avoids the seeming difficulty of every other interpretation, viz.: making “righteousness” future, but it is not in keeping with the context, as it introduces and gives prominence to an adjunct of “righteousness,” while the passage treats of “justification.” 2) It seems best then to take it as genitive objecti, i. e. the hope of being justified (so Meyer, Ellicott, Alford, also the versions of Tyndale and Cranmer). This is strictly grammatical and in keeping with the context. The objection that it makes “righteousness” future is easily met, see below.—R.] That Paul should here speak of the (complete and final) justification, as something to be expected first in the future, is entirely accordant with the context. In Gal_5:4 he speaks of such as, being already justified by faith, now turn to the law and thereby suffer the loss of grace. In order to illustrate the latter, he now enforces the truth, that a Christian must remain in faith, because only then can he have the hope of justification at the judgment; faith remains the condition of the state of grace, for even at the final judgment it is the condition of gracious acceptance. [This view contrasts Christianity with Judaism, and represents “justification as one of those divine results, which stretches into eternity, conveying with it and involving the idea of future blessedness and glorification” (Ellicott).—R.]
Gal_5:6. He now proceeds to justify the waiting “for the hope from faith” on the part of the Christian. For in Christ Jesus = for him that is in Christ Jesus, for the Christian, neither circumcision availeth anything = has no influence in the attainment of justification (in the sense of Gal_5:5), nor uncircumcision (while the Galatian false teachers laid so great stress upon this distinction); but faith working through love, faith which shows itself operative through love.—Ἐνεργεῖσθαι is always middle in the New Testament. The passive meaning given by many of the older Catholics, as Bellarmine and Estius, in the interest of the Catholic system, is therefore incorrect. Reference is made to this display of the activity of faith through love, in view of the following section Gal_5:13 sq., the theme of which is given in our verse. [Lightfoot: “These words bridge over the gulf which seems to separate the language of St. Paul and St. James. Both assert a principle of practical energy, as opposed to a barren, inactive theory.” Against the use made of this passage by modern Romanist commentators who give up the passive sense, such as Windischmann, Möhler, Symbolik, see Alford and Doctrinal Notes below.—R.]
Gal_5:7. Ye were running well.—Short, emotional, and therefore asyndetic propositions respecting the unhappy alterations which had taken place with the Galatians.—The comparison of the Christian walk to a race is, as is well known, a favorite one with Paul. The running well consisted in obedience to the truth, that is, in their going in the true=evangelical, way, seeking their righteousness in faith.—Paul asks in surprise: Who did hinder you?13
Gal_5:8. He here answers the last assertion to himself and them. Certainly, it is not God that has turned you away, has brought you upon this other way! The intriguing of the false teachers is represented as something ungodly. Ἡ πεισμ. κ. τ. λ., therefore, is to be translated; The persuading is not from your caller=God. The calling and the persuading are opposed to each other as distinct in character; the former is divine activity, the latter not, but essentially human with human intention, art, importunity (Meyer).—In itself “persuasion” could have also a passive signification=the being persuaded, disposition to follow; and so many interpreters take it here also=obsequiousness towards the false teachers. [In favor of the latter meaning we have the support of the Greek expositors, and perhaps the paranomasia (πείθεσθαι, ver 7). But Meyer, Alford, Ellicott prefer the active meaning, both because it is better established, and because it suits the active meaning of “calleth.” It seems to accord better with Gal_5:9 also.—R.]
Gal_5:9. A little leaven.—It is disputed whether this refers to doctrine or persons; a little leaven of doctrine, as a few bad men, false teachers. Manifestly the former. It is not the number of the false teachers that is of account, but the influence of their teaching, not the πείθοντες but the πεισμονή. Plainly nothing else is meant by “leaven” than the immediately preceding “persuasion,” for of this, “leaven” is an image. As the leaven works into the lump, so does the “persuasion,” the persuasive, seducing word into the soul (or into a whole community): therefore=even an influence in itself apparently insignificant, may nevertheless be ruinous to the whole man (or whole community of men). [The proverb (quoted also 1Co_5:6) is undoubtedly true both of doctrines and persons. To which it refers here is extremely doubtful. In support of each view the best commentators may be cited, and the context is not decisive, for while Gal_5:8 may favor the former reference, Gal_5:10 with its individualizing turn, favors the latter. Leaven is, as usually, a symbol of evil.—R.] This of course contains a warning to be on their guard, and to turn back in time, and remove the leaven.—The Apostle, in order the easier to win them to him, expresses the confidence which he still continues to have in them.
Gal_5:10. I, for my part,—even though the false teachers believe you already won over to them.—He knows his confidence to be grounded in the Lord. The Lord will doubtless bring it to pass and give you the right mind—in the interest of His cause.—Οὐδὲν ἄλλο φρονήσετε is best taken absolutely=that you will not be otherwise minded than hitherto, that you will not alter your conviction, will not apostatize. It is true, a giving way had indeed already begun; but it was as yet only in its incipiency; evidently Paul deals with them throughout as those that are yet wavering, and therefore it may well be hoped of them that matters will not come to an actual ἄλλο φρονεῖν=change of conviction. Up to the present time they are only, as is immediately expressed, “troubled.”—He that troubleth you=every one, who, &c. The supposition that the Apostle refers to a leader among his opponents well known to himself (Erasmus, Luther, Bengel and others), or even to Peter (Jerome), is supported by nothing in the Epistle. Therefore also whosoever he be ought to be understood as entirely general, and not referred to any eminent consideration enjoyed by the false teachers. Undoubtedly, however, Paul means to signify, that no consideration whatever could cause him to waver in this judgment.—Κρῖμα=God’s sentence of condemnation (e. g. Mar_12:40, Luk_20:47; Rom_2:3; Rom_13:12); this is conceived as something exceedingly irksome, a burden, therefore βαστάσει.
Gal_5:11. But I, brethren, if I still preach circumcision.—Paul refutes moreover the pretence of the false teachers, invented to further their cause, that he himself elsewhere preached circumcision. They had probably appealed, in support of their charge, to the circumcision of Timothy, which had lately taken place, but which by no means took place on the ground of its necessity to salvation (Act_16:3. See I moreover, the explanation of Gal_2:4).—“Still” dates not from a period within his apostolic career itself, as though Paul as Apostle had yet at one time preached circumcision, which in view of the manner of Paul’s conversion and of his whole previous course is an unpsychological and unhistorical assumption, but it dates from his conversion. Why do I still suffer persecution.—This second ἔτι is a logical one: what reason remains, etc.?—Then is the scandal of the cross done away with.—Apodosis of the conditional sentence, “if I still preach circumcision,” for the purpose of demonstrating the nullity of the protasis: he would no longer be persecuted.—Τὸ σκάνδ. τοῦ σταυροῦ more precisely—that, which is offensive in the preceding of Christ’s death on the cross, namely, that it is proclaimed as the only ground of salvation. Had Paul, with this or instead of it, still preached circumcision as necessary to salvation, the Jew would have seen his law maintained in authority, and would not have taken offence at the death on the cross, and especially the preaching of it.
Gal_5:12. Ὄφελον καὶ ἀποκόψονται.—The ordinary explanation is: Would that they would even have themselves made eunuchs, for which partly the middle signification of the future ἀποκόψονται is cited, partly the connection, which is thought to point (καί) to a play of words upon περιτομή. But, as this would be a bitter turn of wit, and as the assumption, that Paul means thereby to lash the sexual intemperance of the false teachers, is arbitrary, it is not pleasant to accede to this explanation. The lexical argument, which has the most weight, is the hardest to meet; it can only be said that the passive use of the future middle, even in the classics, is by no means unknown. On the other hand the connection, which is especially adduced in support of this explanation, has not a strictly demonstrative force, as Wieseler remarks. He, it is true, lays almost too much stress on the absence of an actual paronomasia; on the fact that Paul did not at least choose ἐκτείνειν, as being a very common word among the Greeks for castration, and the paronomasia with κατατομή (Phil. 3:23) proves at least so much as this, that Paul in opposition to such Judaizers, was not particularly tender in dealing with περιτομή, for this is a sarcastic allusion to περιτομή. On the other hand this remark of his particularly is correct, that we should then expect instead of ἀναστ. an allusion to περιτ., the more so, as in Gal_5:11 περιτ. is not at all alluded to in the light of a demand made by them. If we can therefore make up our minds to take ἀποκ. as passive, this would be in itself entirely suitable, especially for the final sentence: Would they were even hewn off=condemned by God (since the reference to excommunication is less congruous). Καί certainly is far from necessitating the reference to περιτ., as with either explanation it is alike a climactic particle. [It seems entirely incorrect to take the passive sense, for which there is no authority in the New Testament. Ellicott, preserves the middle sense, and yet avoids the seemingly coarse interpretation, which is usually given. He renders: “would even cut themselves off from you.” Unfortunately καί is a climactic particle, and this view gives us an anti-climax. In fact were there no question of taste involved, scarce a doubt would arise as to the Apostle’s meaning. Have we a right to adopt forced interpretations, to avoid a natural one, because it seems to us unrefined? As Lightfoot remarks “If it seems strange that St. Paul should have alluded to such a practice at all, it must be remembered that as this was a recognized form of heathen self-devotion, it could not possibly be shunned in conversation, and must at times have been mentioned by a Christian preacher. The remonstrance is doubly significant as addressed to Galatians, for Pessinus, one of their chief towns, was the home of the worship of Cybele, in honor of whom these mutilations were practiced.” Wordsworth: “There would be more hope from their ex-cision, than from their circumcision. For then they would be excluded from the Jewish congregation, they would feel the rigor of the law, they would be ashamed of enforcing it on you. Then there would be good hope, that they also would joyfully hail and accept the gracious liberty of the gospel, and would be joined as sound members to the Body of Christ.”—R.]—Ἀναστατοῦντες, unsettling=to bring into tumult, stronger than ταράσσειν. Wieseler: To render seditious, namely, against the order of Christianity, or rather against its Lord and King, Christ.—[Chrysostom: “Well does he say ἀναστατοῦντες, for abandoning their country and their freedom and their kindred in heaven, they compelled them to seek a foreign and a strange land; banishing from the heavenly Jerusalem and the free, and forcing them to wander about as captives and aliens.” (From Lightfoot.)—R.]
DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL
1. Christian Liberty. Respecting the idea of Freedom, which Paul in this Epistle maintains and vindicates for Christians with such decision (from Gal_3:25 on, substantially this, but more on its negative side; in express words in this section), we are to consider that it does not primarily mean freedom from the accusations and the curse of the law (wrath of God, etc.), but, agreeably to the whole polemics of the Apostle, means freedom from the claims (requirements) of the law, from the obligation of attaching ourselves to it, in order by works of the law to seek salvation (to seek it through these conjointly with faith, yes, essentially to seek it through these). Too precipitately and too prevailingly does Luther, for example, take this freedom, which Christ has won, in the former sense, and in this sense eulogizes it as the most precious benefit. Undoubtedly, however, freedom in this sense stands causally connected with freedom in the other; in the first place by the very fact that only he who through Christ is delivered from the curse of the law, is a Christian, and only to him does freedom from the law itself accrue (although strictly speaking this does not belong here);—and secondly, inasmuch as only to him who does not give himself any more into bondage under the law, does freedom from its curse also remain assured, while conversely, whoever gives up the other freedom, loses also this, and thus comes into double bondage. Hence it is fully admissible to comprehend in the freedom which Paul claims for the Christian, his freedom from the curse of the law—not exegetically it is true, but at least in the practical application of the doctrine. Still more; in the reference to freedom from the curse of the law (wrath of God), an entirely just apprehension of the doctrine is involved, since Paul contends with such earnestness for the freedom of the Christians from the law, and against the imposing of the law upon them, and thus against their being brought upon the ground of the righteousness of works, for this very reason, that thereby we forfeit also our freedom from the curse of the law, and so come under this curse, losing thereby the advantage that we have in Christ, the certainty of the grace of God. His strong emphasizing of the freedom of Christians has its ground indeed not merely in an abstract pride of freedom, leading him to feel: Christians now have no longer need of allowing themselves to be held in bondage by a law, but it is grounded in the doctrinal knowledge of the loss of salvation, which would result from the giving up of that freedom.
2. Either the law wholly, or not at all; either Christ or the law. The Apostle presents two momentous alternatives and thereby sets himself against all half courses and their self-deceiving effect. The first is: “Either the law wholly—or not at all.” Whoever once places himself in one particular on the legal ground, cannot stop short with that one. For in the first place the law, although a whole consisting of many members, is yet a whole in which one member depends on another. And secondly for this very reason the blessing of God is not promised to the observance of one or the other part of it, but only to the observance of the whole; whoever therefore will become partaker of the blessing in the way of law, must observe the whole law. But if he shrinks from undertaking the whole, either because he recognizes much of it as abolished for the Christian, or because much of it is burdensome to him, or as he thinks of the impossibility of fulfilling all aright, and of the curse which is denounced against all short comings, then let him give up the legal position altogether. This suggests then the other alternative: “Either Christ or the law,” The two “do not match,” i. e. whoever will be justified by works of law, thereby renounces virtually, and ought therefore to renounce formally the consolations of grace in Christ; for in so doing he does not seek his righteousness in Christ, but rejects Him. Commonly however man would be glad to take the latter with the former, would at least, without building upon it, be well content with the free grace of God, as the complement of his imperfect righteousness of works; but in vain—the sentence is: Fallen away from grace!—“This text, Gal_5:2; Gal_5:4, is a true touchstone, by which we may securely and certainly judge all manner of doctrines, works and ceremonies of all men. Whoever now, be they Papists, Turks, Jews, sectaries,—or whoever they may be, teach, that anything is necessary to salvation besides faith in Christ, they hear in this place the sentence of the Holy Ghost pronounced against them by the Apostle, namely, that Christ profiteth them nothing. But if St. Paul can venture to pass so terrible a judgment against the law and circumcision, which God Himself has given, what kind of judgment would he utter upon the chaff and the dross of men’s ordinances? Wherefore this text is such a thunderclap, that by right the whole papal realm should be astounded and terrified thereat.” Luther.
3. “Waiting for the hope of righteousness.” Justification, on one hand, is a benefit to be obtained even now, but on the other hand, that which we now obtain is not yet the whole, not yet the consummation. But the justification of the Christian in the present is not on this account in any way an illusion, nor is the joyful certainty, which faith has, of being justified in Christ, prejudiced. On the contrary the believer knows very well that at first he can only have this benefit in a measure corresponding to the imperfection of the present dispensation. The joyfulness of faith would be beclouded if the hope of consummation in eternity, in spite of all present imperfection, did not essentially appertain to faith, as certain hope. Hoping and waiting include, it is true, a negative element, a not yet having; but they also include essentially a positive element, the certainty that what is not yet possessed will nevertheless be attained, and this positive element is derived from nothing else than faith. Hope is grounded in faith—but never in our works; faith is therefore not only necessary in the beginning, but remains so perpetually; if we lose it, we lose hope also.
4. Faith, Hope, Love. Faith, that has hope, is the one thing that characterizes the Christian, to which is added Love. As in hope faith becomes a waiting faith, πίστις ἀπεκδεχομένη, so through love does it become an active faith, π. ἐνεργουμένη, i. e., the ἐνέργεια does not first through love come into faith, but rather faith manifests in this love its own indwelling energy; had it no such ἐνέργεια in itself, there would be no such result as love, and where this energy is wanting to it, because it is a mere nominal faith, there is no such result. Even so the capacity of waiting does first come into faith, not through hope, but on the contrary, because this inheres in faith, from faith emanates hope.—The Catholic doctrine of a fides caritate formata, as the condition of justification, has of course not the least support in this passage; for the simple reason that “working through love” affirms something enirely different: “non per caritatem formam suam accipere vel formari fidem, sed per caritatem operosam vel efficacem esse ap. docet.” Calovius. Nor can it be concluded from this passage that the Apostle would make love the principle of justification together with faith. See the Exegetical Notes above, but especially Luther, who has so truly apprehended the significance of our passage: “Paul treats not in this place of what Faith accomplishes before God, as how one becomes righteous before God; for this he has done at full length above; but he says just here at the end, as it were for a short conclusion, what is a true Christian life; in Christ such a faith alone avails, which is no feigned, hypocritical one, but a true living faith. Now such a faith is one that exercises itself and perseveres in good works through love. For this is nothing else than to say: Whoever will be a true Christian man and in Christ’s Kingdom, he must forsooth have a true faith. But now assuredly the faith is not sound, where the works of love do not follow after. Therewith he shuts out from the Kingdom of Christ all hypocrites, both on the right hand and on the left; on the right all Jews and work-saints, but on the left all slothful and secure folk, who say: If faith without works makes righteous, then God requires nothing of us than only that we believe, therefore we are permitted to do what we list.”
5. Love does not overlook perversion of doctrine. Certain as it is that faith, active through love, is part of the Christian life, yet over against those, who destroy faith by perversion of doctrine, indulgence for love’s sake, is not in place, but earnestness and severity (comp. the remarks of Luther upon this, in the Homiletical Notes, Gal_5:10).
HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL
Gal_5:1. Luther:—Let us learn to count this our freedom, most noble, exalted and precious, which no emperor, no prophet, nor patriarch, no angel from heaven, but Christ, God’s Son, hath obtained for us; not for this, that He might relieve us from a bodily and temporal subjection, but from a spiritual and eternal imprisonment of the cruellest tyrants, namely, the law, sin, death, devil, &c.—Those that will be secure and snore on without care, these will not keep this freedom. For Satan is to the light of the Gospel hostile above measure, i. e., to the doctrine of grace, freedom, consolation and life. Therefore, where he is aware that it is about to dawn, he keeps no holiday, but sets himself speedily with all might against it. [Calvin:—He reminds them that they ought not to despise a freedom so precious. And certainly it is an invaluable blessing, in defence of which it is our duty to fight, even to death. If men lay upon our shoulders an unjust burden, it may be borne; but if they endeavor to bring our conscience into bondage, we must resist valiantly, even to death. If men be permitted to bind our consciences, we shall be deprived of an invaluable blessing, and an insult will be, at the same time, offered to Christ, the author of our freedom.—R.]
[Cowper:—This is a liberty unsung
By poets, and by senators unpraised;
Which monarchs cannot grant, nor all the powers
Of Earth and Hell confederate take away:
A liberty which persecution, frand,
Oppression, prisons, have no power to bind;
Which whoso tastes can be enslaved no more.
’Tis liberty of heart, derived from Heaven,
Bought with His blood who gave it to mankind.
* * * The oppressor holds
His body bound; but knows not what a range
His spirit takes, unconscious of a chain,
And that to bind him is a vain attempt,
Whom God delights in, and in whom He dwells.—R.]
Gal_5:2. Luther:—Under the sun there is no more hurtful or poisonous thing, than the doctrine of human laws and works, that, are received in the imagination of thereby obtaining forgiveness of sins. For they take away in one heap the truth of the gospel and Christ Himself.
Gal_5:3. “A debtor to do the whole law.” If we overlook this chance, and Moses begins in one particular to rule over us, we must thereafter be wholly and entirely subject to his power, whether we will or not. Therefore, to be brief, we cannot, yea, ought not, nor will not suffer, that any one should hang any one fraction of Moses’ law [Gesetzlein Mosis] upon our neck.
Gal_5:4. “Ye are separated from Christ.”—How could one speak more powerfully against the law? What can or will any one bring up against this mighty thunderclap? It is not possible that the gospel and the law can dwell and rule in one heart at the same time with one another, but of necessity either Christ must yield to the law or the law to Christ. Therefore, when thou fanciest that Christ and confidence in the law might dwell together with one another in thy heart, thou art of a certainty to believe and know, that in thy heart not Christ, but the very devil dwells and keeps house, who under the form of Christ accuses and terrifies thee, and demands that thou through the law and thine own works shouldst make thyself righteous; for the true Christ has not that way.—Even as one that falls out of a ship, let it happen as it may, must certainly drown in the sea; even so can it not be otherwise than that whoever falls away from grace, must be condemned and lost.—If those fall away from Grace, that will be justified by the law of God, beloved, whither will those fall that will be justified through human ordinances, their vows and merits? Into the deep abyss of hell, to the devil.
Gal_5:5. Spener:—Faith is not merely the beginning of our salvation, so that we must receive the first grace from God, and afterwards earn the rest ourselves, but all remaining gifts of grace and glory are alone expected and bestowed from faith.—Luther:—This is an admirable, noble consolation, wherewith all wretched, perplexed hearts, that feel their sin and are terrified thereat, are mightily holpen against all the fiery darts of the devil. For when the conscience has to wrestle and strive in such distress and perplexity, it becomes terrified and anxious, and the feeling of sin, of God’s wrath and of death is so great that it seems as if there were neither righteousness nor salvation to hope for. Then is it time to say: Dear brother, thou wouldst be glad to have such a righteousness, as might be felt, whereof thou mightest have joy and comfort, even as sin lets itself be felt and stirs up terror and despond; now that cannot be done, but do thou labor on, that the righteousness, which thou hast in hope, and which is yet hidden, may surpass the sin which thou feelest; and know, that it is not such a righteousness as lets itself be seen or felt, but as to which one must hope that in is time it will be reached. Therefore thou art not to judge after the feeling of sin, but according to the promise and doctrine of faith, through which Christ is promised to thee, that he may be thy perfect and everlasting righteousness.—Starke:—Waiting comprehends in it; a believing assurance of certain attainment of the thing hoped for, a high estimation of the j same, a continual remembrance thereof, an ardent longing thereafter, a joy in the apprehension of future felicity, a patient expectation, an abstinence from all that stands opposed to the purity and steadfastness of such hope.—Those that will be righteous by the law have nothing more to expect of Christ but believers have yet glorious benefits to hope from him.
Gal_5:6. Luther:—St. Paul points out here what is the fashion of the Christian life, namely, that it is nothing else than, inwardly, faith towards God and, outwardly, love and works towards our neighbor, so mat a man becomes perfectly a Christian, inwardly by faith towards God, who does not need our works, and outwardly by works towards men, whom our faith can help nothing, but our works and our love.—Of faith, what it is, what its inward hidden nature, power, work and office is, has he treated above, where he says that faith makes us righteous before God. But here he conjoins it with love and works, i. e. he speaks of its works and office, which it outwardly and publicly accomplishes, that it is the stirrer up to good works and to love, yea not alone the stirrer up, but the true doer and workmaster of all good works.—There stands St. Paul and says outright, that faith, which worketh by love, makes a Christian, says not that cowls, fasts, distinct attire or genuflections make a Christian.—Anything else, be it called what it may, makes no one a Christian: only faith and love do so. See also above in the Doctrinal Notes.
Gal_5:7. In Starke:—Running in religion is good, running well still better, to accomplish the race best of all. To a Christian life there appertains standing and walking: standing, that one may not fall, walking, that one may not stand still, which is commonly linked with a going back.—Luther:—These words are very comforting, for Christians have ever this temptation, to imagine that their life is an idle and sleepy matter, it seems more a creeping than a running. But so far as they remain steadfast in the wholesome doctrine, walk in the Spirit and wait on their vocation, they should in no wise trouble themselves, although it seems as if their work and doing went slowly on, and crept rather than walked. But our master, God, judges far otherwise. What seems to us slow walking, seems to Him quick and swift running, item, what we count for mournfulness, suffering, death etc., that is with Him joy, laughing and blessedness.—“Who did hinder you?” And now they supposed, forsooth, that all their matters were going most prosperously and most swiftly along.—Hedinger:—Have a care, pilgrim! on the way to heaven there are many stumbling blocks.—Hearest thou the sirens sing and the robbers whistle? Finish thou thy course with joy, let not the threatening and flattering of the world lead thee astray! The Lord is with thee!—Lange:—Beware of all credulousness, especially in spiritual things, which concern the well-being of the soul! Let a doctrine wear ever so good a guise, it must nevertheless be tested by God’s word.
Gal_5:8. Luther:—The devil is a prince of persuaders. He can so blow up and magnify the very smallest sins, that he who is tempted, thinks nothing else than that they are so great and terrible sins, as are worthy the punishment of eternal death. Then is it high time that we comfort such a disturbed soul in such wise as St. Paul has here done, saying to it, that such persuasion is not of Christ, since it gainsays the word of the gospel, which depicts Christ to us, not as an accuser, but as meek and compassionate, a Saviour and Comforter.
Gal_5:9. Hedinger:—The least particle of evil infects, a single spark kindles a forest. Away with it! But O ye careless! is it a small thing to you, to be corrupted through idle talk and companyings, through poison of lies against Christ?
Gal_5:10. Luther:—Has St. Paul done right in saying: I have a good confidence towards you, while yet the Holy Scripture forbids that we should have confidence in man? Answer: Faith and Love both believe, yet is the belief of the two not directed upon one thing. The faith is directed towards God, therefore it cannot be deceived: but love believes man, therefore is it often and greatly deceived. But yet the faith that love has is such a needful thing in this present life, that without it this life cannot at all continue. For if no man trusts nor believes another, what would this life upon earth become? Christians out of love believe people easier than the subtle children of the world are wont to do. For that believers trust people and expect good of them, that is beautiful fruit of the Holy Ghost and faith. But the Christian adds: In the Lord=so far do I trust you and expect good of you, as the Lord is in you and ye in Him, that is, so far as ye abide in the truth.—We must diligently distinguish doctrine from life. Doctrine is heaven, life the earth. In life there is sin, error, discord. Here love should pass by and overlook, should forbear; here should forgiveness of sins bear sway, yet so that one should not wish to uphold such sin and error. But with doctrine it is quite another thing, for it is holy, pure, ummixed, heavenly, divine; therefore can we not suffer it, that any one should distort it even in the least particular. Whoever will alter or adulterate it, against such a one there is neither love nor compassion.
Gal_5:11. St. Paul holds that for a certain sign, that it is not and cannot be the true gospel, if it is preached in peace and in quietness and is not gainsayed nor persecuted. On the other hand, the world, when it sees that from the preaching of the gospel great rumors, divisions, scandal and tumults follow, holds that for a certain size that such teaching is heretical and seditious.—To murderers, thieves and other evil-doers grace is shown; on the contrary the world deems that no more evil, mischievous people are to be found than Christians; therefore it also persuades itself that they can never have punishment and torment enough inflicted on them.—As long as persecutions and suffering endure, the state of the church is good. The church must suffer persecution, if the gospel is purely preached. For the gospel goes about to preach alone God’s compassion, grace, glory and praise, and on the other hand discovers the devil’s craft and malice. Where the gospel comes it cannot be otherwise, there must follow the scandal of the cross; where that does not come to pass, there certainly the devil is not yet fairly hit, but only a little grazed.—May God be surety that the offence of the cross do not cease, which would soon come to pass, if we only preached, what the prince of this world with his members would be glad to hear, namely, how to be justified and saved by one’s own works. [The offence of the cross. 1. It asks men to humble their pride and take salvation as a free gift; this is a great scandal. 2. It sometimes seems to cease: 3. It never does.—R.] The homiletical uses of the single verses, especially 1–9, are easily suggested by the sententious character of the greater part.
Gal_5:1-6 From Lisco:—The care taken by the Christian, to stand fast in the true freedom.
Gal_5:7-12. How are we to rescue those who stand in danger of apostacy? 1. By bringing to their minds their earlier life in communion with God: 2. by warning against the destruction to which they are hastening, Gal_5:9-10; Galatians 3. by the testimony of our own walk and perseverance in fellowship with God through Christ, Gal_5:11. For Gal_5:1-6 at New Year. Frantz:—A good counsel at the New Year for all, who will strengthen their inward life: 1. Stand fast in the freedom, wherewith Christ hath made us free; 2. lose not Christ and fall not away from grace; 3. wait in the Spirit through faith for the righteousness that is to be hoped for; 4. walk in faith which worketh by love.
Footnotes:
[11][Wordsworth finds here a reference to the false accusation (Gal_5:11) that he preached circumcision, and Lightfoot thinks this is probably an indirect refutation of calumnies as well as an assertion of authority.—R.]
[12][Lightfoot renders “are driven forth, are banished with Hagar your mother,” but white this meaning of ἐκπίπτειν is classical, it is not found elsewhere in New Testament and must not be pressed.—R.]
[13][The verb here used means “to break up a road,” so as to render it impassable. It originally took the dative of the person, but in the New Testament is followed by an accusative. Lightfoot seems to think ἀνέκοψεν (Rec.) would suit the metaphor of the stadium better, its meaning being “to beat back,” to hinder with the further idea of thrusting back (Ellicott), but the other reading is too well supported, he also remarks that the transcribers seem to have taken offence at the word ἐγκόπτειν, since it is frequently altered, e. g. 1Th_2:18; Act_24:4.—R.]
[41] Gal_4:31.—א. διό. [So B. D1. Lachmann, Tischendorf, Meyer, Ellicott, Alford, Lightfoot. Ἄρα (Rec.) is feebly supported; as also ἡμεῖς δέ.—R.]
[42] Gal_5:1.—The correct reading is probably that of Lachmann: τῇ ἐλευθερίᾳ ἡμᾶς Χριστὸς ἠλευθέρωσεν· στήκετε οὖν. So א. which also begins Galatians 5 with στήκετε. [This reading is supported also by A. B. C. D., and adopted by Usteri, Meyer (4th ed., Schmoller mentions the other reading as his) and Alford. Τῇ ἐλευθεριᾳ, ᾖ ἡμᾶς Χριστὸς ἠλευθέρωσεν, στήκετε οὖν is supported by D.2 3 E. K. L., the great majority of cursives, many versions and fathers, and is adopted by Griesbach, Rückert, Tischendorf, Wieseler, Ellicott, Wordsworth, Lightfoot (who differs in punctuation however), Between these two readings the choice is very difficult. The authorities are so equally divided, and as the verbal difference is slight, the critical question resolves itself into this delicate one: whether the transcriber was more likely to have omitted or inserted ᾖ, because of ἡμᾶς immediately following. Meyer thinks it was inserted, others that it was omitted. The latter opinion seems more probable, and the second reading is preferable on diplomatic grounds. The renderings given above are in accordance with the two readings, but minor variations in interpretation are noticed in the Exeg. Notes.
We find besides, οὖν placed after ἐλευθερίᾳ, but this is feebly supported; it is put after στήκετε in א. A.B.C.F. On this position of the particle, an argument for Lachmann’s punctuation is based, though it is not decisive. Χριστός is placed before ἡμᾶς in C.K.L.: after it in א. A. B. D. E. F. G.
Lightfoot not only begins a new sentence at δτήκετε, but, retaining ᾖ, is forced to join the first clause directly with Gal 5:31, and to render: we are sons “of her who is free with that freedom which Christ has given us.” So Schott and Rinck. This seems forced, but Lightfoot’s note on the various readings is valuable.—On the other variations from the E. V., in this verse, see Exeg. Notes.—R.]
[43] Gal_5:2.—א. omits Παῦλος, inserted however by the corrector.
[44] Gal_5:2.—[Both here and in Gal_5:3, the reference is not to the fact of having been circumcised, but now resorting to the rite as necessary.—R.]
[45] Gal_5:4.—[Schmoller renders: abgetrennt seid ihr von (der gemeinschaft mit) Christo. The construction is pregnant, and scarcely admits of a literal translation. Vulgate: evacuati estis a. Alford’s “annihilates from Christ” is objectionable. Ellicott’s paraphrase is good: “Your union with Christ became void” (so Meyer). It seems both more lively and more exact to retain the present in English, since “the aorists (κατηργήθητε, ἐξεπέσατε) represent the consequences as instantaneous” (Lightfoot).—R.]
[46] Gal_5:5.—א. has ἐκδεχόμεθα, א.3 ἀπεκδεχόμεθα.
[47] Gal_5:7.—[Rec. has ἀνέκοψε, but the correct reading is ἐνέκοψε (all MSS., most cursives, and modern editors).—R.]
[48] Gal_5:7.—Τῇ ἀληθείαμὴ πείθεσθαι is, without ground, deemed spurious by Semler and Kopp. [א. A. B. Lachmann, Lightfoot, omit τῇ; retained on good authority by Tischendorf, Meyer, Ellicott.—R.]
[49] Gal_5:9.—Δολοῖ is a gloss.
[50] Gal_5:12.—[See Exeg. Notes, on the meaning of this verse.—R.]
Lange's Commentary on the Holy Scriptures (Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical), ed. John Peter Lange, English translation edited by Philip Schaff (1864–1880) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset & David Brown 1871 · Public Domain On vv21–31 desire--of your own accord madly courting that which must…
desire--of your own accord madly courting that which must condemn and ruin you.
do ye not hear--do ye not consider the mystic sense of Moses' words? [GROTIUS]. The law itself sends you away from itself to Christ [ESTIUS]. After having sufficiently maintained his point by argument, the apostle confirms and illustrates it by an inspired allegorical exposition of historical facts, containing in them general laws and types. Perhaps his reason for using allegory was to confute the Judaizers with their own weapons: subtle, mystical, allegorical interpretations, unauthorized by the Spirit, were their favorite arguments, as of the Rabbins in the synagogues. Compare the Jerusalem Talmud [Tractatu Succa, cap. Hechalil]. Paul meets them with an allegorical exposition, not the work of fancy, but sanctioned by the Holy Spirit. History, if properly understood contains in its complicated phenomena, simple and continually recurring divine laws. The history of the elect people, like their legal ordinances, had, besides the literal, a typical meaning (compare Co1 10:1-4; Co1 15:45, Co1 15:47; Rev 11:8). Just as the extra-ordinarily-born Isaac, the gift of grace according to promise, supplanted, beyond all human calculations, the naturally-born Ishmael, so the new theocratic race, the spiritual seed of Abraham by promise, the Gentile, as well as Jewish believers, were about to take the place of the natural seed, who had imagined that to them exclusively belonged the kingdom of God.
Jamieson, Fausset & Brown — Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (1871) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.
Daniel D. Whedon 1874 · Public Domain On vv21–31 8. Superiority of faith over legalism illustrated by the…
8. Superiority of faith over legalism illustrated by the history of Sarah and Hagar, Gal_4:21 to Gal_5:1.
21. Tell me—As if after an interval since writing the last tenderer paragraph, St. Paul resumes the more severe and imperative strain of Gal_2:1-7.
Read full note →
Desire… under the law—The observers of seasons, as in Gal_4:10.
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 Rom_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.
Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges 1878 · Public Domain On vv21, 22, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31 21–31. The Allegory of the two Covenants, pointing to…
21–31. The Allegory of the two Covenants, pointing to liberty only in Christ
21. The final argument is an appeal to Scripture, to that very law to which the Galatians were desiring to subject themselves. If they would but listen to the teaching of the law they would hear it declaring its own inferiority to the Gospel, the bondage of its children as compared with the liberty of those who are the children of God through faith in Jesus Christ and heirs of the promise. Calvin says that St Paul in these verses employs a very beautiful illustration of the doctrine on which he has been insisting, but that viewed merely as an argument it has no great force. But he seems to forget that the cogency of an argument is relative to the habits of thought of the persons addressed. Some of those employed by our Lord seem to us inconclusive, because we find it difficult to put ourselves in the place of the Jews who heard Him. To them His words carried conviction or at least provoked no answer, e.g. Luk_11:47-48; Mat_22:31-33; Mat_22:41-46.
Read full note →
under the law] perhaps ‘under (i.e. subject to) law’, legal observances, used in a wider and less definite sense than ‘the law’ which here refers to the Pentateuch. St Paul adopts the well-known Jewish division of the O.T. Scriptures, the Law (or Pentateuch), the Prophets, the Hagiographa (or rest of the sacred writings).
do ye not hear] Either ‘do ye not listen to its teaching?’ or ‘is it not read in your hearing?’ Act_15:21. Some copies have ‘do ye not read the law’, i.e. aloud in the Synagogues? Comp. Luk_4:16-17. The first is probably the meaning.
The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers 1878 · Public Domain On vv21–30 (21) Ye that desire to be under the law.—A…
(21) Ye that desire to be under the law.—A direct appeal to those who were inclined to give way to the Judaising party.
Do ye not hear the law?—“Hear” is probably to be taken in the sense of “give heed to,” “listen to with attention,” as in Mat_10:14; Mat_13:9; Mat_13:13; Luk_16:29; Luk_16:31. Some have thought that it merely refers to the practice of reading a lesson from the Old Testament, which was adopted into the Christian Church from the synagogue.
Read full note →
(21-31) The next eleven verses contain an elaborate argument from the history of the two sons of Abraham, as types of the two covenants, in further proof that freedom is the essential character of the Christian dispensation.
We have seen that St. Paul applies the history of the natural Israel allegorically to the spiritual Israel; and not only does he do this with reference to the history of the formed theocracy, but he goes back to its origin in the time of the patriarchs, and traces there the first beginnings of the separation between the Law and the promise. The same history had been already allegorically treated by Philo. The treatment of it by St. Paul is, however, quite different, and in keeping with the line of argument followed in the context.
The points of parallelism, which are drawn out in much detail, may be exhibited thus:—
Jewish Church.Christian Church.The bondwoman, Hagar.The freewoman, Sarah.Son of the bondwoman, Ishmael.Son of the freewoman, Isaac.Natural birth (the flesh).Supernatural birth (the promise).Mount Sinai.Mount Zion.The Law.The Promise.The earthly Jerusalem.The heavenly Jerusalem.Enslaved.Free.Fruitful.Barren.Small offspring.Large offspring.Persecuting.Persecuted.Expulsion.Inheritance.The Jewish Church is enslaved.The Christian Church is free.
A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Pulpit Commentary 1880 · Public Domain On vv21–31 Tell me, ye that desire to be under the…
Tell me, ye that desire to be under the Law (legete moi oiJ uJpomon qelontev einai). After the outburst of affectionate earnestness expressed in the last four verses, the apostle seems to have paused, reflecting in what way he could the most effectually convince these Galatian legalists of their error. At length, a consideration occurs to him, which he impetuously so to speak hastens to abruptly sot before them. He has before (Gal_3:29) shown to the Galatian believers that they were "Abraham"s seed." He now means to show that, as children of Abraham through faith in Christ, they stood on a far higher footing than the children of the Sinai covenant did a position which, by subjecting themselves afresh to the Law, they would forego. The verb "desire" (qelontev), as here introduced, intimates that this aspiration of theirs was a mere freak of self-will, there being nothing in the circumstances to prompt it. So in ver. 9, "Ye desire to be in bondage." In consequence of there being no article with nomon, some would render uJpomon "under Law," that is, Law viewed in genere, as in mov Rom_4:15. But the whole scope of the Epistle resists this view. The apostle"s contention with the Galatian perverters of the truth is not concerning Christians being subject to Law absolutely, but concerning their being subject to a Law of outward ceremonial observance; that is, to the Law of Moses; for there was no other system of positive ordinances by which, as of Divine authority, they could imagine themselves to be bound. The noun no is used without the article, like other monadic nouns with an understood specific reference (for examples, Qeov, Kuriov Cristov Pneuma diabolov kosmov); as it is also Rom_2:23 Rom_3:31 Rom_4:13, 14 5:13; 1Co_9:20; Gal_2:21 Gal_4:5; ete; Php_3:5, 6. Do ye not hear the Law? (tomon oujk ajkou) to that Law give ye no heed? The article is here prefixed to nomon to make the repetition of the noun the more telling; just as it is in mw Rom_2:23, Ov ejn no kaucasai diasewv tou nomou ton Qeozeiv; The verb ajkouete, hear, like our "listen to," means "take to heart what it says;" as in Mat_10:14; Luk_16:29, Luk_16:31. There is no reason for attributing to the verb such a sense of listening to an oral utterance as should warrant us in supposing, that the apostle is thinking in particular of the Galatian Christians as in the habit of "hearing" the Pentateuch and ether Old Testament Scriptures read, whether in Jewish synagogues (cf. 2Co_3:14, 2Co_3:15; Act_15:21) or in Christian assemblages. That such Scriptures in the Septuagint Version were customarily read aloud when Christians assembled for united worship, especially in the absence or dearth of other inspired writings, is more than probable: we know from Justin Martyr ("Apol.," 1. p. 83) that such was the custom from Sunday to Sunday in his days, when there were ajpostolikamata also available for such use. Moreover, the existence of such a custom helps us to understand how it was that the apostle could here, as inskete, Rom_7:1, presuppose with Christian believers an acquaintance with the contents of the Pentateuch. But we require more here than the thought, "Are ye not wont to hear the Law read?" It is rather an acquaintance with its contents, and taking due account of them, that he demands of his readers. Some uncial manuscripts have ajnaginw read, instead of ajkouete. This reading of the text would only imply, not without a touch of sarcasm, the sense which the more accredited reading, ajkouete, may be understood as directly denoting. The use of the word "Law" to denote at once the system of Mosaic legislation and the historical record in which it is embedded, is remarkable. The Jews were accustomed to designate the Pentateuch by this term (comp. Mat_5:17; Luk_16:16 Luk_24:44) and whoever would fain subject themselves to the positive enactments of the Mosaic Law as possessing Divine authority, would of course feel themselves bound also to accept the teaching of the historical record as clothed with the like authority. The apostle himself also accepted both as alike coming from God; only he required that the Divine purpose in both should be clearly understood and be suitably complied with.
Vers. 21-23.
Read full note →
An appeal to Bible history.
me, ye that desire to be under the Law, do ye not hear the Law?" The apostle makes a fresh appeal to convince the Galatians of the essential difference between the Law and the promise. The reasoning is conveyed in language of affectionate remonstrance. Consider
I THE IMPORTANCE OF HIS ARGUMENT. The Law itself, upon which the Galatians laid such stress, showed that they were not meant to be under it. If he could prove from the Law of Moses that Abraham"s children by faith were free from the bondage of the Law, no further argument was needed to show that obedience to the Law was not necessary to salvation.
II THE ARGUMENT AS EMBODIED IN THE HISTORY. "For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, one by the bondmaid, the other by the freewoman; howbeit, he who was of the bondwoman was born alter the flesh, but he of the freewoman was of the promise." Here we have:
1. Two sons of Abraham Ishmael and Isaac, Ishmael being mentioned first, because he was born first. Abraham had other sons by Keturah, but they had no relation to the particular illustrations desired by the apostle.
2. Two different mothers the bondmaid Hagar whom Sarah gave to Abraham that he might not be without offspring; and the freewoman, Sarah.
3. Two entirely different conditions of birth. Ishmael was horn in bondage and in the common course of nature; Isaac was born in freedom and against nature, when Sarah was old, according to "the promise." These are the simple historic facts which form the basis of the apostle"s allegorical explanation.
4. They are Scripture facts. "It is written," as if to show that God"s Word is decisive upon the question.
Ver. 21-Gal_5:1.
The children of the bondwoman and of the free.
Paul now passes from a personal appeal to an allegorical argument from the Law. As legalists, they are asked it" they will not hear the Law which in its history really condemns them as children of the bondwoman and not children of the freewoman. For such an allegorical interpretation we are content with Paul"s authority, since he was inspired of God in his handling of Scripture as well as in writing additions to it. His rabbinical education would incline him to allegory; but we would not in consequence take any liberties with Scripture on the same track. Still, as we face the history as given in Genesis 21. with Paul"s help in our hands, it gives a very interesting and beautiful application of it.
I LET US CONSIDER THE CHILD OF THE BONDWOMAN IN HIS EARLY YEARS. (Ver. 23.) Ishmael, as the child of Abraham, had for thirteen years a happy and interesting life. He was the issue of a union promoted by Sarah in her own despair. Upon him the patriarch looked with all an old man"s pride; and, had not God expressly forbidden it, Abraham would have looked no further than Ishmael for a son and heir. Hagar naturally played the haughty part before her mistress and despised the beautiful woman because of her barrenness. But as soon as Isaac came to gladden the aged pair, Hagar and Ishmael fell of necessity into the background. In due time there is the weaning feast. "Hagar and her son heard the merriment," says Robertson, "and it was gall to their wounded spirits; it looked like intentional insult; for Ishmael had been the heir presumptive, but now, by the birth of Isaac, had become a mere slave and dependant; and the son of Hagar mocked at the joy in which he could not partake." Now, Ishmael all these years was the type of the legalist who prides himself on his observance of the ceremonies. Just as the boy thought that he was son and heir by undisputed right and title, so the legal spirit imagines that in God"s house his rights cannot be disregarded. In the pride of self-satisfaction he sees no rival in the house and is disposed to brook none. And yet a touch of fate will make him realize at once his slavery and outcast condition.
II CONSIDER NEXT THE SON OF PROMISE. (Ver. 23.) But for the promise of God, Isaac never would have been born. He belonged consequently to a different order from Ishmael. Ishmael was the son of nature; Isaac was the product of grace. In this Isaac is the type of the son of the gospel, as Ishmael is the type of the son of the Law. Isaac is born to freedom, to honour, to inheritance; while Ishmael is cast out as the slave who has no recognized rights in the household. So is it with the free-born son of the gospel as contrasted with the legalists of Paul"s time. The believer is God"s son through the freewoman; he has his inalienable rights in God"s household; he may be persecuted and mocked by the Ishmaels who are but bondslaves; but he is destined to keep the field of privilege in spite of foes and triumph over them at last.
III LEGALISM AND GOSPEL FREEDOM ARE INCOMPATIBLE. (Vers. 24-30.) One house could not hold both Ishmael and Isaac. They could not get on together. No more can the legal and the gospel spirit. Self-righteousness and faith in Christ are irreconcilable. Hence the war between the legalists and the apostle. It was war to the bitter end. The principles are antagonistic, and the one must triumph over the other. And liberty is sure to triumph over legalism in the end, as Isaac triumphed over Ishmael.
IV THE CONSEQUENT DUTY OF MAINTAINING OUR CHRISTIAN LIBERTY. (Gal_5:1) Paul calls upon the Galatians not to go back to bondage, but to maintain the freedom which Christ has given them. If he has fulfilled the ceremonies, why should they go back to the bondage of observances? If they are born as children of promise, why go back to the birth of bondslaves? It is like emancipated slaves insisting on surrendering their freedom. What the liberty bestowed by Christ is in its length and breadth may be realized from the close and climax of one of Liddon"s masterly sermons. "It is freedom from a sense of sin, when all is known to have been pardoned through the atoning blood; freedom from a slavish fear of our Father in heaven, when conscience is offered to his unerring eye morning and evening by that penitent love which fixes its eye upon the Crucified; freedom from current prejudice and false human opinion, when the soul gazes by intuitive faith upon the actual truth; freedom from the depressing yoke of weak health or narrow circumstances, since the soul cannot be crushed which rests consciously upon the everlasting arms; freedom from that haunting fear of death, which holds those who think really upon death at all," all their lifetime subject to bondage," unless they are his true friends and clients who by the sharpness of his own death " opened the kingdom of heaven to all believers." It is freedom in time, but also and beyond freedom in eternity." May we realize our rights as children of the free! R.M.E.
Ver. 21-ch. Isa_54:1. In the same prophecy. (Isa_51:2) use is made of God giving Abraham and Sarah a numerous offspring. In this language the prophet makes use of Sarah having a more numerous people descended from her than Hagar. And what the apostle does in quoting it is to give the fact another application. The Church represented by the desolate Sarah is to have a more numerous offspring than the Church represented by the favoured Hagar.
(c) It has an offspring according to promise. "Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are children of promise." We are not certainly children according to the course of nature, or in virtue of influences that belong to our nature. We are children through the Divine influences that are efficient in the gospel surmounting great natural obstacles. We are miraculously, supernaturally born.
(2) An instructive parallel added.
(a) The persecutors. "But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was horn after the Spirit, even so it is now." It is said, in connection with a festival in honour of the weaning of Isaac, that Sarah saw the son of Hagar, which she had born unto Abraham, mocking. This little circumstance is referred to here, not so much for what it was in itself, as for its foreshadowing the bearing of the Arab tribes toward the Israelites. As the descendants of Ishmael persecuted the descendants of Isaac, so in the apostle"s day did the Jews persecute the Christians. It was a well-known fact that they were the bitterest enemies of the Christians and were the principal instigators of persecution against them.
(b) Their fate foreshadowed. "Howbeit what saith the Scripture? Cast out the handmaid and her son; for the son of the handmaid shall not inherit with the son of the freewoman." Ishmael could not be allowed to live in the same house with Isaac. He had to be cast out and was no sharer of the inheritance with him. So the Jewish Church and the Christian Church could not coexist. Jews could only be in the Church as Christians. As Jews they were cast out of the special covenant position, the stern reality of which was soon to be made evident in the destruction of Jerusalem and the breaking up of the Jewish nationality.
(3) General conclusion regarding our slate o/freedom. "Wherefore, brethren, we are not children of a handmaid, but of the freewoman.
Exhortation founded on it.
(a) To maintain our freedom. "With freedom did Christ set us free: stand fast therefore." We owe our freedom to Christ. And it can be said that with a great price have we obtained our freedom, that price being his blood. We are not, therefore, to treat lightly what has been so dearly won. We must show our sense of it by maintaining it in its entirety.
(b) To eschew bondage. "And be not entangled again in a yoke of bondage." They had formerly been under the yoke of heathenism; they were not to put themselves under the similar yoke of Judaism. A slave who has been liberated does not voluntarily put himself into the hardships he has left. So they who had experienced the sweets of Christian liberty were not to go back to bonds. R.F.
Vers. 21-31.
The allegory of Hagar.
Writing to men who were unduly subservient to the Jewish Law, St. Paul clenches his argument with an appeal to what he regards as the typical meaning of the history contained in that very Law. This was an argumentum ad homines. It is important, when possible, to convince men on their own ground. Among believers in Scripture, arguments are naturally drawn from Scripture, Only it is necessary to bear in mind that there are different "views " of Scripture; so that we must not be impatient if the dogmatic assertion of our own interpretation as Scripture itself is not acquiesced in. To many the allegory of Hagar seems to be an illustration rather than an argument. A reference to it is chiefly useful to move our sympathies. It needs to be preceded by solid reasoning founded on direct statements of Scripture. Thus St. Paul argues from the history of Abraham (Gal_3:6) before making use of the typical significance of Hagar.
I BOTH SARAH AND HAGAR WERE OF THE HOUSEHOLD OF ABRAHAM. The very honours conferred upon Hagar led to her ultimate rejection from the home through the spirit of insubordination they bred in her. The Law was given by God. We must not assume that all things of Divine origin possess equal value, nor because a thing is only intended for some lower use and is set aside when that use has been made of it, that it is therefore inherently bad and cannot have come from God.
II HAGAR WAS ONLY A BONDWOMAN, WHILE SARAH WAS A WIFE AND A FREEWOMAN. Herein is a type of the fundamental distinction between the Law and the gospel.
1. The Law imposes bondage
1. to constraint and compulsion;
2. to definite precepts and irksome deta ils; and
3. to the burden of past transgression and omissions.
1. The gospel brings freedom
1. in forgiveness of the past and justification by faith for the future;
2. in revealing general principles of righteousness and giving us liberty to apply them for ourselves; and
3. in infusing love as the motive of obedience.
III ISHMAEL WAS A SLAVE, WHILE ISAAC WAS FREE. The children took the status of their mothers. We enjoy only the privileges of the religion under which we live. The Law cannot develop liberty. As it is a system of bondage, all who follow it lose their freedom, whether they will or no. The gospel confers liberty on all who accept it-even on those who at first have not faith, or hope, or desire to be free.
IV ISAAC ONLY RECEIVED THE PROMISE. God"s blessing comes to the free soul. If we cling to our fetters we lose the grace of God. Liberty is the parent of innumerable good things, politically, socially, religiously. As we free ourselves from superstition and needless restraints we rise into the healthy atmosphere where the largest Divine blessings flourish.
V ISHMAEL WAS FINALLY CAST OUT. The Law, having done its part, is discarded. The Jews lost their peculiar position as the central spiritual light of their age when their mission was completed. The tutelage of Law may be useful for a time, but to dwell in it perpetually will be to become ultimately castaways. W.F.A.
The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Biblical Illustrator 1887 · Public Domain On vv21, 22, 24, 26, 27, 29, 30, 31 Tell me.
Gal_4:21
Tell me.
Read full note →
The value of a pointed question
The question that prompts us to tell what we know sharpens our knowledge; and, similarly, the question that makes us tell what we are doing may greatly influence our conduct. For many a man drifting on in a course of evil that he has never stopped to define, it would be a good thing if some one by a pointed question could get him to say out, in plain words, just what he is doing. If he would only honestly state it to himself he would shrink from it with horror. But not only for clearing away the haze that obscures an unworthy purpose, but also for removing the fog in which good purposes are sometimes involved, a pointed question may serve us. There are those whose intention to do right and live the highest life is rather nebulous. If some question could be put to them that would lead them to objectify their purpose in language so that they could look at it and understand it, it would be of great service to them. (Washington Gladden.)
The Biblical Illustrator, edited by Joseph S. Exell (c. 1880s–1900s) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Expositor's Bible 1887 · Public Domain On v21 Chapter 19
Chapter 19
THE STORY OF HAGAR.
Read full note →
Gal_4:21-31 - Gal_5:1
THE Apostle wishes that he could "change his voice" (Gal_4:20). Indeed he has changed it more than once. "Any one who looks closely may see that there is much change and alteration of feeling in what the Apostle has previously written" (Theodorus). Now he will try another tone; he proceeds in fact to address his readers in a style which we find nowhere else in his Epistles. He will tell his "children" a story! Perhaps he may thus succeed better than by graver argument. Their quick fancy will readily apprehend the bearing of the illustration; it may bring home to them the force of his doctrinal contention, and the peril of their own position, as he fears they have not seen them yet. And so, after the pathetic appeal of the last paragraph, and before he delivers his decisive, official protest to the Galatians against their circumcision, he interjects this "allegory" of the two sons of Abraham.
Paul cites the history of the sons of Abraham. No other example would have served his purpose. The controversy between himself and the Judaisers turned on the question, Who are the true heirs of Abraham? {Gal_3:7; Gal_3:16; Gal_3:29} He made faith in Christ, they circumcision and law-keeping, the ground of sonship. So the inheritance was claimed in a double sense. But now, if it should appear that this antithesis existed in principle in the bosom of the patriarchal family, if we should find that there was an elder son of Abrahams flesh opposed to the child of promise, how powerfully will this analogy sustain the Apostles position. Judaism will then be seen to be playing over again the part of Ishmael; and "the Jerusalem that now is" takes the place of Hagar, the slave-mother. The moral situation created by the Judaic controversy had been rehearsed in the family life of Abraham.
"Tell me," the Apostle asks, "you that would fain be subject to the law, do you not know what it relates concerning Abraham? He had two sons, one of free, and the other of servile birth. Do you wish to belong to the line of Ishmael, or Isaac?" In this way Paul resumes the thread of his discourse dropped in Gal_4:7. Faith, he had told his readers, had made them sons of God. They were, in Christ, of Abrahams spiritual seed, heirs of his promise. God had sent His Son to redeem them, and the Spirit of His Son to attest their adoption. But they were not content. They were ambitious of Jewish privileges. The Legalists persuaded them that they must be circumcised and conform to Moses, in order to be Abrahams children in full title. "Very well," the Apostle says, "you may become Abrahams sons in this fashion. Only you must observe that Abraham had two sons. And the Law will make you his sons by Hagar, whose home is Sinai-not Israelites, but Ishmaelites!"
Pauls Galatian allegory has greatly exercised the minds of his critics. The word is one of ill repute in exegesis. Allegory was the instrument of Rabbinical and Alexandrine Scripturists, an infallible device for extracting the predetermined sense from the letter of the sacred text. The "spiritualising" of Christian interpreters has been carried, in many instances, to equal excess of riot. For the honest meaning of the word of God anything and everything has been substituted that lawless fancy and verbal ingenuity could read into it. The most arbitrary and grotesque distortions of the facts of Scripture have passed current under cover of the clause, "which things are an allegory." But Pauls allegory, and that of Philo and the Allegorical school, are very different things, as widely removed as the "words of truth and soberness" from the intoxications of mystical idealism.
With Paul the spiritual sense of Scripture is based on the historical, is in fact the moral content and import thereof; for he sees in history a continuous manifestation of Gods will. With the Allegorists the spiritual sense, arrived at by a priori means, replaces the historical, destroyed to make room for it. The Apostle points out in the story of Hagar a spiritual intent, such as exists in every scene of human life if we had eyes to see it, something other than the literal relation of the facts, but nowise alien from it. Here lies the difference between legitimate and illegitimate allegory. The utmost freedom may be given to this employment of the imagination, so long as it is true to the moral of the narrative which it applies. In principle the Pauline allegory does not differ from the type. In the type the correspondence of the sign and thing signified centres in a single figure or event; in such an allegory as this it is extended to a group of figures and a series of events. But the force of the application depends on the actuality of the original story, which in the illicit allegory is matter of indifference.
"Which things are allegorized"-so the Apostle literally writes in Gal_4:24 -made matters of allegory. The phrase intimates, as Bishop Lightfoot suggests, that the Hagarene episode in Genesis {Gen_16:1-16; Gen_21:1-21} was commonly interpreted in a figurative way. The Galatians had heard from their Jewish teachers specimens of this popular mode of exposition. Paul will employ it too; and will give his own reading of the famous story of Ishmael and Isaac. Philo of Alexandria, the greatest allegorist of the day, has expounded the same history. These eminent interpreters both make Sarah the mother of the spiritual, Hagar of the worldly offspring; both point out how the barren is exalted over the fruitful wife. So far, we may imagine, Paul is moving on the accepted lines of Jewish exegesis. But Philo knows nothing of the correspondence between Isaac and Christ, which lies at the back of the Apostles allegory. And there is this vital difference of method between the two divines, that whereas Pauls comparison is the illustration of a doctrine proved on other grounds-the painting which decorates the house already built (Luther)-with the Alexandrine idealist it forms the substance and staple of his teaching.
Under this allegorical dress the Apostle expounds once more his doctrine, already inculcated, of the difference between the Legal and Christian state. The former constitutes, as he now puts the matter, a bastard sonship like that of Ishmael, conferring only an external and provisional tenure in the Abrahamic inheritance. It is contrasted with the spiritual sonship of the true Israel in the following respects:-It is a state of nature as opposed to grace; of bondage as opposed to freedom; and further, it is temporary and soon to be ended by the Divine decree.
I. "He who is of the maid-servant is after the flesh; but he that is of the free-woman is through promise…Just as then he that was after the flesh persecuted him that was after the Spirit, So now" (Gal_4:23; Gal_4:29). The Apostle sees in the different parentage of Abrahams sons the ground of a radical divergence of character. One was the child of nature, the other was the son of a spiritual faith.
Ishmael was in truth the fruit of unbelief; his birth was due to a natural but impatient misreading of the promise. The patriarchs union with Hagar was ill-assorted and ill-advised. It brought its natural penalty by introducing an alien element into his family, life. The low-bred insolence which the serving-woman, in the prospect of becoming a mother, showed toward the mistress to whom she owed her preferment, gave a foretaste of the unhappy consequences. The promise of posterity made to Abraham with a childless wife, was expressly designed to try his faith; and he had allowed it to be overborne by the reasonings of nature. It was no wonder that the son of the Egyptian slave, born under such conditions, proved to be of a lower type, and had to be finally excluded from the house.
In Ishmaels relation to his father there was nothing but the ordinary play of human motives. "The son of the handmaid was born after the flesh." He was a natural son. But Ishmael was not on that account cut off from the Divine mercies. Nor did his fathers prayer, "O that Ishmael might live before Thee," {Gen_17:18} remain unanswered. A great career was reserved by Divine Providence for his race. The Arabs, the fiery sons of the desert, through him claim descent from Abraham. They have carved their name deeply upon the history and the faith of the world. But sensuousness and lawlessness are everywhere the stamp of the Ishmaelite. With high gifts and some generous qualities, such as attracted to his eldest boy the love of Abraham, their fierce animal passion has been the curse of the sons of Hagar. Mohammedanism is a bastard Judaism; it is the religion of Abraham sensualised. Ishmael stands forth as the type of the carnal man. On outward grounds of flesh and blood he seeks inheritance in the kingdom of God; and with fleshly weapons passionately fights its battles.
To a similar position Judaism, in the Apostles view, had now reduced itself. And to this footing the Galatian Churches would be brought if they yielded to the Judaistic solicitations. To be circumcised would be for them to be born again after the flesh, to link themselves to Abraham in the unspiritual fashion of Hagars son. Ishmael was the first to be circumcised. {Gen_17:23; Gen_17:26} It was to renounce salvation by faith and the renewing of the Holy Spirit. This course could only have one result. The Judaic ritualism they were adopting would bear fruit after its kind, in a worldly, sensuous life. Like Ishmael they would claim kinship with the Church of God on fleshly grounds; and their claims must prove as futile as did his.
The persecution of the Church by Judaism gave proof of the Ishmaelite spirit, the carnal animus by which it was possessed. A religion of externalism naturally becomes repressive. It knows not "the demonstration of the Spirit"; it has "confidence in the flesh." It relies on outward means for the propagation of its faith; and naturally resorts to the secular arm. The Inquisition and the Auto-da-fe are a not unfitting accompaniment of the gorgeous ceremonial of the Mass. Ritualism and priestly autocracy go hand in hand. "So now," says Paul, pointing to Ishmaels "persecution" of the infant Isaac, hinted at in Gen_21:8-10.
The laughter of Hagars boy at Sarahs weaning-feast seems but a slight offence to be visited with the punishment of expulsion; and the incident one beneath the dignity of theological argument. But the principle for which Paul contends is there; and it is the more easily apprehended when exhibited on this homely scale. The family is the germ and the mirror of society. In it are first called into play the motives which determine the course of history, the rise and fall of empires or churches. The gravamen of the charge against Ishmael lies in the last word of Gen_21:9, rendered in the Authorised Version mocking, and by the Revisers playing, after the Septaguint and the Vulgate. This word in the Hebrew is evidently a play on the name Isaac, i.e., laughter, given by Sarah to her boy with genial motherly delight (Gal_4:6-7). Ishmael, now a youth of fourteen, takes up the childs name and turns it, on this public and festive occasion, into ridicule. Such an act was not only an insult to the mistress of the house and the young heir at a most untimely moment, it betrayed a jealousy and contempt on the part of Hagars son towards his half-brother which gravely compromised Isaacs future. "The wild, ungovernable and pugnacious character ascribed to his descendants began to display itself in Ishmael, and to appear in language of provoking insolence; offended at the comparative indifference with which he was treated, he indulged in mockery, especially against Isaac, whose very name furnished him with satirical sneers." Ishmaels jest cost him dear. The indignation of Sarah was reasonable; and Abraham was compelled to recognise in her demand the voice of God (Gal_4:10-12). The two boys, like Esau and Jacob in the next generation, represented opposite principles and ways of life, whose counter-working was to run through the course of future history. Their incompatibility was already manifest.
The Apostles comparison must have been mortifying in the extreme to the Judaists. They are told in plain terms that they are in the position of outcast Ishmael; while uncircumcised Gentiles, without a drop of Abrahams blood in their veins, have received the promise forfeited by their unbelief. Paul could not have put his conclusion in a form more unwelcome to Jewish pride. But without this radical exposure of the legalist position it was impossible for him adequately to vindicate his gospel and defend his Gentile children in the faith.
II. From this contrast of birth "according to flesh" and "through promise" is deduced the opposition between the slave-born and free-born sons. "For these (the slave-mother and the free-woman) are two covenants, one indeed bearing children unto bondage-which is Hagar" (Gal_4:24). The other side of the antithesis is not formally expressed; it is obvious. Sarah the princess, Abrahams true wife, has her counterpart in the original covenant of promise renewed in Christ, and in "the Jerusalem above, which is our mother" (Gal_4:26). Sarah is the typical mother, {Comp. Heb_11:11-12; 1Pe_3:6} as Abraham is the father of the children of faith. In the systoichia, or tabular comparison, which the Apostle draws up after the manner of the schools, Hagar and the Mosaic covenant, Sinai and the Jerusalem that now is stand in one file and "answer to" each other; Sarah and the Abrahamic covenant, Zion and the heavenly Jerusalem succeed in the same order, opposite to them. "Zion" is wanting in the second file; but "Sinai and Zion" form a standing antithesis; {Heb_12:18-22} the second is implied in the first. It was to Zion that the words of Isaiah cited in Gal_4:27 were addressed.
The first clause of Gal_4:25 is best understood in the shorter, marginal reading of the R. V, also preferred by Bishop Lightfoot (το γαρ σινα ορος εστιν k.t.l.). It is a parenthesis-"for mount Sinai is in Arabia"-covenant running on in the mind from Gal_4:24 as the continued subject of ver. 25b: "and it answereth to the present Jerusalem." This is the simplest and most consistent construction of the passage. The interjected geographical reference serves to support the identification of the Sinaitic covenant with Hagar, Arabia being the well-known abode of the Hagarenes. Paul had met them in his wanderings there. Some scholars have attempted to establish a verbal agreement between the name of the slave-mother and that locally given to the Sinaitic range; but this explanation is precarious, and after all unnecessary. There was a real correspondence between place and people on the one hand, as between place and covenant on the other. Sinai formed a visible and imposing link between the race of Ishmael and the Mosaic law-giving. That awful, desolate mountain, whose aspect, as we can imagine, had vividly impressed itself on Pauls memory, {Gal_1:17} spoke to him of bondage and terror. It was a true symbol of the working of the law of Moses, exhibited in the present condition of Judaism. And round the base of Sinai Hagars wild sons had found their dwelling.
Jerusalem was no longer the mother of freemen. The boast, "we are Abrahams sons; we were never in bondage," {Joh_8:33} was anunconscious irony. Her sons chafed under the Roman yoke. They were loaded with self-inflicted legal burdens. Above all, they were, notwithstanding their professed law-keeping, enslaved to sin, in servitude to their pride and evil lusts. The spirit of the nation was that of rebellious, discontented slaves. They were Ishmaelite sons of Abraham, with none of the nobleness, the reverence, the calm and elevated faith of their father. In the Judaism of the Apostles day the Sinaitic dispensation, uncontrolled by the higher patriarchal and prophetic faith, had worked out its natural result. It "gendered to bondage." A system of repression and routine, it had produced men punctual in tithes of mint and anise, but without justice, mercy, or faith; vaunting their liberty while they were "servants of corruption." The law of Moses could not form a "new creature." It left the Ishmael of nature unchanged at heart, a child of the flesh, with whatever robes of outward decorum his nakedness was covered. The Pharisee was the typical product of law apart from grace. Under the garb of a freeman he carried the soul of a slave.
But Gal_4:26 sounds the note of deliverance: "The Jerusalem above is free; and she is our mother!" Paul has escaped from the prison of Legalism, from the confines of Sinai; he has left behind the perishing, earthly Jerusalem, and with it the bitterness and gloom of his Pharisaic days. He is a citizen of the heavenly Zion, breathing the air of a Divine freedom. The yoke is broken from the neck of the Church of God; the desolation is gone from her heart. There come to the Apostles lips the words of the great prophet of the Exile, depicting the deliverance of the spiritual Zion, despised and counted barren, but now to be the mother of a numberless offspring. In Isaiahs song, "Rejoice, thou barren that bearest not" (54.), the laughter of the childless Sarah bursts forth again, to be gloriously renewed in the persecuted Church of Jesus. Robbed of all outward means, mocked and thrust out as she is by Israel after the flesh, her rejection is a release, an emancipation. Conscious of the spirit of sonship and freedom, looking out on the boundless conquests lying before her in the Gentile world, the Church of the New Covenant glories in her tribulations. In Paul is fulfilled the joy of prophet and psalmist, who sang in former days of gloom concerning Israels enlargement and world-wide victories. No legalist could understand words like these. "The veil" was upon his heart "in the reading of the Old Testament." But with "the Spirit of the Lord" comes "liberty." The prophetic inspiration has returned. The voice of rejoicing is heard again in the dwellings of Israel. "If the Son make you free," said Jesus, "ye shall be free indeed." This Epistle proves it.
III. "And the bondman abideth not in the house for ever; the Son abideth for ever". {Joh_8:35} This also the Lord had testified: the Apostle repeats His warning in the terms of this allegory.
Sooner or later the slave-boy was bound to go. He has no proper birthright, no permanent footing in the house. One day he exceeds his license, he makes himself intolerable; he must begone. "What saith the Scripture? Cast out the maidservant and her son; for the son of the maidservant shall not inherit with the son of the freewoman" (Gal_4:30). Paul has pronounced the doom of Judaism. His words echo those of Christ: "Behold your house is left unto you desolate"; {Mat_23:38} they are taken up again in the language of Heb_13:13-14, uttered on the eve of the fall of Jerusalem: "Let us go forth unto Jesus without the camp, bearing His reproach. We have here no continuing city, but we seek that which is to come." On the walls of Jerusalem ichabod was plainly written. Since it "crucified our Lord" it was no longer the Holy City; it was "spiritually Sodom and Egypt", - Egypt, { Rev_11:8} the country of Hagar. Condemning Him, the Jewish nation passed sentence on itself. They were slaves who in blind rage slew their Master when He came to free them.
The Israelitish people showed more than Ishmaels jealousy toward the infant Church of the Spirit. No weapon of violence or calumny was too base to be used against it. The cup of their iniquity was filling fast. They were ripening for the judgment which Christ predicted. {1Th_2:16} Year by year they became more hardened against spiritual truth, more malignant towards Christianity, and more furious and fanatical in their hatred towards their civil rulers. The cause of Judaism was hopelessly lost. In Rom. 9-11, written shortly after this Epistle, Paul assumes this as a settled thing, which he has to account for and to reconcile with Scripture. In the demand of Sarah for the expulsion of her rival, complied with by Abraham against his will, the Apostle reads the secret judgment of the Almighty on the proud city which he himself so ardently loved, but which had crucified his Lord and repented not. "Cut it down," Jesus cried, "why cumbereth it the ground?". {Luk_13:7} The voice of Scripture speaks again: "Cast her out; she and her sons are slaves. They have no place amongst the sons of God." Ishmael was in the way of Isaacs safety and prosperity. And the Judaic ascendency was no less a danger to the Church. The blow which shattered Judaism at once cleared the ground for the outward progress of the gospel and arrested the legalistic reaction which hindered its internal development. The two systems were irreconcilable. It was Pauls merit to have first apprehended this contradiction in its full import. The time had come to apply in all its rigour Christs principle of combat, "He that is not with Me is against Me." It is the same rule of exclusion which Paul announces: "If any man hath not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of His". {Rom_8:9} Out of Christ is no salvation. When the day of judgment comes, whether for men or nations, this is the touchstone: Have we, or have we not "the Spirit of Gods Son"? Is our character that of sons of God, or slaves of sin? On the latter falls inevitably the sentence of expulsion. "He will gather out of His kingdom all things that offend, and them that do iniquity". {Mat_13:41}
This passage signalises the definite breach of Christianity with Judaism. The elder Apostles lingered in the porch of the Temple; the primitive Church clung to the ancient worship. Paul does not blame them for doing so. In their case this was but the survival of a past order, in principle acknowledged to be obsolete. But the Church of the future, the spiritual seed of Abraham gathered out of all nations, had no part in Legalism. The Apostle bends all his efforts to convince his readers of this, to make them sensible of the impassable gulf lying between them and outworn Mosaism. Again he repeats, "We are not children of a maidservant, but of her that is free" (Gal_4:31). The Church of Christ can no more hold fellowship with Judaism than could Isaac with the spiteful, mocking Ishmael. Paul leads the Church across the Rubicon. There is no turning back.
Ver. 1 of chap. 5 (Gal_5:1), is the application of the allegory. It is a triumphant assertion of liberty, a ringing summons to its defence. Its separation from chap. 4 is ill-judged, and runs counter to the ancient divisions of the Epistle. "Christ set us free," Paul declares; "and it was for freedom-not that we might fall under a new servitude. Stand fast therefore; do not let yourselves be made bondmen over again." Bondmen the Galatians had been before, {Gal_4:8} bowing down to false and vile gods. Bondmen they will be again, if they are beguiled by the Legalists to accept the yoke of circumcision, if they take "the Jerusalem that now is" for their mother. They have tasted the joys of freedom; they know what it is to be sons of God, heirs of His kingdom and partakers of His Spirit; why do they stoop from their high estate? Why should Christs freemen put a yoke upon their own neck? Let them only know their happiness and security in Christ, and refuse to be cheated out of the substance of their spiritual blessings by the illusive shadows which the Judaists offer them. Freedom once gained is a prize never to be lost. No care, no vigilance in its preservation can be too great. Such liberty inspires courage and good hope in its defence. "Stand fast therefore. Quit yourselves like men."
How the Galatians responded to the Apostles challenge, we do not know. But it has found an echo in many a heart since. The Lutheran Reformation was an answer to it; so was the Scottish Covenant. The spirit of Christian liberty is eternal. Jerusalem or Rome may strive to imprison it. They might as well seek to bind the winds of heaven. Its home is with God. Its seat is the throne of Christ. It lives by the breath of His Spirit. The earthly powers mock at it, and drive it into the wilderness. They do but assure their own ruin. It leaves the house of the oppressor desolate. Whosoever he be, Judaist or Papist, priest, or king, or demagogue-that makes himself lord of Gods heritage and would despoil His children of the liberties of faith, let him beware lest of him also it be spoken, "Cast out the bondwoman and her son."
William Robertson Nicoll, ed., The Expositor's Bible (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1887–1910) — public domain. 65 of 66 books (1 Corinthians is not separately keyed, as that volume carries no machine-parseable verse references); section-level commentary keyed to the opening verse. Introductory and overview sections not keyed to a specific passage are excluded.
B. W. Johnson 1891 · Public Domain On vv21–31 21–31. Tell me, ye that desire, etc. What troubled…
21–31. Tell me, ye that desire, etc. What troubled him was their tendency to accept the obsolete law of Moses. He now addressed all such a question. Will they hear the law itself?
B. W. Johnson's The People's New Testament with Notes (1889–1891) — public domain. Electronic text from the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (CCEL) ThML edition.
The Preacher's Complete Homiletical Commentary 1892 · Public Domain On v21 Gal_4:24. Which things are an allegory.—Under the things spoken…
CRITICAL AND EXPLANATORY NOTES
Gal_4:24. Which things are an allegory.—Under the things spoken of—the two sons, with their contrast of parentage and position—there lies a spiritual meaning.
Read full note →
Gal_4:25. Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children.—Judaism as rejecting the light and liberty of the new dispensation.
Gal_4:26. But Jerusalem which is above is free.—Is the spiritual reality which, veiled under the old dispensation, is comparatively unveiled in the dispensation of grace, and destined to be fully and finally manifested in the reign of glory. Christians are very different in standing to slave-born slaves.
Gal_4:27. The desolate hath many more children than she which hath an husband.—The special purpose of the quotation appears to be to show that the idea of a countless Church, including Gentiles as well as Jews, springing out of spiritual nothingness, was apprehended under the Old Testament as destined for realisation under the New.
Gal_4:30. Cast out the bondwoman and her son.—Even house-room to Judaism is not matter of right, but only by sufferance, and that so long and so far as it leaves the gospel undisturbed in full possession.
MAIN HOMILETICS OF THE PARAGRAPH.—Gal_4:21-31
The History of Hagar and Sarah allegorical of the Law and the Gospel.
I. The two women represented two different covenants.—
1. Hagar represented Sinai, typical of the law with its slavish exactions and terrible threatenings (Gal_4:22; Gal_4:25). Sinai spoke of bondage and terror. It was a true symbol of the working of the law of Moses, exhibited in the present condition of Judaism. And round the base of Sinai Hagar’s wild sons had found their dwelling. Jerusalem was no longer the mother of freemen. Her sons chafed under the Roman yoke. They were loaded with self-inflicted burdens. The spirit of the nation was that of rebellious, discontented slaves. They were Ishmaelite sons of Abraham, with none of the nobleness, the reverence, the calm and elevated faith of their father. In the Judaism of the apostle’s day the Sinaitic dispensation, uncontrolled by the higher patriarchal and prophetic faith, had worked out its natural result. It gendered to bondage. A system of repression and routine, it had produced men punctual in tithes of mint and anise, but without justice, mercy, or faith; vaunting their liberty while they were servants of corruption. The Pharisee was the typical product of law apart from grace. Under the garb of a freeman he carried the soul of a slave.
2. Sarah represented Jerusalem, typical of the gospel with its higher freedom and larger spiritual fruitfulness (Gal_4:26-28).—Paul has escaped from the prison of legalism, from the confines of Sinai; he has left behind the perishing earthly Jerusalem, and with it the bitterness and gloom of his Pharisaic days. He is a citizen of the heavenly Zion, breathing the air of a divine freedom. The yoke is broken from the neck of the Church of God; the desolation is gone from her heart. Robbed of all outward means, mocked and thrust out as she is by Israel after the flesh, her rejection is a release, an emancipation. Conscious of the spirit of sonship and freedom, looking out on the boundless conquests lying before her in the Gentile world, the Church of the new covenant glories in her tribulations. In Paul is fulfilled the joy of prophet and psalmist, who sang in former days of gloom concerning Israel’s enlargement and world-wide victories (Findlay).
II. The antagonism of their descendants represented the violent and incessant opposition of the law to the gospel.—“As he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now.… Cast out the bondwoman and her son” (Gal_4:29-30). Sooner or later the slave-boy was bound to go. He has no proper birthright, no permanent footing in the house. One day he exceeds his licence, he makes himself intolerable; he must be gone. The Israelitish people showed more than Ishmael’s jealousy toward the infant Church of the Spirit. No weapon of violence or calumny was too base to be used against it. Year by year they became more hardened against spiritual truth, more malignant towards Christianity, and more furious and fanatical in their hatred towards their civil rulers. Ishmael was in the way of Isaac’s safety and prosperity (Ibid.).
III. The gospel bestows a richer inheritance than the law.—“The son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman.… We are children of the free” (Gal_4:30-31). The two systems were irreconcilable. The law and the gospel cannot coexist and inherit together; the law must disappear before the gospel. The higher absorbs the lower. The Church of the future, the spiritual seed of Abraham gathered out of all nations, has no part in legalism. It embraces blessings of which Mosaism had no conception—“an inheritance incorruptible, and undefiled, and that fadeth not away.”
Lessons.—
1. The law and the gospel differ fundamentally
2. The law imposes intolerable burdens.
3. The gospel abrogates the law by providing a higher spiritual obedience.
GERM NOTES ON THE VERSES
Gal_4:21-31. Legal Bondage and Spiritual Freedom contrasted—
I. In their inception and development (Gal_4:21-27).
II. In their ceaseless antagonism (Gal_4:29).
III. In their inevitable results (Gal_4:28; Gal_4:30-31).
Gal_4:21. A Lesson from the Law—
I. Addressed to those eager for its subjection.—“Ye that desire to be under the law.”
II. Is suggestive of solemn warning.
III. Should be seriously pondered.—“Tell me, do ye not hear the law?”
Gal_4:26. Jerusalem Above.
I. The Church of Christ as she exists in the present world.—“Jerusalem, above and free.”
1. Above; that is, seen in connection with God and the scenes of the heavenly world.—
(1) Her Head is from above.
(2) If we take the Church as a whole, though she is in part on earth, the greater number of her members are in heaven.
(3) Our Jerusalem is above because her members all fix their affections there and thither tend as the great end of their profession.
2. Jerusalem above is free, and so are her children.—From the bondage of seeking salvation by works of law, from the guilt of sin, from its dominion.
II. The filial sentiment with which we ought to regard the Church of Christ.—She is “the mother of us all.” The general idea is, that if we are indeed spiritual, under God, we owe all to the Church. To her God has committed the preservation of His truth. In stormy times she has sheltered her lamps in the recesses of the sanctuary, and in happier times has placed them on high to guide and save. The Spirit of God is in the Church. To her you owe your hallowed fellowships. In the Church it is that God manifests Himself.
III. The animating anticipations we are thus taught to form of the Church as glorified.—Turn to the description given in Rev_21:1. Mark the wall great and high—denoting the perfect, impregnable security of those who dwell there.
2. At the gates are angels—still ushering in the heirs of salvation, and disdaining not to be porters to this glorious city.
3. Mark the foundations, garnished with all manner of precious stones—implying permanency.
4. Mark the circumstance that in the twelve foundations are inscribed the names of the twelve apostles—the whole being the result of their doctrine.
5. The whole city is a temple all filled with the presence and glory of God. No holiest of all is there where every part is most holy. All are filled, sanctified, beatified, by the fully manifested presence of God. He is all in all; all things in and to all.—Richard Watson.
Jerusalem a Type of the Universal Church.
I. God chose Jerusalem above all other places to dwell in. The Church catholic is the company chosen to be the particular people of God.
II. Jerusalem is a city compact in itself by reason of the bond of love and order among the citizens. In like sort the members of the Church catholic are linked together by the bond of one Spirit.
III. In Jerusalem was the sanctuary, a place of God’s presence, where the promise of the seed of the woman was preserved till the coming of the Messias. Now the Church catholic is in the room of the sanctuary, in it we must seek the presence of God and the word of life.
IV. In Jerusalem was the throne of David. In the Church catholic is the throne or sceptre of Christ.
V. The commendation of a city, as Jerusalem, is the subjection and obedience of the citizens. In the Church catholic all believers are citizens, and they yield voluntary obedience and subjection to Christ their King.
VI. As in Jerusalem the names of the citizens were enrolled in a register, so the names of all the members of the Church catholic are enrolled in the Book of Life.
VII. The Church catholic is said to be above:
1. In respect of her beginning.
2. Because she dwells by faith in heaven with Christ.—Perkins.
Gal_4:28. Believers Children of Promise.
I. The character.—
1. Believers are the children of promise by regeneration.
2. By spiritual nourishment.
3. In respect of education.
4. With respect to assimilation, likeness, and conformity.
II. State the comparison.—
1. Isaac was the child of Abraham, not by natural power. Believers are children of Abraham by virtue of promise.
2. Isaac was the fruit of prayer, as well as the child of promise.
3. Isaac’s birth was the joy of his parents. Even so with reference to believers.
4. Isaac was born not after the flesh, but by the promise; not of the bondwoman, but of the free. So believers are not under the law.
5. Isaac was no sooner born but he was mocked by Ishmael; so it is now.
6. Isaac was the heir by promise, though thus persecuted. Even so believers.
III. How the promise hath such virtue for begetting children to God.—
1. As it is the discovery of divine love.
2. The object of faith.
3. The ground of hope.
4. The seed of regeneration.
5. The communication of grace.
6. The chariot of the Spirit.
Inferences.—
1. If believers are children of promise, then boasting is excluded.
2. Then salvation is free.
3. The happiness and dignity of believers—they are the children of God.—Pulpit Assistant.
Gal_4:29. On Persecution.
I. That no privilege of the Church can exempt her from persecution.—
1. From the consideration of the quality of the persons here upon the stage, the one persecuting, the other suffering.
(1) The persecuting—“born after the flesh.” Like Hannibal, they can part with anything but war and contention; they can be without their native country, but not without an enemy. These whet the sword, these make the furnace of persecution seven times hotter than it would be. The flesh is the treasury whence these winds blow that rage and beat down all before them.
(2) The suffering—“born after the Spirit.” Having no security, no policy, no eloquence, no strength, but that which lieth in his innocency and truth, which he carrieth about as a cure, but it is looked upon as a persecution by those who will not be healed. “For he must appear,” said Seneca, “as a fool that he may be wise, as weak that he may be strong, as base and vile that he may be more honourable.” If thou be an Isaac, thou shalt find an Ishmael.
2. From the nature and constitution of the Church which in this world is ever militant.—Persecution is the honour, the prosperity, the flourishing condition, of the Church. When her branches were lopped off she spread the more, when her members were dispersed there were more gathered to her, when they were driven about the world they carried that sweet-smelling savour about them which drew in multitudes to follow them.
3. From the providence and wisdom of God who put this enmity between these two seeds.—God’s method is best. That is method and order with Him which we take to be confusion, and that which we call persecution is His art, His way of making saints. In Abraham’s family Ishmael mocketh and persecuteth Isaac, in the world the synagogue persecuteth the Church, and in the Church one Christian persecuteth another. It was so, it is so, and it will be so to the end of the world.
II. The lessons of persecution.—
1. The persecution of the Church should not create surprise.
2. Not to regard the Church and the world as alike.
3. Build ourselves up in faith so as to be prepared for the fiery trial.
4. Love the truth you profess.
5. Be renewed in spirit.—A. Farindon.
Gal_4:30. Cast out the Bondwoman and her Son.—To cast out is an act of violence, and the true Church evermore hath the suffering part. How shall the Church cast out those of her own house and family?
1. By the vehemency of our prayers that God would either melt their hearts or shorten their hands, either bring them into the right way, or strike off their chariot wheels.
2. By our patience and longsuffering.
3. By our innocency of life and sincerity of conversation.
4. By casting our burden upon the Lord.—Ibid.
The Fate of Unbelievers.
I. All hypocrites, mockers of the grace of God, shall be cast forth of God’s family, though for a time they bear a sway therein. This is the sentence of God. Let us therefore repent of our mocking, and become lovers of the grace of God.
II. The persecution of the people of God shall not be perpetual, for the persecuting bondwoman and her son must be cast out.
III. All justiciary people and persons that look to be saved and justified before God by the law, either in whole or in part, are cast out of the Church of God, and have no part in the kingdom of heaven. The casting out of Hagar and Ishmael is a figure of the rejection of all such.—Perkins.
The Preacher's Complete Homiletical Commentary (gen. ed. Joseph S. Exell; Funk & Wagnalls, c. 1892) — public domain (pre-1929). A full-Bible homiletical/sermon-outline anthology covering 65 of 66 books (2 John is absent from the source module). Text from a community e-Sword module.
F. W. Grant 1903 · Public Domain On v21 Subdivision 2 (Gal 4:21-31; Gal 5:1-6.)
Subdivision 2 (Gal 4:21-31; Gal 5:1-6.)
The testimony of the law itself.
Read full note →
1. If they would not listen any more to the gospel or to the one who had spoken to them for Christ, the apostle would appeal now to the very law itself, which undoubtedly they must hear. Zealous law-keepers must hear the law. Here he goes back to Abraham again, and in a manner which, to some who scarcely fully accept the typical character of Old Testament history, would appear strange. Yet to "foolish Galatians" he can use this without questioning their ability to realize, not only the likeness to truth, but the truth itself that is in it. In fact, these typical pictures speak for themselves and are designed to speak. When once we have the key to them, their perfect agreement with the truth can be nothing else than that designed of God to set it forth. Abraham’s two sons thus naturally speak of those two classes of his offspring of which the apostle has been speaking. There is the seed after the flesh; there is the seed after the Spirit, the natural child "and the spiritual child," the child "of faith." It is not hard, therefore, to understand the similitude when he emphasizes the one seed as that by a bondmaid, the other by a free woman. Bondage and freedom have been his theme already. How fully plain does it become when he tells us that he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh, in the ordinary course of nature, with nothing necessarily of God in it, and on the other hand he of the free woman was by promise. He has already spoken of this promise, has already connected its "in thee," said of him whose faith was reckoned to him for righteousness, with the faith of those who are the children of promise. These things, he says, not, "are an allegory," exactly, but "are allegorized." They were true things, things which had actually taken place, no question, but which nevertheless had "happened to them," as the apostle says of other things in their history, "for types." They had a divinely intended meaning in them and not merely could be used to show forth such things. These two, then, are the two covenants, the one from the Mount Sinai, the law bringing forth to bondage, which is Hagar; the other, that of promise "Jerusalem which is above," "which is the mother of us all," or "which is our mother." "Jerusalem which is above" naturally carries our thoughts on to that of which John gives us in his Revelation by and by a fuller view. It was the home city, the city of which all the people of God now are children. The apostle speaks of it as having a present reality and a place which faith indeed alone can recognize, but which is none the less real. Paul turns to the prophet here, in order to show us that while, in fact, the barren was not bearing (before the time of Israel’s real travailing and birth, as in a day to come,) there would be, nevertheless, the strange paradox of many more children to her than when she had an husband. This is language which the apostle’s word about the olive-tree in the epistle to the Romans should enable us clearly to understand. The branches are broken off, but yet there are branches in their place which are counted as part of the olive-tree itself. They are, in fact, in a true sense, the fruit of Israel, although Israel has in the meantime lost that fruitful condition, and here we find the children which, in fact, should more rejoice her heart, when looking at things from the divine point of view, than all the generations of the nation in the flesh merely. Here, of course, are the children of promise. Here is the true Isaac, but the opposition between the one born after the flesh and this new spiritual birth is manifest. This very apostle is proof of it even now, but the known opposition everywhere manifest on the part of Israel to Christ and to His people was, of course, the greatest proof. Israel after the flesh was persecuting the children of promise, but what would be the result? The casting out of the bondwoman and her son. God had, in fact, disclaimed the principle of the law, which was the principle of bondage, and if He had now sons that were really of the free woman, children of promise, children that divine grace had made such, there could not be a common recognition of these and of those so totally opposite. "We then," he says, "brethren, are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free." The law could easily, as it were, and naturally, bring forth children to God. How natural it is for men to accept a system of this sort and to be put upon such terms with God. The whole nation of Israel at once and decisively took this ground without a question. On the other hand, the true seed desired of God must be all born by divine power; born slowly, as one may think, long years passing while they seem to be only scanty in number and slow enough to mature, yet, after all, God will have His own. Scorn as Israel might those who now were being by the Spirit of God led to Christ and Christianity, Israel’s casting out was already manifestly at hand, when the very place of their holy house would be dug up by the Roman people and the worship ordained of God for the people in the flesh would no longer be possible to them. Their house was left to them desolate. It was their house, not God’s, but that was the sentence upon it. It would soon be not even their house any longer.
2. The apostle closes with the exhortation to "stand fast therefore in the liberty with which Christ hath made us free" and not to be "entangled again with the yoke of bondage." He is very strong that there could be no profit of Christ to those who put themselves under the law. If they were circumcised, Christ would profit them nothing. A circumcised man was a debtor to do the whole law. This may seem strange from one who, as we know, before this time had himself circumcised Timothy, but the circumstances were entirely different. Timothy was a Jew by his mother’s side, and it was, in that case, such a concession on the part of one not under the law putting himself under it in the very liberty that he had to gain others, as made it a sign, therefore, of liberty instead of bondage. With the Galatians it would be entirely different. They, as Gentiles, were not debtors to the law in any way, and if they put themselves under it, it was to gain from it a spiritual blessing; it was a real addition, therefore, to Christ that they were making, but by this, as we have already seen, they would be "fallen from grace," for grace cannot admit the conditional principle of law without losing all its character. Again, we see also that he has no thought of any one taking up the law as a rule of life simply; it is of justification by it that he speaks, and this was in fact the only question that the law raised; but as Christians in possession of the Spirit, which we have seen to be the sign of their Christianity, they were outside the law, and necessarily in possession of a righteousness which the Spirit of God could seal, a righteousness perfect before God. They only waited in faith for the hope which was connected with this; not for righteousness as a hope, but for the hope of glory attaching to it. Thus, they were beyond any possible need of law; and "in Christ," as he declares, "neither circumcision" availed "anything, nor uncircumcision." A man was quite outside both the Jewish and the Gentile acceptance. God accepted nothing, except as faith, which, as the sign of dependence, drew blessing from Him; and which, in its nature, worked not by the principle of fear, which was that of law, but by love.
F. W. Grant, The Numerical Bible (4th ed., 1903) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
J. W. McGarvey 1914 · Public Domain On vv21–31 Tell me, ye that desire to be under the…
Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law?
J. W. McGarvey (with Philip Y. Pendleton), Commentaries on the New Testament (The Fourfold Gospel, 1914; Acts; and the epistles) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
C. I. Scofield 1917 · Public Domain On vv24–25
Agar
Hagar.
The Scofield Reference Bible (1917 edition), notes by C. I. Scofield — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Paul E. Kretzmann 1924 · Public Domain On vv24, 28 The explanation of the story:
The explanation of the story:
v. 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.
Read full note →
v. 25. For this Agar is Mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children.
v. 26. But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.
v. 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.
Paul here, by the inspiration of God, gives a figurative or allegorical explanation of the story of Hagar and Sarah. In addition to the historical truth of the story of Ishmael and Isaac he finds here a spiritual truth which typifies the permanent relation between those that are under the Law and those that are under the promise. For these two women, he says, are two covenants; they represent the two religions, that of the Law and that of the Gospel. This distinction holds true for all times. For although there are many races and nations in the world, they can still be divided into but two parties, namely, such as attempt to be justified before God by their own works and merits, and such as place their trust in the merits and righteousness of Jesus Christ alone. The first class is represented by the bond-woman Hagar, the covenant which originates from, that is, on, Mount Sinai, and bears children unto bondage; for every one that still hopes to earn salvation by the works of the Law is a spiritual offspring of Hagar, the slave, and is by virtue of that fact in bondage.
The apostle continues his explanation: For Mount Sinai is in Arabia, The mountain on which the Law was given is in the same country which became the home of Hagar’s descendants, those that were children of bondage. And there is a further likeness in the fact that Hagar, as a bondswoman and the mother of a race in bondage, corresponded to, was in the same category with, the city of Jerusalem as it was when Paul wrote. Jerusalem was the capital of the Jewish race, if not of the Jewish nation; there dwelt the leaders of the people that continued to teach the necessity of keeping the Law in order to obtain salvation. As Hagar was thus in the state of bondage, so Jerusalem, the Jewish race, all that believed in the way of works and merits, are in the state of slavery, of spiritual bondage, knowing nothing of the liberty of the sons of God.
What a wonderful contrast, then: But the Jerusalem which is above is free, she is our mother. The apostle here speaks of the spiritual Jerusalem, or Zion, of the Church of Jesus Christ, that is, the total number of all believers that are scattered throughout the earth, who have the same Gospel, the same faith in Christ, the same Holy Spirit, and the same Sacraments, as Luther writes. This Church is the true mother of all believers; in her they have been regenerated unto new life, by her they are daily nourished; for God has given to His Church on earth the means of grace, to be used by all believers and dispensed to them day by day. In support of this apparently daring explanation the apostle cites Isa 54:1: Rejoice, thou barren one that bearest not; break forth and shout, thou that travailest not; for far more are the children of the desolate woman than of her that has a husband. This is a prophetic promise given to the Church of the New Covenant, to be fulfilled in the time of the Messiah. The contrast brought out by the prophet is that between the church of the Law, which was fertile and had many children, that is, that had the opinion that she alone was the real bride of the Lord, that her children alone were God’s peculiar people, and the Church of the Gospel, of the evangelical promise, which, as the true bride of Christ, has brought forth a great number of descendants of every people, nation, and tongue; that is, the communion of believers and saints. It is a prophecy which will remain in power until the end of time; for so long the Gospel will be preached, by the power of which people are born in a spiritual manner.
Paul E. Kretzmann, Popular Commentary of the Bible (1921–1924) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
unfoldingWord translationNotes 2017 · CC BY-SA 4.0 On vv21, 24, 26, 28, 30 Tell me
Tell me
"I want to ask a question" or "I want to tell you something"
Read full note →
do you not listen to the law?
Paul is introducing what he will say next. AT: "you need to learn what the law really says." or "let me tell you what the law really says." (See: Rhetorical Question)
translationWords
law
Abraham
servant
flesh
free
promise
unfoldingWord translationNotes — © Distant Shores Media and the Door43 World Missions Community, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Source: git.door43.org/Door43/en_tn.
Tyndale Open Study Notes 2022 · CC BY-SA 4.0 On vv21, 22, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 4:21-31 Paul now returns to arguing from Scripture, using…
4:21-31 Paul now returns to arguing from Scripture, using the contrast between Hagar and Sarah and between their children. Paul argues for a similar contrast between those who are slaves under the law and those who are free in Christ. • Paul’s argument uses the allegorical techniques of rabbinic Judaism (see study note on 4:24). Having been trained as a rabbi (Acts 22:3), Paul could out-argue the Judaizers using their own methods.
4:21 do you know what the law actually says? They were trying to achieve righteousness by the law, but they did not truly understand its meaning (cp. Luke 24:25-27; 1 Tim 1:7).
Tyndale Open Study Notes — © Tyndale Open Resources, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Text via the HelloAO Bible API.