Verse 1–3

“But I say, that so long as the heir is a child, he differeth nothing from a bond-servant, though he is lord of all; but is under guardians and stewards, until the term appointed of the father. So we also when we were children, were held in bondage under the rudiments of the world.”

The word “child” in this place denotes not age but understanding;⁹⁸

98 [“This reference of νήπιος to mental immaturity is quite in opposition to the context.”—Meyer. “The heir in his nonage represents the Jewish people and the state of the world before Christ.”—Schaff. So Meyer: “The κληρονόμος νήπιος represents the Christians as a body regarded in their earlier pre-Christian condition.”—G.A.]

99 [This interpretation is rejected by Schaff, Meyer, Ellicott, Lightfoot et al. Schaff says: “‘Elements’ here represents the religion before Christ as an elementary religion full of external rites and ceremonies. * * Comp. v. 10, for a specimen.”—G.A.]

Ver. 4, 5. “But when the fulness of the time came God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, under the Law that he might redeem them which were under the Law, that we might receive the adoption of sons.”

Here he states two objects and effects of the Incarnation, deliverance from evil and supply of good, things which none could compass but Christ. They are these; deliverance from the curse of the Law, and promotion to sonship. Fitly does he say, that we might “receive,” “[be paid,]” implying that it was due;¹⁰⁰

100 [“The proposition here (ἀπό) simply means to receive from or at the hands of anyone.”—Meyer.—But Lightfoot holds that ἁπο λάβωμεν cannot be the same as λάβωμεν, the simple verb.—G.A.]

Ver. 6, 7. “And because ye are sons, God sent forth the Spirit of His Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father. So that thou art no longer a bond-servant, but a son; and if a son, then an heir through God.”

Had not we been first made sons, we could not have called Him Father. If then grace hath made us freemen instead of slaves, men instead of children, heirs and sons instead of aliens, is it not utter absurdity and stupidity to desert this grace, and to turn away backwards?

Ver. 8, 9. “Howbeit at that time not knowing God, ye were bondage to them which by nature are no gods.¹⁰¹

101 [“It is clear from the context that here the apostle is not speaking of the Jewish race alone but of the heathen world also before Christ. He distinctly refers to their previous idolatrous worship (v. 8.) and describes their adoption of Jewish ritualism as a ‘return’ to the weak and beggarly discipline of childhood. * * * Heathenism had been in respect to the ‘ritualistic’ element, which is the meeting-point of Judaism and heathenism, a disciplinary training like Judaism. They were made up of precepts and ordinances, as opposed to ‘grace’ and ‘promise,’ and in an imperfect way they might do the same work. They might by multiplying transgression and begetting a conviction of it prepare the way for liberty in Christ.”—Lightfoot.—G.A.]

Here turning to the Gentile believers he says that it is an idolatry, this rigid observance of days, and now incurs a severe punishment. To enforce this, and inspire them with a deeper anxiety, he calls the elements “not by nature Gods.” And his meaning is,—Then indeed, as being benighted and bewildered, ye lay grovelling upon the earth, but now that ye have known God or rather are known of Him, how great and bitter will be the chastisement ye draw upon you, if, after such a treatment, ye relapse into the same disease. It was not by your own pains that ye found out God, but while ye continued in error, He drew you to Himself. He says “weak and beggarly rudiments,” in that they avail nothing towards the good things held out to us.

Ver. 10. “Ye observe days, and months, and seasons, and years.”

Hence is plain that their teachers were preaching to them not only circumcision, but also the feast-days and new-moons.

Ver. 11. “I am afraid of you, lest by any means I have bestowed labor upon you in vain.”

Observe the tender compassion of the Apostle; they were shaken and he trembles and fears. And hence he has put it so as thoroughly to shame them, “I have bestowed labor upon you,” saying, as it were, make not vain the labors which have cost me sweat and pain. By saying “I fear,” and subjoining the word “lest,” he both inspires alarm, and encourages good hope. He says not “I have labored in vain,” but “lest,” which is as much as to say, the wreck has not happened, but I see the storm big with it; so I am in fear, yet not in despair; ye have the power to set all right, and to return into your former calm. Then, as it were stretching out a hand to them thus tempest-tost,¹⁰²

102 [“Paul in the following paragraph (ver. 12–20.) interrupts his argument for a moment by an affectionate appeal to the feelings of the Galatians.”—Schaff.—G.A.]

Ver. 12. “I beseech you, brethren, be as I am; for I am as you are.”

This is addressed to his Jewish disciples, and he brings his own example forward, to induce them thereby to abandon their old customs. Though you had none other for a pattern, he says, to look at me only would have sufficed for such a change, and for your taking courage. Therefore gaze on me; I too was¹⁰³

103 [“᾽Εγενόμην must be supplied in the second clause and not ἢμηνas Chrysostom would understand: Become as I, free from Judaism, for I also have become as you. For when I abandoned Judaism I became as a Gentile and put myself on the same footing with you.”—Meyer.—G.A.]

Ver. 12. “Ye did me no wrong.”

Observe how he again addresses them by a title of honor, which was a reminder moreover of the doctrine of grace. Having chid them seriously, and brought things together from all quarters, and shown their violations of the Law, and hit them on many sides, he gives in and conciliates them speaking more tenderly. For as to do nothing but conciliate causes negligence, so to be constantly talked at with sharpness sours a man; so that it is proper to observe due proportion everywhere. See then how he excuses to them what he has said, and shows that it proceeded not simply because he did not like them, but from anxiety. After giving them a deep cut, he pours in this encouragement like oil; and, showing that his words were not words of hate or enmity, he reminds them of the love which they had evinced toward him, mixing his self-vindication with praises. Therefore he says, “ye did me no wrong.”

Ver. 13, 14. “But ye know that because of an infirmity of the flesh I preached the Gospel unto you the first time. And that which was a temptation in my flesh ye despised not, nor rejected.”

Not to have injured one is indeed no great thing, for no man whatever would choose to hurt wantonly and without object to annoy another who had never injured him. But for you, not only have ye not injured me, but ye have shown me great and inexpressible kindness, and it is impossible that one who has been treated with such attention should speak thus from any malevolent motive. My language then cannot be caused by ill-will; it follows, that it proceeds from affection and solicitude.¹⁰⁴

104 [“‘Ye did me no wrong’ probably means: I have no personal ground of complaint.”—Schaff and Lightfoot.—G.A.]

105 [“‘On account of some weakness of the flesh,’ means he was compelled by reason of bodily weakness to make a stay there which did not form part of his plan, and during that forced sojourn he preached there.”—Meyer.—G.A.] “He was detained there by some bodily infirmity or sickness and was thus induced to preach the Gospel.”—Schaff.—G.A.]

Ver. 14. “But ye received me as an Angel of God.”

Was it not then absurd in them to receive him as an Angel of God, when he was persecuted and driven about, and then not to receive him when pressing on them what was fitting?

Ver. 15, 16. “Where then is that gratulation of yourselves? for I bear you witness, that, if possible, ye would have plucked out your eyes, and given them to me. So then am I become your enemy, because I tell you the truth?”

Here he shows perplexity and amazement, and desires to learn of themselves the reason of their change. Who, says he, hath deceived you, and caused a difference in your disposition towards me? Are ye not the same who attended and ministered to me, counting me more precious than your own eyes? what then has happened? whence this dislike? whence this suspicion? Is it because I have told you the truth? You ought on this very account to pay me increased honor and attention; instead of which “I am become your enemy, because I tell you the truth,”—for I can find no other reason but this. Observe too what humbleness of mind appears in his defence of himself; he proves not by his conduct to them, but by theirs to him that his language could not possibly have proceeded from unkind feeling. For he says not; How is it supposable that one, who has been scourged and driven about, and ill-treated a thousand things for your sakes, should now have schemes against you? But he argues from what they had reason to boast of, saying, How can one who has been honored by you, and received as an Angel, repay you by conduct the very opposite?

Ver. 17. “They zealously seek you in no good way; nay, they desire to shut you out that ye may seek them.”

It is a wholesome emulation¹⁰⁶

106 [This word does not here mean “they vie with you,” as Chrysostom interprets it, but “they zealously seek you or pay court to you,” (1 Cor. xii. 31.).—G.A.]

107 [“They desire to shut you out” (not from a state of true knowledge, as Chrysostom interprets) but “from other teachers,” anti-judaizing teachers, (according to Meyer) or from me (Paul) and so virtually from Christ Himself (according to Schaff) or from Christ (Lightfoot).—G.A.]

Ver. 18. “But it is good to be zealously sought in a good matter at all times, and not only when I am present with you.”

Here he hints that his absence had been the cause of this, and that the true blessing was for disciples to hold right opinions not only in the presence but also in the absence of their master. But as they had not arrived at this point of perfection, he makes every effort to place them there.

Ver. 19. “My little children,¹⁰⁸

108 [“A mode of address common in St. John but nowhere else found in St. Paul.”—Lightfoot. “It expresses Paul’s tenderness and their feebleness.”—Schaff.—G.A.]

Observe his perplexity and perturbation, “Brethren, I beseech you:” “My little children, of whom I am again in travail:” He resembles a mother trembling for her children. “Until Christ be formed in you.” Behold his paternal tenderness, behold this despondency worthy of an Apostle. Observe what a wail he utters, far more piercing than of a woman in travail;—Ye have defaced the likeness, ye have destroyed the kinship, ye have changed the form, ye need another regeneration and refashioning;¹⁰⁹

109 [“I travailed with you once in bringing you to Christ. By your relapse you have renewed a mother’s pangs in me.”—Lightfoot. “‘Until Christ be formed in you,’ is not an inversion of the metaphor he has begun with, but means, ‘till you have taken the form of Christ as the embryo develops into the child.’”— Lightfoot.—G.A.]

Ver. 20. “Yea, I could wish to be present with you now, and to change my voice.”

Observe his warmth, his inability to refrain himself, and to conceal these his feelings; such is the nature of love; nor is he satisfied with words, but desires to be present with them, and so, as he says, to change his voice, that is, to change to lamentation, to shed tears, to turn every thing into mourning. For he could not by letter show his tears or cries of grief, and therefore he ardently desires to be present with them.

Ver. 20. “For I am perplexed about you.” I know not, says he, what to say, or what to think. How is it, that ye who by dangers, which ye endured for the faith’s sake, and by miracles, which ye performed through faith, had ascended to the highest heaven, should suddenly be brought to such a depth of degradation as to be drawn aside to circumcision or sabbaths, and should rely wholly upon Judaizers? Hence in the beginning he says, “I marvel that ye are so quickly removing,” and here, “I am perplexed about you,” as if he said, What am I to speak? What am I to utter? What am I to think? I am bitterly perplexed. And so he must needs weep, as the prophets do when in perplexity; for not only admonition but mourning also is a form in which solicitous attention is often manifested. And what he said in his speech to those at Miletus, “By the space of three years I ceased not to warn every one…with tears,” he says here also, “and to change my voice.” (Acts xx. 31.) When we find ourselves overcome by perplexity and helplessness which come contrary to expectation, we are driven to tears; and so Paul admonished them sharply, and endeavored to shame them, then in turn soothed them, and lastly he wept. And this weeping is not only a reproof but a blandishment; it does not exasperate like reproof, nor relax like indulgent treatment, but is a mixed remedy, and of great efficacy in the way of exhortation. Having thus softened and powerfully engaged their hearts by his tears, he again advances to the contest,¹¹⁰

110 [The digression which contains his “affectionate appeal” (see note above) ends with verse 20, after which he resumes—G.A.]

Ver. 21. “Tell me,” he says, “ye that desire to be under the Law, do ye not hear the Law?”¹¹¹

111 [“The Apostle resumes his argument for the superiority of the Gospel over the Law and illustrates the difference of the two by an allegorical interpretation of the history of Hagar and Sarah.”—Schaff.—G.A.]

He says rightly, “ye that desire,” for the matter was not one of a proper and orderly succession of things but of their own unseasonable contentiousness. It is the Book of Creation which he here calls the Law, which name he often gives to the whole Old Testament.

Ver. 22. “For it is written, (Gen. xv. 16.) that Abraham had two sons, one by the hand-maid and the other by the freewoman.”

He returns again to Abraham, not in the way of repetition, but, inasmuch as the Patriarch’s fame was great among the Jews, to show that the types had their origin from thence, and that present events were pictured aforetime in him. Having previously shown that the Galatians were sons of Abraham, now, in that the Patriarch’s sons were not of equal dignity, one being by a bondwoman, the other by a free-woman, he shows that they were not only his sons, but sons in the same sense as he that was freeborn and noble. Such is the power of Faith.

Ver. 23. “Howbeit the son by the handmaid is born after the flesh; but the son by the freewoman is born through promise.”

What is the meaning of “after the flesh?” Having said that Faith united us to Abraham, and it having seemed incredible to his hearers, that those who were not begotten by Abraham should be called his sons, he proves that this paradox had actually happened long ago; for that Isaac, born not according to the order of nature, nor the law of marriage, nor the power of the flesh, was yet truly his own son. He was the issue of bodies that were dead, and of a womb that was dead; his conception was not by the flesh, nor his birth by the seed, for the womb was dead both through age and barrenness, but the Word of God fashioned Him. Not so in the case of the bondman; He came by virtue of the laws of nature, and after the manner of marriage. Nevertheless, he that was not according to the flesh was more honorable than he that was born after the flesh. Therefore let it not disturb you that ye are not born after the flesh; for from the very reason that ye are not so born, are ye most of all Abraham’s kindred. The being born after the flesh renders one not more honorable, but less so, for a birth not after the flesh is more marvellous and more spiritual. And this is plain from the case of those who were born of old time; Ishmael, for instance, who was born according to the flesh, was not only a bondman, but was cast out of his father’s house; but Isaac, who was born according to the promise, being a true son and free, was lord of all.

Ver. 24. “Which things contain an allegory.”¹¹²

112 [“The story of Hagar and Sarah has another (namely a figurative, typical) meaning besides (not instead of) the literal or historical. Paul does not deny the fact but makes it the bearer of a general idea which was more fully expressed in two covenants. He uses allegorical here in a sense similar to the word “typical” in 1 Cor. x. 11.”—Schaff.—G.A.] [See on this difficult passage Schaff’s Excursus in Com. and Lightfoot’s Excursus xiii. Com. p. 368.—G.A.]

Contrary to usage, he calls a type an allegory; his meaning is as follows; this history not only declares that which appears on the face of it, but announces somewhat farther, whence it is called an allegory. And what hath it announced? no less than all the things now present.

Ver. 24. “For these women,” he says, “are two covenants; one from mount Sinai, bearing children unto bondage, which is Hagar.”

“These:” who? the mothers of those children, Sarah and Hagar; and what are they? Two covenants, two laws. As the names of the women were given in the history, he abides by this designation of the two races, showing how much follows from the very names. How from the names?

Ver. 25. “Now this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia:”

The bond-woman was called Hagar, and “Hagar” is the word for Mount Sinai in the language of that country.¹¹³

113 [So Meyer: “In Arabia the name Hagar (τὸ ῞Αγαρ) signifies Mt. Sinai.” But Schaff says: “It cannot be satisfactorily proven that the name Hagar was an Arabic designation for Mt. Sinai, as the testimonies of Chrysostom and the traveler Harant are isolated and unconfirmed. The shorter reading, ‘For Sinai is a mountain in Arabia’ (το γὰρ Σινᾶ ὄρος ἐστίν ἐν τῇ ᾽Αραβί& 139·) given by the Sinaitic and other mss. and preferred by Lachmann, Tischendorf and Lightfoot (Excursus p. 361 of Com.) is quite intelligible and easily gives rise to the longer reading.”—G.A.]

Ver. 25. “And answereth to Jerusalem that now is.”

That is, it borders on, and is contiguous to it.¹¹⁴

114 [“This interpretation of Chrysostom is hardly the right one. The subject of συνστοιχεῖ is Hagar and not Mt. Sinai—a view which runs counter to the context. It means that Hagar belongs to the same category with the present Jerusalem, is like it in that she was a bondwoman as Jerusalem with its children is also in bondage.” Meyer.—G.A.]

Ver. 25. “For she is in bondage with her children.”

What follows from hence? Not only that she was in bondage and brought forth bondmen, but that this Covenant is so too, whereof the bondwoman was a type. For Jerusalem is adjacent to the mountain of the same name with the bondwoman, and in this mountain the Covenant was delivered. Now where is the type of Sarah?

Ver. 26. “But Jerusalem that is above is free.”

Those therefore, who are born of her are not bondmen. Thus the type of the Jerusalem below was Hagar, as is plain from the mountain being so called; but of that which is above is the Church. Nevertheless he is not content with these types, but adds the testimony of Isaiah to what he has spoken. Having said that Jerusalem which is above “is our Mother,” and having given that name to the Church, he cites the suffrage of the Prophet in his favor,

Ver. 27. “Rejoice, thou barren that bearest not, break forth and cry, thou that travailest not, for more are the children of the desolate than of her which hath the husband.” (Isa. liv. 1.)

Who is this who before was “barren,” and “desolate?” Clearly it is the Church of the Gentiles,¹¹⁵

115 [“Against this view of Chrysostom it may be urged that ἣτις ἐστὶ μήτηρ ἡμῶν (which is our mother) is proved by (γὰρ). The passage of the O.T. quoted in v. 27 and the ἡμῶν includes ‘all’ Christians.”—Meyer. (See his long and good note in loc.)—G.A.]

Ver. 28. “Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are children of promise.”

It is not merely that the Church was barren like Sarah, or became a mother of many children like her, but she bore them in the way Sarah did. As it was not nature but the promise of God which rendered Sarah a mother, [for the word of God which said, “At the time appointed I will return unto thee, and Sarah shall have a son,” (Gen. xviii. 14.) this entered into the womb and formed the babe,] so also in our regeneration it is not nature, but the Words of God spoken by the Priest,¹¹⁶

116 [“Chrysostom assumes the prevailing conception of a real priesthood and sacrifice, baptismal regeneration, etc.”—Schaff, Prolegomena, p. 8.—G.A.]

Wherefore if we are sons of the barren woman, then are we free. But what kind of freedom, it might be objected, is this, when the Jews seize and scourge the believers, and those who have this pretence of liberty are persecuted? for these things then occurred, in the persecution of the faithful. Neither let this disturb you, he replies, this also is anticipated in the type, for Isaac, who was free, was persecuted by Ishmael the bondman. Wherefore he adds,

Ver. 29, 30. “But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now. Howbeit what saith the Scripture? (Gen. xxi. 10.) Cast out the handmaid and her son: for the son of the handmaid shall not inherit with the son of the freewoman.”

What! does all this consolation consist in showing that freemen are persecuted by bond-men? By no means, he says, I do not stop here, listen to what follows, and then, if you be not pusillanimous under persecution, you will be sufficiently comforted. And what is it that follows? “Cast out the son of the handmaid, for he shall not inherit with the son of the freewoman.” Behold the reward of tyranny for a season, and of reckleness out of season! the son is cast out of his father’s house, and becomes, together with his mother, an exile and a wanderer. And consider too the wisdom of the remark; for he says not that he was cast forth merely because he persecuted, but that he should not be heir. For this punishment was not exacted from him on account of his temporary persecution, (for that would have been of little moment, and nothing to the point,) but he was not suffered to participate in the inheritance provided for the son. And this proves that, putting the persecution aside, this very thing had been typified from the beginning, and did not originate in the persecution, but in the purpose of God. Nor does he say, “the son of Abraham shall not be heir,” but, “the son of the handmaid,” distinguishing him by his inferior descent. Now Sarah was barren, and so is the Gentile Church;¹¹⁷

117 [See note above on this interpretation.—G.A.]

118 [“Before the emergence of the Christian people of God, the heavenly Jerusalem was still unpeopled, childless, στεῖρα, ‘barren,’ οὐ τίκτουσα ‘not bearing,’ and so like Sarah before she became the mother of Isaac. But with the emergence of the Christian people of God this heavenly Jerusalem has become a fruitful mother richer in children than the Jerusalem that now is.”—Meyer.—G.A.]

Ver. 31. “Wherefore, brethren, we are not children of a handmaid but of the freewoman.”

He turns and discusses this on all sides, desiring to prove that what had taken place was no novelty, but had been before typified many ages ago. How then can it be otherwise than absurd for those who had been set apart so long and who had obtained freedom, willingly to subject themselves to the yoke of bondage?

Next he states another inducement to them to abide in his doctrine.

E.C.F. INDEX & SEARCH