In the past three chapters, Paul has argued for the authenticity of his gospel, and the spiritual bankruptcy of the Judaizers’ pseudo-gospel. Here he somewhat shifts his argument to the practical implications of all of this. One such application is the fact that the Galatians are objectively God’s sons, but they are stuck in the subjective status of being slaves. (For more on this subject, see our earlier article, “From Slaves to Sons: The Fatherhood of God and Spiritual Adoption”).
(4:1) “Now I say, as long as the heir is a child, he does not differ at all from a slave although he is owner of everything.”
The term “child” (nēpios) means “baby” in many contexts (cf. 1 Cor. 3:1). Though most commentators believe Paul is thinking in terms of the boy being a “minor” (see NASB footnote).[96]
In the ancient world (both in Judaism and Greco-Roman culture), boys would become “of age” at a definite moment. Boice writes, “In Judaism a boy passed from adolescence to manhood shortly after his twelfth birthday, at which time he became ‘a son of the law.’ In the Greek world the minor came of age later, at about eighteen, but there was the same emphasis on an entering into full responsibility as an adult. At this age, at the festival of the Apatouria, the child passed from the care of his father to the care of the state and was responsible to it.”[97]
Before a boy became “of age,” he didn’t technically own anything in his father’s estate. For all intents and purposes, he would’ve looked like any of the other servants around the family’s house. But the moment he “became a man” and received the father’s inheritance, this would all change. Paul is drawing a picture of “of a boy in a home of wealth and standing who is legally the heir and so the ‘young master’ (lit. ‘lord’ or ‘owner’) of the family estate, but who is still a minor and so lives under rules very much like a slave.”[98]
Paul is using this custom to describe believers. Currently, we look like anyone else in the world. But we are on the brink of receiving a massive inheritance from God the Father! Right now, we don’t look like much, but we should act in accordance with what we are going to receive.
(4:2) “But he is under guardians and managers until the date set by the father.”
In Roman culture, the father would set the time for his son to take over his estate. This seems parallel with the concept of being under a “tutor” until Christ came (Gal. 3:25). And yet, the parallel goes further. The “tutor” (paidagōgos) relates to the child’s education (i.e. spiritual birth), while the “guardian” (epitropous) relates to the child’s estate (i.e. spiritual growth).[99]
(4:3) “So also we, while we were children, were held in bondage under the elemental things of the world.”
Most modern commentators believe that the “elemental things” refer to “elemental spirits of the universe, or more fancifully as ‘signs of the zodiac’, which often represented such spirits in popular belief.”[100] Others associate them with the basic elements of Greek philosophy and metaphysics: Hephaestus (fire), Hera (air), Poseidon (water), and Demeter (earth).[101] The advantage of this interpretation is that it is “equally applicable to Jew and Gentile. If the Galatians had been Gentile pagans before they were converted, they could scarcely have been said to have been in slavery to the Jewish law, no matter from what angle it is considered, but they could have been considered as in slavery to the elementary principles of universal moral law. To that extent at least, Jew and Gentile were alike in being children.”[102]
However, we hold that the “elemental things” refer to the Law as the context makes clear. The flow of thought is that the people were under a tutor with the Law, and this brought them to Christ. Now, are they really going to go back under these elementary principles again? They just came out of them! In our estimation, these Gentile converts came from Paganism (v.8) and then the Judaizers brought them under Jewish ceremonial law (v.10). Another possibility is that Paul is comparing the OT ceremonial law to idolatry (v.8)? Regardless, the purpose of this passage is to show the absurdity of falling back under the Law. as George writes, “For the Galatian Christians to revert to the ceremonies of Judaism would be like a university graduate student taking up kindergarten lessons all over again.”[103] Yet this would be worse than going “from Ph.D.s to ABCs,”[104] because this isn’t simply an academic exercise, but a deeply moral and spiritual one.
For further reading, see Gary Delashmutt’s, “Paul’s Usage of ta stoicheia tou kosmou.”
(4:4) “But when the fullness of the time came, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the Law.”
“But when the fullness of the time came.” The “fullness of time” relates to the “time set by the father” in Paul’s earlier illustration (v.2). See our earlier article, “Why Did God Decide to Spread the Gospel When He Did?”
“God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the Law.” God had a preexistent Son, who was later born (1 Cor 8:6; 10:4; Col 1:15-17; Rom 8:3; Phil 2:5-9). This shows a “high Christology” in Paul’s earliest letter. Yet, in the same sentence, Paul affirms the full humanity of Jesus, stating that he was “born of a woman.” Both the deity and humanity of Jesus can be affirmed side by side without hesitation by the NT authors.
Jesus served “under the Law,” so that we could be “released from the Law” (Rom. 7:6). Jesus was “under the Law,” but thankfully, he wasn’t under the power of sin.
(4:5) “[God sent forth His Son] so that He might redeem those who were under the Law, that we might receive the adoption as sons.”
We were under the “elemental principles” of the world and “under the Law.” But now, God has made us his sons through Christ. Jesus was born under these principles (i.e. the Law) in order to bring us into sonship. God gave his Son, so that we could become sons.
Now that Christ has died for us, we have become sons—not slaves. Sons might do the same actions as slaves (i.e. serving around the estate), but they do it for different reasons. For instance, both a son and a slave will work on the family property. Yet the son does this out of responsibility and love, while the slave does it out of obligation and fear. People under grace can work very hard, but they are motivated out of love and forgiveness—not fear of punishment.
(4:6) “Because you are sons, God has sent forth the Spirit of His Son into our hearts, crying, ‘Abba! Father!’”
God “sent forth” his Son (v.4), and he also “sent forth” his Spirit. Paul seems to be assuming that we can know our faith is true because we can have a direct contact with God through the Holy Spirit. If this isn’t an evidence for the believer, his argument would fall apart. He seems to be assuming that they know they are sons, through the internal witness and testimony of the Holy Spirit.
(4:7) “Therefore you are no longer a slave, but a son; and if a son, then an heir through God.”
We’re about to inherit a fortune from God. In fact, in an “already-not-yet” sort of way, we already have inherited this fortune.
(4:8) “However at that time, when you did not know God, you were slaves to those which by nature are no gods.”
This refers to the pre-conversion state of the Galatians (“when you did not know God… you were slaves”). This is reflected in Paul’s journey to the southern Galatian churches like Lystra (Acts 14:8-18).
(4:9) “But now that you have come to know God, or rather to be known by God, how is it that you turn back again to the weak and worthless elemental things, to which you desire to be enslaved all over again?”
“But now that you have come to know God, or rather to be known by God.” I know the President of the United States as a public figure, but he doesn’t know me. Similarly, it’s more important that God knows me, than that I know him.
“How is it that you turn back again to the weak and worthless elemental things, to which you desire to be enslaved all over again?” Paul is asking, “Do you really want to go back to that old way of life?” This is subjectively forfeiting your right as a son in order to become a slave (Lk. 15:18-21).
(4:10-11) “You observe days and months and seasons and years. 11 I fear for you, that perhaps I have labored over you in vain.”
These activities seem to align with Jewish formalism—whereby the worshippers had holy days and annual festivals.[105] Once the Judaizers hooked the Galatians into a little formalism, the next step down the slippery slope was circumcision. In reality, this logic was leading to having to “keep the whole Law” (Gal. 5:3).
According to Paul, this makes spiritual growth worthless or in “vain.” After all of his work of planting, nurturing, and leading this church, he was worried that it would all fall apart.
This discussion isn’t simply a theological exercise or debate for Paul. The apostasy of these young believers breaks his heart. He shares his heart with them here.
(4:12) “I beg of you, brethren, become as I am, for I also have become as you are. You have done me no wrong.”
“I beg of you, brethren.” Paul makes a personal plea. It wasn’t beneath Paul to make an emotional appeal like this.
“Become as I am, for I also have become as you are.” Paul uses himself as a model of grace. This isn’t boasting. He has already argued that he was a persecutor of the church, and God changed his life. For Paul to not use himself as a model of grace would be to discount God’s work in his life. Incidentally, this is the very first imperative in the letter to the Galatians.[106]
“You have done me no wrong.” It would have been easy for Paul to express his personal hurt and pain, thus making this an affective or interpersonal issue. But instead, he writes that he is angry for their sake—not his own. Paul makes this issue personal, but he does so by making it about the other people—not himself.
(4:13) “But you know that it was because of a bodily illness that I preached the gospel to you the first time.”
This speaks of God’s sovereignty. Somehow God could use sickness as an opening for the gospel. We are not sure what Paul means by “bodily illness” or “weakness of the flesh” (see NASB footnote; malaria, epilepsy, ophthalmia?). Some argue that it could be a consequence of the torture Paul suffered by being stoned or whipped repeatedly, which isn’t unlikely. Others argue that Paul contracted malaria, or perhaps he had a congenital illness. We simply are not sure—though it most likely had to do with Paul’s eyes or eyesight (“you would have plucked out your eyes and given them to me,” v.15; cf. 2 Cor. 12:7).
“The first time” (to proteron) could mean “originally” or “at the first.”[107] This could also refer to Paul’s initial visit to the southern Galatian churches. He likely circled back around later to teach them again when he “returned to Lystra and to Iconium and to Antioch” (Acts 14:21).
(4:14) “And that which was a trial to you in my bodily condition you did not despise or loathe, but you received me as an angel of God, as Christ Jesus Himself.”
Paul is reminding them of their former relationship. They overlooked his physical illness and appearance. Paul’s physical condition must have been embarrassing or even disgusting to look at. Yet the Galatians saw through this to see the beauty of the message—not the man. They recognized that he had come from God (Mt. 10:40; Lk. 10:16; Jn. 13:20).
A later apocryphal work gives this description of Paul: “A man small in size, bald-headed, bandy-legged, well-built, with eyebrows meeting, rather long-nosed, full of grace. For sometimes he seemed like a man, and sometimes he had the countenance of an angel” (The Acts of Paul, 2.3). The hagiography is clear from this description (“he had the countenance of an angel…”). Yet there are also embarrassing descriptions here as well which point toward its authenticity.
Others disagree that this description carries historical validity. Garland, for instance, states that this description is not only apocryphal, but it could actually be complimentary of Paul’s appearance.[108] He cites other examples that use similar language to refer to handsome generals and even emperors. He concludes, “In my opinion, we have no reliable witness to Paul’s physical appearance and should avoid speculations about it.”[109]
(4:15) “Where then is that sense of blessing you had? For I bear you witness that, if possible, you would have plucked out your eyes and given them to me.”
By asking them where their “blessing” went, Paul could be harkening back to the discussion about “blessing” and “cursing” in Galatians 3. Because they went under Law, they lost their sense of “blessing.”
(4:16) “So have I become your enemy by telling you the truth?”
In Christian friendships, we sometimes have to be willing to tell the truth at the risk of the friendship. Without truth, friendships disintegrate in various ways anyhow. Paul was in danger of losing these people as friends due to his commitment to the truth. This further supports that Paul was not a “man pleaser” (Gal. 1:10).
(4:17) “They eagerly seek you, not commendably, but they wish to shut you out so that you will seek them.”
When Paul writes that the Judaizers have “shut you out” (ekkleiō), he is using a play on words from Galatians 3:22-23, where Paul wrote that “Scripture has shut up everyone under sin [synkleiō].” He’s connecting the dots for them: The false teachers have turned the Galatians against Paul by putting them back under Law.
(4:18) “But it is good always to be eagerly sought in a commendable manner, and not only when I am present with you.”
Military leader Christopher Kolenda argues that a “disciplined group” will do the right thing—even when no leaders are around.[110] This is a worthy goal in leadership—that people will follow God even if we aren’t around.
(4:19) “My children, with whom I am again in labor until Christ is formed in you.”
Like a mother wanting her children to reach maturity and stability apart from her, Paul wants the Galatians to have their identity in Christ to become part of their stability. Paul was like a mother “laboring” to see them find spiritual birth, and now he is like a mother “again” to see them develop spiritual growth (cf. 2 Cor. 11:28). Indeed, the concept of being “formed” (morphoō) in the mother’s womb implies a process over time. Cole writes, “It is therefore inadequate to think of Paul merely as the prince of evangelists; he was also the prince of pastors, and nowhere is this more clearly seen than in passages like this.”[111] In all of his leadership and labor, Paul wanted Christ to be formed in the hearts of these people—not himself.
(4:20) “I could wish to be present with you now and to change my tone, for I am perplexed about you.”
Paul was deeply distraught over the spiritual lives of these believers. He realizes that his “tone” was harsh, and he would rather talk with them face-to-face.
The term “perplexed” (aporeo) means “to be in a confused state of mind, be at a loss, be in doubt, be uncertain” (BDAG). Paul had times of real confusion in his ministry. It baffled him that Gentile Christians would be ensnared by legalistic teaching, rather than free grace.
(4:21) “Tell me, you who want to be under law, do you not listen to the law?”
Paul turns the tables on his opponents. He uses the Law to make his case for grace. Instead of appealing to the Ten Commandments, he looks at a time 500 years before the Law was given by God to tell the story of Abraham, Sarah, and Isaac.
(4:22) “For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by the bondwoman and one by the free woman.”
Paul tells the account of Abraham’s “two sons,” both of whom symbolically represent law and grace. Of course, Abraham had a total of eight sons (six with Keturah) after Sarah died (Gen. 25:1-2). But Paul is just focusing on the first two.
“One by the bondwoman.” Hagar was a former Egyptian slave who came into Abraham’s clan.
“One by the free woman.” Sarah was the wife of Abraham.
(4:23) “But the son by the bondwoman was born according to the flesh, and the son by the free woman through the promise.”
Ishmael was born naturally. Isaac was born supernaturally. Before Ishmael’s birth, we do not read about hearing a word from God. Indeed, God is silent with regard to Ishmael. Only Isaac’s birth is preceded by a word from God “through the promise.” Regarding the plan to give birth through Hagar, all we read are the words of Sarah when she says, “Perhaps I will obtain children through [Hagar]” (Gen. 16:2). This is hardly a ringing endorsement for this plan of action! This is why Paul calls this “according to the flesh.” This entire plan was “the result of the outworking of the philosophy that God helps those who help themselves.”[112] Paul’s point is that God doesn’t need any “help” in fulfilling his promises.
(4:24) “This is allegorically speaking, for these women are two covenants: one proceeding from Mount Sinai bearing children who are to be slaves; she is Hagar.”
(4:25) “Now this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children.”
“Arabia” was the territory of the Ishmaelites. Paul is comparing this wider Gentile region as corresponding to Jerusalem!
(4:26) “But the Jerusalem above is free; she is our mother.”
“The Jerusalem above.” This could refer to the city of Jerusalem descending on Earth in Revelation 21:2.[113] Unless, of course, we are reading Revelation too literally on this point.
“Free.” Paul will elaborate on being “free” in chapter 5.
(4:27) “For it is written, ‘Rejoice, barren woman who does not bear; break forth and shout, you who are not in labor; for more numerous are the children of the desolate than of the one who has a husband.’”
(4:28) “And you brethren, like Isaac, are children of promise.”
Jewish people are born naturally according to their genetic heritage, but believers are born supernaturally according to the Holy Spirit.
(4:29) “But as at that time he who was born according to the flesh persecuted him who was born according to the Spirit, so it is now also.”
From the account of Sarah and Hagar, Paul shows that law and grace (works and promise) are mutually exclusive. He also draws the parallel of persecution: Legalists hate the freedom that grace brings into people’s lives, and this leads to persecution. Paul himself was this way before meeting Christ (Gal. 1:13, 23), and so were the legalists (Gal. 5:11; 6:12).
(4:30) “But what does the Scripture say? ‘Cast out the bondwoman and her son, for the son of the bondwoman shall not be an heir with the son of the free woman.’”
Paul demonstrates that Sarah and Hagar could not live side by side (citing Genesis 21:10, 12). Sarah called for Hagar to be “cast out.” In the same way, Paul is calling for the Judaizers to be “cast out” of the Christian community.
(4:31) “So then, brethren, we are not children of a bondwoman, but of the free woman.”
Paul reaffirms the identity of these believers as sons of God—children of the promise. Paul shows that the slaves do not inherit the promise, but the sons do. Do you want to be slaves or sons?
(1) Read verses 1-20. What do we learn about the Galatians from this section?
Specifically, what aspects of false teaching were spreading?
What effect was this having on the spiritual lives of the Galatians?
How was all of this personally affecting Paul?
What approach does Paul take in trying to reach the Galatians with truth?
(2) Read verse 19. Why does Paul compare his work with the Galatians to a mother’s pain in labor? What is he trying to communicate by using this metaphor?
(3) Read verses 21-31. Explain why Paul is appealing to Hagar and Sarah in order to argue for faith over law.
(4) Compare and contrast what it’s like to live your Christian life as a slave versus as a son. What are differences between these two mindsets? What are potential outward similarities?
(5) How do legalists view believers under grace? Vice-versa? What do they see in each other that pits them against each other?
(6) Paul was deeply distraught over the spiritual lives of the Galatians—without making his hurt feelings the main issue (4:12, 20). Many Christian leaders and disciple-makers handle admonition by making the issue personal.
What consequences might this have if we handle admonition in this way (i.e. making it about our hurt feelings, rather than about the spiritual progress of the person we’re mentoring)?
What might happen if we made the focus of our admonition our personal hurt feelings?
Is it ever appropriate to share our hurt feelings when admonishing others? If so, when would it be appropriate, and how could we do it without falling into manipulation?
James is an elder at Dwell Community Church, where he teaches classes in theology, apologetics, and weekly Bible studies.
