Galatians 4:1-5
1. Now I say, That the heir, as long as he is a child, differeth
nothing from a servant, though he be lord of all;
1. Dico antem: quamdiu haeres puer est, nihil differt a servo, quum
tamen sit dominus onmium;
2. But is under tutors and governors, until the time appointed of
the father.
2. Sed sub tutoribus et curatorbus est, usque ad tempus a patre
definitum.
3. Even so we, when we were children, were in bondage under the
elements of the world:
3. Sic et nos quum essemus pueri, sub elementis mundi in servitute
eramus.
4. But when the fullness of the time was come, God sent forth his
Son, made of a woman, made under the law,
4. Quando autem venit plenitudo temporis, misit Deus Filium suum,
facturn ex muliere, redactum sub Legem;
5. To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive
the adoption of sons.
5. Ut eos, qui sub Lege erant, redimeter, ut adoptionem reciperemus.
1. Now I say. Whoever made the division into chapters has improperly
separated this paragraph from the preceding, as it is nothing else than
the concluding section, (ejpexergasi>a,) in which Paul explains and illustrates
the difference that exists between us and the ancient people. He does so
by introducing a third comparison, drawn from the relation which a person
under age bears to his tutor. The young man, though he is free, though
he is lord of all his father’s family, still resembles a slave; for he
is under the government of tutors. But the period of guardianship lasts
only “until the time appointed by the father” after which he enjoys his
freedom. In this respect the fathers under the Old Testament, being the
sons of God, were free; but they were not in possession of freedom, while
the law held the place of their tutor, and kept them under its yoke. That
slavery of the law lasted as long as it pleased God, who put an end to
it at the coming of Christ. Lawyers enumerate various methods by which
the tutelage or guardianship is brought to a close; but of all these methods,
the only one adapted to this comparison is that which Paul has selected,
“the appointment of the father.”
Let us now examine the separate clauses. Some apply the comparison in
a different manner to the case of any man whatever, whereas Paul is speaking
of two nations. What they say, I acknowledge, is true; but it has nothing
to do with the present passage. The elect, though they are the children
of God from the womb, yet, until by faith they come to the possession of
freedom, remain like slaves under the law; but, from the time that they
have known Christ, they no longer require this kind of tutelage. Granting
all this, I deny that Paul here treats of individuals, or draws a distinction
between the time of unbelief and the calling by faith. The matters in dispute
were these. Since the church of God is one, how comes it that our condition
is different from that of the Israelites? Since we are free by faith, how
comes it that they, who had faith in common with us, were not partakers
with us of the same freedom? Since we are all equally the children of God,
how comes it that we at this day are exempt from a yoke which they were
forced to bear? On these points the controversy turned, and not on the
manner in which the law reigns over each of us before we are freed by faith
from its slavery. Let this point be first of all settled, that Paul here
compares the Israelitish church, which existed under the Old Testament,
with the Christian church, that thus we may perceive in what points we
agree and in what we differ. This comparison furnishes most abundant and
most profitable instruction.
First, we learn from it that our hope at the present day, and that of
the fathers under the Old Testament, have been directed to the same inheritance;
for they were partakers of the same adoption. According to the dreams of
some fanatics, and of Servetus among others, the fathers were divinely
elected for the sole purpose of prefiguring to us a people of God. Paul,
on the other hand, contends that they were elected in order to be together
with us the children of God, and particularly attests that to them, not
less than to us, belonged the spiritual blessing promised to Abraham.
Secondly, we learn that, notwithstanding their outward slavery, their
consciences were still free. The obligation to keep the law did not hinder
Moses and Daniel, all the pious kings, priests, and prophets, and the whole
company of believers, from being free in spirit. They bore the yoke of
the law upon their shoulders, but with a free spirit they worshipped God.
More particularly, having been instructed concerning the free pardon of
sin, their consciences were delivered from the tyranny of sin and death.
Hence we ought to conclude that they held the same doctrine, were joined
with us in the true unity of faith, placed reliance on the one Mediator,
called on God as their Father, and were led by the same Spirit. All this
leads to the conclusion, that the difference between us and the ancient
fathers lies in accidents, not in substance. In all the leading characters
of the Testament or Covenant we agree: the ceremonies and form of government,
in which we differ, are mere additions. Besides, that period was the infancy
of the church; but now that Christ is come, the church has arrived at the
estate of manhood.
The meaning of Paul’s words is clear, but has he not some appearance
of contradicting himself? In the Epistle to the Ephesians he exhorts us
to make daily progress
“till we come to a perfect man, to the measure of the stature of the
fullness of Christ.” (Ephesians 4:13.)
In the first Epistle to the Corinthians he says, (1 Corinthians 3:2,)
“I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not
able to bear it, neither yet now are ye able;”
and shortly after this he compares the Galatians to children. (Galatians
4:19) In those passages, I reply, the apostle speaks of particular men,
and of their faith as individuals; but here he speaks generally of two
bodies without regard to persons. This reply will assist us in resolving
a much greater difficulty. When we look at the matchless faith of Abraham,
and the vast intelligence of the holy prophets, with what effrontery shall
we dare to talk of such men as our inferiors? Were not they rather the
heroes, and we the children? To say nothing of ourselves, who among the
Galatians would have been found equal to any of those men?
But here, as I have already said, the apostle describes not particular
persons, but the universal condition of both nations. Some men were endowed
with extraordinary gifts; but they were few, and the whole body did not
share with them. Besides, though they had been numerous, we must inquire
not what they inwardly were, but what was that kind or government under
which God had placed them; and that was manifestly a school, paidagwgi>a,
a system of instruction for children. And what are we now? God has broken
those chains, governs his church in a more indulgent manner, and lays not
upon us such severe restraint. At the same time, we may remark in passing,
that whatever amount of knowledge they might attain partook of the nature
of the period; for a dark cloud continually rested on the revelation which
they enjoyed. And hence that saying of our Savior,
“Blessed are the eyes which see the things that ye see: for I tell you
that many prophets and kings have desired to see those things which ye
see, and have not seen them; and to hear those things which ye hear, and
have not heard them.” (Luke 10: 23, 24.)
We now understand in what respect we are preferred to those who were
greatly our superiors; for the statements are not applied to persons, but
relate entirely to the economy of the Divine administration.
This passage will prove a most powerful battery for destroying the pageantry
of ceremonies, which constitutes the entire splendor of the Papal system.
For what else is it that dazzles the eyes of simple people, so as to lead
them to regard the dominion of the Pope, if not with admiration, at least
with some degree of reverence, but the magnificent army of ceremonies,
rites, gesticulations, and equipage of every description, contrived for
the express purpose of amazing the ignorant? From this passage it appears
that they are false disguises, by which the true beauty of the church is
impaired. I do not now speak of greater and more frightful corruptions,
such as, that they hold them out for divine worship, imagine them to possess
the power of meriting salvation, and enforce with more rigid severity the
observation of those trifles than the whole law of God. I only advert to
the specious pretext under which our modern contrivers apologize for such
a multitude of abominations. What though they object that the ignorance
of the multitude prevails to a greater extent than it formerly did among
the Israelites, and that many assistances are therefore required? They
will never be able in this way to prove that the people must be placed
under the discipline or a school similar to what existed among the people
of Israel; for I shall always meet them with the declaration, that the
appointment of God is totally different.
If they plead expediency, I ask, are they better judges of what is expedient
than God himself? Let us entertain the firm conviction that the highest
advantage, as well as the highest propriety, will be found in whatever
God has determined. In aiding the ignorant, we must employ not those methods
which the fancy of men may have been pleased to contrive, but those which
had been fixed by God themself, who unquestionably has left out nothing
that was fitted to assist their weakness. Let this shield suffice for repelling
any objections: “God has judged otherwise, and his purpose supplies to
us the place of all arguments; unless it be supposed that men are capable
of devising better aids than those which God had provided, and which he
afterwards threw aside as useless.” Let it be carefully observed, Paul
does not merely say that the yoke which had been laid upon the Jews is
removed from us, but expressly lays down a distinction in the government
which God has commanded to be observed. I acknowledge that we are now at
liberty as to all outward matters, but only on the condition that the church
shall not be burdened with a multitude of ceremonies, nor Christianity
confounded with Judaism. The reason of this we shall afterwards consider
in the proper place.
3. Under the elements of the world. Elements may either mean,
literally, outward and bodily things, or, metaphorically, rudiments. I
prefer the latter interpretation. But why does he say that those things
which had a spiritual signification were of the world? We did not, he says,
enjoy the truth in a simple form, but involved in earthly figures; and
consequently, what was outward must have been “of the world,” though there
was concealed under it a heavenly mystery.
4. When the fullness of the time was come. He proceeds with the
comparison which he had adduced, and applies to his purpose the expression
which has already occurred, “the time appointed by the Father,” — but still
shewing that the time which had been ordained by the providence of God
was proper and seasonable. That season is the most fit, and that mode of
acting is the most proper, which the providence of God directs. At what
time it was expedient that the Son of God should be revealed to the world,
it belonged to God alone to judge and determine. This consideration ought
to restrain all curiosity. Let no man presume to be dissatisfied with the
secret purpose of God, and raise a dispute why Christ did not appear sooner.
If the reader desires more full information on this subject, he may consult
what I have written on the conclusion of the Epistle to the Romans.
God sent forth his Son. These few words contain much instruction.
The Son, who was sent, must have existed before he was sent; and this proves
his eternal Godhead. Christ therefore is the Son of God, sent from heaven.
Yet this same person was made of a woman, because he assumed our nature,
which shews that he has two natures. Some copies read natum instead of
filium; but the latter reading is more generally followed, and, in my opinion,
is preferable. But the language was also expressly intended to distinguish
Christ from other men, as having been formed of the substance of his mother,
and not by ordinary generation. In any other sense, it would have been
trifling, and foreign to the subject. The word woman is here put generally
for the female sex.
Subjected under the law. The literal rendering is, Made under
the law; but in my version I have preferred another word, which expresses
more plainly the fact that he was placed in subjection to the law. Christ
the Son of God, who might have claimed to be exempt from every kind of
subjection, became subject to the law. Why? He did so in our room, that
he might obtain freedom for us. A man who was free, by constituting himself
a surety, redeems a slave: by putting on himself the chains, he takes them
off from the other. So Christ chose to become liable to keep the law, that
exemption from it might be obtained for us; otherwise it would have been
to no purpose that he should come under the yoke of the law, for it certainly
was not on his own account that he did so.
To redeem them that were under the law. We must here observe,
the exemption from the law which Christ has procured for us does not imply
that we no longer owe any obedience to the doctrine of the law, and may
do whatever we please; for the law is the everlasting rule of a good and
holy life. But Paul speaks of the law with all its appendages. From subjection
to that law we are redeemed, because it is no longer what it once was.
“The vail being rent,” (Matthew 27:51,) freedom is openly proclaimed, and
this is what he immediately adds.
5. That we might receive the adoption. The fathers, under the
Old Testament, were certain of their adoption, but did not so fully as
yet enjoy their privilege. Adoption, like the phrase, “the redemption of
our body,” (Romans 8:23,) is here put for actual possession. As, at the
last day, we receive the fruit of our redemption, so now we receive the
fruit of adoption, of which the holy fathers did not partake before the
coming of Christ; and therefore those who now burden the church with an
excess of ceremonies, defraud her of the just right of adoption.
Galatians 4:6-7
6. And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his
Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father.
6. Quoniam autem estis filii, misit Deus Spiritum Filii sui in corda
vestra, clamantem, Abba, Pater.
7. Wherefore thou art no more a servant, but a son; and if a son,
then an heir of God through Christ.
7. Itaque non amplius es servus, sed filius; si antem filius, etiam
haeres Dei per Christum.
6. And because ye are sons. The adoption which he had mentioned,
is proved to belong to the Galatians by the following argument. This adoption
must have preceded the testimony of adoption given by the Holy Spirit;
but the effect is the sign of the cause. In venturing, he says, to call
God your Father, you have the advice and direction of the Spirit of Christ;
therefore it is certain that you are the sons of God. This agrees with
what is elsewhere taught by him, that the Spirit is the earnest and pledge
of our adoption, and gives to us a well-founded belief that God regards
us with a father’s love.
“Who hath also sealed us, and given the earnest of the Spirit
in our hearts.” (2 Corinthians 1:22.)
“Now he that hath wrought us for the self-same thing is God,
who also hath given unto us the earnest of the Spirit.”
(2 Corinthians 5:5.)
But it will be objected, do not wicked men, too, carry their rashness
so far as to proclaim that God is their Father? Do they not frequently,
with greater confidence than others, utter their false boasts? I reply,
Paul’s language does not relate to idle boasting, or to the proud opinion
of hitnself which any man may entertain, but to the testimony of a pious
conscience which accompanies the new birth. This argument can have no weight
but in the case of believers, for ungodly men have no experience of this
certainty; as our Lord himself declares.
“The Spirit of truth,” says he, “whom the world cannot receive, because
it seeth him not, neither knoweth him.”
(John 14:17.)
This is implied in Paul’s words, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his
Son into your hearts. It is not what the persons themselves, in the foolish
judgment of the flesh, may venture to believe, but what God declares in
their hearts by his Spirit. The Spirit of his Son is a title more strictly
adapted to the present occasion than any other that could have been employed.
We are the sons of God, because we have received the same Spirit as his
only Son.
Let it be observed, that Paul ascribes this universally to all Christians;
for where this pledge of the Divine love towards us is wanting, there is
assuredly no faith. Hence it is evident what sort of Christianity belongs
to Popery, since any man who says, that he has the Spirit of God, is charged
by them with impious presumption. Neither the Spirit of God, nor certainty,
belongs to their notion of faith. This single tenet held by them is a remarkable
proof that, in all the schools of the Papists, the devil, the father of
unbelief, reigns. I acknowledge, indeed, that the scholastic divines, when
they enjoin upon the consciences of men the agitation of perpetual doubt,
are in perfect agreement with what the natural feelings of mankind would
dictate. It is the more necessary to fix in our minds this doctrine of
Paul, that no man is a Christian who has not learned, by the teaching of
the Holy Spirit, to call God his Father.
Crying. This participle, I think, is used in order to express
greater boldness. Hesitation does not allow us to speak freely, but keeps
the mouth nearly shut, while the half-broken words can hardly escape from
a stammering tongue. “Crying,” on the other hand, expresses firmness and
unwavering confidence.
“For we have not received again the spirit of bondage to fear,
but of freedom to full confidence.” (Romans 8:15.)
Abba, Father. The meaning of these words, I have no doubt, is,
that calling upon God is common to all languages. It is a fact which bears
directly on the present subject, that the name Father is given to God both
by the Hebrews and by the Greeks; as had been predicted by Isaiah,
“Every tongue shall make confession to my name.”
(Isaiah 45:23.)
The whole of this subject is handled by the apostle at greater length
in his Epistle to the Romans. I judge it unnecessary to repeat here observations
which I have already made in the exposition of that Epistle, and which
the reader may consult. Since, therefore, Gentiles are reckoned among the
sons of God, it is evident that adoption comes not by the merit of the
law, but by the grace of faith.
7. Wherefore thou art no more a servant. In the Christian Church
slavery no longer exists, but the condition of the children is free. In
what respect the fathers under the law were slaves, we have already inquired;
for their freedom was not yet revealed, but was hidden under the coverings
and yoke of the law. Our attention is again directed to the distinction
between the Old and New Testaments. The ancients were also sons of God,
and heirs through Christ, but we hold the same character in a different
manner; for we have Christ present with us, and in that manner enjoy his
blessings.
