Albert Barnes Commentary Galatians 4

GALATIANS CHAPTER IV

The design of this chapter is to show the effect of being under the law, and the inconsistency of that kind of bondage or servitude with the freedom which is granted to the true children of God by the gospel. It is in accordance with the whole overall argument of the epistle, to recall the Galatians to just views of the gospel, and to convince them of their error in returning to the practice of the Mosaic rites and customs. In the previous chapter he had shown them that believers in the gospel were the true children of Abraham; that they had been delivered from the curse of the law; that the law was a schoolmaster to lead them to Christ, and that they were all the children of God. To illustrate this further, and to show them the true nature of the freedom which they had as the children of God, is the design of the argument in this chapter. He therefore states:

1. That it was under the gospel only that they received the full advantages of freedom (Galatians 4:1–5). Before Christ came, indeed, there were true children of God, and heirs of life. But they were in the condition of minors; they did not have the privileges of sons. An heir to a great estate, says the apostle (Galatians 4:1–2), is treated substantially as if he were a servant.

   He is under tutors and governors; he is not permitted to enter on his inheritance; he is kept under the restraint of law. So it was with the people of God under the law of Moses. They were under restraints and were admitted to comparatively few of the privileges of the children of God.

   But Christ came to redeem those who were under the law and to place them in the elevated condition of adopted sons (Galatians 4:4–5). They were no longer servants; and it was as unreasonable that they should conform again to the Mosaic rites and customs as it would be for the heir of full age, who has entered on his inheritance, to return to the condition of minority, and to be placed again under tutors and governors, and to be treated as a servant.

2. As sons of God, God had sent forth the Spirit of his Son into their hearts, and they were enabled to cry, Abba, Father. They were no longer servants, but heirs of God, and should avail themselves of the privileges of heirs (Galatians 4:6–7).

3. Sustaining this relation, and being admitted to these privileges, the apostle remonstrates with them for returning again to the "weak and beggarly elements" of the former dispensation—the condition of servitude to rites and customs in which they were before they embraced the gospel (Galatians 4:8–11). When they were ignorant of God, they served those who were no gods, and there was some excuse for that (Galatians 4:8). But now they had known God; they were acquainted with his laws; they were admitted to the privileges of his children; they were made free, and there could be no excuse for returning again to the bondage of those who had no true knowledge of the liberty which the gospel gave. Yet they observed days and times, as though these were binding, and they had never been freed from them (Galatians 4:10); and the apostle says, that he is afraid that his labors bestowed on them, to make them acquainted with the plan of redemption, had been in vain.

4. To bring them to a just sense of their error, he reminds them of their former attachment to him (Galatians 4:12–20). He had indeed preached to them amidst much infirmity, and much that was likely to prejudice them against him (Galatians 4:13); but they had disregarded that, and had shown towards him the highest proofs of attachment—so much so, that they had received him as an angel of God (Galatians 4:14), and had been ready to pluck out their own eyes to give them to him (Galatians 4:15). With great force, therefore, he asks them why they had changed their views towards him, so far as to forsake his doctrines? Had he become their enemy by telling the truth? (Galatians 4:16). He tenderly addresses them, therefore, as little children, and says, that he has the deepest solicitude for their welfare, and the deepest anxiety on account of their danger—a solicitude which he compares (Galatians 4:19) with the pains of childbirth.

5. In order to enforce the whole subject, and to show the true nature of the conformity to the law compared with the liberty of the gospel, he allegorizes an interesting part of the Mosaic history—the history of the two children of Abraham (Galatians 4:21–31). The condition of Hagar—a slave, under the command of a master, harshly treated, cast out and disowned—was an apt illustration of the condition of those who were under the servitude of the law.

   It would strikingly represent Mount Sinai, and the law that was promulgated there, and the condition of those who were under the law. That, too, was a condition of servitude. The law was stern, and showed no mercy. It was like a master of a slave, and would treat those who were under it with a rigidity that might be compared with the condition of Hagar and her son (Galatians 4:24–25).

   That same Mount Sinai also was a fair representation of Jerusalem as it was then—a city full of rites and ceremonies, where the law reigned with rigor, where there was a burdensome and expensive system of religion, and where there was none of the freedom which the gospel would provide (Galatians 4:25).

   On the other hand, the children of the free woman were an apt illustration of those who were made free from the oppressive ceremonies of the law by the gospel (Galatians 4:22). That Jerusalem was free. The new system from heaven was one of liberty and rejoicing (Galatians 4:26–27). Christians were, like Isaac, the children of promise, and were not slaves to the law (Galatians 4:28, 31).

   And as there was a command (Galatians 4:30) to cast out the bondwoman and her son, so the command now was to reject all that would bring the mind into ignoble servitude, and prevent its enjoying the full freedom of the gospel. The whole argument is, that it would be as unreasonable for those who were Christians to submit again to the Jewish rites and ceremonies, as it would be for a freeman to sell himself into slavery. And the design of the whole is, to recall them from the conformity to Jewish rites and customs, and from their regarding them as now binding on Christians.

Now I say. He had before said (Galatians 3:24–25), that while they were under the law they were in a state of minority. This sentiment he proceeds further to illustrate by showing the true condition of one who was a minor.

That the heir. Any heir to an estate, or one who has a prospect of an inheritance. No matter how great is the estate; no matter how wealthy his father; no matter to how elevated a rank he may be raised on the moment that he enters on his inheritance, yet until that time he is in the condition of a servant.

As long as he is a child. Until he arrives at the age. The word rendered "child," nhpiov, properly means an infant; literally, one not speaking, (nh, insep, un, epov; ) and hence a child, or babe, but without any definite limitation.—Rob. It is used as the word infant is in our legal system, to denote a minor.

Differeth nothing from a servant. That is, he has no more control of his property; he does not have it at his command. This does not mean that he does not differ in any respect, but only that in the matter under consideration he does not differ. He differs in his prospects of inheriting the property, and in the affections of the father, and usually in the advantages of education, and in the respect and attention shown him; but in regard to property he does not differ, and he is like a servant, under the control and direction of others.

Though he be lord of all. That is, in prospect. He has a prospective right to all the property, which no one else has. The word "lord" here, kuriov, is used in the same sense in which it is often in the Scriptures, to denote master or owner.

The idea which this is designed to illustrate is, that the condition of the Jews before the coming of the Messiah was inferior, in many respects, to what the condition of the friends of God would be under Him—as inferior as the condition of an heir was before he was of age, to what it would be when he should enter on his inheritance.

The Jews indeed claimed that they were the children or the sons of God—a title which the apostle would not withhold from the pious part of the nation. However, it was a condition in which they had not entered on the full inheritance. This condition was far inferior to that of those who had embraced the Messiah and were admitted to the full privileges of sonship.

They were indeed heirs. They were interested in the promises. But still, they were in a condition of comparative servitude, and could be made free only by the gospel.

"Lord": Master.

But is under. He is subject to their control and direction.

Tutors. The word tutor, for us, properly means instructor. But this is not quite the sense of the original. The word epitropos properly means steward, manager, or agent (Matthew 20:8; Luke 8:3).

As used here, it refers to one—usually a slave or a freedman—to whose care the boys of a family were committed, who trained them, accompanied them to school, or sometimes instructed them at home. Compare to Galatians 3:24.

Such a person would have control of them.

And governors. This word, oikonomos, means a house-manager, an overseer, or a steward. It properly refers to one who had authority over the slaves or servants of a family, to assign them their tasks and portions.

They generally also managed the household affairs and accounts. They were commonly slaves who were entrusted with this office as a reward for fidelity, though sometimes free persons were employed (Luke 16:1, 3, 8).

These persons also had charge of the sons of a family, probably concerning their pecuniary matters, and thus differed from those called tutors. It is not necessary, however, to define the difference in the words with great precision. The apostle's general meaning is that the heir was under government and restraint.

Until the time appointed of the father. This refers to the time fixed for his entering on the inheritance; the time when the father chose to give him his portion of the property.

The law for us fixes the age at twenty-one when a son is at liberty to manage for himself. Other countries have set other times.

However, the time when the son will inherit the father's property must still be fixed by the father himself, if he is living, or it may be fixed by his will if he is deceased. The son cannot claim the property when he comes of age.

Even so we. We who were Jews—for I think the word here is to be limited, and not extended to the Gentiles, as Bloomfield supposes. The reasons for limiting it are:

1. that the Gentiles in no sense had such a relationship to the law and promises of God as is supposed here;

2. such an interpretation would not be relevant to Paul's purpose. He is stating reasons why there should not be subjection to the laws of Moses, and his argument is that that condition was like that of minority.

When we were children, nēpioi. Minors. (See Barnes on Galatians 4:1).

The word is not huioi—sons; but the idea is that they were in a state of minority; and though heirs, yet were under severe discipline and regimen. They were under a kind of government that was suited to that state, and not to the condition of those who had entered into their inheritance.

Were in bondage. In a state of servitude. Treated as servants or slaves.

Under the elements of the world. The marginal reading is rudiments. The word translated "elements" (singular, stoicheion) properly means a row or series; a small step; a pin or peg, like the gnomon of a sundial; and then anything elementary, such as a sound or a letter.

It then denotes the elements or rudiments of any kind of instruction, and in the New Testament is applied to the first lessons or principles of religion (Hebrews 5:1).

It is applied to the elements or component parts of the physical world (2 Peter 3:10, 12). Here the figure is maintained in the reference to the infant (Galatians 4:1, 3); and the idea is that lessons were taught under the Jewish system adapted to their minority—to a state of childhood.

They were treated as children under tutors and governors. The phrase "the elements of the world" also occurs in Colossians 2:8, 20. In Galatians 4:9 of this chapter, Paul speaks of these lessons as beggarly elements, referring to the same thing here.

Different opinions have been held as to the reason why the Jewish institutions are here called "the elements of the world." Rosenmüller supposes it was because many of those rites were common to the Jews and to the Gentiles—as they also had altars, sacrifices, temples, libations, etc.

Doddridge supposes it was because those rites were adapted to the low conceptions of children, who are most affected with sensible objects, and have no taste for spiritual and heavenly things.

Locke supposes it was because those institutions did not lead them beyond this world, or into the possession and taste of their heavenly inheritance.

It is probable that there is an allusion to the Jewish way of speaking, so common in the Scriptures, where this world is opposed to the kingdom of God, and where it is spoken of as transient and worthless compared with the future glory.

The world is fading, unsatisfactory, temporary. In allusion to this common use of the word, the Jewish institutions are called the worldly rudiments.

It is not that they were in themselves evil—for that is not true; it is not that they were adapted to foster a worldly spirit—for that is not true; it is not that they had their origin from this world—for that is not true; nor is it from the fact that they resembled the institutions of the Gentile world—for that is equally untrue; but it is that, like the things of the world, they were transient, temporary, and of little value.

They were unsatisfactory in their nature, and were soon to pass away and to give place to a better system—as the things of this world are soon to give place to heaven.

But when the fullness of the time was come. This refers to the full time appointed by the Father; the completion (filling up, plhrwma) of the designated period for the coming of the Messiah. (See the comments on Isaiah 49:7, Isaiah 49:8, and 2 Corinthians 6:2).

The sense is that the time which had been predicted, and when it was proper that he should come, was complete. The exact period had arrived when all things were ready for his coming. It is often asked why he did not come sooner, and why mankind did not have the benefit of his incarnation and atonement immediately after the fall.

Why were four thousand dark and gloomy years allowed to roll on, and the world permitted to sink deeper and deeper into ignorance and sin? To these questions, perhaps no entirely satisfactory answer can be given. God undoubtedly saw reasons that we cannot see, and reasons that we will approve if they are disclosed to us.

It may be observed, however, that this delay of redemption was in complete accordance with the whole system of divine arrangements and with all the divine interpositions in favor of humankind. People are long allowed to pine in want, to suffer from disease, and to encounter the evils of ignorance before interposition is granted.

On all subjects connected with human comfort and improvement, the same questions may be asked as on the subject of redemption. Why was the invention of the art of printing so long delayed, and people allowed to remain in ignorance? Why was the discovery of vaccination delayed so long, and millions allowed to die who might have been saved?

Why was the bark of Peru not known sooner, and why did so many millions die who might have been saved by its use? The same applies to most of the medicines, and of the arts and inventions that serve to ward off disease and to promote the intelligence, comfort, and salvation of humankind.

In respect to all of these, it may be true that they are made known at the very best time—the time that will, on the whole, most advance the welfare of the race. And so it is with the incarnation and work of the Saviour. It was seen by God to be the best time—the time when, on the whole, the race would be most benefited by his coming. Even with our limited and imperfect vision, we can see the following reasons why it was the most fit and proper time:

1. It was precisely the time when all the prophecies centered on him, and when there could be no doubt about their fulfillment. It was important that such an event should be predicted so that there might be full evidence that he came from heaven. Yet, for prophecy to be seen as uttered by God, it must be delivered so far before the event as to make it impossible for it to have been the result of mere human conjecture.

2. It was proper that the world should be brought to see its need of a Saviour, and that a fair and satisfactory opportunity should be given to people to try all other schemes of salvation, so that they might be prepared to welcome this one. This had been done. Four thousand years were sufficient to show humanity its own powers and to give it an opportunity to devise some scheme of salvation.

   The opportunity had been furnished under every circumstance that could be deemed favourable. The most profound and splendid talent of the world had been brought to bear on it, especially in Greece and Rome. Ample opportunity had been given to make a fair trial of the various systems of religion devised for national happiness and individual welfare. These systems were tested for their power to meet and arrest crime, to purify the heart, to promote public morals, and to support people in their trials; and for their power to lead them to the true God and to give them a well-founded hope of immortality. All had failed. Then it was a proper time for the Son of God to come and to reveal a better system.

3. It was a time when the world was at peace. The temple of Janus, closed only in times of peace, was then shut, though it had been closed only once before during Roman history. What an appropriate time for the "Prince of Peace" to come! The world was, to a great extent, under the Roman sceptre.

   Communications between different parts of the world were then more rapid and secure than they had been at any former period, and the gospel could be more easily propagated. Furthermore, the Jews were scattered in almost all lands, acquainted with the promises, looking for the Messiah, furnishing facilities to their own countrymen, the apostles, to preach the gospel in numerous synagogues, and qualified, if they embraced the Messiah, to become most zealous and devoted missionaries.

   Moreover, the same language, Greek, was, after the time of Alexander the Great, the common language of a significant part of the world, or at least was spoken and understood among a considerable portion of the nations of the earth. At no period before had there been such extensive use of the same language.

4. It was a proper period to make the new system known. It accorded with the benevolence of God that the delay should not extend beyond the time when the world was in a suitable state for receiving the Redeemer. Therefore, when that period had arrived, God did not delay but sent his Son on the great work of the world’s redemption.

God sent forth his Son. This implies that the Son of God had an existence before his incarnation . The Saviour is often represented as sent into the world and as coming forth from God.

Made of a woman. This means he was born in human nature, of a woman. This also implies that he had another nature than that which was derived from the woman. If we suppose he was a mere man, how meaningless this assertion would be! How natural it would be to ask, in what other way could he appear than to be born of a woman?

Why was he particularly designated as coming into the world in this manner? How strange it would sound if it were said, "In the sixteenth century came Faustus Socinus, preaching Unitarianism, made of a woman!" Or, "In the eighteenth century came Dr. Joseph Priestley, born of a woman, preaching the doctrines of Socinus!" How else could they appear? would be the natural inquiry. What was there peculiar in their birth and origin that rendered such language necessary? The language implies that there were other ways in which the Saviour might have come, that there was something peculiar in the fact that he was born of a woman, and that there was some special reason why that fact should be made prominently a matter of record. The promise was (Genesis 3:15) that the Messiah should be the "seed" or the descendant of woman, and Paul probably alludes here to the fulfillment of that promise.

Made under the law. As one of the human race, partaking of human nature, he was subject to the law of God. As a man, he was bound by its requirements and subject to its control. He took his place under the law so that he might accomplish an important purpose for those who were under it. He made himself subject to it so that he might become one of them and secure their redemption.

To redeem them. By his death as an atoning sacrifice. (See Barnes on Galatians 3:13).

Them that were under the law. Sinners, who had violated the law, and who were exposed to its dread penalty.

That we might receive the adoption of sons. Be adopted as the sons or the children of God. (See Barnes on John 1:12; Romans 8:15).