Albert Barnes Commentary Galatians 4:9

Albert Barnes Commentary

Galatians 4:9

1798–1870
Presbyterian
Albert Barnes
Albert Barnes

Albert Barnes Commentary

Galatians 4:9

1798–1870
Presbyterian
SCRIPTURE

"but now that ye have come to know God, or rather to be known by God, how turn ye back again to the weak and beggarly rudiments, whereunto ye desire to be in bondage over again?" — Galatians 4:9 (ASV)

But now, etc. The meaning is that since they had been made free from their degrading servitude in worshipping false gods, and had been admitted to the freedom found in worshipping the true God, it was absurd that they should return to what was truly slavery or bondage: observing the rites of the Jewish law.

That you have known God. This refers to the true God, and the ease and freedom of His service in the gospel.

Or rather are known of God. The meaning is, “Or, to speak more accurately or precisely, are known by God.” The purpose of this correction is to avoid the impression that might be derived from the former phrase—that their acquaintance with God was due to themselves. He therefore states that it was, rather, that they were known by God; that it was entirely due to Him that they had been brought to an acquaintance with Him. Perhaps, also, he means to bring to attention the idea that it was a favor and privilege to be known by God, and that, therefore, it was all the more absurd to turn back to the weak and beggarly elements.

How do you turn again. The marginal note says back. The question is, “How is it that you are returning to such bondage?” This question implies surprise and indignation that they would do it.

To the weak and beggarly elements. This refers to the rites and ceremonies of the Jewish law, imposing a servitude really no less severe than the customs of paganism. For the word elements, see the comments on Galatians 4:3.

They are called “weak” because they had no power to save the soul, no power to justify the sinner before God.

They are called “beggarly” (Greek, ptwca, meaning poor) because they could not impart spiritual riches. They really could confer few benefits on people.

Alternatively, as Locke supposes, this may be because the law kept people in the poor state of pupils, away from the full enjoyment of the inheritance (Galatians 4:1–3).

Whereunto you desire again to be in bondage. It is as if you wished to be under servitude. The absurdity is as great as it would be for someone who had been freed from slavery to desire his chains again. They had been freed by the gospel from the galling servitude of paganism, and now they had sunk again into the Jewish observances, as if they preferred slavery to freedom and were willing to go from one form of it to another.

The main idea is that it is absurd for people who have been made free by the gospel to go back into any kind of servitude or bondage. We may apply this to Christians now. Many sink into a kind of servitude no less galling than their servitude to sin before their conversion.

Some become the slaves of mere ceremonies and forms in religion. Some are slaves to fashion, and the world still rules them with the hand of a tyrant. They have escaped, perhaps, from the galling chains of ambition, degrading vice, and low sensuality; but they have become slaves to the love of money, or of dress, or of the fashions of the world, as if they loved slavery and chains. They seem no more able to break free than a slave is to break the bonds that bind him.

And some are slaves to some expensive and foolish habit. Professed Christians, and Christian ministers too, become slaves to the disgusting and loathsome habit of using tobacco, bound by a servitude as galling and as firm as that which ever shackled the limbs of an African. I grieve to add, also, that many professed Christians are slaves to the habit of “sitting long at the wine” and indulging in it freely. Oh, if only such people knew the liberty of Christian freedom, and would break away from all such shackles, and show how the gospel frees people from all foolish and absurd customs!