John Calvin Commentary Galatians 4:22

John Calvin Commentary

Galatians 4:22

1509–1564
Protestant
John Calvin
John Calvin

John Calvin Commentary

Galatians 4:22

1509–1564
Protestant
SCRIPTURE

"For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, one by the handmaid, and one by the freewoman." — Galatians 4:22 (ASV)

For it is written. No man who has a choice given him will be so foolish as to despise freedom and prefer slavery. But here the apostle teaches us that those who are under the law are slaves. Unhappy men, who willingly choose this condition when God desires to make them free! He gives a representation of this in the two sons of Abraham: one of whom, the son of a slave, was bound by his mother’s condition, while the other, the son of a free woman, obtained the inheritance. He afterwards applies the whole history to his purpose and illustrates it in an elegant manner.

In the first place, as the other party armed themselves with the authority of the law, the apostle quotes the law on the other side. The law was the name usually given to the Five Books of Moses. Again, as the history which he quotes appeared to have no bearing on the question, he gives it an allegorical interpretation.

But as the apostle declares that these things are allegorized, (ἀλληγορούμενα), Origen, and many others along with him, have seized the opportunity to torture Scripture in every possible manner, away from the true sense. They concluded that the literal sense is too lowly and poor, and that, under the outer bark of the letter, there lurk deeper mysteries, which cannot be extracted except by beating out allegories. And this they had no difficulty in accomplishing, for speculations which appear ingenious have always been preferred, and always will be preferred, by the world to solid doctrine.

With such approval, the licentious system gradually attained such a height that he who handled Scripture for his own amusement not only was allowed to pass unpunished but even obtained the highest applause. For many centuries, no man was considered ingenious who did not have the skill and daring necessary for changing the sacred word of God into a variety of curious shapes. This was undoubtedly a contrivance of Satan to undermine the authority of Scripture and to take away the true advantage from reading it. God punished this profanation with a just judgment when he allowed the pure meaning of Scripture to be buried under false interpretations.

Scripture, they say, is fertile, and thus produces a variety of meanings. I acknowledge that Scripture is a most rich and inexhaustible fountain of all wisdom; but I deny that its fertility consists in the various meanings which any man, as he pleases, may assign. Let us know, then, that the true meaning of Scripture is the natural and obvious meaning; and let us embrace and abide by it resolutely. Let us not only neglect as doubtful, but boldly set aside as deadly corruptions, those pretended expositions which lead us away from the natural meaning.

But what reply shall we make to Paul’s assertion that these things are allegorical? Paul certainly does not mean that Moses wrote the history to be turned into an allegory, but points out in what way the history may be made to relate to the present subject. This is done by observing a figurative representation of the Church delineated there.

And a mystical interpretation of this sort (ἀναγωγή) was not inconsistent with the true and literal meaning when a comparison was drawn between the Church and the family of Abraham. As the house of Abraham was then a true Church, so it is beyond all doubt that the principal and most memorable events which happened in it are so many types for us. As in circumcision, in sacrifices, in the whole Levitical priesthood, there was an allegory, just as there is an allegory today in our sacraments—so there was also in the house of Abraham; but this does not involve a departure from the literal meaning.

In a word, Paul adduces the history as containing a figurative representation of the two covenants in the two wives of Abraham, and of the two nations in his two sons. And Chrysostom, indeed, acknowledges that the word allegory points out the present application to be (κατάχρησις) different from the natural meaning, which is perfectly true.