By the Spirit We Cry, 'Abba, Father' (Galatians 3:26-

4:7)
Bkmrk
Paul has been speaking of those who haven't reached
adulthood, who are in their minority, who are under the
custodian/chaperone/tutor of the law. He contrasts that
with sons who have reached the legal age of adulthood,
declaring that believers in the Messiah have the status of
full sons. Hallelujah!
Sons of God (3:26)
"26 You are all sons of God through faith in Christ
Jesus, 27 for all of you who were baptized into Christ
have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28 There is neither
Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you
 are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 If you belong to Christ,
then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the
promise." (3:26-29)
A "son" is one who is now of age. Sometimes feminists
bristle that they are not "sons" but "daughters" of God.
True. But if Paul had said that, his first century audience
would have misunderstood him, since daughters didn't
have the same inheritance rights as sons. He is saying
that you are all sons in terms of your full status before
God -- both men and women!

Baptized into Christ (3:27)

How did you become sons? You were "baptized into

Christ." Baptism in the primitive church was the way one
identified himself or herself with Christ. People put their
faith in Christ, confessed him as Lord (Romans 10:9), and
were baptized right away (Acts 2:38-41; 8:12-13, 36;
9:18; 10:48; 16:15, 33; 18:8; 19:5). This was according
to the practice among Jesus'disciples while he walked
with them (John 4:1) and in obedience to his specific
command (Matthew 28:19; Mark 16:16[123]). Baptism in
the primitive church seems to have been by immersion in
water, since they "went down into the water" (Acts 8:38)
and the symbolism of burial and resurrection in Romans
6:4 seems to make sense only if immersion was the
mode.
The point Paul is making here is that by baptism they
have joined themselves to Christ, they were "baptized
into Christ." The word "into" (eis) is a preposition
denoting entrance into or toward.[124] Where this
concept is amplified in Romans 6:3-5, we see that
baptism is closely associated with being united to Christ.
"3 Or don't you know that all of us who were baptized
into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4 We were
therefore buried with him through baptism into death in
order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead
through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new
life. 5 If we have been united with him like this in his
death, we will certainly also be united with him in his
resurrection." (Romans 6:3-5)
In Romans 6:5 Paul uses the word symphytos, literally,
"planted together," with the idea of being "born together
with, of joint origin ... grown together, united with."[125]
In our Galatians passage, Paul uses the word "clothed"
(NIV, NRSV), "put on" (KJV), endyō, "to put any kind of
thing on oneself, clothe oneself in, wear something,"
metaphorically, very often, of the taking on of
characteristics, virtues, intentions, etc. (also Romans
13:14; Luke 24:49).[126]
We are baptized into Christ, we are united with Christ, we
are clothed with Christ. No longer do we have to walk a
lonesome valley by ourselves. Rather we are "found in
him, not having a righteousness of my own" (Philippians
3:9a). Our lives are now "hidden with Christ in God"
(Colossians 3:3). We are "in Christ." Praise God!
One in Christ (3:28-29)
We've looked at how we've gained the status of sons of
God -- through baptism into Christ. Now look at the
implications of this:
 "28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male
nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 If you
belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's seed, and
heirs according to the promise." (3:28-29)
Remember the context of Galatians: Paul is contending
that in Christ, we're all at the same level. Circumcised
Jews are not superior to uncircumcised Gentiles. We are
all one in Christ.
Sometimes this verse is used by feminists to prove that
there is no difference between males and females, that in
this statement Paul has wiped away all distinctions of
race, slavery, or gender. But notice that Paul doesn't say
that there are not distinctions any longer between
genders, since elsewhere he talks about different roles of
men and women in his culture, and how slaves should act
towards their masters.
What Paul does say is that we all have the same status
before God -- which was a radical statement for his day,
when women and slaves were looked down upon in both
Judaism and in Greek culture. He is saying we are all
equal in Christ! Praise God! This radical verse erases the
supposed superiority of men over women, of one race
over another, of one class over another. We are one, since
we are all joined to Christ by baptism. Our new identity is
in him, not in our personal distinctions.
In Ephesians, Paul says something similar in the context
of the tension between Jews and Gentiles:
"For [Christ] himself is our peace, who has made the
two one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall
 of hostility, by abolishing in his flesh the law with its
commandments and regulations. His purpose was to
create in himself one new man out of the two, thus
making peace, and in this one body to reconcile both of
them to God through the cross, by which he put to
death their hostility." (Ephesians 2:14-16)
Through baptism we are joined to the "one new
man"[127] -- Christ himself.
Q1. (Galatians 4:26-29) Do you think Jewish
Christians regarded Gentile Christians as second-
class citizens? What is the basis of our unity in
Christ? In what way does this unity pull down
barriers? Do any groups continue to be regarded as
second-class citizens in our congregations? What
should we do about this?
[Link]
showtopic=1135
Slavery to the Basic Principles of the Kosmos (4:1-
3)
Paul is still developing his analogy of the limitations
imposed on an underage child.
"1 What I am saying is that as long as the heir is a child,
he is no different from a slave, although he owns the
whole estate. 2 He is subject to guardians and trustees
until the time set by his father. 3 So also, when we were
children, we were in slavery under the basic principles of
the world." (4:1-3)
Though a child might be an heir to a great estate, that
doesn't mean that he is free to act as the
owner[128] before he is of legal age.[129] Even if his
father has already died and left him the estate, he doesn't
take possession until he is of age.[130] Until then he is
legally under the authority of "guardians[131] and
trustees."[132]
According to this analogy, says Paul, before Christ came,
"we were in slavery under the basic principles of the
world" (4:3). Paul's words here have been subject to a
great deal of argument, mainly over the appropriate
definition of the word stoicheion, translated as "basic
(NIV), "elemental spirits" (NRSV), "elements" (KJV).
The word can have two senses here, either (1) "basic
components of something, elements," specifically "of
things that constitute the foundation of learning,
fundamental principles," or (2) "transcendent powers that
are in control over events in this world, elements,
elemental spirits."[133] Bruce explains,
"The word stoicheia means primarily things placed side
by side in a row; it is used of the letters of the alphabet,
the ABCs, and then, because the learning of the ABCs is
the first lesson in a literary education, it comes to mean
'rudiments, first principles' (as in Hebrews 5:12). Again,
since the letters of the alphabet were regarded as the
'elements'of which words and sentences are built
up, stoicheia comes to be used of the 'elements'which
make up the material world (cf. 2 Peter 3:10, 12)."[134]
Indeed, Jewish philosopher Philo uses stoicheia in this
sense in one place.[135] But to complicate matters,
elsewhere Philo speaks of the Greeks who revere the four
elements -- earth, water, air, fire -- and give them names
of divinities, even receiving worship.[136] Wisdom of
Solomon 13:2 refers to "people who were ignorant of
God," who worshipped the natural elements as "the gods
that rule the world."
The question then is: In which sense does Paul use the
term here and in 4:9 ("weak and miserable principles")?
This wasn't just a Gentile bondage; it included the Jews
too.
"So also, when we were children, we were in slavery
under the basic principles of the world." (4:3)
Bruce says, "For all the basic differences between
Judaism and paganism, both involved subjection to the
same elemental forces."[137] Longenecker puts it this
way:
"When talking about the Jewish experience, it was the
Mosaic law in its condemnatory and supervisory
 functions that comprised the Jews''basic principles'of
religion. Later in verse 9 when talking about the Gentile
experience, it was paganism with its veneration of
nature and cultic rituals that made up the Gentiles''basic
principles'of religion."[138]
Paul's point is that the prior to the Messiah's coming, both
Jews and Gentiles were under bondage[139]. They both
need freedom from their slavery. For a trained rabbi to
say such a thing is amazing. As Longenecker says,
"Paul's lumping of Judaism and paganism together in
this manner is radical in the extreme.... For Paul,
however, whatever leads one away from sole reliance on
Christ, whether based on good intentions or depraved
desires, is sub-Christian and is therefore to be
condemned."[140]
When the Time Had Fully Come (4:4)
But this bondage to the basic principles is in the past
tense, for now the Messiah has come! What follows are
some rather remarkable statements of God sending his
Son (4:4-5) and then sending his Spirit (4:6) to move us
from a position of slavery to a position of being God's
heirs.
"But when the time had fully come, God sent his Son,
born of a woman, born under law, to redeem those
under law, that we might receive the full rights of sons."
(4:4-5)
This is a complex passage, so let's look at it phrase by
phrase.
"When the time had fully come" (4:4a) suggests that
God had planned the event of sending his Son for a long
time. In the Old Testament there are many prophecies
that look forward to this time (for example, Genesis
49:10; Daniel 9:24-26; Malachi 3:1). In the New
Testament, Jesus begins his ministry with the words:
"The time has come. The kingdom of God is near.
Repent and believe the good news!" (Mark 1:15)
He told his disciples:
"It is not for you to know the times or dates the Father
has set by his own authority." (Acts 1:7)
Paul is quite aware of the unique timing in the mind of
God. We see such references throughout the epistles:
"... when the times will have reached their
fulfillment...." (Ephesians 1:9-10)
"... on whom the fulfillment of the ages has come." (1
Corinthians 10:11)
 "... the time of the new order." (Hebrews 9:10)
"... revealed in these last times." (1 Peter 1:20)
We wonder why God selected the first century AD in
Galilee and Judea to be "the fullness of time." Of course,
we're just speculating, but we know of three factors that
were present.
1. The time was right religiously. The Old
Testament canon had been completed. And the
synagogue system had developed to the point that it
functioned as a school, a court, and for worship --
which the early church built upon. In Israel at the time
there was also a fervent expectation of the Messiah's
coming.
2. The time was right culturally. There was now a
common language (koinē Greek) spoken throughout
 the known world. And a common Greek culture was
widespread.
3. The time was right commercially. The Roman
system of roads connected the empire, making it easy
for the gospel to spread from city to city and from
country to country.
4. The time was right politically. Rome had
instituted a common system of law that resulted in
the Pax Romana (the Roman peace) -- and they
enforced that law across the empire. There was very
little armed conflict, and the roads were safer. This
made travel from one country to another much easier
and safer.
These conditions wouldn't have existed, for example, a
century earlier. And for many subsequent periods, the
conditions would not have been right either.
"God sent his Son" (4:4b) is reminiscent of John 3:16
(and many Johannine passages). Here Paul uses the
verb, exapostellō, "to send someone off to a locality or on
a mission, send away, send off, send out," for fulfillment
of a mission in another place.[141] That God would send
his Son suggests that Jesus was preexistent with the
Father prior to his birth in Bethlehem, which is well
supported in the Gospels (John 1:1-3; 8:58; 17:5) and
the rest of the New Testament (1 Corinthians 8:6b; 10:4;
Colossians 1:15-17; Revelation 21:6; 22:13). The
Father's plan and commission for Jesus was constantly in
his mind (John 20:21; Luke 22:42). We know from other
passages that Paul saw Jesus as pre-existent with the
Father, his agent of creation (Colossians 1:15-17; 1
Corinthians 8:6; see also John 1:3). The Father's sending
suggests the Son's pre-existence also.
Q2. (Galatians 4:4) Why do you think it took so long
to send the Messiah? What about the first century
world made it fertile ground for the revelation of
the Messiah and the spread of the gospel?
[Link]
showtopic=1136
Born of a Woman, Born under Law (4:4)
"Born of a woman" (4:4c) suggests Jesus'natural
birth[142] to Mary. This sentence makes the astounding
statement that the Son of God was "woman-born." This
truth is expressed elsewhere in the doctrine of the Virgin
Birth (Matthew 1:20-23; Luke 1:35) and in the New
Testament's teaching of Jesus'divine and human nature
(John 1:1, 14; Romans 1:3-4; 9:5; Philippians 2:6-8; 1
Timothy 3:16; 1 John 4:2). It took the church several
centuries to work this out to a wording that became
normative, hammered out at the Council of Nicaea (325)
and the Council of Constantinople (381).
"We believe ... in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-
begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all
worlds, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten,
not made, being of one substance with the Father."
But it is now the basis of our orthodox understanding of
the relationship of Jesus and the Father, and is one of the
unique insights of the Christmas story of incarnation.
"Born under law" (4:4d), the next phrase in our verse,
reminds us that Jesus was born a Jew, circumcised on the
eighth day according to the law, presented in the temple
with the sacrifice of a pair of doves or pigeons according
to the law. The irony of this is found in the next phrase:
To Redeem Those under the Law (4:5a)
"But when the time had fully come, God sent his Son,
born of a woman, born under law, to redeem those
under law, that we might receive the full rights of sons."
(4:4-5)
"Redeem" (exagorazō) is a commercial term and a term
used in the context of slavery, "buy, buy up something" or
"redeem" (literally, "buy back"), then it carries the more
general idea, "to deliver someone, to secure deliverance
of, liberate,"[143] which we explored in Lesson 4 at 3:13.
Adoption or Instatement as Sons (4:5b)
"That we might receive the full rights of sons" (4:5b) is
the purpose of the sending. The keyword, translated
variously, "full rights as sons" (NIV), "adoption as
children" (NRSV), "the adoption of sons" (KJV),
is huiothesia, "adoption," a legal technical term of
"adoption" of children.[144] "[Paul's] aim is to show that
the sonship of believers is not a natural one but is
conferred by divine act."[145] Though the word is formed
from huios, "son" (found in verse 14), Paul isn't pushing
the idea of gender here.[146] Rather, he is saying that we
have been adopted with full status as sons and daughters
of the Living God, brothers and sisters of Jesus himself
(Romans 8:29; Hebrews 2:11). Amazing!
Adoption in the Roman and Greek world bestowed full
status of son on a person. Sometimes a slave would be
manumitted (that is, released from slavery) and adopted
at the same time, conferring instant and simultaneous
freedom and status as a full son.
Adoption was primarily employed when a person had no
children to be his heirs. The adopted son would become a
full heir to all that his adoptive parents possessed. At the
death of the parents, their estate would pass to him, to
his children, and to his children's children.
In poorer families, since there is precious little to pass on,
inheritance isn't something you dwell on. But in wealthy
families, it is a much more prominent matter. In the New
Testament, inheritance is a big deal. The idea appears
many times, particularly in Romans, Galatians, and
Hebrews. Why? Because of the "wealthy family" to which
we belong.
Paul emphasizes this idea of inheritance in verse 7:
"Since you are a son, God has made you also an
heir."[147] (4:7)
In Romans we read that we are "co-heirs[148] with Christ"
(Romans 8:17a). What Christ inherits, we inherit. What
Christ our older brother receives, we receive alongside of
him. Under Jewish law, as older brother he would inherit
more, but this isn't Paul's point. Here Paul emphasizes
that our status in God's family is full. We are "seated with
him in the heavenly realms" (Ephesians 2:6) and Christ
himself is seated at the right hand of God (Ephesians
1:20), the place of honor as Son and Heir.
Dear friend, you are neither a peon nor a nobody. You are
a full son of God, a full daughter of God. All God
possesses is yours. You are a child of the King of All.
Q3. (Galatians 4:3-5) In what sense were both the
Gentiles and the Jews enslaved? What does
"redeem" mean in verse 5? What are the
implications of adoption regarding a person's legal
and spiritual rights?
[Link]
showtopic=1137
The Spirit of His Son Crying 'Abba, Father'(4:6-7)
"6 Because you are sons, God sent the Spirit of his Son
into our hearts, the Spirit who calls out, 'Abba,
Father.'7 So you are no longer a slave, but a son; and
since you are a son, God has made you also an heir."
(4:6-7)
A very similar passage occurs in Paul's letter to the
Romans, including the same elements as in our passage:
Spirit, adoption/sonship, Abba, heirs:
"15 For you did not receive a spirit that makes you a
slave again to fear, but you received the Spirit of
 sonship. And by him we cry, "Abba, Father." 16 The Spirit
himself testifies with our spirit that we are God's
children. 17 Now if we are children, then we are heirs --
heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ, if indeed we share
in his sufferings in order that we may also share in his
glory." (Romans 8:15-17)
Abba, a vocative form, was originally a term of
endearment, later used as title and personal name (rarely
used in reference to God). It means "father," and was
transliterated into Greek as "abba." It was an Aramaic
word used in prayer and in the family circle, later taken
over by Greek-speaking Christians as a liturgical formula.
[149]
As adopted sons we are not step-children who are afraid
of our Father and always on our guard. We don't have to
address him with the formal word, "Father," but can use
the familiar expression, "Abba," because, after all, we are
full sons! Hallelujah. The Holy Spirit in our lives is the
evidence of our sonship.
Q4. (Galatians 4:6-7) How does the Spirit's filling
demonstrate we are full sons? What is the special
sense in which the Aramaic word abba is used to
speak to one's father? What is the significance of
being heirs of God? Are we sons in the same sense
that Jesus was God's Son?
[Link]
showtopic=1138
Paul has contrasted slave/slavery with sons/freedom in
this passage setting us up for his declaration "It is for
freedom that Christ has set us free" (5:1) and his
instruction about walking in the Spirit rather than
according to the flesh. Fee concludes:
"For Paul, therefore, it is unthinkable that God's free
'sons,' made so by Christ and the Spirit, should revert to
the slavery of a former time, the very slavery that not
only failed to create true 'sons' but also failed to effect
true righteousness."[150]
This passage has included some pretty remarkable truths
about our relationship to God -- Father, Son, and Holy
Spirit. Consider:
1. Son. We are united to Christ by baptism and faith.
We are one with him (3:26-28).
2. Father. We now have the same status before God
as Abraham's natural descendents (3:29). God has
 adopted us and changed our status from slave to
fully-adopted sons and heirs.
3. Spirit. The Holy Spirit now lives in our hearts,
establishing the intimate relationship between us and
the Father, to whom we can call out naturally and
confidently as Daddy "Abba."

Freedom from the Law by the Spirit (Galatians 4:8-

5:12)
by Dr. Ralph F. Wilson
Audio (46:06)
Free E-mail Bible Study Grace: Favor for the
Undeserving
 Bkmrk
The Galatians had received Christ, had experienced the
Holy Spirit setting them free from sin and opening up a
new life to them. Now they knew God on the basis of an
introduction by the Son of God himself. But they were
flirting with the idea of being circumcised so they could be
saved! They didn't get it. They didn't appreciate what
they had.
They had been convinced by some Jewish Christians that
they couldn't be saved unless they were circumcised like
proper Jews. Now they were about to go backwards! So
Paul tries to explain to them using a number of analogies
how the law that demanded circumcision was inferior to
the freedom of the Spirit.
The Slavery of Their Gentile Past (4:8-9)
 "8 Formerly, when you did not know God, you were
slaves to those who by nature are not gods. 9 But now
that you know God -- or rather are known by God --
how is it that you are turning back to those weak and
miserable principles? Do you wish to be enslaved by
them all over again?" (4:8-9)
The Galatians Paul is writing to were formerly pagans,
slaves to appeasing whatever god they might have
believed they had offended. Paul observes that just
because the Galatians believed their objects of worship to
be divine didn't make them so. To the Corinthians he
would later refer to them as "so-called gods" (1
Corinthians 8:5-6), "demons" (1 Corinthians 10:21; from
Deuteronomy 32:17), and "mute idols"
(1 Corinthians 12:2).
In 4:3 (Lesson 5) we discussed the meaning
of stoicheion, translated as "basic principles" (NIV),
"elemental spirits" (NRSV), "elements" (KJV) as either
"basic components of something, elements" or "elemental
spirits.[151] Though the second meaning could fit the
context in 4:9, I argued above for the first meaning, the
idea of "basic elements," which Paul derides by calling
them weak[152] and miserable.[153] Bondage to these
basic elements was vastly inferior to the fullness of the
Spirit.
"Were slaves" (NIV), "were enslaved" (NRSV), "did
service" (KJV) in verses 8 and 9 is douleuō, "to be owned
by another, be a slave, be subjected," then figuratively,
"to act or conduct oneself as one in total service to
another, perform the duties of a slave, serve,
obey."[154] As mentioned in Lesson 5, the Gentiles'
bondage to their gods had some similarities to the Jewish
bondage to "legalism as a principle of life."[155]
The Legalism of Observing Special Days (4:10)
Now some Jewish Christians had come in and imposed
observing the various Jewish days of worship upon the
Gentiles -- another sign that they are moving in the
direction of legalism.
"You are observing special days and months and
seasons and years!" (4:10)
Their observance of Jewish days sounds quite similar to
what would distract the Colossian church some years
later.
"Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat
or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New
Moon celebration or a Sabbath day." (Colossians 2:16)
In Romans, he referred to observance of certain days as a
matter of conscience.
"One man considers one day more sacred than another;
another man considers every day alike. Each one should
be fully convinced in his own mind. He who regards one
day as special, does so to the Lord." (Romans 14:5-6a)
This might be permissible in the case of people who had
converted from Judaism to Christianity; observance of
special days had been part of their culture. But for the
Galatians to adopt the Jewish calendar under the
influence of the Judaizers was a legalism which must be
opposed! As Bruce concludes:
"The traditions of Judaism, when accepted as ritually
binding, were in Paul's eyes fetters which impeded faith
and excluded liberty."[156]
Is it wrong for Christians to observe special days such as
Christmas or Easter? Or observances such as Lent or
Sundays in Advent? Or a special day each week to
worship? I don't think so. These can be helpful to our
spiritual lives, when observed thoughtfully. Paul himself
observed Pentecost, a Jewish holy day (1 Corinthians
16:8; Acts 20:16). But to take upon ourselves a schedule
of observing holy days as a legal obligation or a mantle of
righteousness is wrong, and can lead us into legalism.
Paul's Frustration with the Galatians (4:11)
Here and in verse 19 Paul vents his frustration and
concern:
"I fear for you, that somehow I have wasted my
efforts[157] on you." (4:11)
Paul has poured out his very life and suffered physical
danger trying to establish these Galatian churches, only
to have them turn away from the true gospel to a new
legalism (see 2 Corinthians 6:1).
Q1. (Galatians 4:10-11) Is celebrating different
special worship days essentially wrong? Why did
Paul grieve over the Galatians' observances? What
significance did these have in terms of their
movement towards Judaism? How can we be
blessed by observing special days in our era? How
can observance of special days become legalistic for
Christian believers?
[Link]
showtopic=1139
Paul's Personal Appeal to the Galatians (4:12-15)
Paul begins a personal appeal with a statement of his love
for the Galatians.
"I plead with you, brothers, become like me, for I
became like you. You have done me no wrong." (4:12)
Paul closely identifies with the Galatians as a father with
his children (4:19), just as he did with the errant
Corinthian church when he "opened wide his heart" (2
Corinthians 6:11).
He isn't bearing some kind of personal grudge toward
them. In fact, he reminds them that they had treated him
with great love and generosity.
"13 As you know, it was because of an illness that I first
preached the gospel to you.
14
Even though my illness was a trial to you, you did not
treat me with contempt or scorn. Instead, you welcomed
 me as if I were an angel of God, as if I were Christ Jesus
himself.
15
What has happened to all your joy? I can testify that,
if you could have done so, you would have torn out your
eyes and given them to me." (4:13-15)
Paul recalls the Galatians' initial warm reception of him
and his gospel, in spite of his trying physical
circumstances at the time. What was this "illness" (NIV),
"physical infirmity" (NRSV), "infirmity of the flesh" (KJV)?
[158] We don't know. Three illnesses have been
proposed:
1. Malaria. Paul came to the Galatians "because of an
infirmity," that is, he caught malaria in the lowlands of
Pamphylia, and came up to the high country around
Pisidian Antioch (elevation 3,600 feet) to recuperate
(Acts 13:13-14).
 2. Epilepsy. "Treat with ... scorn" (NIV), "despise"
(NRSV), "rejected" (KJV) translates ekptyō, literally,
"to spit out."[159] Some relate this to the practice of
spitting to avert the evil eye or to exorcise an evil
spirit, including epilepsy.
3. Opthalamia or some kind of infection of the eyes,
suggested by the Galatians' willingness to tear out
their eyes to replace his sick ones.[160] Of the three,
this makes the most sense to me.
But when people suggest three such diverse illnesses for
Paul here, it's pretty obvious that we just don't have
enough information to make any kind of firm diagnosis.
Whatever this illness was, it could have been the "thorn in
the flesh" that Paul discusses in 2 Corinthians 12:7.
The Problem with Zeal (4:16-18)
The Galatians had had such an overflowing love for Paul.
What happened? he asks.
"16 Have I now become your enemy by telling you the
truth? 17 Those people are zealous to win you over, but
for no good. What they want is to alienate you [from
us], so that you may be zealous for them. 18 It is fine to
be zealous, provided the purpose is good, and to be so
always and not just when I am with you." (4:17-18)
When people try to form their own following, one of the
most common tactics is to accuse their opponents of
falsehood or deception, whereas all Paul was doing was
"telling you the truth" (4:16). The purpose of the
Judaizers was to alienate the Galatians from Paul's
influence so that their influence would be complete.[161]
Paul warns the Galatians against those who fuss
excessively over them in order to win their
favor. [162] They aren't experiencing genuine love, but
cynical manipulation!
The Agony of Childbirth (4:19-20)
Paul's frustration and love for the Galatians breaks out
again in a remarkable expression.
"19 My dear children, for whom I am again in the pains of
childbirth until Christ is formed in you, 20 how I wish I
could be with you now and change my tone, because I
am perplexed about you!" (4:19-20)
As their spiritual father, he addresses them as his
children. Birthing children is painful. "The pains of
childbirth" (NIV, NRSV), "travail in birth" (KJV) is ōdinō,
"to experience pains associated with giving birth, have
birth-pains," in imagery, "be in labor = suffer
greatly."[163] Paul went through the struggle and pain of
bringing them into the Kingdom of God once already --
now he has to do it again.
He uses the fascinating phrase, "until Christ is formed in
you." The verb morphoō, "take on form, be
formed,"[164] suggests in this context the formation of
an embryo in its mother's womb. Until it is fully formed, it
won't be able to survive outside its mother's womb. Paul
is in agony still getting these kids born, since they've
turned away from the basics of the gospel, the grace of
God. It's a mixed up metaphor, to be sure,[165] but it
eloquently conveys Paul's struggle and his consternation.
What does it mean for Christ to be "formed" in us? I
suppose this refers to the initial formation process in
which we learn to follow Jesus. We're not talking about
just praying an initial prayer of surrender, but the early
days of our Christian life where patterns are being set for
the rest of our lives. Two modern expressions describe
the process: "discipleship" and "spiritual formation."
In order to help Christians get a good start in their lives, I
developed a mentor-based, video-assisted, 12-week
curriculum designed for new believers: JesusWalk
Beginning the Journey (JesusWalk, 2009,
[Link]/beginning/).
Sadly, we're seeing too much quick salvation without
deep repentance, which results in shallow believers who
aren't deeply grounded in Jesus. Oh, Christ, be formed
fully in us! Let our form reflect Your shape and not our
own!
You can hear Paul's father-heart in verse 20:
"How I wish I could be with you now and change my
tone, because I am perplexed about you!" (4:20)
Paul is separated from the Galatians by many
weeks'journey, so he can't come to them, but he longs to
go to them and help them through this crisis of faith. If
he could be with them, he could change his
tone[166] from scolding to patient instruction. As it is,
he's unsure[167] about what more he can do except pray
and write this letter.
Q2. (Galatians 4:19-20) How is Paul's grief over his
spiritual children like that of a parent seeing
children stray? What does it look like when Christ is
formed in a person? What is the process involved in
this spiritual formation?
[Link]
showtopic=1140
Allegory of Hagar and Sarah (4:21-31)
Now Paul launches into a complex argument about the
superiority of faith in the promise over the law. The focus
of Paul's allegory are the two children born to Abraham.
Isaac was the son of Sarah, Abraham's wife and the
object of God's promises to Abraham of innumerable
offspring. Ishmael is the son of Hagar, Sarah's slave,
whom she gave to Abraham as a concubine. The story
comes from Genesis 16 and 21:1-21, which I encourage
you to read now so you'll understand Paul's argument.
"Tell me, you who want to be under the law, are you not
aware of what the law says?" (4:21)
To a Jew, the word "law" refers not only to the Mosaic
code, but to the first five books of the Bible, the
Pentateuch. In a turnabout on the Judaizers, Paul, too,
refers to the "law" to make his argument.
 "22 For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by
the slave woman and the other by the free
woman. 23 His son by the slave woman was born in the
ordinary way; but his son by the free woman was born
as the result of a promise." (4:22-23)
Hagar's son Ishmael was born from the natural mating of
a male and female. But Sarah was childless and was now
90 years old (Genesis 17:17). Isaac's birth was a miracle,
the direct result of promises made directly to Abraham --
which he believed!
"Your wife Sarah will bear you a son, and you will call
him Isaac. I will establish my covenant with him as an
everlasting covenant for his descendants after him."
(Genesis 17:19)
"I will surely return to you about this time next year,
and Sarah your wife will have a son." (Genesis 18:10)
Mount Sinai vs. Heavenly Mount Zion (4:24-27)
Now Paul builds his allegory:
"24 These things may be taken figuratively, for the
women represent two covenants. One covenant is from
Mount Sinai and bears children who are to be slaves:
This is Hagar.
25
Now Hagar stands for Mount Sinai in Arabia and
corresponds to the present city of Jerusalem, because
she is in slavery with her children. 26 But the Jerusalem
that is above is free, and she is our mother. 27 For it is
written:
'Be glad, O barren woman, who bears no children;
break forth and cry aloud, you who have no labor
pains;
because more are the children of the desolate woman
 than of her who has a husband.'"(4:24-27, quoting
Isaiah 54:1)
"Figuratively" (NIV), "allegory" (NRSV, KJV) is allēgoreō,
"to use analogy or likeness to express something, speak
allegorically."[168] This was a common method of Jewish
teaching. Jesus' parables, for example, were stories about
everyday life intended to illustrate spiritual truths. Just
because allegorical interpretation can be abused, doesn't
mean it isn't effective in argument in this context -- and
that's why Paul employs it here.
Now Paul contrasts two covenants -- the law given at
Mount Sinai with the covenant of faith, the latter
exemplified by Isaac's miraculous birth, wherein "Abram
believed the LORD, and he credited it to him as
righteousness" (Genesis 15:6). Like the slave-woman
Hagar, Paul argues, those under the law are in slavery.
The Two Jerusalems (4:25b-26)
Notice that in 4:25b-26, Paul mixes his metaphors
contrasting two Jerusalems: (1) the present geographical
Jerusalem, which represents the capital city of the Jews
who are still in bondage to the law, and (2) "the
Jerusalem above," which is free. After the utter
destruction of Jerusalem in 587 BC, the prophets began
speaking of the Jerusalem that was to come, the
eschatological and ideal Jerusalem described in Ezekiel 48
and Isaiah 62. The concept of the actual and heavenly
Jerusalem existing simultaneously was widespread in
Judaism in Paul's day, reflected, for example in Hebrews
11:10; 12:22; and 13:14. These prophetic expectations
find their culmination in the Book of Revelation:
"... The new Jerusalem, which is coming down out of
heaven from my God." (Revelation 3:12b)
 "I saw the Holy City, the new Jerusalem, coming down
out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride beautifully
dressed for her husband." (Revelation 21:2, cf. 21:10)
"The Jerusalem that is above is free, and she is our
mother," proclaims Paul. We followers of the Messiah
have been set free and are no longer bound by the old
covenant of law, but in the New Jerusalem we enjoy the
new covenant of faith and freedom.
Son of the Slave Woman (4:28-29)
Now Paul carries the argument one step further,
contrasting the children of promise (Isaac, followers of
the Messiah) with the children of slavery (Ishmael, the
unbelieving Jews):
"28 Now you, brothers, like Isaac, are children of
promise. 29 At that time the son born in the ordinary way
 persecuted the son born by the power of the Spirit. It is
the same now. 30 But what does the Scripture say? 'Get
rid of the slave woman and her son, for the slave
woman's son will never share in the inheritance with the
free woman's son.'
Therefore, brothers, we are not children of the slave
31

woman, but of the free woman." (Galatians 4:28-31)

Paul is referring to an incident in Genesis.
"On the day Isaac was weaned ... Sarah saw that the
son whom Hagar the Egyptian had borne to Abraham
was mocking, and she said to Abraham, 'Get rid of that
slave woman and her son, for that slave woman's son
will never share in the inheritance with my son Isaac.'"
(Genesis 21:8-10)
Ishamel was mocking now as a boy of 13.[169] If
Ishmael stayed in the household and Abraham were to
die, Sarah was sure would kill or banish Isaac. The slave-
son Ishmael and his mother Hagar must go to protect the
inheritance and status of her son, Isaac. Paul is
comparing Ishmael's "mocking" with "persecution" -- and
certainly the Jews were persecuting the followers of the
Messiah in Paul's day!
Paul appeals to the Galatians: You, like Isaac, are sons of
God, "born by the power of the Spirit," not enslaved sons
in bondage to the law, like Ishmael!
Set Free for a Purpose (5:1)
Now we come to what may be the theme verse for the
entire letter.
 "It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm,
then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a
yoke of slavery." (5:1)
To be under the law is slavery to the lesser elements of
the creation. To be led by the Spirit, which he will
introduce in 5:16, is the much preferable alternative.
Christ has set you free, says Paul, "for
freedom."[170] Exactly what does he mean? First, we
must observe that, "It is for freedom that Christ has set
us free," seems like a strange sentence, until we realize
that it is a Hebraism.
Hebrew has a construction known as the "infinitive
absolute," where a verb and infinitive of the same root
verb are combined to give extra emphasis to an idea. We
see this construction, for example, reflected in Jesus'
words at the Last Supper, "With desire I have desired..."
(Luke 22:15, KJV).[171] So Paul uses this Hebraism to
add emphasis to the idea of being freed!
But what exactly is Paul saying? There seem to be two
main possibilities, with only a slight difference from each
other:
1. Dative of instrument or cause. "By bestowing this
freedom (spoken of above), Christ made us
free."[172] Through or by means of this freedom.
2. Dative of goal, destiny, destination, or purpose.
"For the purpose of freedom (spoken of above), Christ
set us free.[173]
The second possibility, the dative of purpose, has the
advantage of being parallel to Paul's thought in 5:13,
"You, my brothers, were called to be free."[174] I think
the sense of 5:1 contains this idea of purpose: "Did Christ
liberate us that we might be slaves? No, but that we
might be free."[175]
The Yoke of Slavery (5:1b)
Because of Christ's purpose for us to be free, therefore,
we must:
"Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be
burdened again by a yoke of slavery." (5:1b)
The Jews spoke of "taking the yoke of law" upon oneself,
so in this context "yoke" would naturally be assumed to
refer to the law and circumcision. A few years later than
this letter (according to the early dating theory), at the
Jerusalem Council, Peter would say about the law,
"Why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of
the disciples a yoke that neither we nor our fathers have
been able to bear?" (Acts 15:10)
Jesus had contrasted the heavy yoke of the Pharisees
(Matthew 23:4), with his own easy yoke and light burden
(Matthew 11:30).
Paul urges the Gentile Galatians to "stand firm" in their
Christian freedom and refuse circumcision, the symbol of
the heavy burden[176] of the law that the Judaizers were
pressuring them to accept. They are free now in the
Messiah. Why should they put up with being made slaves
once again?
Submitting to Circumcision Alienates You from
Christ (5:2-4)
Now Paul spells out the implications of circumcision. It is
more than just a minor surgical procedure. Paul speaks
with all solemnity:
 "2 Mark my words![177] I, Paul, tell[178] you that if you
let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value
to you at all. 3 Again I declare to every man who lets
himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the
whole law. 4 You who are trying to be justified by law
have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away
from grace." (5:2-4)
The dangers for the Galatians are three-fold. If they are
circumcised, they will:
1. Commit themselves to being law-keepers.
They will be obligated[179] to obey[180] the whole
Mosaic Law, with all its dietary laws and Sabbath
ordinances -- a heavy burden.
2. Become alienated from Christ. They had
believed that Christ died for their sins to make them
right[181] in God's eyes. Now they would turn to the
 law to do this for them instead. Thus Christ's death
will be of no value or benefit[182] to them (5:2).
"Alienated" (NIV), "cut off from" (NRSV), "become of
no effect" (KJV) is a strong expression! The verb
is katargeō, "to cause the release of someone from an
obligation (one has nothing more to do with it), be
discharged, be released."[183] This isn't just neutral;
either they trust the Messiah for their salvation, or
they trust the law. You can't be devoted to both as
your Savior. So taking on the law means that they are
being released from Christ.
3. Fall from grace. In English, the phrase "fall from
grace" is an idiom referring to a loss of status,
respect, or prestige. "Fallen away" (NIV, NRSV),
"fallen" (KJV) translate the Greek verb ekpiptō, "fall,"
here figuratively, "to change for the worse from a
favorable condition, lose something."[184] The image
 is that once you were up high, and now you've fallen
from your exalted place. Grace, of course, is God's
favor. Without God's favor on us, we are left to our
own devices, to try to cobble together our own
righteousness based on righteous deeds that stem
from mixed and often corrupt and selfish motives.
Isaiah said, "All our righteous acts are like filthy rags"
(Isaiah 64:6), literally menstrual cloths. We may think
we look good, but stains and filth and pollution are
what God sees.
Q3. (Galatians 5:4) Exactly what does Paul mean by
"fall from grace" here? What has occurred that has
caused this fall? How can present-day Christian
legalism cause such a "fall from grace"?
[Link]
showtopic=1141
Faith Expressed through Love (5:5-6)
Now Paul contrasts the burden of strict obedience to the
law with the expectant faith of the true Christian.
"5 But by faith we eagerly await through the Spirit the
righteousness for which we hope. 6 For in Christ Jesus
neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value.
The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself
through love." (5:5-6)
A dependence upon law is static, looking to the past. But
a dependence upon, faith in the return of Christ is
dynamic, looking forward eagerly[185] to the coming of
our Lord when the righteous verdict we anticipate will
surely come to pass. The Holy Spirit is the one who
sustains and energizes our hope that will be fully realized
when Christ returns.
The Value of Circumcision (5:6)
Now Paul assesses the value of circumcision. The Bible
has a long history of discounting the value of mere
physical circumcision. Rather, the prophets called for
circumcision of the heart, that is, the commitment of the
will and whole person to serving God (Deuteronomy
10:16; 30:6; Jeremiah 4:4; 9:26). Paul sums this up in
Romans:
"A man is not a Jew if he is only one outwardly, nor is
circumcision merely outward and physical. No, a man is
a Jew if he is one inwardly; and circumcision is
circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the
written code." (Romans 2:28-29)
For the Jews of the first century, circumcision was their
mark of identity, a rite that set them apart, along with
their kosher dietary laws and separation from Gentiles.
Circumcision was the act that had kept many Gentiles as
"God-fearers," attenders at synagogue, but not full
converts to Judaism. For Jews, circumcision was the
decisive difference between a Jew and a non-Jew.
But now Paul says that circumcision is irrelevant.
"For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor
uncircumcision has any value.[186] The only thing that
counts is faith expressing[187] itself through love."
(5:6)
We see similar statements from the last chapter of
Galatians and elsewhere:
"Neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means
anything; what counts is a new creation." (Galatians
6:15)
 "Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing.
Keeping God's commands is what counts." (1
Corinthians 7:19)
Once, circumcision was the sign of the covenant that God
made with Abraham (Genesis 17:10-14, 23), later
renewed with the Israelites before Joshua led them into
the Promised Land (Joshua 5:2-8).
But now the Messiah had come and sent his Spirit.
Everything had changed. Instead of circumcision, the
presence of the Spirit was the new mark of identity.
Circumcision was nothing to be ashamed of -- or boasted
about. It was now irrelevant, superfluous, obsolete.
What matters now is not getting circumcised -- what the
Judaizers were trying to press upon the Galatian
congregations -- but living out their Spirit-led faith in
loving actions. When Paul was writing, the Galatians
congregations were being torn apart through backbiting,
strife, and pride. Paul points them from their focus on
circumcision to a focus on acting in loving ways toward
others in the Christian community.
Q4. (Galatians 5:5-6) Circumcision had been the
primary "mark of identity" for a believer in God. In
what way has the Spirit become the new "mark of
identity" for the believer? What is the evidence of
the Spirit's presence in a believer's life according to
verse 6?
[Link]
showtopic=1142
The Judaizers Are Spoilers (5:7-10)
Now Paul scolds them like little children, using two
analogies -- racing and yeast -- that speak of someone
spoiling something good.
 "7 You were running[188] a good race. Who cut in on
you and kept you from obeying the truth? 8 That kind of
persuasion does not come from the one who calls you."
(5:7-8)
It's like a foot-race in which someone purposely gets in
your way.[189] They had been doing so well[190] -- and
now they seem to have lost sight of the goal. Ironically,
the Judaizers -- in their attempt to get the Galatians to
obey the law -- were preventing the Galatians from
obeying[191] the truth or following through on what they
knew to be true. This kind of subversive
persuasion[192] comes from the devil, not from God, who
called them to faith in the Messiah.
"A little yeast works through the whole batch of dough."
(5:9)
Yeast is sometimes used positively in the New Testament
to symbolize the growth of the Kingdom (Matthew
13:33), sometimes negatively to describe the false
teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees (Matthew 6:6,
11, 12). Here, Paul uses it as a proverb -- on how a small
cause can have a great effect. Our American proverb is
similar, "One bad apple spoils the barrel." The Judaizers
are few, but the effect is to pollute the whole church with
false doctrine.
The Penalty for Hurting the Church (5:10)
Now Paul seeks to bolster his listeners with his confidence
that they will understand and come back to his original
teaching about putting faith in Christ's death for their sin
to make them right with God.
 "I am confident in the Lord that you will take no other
view. The one who is throwing you into confusion will
pay the penalty,[193] whoever he may be." (5:10)
What is the penalty for causing turmoil[194] in a
congregation and ultimately destroying it as a viable and
orthodox church? In 1 Corinthians, Paul warns any who
would build upon the foundation of the church he planted:
"14 If what he has built survives, he will receive his
reward. 15 If it is burned up, he will suffer loss; he
himself will be saved, but only as one escaping through
the flames.
16
Don't you know that you yourselves are God's temple
and that God's Spirit lives in you? 17 If anyone destroys
God's temple, God will destroy him; for God's temple is
sacred, and you are that temple." (1 Corinthians 3:14-
17)
Ponder these verses. Paul is likening the church to a
temple. And says that if a person destroys the temple,
the church, God will destroy him.
I've seen people cause great turmoil in a church to get
their way, to push through their agenda -- as if they
owned it. But the temple, the church, "is sacred," that is,
it belongs to God. We must be very careful with God's
church that we do not hurt or destroy what belongs to
him! We will have to answer to him for what we have
done to his church before his great judgment throne (2
Corinthians 5:10; Romans 14:10; Revelation 20:11-15).
"The one who is throwing you into confusion will pay the
penalty" (5:10).
The Accusation that Paul Is Preaching Circumcision
(5:11a)
Apparently, the Judaizers have been claiming that Paul
still taught circumcision.
"Brothers, if I am still preaching circumcision, why am I
still being persecuted? In that case the offense of the
cross has been abolished." (5:11)
We know that during his second missionary journey, Paul
did indeed circumcise someone -- in one of the towns that
may have been the recipients of this very letter.
"[Paul] came to Derbe and then to Lystra, where a
disciple named Timothy lived, whose mother was a
Jewess and a believer, but whose father was a Greek.
The brothers at Lystra and Iconium spoke well of him.
Paul wanted to take him along on the journey, so he
circumcised him because of the Jews who lived in that
area, for they all knew that his father was a Greek."
(Acts 16:1-3)
Whether this incident took place before or after Galatians
was written depends upon whether you hold the early or
the late theory, which are spelled out in the Introduction.
No matter when it took place, however, Paul's
circumcision of Timothy "was intended for sociological
convenience, not religious validity."[195] If Timothy, born
of a Jewish mother, hadn't been circumcised, it would
have become an issue in every synagogue where Paul
taught, rather than letting him focus on the real issue --
Christ and him crucified.
Paul's argument in 5:11a is simple: If I were preaching
that people needed to be circumcised to be righteous,
then the Jews would have stopped persecuting me -- and
they haven't!
The Offense of the Cross (5:11b)
Now Paul mentions the "offense of the cross."
 "Brothers, if I am still preaching circumcision, why am I
still being persecuted? In that case the offense of the
cross has been abolished." (5:11)
Exactly what is the offense of the cross -- and why is it
offensive?
The first concept to understand is "offense" (NIV, NRSV,
KJV), "stumbling block" (NASV, RSV), Greek skandalon.
Originally, it referred to a trap, a device for catching
something alive. However, the Septuagint, in translating
the Hebrew, interchanged two words: skōlon ("stumbling
block") and skándalon ("trap"). Thus by
assimilation skándalon can mean both "trap" and
"stumbling block" or "cause of ruin" -- either with regard
to idols or to offenses against the law.[196] Here, it has a
figurative sense: "that which causes offense or revulsion
and results in opposition, disapproval, or hostility, fault,
stain, etc."[197]
Next, we need to probe why the cross was offensive.
Consider these verses:
"For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the
gospel -- not with words of human wisdom, lest
the cross of Christ be emptied of its power. For the
message of the cross is foolishness to those who are
perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power
of God." (1 Corinthians 1:17-18)
"We preach Christ crucified: a stumbling
block (skandalon) to Jews and foolishness to
Gentiles." (1 Corinthians 1:23)
"For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you
except Jesus Christ and him crucified." (1
Corinthians 2:2)
 "Those who want to make a good impression outwardly
are trying to compel you to be circumcised. The only
reason they do this is to avoid being persecuted for
the cross of Christ." (Galatians 6:12)
Why was the cross a stumbling block to the Jews? Two
doctrines arise from the preaching of the cross that offend
the Jews:
1. Messiah died. The Jewish leaders had Jesus
crucified -- but he turned out to be the Messiah
prophesied in Scripture.
2. Grace reigns, not law. Jesus' atonement for sins
on the cross means that we are made right with God
by Christ's death, not by obedience to the law.
The basic gospel message Paul preached was summed up
in 1 Corinthians:
 "For what I received I passed on to you as of first
importance: that Christ died for our sins according to
the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on
the third day according to the Scriptures." (1 Corinthians
15:3-4)
Q5. (Galatians 5:11) What is "the offense of the
cross" that offended the Jews? How does the cross
offend people in our day? Have you noticed
Christians softening their proclamation of the
cross? Does this help them communicate more
clearly to our age or does it compromise the true
message?
[Link]
showtopic=1143
Paul's Final Frustration (5:12)
As we'll see in 6:12, the cross of Christ is the central
issue behind the Judaizers campaign to circumcise the
Gentiles -- so the other Jews would accept these Christian
Jews as real Jews.
"The only reason they do this is to avoid being
persecuted for the cross of Christ." (Galatians 6:12)
So Paul is disgusted with them! They've ruined a perfectly
good church in order to avoid persecution for the central
truth of the gospel -- that the Messiah died for our sins.
Paul seems to wish an ironic fate for the Judaizers.
"As for those agitators,[198] I wish they would go the
whole way and emasculate[199] themselves!" (Galatians
5:12)
In other words, he says, since they're so ready to cut off
foreskins, perhaps, while they're at it, they could castrate
themselves -- pretty strong language for an apostle. But
then, he was only human.
We've spent a lot of time examining the issue Paul was up
against. But in the next lesson we turn to God's
replacement for the law -- the indwelling Spirit.