08-The Fourth Paragraph from Galatians
The Fourth Paragraph from Galatians (Chapter 4:12-31) The next nine verses I propose to omit. Verse 12 is indeed obscure, but need not detain us now. He begs them to be, as he is; and passing on (though disclaiming any ground for distinct complaint) mentions with sorrow and regret the change that has come over them. In v. 13 the sense would be plainer if a small change might be admitted, and we were allowed to read διʼ ἀσθενείας (circumstantial, “in ill health”) in place of διʼ ἀσθένειαν. The latter can be explained, though not without difficulty. The former would demand no sort of explanation. Further, we gather from these verses that he had paid them hitherto two visits. It was on the former occasion his health was somehow amiss. Then they were all sympathy. They welcomed him as a messenger of God, nay even (as he declares, using a bold figure) as if he had been the Master Himself. Then they spoke of themselves as the happiest of men, to have the Apostle among them. Nothing would have been too good for him. They would have torn out their very eyes and given them him.
Now all is sadly altered. His influence has been undermined. He suggests he has been too sincere, while others have been employing the arts of the flatterer. This seeming friendliness will not end in good for them. In the upshot it will only lead to their exclusion from Christ (for such would seem to be the meaning of v. 17). Verse 18, once again, is far from transparent. A good deal must be supplied. But the gist of it seems to be that friendliness is all very well and honourable attention. In fact St Paul himself prized their kindly attentions to him. But he does not want ‘fair weather’ friends-people who are kindly to his face but not behind his back. The section ends with a pathetic cry:
4:19, 20. “O my little children! over whom I once more endure the pangs of birth, till Christ shall be formed in you! I wish I could be with you now, and change my tone: for I am sore puzzled about you.”
Why the wish of v. 20 is put as a thing impracticable, It is a little hard to see, more especially if it was so, that he actually did visit them very shortly after he wrote. But now we have reached the point where we must return to the text:
4:21-27. “Tell me, ye that would be under Law, do ye not heed the Law? It is written, you know, that Abraham had two sons, one by the serving maid and one by the freewoman. The child of the serving maid is” (that is, in the page of Holy Writ) “a child of nature: the child of the freewoman comes by promise. There is in it all a hidden meaning. The two mothers are the two covenants; the one of them from Mount Sinai, engendering to bondage-which is Agar” (here the ἥτις might be equal to quippe quae, but I should conceive it is not, but is used as a definite relative, like ἅτινα just above): “and Agar represents Mount Sinai in Arabia, and ranks with the present Jerusalem; for she is in bondage and so are her children: whereas the Jerusalem above is free-which is our Mother. For it is written,
Rejoice, thou barren, that bearest not! break forth into speech and cry, thou that travailest not! for more are the children of the lone woman than of her that has a mate.”1 [Note: (Isaiah 54:1 LXX).]
Here the Galatians are regarded as filled with a desire to return to the old regime, the bondage of ordinances. The Pentateuch (had they ‘ears to hear’) should have taught them better. They should have seen the meaning of the tale of Ishmael and Isaac. This the Apostle proceeds to unfold. The one of them was ‘slave born,’ the other ‘free born’; the one born in the ordinary way, the other contrary to nature, to all intent, miraculously. How αὗται (in v. 24) should be interpreted I don’t feel certain; but the demonstrative is attracted to the gender of διαθῆκαι. It might be safer to say, “Here we have the two Covenants.” In any case the one Covenant had its birth at Sinai. Its children are ‘slave children.’ That Covenant is Agar. The reading of v. 25 is curiously varied. Some copies omit Agar, some omit Sinai, while others again read both, with γάρ or δέ. On the whole the reading of W.H. (and the Revisers) seems to have the preference. ‘Hagar’ or ‘Chagar’ stands for ‘rock,’ and Chrysostom speaks of the mountain as ὁμώνυμον τῇ δουλῇ. In that case the ἐστίν is as the ἦν of 1 Corinthians 10:4 (“that rock was Christ”). This reading has the advantage of reducing the phrase ἐν τῇ Ἀραβίᾳ to a mere statement of geography. It is difficult to see in what sense Arabia could be regarded as a land essentially of ‘bondage.’ The idea of bondage, I should say, is associated with the Law, not with Arabia at all. The meaning of the συστοιχεῖ is clearly given by Lightfoot. There are two categories, the ‘earthly’ and the ‘heavenly,’ or the ‘temporal’ and the ‘eternal’: to the one belong Hagar, Ishmael, the earthly Jerusalem, the Law, the Old Covenant; to the other, Sarah, Isaac, the heavenly Jerusalem, the Gospel, the New Covenant. In each ‘rank’ part is type and part is antitype. If we assign a ‘Mountain’ to each: Sinai is the Mount of the one; Sion (as in Hebrews 12) the Mount of the other. The subject of δουλεύει (in v. 25) is primarily Agar-Sinai, only secondarily the earthly Jerusalem. In v. 26 (as so often in St Paul) the sentence takes a fresh start and all symmetry is sacrificed. We should have expected it to go on, “But the other from Mount Sion, engendering to freedom, is Sarah. She is free and ranks with the heavenly Jerusalem.…” But the mention of the earthly city at once suggests the heavenly, and the Apostle is in haste to get to the thought of freedom. Accordingly he does not stay to develope his figure fully. The MSS. are divided between “our Mother” and “your Mother.” The former seems the likelier. The quotation from Isaiah, which occupies v. 27, is adapted by the writer to his purpose. This will at once appear from a study of the passage quoted. There Israel is the bride, Jehovah Himself the husband. But we have not yet exhausted the lessons to be learned from the story of Isaac and Ishmael.
4:28-31. “We, brethren” (says the Apostle), as Isaac was, are promise-children. But as then the naturally born persecuted the spiritually born, so is it now. Howbeit what says the Scripture? Cast out the bondmaid and her son! For the son of the bondmaid shall never inherit with the son of the free.”1 [Note: (Cf. Romans 9:6-9.)] “Accordingly, my brethren, we are not the children of a bondmaid; we are the children of the free.”
Upon these words let me make a handful of comments. ‘Promise-children’ is, in effect, a compound noun. As for the ‘persecution’ mentioned, that can hardly be found in Genesis (see Genesis 21:9). Yet the LXX goes further than our Hebrew text: for whereas that says merely ‘mocking,’ the Greek version reads παίζοντα μετὰ Ἰσαὰκ τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτῆς. Moreover in after days the enmity of the ‘Hagarenes’ against Israel became a commonplace (see Psalms 83:5-6). And as for the meaning St Paul saw underlying the story, had not he, the child of promise, the son of faith, known what it was to feel the ruthless hatred of the ‘natural sons’ of the patriarch-his descendants ‘after the flesh’? The words of ‘the Scripture’ that follow, though setting forth the unseen Will, are (in the story) the words of Sarah. They express (St Paul would have us recognise) the eternal Purpose of God. The real Israel is the Israel of faith; the real ‘circumcision’ the ‘circumcision of spirit’ (as we learn afterwards from Romans). For the present we rest content with this conclusion: “we” (that is, all believers) “are the antitype of Isaac-we are the children of the ‘free woman.’ ” The moral is unfolded in the section that follows next.