Galatians 4:19

Gal_4:19-20

Until Christ be formed in you.

The growth of Christ in us

Now, although the apostle nowhere carries out this into a full allegory, yet it may be clearly seen that this thought dwelt in his mind, viz., that as Christ came into this world, and was first a babe, and then a youth, and finally a man, so there was an order in the stages of our personal experience; and that Christ in us was born, first as a babe, and went on through all the stages of youth up to maturity, so that we have in the spiritual experience of our nature the parallel, the analogue, of that which Christ Himself went through. This great truth, therefore, is to be borne in mind, that Christian life begins at the point of weakness, and goes on by regular normal stages to maturity. It is first a spark, and then a flame, hidden in much smoke, and at last a pure and glowing coal. With this unfolding of the primal idea, I proceed, now, to make some applications.

1. Children and youth may become disciples of the Lord Jesus Christ, and may be safely gathered into the Christian fold, if only their parents and their pastors will be content to receive the babe--Christ in the young convert, or the young Christian. Persons, we all know, are more susceptible at an early age that at any other. Children are not superior to men in knowledge, nor in strength, nor in discrimination. There are a thousand of the acquirements by which a man battles with the world that they are not superior in. But there is one all-important principle which belongs to childhood, and not to any other time, viz.: that peculiar development of the soul by which it knows how to take hold of another, and to borrow its light from that other. To borrow an orchard illustration, there is but one period of the year in which you can graft well. It may be possible to graft successfully at other times; but there is one period when you must make the transfer if you would take a bud from one tree, and graft it into another, and have it produce its kind, and do the best that it is capable of doing. There is but just one season when the bark lifts easy, and the staff is in the right condition. There is a time, also, when the little natures bud- easily, and graft easily. It is possible to graft them at other times, by extra elaboration; but more than half of the grafts will blow out, as the saying is. There is a period, however, in which ninety-nine out of a hundred will stick and grow. For all the adaptations of the child at the time are such as to incline it to borrow its life from another. It feeds upon another instinctively. It is a little parasite. It is but the transfer of that which is its need and instinct to the blessed Saviour. And then it becomes a Christian child. But many people, in bringing up their children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord, look with great suspicion on early Christian experiences. They are afraid of abnormal growths.

2. One may be a Christian who is yet very far from the beauty and symmetry and manhood of piety. We are not to suppose that they only are Christians who are beautiful Christians, or who are embellished with all Christian graces. A man may be a Christian, and his Christ may be a babe. A man may be a Christian, and the Christian nature in him may yet be, as it were, in its boyhood. A man may be a Christian, and yet the Christ in him may have reached only that stage in which it enters upon young manhood. A man may be a Christian, and the Christ in him may have entered upon His ministry, as it were, in the full ripeness of His manhood. We are not, therefore, to suppose that persons are not Christians because they are very imperfect. If a mans heart is in the cause, and he enlists in the army, he is a soldier, not when he is a veteran, but when he enlists. He is a soldier just as really when his name goes down on the roll, and he goes out with the awkward squad to the first drill, as after he has been in the army five years--although he is not a soldier with the same degree and amplitude of experience. He is a soldier, provided his heart is right, and he loves the cause, and he joins in earnest. The degree of imperfection and ignorance that is in him has nothing to do with the fact of his being a soldier. It is that silent other thing, viz, the principle at the core of your life which undertakes to organize your whole being on the law of love. And that may be established in a man without any outward experience. A person may come to a state in which he means to be like Christ, and means to cut off everything that hinders his being like Christ, and to enforce outward and inward compliance to this law of love in Jesus Christ; and yet, he may not have light nor joy. But it is the raising up of that standard, the vindicating of that sovereign law in the soul, which constitutes the beginning of the Christian life. If it comes with joy so much the better. If it does not come with joy it is none the less true conversion.

3. In a Christian life, as in the ordinary life, there are two principles at work--first, the force of nature in the steady growth and unfolding of our normal powers; and secondly, the voluntary drill which, working in harmony with nature, we call education. Christian graces, if I might so say without being misapprehended, are like so many trades. They are not to be learned theoretically; and certainly they are not created in us by the mere operation of the Spirit, nor by the forces of sanctified nature. We learn them just as we learn anything in outward life. It is supposed that the Spirit of God makes men humble; that it, as it were, sends humility into them. Just as dew falls, and orbs itself on the bearded grass, gemmed and jewelled on a summers morning; so men think that the Christian graces fall down oat of the great heavenly concave above them; and that all one knows is, that he went to sleep violet dry, and woke up a violet wet and beautiful! Many persons think that meekness, and gentleness, and humility, and faith, and patience, and hope, and joy in the Holy Ghost, are Divine gifts. They are Divine gifts, to be sure. So is corn a Divine gift; so is wine a Divine gift; and so are cattle on a thousand hills Divine gifts; but men have to work for them. God gives them to mans industry, and not to his laziness. All gifts are Divine gifts in such a sense as that. If the connection between the soul and God were to stop, these things would never take place; but He works together with us to will and to do these things. No man ever came to a state of Christian eminence by waiting and praying alone.

4. The experiences of Christian life are not promiscuous. They stand in a certain order of nature. Just as in summer all flowers do not blossom in spring, nor wait till autumn; as there is a regular succession, according to the temperament of the year, following a line of increasing heat; as there is an order of development in the tree; as there is first the leaf, and afterwards the green fruit, and then the ripe fruit, so is it in Christian life. Christ begins with us at the infant point, and develops in us steadily; and the later developments cannot be had until the intermediate ones are passed. We are steadily to grow; but at each point of growth we are, as it were, to seize the experiences of that point. When first people think they are delivered from the power of sin and Satan and death; when they first have a triumphant feeling that Christ loves them, and they know they love Christ, there is something wonderful and beautiful in it, and they should remember it as long as they live; but, after all, is that the best? And do you look back and say, I never again had such experiences of love; I never again was so happy; I never again was so near to Christ? Oh I what a life you have been living! Why, how far have you been? Is your Christ a babe yet? Born into your soul, did you turn the key of the chamber where He was? And did you send no schoolmaster and no nurse there? Did you starve the infant child? And has there never been any growth in that child? Is it but a phantom or vision in you? That child Jesus, born into your soul, should have grown, and should little by little have expelled the natural man, and swollen to all the proportions of your being, until he became Christ formed truly and perfectly in you. How is it with you, dear Christian brethren? Have you grown in that part of your being which is represented by Christs love, and humility, and disinterestedness? Have you imitated Him in going about doing good? Have these elements of the Divine nature in you severally grown and cohered symmetrically, and swollen to the proportions of full manhood? On earth there is no sight more beautiful, and there never will be a sight more beautiful till He comes to reign a thousand years, than a character which has been steadfastly growing in every direction, and has come to old age rich and ripe. I am sorry to say that such characters are rare. (H. W. Beecher.)

I travail in birth again

I. The apostles ministry. He takes the condition of a mother to express his most tender affection. If this be the case with Paul, how great is the compassion of God (Isa_49:15).

2. He signifies the measure of his ministerial pains (2Co_11:23). Those who take most pains are most successful.

3. He signifies the dignity of his ministry that it is the instrument of the new birth.

II. Its end. Till Christ, etc. This conformity to Christ is two-fold.

1. In quality.

(1) To the death of Christ.

(2) To the resurrection life of Christ.

2. In practice.

(1) As prophets; confessing Christ; teaching and admonishing one another.

(2) As priests; to offer spiritual sacrifices.

(3) As kings; to have sway over the corruptions of our own hearts. (W. Perkins.)

Christians as children

They are weak, humble, teachable, obedient, hopeful, and progressive; and hence are called children. (Thomas Jones.)

Superiority of speech to writing

It is a common saying that a letter is a dead messenger, for it can give no more than it hath. And no epistle or letter is written so exactly that it is not lacking in some respect. For the circumstances are divers; there is diversity of times, places, persons, manners, and affections, all which no epistle can express; therefore it moveth the reader diversely, making him now sad, now merry, as he himself is disposed. But if anything be spoken sharply, or out of time, the living voice of a man may expound, mitigate, or correct the same. Therefore the apostle wisheth that he were with them, to the end he might temper and change his voice, as he should see it needful, by the qualities of their affections. As, if he should see any of them very much troubled, he might so temper his words that they should not be oppressed thereby with more heaviness; contrariwise, if he should see others high-minded, he might sharply reprehend them, lest they should be too secure and careless, and so at length become despisers of God. Wherefore he could not devise how he, being absent, should deal with them by letters. As if he should say: If my epistle be too sharp, I fear I shall more offend than amend some of you. Again: If it be too gentle, it will not profit those who are perverse and obstinate; for dead letters and words give no more than they have. Contrariwise, the living voice of a man, compared to an epistle, is a queen; for it can add and diminish, it can change itself into all manner of affections, times, places, and persons. (Luther.)

I desire to be present with you

I. Pauls desire. This presence of pastors among their people is most necessary.

1. To prevent spiritual dangers; whence they are called watchmen and overseers.

2. To redress wrongs.

3. To recover backsliders.

II. The end of this desire--That I may change my voice.

1. From that of seeming rebuke to that of tender entreaty.

2. From that of the hard controversialist to that of the loving teacher and friend. Learn that frequent conference between pastor and people is most desirable--

(1) That pastors may know better how to teach.

(2) That people may know better what is taught.

(3) That both may live in peace and goodwill.

III. The occasion of the desire.

1. The apostles perplexity was real.

2. He took steps to relieve his doubts by this Epistle.

3. He left events to God. (W. Perkins.)

Christian fellowship

Fellowship of souls does not consist in the proximity of persons. There are millions who live in close personal contact--dwell under the same roof, board at the same table, and work at the same shop--between whose minds there is scarcely a point of contact, whose souls are far asunder as the poles; while contrariwise there are those Who are separated by oceans and continents, ay, by the mysterious gulf which divides time and eternity, between whom there is constant; intercourse, a delightful fellowship. In truth, we have often more communion with the distant than with the near. (D. Thomas, D. D.)

The tender anxieties of ministers for their people

I stand in doubt of some of you. I am jealous over you with a godly jealousy. And if there be no ground for it, you will forgive me; for if it be an error, it is the error of love. Even the apostles, the most select society that ever was formed, had a Judas among them. Even a judicious Christian may suspect that your whole hearts are not engaged, that the vigour of your spirits is not exerted, and that there is no spiritual life in your devotions. This man may suspect; and he who searches the heart may see it is so in fact. I also stand in doubt of some of you, that you have worn off your religious impressions before they ripened to a right issue. This is a very common case in the world, and therefore it may be yours. The temper of a Christian has such a resemblance to Christs, that it was called Christ in embryo, spiritually formed within us. It is indeed infinitely short of the all-perfect original, but yet it is a prevailing temper, and habitually the governing principle of the soul. That filial temper towards God, that humble veneration and submission, that ardent devotion, that strict regard to all the duties of religion, that self-denial, humility, meekness and patience, that heavenly-mindedness and noble superiority to the world, that generous charity, benevolence and mercy to mankind, that ardent zeal and diligence to do good, that temperance and sobriety which shone in the blessed Jesus with a Divine incomparable splendour: these and the like graces and virtues shine, though with feebler rays, in all His followers. They have their infirmities indeed, many and great infirmities--but not such as are inconsistent with the habitual prevalency of this Christ-like disposition. You may make what excuses you please, but this is an eternal truth, that unless you have a real resemblance to the holy Jesus, you are not His genuine disciples. Pray examine critically into this point. Have you a right to take your name Christian from Christ, by reason of your conformity to Him? Again, if Christ be formed in your hearts, he lives there. The heavenly embryo is not yet complete, not yet ripe for birth into the heavenly world, but it is quickened. I mean, those virtues and graces above-mentioned are not dead, inactive principles within you, but they operate, they show themselves alive by action, they are the governing principles of your practice. Before I dismiss this head, I must observe that the production of this Divine infant, if I may so call it, in the heart, is entirely the work of the Holy Spirit. Ii; is not the growth of nature, but a creation by Divine power. But you would inquire farther, In what manner does this Divine agent work; or how is Christ formed in the hearts of His people? I answer, the heart of man has a quick sensation. Nothing can be done there without its perceiving it, much less can Christ be formed there, while it is wholly insensible of the operation. There is indeed a great variety in the circumstances, but the substance of the work is the same in all adults. Therefore, if ever you have been the subjects of it, you have been sensible of the following particulars.

1. You have been made deeply sensible of your being entirely destitute of this Divine image. Your hearts have appeared to you as a huge, shapeless mass of corruption, without one ingredient of true goodness, amidst all the flattering appearances of it.

2. You have hereupon set yourselves in earnest to the use of the means appointed for the renovation of your nature.

3. You have been made sensible of your own weakness, and the inefficacy of all the means you could use to produce the Divine image upon your hearts; and that nothing but the Divine hand could draw it there.

4. Hereupon the Holy Spirit enlightened your mind to view the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ, and the method of salvation revealed in the gospel. You were enabled to cast your guilty corrupt, helpless soul upon Jesus Christ, whom you saw to be a glorious all-sufficient Saviour; and with all your hearts you embraced the way of salvation through His mediation. The view of His glory proved transformative: while you were contemplating the object, you received its likeness; the rays of glory beaming upon you, as it were, rendered your hearts transparent, and the beauties of holiness were stamped upon them.

5. If Christ has ever been formed in you, it is your persevering endeavour to improve and perfect this Divine image. You long and labour to be fully conformed to Him, and, as it were, to catch His air, His manner and spirit, in every thought, in every word, and in every action. As far as you are unlike to Him, so far you appear deformed and loathsome to yourselves. While you feel an unchristian spirit prevail within you, you seem as if you were possessed with the devil. And it is the labour of your life to subdue such a spirit, and to brighten and finish the features of the Divine image within you, by repeated touches and retouches. (President Davies, M. A.)

Perplexing professors

There are minerals which exhibit different colours on different faces. Thus dichroite, or iolite, is often deep blue along its vertical axis; but, on a side perpendicular to this axis, it is brownish yellow. The phenomenon results from the manner in which the particles are arranged for reflecting and transmitting light. The whole internal structure must be changed before the same colour shall be presented on all the faces. There is a moral dichroism. It consists in a mans being Janus-faced--that is, double-faced--both in his principles and his practice, in order to secure popular favour and avoid odium. The chameleon is said to have the power of assuming the colour of the object on which it fastens; so this man means to conform his creed and his practice to those which are most popular in the community where he happens to abide or sojourn. In one place he is orthodox; in another, heterodox; in one, an advocate for temperance; in another, loose in this matter, both in theory and practice: in one place, proslavery; in another, antislavery. His moral and religious principles are not settled, or, rather, he makes them bend to his worldly interest, and you have no way of determining where to find him in any circumstance, except to inquire what aspect self-interest will require him to put on. Nor will it ever be essentially better until Divine grace shall have transformed and re-arranged the elements of his character. (Hitchcock.)

Halfhearted religion vain

Mr. Camden reports of one Redwald, king of the East Saxons, the first prince of this nation that was baptized, yet in the same church he had one altar for Christian religion, another for that of the heathens. And many such false worshippers of God there are to be found amongst us--such as divide the rooms of their souls betwixt God and the devil, that swear by God and Malcham, that sometimes pray and sometimes curse, that halt betwixt God and Baal--mere heteroclites in religion. But God cannot endure this division: He will not have thy threshold to stand by His threshold; He will have all thy heart; He cares not for half, if it and the devil have the other. (Spencer.)

The Biblical Illustrator, edited by Joseph S. Exell (c. 1880s–1900s) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Gal 4:19-20. My little children — Converted to the faith by my ministry. He speaks as a parent, both with authority and the most tender sympathy toward weak and sickly children: of whom I travail in birth again — As I did before, (Gal 4:13,) in vehement pain, sorrow, desire, prayer; till Christ be formed in you — Till you be made fully acquainted with, and established in, the belief of every part of his doctrine; and till you be so endowed with the graces of his Spirit, that all the mind is in you that was in him. The image here used by the apostle is beautiful and expressive. He alludes to a mother, who, having undergone the labour and pains of childbearing, cannot but be concerned for the safety and welfare of the children, in the birth of which she had suffered so much: and if the life or health of any of them be in imminent danger, suffers distress and anguish of mind, nearly, if not altogether, equal or even superior, to the pain and torture of body she endured in bearing them. So the apostle, who had once before suffered labour and pains like those of childbearing, when he converted the Galatians to the truth, now suffered those pangs a second time, while he endeavoured to bring them back to that faith of the gospel from which they had departed. It is not possible by words to express the anxiety of desire and affection which he felt on this occasion more strongly than he has done by this image; and what a lesson does this teach every minister of the gospel, intrusted with the care of immortal souls! What distress ought they to feel, how deeply ought they to be concerned, when they observe any of the souls that they had gained, backsliding from the truth and grace of God, and drawing back unto perdition! and what anxiety should they manifest, and what pains should they take, to recover and restore them. I desire — Or I could wish; to be present with you now — Particularly in this exigence; and to change my voice — To adapt my manner of speaking to the state you are in; for I stand in doubt of you — So that I am at a loss how to speak at this distance; for though I do not absolutely despair of your recovery and establishment, yet I am not without very discouraging apprehensions, lest, after all the pains that I have taken with you, the good effects of my labours among you should in a great measure be lost.

Joseph Benson's Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1811–1818) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

D. Confirmation of the freedom of Christians, from the narrative of the Scripture concerning the two sons of Abraham, Ishmael and Isaac, by means of an interpretation referring it to the Jewish and the Christian Church

Gal_4:19—30

(Gal_4:21-31. The Epistle for the 4th Sunday in Lent.)

19My little children22 of whom I travail in birth again [with whom I am again in 20travail] until Christ be formed in you, I desire [I could wish indeed] to be present with you now, and to change my voice [tone];23 for I stand in doubt of you 21 [am perplexed about you].24 Tell me ye that desire to be under the Jaw, do ye not hear25 the law? 22For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a free woman [one by the bondmaid, and one by the free woman 23]. But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the free woman was by promise [through the26 promise]. 24Which things are an allegory [are allegorical]:27 for these are the [omit the]28 two covenants; the one from the [omit the] mount Sinai, which gendereth to [bearing children unto] bondage, which is Agar [Hagar].29 25For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia [(For Sinai is a mountain in Arabia), or For the word Agar means in Arabia mount Sinai; or For this Hagar represents mount Sinai in Arabia], and answereth to [she ranks30 with] Jerusalem which now is [the present Jerusalem], and is [for31 she is] in bondage with her children. 26But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all [and she is our32 mother]. 27For it is written, Rejoice, thou barren that bearest not; break forth and cry, thou that travailest not: for the desolate hath many more children [many are the children of the desolate more] 28than she which [who] hath a husband. Now we [But ye],33 brethren, as Isaac was, 29are the [omit the] children of promise. But [still] as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now. 30Nevertheless what saith the Scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son; for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir [shall in no wise34 be heir] with the son35 of the free woman.

EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL

Gal_4:19. My little children.—[Lightfoot: “A mode of address common in St. John, but not found elsewhere in St. Paul. Here the diminutive expresses both the tenderness of the Apostle and the feebleness of his converts. It is a term at once of affection and rebuke.”—R.] It is more natural to make a break here (the very suddenness of the appeal implies this) and to join “my little children” with “tell me” (Gal_4:21). It cannot at all events be connected with the preceding context, but the connection with Gal_4:20 is only possible on the assumption of an interruption of the discourse (comp, δέ). [The presence of δέ in Gal_4:20 is urged as a reason for connecting our verse very closely with Gal_4:18, as is done by many commentators. The course of the thought would then be: “I have a right to ask for constancy in your affections. I have a greater claim on you than these new teachers. They speak but as strangers to strangers; I as a mother to her children with whom she has travailed” (Lightfoot). But there is something so sudden in the address, that it is better to separate the verses (so Meyer, Alford, Ellicott).—R.] On the other hand the contents of Gal_4:20 fit very well into the discourse as a parenthetical remark. In the “am again in travail” the wish presses itself upon him, rather to be present with them—and this he then expresses—before going on, in Gal_4:21, to attempt to change the minds of his readers, as being his children, and to bring them back. It is true “tell me,” after this interruption, does not connect immediately with Gal_4:19; the “little children” receives a particular definition in “ye that desire to be under the law,” but this only indicates how far a travailing again is necessary, in order to prepare for a continuance of this ὠδίνειν through the following exposition, as indeed all that precedes had been nothing else than such a travail.

[This view of the connection of the passage is open to serious objection. Two vocatives are joined together, which are separated both in position and in tone. Gal_4:20 which contains the wish to be present is sundered from Gal_4:18, where the thought of his presence is introduced. The idea of travailing is joined to a passage of argument by illustration, and separated from the more personal part of the discourse. If there be a difficulty about. δέ (Gal_4:20) as introducing an “opposition,” and hence a parenthesis be deemed necessary, this “opposition” may be found (Meyer) “in the tacit contrast between the subject of his wish to be present with them, and his actual absence and separation.” It seems best then to connect Gal_4:19-20 together—detaching them as a burst of tenderness from both the preceding and subsequent context, though joined in thought more closely with the I former.—R.]

With whom I am again in travail.—i. e., the second time.—The labor of his spirit on the hearts of the readers he here compares with the travail of a mother (elsewhere with the begetting of the father), in which the point of comparison I is the activity directed to the coming of a child into the world; with the mother—of a natural child; here with the Apostle—of a spiritual child. This image is continued with the expression until Christ be formed in you.—It is a ripe, completely developed child that is in contemplation=in which the life has come to perfect manifestation. Such a child, and only such a one, renders a mother’s pangs of labor effectual, for only such a child lives, and therefore only in such a one has she a child. So long as the birth is not that of a perfect child, so long must she ever look forward to new pangs of labor, before she can have this, her wish granted. [Ellicott: “The idea is not so much of the pain, as of the long and continuous effort of the travail.”—R.]—With justice therefore is the complete formation of the child represented as the aim of the labor, and there is here nothing like an inversion of the physiological process, in which the formatio takes place ante partum. This is not here the point in question. The natural child is completely developed, in that the natural life, as it were the spirit of life, comes in it to perfect manifestion, gains an actual, corresponding form. What this natural spirit of life is in the natural child, Christ is in the spiritual child, as the principle of spiritual life, and hence the expression of the Apostle: Christ is μορφωθῆναι in them=the inward principle is to come with them to manifestation to gain a form in an established, assured, evangelical conviction of faith; only when this takes place, has Paul as spiritual mother actually a spiritual child. But since this is wanting, as is shown by their apostacy, he is therefore now bearing them once again, in the hope that this perfect formation may come to pass. (If it had not, he would have needed to travail in birth still again, but here, as is natural, he only speaks of a second travail.) That in nature a completely developed child is not hoped for from a second bearing of the same child, is a self-evident incongruity between the fact and the image, but it answers the purpose that the activity is the same—in both cases there is a travail of birth.36—Wieseler incorrectly finds in πάλιν ὠδίνειν the doctrinal conception of the new birth, and takes πάλιν therefore as antithetical to the natural birth. In the first place the Apostle’s lamentation over the alteration that had taken place in the readers, brings almost necessarily to our thoughts the probability of a renewed activity among them; and secondly he could well designate the labor bestowed by him upon the Galatians as a bearing of spiritual children, but not as a regeneration in the doctrinal sense, for this appertains to God alone. Paul’s travailing in birth with them, it is true, had as its end, their becoming regenerate children of God, but the one is not therefore to be identified with the other.

Gal_4:20. I could wish indeed to be present with you.—[This rendering, though not literal, brings out the force of the passage, and the “tacit contrast” in δέ. See above.—&.]—And to change my tone.—This, in its immediate connection with a wish to be present with them, appears to signify: I should be glad to give my language such a form as suits with oral intercourse; from the written style, with its more formal, unpliable character, less suited to make an impression on the heart, I should be glad to pass over into oral discourse. But φωνὴν ἀλλάξαι does not on this account mean: to interchange discourse with any one=to converse together, as Wieseler singularly assumes. Why he should like to be with them, and to vary his discourse, he then expressly declares: For I am perplexed about you.—Ἐν, the perplexity has its ground chiefly in them, in their state of mind.37 He knows not with what arguments he can find access to them and dispose them to a return. Therefore he thinks now he could more easily accomplish something by oral discourse with them. Meyer understands φωνὴν ἀλλάσσειν of a wish of Paul, instead of the rigorous tone used in his last visit, to essay a milder tone. But this is far from evident.—Rieger justly remarks that in a certain sense Paul does immediately after in Gal_4:21 what he wishes in Gal_4:20, namely, varies the form of his language, and speaks as if he were present with them: λέγετέμοι κ. τ. λ. [For the various interpretations of the phrase “change my voice” see Meyer in loco. The view given above seems tame, but the reference to the tone during his second visit is doubtful. So also the interpretation: “to modify my language from time to time as occasion demands.” Certainly it is improper to think of a desire to change his tone to a more severe one (in contrast with the mild τεκνία). On the whole it seems best to conclude 1) that the desired change was from the severe to the milder address; 2) that the severe tone referred to is that of the present Epistle (so Ellicott and many others).—R.]

Gal_4:21. Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law?—“Hear” is hardly to be taken precisely as implying that the law was publicly read by the pseudo-apostles among them, but generally: Do you not give heed to what is written in the Law? The second time νόμος, according to the Jewish use of תוֹרָה= the Pentateuch. From the law itself, on which you lay so much stress, you might discover that you are not, and are not meant to be under the law. [Meyer:—“At the close of the theoretical part of his Epistle, Paul now appends a very peculiar allegoric argument from the law itself, intended to destroy the influence of the false Apostles with their own weapons, and to root it up out of its own proper soil.”—R.]

Gal_4:22. For it is written.—Γάρ=I must inquire: do ye not hear the Law; for if you really heard the law, you would find in it that which might convince you how unsound and dangerous it is to “desire to be under the law.” That to which Paul refers the Galatians, as being found in the law, is the narrative in Genesis, of the two sons of Abraham, Ishmael and Isaac, the one by the bondmaid, Hagar, and the other by the free woman, Sarah. As is known, he had Ishmael first, and he is therefore mentioned first. They were therefore indeed both Abraham’s sons, but they had not merely different mothers, but mothers also of entirely different conditions; the one was the son of a bondmaid, the other of a free woman.

Gal_4:23. Yet even with that they might have been begotten in like manner, but (ἀλλά) this was far from being the case, the son of the bondmaid was begotten after the flesh, and the son of the free woman through the promise.—Κατὰ σάρκα = entirely in the ordinary way of natural generation, of carnal intercourse; διὰτῆς ἐπαγγελίας = formally also, it is true, in this way, but materially (by the side of which the other is a vanishing factor), by virtue of the divine promise, which Abraham had received, inasmuch as God in a miraculous manner, restored the long-lost capacity of Sarah to conceive, so that in truth the efficient factor was God. [The preposition διά denoting the causa medians (Ellicott).—R.]

Gal_4:24. Which things are allegorical, ἅτινά ἐστιν ἀλληγορούμενα.—Paul thus introduces his interpretation of the narrative which he quotes. He states what the Galatians might learn from it. [Ellicott has a valuable note on the distinction between ὅς and ὅστις. His view of ἅτινα is thus expressed: “all which things viewed in their most general light.” This wider meaning will guard against the assumption that the narrative itself was a mere allegory and not historical.—R.]—Ἀλληγορεῖν = ἄλλο ἀγορεύειν: to say something else than is expressed by the letter, to say something in figures; passively: to have a tropical sense, ἀλληγορούμενον εἶναι = to be something that has such a sense. That Paul understands what is related in Genesis of Abraham, Hagar, Sarah, etc., as history also, needs I no proof: but undoubtedly at the same time he sees in the history an intimation of something else, something higher, than the simple history relates. In what sense, see below, in the Doctrinal Notes. [The precise meaning of ἀλληγορεῖν must be noted. It may be made to cover the thought: to be treated as having an allegorical sense, but here we must insist on the more definite and strict meaning: to have an allegorical sense. “Which things viewed in their most general light have an allegorical meaning;” this interpretation will guard against the assumptions and errors which are based upon a looser view. See Doctrinal Notes.—R.]

To what the history points is then stated: for these are two covenants.—Αὐται seems not to refer immediately, i. e., grammatically, to the women, but, according to ordinary Greek usage, to stand for ταῦτα; it would be somewhat different if in Gal_4:23 the women were the subjects. Substantially no doubt it refers to the two women, in whom he sees types of the two covenants—not however in the twofold marriage covenant of Abraham with Hagar and Sarah (as Jatho assumes, who, in order to sustain this view, is obliged to give an exceedingly forced interpretation of “which is Agar”). It is peculiar, and renders the understanding of this passage somewhat difficult, that Paul, in the first place, designates the women and not the sons themselves as symbols, more particularly as prophetic symbols of the two covenants; and in the second place, it even more perplexes the matter, that he finds in them the two covenants == of God with men, which were typified or prophesied (that is, in general, the Old and the New Covenant), and takes these themselves as mothers, and then from these first passes over to the two diverse churches, whose motherhood appears more clearly when viewed in connection with their members. Of course, however, the covenants stand in intimate relation to the churches; it is not only they that confer on them their peculiar character, but also that properly constitute them; without the covenants the churches would not exist.—The one from Mount Sinai, etc.—A pregnant expression = the first covenant is that which originates from mount Sinai and bears unto bondage. Γεννῶσα, feminine, because it corresponds to the mother Hagar. The expression εἰς δουλείαν γεννῶσα is itself to be supplemented so that it=bearing, sc. children, as it were into bondage = and translating them into bondage, of course by subjection to the law, for the covenant from Sinai is the covenant of law.—Which is Hagar.—This is = this covenant is typified by Hagar, for she too as “bondmaid” bore children “unto bondage.” This is of course primarily the ground why he compares the Sinaitic covenant with Hagar; of both alike the bearing children unto bondage” was an attribute. But this abrupt assertion: the Sinaitic covenant is Hagar, or, Hagar signifies the Sinaitic covenant, because it as well as she “bore unto bondage,” is of itself too bold and startling, and Paul therefore in a parenthesis intimates that Sinai and Hagar, far apart as they might seem to be, yet even independently of this “bearing,” stand of themselves related to one another.

Gal_4:25. The words setting forth this relation are, according to one reading: τὸ γὰρ Σινᾶ ὄροςἐσὶν ἐν τῇ Ἀραβίᾳ: according to the other: τὸ δὲ [or γάρͅ] Ἄγαρ Σινᾶ ὄρος, &c. Accepting the first reading, Paul points to the fact that Mount Sinai is situated in Arabia—that therefore the Sinaitic covenant has one home with Hagar, and so far a relation to her. Both originate from Arabia—are not at home in the Holy Land; while yet they both came in near relation to the people of God; Hagar to Abraham, bearing him a son; the Sinaitic covenant to Abraham’s posterity, raising up children to this; for Israel by the Sinaitic covenant first became an organized theocratic people, possessing the principle of self-preservation and hereditary continuance.—Accepting the reading: τὸ δὲ Ἄγαρ, κ. τ. λ. in which δέ is exceedingly well suited to introduce an elucidation, which indeed it properly is, rather than a demonstration [γάρ being however the more probable reading, on critical grounds, see critical note.—R.], the Apostle points out that even as to name there exists a relation between Hagar and the Sinaitic covenant,—that it is not therefore so arbitrary as might seem on his part, to interpret the former as a type of the latter; for that among the Arabians, Mount Sinai has just this name of Hagar, and that—as Paul undoubtedly assumes—after Hagar. It is true we have no other proof of Sinai’s having this appellation, and it would have to be assumed that Paul had learned, perhaps from his sojourn in Arabia, that Sinai bore this name also among the Arabs, which he referred back to Hagar. It is certainly probable, that the Arabs named Sinai Ἄγαρ; for this is = Rock, and so corresponds precisely to the character of this mountain chain, and probably also to the signification of the ancient name “Sinai” itself, which etymology renders by “Rock.”—Paul would then, only err in the reference of this name Ἄγαρ to the Hagar of the Old Testament, but at all events the name would be the same, and this, in the first instance would be the main thing. Yet this circumstance will always make this reading suspicious.

[In addition to these interpretations, which may be distinguished as I., II., another (III.) must be considered, viz., that of Calvin, Beza, Estius, Wordsworth (and Lightfoot, if the correctness of the Recepta be established): “For this Hagar (is) represents Mount Sinai in Arabia.”—I. is comparatively free from grammatical difficulty, forming a parenthesis, which introduces a geographical remark, the point of which is obvious, though on the whole it seems much tamer than the other views. Besides the critical grounds for preferring the longer reading (not the least strong being this absence of grammatical difficulties), it may be objected 1. That since a mere geographical remark would be unnecessary, the emphasis must lie on ἐν τῇ Ἀραβ.; but to convey such an emphasis, the Greek order should be ἐν τῇ Ἀρ. ἐστίν (Alford). 2. Meyer intimates that this view must press as the essential point, the fact that the mountain was “outside of the land of Canaan,” and yet this essential point is only implied. Still there is not much force in this objection, since the positive statement “is in Arabia,” the land of bondsmen, is after all the main thought, the other being a negative antitheses, that may well be omitted.—II. is adopted by Meyer, Ellicott, Alford, and many older commentators (Chrysostom, Luther, et al). This may be called the etymological view. Here the grammatical difficulties are not great, for it may readily be conceded, that τὸ Ἄγαρ means “the word Agar,” ἐστίν, “means”—and ἐν τῇ Αρ. either “among the Arabians” or “in the Arabian (supply διαλέκτῳ) dialect,” and the objection that “the word Agar” cannot properly be the subject of συστοιχεῖ is met by putting a semicolon at the end of this clause, or throwing it into a parenthesis. The real difficulties are far graGal Gal_4:1. It is extremely doubtful whether “Agar” did mean “in Arabia, Mount Sinai.” The testimony of travellers is not strong, that of philology even less so. Granting that the Arabic word for “rock” is similar in sound, we are far from settling the question of identity of name. 2. “If in writing to a half-Greek, half-Celtic people, he ventured to argue from an Arabic word at all, he would at all events be careful to make his drift intelligible” (“Lightfoot). Was it likely to be intelligible to them, when in these days of philological and geographical research, this interpretation is still doubtful? 3. The argument or illustration seems fanciful when resting on this identity of name, especially as Hagar had a meaning in Hebrew, and Sarah also, which meanings could well have been used here, were it a question of names.—III. “For this Hagar represents,” etc. This may be called the typical or allegorical interpretation, and for that very reason more likely to be correct in this connection. It avoids the objections against I. on the score of emphasis, and tameness; with II. follows the reading which seams more correct, but avoids the fanciful and doubtful features of that view. Meyer considers the neuter article an insuperable objection. But this may be met 1) as is done by Wordsworth, by joining the article with Σινᾶ ὄρος not with Ἄγαρ. He contends that this is allowable and that no other order was admissible. Still this seems unnatural. Or 2) by understanding τὸ Ἄγαρ, “the thing Hagar,” not the woman, for Gal_4:24 passes over into allegory, but the allegorical Hagar,—her position as set forth in Gal_4:24. This is less objectionable. As this is the only real difficulty (ἐστίν, “represents,” is of course admissible), we may adopt III. as perhaps the safest view, seemingly that of E. V. As regards punctuation, a comma then suffices after this clause, and Ἄγαρ is the grammatical subject of συστοιχεῖ.—R.]

Ranks with.—Συστοιχεῖ δέ might be connected with ἤτις (Gal_4:24) or back of that with μία, sc. διαθήκη. [So De Wette, Lightfoot.—R.] “For she is in bondage” is given as the proof of “ranks with,” and this evidently refers to “bearing children unto bondage” (Gal_4:24). The covenant “bearing children unto bondage” “ranks with the present Jerusalem, for she is in bondage with her children.” Συστοιχεῖν, to stand in one row with something else, to belong to the same species, to belong together with anything. The Sinaitic covenant, says Paul, and the present Jerusalem, although separated in time and place, yet belong essentially together; the former brought into “bondage,” the latter is in that very bondage. The object is to show that an internal relation exists between the Sinaitic covenant and the present Jerusalem. [This is certainly preferable to the view of Chrysostom and most of the Fathers, Luther et al., which takes Σινᾶ as the subject, and renders the verb either “is contiguous to” or “joined in a continuous (mountain) range” with Jerusalem. The thought is irrelevant, and we should then have Mt. Zion, rather than Jerusalem, following the verb. Lightfoot thus shows the exact meaning of the verb: “In military language συστοιχία denotes a, file, as συζυγία does a rank of soldiers; comp. Polyb. X. 21, 7. The allegory of the text may be represented by συστοιχίαι thus:

Hagar, the bond woman.

Ishmael. the child after the flesh.

The Old Covenant.

The earthly Jerusalem, etc.

Sarah, the free woman.

Isaac, the child of promise.

The New Covenant.

The heavenly Jerusalem, etc.”

Accepting this meaning, it is necessary to take exception to embracing the idea of type in the word. Those in each list are σύστοιχοι with each other, but ἀντίστοιχοι to those in the opposite list.—R.]—It seems however more accordant with the context to make Ἄγαρ (Gal_4:25) the subject. For Hagar is a type of the present Jerusalem, “ranks with”—stands in the same row with it, or better, fits as a type to the antitype [?] Moreover Hagar was “in bondage with her children, just as the present Jerusalem.” Besides in this connection there is significant reference to the fact that “the present Jerusalem” corresponds to Hagar alone—and not to Sarah: the special proof of which is, what is affirmed of “the present Jerusalem,” viz.: “for she is in bondage with her children.” [So that not only the proximity of the word Ἄγαρ, but the closer correspondence also, supports the view that “Hagar” is the logical subject of the verb. See Meyer.—R.]

The present Jerusalem.—Jerusalem represents here as it always did in the Old Testament, the Jewish people; but this as a collective personality, and moreover a maternal one, the individual members of the people being viewed as children of this mother. Ἡ νῦν Ἱερουσ. is the present Jerusalem in contrast with the μελλ. Ἱερουσ. as it shall become through the Messiah, i. e., through faith in Him, the Jerusalem, which has not, and so long as it has not, received the Messiah. “The present Jerusalem” meaning thus the historical Israel, the Jewish people, its children are of course “born after the flesh” and Paul presupposes this as self-evident.—Is in bondage.—This cannot apply to the yoke of the Romans, for this has nothing at all to do with the Sinaitic covenant, but applies to the being in bondage under the Mosaic law. A state of bondage in this sense Paul predicates of the existing Jewish church without further proof, as something which the readers after the preceding exposition of the nature of the law (comp. Gal_3:23; Gal_4:3-7), must concede, and indeed that the Jews were strenuous observers of the law was a matter beyond doubt.

Gal_4:26. But Jerusalem which is above is free.—Paul does not continue the course of thought begun in Gal_4:24 with “for these are two covenants.” He names the first covenant only, not the second one also, but to make the contrast more palpable, opposes at once to the present Jerusalem, which is in bondage, another Jerusalem which is free. Now the present Jerusalem is in a condition of bondage because the first covenant, which is a covenant of bondage, came in her to manifestation. So the freedom, of the other Jerusalem would have its ground also in the character of the Second covenant, which comes into manifestation in her, and we have a right to find implied a second covenant bearing children unto freedom, which is typified prophetically by Sarah, just as the covenant of bondage by Hagar. If we inquire what this second covenant is, according to the previous context, the answer cannot be doubtful; over against the covenant of law stands a covenant of grace or promise. Wieseler’s parallelism goes too far, where he wishes to supply: δευτέρα δὲ (διαθήκη) ἀπὸ ὄρους Σιὼν, εἰς ἐλευθερίαν γεννῶσα, ἥτις ἐστὶ Σάῤῥα. τὸ γὰρ Σιὼν, εἰν ὄρος ἐστὶν ἐν τῇ γῇ τῆς ἐπαγγελίας, συστοιχεῖ δὲ τῇ ἄνω Ἱερουσαλήμ. ἐλευθέρη γάρ ἐστι μετὰ τῶν τέκνων αὐτῆς. [“The second covenant from Mount Zion, bearing children unto freedom, which is Sarah. For Zion is a mountain in the land of promise, and ranks with Jerusalem above, for she is free with her children.” This follows from his view of Gal_4:25, and is objectionable besides for the reason that it forces an allegory beyond the point to which it has been carried by the Apostle himself.—R.] Somewhat too definite also is Meyer’s view: The other covenant is the one established in Christ (see afterwards on ἡ ἄνω Ἱερουσαλήμ). Paul has not waited till now to give the proof that the covenant of grace is a covenant of promise, and that on this account Jerusalem above is also free. This is in part clear from what precedes and in part results from the nature of the case, since a covenant of promise given of grace, because it has nothing to do with any law, can have no connection with “bondage” either. In addition he now demonstrates to the Galatians this only, that they are children of that Jerusalem which is free, and that therefore it would be preposterous for them to wish to be under the law. “Free” of course =not being under the law.

The main question is, what ἡ ἄνω Ἱερουσ. signifies. “Jerusalem” here also means a church taken as a collective personality, her individual members being conceived as her children. But ἡ ἄνω Ἱερουσ. is of course not the “ancient” Jerusalem, the Salem of Melchisedek, nor yet the mountain of Zion, which in Josephus is called ἡ ἄνω πόλις. [Lightfoot: “The Apostle instinctively prefers the Hebrew form Ἱερουσαλὴμ here for the typical city, as elsewhere in this Epistle (Gal_1:17-18; Gal_2:1) he employs the Græcised form Ἱερόσόλυμα for the actual city. ‘Ἱερουσαλὴμ est appellatio Hebraica, originaria et sanctior: Ιεροσόλυμα, deinceps obvia, Græca, magis politico,’ says Bengel on Rev_21:2, accounting for the usage of St. John (in the Gospel the latter; in the Apocalypse the former), and referring to this passage in illustration.”—R.] On the other hand Luther is right in his decided protest against the reference to the ecclesia triumphans, for the Christians of this world are here designated by Paul as children of this ἄνω Ἱερουσαλήμ. (Only so much is correct, that with the παρουσία it is no other than this very ἄνω Ἱερουσ. that comes to perfection, so that the Church after the παρουσία is essentially identical with that before it. But the eye is not at all directed here to the παρουσία; and the very reason why the expression ἡ μέλλουσα Ἱερουσ. is not chosen is, that after Christ had appeared upon earth this must be referred to the παρουσἱα. Wieseler is therefore also incorrect in asserting not only that the church of the perfected is meant, but in insisting as he does that these are expressly comprehended.)—But ἡ ἄνω Ἱερουσ. must at all events signify a Jerusalem that is above, an upper Jerusalem, and this “above” can only refer to Heaven. Here again Luther has a right understanding of it, in the main point at all events, when he remarks that this “above” is to be understood not of place but of character: “when St. Paul speaks of a Jerusalem above and the other here below upon earth, he means that the one Jerusalem is spiritual, but the other earthly. For there is a great distinction between spiritual and corporeal or earthly things. What is spiritual, that is above, but what is earthly, that is here below. Therefore says he then, that the spiritual Jerusalem is above, not that in respect to space or place it is higher than the earthly here below, but in that it is spiritual.” The upper Jerusalem would therefore = the spiritual Jerusalem. This explanation, it is true, does not appear to do full justice to the material idea “above,” but it leads in. the right direction for this, and needs only to be completed by including also the conception of space which is contained in ἄνω. That is, ἡ ἄνω Ἱερουσ. is not= the Jerusalem that is localiter, externally situated above (this is refuted by Luther), but the Jerusalem, that as to its essential character is an upper, heavenly one, and therefore neither originates from earth nor belongs to earth, but originates from Heaven and belongs to Heaven, lot it be situated where it may, of which nothing is expressly said. (In reality Luther also means this and nothing else by his spiritual Jerusalem, and his explanation, therefore, only apparently incurs the reproach of spiritualizing.) Whether the expression is immediately founded upon the rabbinical doctrine of the ירוּשׁלים שׁל מעלה “which according to Jewish teaching is the archetype existing in Heaven of the earthly Jerusalem, and at the establishment of the Messianic kingdom will be let down from Heaven to earth, in order, as the earthly Jerusalem is the central point and the capital of the old theocracy, to be the same for the Messianic theocracy” (Meyer), cannot be affirmed with certainty; that Paul did not share the crude and sensuous rabbinical conceptions of this heavenly Jerusalem, but had a scripturally purified idea of it, is in any case clear; so that from the Jewish schools he only derives the expression rather than the substance of the idea. At the most he had only the fundamental conception, which was then essentially modified. [Lightfoot: “With them,” i. e., the rabbinical teachers, “it is an actual city, the exact counterpart of the earthly Jerusalem in its topography and furniture: with him it is a symbol or image, representing that spiritual city of which the Christian is even now a denizen (Php_3:20). The contrast between the two scene?, as they appeared to the eye, would enhance, if it did not suggest the imagery of St. Paul here. On the one hand, Mount Zion, of old the joy of the whole earth, now more beautiful than ever in the fresh glories of the Herodian renaissance, glittering in gold and marble; on the other, Sinai with its rugged peaks and barren sides, bleak and desolate, the oppressive power of which the Apostle himself had felt during his sojourn there—these scenes fitly represented the contrast between the glorious hopes of the new covenant and the blank despair of the old. Comp. Heb_12:18-22.”—R.]

And she is our mother.—If we seek to define still more distinctly the idea of the ἄνω Ἱερουσ., we shall find that here also Luther had the right sense of it, when he peremptorily declares, and in opposition to the transcendental fantasies, which overlooked the actually operative heavenly forces in the word and sacraments, so strongly insists that: “the heavenly Jerusalem, which is above, is nothing else than the dear church or Christendom, that arc in the whole world here and there dispersed, who all together have one gospel, one manner of faith in Christ, one Holy Ghost, and one manner of sacrament.” Only here again he makes the idea too special. The upper Jerusalem, which essentially springs from Heaven and not from earth, and belongs to Heaven and not to earth, is in the first instance nothing else than the true Church and people of God in its entire generality; for this has its constitution not in the covenant of law, but in the covenant of grace or promise, and its essential character may therefore with full right, nay must be denominated by Paul a heavenly one.—As certainly now as Paul dated back the covenant of grace as far back beyond the covenant of law as Abraham’s time, so certainly did this “upper Jerusalem” properly begin with Abraham himself, although at first indeed rather in the way of promise, in idea, as it were, but yet realiter, as certainly as God’s covenant of grace was one really concluded. This “upper Jerusalem” then, it is true, first came to full manifestation with the advent of the Messiah, as with this God’s covenant of grace first found its true actualization; and so far is the upper Jerusalem=Christendom, but yet even now it must not be identified with it. It is a higher, more general idea, precisely=God’s congregation [Gottesgemeinde] which the idea of the church does not altogether exhaust, but which continues to rise above it, lying at the foundation of the church, which is its concrete manifestation, but yet to be distinguished from it; and indeed this idea of the congregation of God will never attain its completely adequate expression in the church of this dispensation, but only with the παρουσία will such a complete coincidence of ideas and phenomenon be realized (as indeed on the other hand the present Jerusalem which is in bondage was also not absolutely coincident with the Jewish community, but many members of it raised themselves above this bondage, although no doubt in this case the coincidence was far more nearly complete). [Meyer’s interpretation: “the Messianic theocracy, which before the παρουσία is the church, and after it Christ’s kingdom of glory” is substantially correct, provided we sufficiently extend the meaning of

the word “Church.” Our conceptions of her, “who is our mother,” must here be large enough to include all her children, in the Old and the New Dispensations, as militant and triumphant. See Doctrinal Notes.—R.] What Paul now wishes to show is, that Christians are children of this true congregation of God, that is grounded upon the covenant of grace, and therefore of course is free, and not merely that they are children of the Christian community, which certainly would have needed no proof.—From the foregoing we see still more evidently (what has already been touched upon above), that the expression ἡ μέλλουσα Ἱερουσ., although it would have corresponded with ἡ νῦν Ἱερουσ., would not have been suitable here. On the other hand nothing stood in the way of designating the natural Israel as ἡ νῦν Ἱερουσ., inasmuch as every one would refer this expression to the right object; in this sense a κάτω Ἱερουσ. would have sounded strange, and would have been less intelligible, so that the want of correspondence in the expressions is not at all surprising.

Gal_4:27-28 contain the proof of the proposition that “Jerusalem which is above” is the mother of Christians,—in syllogistic form, only not quite exact, since ὑμεῖς is the more probable reading in Gal_4:28. Gal_4:27, major premise: To the “Jerusalem which is above,” although she does not bear, there are many children promised, who therefore, as Isaac, must have been born purely in virtue of Divine promise.

Gal_4:28, minor premise: But now are we, or rather, says the Apostle, with definite application to the readers, for whom particularly the proof is intended, ye are the children of promise, after the analogy of Isaac;—therefore (conclusion) ye are children of the Jerusalem above.

For it is written, Rejoice, thou barren that bearest not, etc.—For the major premise Paul appeals to Isa_54:1. The theocratic nation is addressed during the Babylonian exile, and told that though aforetime in the bloom of Israel’s prosperity she was like a woman “who hath a husband,” who had by her husband numerous children, she now resembled a woman that is “desolate” = without a husband (for it had been repudiated by God), and in consequence—for στεῖρα is here to be taken in this sense—is “barren,” “not bearing,” “not travailing,” bears no children. (God is to be conceived as the husband, if this part of the figure is also to be interpreted, according to the familiar Biblical image of God’s marriage covenant with Israel.) But yet is she to rejoice, and loudly to express her joy (ῥῆξον sc. φωνήν, rumpe vocem, let loose the voice), for she shall become richer in children than before! This therefore not in the way of natural generation, but through the immediate extraordinary operation of God: they are therefore children not “after the flesh,” but born “through the promise.” (Only, so to speak, the natural, carnal relation of God to the people as begetting natural posterity, was dissolved; God yet remained, in the exercise of a higher energy, devoted to the people as His people, for the very end of bringing in something higher than before.) Evidently in this the image of Sarah hovers before the prophet, of that barren one who was “desolate,” that is, at least as “barren” could have no conjugal intercourse with her husband, and therefore was so far without husband, and who yet became a mother of a numerous progeny in virtue of the Divine energy. Thus even the prophet sees in Sarah a type of the theocratic nation—not, it is true, in her condition of freedom, but at least in her becoming a mother by promise, and therefore is she a type of the theocratic people, inasmuch as this increases not in the natural way=through natural descent, but through the addition of spiritual children.—Herein also is found Paul’s justification for referring this passage immediately to “Jerusalem which is above.” Primarily, indeed, it applies to the theocratic people as a whole. But even here, to the natural children,=to such as become members of the theocratic people by natural descent, are opposed spiritual children=such as become such in virtue of Divine operation, without natural consanguinity. The sense therefore cannot be merely: The now depopulated Israel shall again become populous, yea, even more than before, by renewal of the now interrupted conjugal intimacy; but from that people of God which increased by natural descent, there is distinguished the people of God in the higher, completely true sense, whose existence does not depend on natural descent, but on Divine operation, that is of course, the operation of the Spirit, inasmuch as God through His Spirit produces faith, and so raises up children to His people, regarded as mother, or to Abraham their first ancestor. There is thus contrasted with the natural, empirical people of God, the one ἔχουσα τὸν ἄνδρα, which is now continued in the present Jerusalem, a higher spiritual one, the one which is “barren, bearing not,”=not naturally maintaining and increasing itself, i. e., in short the “Jerusalem which is above.”—The fulfilment of the promise then, took place, i. e., numerous children, without being naturally begotten by the theocratic people, were born to it, in particular, through the appearance of the Messiah, for all, who came to believe on Him, became thereby, and not by natural descent, members of God’s people (comp. Gal_4:28).—But it must here be remarked in addition, that Paul’s design is not strictly to declare positively of the Jerusalem above (as even Meyer assumes), that it had first been barren, therefore first unpopulated, childless, and had then become the mother of children (with the origin of the Christian people of God); but he means thereby only to distinguish it from the theocratic people that is maintained and continued by natural means. In distinction from this the Jerusalem above is in its nature—and remains therefore barren, not bearing, not travailing, desolate, for she obtains children indeed, but by no means through becoming fertile, τίκτειν, ὠδίνειν = not by such natural processes, as if these had only failed for awhile, and had then again become operative; on the other hand the children are given to her in a way not to be naturally explained, not as bodily offspring, but spiritually by Divine operation; for she is and remains not “having a husband” (=who does not stand to God in this natural and carnal relation). [Alford:—The “husband” of the E. V. may mislead “by pointing at the one husband (Abraham) who was common to Sara and Agar, which might do in this passage, but not in Isaiah: whereas ἔχ. τὸν ἄνδρα means, ‘her (of the two) who has (the) husband,’ the other having none: a fineness of meaning which we cannot give in English.” This goes to sustain the view of Schmoller.—R.] We need not be perplexed because this would create a divergence from the type of Sarah, with whom certainly, after her barrenness, a bearing and travailing took place. But although Paul undoubtedly knew this well, he yet (Gal_4:23; Gal_4:29) denies explicitly and roundly that Isaac was born after the flesh and vindicates to him only a being born through the promise, after the Spirit; and he can very well apprehend the contrast thus absolutely, because he looks only at the essential thing, the determining, generative principle, and this was purely “the promise,” “the spirit,” even though the act did not proceed without the medium of the “flesh.” Sarah, is his meaning, did not obtain her son Isaac, because from a naturally unfruitful woman she had become a naturally fruitful one; her obtaining the son was therefore only, as it were, formally, not essentially, a τίκτειν, &c. (see on Gal_4:23). But if Paul expresses himself thus even respecting Sarah, with whom nevertheless in a certain sense a τίκτειν, and the like, did take place, the same of course holds good in its full sense of the antitype, the true people of God, as Jerusalem above. This is precisely its specific quality, that it obtains children without “bearing” as “barren,” and in this very way approves itself as the true people of God, for which God begets children; therefore we have only: “many are the children of the desolate,” not: she will bear many children. Of course “barren” varies a little; at first it is one who cannot bear, because she is deprived of the husband; but from that it becomes one, who does not bear and is to bear, i. e., does not in this way obtain children, and is to obtain them, but in another way. But this variation is already implied in the original sense of the passage, which as it were says: “Barren hast thou become, that cannot bear; well, so shalt thou be and remain, but not to thy hurt, but to thy good,” &c.—Many are the children of the desolate more, etc.—Meyer rightly explains: not=πλείονα ἤ, which would leave the numerousness of the children wholly undetermined, but it expresses, that both have many children, but the solitary one, more=numerous are the children of the solitary, far more, than of her who hath her husband.

Gal_4:28 places the Galatians, as Christians, among the children of the Jerusalem above, promised her in Gal_4:27. As Isaac was.—Κατὰ Ἰσαάκ, in conformity with, according to the type of, even as Isaac. The antitype of the mother, Sarah, was named Gal_4:26; even so are Christians antitypes of her son, Isaac.—Children of Promise,—opposed to σαρκὸς τέκνα, therefore properly children whom the promise has born=who are born in virtue of the promise of God, not through carnal generation.—So was it with Isaac; he was born to Abraham as son in this way. Even so is it with you: you have in this way been born, i. e., become member’s of God’s people. This needs no proof, for on one side, it was certain that they as Christians were members of God’s people, and on the other side also, that they were not so by nature, by carnal descent, but in a spiritual manner, namely, through their knowledge of Christ, to which God had led them by His Spirit, thereby fulfilling His promise. It therefore follows from this, that they belong, because members of the theocratic people, and yet not such by natural descent, to “the children of the desolate” (Gal_4:27)=have her (to whom, although desolate, children are promised by God) as their mother, as was affirmed in Gal_4:26.

Gal_4:29. Still as then he that was born after the flesh.—Why will you nevertheless be under the law, and so in the condition of bondage? Paul had brought home to his hearers, You are like Isaac, not like Ishmael. This he had deduced from the manner of the birth of each. But now he adds—looking at the subsequent lot of each—a warning, that it is dangerous to place themselves in a position like Ishmael’s, for he had been shut out of the inheritance. Even so will it fare—Paul gives them to understand, with those that are like Ishmael=those that are under the law. Ἀλλά: for the thought which Paul first expresses, is in opposition to that in the foregoing verse, where he had described Christians as having a possession, as children of the free woman, because children of the promise. Yet Paul does not affirm this in order to frighten them back from the condition of freedom, as one of persecution, but on the contrary (ἀλλά, Gal_4:30) in order to set forth immediately after the evil lot of the children of the bondwoman, as persecutors, and thus to hinder the Christians from placing themselves, through bondage to the law, in a like position with them.

Persecuted.—In Gen_21:9, Ishmael is mentioned only as a scoffer: Paul here then either uses διώκειν in a more general sense, or he follows a more developed tradition, traces of which are found in the Rabbins. [Διώκειν is a strong word, and we are not justified in altering or extending its meaning to meet a difficulty, arising from the interpretation of another passage. The question then is: Is this statement of the Apostle based only upon the Scriptural narrative (Gen_21:9), or also upon some other reliable source of information, supplementing the Old Testament narrative. The chief objection urged by most modern commentators against the former of these views is, that there is no thought of “persecution” either expressed or implied in the passage referred to. It tells us of Ishmael’s “laughing” (מֵצַחֵק: which the LXX. expands into παίζοντα μετὰ Ἰσαὰκ τοῦ αυτῆς”); this has been interpreted as in play awakening Sarah’s jealousy, and as in mockery, arousing her anger. Obviously the latter is more in accordance with the context and is a legitimate rendering of the Hebrew (see Lange’s Com. Gen. in loco). But is it said that even this view of the narrative will not justify the assertion “persecuted.” Wordsworth, accepting the meaning “playing,” remarks: “The temper in which Ishmael played with Isaac, may best be inferred from the comment which Isaac’s mother made upon it. Sarah’s words interpret Ishmael’s act. If his play had been loving play, she would not have been displeased by it. It must have been the spirit of spiteful malice, made more offensive by its pretence to sportiveness and love,38 which extorted from Sarah the words which the Holy Spirit, speaking by St. Paul, here calls a verdict of Scripture. And Almighty God Himself vouchsafed to confirm Sarah’s interpretation of Ishmael’s play, by commanding Abraham, although reluctant, to hearken to Sarah’s voice in that matter.” It would seem that an inspired Apostle, reading the Old Testament narrative in the full gospel light, could interpret the spirit of that occurrence, without relying on tradition. If however the objection urged by Meyer, De Wette, Jowett, and others, be deemed valid, as even Ellicott admits them to be, the following remarks of Lightfoot may well be taken into account. “1) This incident which is so lightly sketched in the original narrative had been drawn out in detail in later traditions, and thus a prominence was given to it, which would add force to the Apostle’s allusion, without his endorsing these traditions himself. 2) The relations between the two brothers were reproduced in their descendants. The aggressions of the Arab tribes on the Israelites were the antitype to Ishmael’s mockery of Isaac. Thus in Ishmael the Apostle may have indirectly contemplated Ishmael’s progeny; and he would therefore be appealing to the national history of the Jews in saying ‘he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit.’ ”—R.]

After the Spirit.—The one born according to the Spirit. The Spirit of God was the power by which the generation of Isaac took place. The Spirit however is here conceived not as the power, but as the norm, according to which the generation took place=he was begotten in the way and manner in which the Spirit begets. “After the flesh” is to be interpreted in the same way.

Even so now.—Those born after the Spirit =“the children of promise” are persecuted by those born after the flesh=the natural members of the theocratic people, the Jews. But the main point is not the suffering of persecution by the one, although the thought of it occasions the ἀλλά, but the persecution of the others. See Gal_4:30.—To what this specially refers, is hard to say: that there was no lack of persecutions on the part of the Jews, is indeed well known. That the plotting of the Judaizers against the Christians are also meant, is probable; for these Judaizers believed themselves to have a preëminence, precisely as those born after the flesh, and, as our whole Epistle shows, took a position, which though professedly in the interest of others’ salvation, was nevertheless really hostile towards those who were only “born after the Spirit,” or only set a value on this, and denied to them a title to membership among the people of God. A similar self-exaltation over others and a disposition to suppress them, took place also, he says, in the case of Ishmael with respect to Isaac. But it turned out the other way.

[Wordsworth: “St. Paul’s comparison here is peculiarly apposite and relevant to the subject before him. The Judaizers, with whom he is dealing in this Epistle, were like Ishmael, the son of the bondwoman Agar, the representative of the Old Covenant not spiritually understood. They professed friendship for the Galatian Christians, who were the spiritual Isaac. In semblance they were playing with the offspring of the free woman, but in reality they were persecuting him. The Judaizers were endeavoring to rob the Galatian Christians of their Evangelical inheritance derived from Abraham. Thus Ishmael pretended to be playing with Isaac, but was in fact persecuting him. The Apostle, therefore, who had just been comparing himself to an affectionate mother, comes forward as a vigilant. Sarah, and interferes to part, the Jewish Ishmael from the Christian Isaac; and to rescue the children of the promise and of freedom from the treacherous flattery and tyrannical sport of the children of the flesh and of bondage.” This beautiful comparison is of course marred by any reference to tradition in our verse.—R.]

Gal_4:30. Cast out the bondwoman and her son, etc—Paul here cites the words of Sarah Gen_21:10 according to the LXX. only instead of μετὰ του υἱοῦ μου Ἰσαάκ, he substitutes, because the expression is severed from the context, μετὰ τοῦ υἱοῦ τῆς ἐλευθερας; therewith stating expressly the meaning of Sarah; for it is from this very point of view, namely, that her son is the son of the free woman, that she comes forward so decidedly against Ishmael, as the son of the bondmaid, declares that he is not entitled to be co-heir with her son, and demands his expulsion. It is not the personal behavior of Ishmael therefore which she urges against him, but his position, although, it is true, she is moved to do it by his behavior. As he is in himself not entitled to be co-heir, this right possessed against him is now urged—and as the narrative shows, made good. The application with an “even so now,” Paul leaves to the readers as being obvious, because through the whole argument he desires that they themselves may see the perverseness of the position which they are on the point of assuming. It would be thus supplied: Even so now—will it fare with the children of the bondmaid; they have as little right of inheritance as the son of the bondmaid had then, and this want of title will be brought into force against them on account of their persecution (so that in this particular also they will prove themselves antitypes of Hagar and Ishmael). The reference, to the expulsion of these does not as yet apply immediately to the readers, but if they suffer themselves to be made children of the bondmaid—and what that signifies is clear—by going over to the legal Jewish position, they lose at all events their right of inheritance, and are on the way to lose also the inheritance itself. Paul specifies the persecution primarily because the Divine exclusion from the inheritance was historically occasioned by that. A searching admonition, “to hoar the law better” (Gal_4:21)=to take better note of the intimations which are contained therein—and therefore not to place themselves under the law.

[Lightfoot: “Shall in nowise inherit! The Law and the Gospel cannot coexist; the Law must disappear before the Gospel. It is scarcely possible to estimate the strength of conviction and depth of prophetic insight which this declaration implies. The Apostle thus confidently sounds the death-knell of Judaism at a time when one-half of Christendom clung to the Mosaic law with a jealous affection little short of frenzy, and while the Judaic party seemed to be growing in influence and was strong enough, even in the Gentile churches of his own founding, to undermine his influence and endanger his life. The truth which to us appears a truism must then have been regarded as a paradox.”—R.]

The course of thought begun in Gal_4:21, concludes therefore with our verse in a complete and satisfactory way: Take heed then to the law, and learn from it: (1) that ye are free as Christians and (2) that ye, if ye do not persevere in this freedom, forfeit the inheritance—so that necessarily the conclusion must be drawn with Gal_4:30, and Gal_4:31 cannot be viewed as an immediate deduction from what precedes, nor as a conclusion, but only as a sentence summing up once more the foregoing result and introducing a transition to what follows, on which account it is to be joined with it.

DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL

1. The personal relation between teacher and congregation. The significance which attaches to the personal relation between teacher and congregation (see on the former section, the first remark), comes most evidently to view in this, that the teacher must regard it as his commission, to beget spiritual children (and that truly living ones)—as father, nay, yet more: to bear them also—as mother. There is thus of necessity constituted an inner bond of personal fellowship between him and the souls on which he labors; but it is true, the existence of such a bond is not to be presupposed as a matter of course, or demanded even where the condition of such a loving labor of spiritual begetting and bearing is wanting.

2. “Christ is formed (1) in the understanding of man, when he receives a truly living and spiritual knowledge of Christ’s person, offices, and benefits; (2) in the will of man, when (a) in regeneration faith in Christ is not only kindled, but also attains to its fit form, so that he hangs simply and solely on Christ, which faith then in justification apprehends and puts on Christ, and unites itself inwardly with Him; (b) in renewal, when Christ’s Divine mind is daily more and more formed in men, so that the lineaments of Christ’s image become ever more discernible.—It reads moreover: Till Christ be formed in you, not, Till you or I form Him in you, because regeneration is no human work.”—Starke.

3. The allegory. What view are we to hold of the interpretation of the two wives and sons of Abraham in this section? Is Paul a representative of that allegorical interpretation which presupposing a double, yes, multiplex sense of the Biblical text, long prevailed in the church, to the prejudice of the sound historical understanding of the contents of Scripture? The appearance is strongly for it, but in truth it is not so. Paul to be sure allegorizes here, for he says so himself. But with the very fact of his saying this himself, the gravity of the hermeneutical difficulty disappears. He means therefore to give an allegory, not an exposition; he does not proceed as an exegete, and does not mean to say—after the manner of the allegorizing exegetes—that only what he now says is the true sense of the narrative, conceded in the letter, the only sense really worthy of God’s word. The question then is only (1) whether this allegorical interpretation is merely a subjective fancy of the Apostle, or whether it is grounded in the actual facts; (2) what use he makes of this allegory. Commonly these two questions are not kept distinct from each other. Respecting the first, no one can speak of a mere arbitrary fancy (of a play of allegorical sharp-wittedness, rabbinism, and the like), who pays the least attention to the typical significance which according to Paul appertains to Abraham and his history,—and who allows any justice whatever in this the Apostle’s view of Abraham. We well know that for Paul Abraham himself is typical by his faith, and in immediate connection with that, Isaac is typical by his birth through the power of the Divine promise, and not of the flesh; he is the type of the true children of Abraham, i. e., of the true theocratic people, whose origin is not that of natural birth alone (comp. Rom_9:16 sq.). This of itself then gives on the other hand the converse, namely, the typical character of the carnal son, Ishmael. But now, in this section, Paul goes yet a step further. To him not only the manner of birth of the two sons of Abraham is typical, but also the condition in which they were born: the bondage of the one and the freedom of the other. Isaac is thus the type of a theocratic people, that (1) does not become such by natural birth, but by Divine operation; (2) and is also in possession of freedom, is the spiritual and free Israel; on the contrary Ishmael is the type of a merely natural and enslaved theocratic people: that is, the natural people of God is enslaved by its being under the law, something which is not true of the spiritual, genuine Israel. Respecting the warrant for a typological apprehension of the Old Testament generally, Wieseler justly remarks: “Since the whole of the Old Covenant is a σκιά of the New Testament dispensation, the single facts, persons and truths have therefore a prefigurative character, according to the measure in which each has within this whole and in relation to the New Covenant, a conspicuous and central significance.” That this applies to the person of Abraham is clear, and equally to the manner in which children were born to him, for through Abraham’s children the progress of the history of redemption is determined. But if even with an Isaac it is primarily only the manner of his birth to which this signification attached, yet the condition in which he was born, was an inseparable element of that; for from the legitimate, and therefore free, wife of Abraham, came naturally also the legitimate son, the son of promise; the freedom of Isaac was therefore not an accidental but an essential quality of him who was born in virtue of a Divine promise, and so Paul has a right to attribute to the fact of his freedom also, a typical importance, and to attribute the same to the opposite condition of Ishmael. If this prefigurative character of Abraham and his sons is acknowledged, it is clear, that the Apostle’s allegory is not arbitrary or accidental, but that it has a point of attachment in the actual history. But—and this is commonly overlooked—the allegory is not on this account eliminated from the passage; the allegory has its ground in the typical relation of Abraham’s two children to the two congregations of God, but yet for all this it is in form allegory. For αὖται γάρ εἰσι δύο διαθῆκαι is allegory, not typology; the two women were certainly not prophetic types of the two covenants. Something like this might be said, that the two women are, as mothers of the two diverse children of Abraham, types of the two churches of God, the external and the spiritual, conceived as collective personalities, as mothers of their members, although even this would be strained; but to say outright that the two mothers are prophetic types of two covenants, yields no rational sense. Only by allegorizing can Paul see in the two mothers two covenants, but the allegory is taken from the facts themselves, inasmuch as it is the covenants by which the character of the antitypes of the sons of those mothers is determined. It is necessary to acknowledge this mingling of Type and Allegory, or the passage will not be rightly apprehended. We feel that it is not merely allegory, and look for the type, and again we feel that it is not purely type; the two, in truth, are interwoven with each other.

If we could venture to draw from our section a general conclusion, it would be this: (1) that allegorizing portions of Scripture is not forbidden, provided only that it is acknowledged as such, and not given forth as exegesis proper; (2) that it is warranted in proportion as it has a typological basis which itself is authorized. What this is may be judged by the remarks above.—While we should acknowledge, therefore, that our allegory has an objective foundation, that Paul does not interpolate something into the narrative of Genesis at his own fancy, it is not on the other hand (to coma to the second inquiry, as to the use he makes of it), correct to say that “he ascribes to it an objective value as proof.” For that he is too sober-minded, for he undoubtedly is, as was remarked, far removed from that allegorizing exegesis which bona fide declares: This and this is meant in the passage besides the letter [? See below.—R.]. and which therefore upon this assumption proves the “higher truth” by means of allegorical explanation from a Scripture passage. If we look more closely, we find moreover, that he does not at all argue his proposition of the freedom of Christians from the narrative of Genesis; he does not infer any thing like this: Sarah signifies the upper Jerusalem, Isaac the Christians, therefore Christians are the children of the upper Jerusalem; moreover Sarah is free, therefore the upper Jerusalem is free, and Christians are children of the free congregation, and therefore likewise free. On the other hand he asserts the freedom of the Jerusalem above as self-evident, and resulting from the previously assumed ground of the covenant of grace, on which it rests, as opposed to the covenant of works, and then first expressly demonstrates from a prophetical passage that Christians are children of the Jerusalem above, and so comes to the conclusion that they are free (see the exegesis above). If it is inquired: Why then is the narrative of Genesis adduced, a narrative of type interwoven with allegory? the answer is simple: in order, by reference to the simple relations of things in the beginning of the theocratic people, to illustrate the higher relations of the present, or better: in order to furnish a confirmation of the latter by pointing out the relation between type and antitype = see, at the very beginning it was the same! For that typology may serve, with or without the application of allegory, which of course makes no difference, but not for strict proof; and still less bare allegory, when and where it is acknowledged as such.—We cannot draw a different conclusion from the remark, Gal_4:21 : Do ye not hear the law? The sense is simply: Do ye not then see that matters stood just the same with the ancient typical personages? The spiritually begotten Son was born in the condition of freedom and that should dispose you to give credit to my previous argument! Here the expression sounds, it is true, as if every reader of the law would be constrained to deduce this from the narrative in Genesis, as if this therefore simply signified the higher truth which is now under discussion, and merely expressed it under the veil of history; still whoever gives even cursory attention will not be tempted to press these words, but will recognize in them a rhetorical drapery.

4. [Paul’s treatment of the Old Testament narrative. A reference to the exegesis of Gal_4:24 will justify the following conclusions: 1) Paul does not regard the Old Testament narrative as in itself an allegory. He is careful to use a subject (ἅτινα) which is general enough to prevent our making such an unwarranted assumption. 2) His interpretation is not “subjective, fanciful or rabbinical.”39 The predicate ἀλληγορούμενα means “to have an allegorical meaning.” Hence the meaning inheres in the nature of the “things,” and does not depend on his acute speculation respecting them. On exegetical grounds, Schmoller is not warranted in affirming that Paul does not imply: “This and this is meant in the passage besides the letter.” In his proper anxiety to guard against “allegorizing exegesis” he gives some room for assumptions respecting the “subjective” character of this allegory of the Apostle. Against such attempts to represent the interpretation of St. Paul as subjective, i. e., to speak plainly erroneous, Ellicott properly remarks: “It would be well for such writers to remember that St. Paul is here declaring, under the influence of the Holy Spirit, that the passage he has cited has a second and a deeper meaning than it appears to have; that it has that meaning, then, is a positive, objective and indisputable truth.”—3) This passage gives no countenance to “allegorizing exegesis” of the Scriptures. This error, once so common, may have a different origin from attempts to make the Bible narrative a mere allegory, but it tends in the same direction, destroys the true knowledge and perverts the true use of the Scriptures. He may properly allegorize, who has the inspiration Paul had, but only when that inspiration shows him that “these things have an allegorical meaning.” On this point Calvin says: “As the Apostle declares that these things are allegorized, Origen and many others along with him, have seized the occasion of torturing Scripture, in every possible manner, away from the true sense. They concluded that the literal sense is too mean and poor, and that, under the outward bark of the letter, there lurk deeper mysteries, which cannot be extracted but by beating out allegories. And this they had no difficulty in accomplishing; for speculations which appear to be ingenious have always been preferred, and always will be preferred by the world to sound doctrine. For many centuries no man was considered to be ingenious, who had not the skill and daring necessary for changing into a variety of curious shapes the sacred word of God. This was undoubtedly a contrivance of Satan to undermine the authority of Scripture, and to take away from the reading of it the true advantage. God visited this profanation by a just judgment, when He suffered the pure meaning of the Scripture to be buried under false interpretations. 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, at his pleasure, 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.”40—R.]

5. The two covenants and their children. The fact that the Apostle recognizes a significance in the Scripture narrative of the twofold character of the wives and sons of Abraham, is a sign of his clear-minded way of viewing the Scripture; by the less reminded of the greater, in the germ already seeing the fruit. It is at the same time a sign of his pedagogic wisdom, that to those who boasted themselves of their descent from Abraham, he so simply discovers the insufficiency, and particularly the perversity of this boast, by referring to the twofold relation of sonship to Abraham, of which the one is so entirely destitute of ground for boasting. On the other hand, he shows here also again, as in chap. 3, his deep and clear view into the economy of salvation, and its guiding principles, in the first place by definitely distinguishing the two covenants in the history of redemption, and then by the way in which he characterizes them. There is a covenant of law and a covenant of grace; and both are mothers, that bear children, only in different wise and with different consequences. The first covenant bears children in the way of natural generation, for it finds its concrete manifestation in the carnal Israel and its members. All the natural children of Israel have part in this covenant; but it is simply a covenant which brings to the participants in it bondage and only that, for it imposes on them the law. It is widely different with the covenant of grace. This also has children, yea a great number of them, but these children God Himself brings to it through the operation of the Spirit (it does not obtain them, as it were, of itself), for this covenant finds its concrete manifestation in the spiritual Israel, which obtains its children in a spiritual way, and not by outward descent. This is the first covenant which brings to its members freedom, and does not transfer them into bondage under a law; for it does not make the attainment of God’s blessing dependent on the keeping of legal commandments and prohibitions, but secures it to its members as a pure bestowment of Divine grace. Intimately related therefore as Paul knows these two covenants and communities to stand to each other (for they are still like children of the one father), yet again he keep them sharply and clearly apart.—Especially noticeable is the conception of the upper Jerusalem, the signification of which has been explained above. In the first place, therefore, Paul distinguishes the spiritual from the carnal Israel, the ideal from the empirical. With the external Israel the idea of the theocratic people was as yet by no means realized as to its true substance; on the contrary this was a conception of much higher range. Therefore all vaunting by the Jews of their nationality, as alone entitled to be reckoned God’s people, is ungrounded. Above the theocratic people in its national manifestation within the Jewish community stood yet again the true people of God, that even in this community already found individual members, for under the Old Testament all were not children of Ishmael’s, and under the New Testament all are not children of Israel’s sort. And indeed from Abraham down, the true people of God was never quite extinct, but yet, so long as the covenant of law, and therewith the carnal Israel were in the ascendant, it could not yet come to developed existence. This it attained only through Christ. It is noticeable, secondly, that Paul in this conception of the Jerusalem above, has a conception, which stands still higher than that of the Christian body; the Jerusalem above is the mother, Christians are only the children. Unquestionably, however, they are actually the children, and so far even in this expression their rank is declared=they are children of no lesser one, and should therefore not forget what they owe to themselves and their rank, should not unworthily lower themselves. But on the other hand, they are only children, and are what they are, only through their mother. The Christian community is not of itself in its empirical manifestation already=the spiritual Israel, but has continually in this its spiritualis nutrix. We see how that which Paul expresses with his “Jerusalem above” is what dogmatic theology has endeavored to embody in its conception of an ecclesia invisibilis, by which it strives to guard the church against a false emphasizing of her empirical manifestation, and as it were to preserve to her her ideality. Only that the conception of the ecclesia invisibilis is in the first place a narrower one, limited more to the church since Christ, and still more, it is a secondary and negative one, first formed by abstraction from the mixed condition of the church on earth, while the idea of the Jerusalem above is a positive, primary one, grounded in the biblical economy of salvation itself.

HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL

Gal_4:19. Luther:—The Apostles, all devout preachers and also schoolmasters, are (in their peculiar way) also our parents. For like as we from our natural birth have from our parents the form of our bodies, so do these men help thereto, that our heart and conscience attain within us to a perfect form. Now the perfect form which a Christian heart should have, is faith, whereby we lay hold on Christ, cleave to Him alone and to no other thing besides.—Berlenb. Bible:—In nothing do more pangs of travail come to pass, than in the ministration of the gospel. The ministration of the law is a mere nothing compared with it. Evangelical preaching excludes all works accomplished in a merely outward way to which men nevertheless cleave.—“Until” points to a troublesome delay, that falls between the beginning and the accomplishment of a matter; not as if God would not at once proceed to the formation of us, but because on the side of man a bolt is interposed, and yet God does not give over.—Lange:—Even, as in many men, especially in their outward habit, gestures, words and actions, we find such a fashion of the world, that as it were we see in them even personally the vanity, wantonness and folly of the world, and are inwardly troubled at it; so on the other hand, in believers who come to their proper vigor, the new birth from God appears in all about them, saving their yet remaining weaknesses, in such a manner, that we see in them a true form of Christ in their weakness, humility, simplicity and uprightness, and are moved to inward joy thereby.

Gal_4:20. Luther:—The living voice is to be counted as an empress. For this can amplify or condense the matter, and suit itself to all occasions of time, place, persons and the requirement of any necessity.

Gal_4:21. Rieger:—The will has very great influence in the belief and unbelief of men. Even in falling back under the law, the will of the flesh seeks its advantage. The law is indeed the world’s crafty covering, under which it slinks away from the truth of Christ; which covering must be withdrawn from it.—Frantz:—In the law there is contained more than the commandments; more than the ways and usages, ceremonies and ordinances enjoined in the worship of the Jews. There is also more contained therein, than many after the letter read therein. There is contained therein also a revelation of the ways of God, which God hath chosen, to carry out His everlasting purpose among men. There is contained therein a history, which has come to pass from its beginning to its accomplishment on earth, that therein, as in a mirror, should be made known the thoughts of peace and salvation, which God has towards men and which in due time He will carry into execution.

Gal_4:23.—Nature assists us not to salvation, but grace alone. We are all according to our natural birth born flesh of flesh; but according to His promise hath God regenerated us through the bath of holy baptism.

Gal_4:24. Rieger:—This example serves to guard us against dealing too slightingly with the history of the Old Testament.—Berlenb. Bible:—All that Moses has described are figures of the inner spiritual and genuine life in Christ.—Spener:—“Bringeth forth unto bondage.” Those that will be saved by the law and its works and therefore reject the gospel, are not God’s children, nor heirs of eternal life, but at their highest are only servants and therefore under sin and the curse.

Gal_4:26. Luther:—The holy church bears and genders children continually, even to the last day, in that she exercises the ministry, that is, teaches and diffuses the gospel which is her manner of bearing. Now the gospel teaches that we are redeemed and become free from the curse of the law, from sin, death and all manner of ill, not through the law and works, but through Christ. Therefore is the holy church not subjected to the law or works, but free is she, a mother without law, without sin and death. But what she is as a mother, so are also her children.—“Free.”—Even the ten commandments have no right to accuse, nor to terrify the conscience, wherein Christ rules by His grace and moreover outwardly: the civil laws of Moses concern us no longer. Yet the gospel does not therewith make us free from all other civil laws, for so long as we are in this natural life, the gospel subjects us to the civil laws which the government of each land has. But since our mortal life must forsooth have some ceremonies, we can by no means dispense with them. Therefore the gospel admits that we may make in the Christian Church some special ordinances concerning holy days, times, places, etc.—but not in the thought that those who observe such order, should thereby merit forgiveness of sins.

Gal_4:27. Although the little flock, i. e., the dear Christian Church, that receives the doctrine of the gospel, and earnestly cleaves thereto, appears altogether unfruitful, forsaken, weak and despicable, and moreover outwardly suffers persecution, and is constrained to hear herself accused of teaching heretical and seditious things, she is nevertheless alone fruitful before God, and brings forth through the ministry innumerably many children, who are heirs of eternal life.

Gal_4:28. In Starke:—Natural birth has with God no preëminence; He chooses Abel before Cain, Jacob before Esau, Ephraim before Manasses, etc.; whoever feareth Him and worketh righteousness, is accepted of Him, and whoever cleaves in true faith to the promise, is a child of one promise, and shall attain to the promised everlasting inheritance.—If we are like Isaac in his birth, let us also become like him in his virtues.

Gal_4:29. Lange:—Whatever church oppresses and persecutes another in matters of faith, such an one is not the true apostolic church; therefore also she neither stands in the true filial relation to God, nor has part in the inheritance of eternal life.—Luther:—It is ever thus, that Ishmael persecutes Isaac, but on the contrary the good Isaac leaves Ishmael in peace. Whoever will be unpersecuted by Ishmael, let him profess that he is no Christian.—Spener:—The church’s condition is in some particulars ever the same; it may always be said: As it was at that time so is it now.

Gal_4:30.—Spener:—Persecutions harm in fact not the persecuted but the persecutors. To the persecuted there remains yet God’s grace, love and heaven, but the persecutors load themselves with God’s wrath.—Berlenb. Bible:—The whole natural man must, as a scoffer and wild man such as Ishmael was, be set aside from all righteousness of birth, and devices of his own through a renewed obedient will. And although that involves a dying and giving up, inasmuch as the false nature sinks into the death of its own desires and so becomes powerless, yet the new awakened sense makes no account of that, because it has a hatred against the old man, and renounces therefore courageously all impulses of nature, let them have as holy a seeming as they may. Thereby the scoffer becomes in his turn a scoffing before the new man.

Gal_4:21-30. Two sorts of children of Abraham: to which dost thou belong? To the children of the bondwoman or of the freewoman? Law or grace? Either–or? 1. The two stand indeed in relation to each other (one Father), but yet are 2. essentially distinct (two widely different mothers). a. Law–Flesh (= the lawman still the carnal man), Grace–Spirit (=the carnal man has no part in it); b. Law–Bondage, Grace–Freedom.—Christians are children, not of the bondwoman, but of the free woman. 1. Rejoice! 2. Consider well!—The Jerusalem above 1. a mother, 2. a mother through promise, 3. a free mother.—The covenant of law a fruitful mother. (Many depend on it, because the natural man remains thereby natural), but yet the covenant of grace has the promise of God.—Christians are children of the Jerusalem above. 1. How? Because children of the promise. 2. What do they obtain thereby? They participate in her condition of freedom.—The Jerusalem above free: 1) not bound to the law = not held to obtaining salvation by works of the law; 2) not obnoxious to its curse. The children of the promise, i. e., 1. They are members of God’s people not by nature but only through promise; 2. they attain heavenly inheritance‚ only in consequence of promise, not by their own works.—Christians have their type in Isaac; 1. Born as he through promise (see above); 2. Persecuted like him, by Ishmael, 3. but for all that children of the freewoman and therefore alone heirs.—Who obtains the inheritance? 1) not the natural man, but the spiritual; 2) not the son of the bondwoman but of the freewoman.—Human self-will (Hagar, Ishmael), divine counsel; 1) The latter permits the former, 2) but still gains the victory.

Footnotes:

[22]Gal_4:19.—א. τέκνα [So B. F. G., Lachmann; but א.3 A. C. K. L. read τεκνία, adopted by Tischendorf and most recent Editors. Occurs nowhere else in Paul’s writings.—R.]

[23]Gal_4:20.—[Φωνήν, literally “voice,” but “tone” is a more intelligible rendering—R.]

[24]Gal_4:20.—[“Am perplexed”; so Ellicott, Alford, Lightfoot. Schmolier (with doubtful propriety) throws this verse into a parenthesis.—R.]

[25]Gal_4:21.—Ἀναγινωσκετε, an ancient gloss, [followed by the Vulgate, but rejected by all modern Editors.—R.]

[26]Gal_4:23.—א. omits τῆς. [Undoubtedly to be retained, and preserved in the English translation.—R.]

[27]Gal_4:24.—[Ἀλληγορούμενα, “allegorical” (Alford, Ellicott). Older English versions vary greatly. Against the meaning “allegorized.” see Exeg. Notes.—R.]

[28]Gal_4:21.—Eiz. reads αἱ δυό, against decisive authorities. א.1 inserts, א.3 omits αἱ.

[29]Gal_4:25.—The Rec. reads: τὸ γὰρ ̓ìΑγαρ Σινᾶ ὄρος ἐστὶν ἐν τῆ Ἀραβία Besides this we find these readings: 1. τὸ γὰρ Σινᾶ ὄρος—2. τὸ γὰρ Ἄγαρ ὄρος—3. τὸ Ἄγαρ Σινᾶ ὄρος—4. τὸ δὲ Ἄγαρ Σινᾶ ὄρος κ. τ. λ. It is difficult to decide which is the correct reading, since the weight of authority is about equal for some of these readings. The Rec. is supported mostly by cursives. 1. is decidedly better sustained; א. has it, but with, an addition found in no other MSS. (ὂν before ἐν τῆ Αρ). 2. and 3. are very weakly supported; but 4. is well sustained. The choice then seems to be between 1. and 4.: τὸ γὰρ Σινᾶ and τὸ δὲ Ἄγαρ Σινᾶ; and between these it is scarcely possible to make a positive decision. [It may be remarked that the readings Rec. and 4, differ only in the substitution of δέ for γάρ; since this can readily be accounted for (γάρ first, omitted because of the closely following Ἄγαρ, then δέ inserted for connection, or to correspond with μέν Gal_4:24), it is perhaps better to regard the choice as lying between Rec. and 1. The former is adopted by Tischendorf. Meyer, Ellicott, Alford, Wordsworth; 1. by Lachmann and Lightfoot among others. In favor of each, see the above-named commentators. Lightfoot has two valuable notes. p. 189 sq. 1. is certainly lectio brevior; Rec, lectio difficilior; Ἄγαρ may have been Carelessly inserted from ver 24, but it was even more likely to have been carelessly omitted after γάρ.—The exegetical difficulty is as great as the critical. Of the three English renderings given above, I. follows reading I., II. and III., the Rec. See Exeg. Notes.—R.]

[30]Gal_4:25.—The readings συστοιχοῦσα and ἡ συστοιχοῦσα are not weakly supported, but still must be regarded as exegetical glosses; not without value in the exposition of the passage.—[If a comma be put after “Arabia,” it is unnecessary to supply “she.”—R.]

[31]Ver 25.—[Rec. δέ followed by Vulgate, E. V., but weakly supported. א. A. B. C. F. read γάρ; so modern Editors.—R.]

[32]Gal_4:26.—The better attested reading, μήτηρ ἡμῶν, is to be preferred, on internal grounds also to μήτηρ πάντων ἡμῶν. “Πάντων has come into the text, partly because of such parallel passages as Rom_4:16; Gal_3:26; Gal_3:28; partly because of the multitude of τέκνα in the quotation Gal_4:27 (Wieseler). [Πάντων Rec. א.3 A. C.3 K. L., many fathers, Wordsworth. Bracketted by Lachmann. Omitted in א.1 B. D. F. many versions and cursives; rejected by Tischendorf. Meyer, Alford, Ellicott, Lightfoot.—The E. V. “which is” is perhaps more literal, but Ellicott’s rendering, given above, is more forcible, and allowable with ἥτις.—R.]

[33]Gal_4:28.—“The reading ὑμεῖς—ἐστε is, with Lachmann, Tischendorf and others, to be preferred to the common text ἡμεῖς-ἐσμεν, since the latter appears to be a correction from ἡμῶν (Gal_4:26) and ὑμεῖς is more lively on account of its application to the readers” (Wieseler). א. however has ἡμεῖς. [Both are well supported, but ὑμεῖς is adopted by most Editors on internal grounds.—R.]

[34]Gal_4:30.—[Lightfoot follows א. B. D. in reading κληρονομή σει (apparently a correction from LXX).—The double negative οὐ-μή is rendered by Ellicott, “in no wise.”—R.]

[35]Gal_4:30.—Τοῦ υἱοῦ is omitted in א, but inserted by the corrector. [Instead of τῆς ἐλευθέρας we find also μου Ἰσαάκ (from the LXX).—R.]

[36][Wordsworth mentions a curious exposition and extension of this metaphor in the Epistle of the primitive churches of Gaul “who say that by means of the martyrs much joy accrued to the holy Virgin Mother, the Church of Christ, receiving back alive those whom she has lost as abortions, and also because through means of the martyrs, very many of her children who had fallen away by apostasy, were again conceived in her womb, and were being brought forth again to life.”—R.]

[37][Hence ἀποροῦμαι is to be taken, not as passive, with deponent sense (Ellicott), nor middle (Lightfoot), but middle with passive signification (Meyer, Alford); “the condition of perplexity is conceived of as wrought upon, suffered by the subject.”—R.]

[38][Augustine: Sed lusum Paulus persecutionem vocat‚ quia lusio illa illusio erat.—R.]

[39] [Every proper theory of inspiration roust admit that Paul’s early education had its influence on his character as teacher. But the word “rabbinical” contains a moral or rather immoral implication, which cannot be allowed.—R.]

[40] [Lightfoot gives Philo’s allegory of this same passage, and compares it with Paul’s: “Philo’s allegory is as follows. Abraham—the human soul progressing towards the knowledge of God—unites himself first with Sarah and then with Hagar. These two alliances stand in direct opposition the one to the other. Sarah, the princess—for such is the interpretation of the word—is divine wisdom. To her therefore Abraham is bidden to listen in all that she says. On the other hand Hagar, whose name signifies ‘sojourning‚’ and points therefore to something transient and unsatisfying‚ is a preparatory or intermediate training—the instruction of the schools—secular learning, as it might be termed in modern phrase. Hence she is fitly described as an Egyptian, as Sarah’s handmaid. Abraham’s alliance with Sarah is at first premature. He is not sufficiently advanced in his moral and spiritual development to profit thereby. As yet he begets no son by her. She therefore directs him to go in to her handmaid, to apply himself to the learning of the schools. This inferior alliance proves fruitful at once. At a later date and after this preliminary training he again unites himself to Sarah; and this time his union with divine wisdom is fertile. Not only does Sarah bear him a son, but she is pointed out as the mother of a countless offspring. Thus is realized the strange paradox that the barren woman is most fruitful. Thus in the progress of the human soul are verified the words of the prophet‚ spoken in an allegory‚ that ‘the desolate hath many children.’

But the allegory does not end here. The contrast between the mothers is reproduced in the contrast between the sons. Isaac represents the wisdom of the wise man; Ishmael the sophistry of the sophist. Sophistry must in the end give place to wisdom. The son of the bondwoman must be cast out and flee before the son of the princess.

Such is the ingenious application of Philo—most like and yet most unlike that of St. Paul. They both allegorize, and in so doing they touch upon the same points in the narrative, they use the same text by way of illustration. Yet in their whole tone and method they stand in direct contrast, and their results have nothing in common. Philo is, as usual, wholly unhistorical. With St. Paul, on the other hand, Hagar’s career is an allegory, because it is a history. The symbol and the thing symbolized are the same in kind. This simple passage of patriarchal life represents in miniature the workings of God’s Providence hereafter to be exhibited in grander proportions in the history of the Christian church. The Christian Apostle and the philosophic Jew move in parallel lines, or as it were, keeping side by side, and yet never once crossing each other’s path.

And there is still another point in which the contrast between the two is great. With Philo the allegory is the whole substance of his teaching; with Paul it is but an accessory, He uses it rather as an illustration than an argument, as a means of representing in a lively form the lessons before enforced on other grounds. It is, to use Luther’s comparison, the painting which decorates the house already built.”

The very pleasing character of Philo’s allegory is a warning against such interpretations. They always aim to be as captivating as his, and often succeed, only to be most unlike Paul’s “in tone and method.”—R.]

Lange's Commentary on the Holy Scriptures (Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical), ed. John Peter Lange, English translation edited by Philip Schaff (1864–1880) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

4:19 The Galatians were Paul’s spiritual children (cp. 1 Cor 4:14-15; Phlm 1:10). The process of bringing them to Christ had been like going through labor pains, a hard labor with a definite and joyful conclusion. Now Paul felt that it wasn’t finished after all. • until Christ is fully developed in your lives: Paul uses wordplay, switching the metaphor so that the Galatians would give birth to Christ’s image if they continued in the faith that Paul delivered to them. However, if they took up the law, they would produce a stillbirth. Paul must continue his hard work as a midwife in order to prevent this from happening.

Tyndale Open Study Notes — © Tyndale Open Resources, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Gal 4:19. Τεκνία μου, my little children) A father should be ζηλωτὸς, i.e. affectionately and zealously honoured by his children. This closely agrees with [Gal 4:17, they zealously affect] you, as δὲ, but, which occurs in the following verse [Gal 4:18] shows. Paul addresses the Galatians, not as a rival, but as a father, comp. 1Co 4:15, with authority and the tenderest sympathy towards his little children—children that were weak and alienated from him. The pathetic style often accumulates figurative expressions. Here, however, the figure, derived from the mother prevails. In the note on ζηλοῦσθαι, conjugal affection (ζῆλος) was assumed from the parallelism. Even in spiritual things, love sometimes descends, rather than ascends; 2Co 12:15.—πάλιν, again) as formerly; Gal 4:13.—ὠδίνω, I travail) with the utmost affection (zeal); 2Co 11:2; accompanied with crying [referring to φωνήν, voice], Gal 4:20. [When Paul wrote these very words, he exerted himself to the utmost, straining every nerve.—V. g.] He speaks according to the exigencies of the case, for in the natural birth, formation precedes the pains of labour.—ἄχρις οὗ, until) We must not cease to strive. Always is the correlative, Gal 4:18.—μορφωθῇ, be formed) that you may live nothing but Christ, and think nothing but Christ, Gal 2:20, and His sufferings, death, life, Php 3:10-11. This is the highest beauty. This form is opposed στοιχειώσει to worldly formation [the στοιχεῖα of the world, Gal 4:9].—Χριστὸς, Christ) He does not say here Jesus, but Christ; and this too by metonymy of the concrete for the abstract. Christ, not Paul, was to be formed in the Galatians.—ἐν ὑμῖν, in you) Col 1:27.

Bengel's Gnomon of the New Testament — English translation (T&T Clark, Edinburgh, 1860) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Gal_4:19. This verse is not to be attached to the preceding (Bos, Bengel, Knapp, Lachmann, Rückert, Usteri, Schott, Ewald, Hofmann),a construction which makes this earnest, touching address appear awkward and dissimilar in character to what is previously said,but the words are to be separated from what precedes by a full stop, and to be joined with what follows, the tender affection of which is quite in harmony with this loving address. Difficulty has been felt as to δέ in Gal_4:20 (which therefore is omitted in Chrysostom and some min.); but only from inattention to the Greek use of δέ after the address, when the writer turns to a new thought, and does so with a tacit antithesis, which is to be recognised from the context. It is found so not merely with questions (Hom. Il. xv. 244; Plat. Legg. x. p. 890 E; Xen. Mem. i. 3. 13, ii. 1. 26; Soph, O. C. 323. 1459), but also in other instances (Herod. 1. 115; Xen. Anab. v. 5. 13, vi. 6. 12). Here the slight antithetic reference lies, as the very repetition of παρεῖναι πρὸς ὑμᾶς indicates, in his glancing back to καὶ μὴ μόνον κ.τ.λ., namely: Although zeal in a good cause ought not to be restricted merely to my presence with you, I yet would wish to be now present with you, etc. The δέ of the apodosis, which Wieseler here assumes, is not suitable, because ἤθελον δέ κ.τ.λ. does not stand in any kind of antithesis to τεκν. μου οὓς πάλ. ὠδίνω κ.τ.λ.; and besides, no connected construction would result from it; for the idea: Because ye are my children … I would wish, does not correspond with the words. According to Hilgenfeld, that which the address is intended to introduce (viz. to move the readers to return) is wholly suppressed, and is supposed to be thereby the more strikingly suggested. Comp. also Reithmayr. But the affectionate tenor of the wish which follows in Gal_4:20 harmonizes so fully with the tender address in Gal_4:19, that that hypothesis, which Calvin also entertained (hic quasi moerore exanimatus in medio sententiae tractu deficit), does not seem warranted. Nevertheless Buttmann also, neut. Gr. p. 331, assumes an anacoluthon.

τεκνία μου] The word τεκνία, so frequent in John, is not found elsewhere in Pauls writings. But Lachmann and Usteri ought not to have adopted (following B F G א*) the reading τέκνα, since it is just in this passage, where Paul compares himself to a mother in childbirth, that the phrase my little children finds a more special motive and warrant than in any other passage where he uses τέκνα (1Co_4:14; 2Co_6:13 : comp. also 1Ti_1:18; 2Ti_2:1).

οὕς] The well-known constructio κατὰ σύνεσιν. Winer, p. 133 [E. T. 176].

πάλιν ὠδίνω] whom I once more travail with. Paul represents himself, not, as elsewhere (1Co_4:15; Phm_1:10), as a father, but in the special emotion of his love, as a mother who is in travail, and whose labour is not brought to an end (by the actual final birth) until nothing further is requisite for the full and mature formation of the τεκνίον. So long as this object is not attained, according to the figurative representation, the ὠδίνειν still continues.[207] Bengel remarks very correctly: Loquitur ut res fert, nam in partu naturali formatio est ante dolores partus. The point of comparison is the loving exertion, which perseveres amidst trouble and pain in the effort to bring about the new Christian life. This metaphorical ὠδίνειν had been on the first occasion easy and joyful, Gal_4:13 ff. (although it had not had the full and lasting result; see afterwards, on ἌΧΡΙς ΟὟ Κ.Τ.Λ.); but on this second occasion it was severe and painful, and on this account the word ὨΔΊΝΩ is chosen (and not ΤΊΚΤΩ or ΓΕΝΝῶ), which, however, is also appropriate to the earlier act of bearing intimated in ΠΆΛΙΝ, since the idea of pains is essential to the conception of a birth, however slight and short they may be. The sense, when stripped of figure, is: My beloved disciples! at whose conversion I am labouring for the second time with painful and loving exertion, until ye shall have become maturely-formed Christians. This continuous οὓς πάλιν ὠδίνω is to be conceived as begun, so soon as Paul had learned the apostasy of his readers and had commenced to counteract it; so that his operations during his second visit (comp. ἀληθεύων ὑμῖν, Gal_4:16) are thus also included: hence we cannot, with Fritzsche (l.c. p. 244) and Ulrich (in the Stud. u. Krit. 1836, p. 459), consider Gal_4:18-19 as intimating that Paul had only once visited Galatia. According to Wieseler, πάλιν ὠδίνω is intended to express the idea of the ΠΑΛΙΓΓΕΝΕΣΊΑ, Tit_3:5; Paul had regenerated his readers already at their conversion, and here says that he is still continuously occupied in their regeneration, until they should have attained the goal of perfection on the part of the Christiansimilarity with Christ. This is incorrect, because πάλιν must necessarily denote a second act of travail on the part of Paul. Paul certainly effected the regeneration of his readers on occasion of the first ὠδίνειν, which is presupposed by ΠΆΛΙΝ; but because they had relapsed (Gal_1:6, Gal_3:1, Gal_4:9 f., et al.), he must be for the second time in travail with them, and not merely still continuously (an idea which is not expressed) their regenerator, so that the idea of the πάλιν, the repetition, would be on the part of the readers. Theophylact (comp. Chrysostom) aptly defines the sense of πάλιν ὠδίνω not as that of a continued ἈΝΑΓΈΝΝΗΣΙς, but as that of ΠΆΛΙΝ ἙΤΈΡΑς ἈΝΑΓΕΝΝΉΣΕΩς. The sense, whose regeneration I am continuing, would have been expressed by Paul in some such form as ΟὛς Οὐ ΠΑΎΟΜΑΙ ἈΝΑΓΕΝΝῶΝ or ΟὛς ἜΤΙ ΚΑῚ ΝῦΝ ἈΝΑΓΕΝΝῶ.

ἌΧΡΙς ΟὟ ΜΟΡΦΩΘῇ ΧΡΙΣΤῸς ἘΝ ὙΜῖΝ] A shadow is thus thrown on the result of the first conversion (birth), which had undergone so sudden a change (Gal_1:6). The reiterated labour of birth is not to cease until, etc. This meaning, and along with it the emphasis of the ἄχρις οὗ κ.τ.λ., has been missed by Hofmann, who, instead of referring ΠΆΛΙΝ to ὨΔΊΝΩ only, extends it also to ἌΧΡΙς ΟὟ Κ.Τ.Λ. In connection with the general scope of the passage, however, the stress is on ΜΟΡΦΩΘῇ: until Christ shall have been formed, shall have attained His due conformation, in you, that is, until ye shall have attained to the fully-formed inner life of the Christian. For the state of Christ having been formed in man is by no means realized so soon as a man becomes a Christian (Hofmann), but, as clearly appears from the notion of the ἄχρις οὗ, is the goal of development which the process of becoming Christian has to reach. When this goal is attained, the Christian is he in whom Christ lives (comp. on Gal_2:20); as, for instance, on Paul himself the specific form of life of his Master was distinctly stamped. So long, therefore, as the Galatians were not yet developed and morally shaped into this complete inward frame, they were still like to an immature embryo, the internal parts of which have not yet acquired their normal shape, and which cannot therefore as yet come to the birth and so put an end to the ὠδίνειν. In the Christian, Christ is to inhabit the heart (Eph_3:17): in him there is to be the ΝΟῦς of Christ (1Co_2:16), the ΠΝΕῦΜΑ of Christ (Rom_8:9), the ΣΠΛΆΓΧΝΑ of Christ (Php_1:8); and the body and its members are to be the body and members of Christ (1Co_6:13; 1Co_6:15). All this, which is comprehended in the idea ΧΡΙΣΤῸς ἘΝ ὙΜῖΝ, is in our passage rendered intelligible by the representation that Christ is to be formed in us, or to become present in the life-form corresponding to His nature. This view is not different in reality, although it is so in the mode of representation, from that of spiritual transformation after the image of Christ (2Co_3:18); for, according to our passage, Christ Himself is in Christians the subject of the specific development. Bengel moreover, well remarks: Christus, non Paulus, in Galatis formandus.

μορφόω] occurs here only in the N.T.; but see LXX. Isa_44:13 (ed. Breit.); Symmachus, Psa_34:1; Arat. Phaen. 375; Lucian, Prom. 3; Plut. de anim. general, p. 1013; Theophr. c. pl. v. 6, 7. See also Jacobs, ad Anthol. VI. p. 345.

[207] Heinsius, Grotius, Koppe, Rückert, and others, erroneously hold that ὠδίνειν here means to be pregnant, which it never does, not even in the LXX., Isa_26:17; Psa_7:15; Son_8:5; Philo, quod Deus immut. p. 313 B; Plat. Theaet. p. 148 C, 210 B. On ὠδίνειν with the accusative of the person, comp. parturire aliquem, Isa_51:2; Son_8:5; Eur. Iph. A. 1234.

Meyer — Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament — English translation by Peter Christie, edited by Frederick Crombie (T&T Clark, 1880) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Gal 4:19 . τεκνία μου . This is an accusative in apposition to ὑμᾶς , not a vocative introducing a fresh appeal. It is clear from the addition of the connecting particle δέ after ἤθελον that that word begins a new sentence. τεκνία is usually a term of maternal endearment; and though addressed by John in his first Epistle to his children in Christ, is not used elsewhere by Paul, who prefers to address them as children ( τέκνα ), rather than as babes. But in this passage he is adopting the figure of a child-bearing mother; he is in travail for the spiritual birth of Christ within them (as he says), and straining all his powers to renew once more the spiritual life which had died in them until he could succeed in shaping their inner man afresh into the image of Christ.

The Expositor's Greek Testament, edited by W. Robertson Nicoll (1897–1910) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

That the apostle might the better dispose these Christians to bear with him in the reproofs which he was obliged to give them, he here expresses his great affection to them, and the very tender concern he had for their welfare: he was not like them - one thing when among them and another when absent from them. Their disaffection to him had not removed his affection from them; but he still bore the same respect to them which he had formerly done, nor was he like their false teachers, who pretended a great deal of affection to them, when at the same time they were only consulting their own interest; but he had a sincere concern for their truest advantage; he sought not theirs, but them. They were too ready to account him their enemy, but he assures them that he was their friend; nay, not only so, but that he had the bowels of a parent towards them. He calls them his children, as he justly might, since he had been the instrument of their conversion to the Christian faith; yea, he styles them his little children, which, as it denotes a greater degree of tenderness and affection to them, so it may possibly have a respect to their present behaviour, whereby they showed themselves too much like little children, who are easily wrought upon by the arts and insinuations of others. He expresses his concern for them, and earnest desire of their welfare and soul-prosperity, by the pangs of a travailing woman: He travailed in birth for them: and the great thing which he was in so much pain about, and which he was so earnestly desirous of, was not so much that they might affect him as that Christ might be formed in them, that they might become Christians indeed, and be more confirmed and established in the faith of the gospel. From this we may note, 1. The very tender affection which faithful ministers bear towards those among whom they are employed; it is like that of the most affectionate parents to their little children. 2. That the chief thing they are longing and even travailing in birth for, on their account, is that Christ may be formed in them; not so much that they may gain their affections, much less that they may make a prey of them, but that they may be renewed in the spirit of their minds, wrought into the image of Christ, and more fully settled and confirmed in the Christian faith and life: and how unreasonably must those people act who suffer themselves to be prevailed upon to desert or dislike such ministers! 3. That Christ is not fully formed in men till they are brought off from trusting in their own righteousness, and made to rely only upon him and his righteousness.

As further evidence of the affection and concern which the apostle had for these Christians, he adds (Gal 4:20) that he desired to be then present with them - that he would be glad of an opportunity of being among them, and conversing with them, and that thereupon he might find occasion to change his voice towards them; for at present he stood in doubt of them. He knew not well what to think of them. He was not so fully acquainted with their state as to know how to accommodate himself to them. He was full of fears and jealousies concerning them, which was the reason of his writing to them in such a manner as he had done; but he would be glad to find that matters were better with them than he feared, and that he might have occasion to commend them, instead of thus reproving and chiding them. Note, Though ministers too often find it necessary to reprove those they have to do with, yet this is no grateful work to them; they had much rather there were no occasion for it, and are always glad when they can see reason to change their voice towards them.

Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible (1708–1710) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

My little children-- (Ti1 1:18; Ti2 2:1; Jo1 2:1). My relation to you is not merely that of one zealously courting you (Gal 4:17-18), but that of a father to his children (Co1 4:15).

I travail in birth--that is, like a mother in pain till the birth of her child.

again--a second time. The former time was when I was "present with you" (Gal 4:18; compare Note, see on Gal 4:13).

Christ be formed in you--that you may live nothing but Christ, and think nothing but Christ (Gal 2:20), and glory in nothing but Him, and His death, resurrection, and righteousness (Phi 3:8-10; Col 1:27).

Jamieson, Fausset & Brown — Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (1871) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Verse 19. My little children] τεκνια μου. My beloved children. As their conversion to God had been the fruit of much labour, prayers, and tears, so he felt them as his children, and peculiarly dear to him, because he had been the means of bringing them to the knowledge of the truth; therefore he represents himself as suffering the same anxiety and distress which he endured at first when he preached the Gospel to them, when their conversion to Christianity was a matter of great doubt and uncertainty. The metaphor which he uses needs no explanation.

Until Christ be formed in you] Till you once more receive the Spirit and unction of Christ in your hearts, from which you are fallen, by your rejection of the spirit of the Gospel.

Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

19. My little children. The word children is still softer and more affectionate than brethren; and the diminutive, little children, is an expression, not of contempt, but of endearment, though, at the same time, it suggests the tender years of those who ought now to have arrived at full age. (Hebrews 5:12.) The style is abrupt, which is usually the case with highly pathetic passages. Strong feeling, from the difficulty of finding adequate expression, breaks off our words when half uttered, while the powerful emotion chokes the utterance.

Of whom I travail in birth again. This phrase is added, to convey still more fully his vehement affection, which endured, on their account, the throes and pangs of a mother. It denotes likewise his anxiety; for

“a woman, when she is in travail, hath sorrow, because her hour is come; but as soon as she is delivered of the child, she remembereth no more the anguish, for joy that a man is born into the world.” (John 16:21.)

The Galatians had already been conceived and brought forth; but, after their revolt, they must now be begotten a second time.

Until Christ be formed in you. By these words he soothes their anger; for he does not set aside the former birth, but says that they must be again nourished in the womb, as if they had not yet been fully formed. That Christ should be formed in us is the same thing with our being formed in Christ; for we are born so as to become new creatures in him; and he, on the other hand, is born in us, so that we live his life. Since the true image of Christ, through the superstitions introduced by the false apostles, had been defaced, Paul labors to restore that image in all its perfection and brightness. This is done by the ministers of the gospel, when they give

“milk to babes, and strong meat to them that are of full age,” (Hebrews 5:13, 14,)

and, in short, ought to be their employment during the whole course of their preaching. But Paul here compares himself to a woman in labor, because the Galatians were not yet completely born.

This is a remarkable passage for illustrating the efficacy of the Christian ministry. True, we are “born of God,” (1 John 3:9;) but, because he employs a minister and preaching as his instruments for that purpose, he is pleased to ascribe to them that work which Himself performs, through the power of his Spirit, in co-operation with the labors of man. Let us always attend to this distinction, that, when a minister is contrasted with God, he is nothing, and can do nothing, and is utterly useless; but, because the Holy Spirit works efficaciously by means of him, he comes to be regarded and praised as an agent. Still, it is not what he can do in himself, or apart from God, but what God does by him, that is there described. If ministers wish to do anything, let them labor to form Christ, not to form themselves, in their hearers. The writer is now so oppressed with grief, that he almost faints from exhaustion without completing his sentence.

John Calvin's Commentaries (1540-1563) — public domain. Text from the Calvin Translation Society English edition (1840s-50s) via the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (ccel.org). Calvin's coverage is partial (roughly two-thirds of the Bible); uncommented books and verses are honest gaps, never fabricated. The 19th-century editor's footnotes and remarks are omitted so the notes are faithfully Calvin's own voice.

(19) My little children.—The form is a diminutive, not found elsewhere in the writings of St. Paul, though common in St. John. It is used to heighten the tenderness of the appeal. The simple form, however, “my children,” is found in some of the best MSS., and perhaps should be adopted. St. Paul regards as his spiritual children all who first received the gospel from him.

Of whom I travail in birth again.—The struggle which ends in the definite winning over of his converts to Christ, the Apostle compares to the process of birth by which “a man is born into the world.” In the case of the Galatians, after their relapse, this struggle has all to be gone through again.

Until Christ be formed in you.—Just as the formless embryo by degrees takes the shape of man, so the unformed Christian by degrees takes the likeness of Christ. As he grows in grace that likeness becomes more and more defined, till at last the Christian reaches the “stature of the fulness of Christ” (Eph_4:13). There is some question as to the punctuation of this verse: whether it should be divided from the last by a full stop, and from the next by a comma, as is usually done; or from the last by a comma, and from the next by a full-stop. It is a nice question of scholarship, in which the weight or preponderance of authority seems, perhaps, rather to incline to the usual view, though some good commentators take the other side. It has been thought best not to alter the punctuation of the English text, though without a clear conviction that it is right.

A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

19. In the preceding verse the metaphor seems to be taken from the affection of husband and wife (see 1Co_11:2-3). Now it is changed to that from a mother in travail.

My little children] A form of address expressive of great tenderness, common with St John, but used only here by St Paul. This verse may be a continuation of the preceding. But it is better to take it as an apostrophe, and to regard the particle ‘but’ (see note) at the beginning of Gal_4:20 as resumptive of the train of thought from Gal_4:18.

again] This had first taken place at their conversion.

until Christ be formed in you] The indwelling of Christ in the believer’s soul is the principle of his new life. To restore this after a relapse is a task of deep anxiety to the Apostle. Calvin sees here an illustration of the efficacy of the Christian ministry. God ascribes to His ministers that work which He Himself performs through the power of His Spirit, acting by human instruments.

The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

I desire to be present with you now,.... His meaning is, either that be wished he was personally present among them; that he had but an opportunity of seeing them face to face, and telling them all his mind, and in such a manner as he could not in a single epistle; or that they would consider him, when they read this epistle, as if he was really among them; and as if they saw the concern of his mind, the agonies of his soul, the looks of his countenance, and heard the different tone of his voice:

and to change my voice; when present with them, either by a different way of preaching; that whereas before he preached the Gospel of the grace of God unto them, and his voice was charming to them like that of an angel, and even of Jesus Christ himself; but they having turned their backs upon it, and slighted it, he would now thunder out the law to them they seemed to be so fond of; even that voice of words, which when, the Israelites on Mount Sinai heard, entreated they might hear no more; as these Galatians also must when they heard the true voice of it, which is no other than a declaration of wrath, curse, and damnation; or by using a different way of speaking to them, as necessity might require, either softly or roughly, beseeching or chiding them, which might more move and affect them than an epistle could:

for I stand in doubt of you, The Vulgate Latin reads it, "I am confounded in you"; and the Syriac, "I am stupefied"; and to the same sense the Arabic. He was ashamed of them for their apostasy and degeneracy; he was amazed and astonished at their conduct; or, as the word may be rendered, be was "perplexed" on their account; he did not know what to think of them, and their state; sometimes he hoped well of them, at other times he was ready to despair; nor did he well know what course to take with them, whether to use them roughly or smoothly, and what arguments might be most proper and pertinent, in order to reclaim them.

John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

19 My little children, of whom I travail in birth again until Christ be formed in you,

Ver. 19. Till Christ be formed] That you may seek for salvation by him alone. Together with the word there goes forth a regenerating power, Jas 1:18. It is not a dead letter and empty sound, as some have blasphemed. Only let us not, as Hosea’s unwise son, stay in the place of breaking forth of children, proceed no further than to conviction; much less stifle those inward workings for sin, as harlots destroy their conceptions, that they may not bear the pain of childbirth.

John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

My little children - The language of tender affection, such as a parent would use toward his own offspring; see the note at 1Co 4:15; compare Mat 18:3; Joh 13:33; 1Jo 2:1, 1Jo 2:12-13; 1Jo 4:4; 1Jo 5:21. The idea here is, that Paul felt that he sustained toward them the relation of a father, and he had for them the deep and tender feelings of a parent.

Of whom I travail in birth again - For whose welfare I am deeply anxious: and for whom I endure deep anguish; compare 1Co 4:15. His anxiety for them he compares to the deepest sufferings which human nature endures; and his language here is a striking illustration of what ministers of the gospel should feel, and do sometimes feel, in regard to their people.

Until Christ be formed in you - The name Christ is often used to denote his religion, or the principles of his gospel; see the note at Rom 13:14. Here it means, until Christ reigns wholly in your hearts; until you wholly and entirely embrace his doctrines; and until you become wholly imbued with his spirit; see Col 1:27.

Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

By calling them little children, he both hints to them that he was their spiritual father, and had begotten them to Christ; and that they were as yet weak in the faith, not grown men, but as yet little children: and also hints to them, the tender affection he had towards them, which was the same as of a mother to her little children: though they did not own and honour him as their spiritual father, yet he loved them as his

little children.

Of whom I travail in birth again; for whom I am in as great pain, through my earnest desire for the good of your souls, as the woman is that is in travail for the bringing forth of a child.

Until Christ be fully and perfectly formed in you; that is, till you be brought off from your Judaism, and opinion of the necessity of superadding the works of the law to the faith of Christ in order to your justification, and be rooted in the truth and established in the liberty of the gospel, witIt which Christ hath made you free.

Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

19. My little children—My darlings. An expression of endearment repeatedly used by St. John, but here alone by St. Paul. Little children he may well call them; for he is now in figure their mother, in pangs of childbirth, to bring them forth in the likeness of Christ.

Again—Clearly expressing the thought of a second regeneration.

Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

My little children, of whom I travail in birth again until Christ be formed in you (teknia mou or, tekna mou ouv palin wjdinw arciv ou morfwqh Cristov ejn uJmin); my little children (or, my children) of whom I am again in travail, until Christ be formed in you. It has been above remarked to be doubtful whether this verse should be conjoined with the preceding verse or with that which follows. The objection to the latter arrangement, presented by the de at the commencement of ver. 20, is thought by many to be obviated by a number of instances which have been alleged in which this conjunction is used with a sentence following a vocative compellation (see Alford, Ellicott). But such cases appear marked by a tone of vivacity and surprise which is not present here. On the other hand, the tone of loving affectionate anxiety breathing in this verse links it more closely with the preceding than with the following one, in which such pathos is no longer discernible, but is replaced by a deliberative attitude of mind. The word teknia occurs as a compellation here only in St. Paul"s writings, though repeatedly in St. John"s Epistle and once in his Gospel, (Joh_13:33) where it appears as used by our Lord in an access of deeply moved affectionate-ness. St. Paul addresses Timothy as "his child" (teknon) in 2Ti_2:1 and 1Ti_1:18, not only as a term of endearment, but as denoting also his having been spiritually begotten by him. (comp. Phm_1:10; 1Co_4:15) Here the like sense attaches to the word, as is clear from the following clause, "of whom I am again in travail;" but the diminutive form of the noun, agreeing well with the notion of a child at its birth, combines in this case apparently a tender allusion also to the extremely immature character of their Christian discipleship.(compare "babes (nhpioi) in Christ," (1Co_3:1) so immature, in fact, that the apostle is travailing of them afresh, as if not yet born at all. This particular shade of meaning, however, must be sacrificed, if we accept the reading tekna mou, "my children," which is highly authenticated. The verb wjdinw cannot be understood as pointing to gestation merely; it can only denote the pangs of parturition. The apostle by this figure describes himself as at this hour in an anguish of desire to bring the souls of his converts both to a complete state of sonship in Christ Jesus, and to a complete consciousness of that state now at length bring them thereto, though that former travail had seemingly been in vain. in 1Co_4:15; Phm_1:10 he refers to himself as a spiritual father of his converts, and this too with touching pathos. Great is the pathos too of his reference to himself as, in his fostering care of his Thessalonian converts, like a tender "nursing mother cherishing her own children," and also as of a "father" of them. (1Th_2:7, 1Th_2:11) But neither of those passages equals the present in the expression of intense, even anguished, longing to effect, if only he might be able to effect it, a real transformation in the spiritual character of these Galatian converts. "Until I cannot rest till then! be formed in you." The verb morfow, form, occurs only here in the New Testament in its uncompounded shape. A passage is cited from "Const. Apost.," 4:7, in which it occurs in the phrase, "formed man in the womb." In the Septuagint of non Exo_21:22 we have ejxeikonisme of the unborn infant. It certainly seems as if the apostle used the word as one belonging to the same region of thought as the wjdinw, but, with the like bold and plastic touch as elsewhere characterizes his use of imagery, refusing to be tied to thorough-going consisteney in its application. Compare for example 2Co_3:2. When the hour of wjdinev is come, the period of the" formation" of the babe has expired. Further, as showing the freedom of the writer"s use of imagery, the easiest way of taking ejn uJmin is to suppose that "Christ" is here viewed as within" them, and not as a likeness to which they are to be conformed: comp. Ga 2, "Christ liveth in me;" and Col_1:27, where the "mystery" of the gospel is summed up in the words, "Christ in you the hope of glory." He cannot rest, he means, till the image, thought, of Christ as the Object of their sole and absolute trust, as the complete ground of their acceptance with God and their sonship, shall be perfectly and abidingly formed in their hearts. The hour in which a perfectly formed "Christ," that fair" Divine Child of joy and hope, has come to be there, in their hearts, will be the hour in which the apostle"s travailing pangs have issued in their birth. No doubt the apostle is writing to persons baptized into Christ and thus clothed with Christ; (Gal_3:27) persons, in the language of the Church, "born again." But however straitly we choose to be restrained in the use of such images, solidifying into rigid dogma similitudes used for such passing illustration as the occasion of the moment requires, the sacred writers themselves recognize no such restriction. As Chrysostom observes in his "Commentary," the apostle"s language in effect is, "Ye need a fresh new-birth, a fresh remoulding (ajnagennhsewv eJterav uJmin dei kaisewv)." Baptized into Christ as those Galatians were, they were, however, in his view no true sons of God, until Christ had been really formed in their hearts.

Vers. 19, 20.

A tender appeal to his converts.

The Epistle alternates from reproof to argument and from argument to entreaty.

I THE APOSTLE"S EARNEST DESIRE FOR THEIR GROWTH INTO SPIRITUAL MANHOOD. "My little children, of whom I travail in birth again till Christ be formed in you.

1. Mark the tenderness of his address. "My little children;" implying

(1) that he had been the instrument of their conversion, he had "begotten them through the Word"; (Jam_1:18)

(2) that they were still little children, with much of the feebleness and simplicity of childhood.

1. Mark his deep anxiety on their account. "Of whom I travail in birth again." The idea not being so much that of pain as of long-continued effort; it was a renewal to him of the birth-pains that accompanied their regeneration.

2. Mark the end of all his anxiety. "Till Christ be formed in you." This Peters, not to their regeneration, but to their progressive sanctification. The false teachers had tried to form a new shape in their hearts not Christ, but Moses but he aimed at the complete development of their spiritual manhood, at the fully formed results of Christ within them.

II HIS PERPLEXITY ON THEIR ACCOUNT. "I am perplexed about you;" as to their actual spiritual condition as well as how to recover them to the truth of the gospel. If the apostle had doubts about the Galatians, they might well have doubts about themselves a proof that faith may consist with doubts of our personal salvation.

III HIS DESIRE FOR A PERSONAL INTERVIEW. "I could, indeed, wish to be present with you now and to change my voice.

1. A personal interview would necessarily dissipate many misapprehensions.

2. It might revive the old affection in its entireness.

3. It would give him an opportunity of changing his tone. He had been severe in his rebukes, but if present with them he might deal with them with all the softness and tenderness of a mother. "A letter is a dead messenger, for it can give no more than it hath." But the living voice can adapt itself closely to all times, occasions, and persons.

The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

My little children - He speaks as a parent, both with authority, and the most tender sympathy, toward weak and sickly children. Of whom I travail in birth again - As I did before, ver. 13, in vehement pain, sorrow, desire, prayer. Till Christ be formed in you - Till there be in you all the mind that was in him.

John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.

VERSE 19. My little children, of whom I travail in birth again until Christ be formed in you.

With every single word the Apostle seeks to regain the confidence of the Galatians. He now calls them lovingly his little children. He adds the simile: "Of whom I travail in birth again." As parents reproduce their physical characteristics in their children, so the apostles reproduced their faith in the hearts of the hearers, until Christ was formed in them. A person has the form of Christ when he believes in Christ to the exclusion of everything else. This faith in Christ is engendered by the Gospel as the Apostle declares in 1Co 4:15 : "In Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the Gospel"; and in 2Co 3:3, "Ye are the epistle of Christ ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God." The Word of God falling from the lips of the apostle or minister enters into the heart of the hearer. The Holy Ghost impregnates the Word so that it brings forth the fruit of faith. In this manner every Christian pastor is a spiritual father who forms Christ in the hearts of his hearers.

At the same time Paul indicts the false apostles. He says: "I have begotten you Galatians through the Gospel, giving you the form of Christ. But these false apostles are giving you a new form, the form of Moses." Note the Apostle does not say, "Of whom I travail in birth again until I be formed in you," but "until Christ be formed in you." The false apostles had torn the form of Christ out of the hearts of the Galatians and substituted their own form. Paul endeavors to reform them, or rather reform Christ in them.

Martin Luther — Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians (1535), English translation by Theodore Graebner (Zondervan, 1939) — public domain (U.S. copyright not renewed). Text from a community e-Sword module.

little children

The allegory Gal 4:22-31 is addressed to justified but immature believers (cf) 1Co 3:1; 1Co 3:2 who, under the influence of legalistic teachers, "desire to be under the law," and has, therefore, no application to a sinner seeking justification. It raises and answers, for the fifth time in this Epistle, the question, Is the believer under the law?; Gal 2:19-21; Gal 3:1-29; Gal 3:26; Gal 4:4-6; Gal 4:9-31.

The Scofield Reference Bible (1917 edition), notes by C. I. Scofield — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

An urgent appeal to an Old Testament example:

v. 19. My little children, of whom I travail in birth again until Christ be formed in you.

v. 20. I desire to be present with you now, and to change my voice; for I stand in doubt of you.

v. 21. Tell me, ye that desire to be under the Law, do ye not hear the Law?

v. 22. For it is written that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman.

v. 23. But he who was of the bond-woman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise.

The love of the apostle for his deluded Galatians here flashes forth in a passage in which he, for once, uses the endearing designation of a mother for the children which she has born. He once more feels the pangs for the spiritual birth of Christ within them, until Christ be formed in them, until the new spiritual life be shaped anew in the image of Christ. In this eager love the apostle states: I would fain be with you now and change my form of communication, for I am perplexed about you. Instead of expressing himself to them by means of writing, which is necessarily formal, unpliable, unsatisfactory, not so well suited to make an impression upon the heart and mind, he would much prefer to be with them personally, to speak to them face to face. For he does not know what to make of them; he cannot understand their coldness, their defection from the truth, and therefore he feels that a personal interview with them may enable him to find the right arguments to make them change their minds and to accept the truth once more.

The apostle, therefore, uses another line of argument. in the hope of convincing the Galatians in this way, with the intention of showing them that not the religion of the Law, but that of the Gospel alone teaches the way of salvation. in doing so, he meets the Judaizing teachers on their own ground: Tell me, you that want to be under the Law, do you not pay any attention to the Law? He addresses himself to men that make their boast of upholding the authority of the Mosaic Law in all its particulars, that acknowledge the Law as the supreme master, that expect salvation through its fulfillment. He accuses them outright of being indifferent to the lessons which are found in the book of the Law, in the books of Moses; for these were designated by the one word "Law. " See Luk 24:44; Act 13:15; Rom 3:21. If their zeal for the Law is of the right kind, Paul means to say, then they would soon find in it that which ought to convince them how unsound and dangerous it is to follow the false teachers.

Paul does not quote verbally, but refers to facts as recorded in the Book of Genesis: For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one from the slave and one from the freewoman. Ishmael was the son of Hagar, the bond-woman, and Isaac was the son of Sarah, the mistress, the freewoman, Gen 16:15; Gen 21:2. Both bops were Abraham’s sons; however, they had not only entirely different mothers, but mothers also of entirely different conditions. Paul purposely chose the example of Abraham, since it was this patriarch of whom the Jews loved to boast. The chief point of difference in the two sons of Abraham was that the one, Ishmael, was born according to the flesh, according to the usual course of nature, Abraham having taken Hagar as his concubine, and the other, Isaac, through the promise, by virtue of the divine promise, according to which God restored to Sarah the ability to bear this son, Gen 17:16; Gen 17:19; Gen 18:18; Heb 11:11.

Paul E. Kretzmann, Popular Commentary of the Bible (1921–1924) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Observe here, 1. The endearing title which the apostle gives to the apostatizing Galatians: he calls them children, little children, his little children--My little children.

Note, he calls them children, because converted to Christianity by the preaching of the gospel; and being thus regenerate and born again, they were to be as children, innocent and inoffensive. He calls them little children, to denote the tenderness of their growth in Christianity, the smallness of their proficiency in religion; they were not come to that consistency in grace, to that maturity in goodness, to that perfection in knowledge which he did desire.

Farther, he calls them his little children, to denote that spiritual relation which was between them, he having been the undoubted instrument of their conversion, and so was their spiritual father; and also to denote that endearedness of affection which he bare unto them, and that tender care and concern which he had for them.

Observe, 2. The holy vehemency of the apostle’s desire, how earnestly he longed after them in the bowels of Jesus Chrsit. He compares himself to a mother in travail, until he saw Christ formed in their hearts and lives. I travail in birth, till Christ be formed in you.

Learn hence, That there is no stronger love, nor more endeared affection between any relations upon earth, than between such ministers of Christ and their beloved people, as they have been happily instrumental to convert and bring home to Christ.

Learn, 2. That there is nothing in this world which the faithful ministers of Christ do so passionately desire and affectionately long after, as to see Jesus Christ formed and fashioned in the hearts and lives of their beloved people: My little children, of whom I travail in birth, &c.

William Burkitt's Expository Notes on the New Testament (1700–1703) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

My little children [ 1Ti_1:18 ; 2Ti_2:1 ; 1Jo_2:1 ], of whom I am again in travail until Christ be formed in you

J. W. McGarvey (with Philip Y. Pendleton), Commentaries on the New Testament (The Fourfold Gospel, 1914; Acts; and the epistles) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

19. My little children. He addresses them very tenderly as their spiritual parent. Of whom I travail in birth again. He is more than a father; he travails for them as a mother. He had done so when they were converted; he did not now again until they were so matured in Christ that they would cling to the gospel.

B. W. Johnson's The People's New Testament with Notes (1889–1891) — public domain. Electronic text from the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (CCEL) ThML edition.

Connecting Statement:

Paul tells believers that grace and law cannot work together.

My little children

This is a metaphor for disciples or followers. AT: "You who are disciples because of me" (See: Metaphor)

I am in the pains of childbirth for you until Christ is formed in you

Paul uses childbirth as a metaphor for his concern about the Galatians. AT: "I am in pain as though I were a woman having to give birth to you, and I will continue to be in pain until Christ truly controls you" (See: Metaphor)

translationWords

children

labor pains

unfoldingWord translationNotes — © Distant Shores Media and the Door43 World Missions Community, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Source: git.door43.org/Door43/en_tn.

19. τεκνία אcACDbc vulg. (filioli) Text. Rec. only here in St Paul’s writings. τέκνα א*BD*G.

μέχρις οὖ א*B 37. 116. ἄχρις οὖ Text. Rec. with אcACD etc.; cf. Gal 3:19 W.H. marg.

19. τεκνία μου. τέκνα W.H. marg. See notes on Textual Criticism. The phrase, 1Jn 2:1[129]; τεκνία, Joh 13:33; 1 John septies[130]. To be joined closely with ὑμᾶς, Gal 4:18, a new sentence beginning with ἤθελον δὲ (Gal 4:20).

[129] Is affixed it means that all the passages are mentioned where the word occurs in the Greek Bible.

[130] Is affixed it means that all the passages are mentioned where the word occurs in the Greek Bible.

οὓς (ad sensum) πάλιν ὠδίνω. As though the first time was a failure. “These words show too the folly of the Novatians, who close the door of repentance” (Theodoret). Cf. the Letter of the Church of Vienne and Lyons of the re-birth of those who had denied Christ: “The Virgin mother [the Church] had much joy in receiving alive those whom she had brought forth as dead” (οὓς ὡς νεκροὺς ἐξέτρωσε, cf. § 11 ὦν καὶ ἐξέτρωσαν ὡς δέκα τὸν ἀριθμόν, and ἔκτρωμα, 1Co 15:8) … “many who had denied were brought forth again and re-begotten” (ἀνεμητροῦντο καὶ ἀνεκυίσκοντο, see Heinichen for the text, Euseb. Ch. Hist. Gal 4:1. §§ 45, 46). “The point of comparison is the loving exertion, which perseveres amidst trouble and pain in the effort to bring about the new Christian life” (Meyer). On St Paul’s comparison of himself to a father in Phm 1:10 see note there.

μέχρις οὗ (Mar 13:30[131], contrast Gal 3:19) μορφωθῇ[132] Χριστὸς ἐν ὑμῖν, “until you have become Christians in whom Christ alone lives, Gal 2:20” (Weiss). Although μορφοῦσθαι occurs here only in the Greek Bible μεταμορφοῦσθαι occurs in Rom 12:2; 2Co 3:18, as well as in Mar 9:2 || Mat 17:2. The thought is that the life of Christ in the believer may have so perfect a development that every part of the believer himself may be moulded by it and may be the outcome of it (cf. Rom 8:29). In contrast to σχῆμα, a mere external appearance having no organic connexion with that which is within, such as a dress or even a human figure carved in stone, μορφή is the outcome of the inner life. St Paul longs that Christ’s transfiguration may become true in each believer. See Lightfoot’s classical note on Php 2:7.

[131] Is affixed to a word it means that all the passages are mentioned where that word occurs in the New Testament.

[132] Is affixed it means that all the passages are mentioned where the word occurs in the Greek Bible.

Cambridge Greek Testament for Schools and Colleges (Cambridge University Press, 1896; 21 vols, various authors incl. Carr, Maclear, Plummer, Farrar, Lumby, Moule, M. R. James, Simcox) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

19.] belongs to what follows, not to the preceding. Lachmann, (I suppose on account of the δέ following, but see below,) with that want of feeling for the characteristic style of St. Paul which he so constantly shews in punctuating, has attached this as a flat and irrelevant appendage to the last verse (so also Bengel, Knapp, Rückert, al.): and has besides tamed down τεκνία into τέκνα, thus falling into the trap laid by some worthless corrector. My little children (the diminutive occurs only here in St. Paul, but is manifestly purposely, and most suitably chosen for the propriety of the metaphor. It is found (see reff.) often in St. John, while our Apostle has τέκνον, 1Ti 1:18; 2Ti 2:1), Whom (the change of gender is common enough. Meyer quotes an apposite example from Eur. Suppl. 12, θανόντων ἑπτὰ γενναίων τέκνων … οὕς ποτʼ … ἤγαγε) I again (a second time; the former was ἐν τῷ παρεῖναί με, ver. 18) travail with (bear, as a mother, with pain and anxiety, till the time of birth) until Christ shall have been fully formed within you (for Christ dwelling in a man is the secret and principle of his new life, see ch. 2:20),

Henry Alford, The Greek Testament (1849–1861) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

19. τέκνα μου, οὗς πάλιν ὠδίνω μέχρις οὗ μορφωθῇ Χριστὸς ἐν ὑμῖν. “oh, my children with whom I travail again in birth pangs till Christ be formed in you.” Language of deep affection and emotion, called forth by the previous words defending his right to continue his zealous efforts to hold the affection of his readers, and probably to be attached to the preceding v. The figure is after the fashion of the apostle, and extremely bold; τέκνα addresses them in affectionate tone as his children, i. e., as those whom he has already begotten or borne; οὗς πάλιν ὠδίνω represents them as again in the womb, needing a second (spiritual) birth, and himself as a mother suffering again the birth pangs, which must continue till Christ be formed in them, i. e., until it be true of them as of him that Christ lives in them (2:20).

Were it not for the δέ at the beginning of v. 20, v. 19 would naturally be taken as the beginning of a sentence and v. 20 as its completion. The occurrence of δέ, however, necessitates either connecting v. 19 with v. 18, as in WH., or assuming an anacoluthon at the beginning of v. 20, as in RV. The recurrence in v. 20 of the expression παρεῖναι πρὸς ὑμᾶς, used also in v. 18, implies a close connection between these vv. and makes it improbable that v. 19 begins a new line of thought, which is broken off at v. 20. The punctuation of WH. is therefore more probably correct than that of RV.

The figure of speech involved in ὠδίνω, though startling to modern ears, is unambiguously clear. The precise form of the thought expressed in μορφωθῇ is less certain. There are three possibilities: (a) In themselves the words not unnaturally suggest a reversal of the preceding figure, those who were just spoken of as babes in the womb, now being pictured as pregnant mothers, awaiting the full development of the Christ begotten in them. Such abrupt change of figure is not uncharacteristic of the apostle. In Rom 7:4, illustrating the relation of the believer to the law and to Christ by remarriage, following death, he makes the deceased one remarry, sacrificing illustration to the thing illustrated. In 1Th 2:7, if, as is probable, the true text is νήπιοι, the apostle in the same sentence calls himself a child, and a mother, and a nurse, each term expressing a part of his thought, and in v. 11 compares himself to a father. Nor is it a serious objection to this view of the present passage that the apostle has not elsewhere employed the figure of Christ being begotten in the believers. It would be easy to give examples of figures of speech employed by him but once, as, e. g., in this very verse the comparison of himself to a mother in birth pangs. Nor does he shrink from the employment of equally bold figures taken from the same general sphere. See Rom 7:4, where he speaks of the believer as married to Christ and as bringing forth fruit (children) to God, and 1Co 4:15 and Phm 1:10, where he speaks of himself as the begetting father of his converts. The word μορφωθῇ (occurring nowhere else in Lxx or N. T.) is more consonant with this view than with any other. Cf. the use of the synonyms πλάσσω in Jer 1:5, πρὸ τοῦ με πλάσαι σε ἐν κοιλίᾳ, Rom 9:20, 1Ti 2:13. The only weighty objection to this understanding of the figure is that it is not in itself strikingly appropriate for the spiritual fact to which the apostle evidently refers, and that when elsewhere Paul speaks of Christ in the believer (chap. 2:20, Col 1:27 et freq.) the language conveys no suggestion of pregnancy, but in less materialistic fashion denotes the indwelling presence of Christ. Yet over against this objection is to be set the fact that this passage contains, what all the others lack, the word μορφωθῇ, suggesting if not requiring the view that here the thought of the apostle takes on a different form from that which it has elsewhere. (b) It is perhaps not impossible that without reversal of figure the apostle thinks of his birth pangs as continuing till the child in the womb takes on the form of the begetting father, who is now thought of as being not Paul but Christ. The choice of μορφωθῇ Χριστὸς ἐν ὑμῖν rather than, e. g., ὑμεῖς ἐν ὁμοιώματι Χριστοῦ μορφωθῆτε might in this case be due to the influence of the apostle’s favourite form of thought expressed in the formula Χριστὸς ἐν ὑμῖν or the like. (c) The figure suggested by ὠδίνω may be dropped altogether, μέχρις οὗ μορφωθῇ referring figuratively, of course, but without specific thought of the birth process, to that spiritual process, the full achievement of which is elsewhere expressed by Χριστὸς ἐν ὑμῖν and like phrases. Of these three conceptions of the apostle’s figure of speech the first seems somewhat the most probable; yet there is no perfectly decisive evidence for either as against the others. The spiritual fact for which the figure stands is substantially the same in any case. The reactionary step which the Galatians are in danger of taking, forces upon the apostle the painful repetition of that process by which he first brought them into the world of faith in Christ, and his pain, he declares, must continue till they have really entered into vital fellowship with Christ.

Against the strong external evidence for τέκνα, א*BD*FG Eus., there is no clearly pre-Syrian witness for τεκνία except Clem. Alex.; For אcACDb et cKLP al. pler. are predominantly Syrian. But combined with Clem. they probably mark the reading as of Alexandrian origin. The adoption of τεκνία by WH. txt. (mg. τέκνα) is a departure from their usual practice (cf. WH. II p. 342), for which there seems no sufficient warrant in the evidence.

International Critical Commentary — older volumes (1896–1929), various authors — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

My little children [τεκνια μου] . Only here in Paul, but often in John. See Joh 13:33; 1Jo 2:1, 12, 28; 1Jo 3:7, 18, etc. 74 See on chapter Gal 3:26.

I travail in birth again [παλιν ωδινω] . Better as Rev. of whom I am again in travail. Wdinw only here and Rev 12:2. Gal 4:27 is a quotation. The metaphorical use of the word is frequent in O. T. See Psa 7:14; Sir. 19 11; 31 5; 63 17; Mic 4:10; Isa 26:18; Isa 66:8. Paul means that he is for the second time laboring and distressed for the Galatian converts, with the same anguish which attended his first efforts for their conversion. The metaphor of begetting children in the gospel is found in 1Co 4:15; Phl 1:10. It was a Jewish saying : "If one teaches the son of his neighbor the law, the Scripture reckons this the same as though he had begotten him."

Until Christ be formed in you [μεχρις ου μορφωθη χριστος εν υμιν] . The forming of Christ in them, their attainment of the complete inner life of Christians, is the object of the new birth. By their relapse they have retarded this result and renewed Paul 's spiritual travail. The verb morfoun N. T. o. The idea under different aspects is common. See Rom 8:9; 1Co 2:16; 1Co 5:15; 2Co 3:18; Gal 2:20; Eph 3:17; Col 1:27.

Marvin R. Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament (1887–1900) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.