Gal 4, 1-7 -- Final Copy

8/6/2019 Gal 4, 1-7 -- Final Copy

1/22

1

AN EXEGESIS OF GALATIANS 4:1-7

IntroductionIf the book of Galatians were a collection of essays, the climactic conclusion of

chapter three would be a difficult act to follow. After briefly yet pointedly appealing to the

Galatians' actual experience of receiving the promised Spirit (3:1-5), Paul embarks on a densely

reasoned argument regarding the function ofin mitigating the tension between the

apparent duality of the Mosaic Law (cf. 2:16ff) and Abrahamic sonship, which he introduces in

3:6-9.1

In 3:10-14, Paul attempts to head off the assumption that the Law and faith in the

Messiah are somehow compatible with each other by reminding the Galatians that all those who

are are under a curse, and are thus cut off from receiving the blessings of the Abrahamic

inheritance, which we know from 3:1-5 includes, at least, the reception of the Spirit (cf. Joel

2:28-29). In 3:15-18, Paul asserts the complete and utter independence of the Abrahamic

promises with regard to the realm of the law, which has a completely different, although not

altogether unrelated, role and function (3:19-24). Paul dramatically wraps up this phase of his

argument by grounding everything he has just said about the relationship between the Law and

the Abrahamic promises in the Gentile believer's union without distinction in Christ, which

bestows upon them the actual status of Abrahamic sonship, and thus secures their inheritance of

God's promises (3:25-29).

When we arrive at 4:1, a brief look at the following verses tells us that Paul is not

finished arguing his point. Indeed, in the space of the next seven verses, Paul proceeds to re-

appropriate several components of his argument from the previous chapter. First, after making

an initial appeal to the Galatians experience of the Holy Spirit at the outset of his argument (3:2-

1The mention of the Spirit in 3:1-5 has two purposes: it functions as Paul's first proof that works of

the Law are unnecessary, but even more importantly, it prefigures his discussion on in 4:5ff.

8/6/2019 Gal 4, 1-7 -- Final Copy

2/22

2

5), in 4:6 Paul mentions the significance of the Spirit in relation to our adoption as sons. Second,

the preposition figures prominently throughout chapter 3, as well as in 4:1-7 (, 3:10;

, 3:22; , 3:23; 4:5; , 3:25; , 4:32). All of these references to

being under something are construed by Paul as negative authorities or realms from which

people must be rescued. Furthermore (and related to the previous point), Paul uses the rare word

to refer in both 3:13 and 4:5 to Gods saving activity towards those enslaved

. Fourth, Paul readdresses in 4:6-7 the concept of Abrahamic sonship and offspring that

was first mentioned in 3:7, 16, 19, 26, 29. And finally, the apocalyptic flavor of 4:4 (signaled by

the enigmatic phrase and the divine action of sending the Son and the

Spirit) is prefigured both by the mention of the Spirit in 3:2-5, and by the reference to the coming

of faith in 3:23, 25.3 Each of these components is drawn together in this last phase of Paul's

argument as he attempts to regroup his thoughts before launching into a fresh appeal to the

Galatians in 4:12ff.4

In light of the compact confluence in 4:1-7 of every major theme (except faith)

from the previous chapter, it seems reasonable to conclude that this paragraph functions as a sort

of summary for what Paul has just argued. Indeed, most commentators agree that Paul pauses at

the beginning of ch. 4 to clarify the important, but nonetheless broad, point he has just made

2The ESV and RSV obscure this last parallel by overtranslating the as enslaved by or enslaved

to instead of retaining the pertinent notion of being underthe enslaving authority.

3This last point is reinforced by noting Pauls reference in 4:8 to the contrast between the Galatians

former () existence prior to knowing God, and their existence now (). Cf. Anthony C. Thiselton, TheLiving Paul: An Introduction to the Apostles Life and Thought(Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 2009), 17-18.

4Incidentally, the complete absence of any direct reference to faith or believing in 4:1-7 is

noticeable. Paul employs the - word-group a total of 17 times in chapter three, and in every major sectionexcept for 3:15-18, in order to highlight the fact that familial resemblance within the people of God was always

Abrahamic faith, and not Mosaic obedience.

8/6/2019 Gal 4, 1-7 -- Final Copy

3/22

3

about the inheritance of the Abrahamic promises in 3:26-29.5

Syntactically, this is indicated by

the somewhat idiomatic phrase (cf. 3:15, 17; 4:21; 5:2, 16).6 Lexically, in 4:1 Paul

repeats the word from 3:29 in order to indicate that he has more to say on the subject

of inheritance.7 This is confirmed by the observation that 4:1-7 concludes with yet another

reference to the (v. 7), and that Paul ends the first stage of his appeal with an Old

Testament quote that includes a final reference to the inheritance (4:30).8

Therefore, chapter four

seems to constitute a fine-tuned, multi-pronged appeal to the Galatians desire to partake of the

Abrahamic inheritance. From this perspective, the function of 4:1-7 within this larger context is

to prepare for the transitional paragraph of vv. 8-11, which flows directly into the introductory

stage of this appeal in 4:12ff.

In order for this transition to an appeal to be most effective, however, Paul must

capitalize on the urgency of the Galatians situation. The analogy he uses to accomplish this is

related to a theme he previously used in 3:23-25 (that of the .), and derived directly

from the theme with which he ended the previous section: the . Moreover, if the

article in (4:1) is anaphoric,9 then Paul is forging an organic connection between

the conclusion of 3:29 and his attempt to clarify it in 4:1 with the analogy from inheritance law.

5E.g. Thomas R. Schreiner, Galatians, ZECNT (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2010), 265.

6Cf. BDAG, 590.

7The concept of the inheritance was first introduced, however, in 3:18 when Paul insists that the

inheritance cannot come both by law and by promise at the same time.

8The term , which Paul introduces in 4:1, is also repeated in v.7. The repetition of these two

terms in both v. 1 and v. 7 forms an inclusio which effectively sets this paragraph off as a single unit and highlights

the main point that will be discussed: the manner in which slaves become heirs.

9So James M. Scott,Adoption as Sons of God: An Exegetical Investigation into the Background of

in the Pauline Corpus (Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1992), 128.

8/6/2019 Gal 4, 1-7 -- Final Copy

4/22

4

Taken together, these two metaphors provide both the context from which Paul will

begin his appeal to the Galatians, and the ground upon which Paul bases this subsequent appeal

to pursue their identity as Abrahamic sons who possess the Spirit, not as those who are enslaved

under the law (cf. 4:30-5:1). The rest of this paper will explore the manner in which this is

developed in 4:1-7. Specifically, I will argue the following thesis: Paul believes that people are

enslaved under the basic principles of the cosmic order, from which they must be rescued before

they can receive sonship and the Abrahamic inheritance.

The Analogy and its Application The Experience of an Underage Heir (vv. 1-3)10

The basic point Paul makes in 4:1-2 is that the actual experience of an underage heir

is no different from that of a slave. One must keep in mind that Paul is surely not speaking in

absolute terms. No doubt the prospect of coming of age surely informed the young heirs

general outlook on life in ways that cannot be said regarding the experience of a slave, but this is

not Pauls point. Paul is scandalized at the thought that the Galatians were operating out of false

assumptions of what characterized life under the authority of the Law, and so he draws an

analogy from inheritance law to throw these mistaken assumptions into sharp relief.

Although many commentators suggest translating as minor,11 it is probably

best to avoid an overly nuanced gloss in this context.12

First of all, Paul could easily have used

the well-known term here, which unambiguously expresses the concept of legal

10We will organize our discussion according to the progression of Pauls argument, which in this case

is indicated by his placement of the conjunction in this passage.

11So J. Louis Martyn, Galatians: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AYB (New

Haven: Yale University, 1997),386; Richard N. Longenecker, Galatians, WBC (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1990),

162; Hans Dieter Betz, Galatians: A Commentary on Pauls Letter to the Churches in Galatia (Philadelphia:

Fortress, 1979), 203; i.e. the heir is an infant in the legal sense ( F. F. Bruce, The Epistle to the Galatians: A

Commentary on the Greek Text, NIGTC [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982], 192).

12So Ernest de Witt Burton,A Critical & Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians

(Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1980), 212.

8/6/2019 Gal 4, 1-7 -- Final Copy

5/22

5

minority.13

Secondly, the context aptly provides the information needed to formally understand

the nature of the analogy without resorting to a more nuanced gloss for . If the more

common gloss can make adequate sense of the point Paul is making, then one should not look for

a more nuanced gloss, especially when it adds nothing materially to the meaning of the analogy.

Finally, the more common gloss child most clearly preserves the central thrust of Pauls

argument here, which is surely not ultimately legal in nature, but developmental.14

Such a child, Paul says, even though he is actually the owner of the entire estate15

(literally lord of all16) is no better off in the here and now than a mere slave. We might simplify

things even further by suggesting that another way of saying that one thing is no different from

another is to say that they are a same. Paul is, in effect, saying that the experience of a young

heir under the authority of guardians () and managers () is basically the

same as the experience of a slave.

There is quite a bit of discussion surrounding the exact legal practice to which Paul is

alluding in this verse. Specifically, is Paul referring to a Roman system of inheritance law, or is

it actually a Hellenistic system?17

Under Roman law, either the father or the court would

designate a tutor, or , to oversee the care of an underage heir until he turned 14. So far

this fits with the situation Paul seems to envision in his analogy. After the heir turns 14,

13Moore-Crispin, Galatians 4:1-9: The Use and Abuse of Parallels,EQ vol. 60, 1989, 206.

14By denying that Pauls argument is legal in nature, I am notsuggesting that legal categories play no

role at all in his understanding of the concept of justification in general. I am simply stating that these legal

categories are not operative in this particular phase of his argument.

15In the memorable words of Burton, The participle is, of course, concessive (212).

16See Scott, 131-134, for his discussion on the phrase as a regal title, which, roughly

translated, is similar to the common childrens concept of playing king of the mountain.

17Many discussions on this topic occur in the context of the North/South Galatia debate. Those who

believe Paul to be writing to South Galatia feel constrained to make his analogy fit the Roman customs that would

have been prevalent there.

8/6/2019 Gal 4, 1-7 -- Final Copy

6/22

6

however, a curatoris appointed to oversee the transition of the heir from adolescence to

adulthood. If Paul were drawing his analogy from Roman law, one would expect to find the

Greek term for curator, , following , but instead one finds the unexpected

mention of the . Moreover, Roman law itself stipulated the precise time period during

which the underage heir would be under the tutorand curator, whereas Paul envisions a situation

in which thefathersets the time period during which the underage heir is to be regarded as a

minor.18

In light of these difficulties, it is at least equally likely that Paul is drawing from

Hellenistic legal customs.19

According to Greek custom, the father would appoint several

to oversee the care of his children in the event of his death. Furthermore, Greek legal

custom did not specify the date at which the heir would come of age.

In determining a solution for this problem, one must allow for the possibility that

Paul did not feel constrained to draw exclusively from either Roman or Hellenistic law in this

analogy.20

At least one factor points strongly in this direction. First, Pauls reference to the

, a term which doesnt properly belong to a legal discussion about inheritance customs,

indicates that he didnt intend to force the details of the analogy at every possible level of

correspondence. In Pauls day, the was the title of the individual who was responsible

for overseeing the day-to-day activities of a household. Most significant, however, is the fact

that the was typically a slave. By linking the unique authority of the with the

18Although Linda Belleville (Under Law: Structural Analysis and the Pauline Concept of Law in

Galatians 3:21-4:11,JSNT26, 1986, 62) defends the Roman law view by citing two papyri in which the father sets

the time at which the heir would receive the inheritance.

19So Ben Witherington, III, Grace in Galatia: A Commentary on Pauls Letter to the Galatians

(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 282-283; Moore-Crispin, 206-207.

20So Longenecker, 163-164; Schreiner, 266; Betz, 204.

8/6/2019 Gal 4, 1-7 -- Final Copy

7/22

7

relatively commonly encountered authority of the , Paul thus highlights the irony of the

young heirs experience of slavery.

We have already mentioned the incongruence between the fixed time periods of the

tutorand curatorin Roman law and Pauls claim that the period of minority only lasts

. In this case, it seems clear that Paul has in mind the manner in which he

will apply this analogy to the Galatians situation, and is therefore allowing this knowledge to

shape the analogy itself. Likewise, the plural forms of and probably

foreshadow the plural in the next verse, and thus do not conclusively

demonstrate a Hellenistic origin of Pauls analogy from inheritance law.21

The matter-of-fact manner in which Paul indicates his intention to apply the

preceding illustration to the current situation belies the opaque complexity of what he actually

says in this verse. The connective , together with the repetition of terms from vv. 1-2

(, , and ), clearly indicate that Paul intends to clarify some aspect of the

situation he is addressing with the illustration from inheritance law. Unfortunately, in v. 3 we

are also immediately confronted with one of the oldest exegetical ambiguities in the history of

Pauline studies: the meaning of the phrase , which is variously translated as

elemental spiritual forces of the world (NIV), elemental things of the world (NASB),

elementary principles of the world (ESV), and elemental spirits of the universe (NRSV). To

make matters even more interesting, Paul mentions the again in 4.9, but omits the

modifier .

21Martyn, 387-8.

8/6/2019 Gal 4, 1-7 -- Final Copy

8/22

8

The debate on the meaning of the in this phrase has been long-fought and is

far from over.22

In its most basic usage, refers to individual items arranged in a line, or

in order. In this sense, there is a great deal of conceptual overlap between the semantically

related word , which means simply line or row.23 Anything that could be lined up,

or put in order was comprised of, whether one was speaking of the letters of the

alphabet, the lines on a sundial, the stars in the sky (as in constellations), or mathematical and

philosophical principles. For our purposes, we will organize our discussion according to the

basic options listed in BDAG:24

1. Basic elements that comprise the material world (e.g. earth, fire, wind, water)2. Heavenly bodies3. Fundamental principles4. Elemental spirits

The strength of the first option is that it is, statistically speaking, the most common

meaning of when it occurs by itself without any modifying phrase.25 Furthermore, in

extra-biblical literature whenever occurs with the qualifier , it always refers

to the basic elements that make up the physical world. In ancient Greek thought, these were

universally understood as earth, fire (or ether), wind, and water. This is, in fact, the seemingly

clear usage of in 2 Pet. 3:10, 12.

22Though written almost a century ago, the extended discussion in Burtons appendix remains relevant

(510-518). For extended discussions, see also Gerhard Delling, , TDNT, 7:670-683; Martyn, 393-406;

23Burton, 510; cf. BDAG, 946.

24BDAG, 946.

25Martyn (394) cites the important lexicographical studies of J. Blinzler, Lexikalisches zu dem

Terminus bei Paulus, SPCIC, vol. 2 (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1963), 429-43; andD. Rusam, Neue Belege zu dem stoicheia tou kosmou (Gal 4,3.9; Kol 2,8.20), ZNW83 (1992). See also Eduard

Schweizer, Slaves of the Elements and Worshipers of Angels: Gal. 4:3, 9 and Col. 2:8, 20,JBL 107, vol. 3 (1988),

p 455-468.

8/6/2019 Gal 4, 1-7 -- Final Copy

9/22

9

If one adopts this option, then Pauls argument clearly relies on the notion that the

Galatians at one point worshipped the physical elements of the world. Of course, we see

something quite close to this in 4:8-9, where Paul questions why the Galatians, who come to

know God after being in bondage to things not being gods by nature, would want to return again

to the , to be enslaved by them all over again. The real problem with

this view, however, is that Paul emphatically states in 4:3 that we including himself were

enslaved under the. It is hard to see how Paul, as a Jewish Christian, was once enslaved

under the physical elements of the world. Furthermore, this view also has difficulty explaining

how Paul could understand the Galatians decision to adopt Law-observance as constituting a

return to -service, unless he understood the Law to be one of the (along with

earth, fire, wind, and water, etc.), as well.

The second and fourth options are linked conceptually by the common belief in

Pauls day that the astral powers of the sky (i.e. the moon, stars, planets, etc.) exercised a

degree of control or influence over earthly affairs. To the extent that these powers were

personified, they were viewed as spirits who enslaved mankind under their wanton and

capricious ways.26 Regardless, whether or not they were personified as spirits, they were

nonetheless frequently objects of reverence, if not outright worship. Proponents of this view

point to the close proximity of explicit references to angelic beings in the text of Galatians

(3:19),27

as well as to the personal nature of the other parties in Pauls illustration from 4:1-2 (i.e.

26For representative accounts, see Betz, 204-205; Cousar, Galatians, Interpretation (Louisville: John

Knox Press, 1982), 92-93; F. F. Bruce, 204; Frank J. Matera (Galatians, SP, vol. 9 [Collegeville, MN: Liturgical

Press, 2007], 149) points out that the non-personalized, heavenly body view seemed to be the consensus view of the

early Church Fathers.

27Bo Reicke, The Law and This World According to Paul,JBL 70 (1951), 262.

8/6/2019 Gal 4, 1-7 -- Final Copy

10/22

10

the and the ) and the manner in which Paul often personalizes inanimate

objects (such as in 3:22).

One major problem with options 2 and 4, however, is that there is absolutely zero

textual basis from the literature of Pauls day for understanding as referring to anything

in the heavenly realm. There is evidence from the middle of the second century A.D. that would

provide warrant for option 2, but textual warrant for the fourth option doesnt arise until the 4th

century A.D., at the earliest.28 Furthermore, the presence of personification in the surrounding

context does not warrant ascribing a personal nature to the . Paul personifies in

3:22 and in 3:23-24, but this does mean that he actually regards them as personal agents.

These weaknesses notwithstanding, it is commonly acknowledged that variations of options 2

and 4 are the majority view today.29

Unfortunately, the merits of the remaining third option are not immediately self-

evident. Although Aristotle and Plato often used simpliciterin this sense in their

philosophical treatises,

30

we have already mentioned that there is no lexicographical evidence for

this meaning when it occurs with the phrase . Nevertheless, the possibility remains

that Paul coined a new usage of this phrase by adopting it from the surrounding culture and

28This is still debated, of course. For helpful discussion, see Clinton Arnold, who responds with the

suggestion that we frame the question more in terms of whether we can date any of the traditions that make use of

the term stoicheia as supernatural powers to the first century or before. (Returning to the Domain of the Powers:

Stoicheia as Evil Spirits in Galatians 4:3, 9, NT 38, vol. 1: 57, emphasis his)

29E.g. Belleville, 66: Although this is the most common interpretation today, it is also the most

problematic.

30See Delling, 678-679; Belleville, 67

8/6/2019 Gal 4, 1-7 -- Final Copy

11/22

11

infusing it with his own meaning. According to this usage, the comprise the

ABCs, or first principles, of religion or morality.31

Perhaps the strongest evidence for the possibility of this option is Pauls widespread

use of the term in ethical contexts where he highlights the sinful and fallen character of

this current age.32

At the risk of simply assuming the conclusion of our argument, it nonetheless

seems that if Paul were searching for a phrase that would communicate the notion of basic

principles of the world, it would be entirely characteristic of him to employ the term in

the resulting formulation.

Several other factors corroborate the hypothesis that Paul is coining a new usage of

this phrase. First, there are two instances within the book of Galatians of the verbal form of the

- root, , both of which occur in clearly ethical contexts where Paul emphasizes the

necessity ofordering ones life. In 5:25, Paul exhorts the Galatians to order their lives by the

spirit, and in 6:16, he pronounces a blessing on all those who order themselves according to

the canon (or rule) found in the previous verse, which said that being circumcised or

foreskinned was irrelevant, and that what mattered was the presence of a new creation.

Second, it is not insignificant that the phrase occurs two more

times in the Pauline corpus. Specifically, in Col. 2:8 Paul employs it in the context of his

exhortation to the Colossians to watch out for people who would prey on them through

philosophy () and empty deceit ( ), according to the traditions of mankind

( ), according to the basic principles of the world(

31So Thielman (Paul & the Law: A Contextual Approach [Downers Grove: IVP, 1994], 279);

Belleville, 67; Burton, 216-7; Witherington, 286.

32Hermann Sasse, , TDNT, 3: 892- 894.

8/6/2019 Gal 4, 1-7 -- Final Copy

12/22

12

). The close association of the with philosophy and the traditions

of man strongly suggests that these concepts are categorized together in Pauls thought.

Furthermore, in v. 20 of the same chapter, Paul returns to this theme when he asks,

If you died with Christ to the basic principles of the world( ), why

are you, as though you were still living in the world ( ), obligating yourselves to

regulations such as Do not handle, Do not taste, Do not touch? The logic of Pauls

rhetorical question only obtains if Paul is using in the ethical sense in both occurrences of

this verse.

Any conclusions yielded by our brief exploration of the phrase

can only be considered preliminary until we have determined the manner in which Paul uses this

phrase in his discussion on the role of the law. In this regard, there are several interconnected

issues that must be kept top-of-mind in adjudicating between various interpretive options. For

example, in what manner does existence correspond with existence

(cf. 3:23, but also here in 4:4-5)? What are the precise antecedents of Pauls pronouns,

particularly the of v. 3? What is the relationship between the of v. 1 and those

who receive the in v. 5? The answer to these questions will yield the answer to the

larger question: Is Paul equating captivity under the law with slavery under the ?

Linda Belleville provides helpful clarity regarding these problems with her insight

that Pauls various uses of in these verses (esp. 3:21-4:11) are syntactically parallel, but not

logically parallel. She reconstructs the logical structure of the clauses in Pauls argument in

the following manner:

8/6/2019 Gal 4, 1-7 -- Final Copy

13/22

13

(principle thesis; 3:22)a: (past fact; 3:23)

b: (analogy; 3:24)c: (present state; 3:26-29)

b: (analogy; 4:2)

a: (past fact and present danger; 4:3)33

According to Bellevilles analysis, Gal. 4:1-3 constitutes the final analogy and implication drawn

from the principle thesis statement in 3:22 (the scripture confined everything under sin). She

reminds us that this thesis statement is Pauls positive answer to the question he raised in 3:21:

Is the Law opposed, then, to the promises of God? The first implication of Pauls answer to

this question that he mentions is that we were held in custody under the Law. The analogy of

the is thus intended to illustrate this implication before further advancing the

discussion.

Since the analogy of the is logically parallel to the analogy in our text of

the and , we will explore Pauls use of this metaphor before advancing our

own proposal for understanding the relationship between law-captivity and -service.34

Briefly, the most accurate rendering of the term is the modern-day concept of the

nanny. In Pauls day, the was responsible for the general well-being of the

children in their care. The duties of the involved such general responsibilities as

discipline, education, and protection. Since the quality of the relationship between the

and his or her charges surely varied quite likely depending on the same sorts of

variables that impact similar relationships in our day Paul does not seem to be making a

directly positive or negative assessment of the law simply by comparing it to a .

33Belleville, 54.

34The following discussion draws heavily on the analysis of Young, Paidagogos: The Social Setting

of a Pauline Metaphor, NT 29 (1987): 150-176.

8/6/2019 Gal 4, 1-7 -- Final Copy

14/22

14

If this is an accurate reconstruction of the logic of Pauls argument, the unavoidable

implication of this metaphor is that Paul is making a developmental distinction between the

period of immaturity under the law, and the period of maturity that is signaled by the arrival of

the Messiah. Only children, after all, experience the authority of the . The analogy

only works if Pauls readers put themselves, so to speak, in the shoes of a child, as he himself

does explicitly and emphatically in 4:3: when we were children.

This developmental distinction, however, is only one side of the coin. Martyns

helpful reminder is worth quoting in full:

Throughout this passage Paul does not think of a gradual maturation, but rather of apunctiliar liberation, enacted by God in his own sovereign time. Stepping on the

scene, that is to say, God has closed the enslaving parenthesis of the Law at the time

chosen by him alone.35

Pauls larger point is that the developmentally immature period of the Law actually enslaved

those who lived within the realm of its authority. Paul alluded to this in 3:23 when he said that

we were confined under the law ( ) and kept under restraint

(), but removes all doubt in 4:3 when he asserts that we were enslavedunder the

elementary things of the world ( 36). Indeed, the

apocalypse of Christic faith (3:23-24) instigated a dramatic reversal of the state-of-affairs for

those who lived within the sphere of law-obedience.

35Martyn, 389.

36This periphrastic construction is the combination of an imperfect main verb, followed by a perfect

participle. The imperfect tense brings the on-going, stative aspect of the past experience of enslavement to the

foreground of the clause. The variant is found in several important manuscripts, but is most likely the result ofa scribal attempt to assimilate the Hellenistic to the earlier classical form.

8/6/2019 Gal 4, 1-7 -- Final Copy

15/22

15

Of course, it is not entirely clear to whom exactly Paul is referring by his prominent

use of 1st person plural forms in 4:3-5.37 Specifically, is he speaking exclusively of Jews and

Jewish Christians (such as himself), or is he speaking inclusively of Jews and Gentiles? Most

commentators believe that Pauls use of the 1st

person plural ought to be understood in an

inclusive manner.38 In support of this position, Burton points out that Paul would not have said

in 4:6 if he intended to exclude Gentile believers from his statement in 4:3. 39

Those who argue for the exclusive interpretation usually point to Pauls intentional

exclusion of Gentiles in 2:15, as well as to 3:13, 23, where he refers to Jewish existence under

the law.40

Indeed, many see the intentional distinction between Jews and Gentiles in the

trajectory-setting paragraph of 2:15-22 as programmatic for the rest of the book.41

In the case of

2:15, it certainly is impossible to deny that Pauls worldview allows, at certain times and for

specific purposes, for some level of theoretical distinction between Jews and Gentiles.

Ultimately, however, the surrounding context must inform our decision of whether or

not Paul signals such a distinction through his use of pronouns in a particular text, as well as the

related issue of whether his choice of pronouns necessarily excludes one or the other party. In

2:15-16, for example, Pauls purpose in highlighting his identity as a Jewish Christian is to make

the specific point that even believers who were Jews by birth understood that justification was

through faith, and not works of the law.

37For extended discussions on Pauls use of pronouns in these verses, see Martyn, 334-6; T. L.

Donaldson, The Curse of the Law and the Inclusion of the Gentiles: Galatians 3.13-14,NTS, vol. 32, 1986, 95-8;

and Andrew Das, Paul and the Jews (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2003), 17-29.

38So Burton, 215; Betz, 204; Trevor J. Burke,Adopted into Gods Family: Exploring a Pauline

Metaphor(Downers Grove: Intervarsity, 2006), 86.

39Burton, 215.

40So Bruce, 193; Longenecker, 164; Belleville, 70;

41Cf. Donaldson, 97.

8/6/2019 Gal 4, 1-7 -- Final Copy

16/22

16

When we look at Gal. 3-4 as a whole, however, we find no clues that Paul

specifically intends to exclude Gentiles when he uses the 1st person plural. Indeed, if his

argument depended on such an intentional exclusion, then he simply would not have concluded it

in the manner in which he did: There is neitherJew nor Gentile. Instead, we find him working

in the opposite direction, erasing distinctions and unifying identities with the result that the

inheritance is given to those who are one () in Christ (3:28), who is himself the one () seed

(3:16).

From this perspective, Pauls 1st person pronouns simply reflect an identification

with, or a first-hand knowledge or experience of the events and situations he discusses, and not

an intentional exclusion of Gentiles. To the extent that such events or situations were

experienced as uniquely significant by Jews (e.g. 3:13, 23), his use of pronouns maintained (and

allowed for) this increased degree of interest, but they actually functioned as open-ended

invitations to Pauls readers to follow his lead in finding their corporate identity in their union

with Christ, instead of in the Law.

When we reexamine the in 4:3 from this perspective, it seems almost jarring to

consider the possibility that Paul might be excluding Gentiles in this verse. Indeed, when we

link our discussion of Pauls 1st person pronouns with our tentative conclusions regarding the

, the overall picture becomes a bit clearer. After ending chapter three with a

sweeping conclusion regarding the manner in which the united-without-distinction children of

Abraham become heirs, Paul refocuses his attention on the general experience of one of these

heirs. Since the Jew/Gentile distinction does not obtain within the category of heir, Paul

8/6/2019 Gal 4, 1-7 -- Final Copy

17/22

17

broadens the scope of his discussion to the cosmic level and describes the universal experience

of slavery from that perspective.42

In this schema, the Law functions as one of the , as one of the basic

principles of the cosmic order. Perhaps the best evidence for this schema is found in 4:8-11,

where Paul directly addresses the Galatians actual behavior. Specifically, in v. 9, Paul asks the

question, How can you return again to the weak and beggarly principles of the cosmic order (

), and desire to be enslaved to them all over again? The emphasis in

this verse is on the act of returning, and this is indicated by the repeated use of, as well

as the adverb . The clear implication is that Paul understands the Galatians impending

decision to adopt Law-observance as a return to the under which they were previously

enslaved.

The Gospel (vv. 4-5)This problem of cosmic proportions can only be addressed through a cosmic

solution.43 After describing the universal condition of slavery under the basic principles of the

cosmic order, Paul posits the solution to this problem in the form of a polished and carefully

structured confession of faith that is introduced by the apocalyptic phrase, In the fullness of

time.44

Discussion has long centered on the origin and significance of vv. 4-5. Many believe

42Contra Belleville, who takes as a reference to basic principles, but relates them to the

Jewish experience of being under the law (68). According to her reading, Paul first establishes the sonship of the

Jews (4:1-5) before addressing the Gentile Galatians. As we have already argued, however, this step is outside the

flow of the text, in which the controlling theme is unity without distinction.

43Martyn helpfully suggests that vv. 3-5 form the theological center of the entire epistle, relating its

major motifs to one another in such a way as to state what we may call the good news of Pauls letter to the

Galatians. (406). We might only add that a reference to is conspicuously lacking from this theologicalcenter.

44Betz notes that this phrase is found only here in Paul, but belongs to the Jewish and Christian

eschatological language which Paul shared. (206) In terms of the context of the analogy from inheritance law, it

corresponds to the in v. 2.

8/6/2019 Gal 4, 1-7 -- Final Copy

18/22

18

that Paul quotes a well-known creed or hymn in these verses,45

while others believe that the

evidence for this is inconclusive.46

Also of interest is the debate on whether or not Paul refers to the preexistence of

Christ in these verses. If so, it could only be an implication, since the notion of the preexistence

of Christ seems to be completely foreign to the subject matter of this text.47 For this reason,

Dunn cautions interpreters against reading too much into such a brief phrase.48

Similarly,

Martyn downplays the relevance of the question of preexistence in favor of the more context-

driven question, From where did Christ come?49

Our brief analysis of vv. 4-5 will follow Fees diagram, which is adapted from the

well-known observation of Lightfoot50 that these verses form a chiasm:

(A) (a)

(b) (b*)

(a*) (B*) 51

First of all, we should note the presence of two links with the thematically related

argument of 3:13-14. Semantically, Paul uses the word both here and in 3:13.

45Martyn, 406; Longenecker, 166-167; Betz, 205.

46Schreiner, 269;

47See Schreiner (270), Gordan Fee, Galatians: A Pentacostal Commentary (Dorset, Great Britain:

Deo, 2007), 149; Matera (150), and Witherington (287-288) for representative discussions in favor of seeing areference to the preexistence of Christ.

48James D. G. Dunn, The Theology of Paul the Apostle (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 278.

49Martyn, 407.

50J. B. Lightfoot, Saint Pauls Epistle to the Galatians, 10

thed. 1890 (London: Macmillan, 1986), 168.

51Fee, 148.

8/6/2019 Gal 4, 1-7 -- Final Copy

19/22

19

Syntactically, the consecutive clauses in 4:5 find precedent in the clauses of 3:14. Both

texts constitute an attempt by Paul to demonstrate the implications of being redeemed by Christ,

particularly as they relate to the obtaining of the Abrahamic inheritance. The difference between

the texts lies in their individual position in relation to Pauls larger argument. Specifically, 4:1-7

occurs after3:26-29, in which Paul unites the people of God into the one Messiah, who alone is

the true seed of Abraham.

Second, we must note that Paul highlights the role of divine activity in this text.

Indeed, the Trinity itself figures prominently in this passage. Martyn reminds us that the change

in circumstances does not come about as a result of an inevitable process by which the heir

reaches maturity, but is the direct result of divine action.52

Third, the specific activity of sending is highlighted in these verses. Dunn sees a

parallel here with Mark 12:1-19, and this is likely an accurate observation.53

The rhetorical

effect of these instances of divine sending is that the divine solution for the cosmic problem

articulated in 4:3 comes from outside our current earthly existence.54

Salvation is the redemption

of the people of God from this present evil age (cf. 1:4), and it is the result of God sending

both the Son, as well as the Spirit of his Son.

Lastly, the individual components of these verses emphasize the humanity of Christ.

He identified himself with the human race in general ( ), and with the

covenant people of Israel in particular ( ), in order to redeem Israel from the

52Martyn, 389.

53Dunn, 278; Cf. Longenecker, who cites other occurrences of similar sending formulas (166).

54Martyn: For Paul, to say that God senthis Son is to say that God invadedthe cosmos in the person

of Christ (cf. 3:23, 25). The Son is unlike other human beings in that his becoming a human being was, in a

significant sense, Gods own advent. (407)

8/6/2019 Gal 4, 1-7 -- Final Copy

20/22

20

law, so that we would no longer experience slavery, but would receive the sonship55

that is

rightfully ours by inheritance, by virtue of being known by God (cf. 4:9).

Resumptive Conclusion (vv. 6-7)At first glance, a number of things seem strange in this verse. For example, if the

grammar of English translations of this verse seems awkward, it is (at least in this case) because

the grammar of the Greek text is awkward. MHT note that of the 409 times in which

introduces a causal clause in the NT, only in 12 cases does the causal clause actually precede the

main clause. The that introduces v. 6 is one of these cases.56

Theologically, the chronology of the events Paul relates in this verse seems directly

at odds with the direction of his argument in the previous chapter. As Longenecker points out,

Paul argued in chapter three from the Galatians actual experience of the Holy Spirit (3:2-5, 14)

to their status of sonship (3:26),57

whereas in 4:6 he seems to say the exact opposite: since you

are sons, God sent the Spirit.

Lexically, many have noted the strange juxtaposition of the 2nd person plural verb

and the 1st person plural pronoun . Why would Paul switch from 1st person plural

forms in vv. 3-5 to a 2nd

person plural form at the beginning of v. 6, only to switch back to a 1st

55Cousar helpfully points out that Paul introduces a new metaphor with his use of the term in

v. 5: In the terms of the former analogy, Christ changes minors (who are no different from slaves) into adults; in the

latter, he changes orphans into legally adopted children (Charles B. Cousar, Galatians: A Commentary forTeaching and Preaching [Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 1982], 93). See Burke, 83-89, for an extended

discussion of adoption in this passage. See also the discussion of Kevin J. Vanhoozer, Wrighting the Wrongs of

the Reformation? The State of the Union with Christ in St. Paul and Protestant Soteriology, in Jesus, Paul, and

the People of God: A Theological Dialogue with N. T. Wright(Downers Grove: Intervarsity Press, 2011), 254-257,

where he explores the relationship between adoption and justification.

56MHT, vol. 3, 345.

57Longenecker, 173.

8/6/2019 Gal 4, 1-7 -- Final Copy

21/22

21

person plural form at the end of v. 6?58

To make matters even more interesting, Paul switches to

2nd person singularin v. 7, before returning to his direct address to the Galatians via the normal

2nd

person plural in v. 8.

A closer look at the surrounding context will bring greater clarity to the minor

difficulties presented by these issues. We have seen in 4:1-7 that Paul is clarifying his claim in

3:26-29 that sonship leads to the inheritance by pointing out that even heirs go through a period

of slavery, and are thus in need of rescue and redemption. The journey from sonship to the

inheritance involves a layover in the state of slavery under the , which, for the Jews,

entailed Law-observance. In the fullness of time, however, God sent his Son to redeem all

people out of this slavery in order that they might receive adoption.

After adding this clarification in 4:1-5 about the intermediary state of enslavement

under the , Paul resumes the point he began to make in 3:26-29 about the Galatians

status as sons. Indeed, both 3:26 and 4:6 function as parallel transitions to a broad concluding

statement. Paul tightens the thread, so to speak, of his argument by directly addressing the

Galatians sonship through the use of 2nd

person plural forms in both of these passages in order to

demonstrate how sonship leads to the inheritance. In 3:27-29, Paul concludes that union with

Christ makes one a son of Abraham, and thus an heir to the promise. In 4:7, Paul concludes that

adoption as sons results in freedom from slavery, which gives one direct access to the inheritance

through the Spirit.

ConclusionAt the end of chapter three, the Gentile path from sonship to inheritance appeared

straight and uneventful. Paul had taken great pains to demonstrate the role of faith in uniting

58The manuscripts reflect the various elements of perceived disarray in this verse. In P

46, is

omitted, presumably in an effort to lessen the element of apparent contradiction. Several manuscripts (including D

E K L ) substitute for the in an attempt to bring greater consistency to the pronouns in the verse.

8/6/2019 Gal 4, 1-7 -- Final Copy

22/22

22

believers to Christ, who, as the seed of Abraham, was the sole beneficiary of Gods promises.

But at the end of the chapter, he decides to tell the same story again, but from a cosmic

perspective. He takes as his starting point a representative heir from the last verse of the

previous chapter and describes the process of development whereby that individual obtains the

inheritance. It is a process in which the heir is little more than a hapless slave in a world of

conflicting authorities. At the time set by the Father, however, God invaded this world with his

Presence and turned it upside down from within. He imputed the status of sonship to the slave-

heir and sent the Spirit of his Son as a down-payment for the rest of the inheritance. And that is

how God turns slaves into heirs.