Commentary on Galatians 4:21-30

Text in red are my additions.

CHRISTIANITY IS A NEW DISPOSITION REPLACING THE OLD ONE

A Summary of Galatians 4:21-30~The greatest argument for the observance of the Law was, from the Jewish standpoint, that the Scripture itself seemed to declare it to be a perpetual ordinance. St. Paul has already refuted this error in a general way by showing that the Law was only a guide, a pedagogue, with a temporary mission. But now, in order to turn against the Judaizers their own argument, he draws from Scripture a proof that the Law was not intended in the designs of God to be an enduring provision. A first, imperfect disposition engendering servitude, it was to be followed by another which would be perfect, making us children of the promise and sons of God.

Gal 4:21. Tell me, you that desire to be under the law, have you not read the law?

The Galatians were desiring to be under the Law. Very well, says St. Paul, let us see what the Law itself contains. In the history of Sara and Agar (Sarah and Hagar) he finds the Old and the New Covenants illustrated. The former resembles the Church, because she was the mother of the free-born; while the latter is like Judaism, a mother of the enslaved. Like Sara the Church was long sterile, but it is now fecund and assured of blessings. On the contrary, Judaism, a religion of fear and servitude, is to receive from God the same treatment which He gave to the son of the bondwoman; it is to be excluded from the inheritance. Those, therefore, who go back to the Law will likewise fail to inherit the promised blessings.

Whatever may seem the force of his argument for us, we must admit that it was conclusive for the Galatians; they understood it.

Under the law. The article is absent in the Greek, but the Mosaic Law is doubtless meant. The reference could be to the whole Old Testament, but is more to the Pentateuch in particular.

Have you not read. Better, “Do you not hear (ακουετε),” i.e., have you not understood the deeper meaning, the typical signification of that part of Scripture which gives the history of Abraham?

Gal 4:22. For it is written that Abraham had two sons: the one by a bondwoman, and the other by a freewoman.

Two sons, namely, Ismael (Ishmael) by the bondwoman Agar (Hagar), and Isaac by the freewoman Sara (Sarah).

Bondwoman (παιδισκης) means “maid servant,” “slave,” in the New Testament. Cf. Gen 16:15; Gen 21:2.

Gal 4:23. But he who was of the bondwoman, was born according to the flesh: but he of the freewoman was by promise.
But he, i.e., Ismael, was born according, etc., i.e., according to the ordinary laws of nature: but he, i.e., Isaac, was by promise, i.e., was born in virtue of the promise. Isaac’s birth was miraculous inasmuch as, owing to the advanced age of Abraham and the sterility of Sara, it would have been physically impossible without a divine intervention.

There are then two differences between the two sons of Abraham: Ismael was of a slave and according to the flesh; Isaac was of a freewoman and in virtue of the promise. Cf. Gen 17:16, Gen 17:19; Gen 18:10.

Gal 4:24. Which things are said by an allegory. For these are the two testaments. The one from mount Sina, engendering unto bondage; which is Agar:
Which things are said, etc., i.e., those circumstances concerning the two sons of Abraham have, besides their historical and literal sense, a spiritual meaning, which the Apostle is now going to point out.

For these, i.e., these two women, Agar and Sara.

Are, i.e., represent two testaments, i.e., two covenants. The first was from Mt. Sinai, where it was contracted between God and Israel.

Engendering, i.e., bring forth unto bondage, i.e., for obedience to the Law.

Which is Agar, i.e., Agar was the type of the first covenant, because like it she brought forth unto bondage.

Gal 4:25. For Sina is a mountain in Arabia, which hath affinity to that Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children.

The Apostle now shows the relation between Agar and Sinai, thus emphasizing the fact that Agar represents the Old Covenant.

For Sina is a mountain, etc. There are several different readings of this phrase. The most important variation is in the omission or inclusion of the term Agar before Sinai. It is omitted by the Sinaitic and several other important MSS. (C F G), by many versions and a number of the Fathers. For its inclusion we have, besides the Vatican and Alexandrian MSS., a few others (D K L P), most of the cursives, and several versions and Fathers. The authorities are therefore fairly well divided. According to the first reading, which seems by far the more probable, because the more natural, we have as follows: “For Mount Sinai is in Arabia.” The Apostle is basing his argument upon the typical meaning of the condition of the two women, and consequently he makes the slave a type of the covenant contracted on Sinai, which supposes subjection. But that slave was Agar, the mother of Ismael, from whom sprang the principal tribe of the Arabs. St. Paul names her now to remind that Mount Sinai, being situated in Arabia, is appropriately connected with the allegory of Agar, the mother of the Arabs. Moreover her name is the same as that of the important Arab tribes mentioned in the Bible (Ps 83:6; 1 Chron 5:19). In her flight (Gen 16:6-8) she betook herself into the desert that led to Sinai. These facts explain perfectly how St. Paul found a connection between Agar and Mount Sinai, and he draws attention to the meaning of the coincidence, namely, that Agar the slave is a fitting representation of the alliance that was entered into on Mount Sinai in the desert of Arabia (Lagrange).

The second and less probable reading, “For Agar is Mount Sinai in Arabia,” is explained by saying, with St. Chrysostom, that Agar is the name which the Arabs have always given to Mount Sinai.

Which hath affinity refers back to Agar, and consequently 25a must be regarded as parenthetical.

Hath affinity, i.e., is in the same class with that Jerusalem which is now the centre of Judaism, subject to the servitude imposed by the law.

Bondage means the slavery of the Law.

Children are those living in the Holy City under the yoke of the Mosaic Law.

In the Vulgate qui conjunctus est supposes Mount Sinai to be the subject of συστοιχει δε, instead of Agar, as explained above. If this were correct, then the mountain would also be the subject of et servit. Therefore the Vulgate should read: congruit autem, servit enim (Lagrange).

Gal 4:26. But that Jerusalem, which is above, is free: which is our mother.

In contrast to “the one” (covenant) of verse 24 we should expect St. Paul here to speak of the other covenant; but instead he takes up the contrast to the present Jerusalem, and speaks of the Jerusalem above. By above he does not mean only the Church Triumphant, for he says she is our mother, i.e., the mother of us Christians living yet on earth. And this Jerusalem is free, i.e., not subject to the Law; she is the Kingdom of God, governed by God’s Holy Spirit.

Gal 4:27. For it is written: Rejoice, thou barren, that bearest not: break forth and cry, thou that travailest not: for many are the children of the desolate, more than of her that hath a husband.
St. Paul now cites the LXX of Isaiah 54:1 to prove that the fecundity of the Jerusalem which is above, i.e., of the Messianic Kingdom, was foretold by the Prophet and miraculously ordained by God. Literally the Prophet’s words refer to the earthly Jerusalem which, although bereft of her inhabitants during the Babylonian captivity, would one day be more populous than ever. But spiritually the reference is to the heavenly Jerusalem, the Messianic Kingdom, which, born at the time of the promise made to Abraham (Cornely), or existing only in the designs of God (Lagrange), remained sterile, until the death of Christ, when her children became far more numerous than were the children of the earthly city.

Agar was a fitting type of the old Jerusalem, of the Synagogue; as Sara was of the Messianic Kingdom, the Church of Christ. And this the Prophet seems to have had in mind, for a few chapters ahead (Isa 51:1-2) he had invited the Jews to imitate the faith of Abraham and Sara, whose children they were. St. Paul makes the application more definite.

The words barren, break forth, desolate refer literally to Jerusalem during the captivity (or to Sara, in the Apostle’s application); but spiritually to the reign of Christ and His Church. She that hath a husband in the Prophet’s literal meaning referred to Jerusalem before the captivity (as applied by St. Paul, toAgar); spiritually the reference is to the Old Covenant, the Synagogue, which had the Law as a husband.

Gal 4:28. Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise.

This verse is a conclusion from what has preceded.

We, i.e., we Christians, both Gentile and Jewish, having embraced the faith, are children of the free woman, of the Jerusalem that is above, typified in Sara. Like Isaac we are born of promise and heirs to the inheritance promised to Abraham; we are therefore free, and in nowise subject to the Law, of which Agar, the slave, was a figure.

The Vulgate nos . . . sumus does not represent the reading υμεις εστε of some of the best MSS., which would seem more natural in St. Paul addressing the Galatians who were forgetting their dignity as Christians.

Gal 4:29. But as then he, that was born according to the flesh, persecuted him that was after the spirit; so also it is now.

But (αλλ) here shows the sharp contrast to what might naturally have been expected; for as Ismael persecuted Isaac, so the Judaizers now persecuted St. Paul and the other faithful Christians.

Then, i.e., when Ismael and Isaac were actually living.

He, that was born, etc., i.e., Ismael.

Persecuted. What this persecution consisted in we do not know. In Gen 21:9-10 we read that the son of Agar played with Isaac, and from Sara’s indignation, as well as from Jewish tradition, we gather that there was something offensive, something of mockery, in that playing, which St. Paul here regards as a persecution. At any rate, history tells us that the Ismaelites were the bitter foes of the descendants of Isaac (cf. Ps 83:5-6; 1 Chron 5:10, 1 Chron 5:19).

Him that was after the spirit, i.e., Isaac, whose conception and birth were due to the miraculous intervention of the Spirit of God in virtue of the promise made by God to Abraham.

So … it is now. The allusion is to the persecutions sustained by St. Paul and the faithful Christians at the hands of the Judiazers.

Gal 4:30. But what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son; for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman.
St. Paul here cites Gen 21:10, according to the LXX, as illustrative of what should be the action of the Galatians against their false teachers. As Sara told Abraham to cast out the slave woman with her son—which Abraham did, so should the faithful of Galatia put away the enslaving Judaizers with their Mosaic observances. If they fail to do this, they and their leaders shall be cut off from the inheritance, i.e., from the Messianic benefits, just as Agar and her son Ismael were cut off.
The words of Sara are cited by St. Paul as Scripture, because they were approved by God, as the obedient action of Abraham shows. That God gave wholesale approval to Sarah’s demands is problematic inasmuch as he showed concern for Abraham’s distress, and the well-being of Hagar and Ishmael-things Sarah herself appears to have taken no account of (Gen 21:12-13).

The Apostle’s conclusion is definite and practical for the Galatians: they must put out the false teachers.

Father Callan rounds off this section of his commentary by indicating why he ends the section at verse 30: In commencing the new section with Gal 4:31 we are following the division made by Bousset, Lagrange and Zahn. The recurrence of the word freedom joins it with what precedes, as a result with its sources. Many critics see in Gal 4:31 the last word of the allegory illustrating the two alliances, rather than the beginning of a practical conclusion. But the allegory was really concluded in verse 28, and is presupposed in verses 29, 30. It seems better then to regard 31 as the point of transition between what has preceded and the section that now follows (Lagrange).