“See with what large letters I am writing to you with my own hand.” (6:11)

Paul would often dictate his letters to others (cf. Rom 16:23), but this time Paul writes the following himself. He wants to emphasize the following point even more than any of his previous comments. What follows is going to be the very thesis of Paul’s plea to the Galatians.

“Those who desire to make a good showing in the flesh try to compel you to be circumcised, simply so that they will not be persecuted for the cross of Christ.” (6:12)

The Judaizers that had come to the Galatians had ulterior motives. They not only wanted to impress others, but they also wanted to avoid persecution on behalf of Christ. These Judaizers were likely pressured from the Sanhedrin and other Jewish religious authorities to “get the Gentiles in order” by circumcising them and subscribing them to Judaism. In a vain attempt to escape standing up for the Gospel of free grace and receiving persecution they instead chose to demean what Christ accomplished on the cross by adding to Paul’s Gospel. Remember when Paul attested to his persecution while standing up for the true Gospel: “But I, brethren, if I still preach circumcision, why am I still persecuted?” (5:11).

“For those who are circumcised do not even keep the Law themselves, but they desire to have you circumcised so that they may boast in your flesh.” (6:13)

Paul points out to the Galatian Christians that the Judaizers do not even follow the very law they were commanding the Galatian Christians to succumb to. They didn’t care about the glory of Christ or even saving sinners; they just wanted to have the Galatians circumcised so they can boast in what they accomplished. The boasting that takes place must also be in Christ and His cross.

Think how often we see today in churches signs that read: “100 Converted At Easter Rally!” We see this all the time in the modern church. Now replace “converted” with “circumcised,” and you’ll see how un-Godly that can be! We must never boast in our ways or means to get sinners to hear the Gospel’but only in Christ.

“But may it never be that I would boast, except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, through which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world.” (6:14)

Paul verbally says what he has been alluding up to this point. We must never boast in our buildings, our mission programs, the kid’s programs, but we must only boast in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ. He is infinitely worthy of our praise and adoration, and all the redeemed will do just that for eternity (Rev 5:9, 7:9).

Paul says that he has been crucified in three different senses from this passage. Timothy George says: “In reality there is a triple crucifixion to be considered in this text: the crucified Christ, the crucified world, and the crucified Christians.“¹ Christ Himself was crucified which is the object of the Christian’s boast; the world with its secular standards, hopelessness, futility, and sin has been crucified; and finally the Christian is crucified to himself. Being crucified to yourself depicts what Paul described back in 5:24: “Now those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires.”

Phillip Graham Ryken points out that this appears to be a strange thing to boast about:

“The cross should have been an embarrassment to the early church. What would people think when they discovered that the found of Christianity had been executed like a low-life criminal? But instead of denying this, or covering it up, Christians advertised it. The very thing that most people considered too obscene to whisper in polite company, Christians were broadcasting in the streets.“²

“For neither is circumcision anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creation.” (6:15)

If the Galatian Christians haven’t yet understood Paul’s message then he will reiterate it one last time. It doesn’t matter whether they were circumcised, uncircumcised, leading Sunday school, be a leader in the church, or anything else that with our pride could take away from Christ’s glory’the only thing that matters is that we are a new creation. Paul teaches this also to the Corinthians in his second epistle.

“Therefore if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creature; the old things passed away; behold, new things have come.” (2 Cor 5:17)

Throughout redemptive history, God is in the business of making all things new (Rev 21:5). The fall cursed mankind, but Jesus has come to save His people that He foreknew from the foundation of the world (Rom 5:12–17; Eph 1:3–11). When we are joined to Christ everything before’and in the future’has been made clean and new. This once-for-all perfect act of obedience on the cross is given to the repentant sinner through no work of his own (Eph 2:8–10).

Since Christians are a new creation, we shouldn’t live as though we are still the old creation. We must remember that even though we will continue to struggle with sin we must continue to bear fruit as Paul taught in chapter 5 and display a contrite heart over sin and an increase in holiness through sanctification.

And those who will walk by this rule, peace and mercy be upon them, and upon the Israel of God.” (6:16)

For those that have become a new creation, Paul wishes a benediction upon them. He hopes that peace and mercy will be upon them. With a new creation we are released from the futility of our previous life.

Paul also proclaims that those that are a new creation are also a part of the “Israel of God.” Israel was the name conferred upon Jacob after wrestling with the man in the river (Gen 32:28). The word means “God strives.” Jacob strived with the man, and God strives for His people. The great news of Galatians (and the New Testament) is that now anyone can enjoy fellowship with God through His Son and His enabling Spirit, because “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (3:28). In Christ, we are Abraham’s descendants by promise and part of the true Israel of God.³

“From now on let no one cause trouble for me, for I bear on my body the brand-marks of Jesus.” (6:17)

Paul had “battle scars” from his continual work in the Gospel mission, and he wants others to know to not cause him any more trouble. Paul wasn’t referring to him actually having the same brand-marks of Jesus⁴ but that he had proof of affliction.

We should all be so lucky to say that we as well bear the brand-marks of Jesus. I heard a missionary speak, and he said to the women in the audience that they should be looking for a man that, instead of how good looking he is or other fleshly things, that they be missing teeth and have scars from the Gospel! He proclaimed that that is a man worth marrying!

“The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit, brethren. Amen.” (6:18)

Paul ends his letter in a soft-spoken, loving tone. He wants to encourage them in their faith and remind them that the grace of Christ is sufficient. He hopes that grace would fall upon them. Those that he called “foolish” and “bewitched” he now calls “brethren.”

May Christ be exalted in all that we say and do, and may we boast in nothing but His cross. Amen.

1. Timothy George, Galatians, New American Commentary 30 (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1994), 437. Quoted in Phillip Graham Ryken. Galatians (New Jersey: Presbyterian & Reformed Publishing, 2005) 276.
2. Ibid. pg. 274–5.
3. It’s worthy to note that not all Christian theologians accept this interpretation. For instance, F.F. Bruce takes the stance that Paul is referring the eschatological fullness that Paul also worried about in Rom 11:26 (pg. 275). Other theologians take the interpretation that those ‘who walk upon this rule’ and ‘the Israel of God’ are two distinct groups with the latter being the Jewish remnant/Christians. Both of these interpretations fail on multiple accounts. Are Jewish Christians or those at the end of the age not to be new creations and have peace and mercy given to them? Also, Paul has defended ferociously throughout this whole letter that, in Christ, there is no separation between Jews and Gentiles. Why would he insert a separation right at the end that is aberrant to the thesis of the whole letter?
4. The word “brand-marks” is the Greek word Ï?Ï?ίγμα or stigmata. Unlike a popular conception that we take on the sufferings of Christ on the cross in a literal sense (nails through hands, whippings, etc.), it is more appropriate to interpret that Christians participate in their own persecution for God.

Another erroneous interpretation of this passage is the personal tutor view. This view views Gal 3:23–25 as referring about the individual experience of every believer.¹ That means that the [Mosaic] law leads every believer to Christ. While it is true that law can lead to an awareness of sin and need for the Messiah, but there is disconnect on how this passage is used by Paul.² Beyond the question of what covenant law leads the believer to Christ at their specific point in redemptive history, it is clear from the next few chapters of Galatians that the source of a “tutor” is now the Holy Spirit in the New Covenant. The source of sanctification changes from the Mosaic Law in the Old Covenant to the Spirit in the New.

The Redemptive-Historical View

The redemptive-historical view on this passage is, I believe, the true summation of Paul’s lesson on the role of the Mosaic Law against the Judaizers who sought to bind the Galatian Christians. Paul is not saying that only 2/3 of the law has passed, and he is also not saying that the Mosaic Law leads every person to Christ throughout God’s economies. In contrast to these two positions, this view sees Paul as explaining a redemptive-historical shift in terms of law.³ Let’s revisit the passage.

Paul starts by saying that righteousness was never meant to be conferred through the Mosaic Law (3:21), and that the Law (Scripture) shut up everyone under sin while looking forward to the promised Messiah (3:22). He then extrapolates on that last passage by stating that before this “faith” came that “we” or the Israelites were kept in custody until the faith was to be revealed which is the Messiah (3:23). The Mosaic Law then become a tutor to lead Old Covenant Israel to Christ, and this lesson was imparted so that they may be justified by faith (3:24). In other words, the Mosaic Law had an eschatological focus that has now been realized and fulfilled in Christ. This is the very teaching that Jesus espouses in Matthew 5 when He claims He came “not to abolish the Law but to fulfill” (Mat 5:17).⁴ The word translated ‘tutor’ Ï?αιδαγÏ?γόÏ? is a slave-attendant whose duties including seeing a child until their time of maturity. F.F. Bruce extrapolates:

“As the slave-attendant kept the boy under his control until he came of age, so the law kept the people of God in leading-strings until, with the coming of faith, they attained their spiritual majority in Christ.“⁵

The translation provided by the NASB: “Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ” is misleading (the italicized text being inferred). The preferable rendering of the passage ημÏ?ν γεγονεν ειÏ? Ï?ριÏ?Ï?ον is more properly rendered by the ESV as: “until Christ came” with the “until” having the meaning of a temporal force.⁶ The focus of Paul’s analysis is that the time of the law was temporary to show old covenant Israel her need for justification.

The next verse is important to understand Paul’s redemptive-historical analysis of the Mosaic Law. After saying that the Mosaic Law led Israel to Christ, then what became of the Law you Galatian Christians? Paul’s lesson is that the Judaizers want them to subscribe to something that’s purpose has passed! Paul says, ‘But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor.” (3:25). The appearing of the Messiah in the “fullness of time” (4:4) has rendered the Mosaic Law’s purpose in redemptive-historical culminated and released. That is why Paul can finish the chapter with a startling lesson in God’s soteriological plan for all nations.

There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s descendants, heirs according to promise. (3:28–29)

Paul’s argument throughout this chapter is that to be a child of Abraham all one has to do, is not be circumcised and subscribe to the Mosaic Law, but only believe in the Messiah. The Law served only a temporary, pedagogical role in God’s redemptive history. The Galatian Christians needed to understand that if they were to subject themselves to the yoke of the Mosaic Law that they would, in fact, be going backwards in redemptive history!⁷ The Mosaic Law is presented by Paul as a parenthetical time between the Abrahamic and New Covenants.

1. One of the most pronounced advocates of this view is the evangelist Ray Comfort.
2. I believe this issue (the role of law in evangelism) is treated fairly by Steve Lehrer in New Covenant Theology: Questions Answered (Independently Published), pg. 127ff.
3. By stating that I hold a “redemptive-historical view” does not exclude other opinions on the issue from maintaining such a contrast. Most notably is Geerhardus Vos in his monumental work Biblical Theology: Old and New Testaments (7th ed.; Carlisle: Banner of Truth Trust, 1975). Regarding the permanence of the Decalogue he says: “If we may apply the term â??Christian’ thus retrospectively to the Decalogue, we should say, what it contains is not general but Christian ethics” (pg. 132).
4. This text is a pivotal one in understanding the Christian’s relation to the Mosaic Law. After much exegesis it would seem to have the same manner of “fulfillment” as the first few chapters of Matthew strive to prove. The Mosaic Law pointed forward to Christ, and with His advent He has “fulfilled” (Ï?ληρόÏ?) the Mosaic Law. I like the interpretation that stresses the “until all is accomplished” meaning His life and death on the cross, but even that interpretation has its pitfalls. For an even-handed analysis of this text see Fred Zaspel’s exegesis in New Covenant Theology, pgs 77–123.
5. Bruce, F.F. The Epistle to the Galatians, pg. 182. See similar analysis by Phillip Ryken in Galatians (New Jersey: Presbyterian & Reformed Publishing, 2005), pg. 138–41. It should be noted that both Bruce and Ryken adopt both a “salvation-historical view” but also see the lesson as applicable on an individual level thereby combining the personal tutor and redemptive-historical view. As I argue in this paper, Paul is not talking about an individual experience but explaining solely the redemptive-historical shift with the appearance of the Messiah.
6. F.F. Bruce. Galatians. pg. 183.
7. ‘Paul is trying to convince the Gentile Christians in Galatia of the foolishness of adopting Jewish practices by showing that the time when those practices were necessary has now passed’ (Douglas Moo, “The Law of Christ”, pg. 361).

“Brethren, even if anyone is caught in any trespass, you who are spiritual, restore such a one in a spirit of gentleness; each one looking to yourself, so that you too will not be tempted.” (vs. 1)

Paul starts this discourse in an endearing fashion. He calls the Galatians “brethren” as opposed to “foolish” back in chapter 3 (vs. 1). You can feel in the tone of the writing that Paul is taking the very attitude that he is about to exhort the Galatian Christians to. He starts his instruction by saying that if “anyone is caught in any trespass” they are to restore one another. He calls on “those who are spiritual” to restore those in transgression. Paul is giving us the meaning of true spirituality; true spirituality loves, bears, and restores one another. F.F. Bruce says: “Mutual help is the hallmark of the community of faith. Gentleness, not arrogance, is the way of Christ.“¹

This is a good reminder for each of us on how we relate to one another in the body. It is often easier to find something wrong in someone else and point that out then to lovingly restore them to faith. This point is important, because there will be a time that we will need other members of the Christian community to restore us in our transgression. Jesus reminds of us to be careful of judging one another in transgression: “Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ and behold, the log is in your own eye?” (Mat 7:3).

In the previous chapter Paul describes gentleness as one of the fruits of the Spirit (vs. 23). He exhorts us to remember that gentleness is the most Spirit-led way of restoring our brother or sister. Paul does warn us to watch ourselves “so that you too will not be tempted.” Restoring a struggling believer can often entice us to sin ourselves so we must use prudence when helping to restore in a spirit of gentleness. In particular, the sin of pride in restoring a fallen brother or sister can be devastating. Phillip Ryken visualizes this teaching of Paul:

“In some ways, restoring a sinner is not all that different from setting a broken bone. The process is bound to be painful, no matter who does it. But the more deftly the bone is set, the sooner the healing can begin. In the same way, someone who tends a sinner’s wounds must do so with gentle kindness.“²

“Bear one another’s burdens, and thereby fulfill the law of Christ.” (vs. 2)

An even more difficult task to do for a brother a sister is to bear their burden. We often feel as though we have enough of our struggles that we couldn’t possibly due it for another believer, but Paul here says that to bear another’s burdens is to “fulfill the law of Christ.” God Himself tells us in His word that He bears the burdens of His saints. This was done by Christ carrying our eternal burden of sin to the cross to the Psalmist saying: “Cast your burden upon the LORD and He will sustain you; He will never allow the righteous to be shaken” (Psa 55:22).

The “law of Christ” is only mentioned explicitly twice in the New Testament.³ Paul also uses in 1 Corinthians 9 when describing his motivation and freedom to contextualize the Gospel:

“To the Jews I became as a Jew, so that I might win Jews; to those who are under the Law, as under the Law though not being myself under the Law, so that I might win those who are under the Law; to those who are without law, as without law, though not being without the law of God but under the law of Christ, so that I might win those who are without law.” (1 Cor 9:20–21)

This passage sheds light on Paul’s definition of the “law of Christ.” The laws (nomos) include commands given by God Himself.⁴ He gave it to Moses and Israel at Sinai, and the Messiah came and delivered His law. Isaiah saw this when he said in a Messianic prophecy: “He will not be disheartened or crushed Until He has established justice in the earth; And the coastlands will wait expectantly for His law” (Isa 42:4). It’s important to establish that the Law Christ delivered is not fundamentally different from previous expressions of God’s Law; but Christ, in His teaching, has fulfilled the Law of Moses. That is why Paul can say that he is not under the Mosaic Law (“not being myself under the Law”) but that he is under “the law of Christ.” Paul, and Christians today, are not bound by the law delivered to Moses but that the Messiah delivered to us.⁵ This is important, because Paul established back in chapter 3 (vs. 24–25) that the Mosaic Law had a temporal, pedagogical role in the life of Israel; but now that the Messiah (“faith”) has come the Mosaic Law is no longer necessary.

I feel as though Paul had in mind the ethical teachings of Jesus when describing the law of Christ and not that Jesus was simply regurgitating the Law of Moses. After all, Jesus did tell the Church to go to the nations “teaching them to observe all that I commanded you” (Mat 28:20, emphasis added). I also believe that the Law of Christ also includes the ethical instructions of the Apostles themselves as the writers of the New Testament and being given by Christ the “keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven” (Mat 16:19). I like the commentary provided by Bruce on the law of Christ:

“It may be that Paul speaks of the law of Christ here as a contrast to the law which his converts were being urged to accept: the law of Christ is a â??law’ of quite a different kind, not enforceable by legal sanctions…In fine, the â??law of Christ’ is for Paul the whole tradition of Jesus’ ethical teaching, confirmed by his character and conduct (cf. Rom. 13:14; 2 Cor. 10:1) and reproduced within his people by the power of the Spirit (cf. Rom. 8:2)“⁶

We cannot, however, miss the point Paul is trying to make in this passage. He is saying very clear that bearing one another’s burdens is to fulfill the very commands of Christ, and it is for every believer. Ryken adds this great quote: “Every believer is called to be one of God’s bellhops, always ready to pick up someone else’s baggage.“⁷

“For if anyone thinks he is something when he is nothing, he deceives himself.” (vs. 3)

Of all the passages in this section, this is by far the most convicting. Oh how often do I love to think of myself as “something” when really I am “nothing!” It is true that the believer, through God’s predestining work, “has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ” (Eph 1:3); but without Christ we truly are nothing. Jesus came so that we “may have life, and have it abundantly” (John 10:10). We should heed Paul’s exhortation to flee from spiritual pride. He would later tell the Corinthians a similar lesson: “If anyone supposes that he knows anything, he has not yet known as he ought to know; but if anyone loves God, he is known by Him” (1 Cor 8:2–3).

“But each one must examine his own work, and then he will have reason for boasting in regard to himself alone, and not in regard to another. For each one will bear his own load.” (vs. 4–5)

Even though the NASV is more literal, I like the NIV’s rendering of verse 4: “Each one should test his own actions. Then he can take pride in himself, without comparing himself to somebody else.” It is easy to compare yourself to one believer and either find yourself having pride in that you are more spiritual then them, or you can go to the other extreme and be disheartened because you feel as though you’ll never be as spiritual as another. The point Paul is trying to make is that that is not the point; the point is to measure your own work by God’s, and not man’s, standards. The Pharisee made this mistake in one of Jesus’ parables: “God, I thank You that I am not like other people: swindlers, unjust, adulterers, or even like this tax collector” (Luke 18:11). The tax collector on the other hand was broken realizing his state before an infinitely holy God, and he cried out “God, be merciful to me, the sinner” (Luke 18:13). Jesus says that the tax collector went home justified, because “everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, but he who humbles himself will be exalted” (Luke 18:14). There remains the point that when comparing to God’s standard that no one will have “reason for boasting in regard to himself alone.” Paul also tells the Corinthians:

“For we are not bold to class or compare ourselves with some of those who commend themselves; but when they measure themselves by themselves and compare themselves with themselves, they are without understanding. But we will not boast beyond our measure, but within the measure of the sphere which God apportioned to us as a measure, to reach even as far as you.” (2 Cor 10:12–13)

Paul does say that “each one will bear his own load,” but how does that fit in with the teaching that we are to bear one another’s burdens? The Greek words used in each verse give us a contrast. In verse 2 the Greek word for “burdens” baros (βάροÏ?)⁸ is used, but in verse 5 the Greek word for “load” phortion (Ï?ορÏ?ίον).⁹ The “burden” described in verse 2 is a weight that is to heavy for one to carry alone, but the “load” in verse 5 is of a much lighter variety that can be carried by one person. “When the Scripture says that everyone must carry his own weight, it has this lighter burden in mind.“¹⁰

Each Christian will be accountable for themselves on judgment day and will be judged by the deeds that had done in the flesh (Rom 2:6; Rev 20:12). This is important to remember when we are to “bear [our] own load.” Each person is individually responsible before God.

“The one who is taught the word is to share all good things with the one who teaches him.” (vs. 6)

The Greek word behind “taught” is kateÌ?cheoÌ? (καÏ?ηÏ?έÏ?)¹¹ which is what we get the English word “catechism” from which is oral instruction in Biblical truth.¹² This passage’s meaning isn’t very self-evident. Paul’s instruction is that those who are involved in the teaching of the world should be relieved of worldly stresses such as finances. This is another way of saying: “the laborer is worthy of his wages” (Luke 10:7).¹³ This serves as a reminder that we are to help those who help us as we are to bear one another’s burdens.

“Do not be deceived, God is not mocked; for whatever a man sows, this he will also reap.” (vs. 7)

Paul is not yet done teaching about personal responsibility. We are not to “be deceived, God is not mocked.” We cannot scuff at the living and holy God. We cannot sin and think we will not be held responsible for what we do in the flesh, because “whatever a man sows, this he will also reap.” Paul’s teaching is that you will receive the consequence of our actions’be it positive or negative.

“For the one who sows to his own flesh will from the flesh reap corruption, but the one who sows to the Spirit will from the Spirit reap eternal life.” (vs. 8)

In chapter 5 Paul contrasts the flesh (our sinful nature) and the regenerate believer (life in the Spirit). There were the deeds of the sinful flesh (19–21) and the fruits of the Spirit (22–23) which are completely antithetical in the mind of Paul. If we “sow” or plant according to our sinful flesh then we will “reap” or harvest corruption which means “decay.” Even though sin might “feel good” for a short time, it is short-lived and will ultimately provide negative consequences. But the one who sows to the Spirit (planting/doing the fruits of the Spirit) will gain something far more precious than a fleeting moment of sin–we will inherit eternal life.

This lesson in agriculture should teach us where we should be planting our “seeds of deeds.” We should plant good, spiritual fruit and not corrupt seeds. To do the former will entail eternal life, but to do the latter will only reap destruction, decay, and separation from God.

“Let us not lose heart in doing good, for in due time we will reap if we do not grow weary.” (vs. 9)

Paul knew that doing good by sowing to the Spirit is more difficult than sowing to the flesh, but it is worth the effort: “for in due time we will reap if we do not grow weary.” It’s almost as if Paul was telling the Galatians that the road before them is difficult, but don’t grow weary because their inheritance is eternal. This admonition for perseverance is not unusual in Paul’s writings; he told the Corinthians: “Do you not know that those who run in a race all run, but only one receives the prize? Run in such a way that you may win” (1 Cor 9:24).

“So then, while we have opportunity, let us do good to all people, and especially to those who are of the household of the faith.” (vs. 10)

When we have the opportunity to do good to others we should, but he makes a delineation between those inside and outside of Christ. While helping all people is beneficial and is Christ-like, to care for those who are of the “household of faith” is especially important. This includes the admonition to help our teachers financially (vs. 6) as well as bearing on another’s burdens (vs. 2). It is not something that is to be done occasionally but every time that “we have opportunity.”

So let us let down our spiritual pride (to which I am most guilty) to bear the burdens of our brothers and sisters, support those who support us, and sow eternal, spiritual “seeds of deeds” to please our Father in heaven!

1. F.F. Bruce, The Epistle to the Galatians: The New International Greek Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982), pg. 259.
2. Phillip Graham Ryken. Galatians (New Jersey: Presbyterian & Reformed Publishing, 2005), pg. 247.
3. I believe this passage and Galatians as a whole has a profound impact on how we understand the relation of the Mosaic Law to the New Covenant believer. While I can’t expound my complete thoughts on this issue, I would direct the reader to the article ‘How Does the Christian Relate to the Law of Moses?’ for a good summary of my position (http://www.covopc.org/Papers/Christian_Moses.html).
4. See Thomas Schreiner, The Law and Its Fulfillment: A Pauline Theology of Law (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1993), pg. 33ff.
5. Phillip Ryken strives to establish that, in the mind of Paul, that the law of Christ is the ‘moral law’ which Ryken says is the Decalogue. Ryken says that all of the ethical instruction Jesus gave included the Decalogue. Is this the truth? Did Jesus teach that the Decalogue is the eternal moral law of God? I find it interesting that when Jesus was asked what the greatest commandment was in the law He says that it is to love God with all our heart, mind, and strength and to love our neighbor as ourselves (Mat 22:37–40) neither of which are in the Decalogue. It would seem that Jesus would see this principle as being the eternal moral law of God, because ‘On these two commandments depend the whole Law and the Prophets’ (Mat 22:40).
6. Bruce, pg. 261.
7. Ryken, pg. 248.
8. Strong’s G922.
9. Strong’s G5413.
10. Ryken, pg. 252.
11. Strong’s G2727.
12. Ryken, pg. 253.
13. Bruce, pg. 263.

“For you were called to freedom, brethren; only do not turn your freedom into an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another.” (vs. 13)

We have talked back in chapter 3 about Paul’s reference to calling so I need not repeat it here.¹ Paul wants to remind them that they were called (saved) into freedom and not slavery, but Paul has a warning for them: “do not turn your freedom into an opportunity for the flesh.” Paul is warning the Galatian Christians to not use their Christian liberty as an excuse for perpetual sin. This is reminiscent of Paul’s rhetorical question in Rom 6:1–2: “What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin so that grace may increase? May it never be! How shall we who died to sin still live in it?”

This is a good warning for all of us. We do continue to sin as Christians (1 John 1:8), but our gradual process of sanctification should drive us away from sin. We should express a contrite heart over sin and continually seek repentance. The “flesh” talked about isn’t to be understood as our epidermis and everything under it–it refers to our corrupt, sinful nature. There is nothing inherently evil with our flesh; the problem is with our sinful souls. We must be careful not to become Gnostic Christians. They thought that the flesh was so evil that Jesus didn’t have a bodily form. The Bible tells us not only that the eternal Word became flesh, but that in the end of days we will be raised bodily to exist in a body forever as Jesus currently is (1 Cor 15; Rev 20).

Paul then makes an amazing statement: “through love serve one another.” Without the appositive Paul is saying to use your freedom to serve another through love. There is an implicit statement is that we are not to be a slave to Law or use our freedom as an excuse to sin–but we are to become a slave to love and serve one another! F.F. Bruce extrapolates for us:

“The call to freedom, then, is a call to oneness in Christ and to loving service within the believing community. The liberty of the gospel is not to be exercised in isolated independence. The Christian does not emulate the self-sufficiency of the Stoic…his sufficiency is in Christ, and he is involved in the interdependent and loving fellowship of the people of Christ.“²

For the whole Law is fulfilled in one word, in the statement, “YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF.” But if you bite and devour one another, take care that you are not consumed by one another. (vs. 14–15)

Back in verse 3 of this chapter Paul says that “every man who receives circumcision, that he is under obligation to keep the whole Law,” and here Paul is saying that through love alone the Law is fulfilled! Paul quotes from Lev 19:18, in the Pentateuch, to illustrate that it has always been this way. Jesus says that this command, along with loving God with all your heart, soul, and mind, is what “depend[s] the whole Law and the Prophets” (Mat 22:40). Loving and serving others at the command of Jesus (the “Law of Christ”) actually fulfills all of the Law and Prophets!³

Paul’s reference to quarrelling appears to mean that the teaching that the Galatians had received from the Judaizers had brought in dissention and threatened to break their community. They were close to “consuming” one another with their quarrels.

“But I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not carry out the desire of the flesh. For the flesh sets its desire against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; for these are in opposition to one another, so that you may not do the things that you please.” (vs. 16–17)

To “walk by the Spirit” is to submit to the Spirit’s leading and authority in all areas of our life. Paul says that if we walk by the Spirit our sinful, “fleshly” desires will not be carried out. The Spirit is the only agent that can prevent us from sinning.

Paul then sets up a dichotomy between the “flesh” (sinful nature) and the Spirit. Our sinful natures have desires that are completely antithetical to those of the Spirit. The sinful nature wants to indulge itself against the authority of God, but the Spirit helps us in submission and sanctification. The Spirit wants us to be more like Jesus–that is, holy; and the sinful nature wants to go the other direction. The Spirit is also there “so that you may not do the things that you please.” The things that I please to do often are not of God and sinful. Paul makes a reference to this in Romans 7:15: “For what I am doing, I do not understand; for I am not practicing what I would like to do, but I am doing the very thing I hate.”

“But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the Law.” (vs. 18)

This is Paul’s amazing declaration against the “antinomian” charges that the Judaizers were sure to give. Paul’s statement earlier in the work is that the Mosaic Law was confined to Israel’s history before Christ (3:24–26), and we now live in the age of the Spirit (5:18). Paul makes mention of this contrast as well in his second letter to the church of Corinth where he compares the Old Covenant (law/letter) to the New Covenant (grace/Spirit):

“Not that we are adequate in ourselves to consider anything as coming from ourselves, but our adequacy is from God, who also made us adequate as servants of a new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.” (2 Cor 3:5–6)

Paul’s teaching that the Mosaic Law drove Israel to Christ (3:24–26) is now illustrating the newer, greater source of sanctification (leading to and becoming more like Christ), and that is the Holy Spirit. If we are led by the Spirit, we are not under the Mosaic Law to lead us to Christ for the Spirit is far greater (John 16:7). There are two successive “ages” in the mind of Paul: one of Law and one of Spirit (before and after the Messiah).

“Now the deeds of the flesh are evident, which are: immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, disputes, dissensions, factions, envying, drunkenness, carousing, and things like these, of which I forewarn you, just as I have forewarned you, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.” (vs. 19–21)

Paul then begins a contrast between the identifiable works of the “flesh” and the Spirit. He says “the deeds of the flesh are evident” and begins to list them. While I won’t exposit every deed, it is clear that he makes mention of sexual impurity, coveting, excess, and divisions as over-arching categories of deeds. He says that those “who practice such things will not inherit the Kingdom of God.” He is not saying that if you ever commit one of these deeds you will not inherit the Kingdom; he is however saying that those who live in this state habitually prove that they are not of the Spirit and will not inherit the Kingdom (Mat 7:16–20; cf. 1 John 2:18–20).

The Kingdom of God is an immense topic, and one that would involve a whole other study. In brief, it is defined as by George Eldon Ladd:

“The Kingdom is primarily the dynamic reign or kingly rule of God, and, derivatively, the sphere in which the rule is experienced.“⁴

So Paul is stating that those who live in habitual sin will never enter the Kingdom which is, in essence, the presence of God. Christians enter into Kingdom citizenship after salvation, but the Kingdom will not be consummated until the Gospel reaches all the nations in fulfilling God’s promise to Abraham (Mat 24:14; Gen 12:1–3).

“But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law.” (vs. 22–23)

Paul then contrasts the “fruits of the Spirit.” If we think of fruit we are confronted with the idea of something that grows slowly but steadily and eventually ripens. The Christian is not expected to master all of these right awa–or even in our life on earth–but we are expected to grow in these and thereby model the character of Jesus.⁵

He says that there is no law against the fruits of the Spirit. The statement is that the Law doesn’t prohibit or create these fruits. The Law does not convict a person who lives in the Spirit producing His fruits.

“Now those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires.” (vs. 24)

If we truly belong to Christ than we have “crucified” or put to death the sinful desires that reign within us. To crucify is a slow, painful process to die as Jesus endured on our behalf. To kill the passions and desires of the flesh it is indeed a slow and painful process. Paul explains both sides of sanctification: killing off of the old self, and the awakening of the new self (regenerated nature).⁶

If we live by the Spirit, let us also walk by the Spirit. Let us not become boastful, challenging one another, envying one another. (vs. 25–26)

Here Paul is saying that if you are living in the Spirit than walk by the Spirit. This invokes images of taking orders, and the Christian is to indeed take orders at the Spirit’s leading. It’s not enough (or truly even possible) to “live by the Spirit” but not “walk by the Spirit.” The former necessitates the latter.

Paul’s admonition at the end of this thought is to not be boastful, challenge, or envy another all of which come from pride and not of the Spirit. The opposite of these we are to emulate through the Spirit: humility, graciousness, and contentment.

Questions for Application

• Does the concept of being free from the Law to be a slave to others make sense? Do you exemplify this characteristic?
• When tempted, do you make a conscious effort to remember the Spirit’s leading to avoid carrying out the sinful desire(s)?
• Do you find yourself practicing more of the deeds of the flesh or the fruits of the Spirit?
• Do you “walk by the Spirit?”

1. For those that weren’t at that study, the calling in this verse and back in 1:6 (cf. 1:15) refers to God’s work in election. We are “called” or “elected” by God unto salvation (cf. John 6:44; Rom 8:29, 9:22–24; 1 Pet 1:2).
2. F.F. Bruce (pg. 241
3. Douglas Moo comments on this passage (and Rom 13:8) in Five Views on Law and Gospel (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1999), pgs. 359–60:
   

   “[T]he texts suggest that Paul does, indeed, see love as in some sense displacing the commandments of the Mosaic law…If love for others â??sums up’ the commandments, the implication is that the one who truly loves will have no need of these commandments…‘Fulfilling’ the law, on the other hand, denotes that complete satisfaction of the law’s demands that comes only through Christians’ identification with Christ…and their submission to that commandment that Christ put at the heart of his new covenant teaching: love (Gal. 5:14; Rom. 13:8, 10).”

4. Quoted in Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994), pg. 863.
5. To exposit each characteristic would take more space than would be profitable in this medium. For an in-depth look I suggest F.F. Bruce’s commentary (pgs. 251–5).
6. Ryken, pg. 239.

“It was for freedom that Christ set us free; therefore keep standing firm and do not be subject again to a yoke of slavery.” (vs. 1)

We have just finished looking at Paul’s discourse at how Christians are not sons of Hagar and slavery but Isaac and promise. He continues with the theme of freedom by urging us not to revert to a “yoke of slavery.” The Greek word for “yoke” is zugos which in this context is used as a figure of speech for law or obligation. Peter alluded to this at the Council of Jerusalem by stating: “Now therefore why do you put God to the test by placing upon the neck of the disciples a yoke which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear?” (Acts 15:10). Peter was asking the council why an obligation to be circumcised should be passed on to Gentiles when it is not a necessary element of salvation.¹

Paul uses “yoke” to invoke images of the Mosaic Law. Paul is stating that if Christians are liberated from attempting to use the Law as a means of justification (cf. 3:13) why would one want to go back to that state of “slavery” and be a child of Hagar? The Jews of Paul’s day often referred to the Mosaic Law as “the yoke of the commandments.“² Paul was urging the Galatian Christians to not submit to this yoke taught by the Judaizers’they didn’t need Christ plus Law, they needed Christ alone.

If circumcision was not an overly intrusive surgery, then why would Paul go to such lengths to defend the truth that they need not be circumcised? Paul was concerned foremost that the teaching (“yoke”) of the Judaizers did two things: (1) distort Paul’s doctrine of justification and (2) called into question the sufficiency of Christ’s atoning work. The issue behind the circumcision is the human tendency to resort to a “works based” attempt for righteousness, and this is what has Paul so concerned for the Galatian Christians.

It should be noted that “freedom” is not to be interpreted as freedom as we understand it in a material, earthly sense. The freedom Paul describes is freedom (1) from the Mosaic Law³ and (2) freedom from the dominion of sin. Therefore Paul urges the Galatians to “keep standing firm” in the truth they had heard from him in the true Gospel.

“Behold I, Paul, say to you that if you receive circumcision, Christ will be of no benefit to you. And I testify again to every man who receives circumcision, that he is under obligation to keep the whole Law.” (vs. 2–3)

Remember Paul’s statement back in chapter 2 verse 21: “if righteousness comes through the Law, then Christ died needlessly.” The attempt of the Judaizers to add something to the Gospel, in this case circumcision, takes away from the work of Christ. To “receive circumcision” from the Judaizers is an acknowledgement that they are trusting in their own works and not Christ alone; therefore, Christ then becomes of not benefit to the Galatian Christians.

For Paul, to accept circumcision is to accept the Old Covenant demands of being in covenant with God. He also connects circumcision to the entirety of the Old Testament Law. If one wants to be circumcised then that are submitting themselves to attempting righteousness through all the Mosaic Law.⁴ Martin Luther comments on this passage:

“The same principle by which you are obliged to receive circumcision obliges you to accept the whole Lawâ?¦You must give up either Christ or the righteousness of the Law. If you keep Christ, you are righteous in the sight of God. If you keep the Law, Christ is of no avail to you; then you are obligated to keep the whole Law.“⁵

The horrible truth is that the Law is a curse, but the good news is that Christ has freed us from that curse (3:13). This is the essence of Christian liberty! So, if one is free why go back to a life of futility and slavery? Trust in Christ alone!

“You have been severed from Christ, you who are seeking to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace.” (vs. 4)

To “fall from grace” is not to lose one’s salvation as the Scriptures teach that once God has justified an individual he will persevere until the end through the work of the Holy Spirit (John 10:28–29; Rom 8:28–30; Eph 1:13–14; Phi 1:6; 1 Pet 1:3–7; 1 John 2:18–20). What Paul is saying is that if one attempts to conjure righteousness (“be justified”) through works of the Law then they will be severed from Christ. They will no longer know grace, because they will have become enslaved all over again. Grace and works of the Law are antithetical ideas in the mind of Paul.

“For we through the Spirit, by faith, are waiting for the hope of righteousness. For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything, but faith working through love.” (vs. 5–6)

Paul begins his discourse on the primacy of the Spirit not only in our justification but that the Spirit is the agent that will complete our salvation. The Spirit is received by faith alone and not through any external works. Because Christians have received this free gift we can look forward to the “hope of righteousness” which is what we look forward to on our judgment’that God will look at us and see the righteousness of Christ and not our own filthy rags of righteousness (Isa 64:6).

Paul then tells the Galatian Christians what truly matters: “faith working through love.” In the Old Covenant community circumcision set apart God’s people from the rest of the world, but “in Christ“⁶ that distinction is no longer valid. The only thing of importance is that one exhibits faith in the Messiah and love is a byproduct of our regeneration (5:14). Jesus explicitly tells His disciples that “By this all men will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another” (John 13:35).

“You were running well; who hindered you from obeying the truth? This persuasion did not come from Him who calls you.” (vs. 7–8)
Paul exhibits another analogy from the athletics world by ascribing their salvation to running (cf. 1 Cor 9:24–27). Paul states that after he had shared with them the true Gospel they were doing well in their Christian faith, but someone had hindered the Galatian Christians from “obeying the truth.” Paul is quick to set forth the truth that God did not teach them this truth, because God is the one “who calls you.” This teaching of syncretizing faith and works is not of God therefore establishing that the teaching that the Galatians Christians had received from the Judaizers was not true.

“A little leaven leavens the whole lump of dough.” (vs. 9)

Paul invokes imagery of leaven that the Judaizers and Galatian Christians were familiar with: “‘Seven days you shall eat unleavened bread, but on the first day you shall remove leaven from your houses; for whoever eats anything leavened from the first day until the seventh day, that person shall be cut off from Israel” (Exo 12:15). Leaven was a symbol of unholiness to ancient Israelities. The teaching from the Judaizers is then likened to the unholiness of the leaven. As God commanded the Israelites to remove leaven from their household during the feast of unleavened bread, so to were the Galatians were to purge the teaching (“leaven”) of the Judaizers (cf. 4:30). Paul also gives this admonition to the Corinthian church: “Clean out the old leaven so that you may be a new lump, just as you are in fact unleavened. For Christ our Passover also has been sacrificed” (1 Cor 5:7).

It only took a little bit of bad theology to corrupt the “whole lump” of good teaching. It is no wonder that Paul warns Titus (and Timothy in all the pastoral epistles) to hold “fast the faithful word which is in accordance with the teaching, so that he will be able both to exhort in sound doctrine and to refute those who contradict” (Tit 1:9; cf. Eph 4:14; 1 Tim 4:6).

“I have confidence in you in the Lord that you will adopt no other view; but the one who is disturbing you will bear his judgment, whoever he is. But I, brethren, if I still preach circumcision, why am I still persecuted? Then the stumbling block of the cross has been abolished.” (vs. 10–11)

Paul’s confidence in the Galatians comes through in this passage. He has confidence that they will “adopt no other view” thereby admonishing them to remember the true Gospel that he delivered to them. He makes an allusion that there was a ring leader of the Judaizers,⁷ and that he will receive his proper judgment and his teaching will come to an end.

Paul makes a reference that the Judaizers convinced the Galatian Christians that Paul preached circumcision as a necessary element of the Gospel,⁸ but if Paul was preaching that Gospel why is he being persecuted? The answer to the rhetorical question is that Paul is not preaching circumcision as a necessary element of the Gospel’Paul was teaching justification by faith alone, and this is the very reason he was so persecuted.

The truth that Christ is received by faith alone is actually an offense to the world. If Paul were to preach faith plus works then the stumbling block of the cross would be removed, but the Gospel is indeed a stumbling block to both the Jews and the Gentiles due to the radical nature of trust and faith in the Christ and His Gospel (cf. 1 Cor 1:23). The cross is a stumbling block, because it is antithetical to everything we know as depraved human beings. Humans naturally hate to be told that they need to go to the bloody cross for forgiveness and a righteousness that they cannot create on their own merit.

“I wish that those who are troubling you would even mutilate themselves.” (vs. 12)

Paul then gives a rather unflattering (and admittedly vulgar) remark considering the Judaizers. He wishes that they would just mutilate themselves by cutting off not just the foreskin but the whole of the male genitalia. This is quite a stern comment made by Paul. He is essentially ascribing, in the most straightforward manner possible, that circumcision avails them nothing. To be in this physical condition (a eunuch) is to be cut off from fellowship with God in Old Covenant Israel (Deut 23:1) as was the condition of the Ethiopian eunuch that Phillip shared the Gospel with in Acts 8 (vs. 26ff).

1. Do you ever attempt to add more to the Gospel than is necessary? Are you guilty as were the Galatian Christians and Judaizers?
2. Have you ever felt ‘severed from Christ” by pursuing righteousness through your own works?
3. Do you trust in the Spirit and Christ’s atoning sacrifice alone for your justification?
4. What would you think if you were told that you were to keep the whole Law, and how does it make you feel that ‘in Christ” this isn’t necessary?

1. This is the whole point of Galatians. Due to the fact that the Council of Jerusalem is not explicitly referenced in this letter, particularly in chapter 2, leads me to believe this was the earliest of Paul’s letters written before the Council. This fits in with the Southern Galatian theory of authorship. See F.F. Bruce, The Epistle to the Galatians: The New International Greek Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982) pg. 8ff.
2. Phillip Graham Ryken. Galatians (New Jersey: Presbyterian & Reformed Publishing, 2005), pg. 196.
3. Phillip Graham Ryken (Ibid. pg. 195) states (emphasis added): ‘Another way to say all this is that Christ has freed us from the law, which is one of Paul’s primary concerns throughout Galatians. Christ has not set us free from the moral law, which is God’s eternal will for his people, but from the law that leads to sin and death.’ This argument begs the question and does not fit in with Paul’s description of freedom from the Mosaic Law.
   
   This argument rests on a couple of presuppositions: (1) that the Mosaic Law can be broken into moral, civil, and ceremonial distinctions often referred to as the threefold division of the law, (2) that the Decalogue (10 Commandments) is the eternal ‘moral law’ of God, and (3) that the Decalogue, as codified at Sinai, continues to be binding on Christian believers in the New Covenant. It should be noted that no writer of the Old or New Testament Scriptures saw the Law as divided into such distinctions as moral, civil, and ceremonial. The law (nomos) is always seen as a complete entity that rises and falls together. I also believe that eternal moral law of God is not the Decalogue as delivered at Sinai. The eternal moral law of God is expressed in natural law (Rom 2:14–15), Mosaic Law, and the Law of Christ which Paul is about to explain in this very book (6:2).
   
   This interpretation, I believe, does not pass the litmus test put forward by Paul in this work. He is stating that we are free from the total reign of the Mosaic Law in the Christian’s life. The relation of Law to the Christian is different than the Israelites had to the Mosaic Law. The Israelites looked to the Mosaic Law as a sign of material blessing in the land of Canaan. It was never intended to be source of salvation although the Israelites may have misconstrued it in such a way. See Mark W. Karlberg’s Covenant Theology in Reformed Perspective (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2000) pg. 213.
   I am more persuaded by the argument put forward by Fred Zaspel in New Covenant Theology: Defined, Document, and Defended (Frederick, MD: New Covenant Media, 2002) pg. 136:

   “Paul’s stern opposition of the Judaizers at Galatia is summed up in the words of Galatians 5:1…His whole argument rested on the fact that since Jesus Christ came, the law of Moses has not been left intact; indeed, that old ‘yoke’ should be thrown off. The changes effected by the coming of Christ are significant and wide-sweeping, and as a result the old requirements of Sabbath keeping (4:10) and circumcision (6:12) must be reevaluated in light of him.”

4. To be noted that Paul doesn’t not see a threefold division of the Law.
5. Martin Luther, Lectures on Galatians, 1535, trans. And ed. Jaroslav Pelikan, in Luther’s Works (St. Louis: Concordia, 1963), 27:15, 17 (Quoted in Ryken’s Galatians).
6. This is the doctrine of Union with Christ. It is a very engaging doctrine to study, and it opens up the whole of God’s redemptive plan. I encourage you to examine what the New Testament has to say about this wonderful truth!
7. Ryken, pg. 210.
8. F.F. Bruce, pg. 236.

‘Tell me, you who want to be under law, do you not listen to the law?’ (vs. 21)

The patriarchic narrative surrounding Abraham wasn’t a part of the Mosaic economy, but in a Jewish mindset the narrative of Abraham would’ve been included in the Torah (â??Law’) so Paul includes the narrative in talking about the Jewish law. His rhetorical question states that the Galatians who were falling into slavery under the Mosaic Law didn’t even understand what the ‘law’ (in this instance the narrative of Abraham’s sons) really said.

‘For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by the bondwoman and one by the free woman.’ (vs. 22)

Here Paul starts to unfold the narrative of Genesis 16–21 through the eyes of sonship/slavery. There are two sons corresponding to two women, and one was a bondwoman (slave) and the other a free woman. Both of these women will represent two covenants. Paul uses this language to describe which covenant the Galatian Christians are actually under.

‘This is allegorically speaking, for these women are two covenants: one proceeding from Mount Sinai bearing children who are to be slaves; she is Hagar. (vs. 24)

Remember the story of Abraham. Yahweh promised to make a great nation from Abraham (Gen 12:1–3). Abraham walked in faith, but his faith was tested by the fact that he was old and was starting to realize that he didn’t have a son to carry on this line and therefore this promise from Yahweh (Gen 15:3). But Yahweh ensures him that he will have a son of promise to carry on his great nation: ‘one who will come forth from your own body, he shall be your heir’ (Gen 15:4).

The lesson to be learned is that Abraham, despite Yahweh’s promise decided to take it upon himself by works to have a son. Sarai, Abraham’s wife, then tells Abraham to conceive a child through Hagar since she has been barren.

Now Sarai, Abram’s wife had borne him no children, and she had an Egyptian maid whose name was Hagar. So Sarai said to Abram, “Now behold, the LORD has prevented me from bearing children. Please go in to my maid; perhaps I will obtain children through her.” And Abram listened to the voice of Sarai. (Gen 16:1–2)

Hagar did have a son Ishmael, but Yahweh’s promise would not be thwarted; He would provide a son of promise. Abraham even cries out to Yahweh to accept Ishmael, but Yahweh says that Ishmael is not the one that would carry on the promised nation (Gen 17:18–19). Yahweh then tells Abraham that ‘My covenant I will establish with Isaac, whom Sarah will bear to you at this season next year’ (Gen 17:21).

Hagar was a slave of Sarah, and anyone in that time period who was born of a slave inherited that social status (similar to the current Hindu caste system). So anyone that proceeded from Hagar/Ishmael were slaves, but Yahweh wants sons of freedom not of slavery (Gal 4:28) so He will deliver a son of promise through the free woman (Sarah).

‘Now this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children.’ (vs. 25)

Paul applies the person of Hagar and her children and ascribes them to the covenant that came from Mount Sinai.² This covenant was the Mosaic Covenant that gave forth the Mosaic Law. We should note that the Judaizers were pressing circumcision yet the rite of circumcision was passed onto Abraham in Gen 17 before the establishment of Israel under the Mosaic economy.³ Paul makes the reference that Hagar represents the ‘present Jerusalem’ which I understand to be the whole of Judaism to which the physical Jerusalem was the epicenter of that faith.⁴ Paul’s lesson is that anyone ‘underneath the [Mosaic] law’ is in slavery.

‘But the Jerusalem above is free; she is our mother.’ (vs. 26)

Paul then moves on to the other covenant symbolized by Sarah. This covenant is different, because it is a covenant of promise not slavery; freedom not bondage; eternal not temporal. This covenant is often listed as the New Covenant of Jeremiah 31:31–34, 2 Corinthians 3, and Hebrews 8 to which Christ inaugurated in His death (Luke 22:20), but Paul’s focus throughout the last two chapters have been comparing the Abrahamic to the Mosaic covenants. But all three of the major commentaries I utilized ascribed covenant as the New Covenant. I’ll let the reader come to their own conclusion. Regardless, the inheritance mentioned with the ‘Jerusalem above’ is one of freedom not slavery.

Let’s construct a table comparing the two sides of the allegory:

For it is written, “REJOICE, BARREN WOMAN WHO DOES NOT BEAR; BREAK FORTH AND SHOUT, YOU WHO ARE NOT IN LABOR; FOR MORE NUMEROUS ARE THE CHILDREN OF THE DESOLATE THAN OF THE ONE WHO HAS A HUSBAND.” (vs. 27)

Paul then quotes from Isaiah 54:1 and by doing so applies that chapter to the Church age. Remember that the historical context of Isaiah 54 is an Israel that (children of physical Jerusalem) was in exile, but Israel is to be restored with more children than were lost.⁵ It could be stated that the Gentiles who were ‘barren’ as Sarah in terms of being outside of a relationship with Yahweh had been brought close in the Church age (Eph 2:11–22; Gal 3:29; Rom 2:28–29, 9:22–25; Phi 3:3; 1 Pet 2:9).

‘And you brethren, like Isaac, are children of promise. But as at that time he who was born according to the flesh persecuted him who was born according to the Spirit, so it is now also.’ (vs. 28–29)

He reminds the Galatian Christians that they are children of promise by faith. The Spirit had overcome Abraham and Sarah’s old age and given them a child; so now, the Spirit is the agent of our birth by faith (Tit 3:3–7). There is a reminder set to them that Ishmael (the one ‘born according to the flesh’) persecuted Isaac (‘born according to Spirit’) and so the children of slavery (the Judaizers) will persecute the children of freedom (Galatian Christians). On the celebration of Isaac’s weaning Ishmael was mocking Isaac (Gen 21:9), and after seeing this Sarah demanded that Abraham drive Hagar and Ishmael out. This sets the scene for Paul’s next quotation.

‘But what does the Scripture say? â??CAST OUT THE BONDWOMAN AND HER SON, FOR THE SON OF THE BONDWOMAN SHALL NOT BE AN HEIR WITH THE SON OF THE FREE WOMAN.” (vs. 30)

Implicit in this quotation from Genesis 21:10 is that the Galatian Christians are to drive out the Judaizers by this quotation. The bondwoman and her son are to be thrown out (the Judaizers). Sarah was worried that as long as the first born was around (Ishmael) he could potentially threaten the inheritance promised to Isaac.⁶ Therefore, drive out the one who could take away from the inheritance of promise.

‘[This quotation is to] enshrine the basic gospel truth: legal bondage and spiritual freedom cannot coexist.‘⁷

‘So then, brethren, we are not children of a bondwoman, but of the free woman.’ (vs. 31)

‘Remember,’ Paul emphatically states again, ‘you are not children of slavery, law, and futility but of freedom, faith, and life.’ It’s Paul’s final admonition in this chapter not to revert to a life of futility through the Mosaic Law.

Here is a final admonition from Phillip Graham Ryken concerning this allegory:

‘We forget that Christianity is a form of liberty, and not slavery. We reduce faith in Christ to a list of rules or traditions. We evaluate our spiritual standing by what we do for God, rather than what God has done for us in Jesus Christ. In truth, we are all recovering Pharisees, in constant danger of forgetting to live only by faith and choosing instead to go right back under the law.‘⁸

Footnotes

1. Allegorize: The entities in the story stand for something other than their prima facie [at face value] sense.
2. It is often thought that the ‘great nation’ promised to Hagar (Gen 21:18) and Abraham (Gen 17:20) for Ishmael as a son of Abraham is in fact the modern day Arabs corresponding to Arabia, but that is outside the context of this passage.
3. I am going to deduce that Paul understands a correlation of circumcision to be included in a command that has passed in the New Covenant (another argument for Credobaptism), and that Paul wants to emphasize a larger lesson that New Covenant believers are free from all Old Testament commands. Although, I cannot right prove this exegetically so I am still deciding on this interpretation. But for the purpose of this exposition we can move on.
4. F.F. Bruce, The Epistle to the Galatians: The New International Greek Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982) pg. 220.
5. F.F. Bruce, pg. 222.
6. Ibid., pg. 224.
7. Ibid., pg. 225.
8. Phillip Graham Ryken. Galatians (New Jersey: Presbyterian & Reformed Publishing, 2005), pg. 181.