COMMENTARY ON GALATIANS

LESSON NUMBER 44

^{Gal 4:30} “Nevertheless 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. ³¹ So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free.”. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .(Gal 4:30-31)

CAST OUT THE BONDWOMAN AND HER SON!

INTRODUCTION

              The intolerance of the apostles for false teaching is owing to several things. Here are a few of the more obvious effects of false doctrine. First, such teaching is originated by the devil. Second, it contradicts the truth God has revealed. Third, it promotes spiritual bondage. Fourth, it induces a departure from the Lord Himself. Fifth, it hardens the hearts of those receiving it against the truth. Sixth, it gives the advantage to the devil. Seventh, it promotes sin rather than righteousness. Eighth, it ministers questions rather than godly edifying. Ninth, it promotes the agendas of men rather than the eternal purpose of God. Tenth, it takes Jesus from the center of religion, and puts Him on the periphery. You can probably identify many other deficiencies that are promoted by believing the doctrines of men. The seriousness of the condition false teachers caused in the Galatian churches is evidenced by the strength of Paul’s letter to them. Ponder the associations he has linked to what intruding teachers had taught them. They were removed from God in order to embrace “another gospel” (1:6). They had been “troubled” and the Gospel “perverted” (1:7). They had been rendered “foolish” (3:1a,3).They had been “bewitched” (3:1b). They did not “obey the truth” (3:1c). They “turned again to the weak and beggarly elements” (4:9). Paul now stood “in doubt” of them (4:20). And what had caused these dreadful conditions? It had not been allurement into the realm of the depraved and immoral. They had not been attracted by obviously worldly lusts. It is not because they had spent time among the wicked of this world. Rather, it was because of religious intruders who came in the guise of Christian teachers. These were not men who taught them the Scriptures were flawed and could not be trusted, but were men who corrupted the Scriptures, ascribing to them their own miserable traditions. These were teachers who were promoting identity with God, even making a place for Christ, although it was not the preeminent place. They kept the churches assembling, but gave them an erroneous message – one that contradicted salvation by grace through faith (Eph 2:8). The prominence of this kind of religion today is most startling!

WHAT SAITH THE SCRIPTURE?

^{Gal 4:30a} “Nevertheless what saith the scripture? . . .”

              NEVERTHELESS. Other versions read, “But,” ^NASB “Howbeit,” ^ASV and “What then.” ^BBE This word is a translation of a word that means, “an opposition to,” ^THAYER “an adversative conjunction indicating contrast, difference,” ^FRIBERG and “marker of more emphatic contrast.” ^LOUW-NIDA In other words, Paul is saying there is something more to be considered. There is something that transcends the experience of the persecution of the righteous – something that must not only be considered, but acted upon. There is another dimension to the subject under consideration.

              The statement that is now overshadowed is this: “But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now” (Gal 4:29). Paul will emphasize that something had to be done about the persecutor being in the same house. He will not appeal to logic alone, nor will he state that it is meritorious to endure the persecution of those who pass themselves off as brethren, or that teach what contradicts the Gospel. He will take them to an example of a response that was dictated by God Himself – something that is recorded in the Scriptures.

              WHAT SAITH THE SCRIPTURE? Other versions read, “what does the Scripture say?” ^NKJV “What then do the Writings say?” ^BBE “The Scriptures say,” ^CEV and, “There is a Scripture that tells us what to do.” ^MESSAGE

              This same question is asked in Romans 4:3 in regards to appropriating the righteousness of God. The same kind of reasoning is presented in Romans 10:8 regarding what must be done to be saved. When discussing the unseen remnant of believers that has always existed, Paul appeals to what the Scripture says (Rom 11:4). The Gospels contain twenty-one references to “the Scripture” and “the Scriptures.” When Philip taught the Ethiopian eunuch, he started with the Scripture (Acts 8:32). When Paul reasoned in the synagogues, he did so “out of the Scriptures” (Acts 17:2). When those who heard Paul sought to confirm the truth of what he had declared, they “searched the Scriptures daily” (Acts 17:11). The strength of Apollos, for which he was commended, is that he was “mighty in the Scriptures” (Acts 18:24). He is said to have “mightily convinced the Jews, and that publicly, showing by the Scriptures that Jesus was Christ” (Acts 18:28). The epistles contain twenty-one references to “Scripture” and “Scriptures.”

              No man of God ever appealed to a body of human knowledge to confirm what he was declaring. They did not reason upon the basis of what Socrates or Plato said, or refer to the writings of historians like Josephus. When supporting their affirmations, they did not appeal to science, philosophy, social trends, or some other facet of worldly wisdom. Yet, this is so common in our day that some people have failed to see how such an approach vaunts men and reduces the significance of what the Lord has said. Various axioms and aphorisms of men have been said for so long that some people believe they are actually in the Scriptures.

              Over one hundred times, the Gospels affirm Jesus referred to the Scriptures, Moses, the Prophets, or the Law – what was written in the Word of God. The book of Acts contains sixty-two such references, and the Epistles one hundred and sixty-seven. This is the manner of godly reasoning, to base conclusions upon the writings that have been “given by inspiration of God” (2 Tim 3:16), and prophecies given by “holy men of God,” who “spake as they were moved by the Holy Spirit” (2 Pet 1:20). If a subject cannot be founded on such words, it is out of order to present it as though it is authoritative, or in any way related to “life and godliness.”

              This is not what is called proof texting – establishing the ideas of men by finding a text that appears to say the same thing they are saying. Although it is fashionable for men to create an imagination, and then go to the Scriptures to prove it, this is not lawful. To represent God and Christ as supporting thoughts that had their genesis with men is nothing more than an expression of sinful pride, A theology that is based upon what men have said about Scripture, rather than upon the Scriptures themselves, is a snare of the devil, and can in no way bring spiritual advantage.

              By appealing to Scripture, Paul is digging deep, to where the foundation for godly thinking has been placed. In this case, he will refer to an historical record – an inspired historical record. He knows that “all Scripture” in some way reflects not only the mind, but the purpose of the Almighty. God can neither speak nor act in contradiction of His character or His purpose. In some way, all Scripture ties back to who God is and what He is doing – and blessed is the person who can see it.

              When still in my teens, I made a covenant with the Lord never to read what men have said on a subject until I exposed my mind to what God has said on the matter. If I found God had not spoken of such a subject, I would not place a high priority upon it. I have held to that covenant, and it has delivered me from all manner of erroneous teachings and dogmas. Commensurate with an unwavering commitment to the Word of God, religious fads, trends, and cliches, lose their attractiveness. When they are heard, they grate against the soul, and appear foolish to the mind. The person who lives by every word of God has an absolute disdain for the wisdom of the world.

THE SON OF THE BONDWOMAN SHALL NOT BE HEIR

              ^4:30b “Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman.”

              Now Paul supports the fact that aggressive action must be taken when the saints are subjected to those who preach Law rather than grace. There is a certain response that is mandated when men seek to bring us into bondage.

              CAST OUT THE BONDWOMAN AND HER SON! Other versions read, “Get rid of the slave woman and her son,” ^NIV “Drive out the slave and her child,” ^NRSV “send away the servant-woman and her son,” ^BBE “Throw out the slave and her son,” ^CSB “Put out the servant and her son,” ^GENEVA “drive away the slave girl and her son,” ^NJB and “Cast out and send away the slave woman and her son.” ^AMPLIFIED

              The text to which Paul refers is Genesis 21:10-12. The words were spoken by Sarah to Abraham when she saw Ishmael mocking Isaac. What she said was grievous to Abraham, but God ordered him to do what Sarah had said. “Wherefore she said unto Abraham, Cast out this bondwoman and her son: for the son of this bondwoman shall not be heir with my son, even with Isaac. And the thing was very grievous in Abraham's sight because of his son. And God said unto Abraham, Let it not be grievous in thy sight because of the lad, and because of thy bondwoman; in all that Sarah hath said unto thee, hearken unto her voice; for in Isaac shall thy seed be called” (Gen 21:10-12).

              There is a gospel being preached today that causes people to think Sarah was too harsh. A kind of “love” is being perpetrated that is tolerant of Ishmael and his conduct, and is quite willing to allow for the persecution of the godly within God’s house. But such a view contradicts the text to which Paul refers.

              It may be that some professing believers are not familiar with the incident of reference. If so, they must become familiar with it. Paul writes with the assumption that the brethren in Galatia will recognize the truth of what he says. If they do not, then they must respond as those of Berea, and search the Scriptures to see if what he is writing is the truth. Where such an effort is not expended, an honest and good heart is not possessed. Those who have no interest in the confirmation of the truth are more closely related to Ishmael than to Isaac. Eventually, just as surely as Ishmael persecuted Isaac, they will come out against the saints of God.

              Abraham did what God told him to do – and he did it considerately. “And Abraham rose up early in the morning, and took bread, and a bottle of water, and gave it unto Hagar, putting it on her shoulder, and the child, and sent her away: and she departed, and wandered in the wilderness of Beersheba” (Gen 21:14). God saw to it that Hagar and her son were preserved, but she was not allowed to return to the home of Abraham and Sarah. Ishmael dwelt in “the wilderness of Paran,” where Hagar eventually “took him a wife out of the land of Egypt” (Gen 21:15-21). However, he could live with Isaac no longer.

              The clear implication of Paul’s words is that the Galatians should cease their toleration of the teachers who had bewitched them and caused them to be removed from God. Such men were to be thrust away, the people having nothing more to do with them. This is the same kind of action concerning which Paul wrote to Timothy. “But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness. And their word will eat as doth a canker: of whom is Hymenaeus and Philetus; who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is past already; and overthrow the faith of some . . . If a man therefore purge himself from these, he shall be a vessel unto honor, sanctified, and meet for the master's use, and prepared unto every good work” (2 Tim 2:16-21). This teaching must be taken seriously.

              THE SON OF THE BONDWOMAN SHALL NOT BE HEIR. Here the supporting reason for the required action is made clear. The “slave woman’s son will never share in the inheritance.” For the Galatians, this meant that those who are justified by law will not participate in the “eternal inheritance” reserved for the saints (Heb 9:15). Their approach to spiritual life. So far as they are concerned, voids the death of Christ, or “then Christ is dead in vain” (Gal 2:21). They have no access to the grace of God, for they have been removed from the One who called them “into the grace of Christ” (Gal 1:6). Whoever imagines they are justified by law is in a state where “Christ is become of no effect,” and they “are fallen from grace” (Gal 5:4). Their teaching causes them to “not obey the truth” (Gal 5:7).

              The truth of the matter is that until the Gospel is the primary message, and Jesus is the fundamental person, there really is no way a person can be saved and receive the inheritance. Men may see this as being too harsh, but it is what Paul is teaching the Galatians. The Corinthians had to get rid of a fornicator (1 Cor 5:1-5). Now the Galatians are required to rid themselves of false teachers. And why is this so? It is because the body of Christ is of more importance than the individual. Once leaven is introduced into it, the whole will be corrupted. Men must learn how to behave themselves in the house of God (1 Tim 3:15).

WHAT WE ARE NOT AND WHAT WE ARE

               ^4:31 "So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free.”

              Now Paul provides further reason for being intolerant of those who promote bondage, and those who practice it. We are under no obligation to any gospel that is not “the power of God unto salvation” (Rom 1:16). A means of salvation that does not produce a new heart and a new spirit, and through which we are not liberated from the guilt and power of sin, really has nothing to do with those who are in Christ Jesus. They owe no allegiance to such things, nor are they required to respect those who perpetrate them.

              SO THEN, BRETHREN. Other versions read, “Therefore, brothers” ^NIV “So,” ^RSV “Wherefore,” ^ASV “Then,” ^GENEVA and “Isn't that conclusive?” ^MESSAGE

              The expression “so then” comes from a word that carries “the idea of drawing a conclusion.” ^STRONG’S In other words, if the former statement is true, then this statement is true also. To put it another way, if a principle is true, then every statement correctly based upon that principle is true. In Christ, valid conclusions are based upon this kind of reasoning. Those who approach acceptance by God from the standpoint of law are not able to reason in this manner. Their conclusions are not valid because their foundations are flawed. They reason upon the basis of a covenant that (Heb 8:13). They also reason as though life in the body was primary, and this world was fundamental. That is why life under the Law, and life as a spiritual infant, are depicted as being “in bondage under the elements of the world,” or “the basic principles of the world” ^NIV (Gal 4:3). All law-binders, whether they are binding circumcision on the people, or majoring on marriage, economics, etc, emphasize this world. That is the locus of all such things – the realm in which they are confined. Such are children of Hagar, not Sarah – of the Jerusalem which “now is,” instead of the “Jerusalem that is above.”

              WE ARE NOT THE CHILDREN OF THE BONDWOMAN. The children of the bondwoman are “born after the flesh” (Gal 4:23,29). For them, life in this “vile body” (Phil 3:21) is the primary life, and all of the signs of purported blessing are “in the body” (Heb 13:3) – “the body of this death” (Rom 7:24). For the Judaizers, circumcision was “outward in the flesh” instead of “that of the heart, in the spirit” (Rom 2:28-29). Their reasoning postulates an evil heart, alienation from God, and the dominance of sin. They are trying to keep sin from expressing itself, rather than spiritual growth and the fruit of the Spirit being the norm. That is simply the manner of the Law, and it is why the Law promotes bondage. It awakens sin instead of subduing it, for “the strength of sin is the Law” (1 Cor 15:56).

              Let it be clear that what is begotten of God is not so described. “We [who are born again] are not children of a slave woman [the natural]” ^AMPLIFIED It is not that this is a condition that ought to exist, this is what those who are born again ARE NOT. They have NOT been begotten by a system of slavery, restraint, and attempted moral control. All of the conditions that existed under the Old Covenant do NOT apply to those who are born again. These include uncircumcised hearts (Deut 10:16), a stony heart (Ezek 11:19), uncircumcised ears (Jer 6:10; Acts 7:51), a heart that is desperately wicked (Jer 17:9), and thoughts and ways that are at variance with those of God (Isa 55:8-9). If such traits are found in professing believers, they have moved from where God put them.

              WE ARE CHILDREN OF THE FREE. Not “we ought to be,” but “we ARE” children “of the free.” The free-woman did not give birth to a slave, and the slave-woman did not give birth to a freeborn. Those in Christ are not in bondage, and ought not to be addressed as though they were. If, in fact, the Son has made them free, they are “free indeed,” or “really and unquestionably free” ^AMPLIFIED (John 8:36). They have been “justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses” (Acts 13:39).