5. By the Spirit We Cry, 'Abba, Father' (Galatians 3:26-4:7)
by Dr. Ralph F. Wilson
Audio
(25:41) | Print this Page
Sign up now for a free
Galatians Bible Study
Paul has been speaking of those who haven't reached
adulthood, who are in their minority, who are under the
custodian/chaperone/tutor of the law. He contrasts that with sons who have
reached the legal age of adulthood, declaring that believers in the Messiah have
the status of full sons. Hallelujah!
"26 You are all sons of God through faith
in Christ Jesus, 27 for all of you who were baptized into Christ have
clothed yourselves with Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek,
slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29
If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the
promise." (3:26-29)
A "son" is one who is now of age. Sometimes feminists
bristle that they are not "sons" but "daughters" of God. True. But if Paul had
said that, his first century audience would have misunderstood him, since
daughters didn't have the same inheritance rights as sons. He is saying that you
are all sons in terms of your full status before God -- both men and
women!
Baptized into Christ (3:27)
How did you become sons? You were "baptized into Christ."
Baptism in the primitive church was the way one identified himself or
herself with Christ. People put their faith in Christ, confessed him as Lord
(Romans 10:9), and were baptized right away (Acts 2:38-41; 8:12-13, 36; 9:18;
10:48; 16:15, 33; 18:8; 19:5). This was according to the practice among Jesus'disciples while he walked with them (John 4:1) and in obedience to his specific
command (Matthew 28:19; Mark 16:16[123]).
Baptism in the primitive church seems to have been by immersion in water, since
they "went down into the water" (Acts 8:38) and the symbolism of burial and
resurrection in Romans 6:4 seems to make sense only if immersion was the mode.
The point Paul is making here is that by baptism they have
joined themselves to Christ, they were "baptized into Christ." The word "into" (eis)
is a preposition denoting entrance into or toward.[124]
Where this concept is amplified in Romans 6:3-5, we see that baptism is closely
associated with being united to Christ.
"3 Or don't you know that all of us who
were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4 We
were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as
Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live
a new life. 5 If we have been united with him like this in his death,
we will certainly also be united with him in his resurrection." (Romans 6:3-5)
In Romans 6:5 Paul uses the word symphytos,
literally, "planted together," with the idea of being "born together with, of
joint origin ... grown together, united with."[125]
In our Galatians passage, Paul uses the word "clothed" (NIV,
NRSV), "put on" (KJV), endyō, "to put any kind of thing on oneself,
clothe oneself in, wear something," metaphorically, very often, of the taking on
of characteristics, virtues, intentions, etc. (also Romans 13:14; Luke 24:49).[126]
We are baptized into Christ, we are united with Christ, we
are clothed with Christ. No longer do we have to walk a lonesome valley by
ourselves. Rather we are "found in him, not having a righteousness of my own"
(Philippians 3:9a). Our lives are now "hidden with Christ in God" (Colossians
3:3). We are "in Christ." Praise God!
We've looked at how we've gained the status of sons of God --
through baptism into Christ. Now look at the implications of this:
"28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave
nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 If
you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the
promise." (3:28-29)
Remember the context of Galatians: Paul is contending that in
Christ, we're all at the same level. Circumcised Jews are not superior to
uncircumcised Gentiles. We are all one in Christ.
Sometimes this verse is used by feminists to prove that there
is no difference between males and females, that in this statement Paul has
wiped away all distinctions of race, slavery, or gender. But notice that Paul
doesn't say that there are not distinctions any longer between genders, since
elsewhere he talks about different roles of men and women in his culture, and
how slaves should act towards their masters.
What Paul does say is that we all have the same status
before God -- which was a radical statement for his day, when women and slaves
were looked down upon in both Judaism and in Greek culture. He is saying we are
all equal in Christ! Praise God! This radical verse erases the supposed
superiority of men over women, of one race over another, of one class over
another. We are one, since we are all joined to Christ by baptism. Our new
identity is in him, not in our personal distinctions.
In Ephesians, Paul says something similar in the context of
the tension between Jews and Gentiles:
"For [Christ] himself is our peace, who has made the
two one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility, by
abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations. His
purpose was to create in himself one new man out of the two, thus making peace,
and in this one body to reconcile both of them to God through the cross, by
which he put to death their hostility." (Ephesians 2:14-16)
Through baptism we are joined to the "one new man"[127]
-- Christ himself.
Q1. (Galatians 4:26-29) Do you think Jewish Christians
regarded Gentile Christians as second-class citizens? What is the basis of our
unity in Christ? In what way does this unity pull down barriers? Do any groups
continue to be regarded as second-class citizens in our congregations? What
should we do about this?
http://www.joyfulheart.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=1135
Paul is still developing his analogy of the limitations
imposed on an underage child.
"1 What I am saying is that as long as
the heir is a child, he is no different from a slave, although he owns the whole
estate. 2 He is subject to guardians and trustees until the time set
by his father. 3 So also, when we were children, we were in slavery
under the basic principles of the world." (4:1-3)
Though a child might be an heir to a great estate, that
doesn't mean that he is free to act as the owner[128]
before he is of legal age.[129]
Even if his father has already died and left him the estate, he doesn't take
possession until he is of age.[130]
Until then he is legally under the authority of "guardians[131]
and trustees."[132]
According to this analogy, says Paul, before Christ came, "we
were in slavery under the basic principles of the world" (4:3). Paul's words
here have been subject to a great deal of argument, mainly over the appropriate
definition of the word stoicheion, translated as "basic (NIV), "elemental
spirits" (NRSV), "elements" (KJV).
The word can have two senses here, either (1) "basic
components of something, elements," specifically "of things that constitute the
foundation of learning, fundamental principles," or (2) "transcendent powers
that are in control over events in this world, elements, elemental spirits."[133]
Bruce explains,
"The word stoicheia means primarily things
placed side by side in a row; it is used of the letters of the alphabet, the
ABCs, and then, because the learning of the ABCs is the first lesson in a
literary education, it comes to mean 'rudiments, first principles' (as in
Hebrews 5:12). Again, since the letters of the alphabet were regarded as the
'elements'of which words and sentences are built up, stoicheia comes to
be used of the 'elements'which make up the material world (cf. 2 Peter 3:10,
12)."[134]
Indeed, Jewish philosopher Philo uses stoicheia in
this sense in one place.[135]
But to complicate matters, elsewhere Philo speaks of the Greeks who revere the
four elements -- earth, water, air, fire -- and give them names of divinities,
even receiving worship.[136]
Wisdom of Solomon 13:2 refers to "people who were ignorant of God," who
worshipped the natural elements as "the gods that rule the world."
The question then is: In which sense does Paul use the term
here and in 4:9 ("weak and miserable principles")? This wasn't just a Gentile
bondage; it included the Jews too.
"So also, when we were children, we were in slavery
under the basic principles of the world." (4:3)
Bruce says, "For all the basic differences between
Judaism and paganism, both involved subjection to the same elemental forces."[137]
Longenecker puts it this way:
"When talking about the Jewish experience, it was
the Mosaic law in its condemnatory and supervisory functions that comprised the
Jews''basic principles'of religion. Later in verse 9 when talking about the
Gentile experience, it was paganism with its veneration of nature and cultic
rituals that made up the Gentiles''basic principles'of religion."[138]
Paul's point is that the prior to the Messiah's coming,
both Jews and Gentiles were under bondage[139]. They both need freedom from their slavery.
For a trained rabbi to say such a thing is amazing. As Longenecker says,
"Paul's lumping of Judaism and paganism together in
this manner is radical in the extreme.... For Paul, however, whatever leads one
away from sole reliance on Christ, whether based on good intentions or depraved
desires, is sub-Christian and is therefore to be condemned."[140]
But this bondage to the basic principles is in the past
tense, for now the Messiah has come! What follows are some rather remarkable
statements of God sending his Son (4:4-5) and then sending his Spirit (4:6) to
move us from a position of slavery to a position of being God's heirs.
"But when the time had fully come, God sent his Son,
born of a woman, born under law, to redeem those under law, that we might
receive the full rights of sons." (4:4-5)
This is a complex passage, so let's look at it phrase
by phrase.
"When the time had fully come" (4:4a) suggests that
God had planned the event of sending his Son for a long time. In the Old
Testament there are many prophecies that look forward to this time (for example,
Genesis 49:10; Daniel 9:24-26; Malachi 3:1). In the New Testament, Jesus begins
his ministry with the words:
"The time has come. The kingdom of God is near.
Repent and believe the good news!" (Mark 1:15)
He told his disciples:
"It is not for you to know the times or dates the
Father has set by his own authority." (Acts 1:7)
Paul is quite aware of the unique timing in the mind of
God. We see such references throughout the epistles:
"... when the times will have reached their
fulfillment...." (Ephesians 1:9-10)
"... on whom the fulfillment of the ages has come."
(1 Corinthians 10:11)
"... the time of the new order." (Hebrews 9:10)
"... revealed in these last times." (1 Peter 1:20)
We wonder why God selected the first century AD in Galilee
and Judea to be "the fullness of time." Of course, we're just speculating, but
we know of three factors that were present.
- The time was right religiously. The Old Testament canon had been completed.
And the synagogue system had developed to the point that it functioned as a
school, a court, and for worship -- which the early church built upon. In Israel
at the time there was also a fervent expectation of the Messiah's coming.
- The time was right culturally. There was now a common language (koinē
Greek) spoken throughout the known world. And a common Greek culture was
widespread.
- The time was right commercially. The Roman system of roads connected the
empire, making it easy for the gospel to spread from city to city and from
country to country.
- The time was right politically. Rome had instituted a common system of law
that resulted in the Pax Romana (the Roman peace) -- and they enforced
that law across the empire. There was very little armed conflict, and the roads
were safer. This made travel from one country to another much easier and safer.
These conditions wouldn't have existed, for example, a
century earlier. And for many subsequent periods, the conditions would not have
been right either.
"God sent his Son" (4:4b) is reminiscent of John 3:16
(and many Johannine passages). Here Paul uses the verb, exapostellō, "to
send someone off to a locality or on a mission, send away, send off, send out,"
for fulfillment of a mission in another place.[141]
That God would send his Son suggests that Jesus was preexistent with the Father
prior to his birth in Bethlehem, which is well supported in the Gospels (John
1:1-3; 8:58; 17:5) and the rest of the New Testament (1 Corinthians 8:6b; 10:4;
Colossians 1:15-17; Revelation 21:6; 22:13). The Father's plan and commission
for Jesus was constantly in his mind (John 20:21; Luke 22:42). We know from
other passages that Paul saw Jesus as pre-existent with the Father, his agent of
creation (Colossians 1:15-17; 1 Corinthians 8:6; see also John 1:3). The
Father's sending suggests the Son's pre-existence also.
Q2. (Galatians 4:4) Why do you think it took so long to
send the Messiah? What about the first century world made it fertile ground for
the revelation of the Messiah and the spread of the gospel?
http://www.joyfulheart.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=1136
"Born of a woman" (4:4c) suggests Jesus'natural birth[142]
to Mary. This sentence makes the astounding statement that the Son of God was
"woman-born." This truth is expressed elsewhere in the doctrine of the Virgin
Birth (Matthew 1:20-23; Luke 1:35) and in the New Testament's teaching of Jesus'divine and human nature (John 1:1, 14; Romans 1:3-4; 9:5; Philippians 2:6-8; 1
Timothy 3:16; 1 John 4:2). It took the church several centuries to work this out
to a wording that became normative, hammered out at the Council of Nicaea (325)
and the Council of Constantinople (381).
"We believe ... in one Lord Jesus Christ, the
only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds, Light of
Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the
Father."
But it is now the basis of our orthodox understanding
of the relationship of Jesus and the Father, and is one of the unique insights
of the Christmas story of incarnation.
"Born under law" (4:4d), the next phrase in our verse,
reminds us that Jesus was born a Jew, circumcised on the eighth day according to
the law, presented in the temple with the sacrifice of a pair of doves or
pigeons according to the law. The irony of this is found in the next phrase:
"But when the time had fully come, God sent his Son,
born of a woman, born under law, to redeem those under law, that we might
receive the full rights of sons." (4:4-5)
"Redeem" (exagorazō) is a commercial term and a term
used in the context of slavery, "buy, buy up something" or "redeem" (literally,
"buy back"), then it carries the more general idea, "to deliver someone, to
secure deliverance of, liberate,"[143] which we explored in
Lesson 4 at 3:13.
"That we might receive the full rights of sons" (4:5b) is the
purpose of the sending. The keyword, translated variously, "full rights as sons"
(NIV), "adoption as children" (NRSV), "the adoption of sons" (KJV), is
huiothesia, "adoption," a legal technical term of "adoption" of children.[144] "[Paul's] aim is to
show that the sonship of believers is not a natural one but is conferred by
divine act."[145]
Though the word is formed from huios, "son" (found in verse 14), Paul
isn't pushing the idea of gender here.[146]
Rather, he is saying that we have been adopted with full status as sons and
daughters of the Living God, brothers and sisters of Jesus himself (Romans 8:29;
Hebrews 2:11). Amazing!
Adoption in the Roman and Greek world bestowed full status of
son on a person. Sometimes a slave would be manumitted (that is, released from
slavery) and adopted at the same time, conferring instant and simultaneous
freedom and status as a full son.
Adoption was primarily employed when a person had no children
to be his heirs. The adopted son would become a full heir to all that his
adoptive parents possessed. At the death of the parents, their estate would pass
to him, to his children, and to his children's children.
In poorer families, since there is precious little to pass
on, inheritance isn't something you dwell on. But in wealthy families, it is a
much more prominent matter. In the New Testament, inheritance is a big deal. The
idea appears many times, particularly in Romans, Galatians, and Hebrews. Why?
Because of the "wealthy family" to which we belong.
Paul emphasizes this idea of inheritance in verse 7:
"Since you are a son, God has made you also an
heir."[147]
(4:7)
In Romans we read that we are "co-heirs[148] with Christ" (Romans
8:17a). What Christ inherits, we inherit. What Christ our older brother
receives, we receive alongside of him. Under Jewish law, as older brother he
would inherit more, but this isn't Paul's point. Here Paul emphasizes that our
status in God's family is full. We are "seated with him in the heavenly realms"
(Ephesians 2:6) and Christ himself is seated at the right hand of God (Ephesians
1:20), the place of honor as Son and Heir.
Dear friend, you are neither a peon nor a nobody. You are a
full son of God, a full daughter of God. All God possesses is yours. You are a
child of the King of All.
Q3. (Galatians 4:3-5) In what sense were both the
Gentiles and the Jews enslaved? What does "redeem" mean in verse 5? What are the
implications of adoption regarding a person's legal and spiritual rights?
http://www.joyfulheart.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=1137
"6 Because you are sons, God sent the
Spirit of his Son into our hearts, the Spirit who calls out, 'Abba,
Father.'7 So you are no longer a slave, but a son; and since you are
a son, God has made you also an heir." (4:6-7)
A very similar passage occurs in Paul's letter to the Romans,
including the same elements as in our passage: Spirit, adoption/sonship, Abba,
heirs:
"15 For you did not receive a spirit that
makes you a slave again to fear, but you received the Spirit of sonship. And by
him we cry, "Abba, Father." 16 The Spirit himself testifies
with our spirit that we are God's children. 17 Now if we are
children, then we are heirs -- heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ, if indeed
we share in his sufferings in order that we may also share in his glory."
(Romans 8:15-17)
Abba, a vocative form, was originally a term of
endearment, later used as title and personal name (rarely used in reference to
God). It means "father," and was transliterated into Greek as "abba." It
was an Aramaic word used in prayer and in the family circle, later taken over by
Greek-speaking Christians as a liturgical formula.[149]
As adopted sons we are not step-children who are afraid of
our Father and always on our guard. We don't have to address him with the formal
word, "Father," but can use the familiar expression, "Abba," because, after all,
we are full sons! Hallelujah. The Holy Spirit in our lives is the evidence of
our sonship.
Q4. (Galatians 4:6-7) How does the Spirit's filling
demonstrate we are full sons? What is the special sense in which the Aramaic
word abba is used to speak to one's father? What is the significance of
being heirs of God? Are we sons in the same sense that Jesus was God's Son?
http://www.joyfulheart.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=1138
Paul has contrasted slave/slavery with sons/freedom in this
passage setting us up for his declaration "It is for freedom that Christ has set
us free" (5:1) and his instruction about walking in the Spirit rather than
according to the flesh. Fee concludes:
"For Paul, therefore, it is unthinkable that God's
free 'sons,'made so by Christ and the Spirit, should revert to the slavery of a
former time, the very slavery that not only failed to create true 'sons'but
also failed to effect true righteousness."[150]
This passage has included some pretty remarkable truths about
our relationship to God -- Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Consider:
- Son. We are united to Christ by baptism and faith. We are one with him
(3:26-28).
- Father. We now have the same status before God as Abraham's natural
descendents (3:29). God has adopted us and changed our status from slave to
fully-adopted sons and heirs. - Spirit. The Holy Spirit now lives in our hearts, establishing the intimate
relationship between us and the Father, to whom we can call out naturally and
confidently as Daddy "Abba."
joyfulheart.com
Christmas Incarnation
