Galatians 4:8-20 Notes

Having laid out his sweeping argument based on God’s plan of salvation in history, Paul now turns to a more personal, emotional appeal.

8 Formerly, when you did not know God, 

See Eph. 2:12. God was in covenant relationship with Israel but not the other nations, and in fact they had degenerated into pagan idolatry and were not in covenant relationship with God.

you were enslaved to those that by nature are not gods.

“Those that by nature are not gods” is Paul’s way of describing idol worship (see 1 Cor. 8:4-6). However, while Paul did not believe the pagan gods were real gods, he did believe there were real powers at work in idolatry – demons (1 Cor. 10:19-20).

Galatians 4:1-7 Notes

Having said that we are “heirs according to promise,” Paul now makes an argument on the status of sons before and after they receive their inheritance.

James Dunn points out in his commentary that this section restates many of the same points in 3:23-29:

Galatians 3:22-29

Let’s review Paul’s argument so far:

In the first two chapters Paul distanced himself from the Judaizers in Jerusalem while at the same time showing that his understanding of the gospel came directly from God and was in agreement with the teaching (though sometimes not the practice) of the other apostles (Gal. 1-2).

In chapters 3-4 Paul sets forth several doctrinal arguments to refute the contentions of the Judaizers:

-The experience of the Galatians was that they received salvation and the Spirit by faith in Christ, not through the Law (3:1-5).

-The Scriptures taught that Abraham was justified by faith, long before he was circumcised (3:6-9).

-In fact, Israel has historically failed to keep the Law, receiving the curse that Jesus had to die to remove (3:10-14).

-The Law came 430 years after the promise to Abraham, and does not change the fundamental nature of God’s promise to make of Abraham one family (“offspring”), not multiple families (“offsprings”), a family identified by being in Christ not by keeping the Law (3:15-20).

-The Law had an important purpose, to define sin and lead Israel to Jesus (3:21-22).

The argument in 3:23-4:7 hinges on sonship. Notice the following contrasts:

-The contrast between being a slave and son.

-The contrast in pronouns: “we” (Jews) and “you” (Gentiles).

-The contrasts in past and present tenses.

Galatians 3:15-22

While working through the middle chapters of Galatians, it is important to keep in mind that Paul is speaking in terms of God’s covenant purposes. This means:

-The issue here is not so much “how can I be saved?” but “what are God’s covenant plans for Israel and the Gentiles in Christ?”

-And of course the basis for any discussion of God’s covenant promises is the promise to Abraham (Gen. 12:1-13).

While Paul was dealing with a specific challenge here in Galatians, there are many similarities between Gal. 3-4 and Rom. 4.

-Both emphasize the fundamental basis of the promise to Abraham in terms of faith.

-Both argue that Abraham is the father of both Jews and Gentiles.

This section hinges on the timing and scope of God’s promise to Abraham.

Galatians 3:10-14 Notes

Commentators agree on two things regarding this passage: it is crucial to Paul’s argument, and it is very difficult! Part of the difficulty of this passage is that Paul has a tendency to speak in very concise, densely-structured phrases, and we are left wondering how to fill in the gaps. 

To a large extent, how this section is interpreted depends on what presuppositions we bring to the text. Since the time of Martin Luther, this passage has been interpreted in very individualistic terms to mean that no one can keep the Law perfectly, and therefore justification is by faith. However, I don’t think that is Paul’s point in this passage. Let me be clear - the Bible plainly teaches that we are saved by grace and through faith, not as a result of works (Ephesians 2:8-9). There is no amount of merit any sinner can accumulate to earn God’s favor.

But that is not what Galatians 3:10-14 is about, in my opinion. The typical Lutheran approach to the passage fails in two ways. First, the Mosaic covenant was not a system based on perfect lawkeeping. The Jews very well understood that God’s election was a matter of grace (Deut. 7:6-9). Further, the Law contained provisions for dealing with human imperfection in the form of the sacrificial system. Israelites were not required to be sinlessly perfect. They could make offerings for sins and be forgiven, as Leviticus 1-6 repeatedly states.

Notes on Galatians 3:1-9

This section is one of the richest sections of Paul’s writings, and consists of two basic moves:

-The argument from experience (3:1-5). Paul will argue from what the Galatians experienced at their conversion and afterwards to argue for the sufficiency of Christ.

-The argument from Scripture (3:6-14). Paul will argue that it was always God’s intention to save Jew and Gentile alike through faith by the work of Jesus.

In many respects Paul’s arguments in this chapter are similar to those made at the Jerusalem Conference in Acts 15.

-Paul and Barnabas argued from experience, the signs and wonders performed among the Gentiles (Acts 15:12). Peter also argued from what was experienced by Cornelius and his household (Acts 15:7).

-Peter also argued that it was God’s will that both Jew and Gentile be saved by faith (15:9, 11), and that the Jews had historically failed to keep the Law (15:10).

-James argued that the prophets had foreseen the day when the Gentiles would come in to the family of God (15:15-17).

Notes on Galatians 2:11-21

11 But when Cephas came to Antioch, 

It isn’t clear when this happened, but Acts 12:17 says that Peter had to leave Jerusalem and go to “another place.”

I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. 

Paul’s language expresses a “depth of feeling and outrage” (Dunn 117).