Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Galatians 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.
30. There is nothing here to lend colour to the Rabbinic notion that Sarah was a prophetess. The Scripture simply records her words and tells us how Abraham was bidden by God to comply with her demand, Gen 21:12.
shall not be heir ] ‘shall in no wise inherit’. Utterly and for ever irreconcilable are Judaism and Christianity salvation by works and justification by faith the Law and the Gospel.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Nevertheless – But (Alla).
What saith the Scripture? – What does the Scripture teach on the subject? What lesson does it convey in regard to the bondman?
Cast out the bondwoman and her son – This was the language of Sarah, in an address to Abraham, requesting him to cast out Hagar and Ishmael; Gen 21:10. That was done. Paul uses it here as applicable to the case before him. As used by him the meaning is, that everything like servitude in the gospel is to be rejected, as Hagar and Ishmael were driven away. It does not mean, as it seems to me, that they were to expel the Jewish teachers in Galatia, but that they were to reject everything like servitude and bondage; they were to adhere only to that which was free. Paul cannot here mean that the passage in Gen 21:10, originally had reference to the gospel, for nothing evidently was further from the mind of Sarah than any such reference; nor can it be shown that he meant to approve of or vindicate the conduct of Sarah; but he finds a passage applicable to his purpose, and he conveys his ideas in that language as exactly expressing his meaning. We all use language in that way wherever we find it.
(Yet God confirmed the sentence of Sarah; Gen 21:12. Hence, Mr. Scott thus paraphrases, But as the Galatians might read in the Scriptures that God himself had commanded Hagar and Ishmael to be sent away from Abrahams family, that the son of the bondwoman might not share the inheritance with Isaac; even so the Jewish nation would soon be cast out of the church, and all who continued under the legal covenant excluded from heaven.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Gal 4:30
Cast out the bondwoman and her son.
Freedom the blessing of the gospel
I. Freedom is the characteristic privilege of the gospel.
1. Christ proclaimed freedom from sin (Joh 8:33-36).
2. Paul proclaimed freedom from the law, both ceremonial and moral
3. But does not the latter
(1) contradict the former? is not lawlessness sinfulness?
(2) contradict the moral sense which asserts the obligation of the moral law?
II. This freedom is the provision of the covenant of grace.
1. This covenant is no longer restricted to an observance of the law, but is fulfilled by us when we believe in Christ.
2. The purpose of this covenant is the same as that of the covenant of the law, but that purpose is effected
(1) by a different method, viz., faith in One who has fulfilled the law, which we could not do.
(2) By a higher method by introducing us into a state in which we keep the law by the effective motive of sonship; into which state we enter by faith in Gods Son.
3. This faith works by love, which is henceforth our ruling impulse (Rom 13:10), and we become followers of God, not as servants, but as dear children, having received the spirit of adoption.
III. This covenant answers the yearnings of the human soul, which are–
1. To be reconciled to God and at peace with Him. This is accomplished through Him who fulfilled the law for us.
2. To serve Him truly. This is done by Him who conquers evil in us, and who gives us through faith a power to work the works of God (Joh 6:28-29).
IV. This covenant brings us therefore under the law to Christ. Hence the moral precepts of the gospel; which are given–
1. Because of the imperfection of our faith and lest liberty should become licence.
2. To supply us with the means of self-examination whether we are keeping the royal law of liberty. (Canon Vernon Hutton.)
The simplicity of the gospel covenant
Our attention, perhaps, may not be unprofitably directed to a consideration of–first, the principles of the old and new covenant, and, secondly, the declaration of the text concerning them.
1. It is important for us to have constantly before us clear views concerning the law and the gospel, or the dispensation of works and the dispensation of grace. The law given on Sinai was a system of precepts and commands, which required mans perfect obedience. These were to be constantly in the peoples minds and in their hearts. They were to teach them diligently unto their children, and to talk of them when they sat down in the house, or journeyed in the way; they were even to write them upon the outside of their houses and gates, that they might be in every place a memorial, that they should observe and do them. And they had two motives presented to urge them to obedience: first, the fear of punishment, and secondly, the hope of reward–This do, and thou shalt live; but this neglect to do, and thou shalt die. It shall be our righteousness if we observe to do all these commandments before the Lord our God, as He hath commanded us, and yet, cursed be He that continueth not in all things which are written in the Book of the Law to do them. The effect of the law, then, upon the individual soul was this, that with some it led to a constant fear, lest there should be a violation or omission of any command. But then, with others it had an opposite effect. It was not the fear of punishment, and this leading sometimes to despair, but it was the hope of reward, and this often lifting up the heart with pride, so that many were led to suppose themselves perfect–to say, What lack I yet?–I thank Thee that I am not as other men are. But we pass on to notice the principles of the new, or gospel covenant. The Old Testament, as we said, was a system of commands and precepts, rewards and punishments–This do, and thou shalt live–this neglect to do and thou shalt die. The gospel is an offer of eternal happiness and life, as a free gift, secured to us by the work of One who fulfilled the law, and kept the covenant of works for us; who bore the curse and the punishment due to a broken law, and thus became Himself, in His own living Person, the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth. The gospel, indeed, summons us to a work, but it is the work of faith; the act of casting our souls affections and hopes upon a living Saviour. Scripture has beautifully set forth the condition of u true believer under the new covenant as that of one married to Christ. In other words, are we delivered from doing any good works, having ceased from the economy of works? Are we to live carelessly, and without diligent activity for Gods glory? By no means. We are not delivered from doing our Heavenly Fathers will; it is the motives only that are changed. Under the law we are servants, and the servant or hireling obeys from duty; he labours for recompense, or to keep his situation; but the wife and child feel that the husband or fathers interests are identical with their own; his will is their will; his honour and welfare theirs. The mercenary soldier fights for pay or promotion, in a cause, perhaps, with which he has no sympathy, but the Christian soldier fights the fight of faith, because Christs enemies are his enemies, Christs cause His cause. I delight in the law of God after the inward man, says St. Paul; my hearts affections are now given to my Saviour.
II. Now notice the declaration of the text concerning these principles of the two covenants.
1. Here is a distinct statement, that it is impossible for the soul to be saved and for heaven to be gained, if we are actuated by the principles of the law and the principles of the gospel at the same time–The son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the free-woman. And yet there is constantly an attempt made to gain heaven in this way. It is a very common condition in the religious history of man. The principles of the law and the gospel combined form the motives actuating and influencing many a Christians life: his deeds of charity, his benevolence, even his very prayers are offered partly as a matter of duty, and partly as an act of faith.
2. The text, consequently, points out to us our duty, if we are being drawn away from the simplicity of the faith. God will not allow Christ to be robbed of His own glory. If the soul is to receive heaven at all, it must be as a beggar would receive an alms; it must be with a consciousness that in itself it is poor, and miserable, and blind, and naked; that Christ bestows the purchase-money, and the holy garments, and the anointing as a gift. In fine, yield your heart to Him, entirely and constantly, and then will His love be shed abroad in your heart, and become the motive for your every act, and the magnet of constant attraction. Then will there arise up in your soul the spirit of love and not of fear; the spirit of a child, and not of a servant;. Then will the fruits and graces of Gods own Spirit develop and grow in you, and then shall you have assurance as well as reliance, heaven yours because Christ is yours. In conclusion, let us notice how inconsistent we are, not to say how sinful, when any double motives actuate us in anything. In the common concerns of life, if I display an act of kindness to a poor person, partly from benevolence, but partly in order that he may think well of me, or my neighbour may think well of me; if I subscribe to a missionary society, partly because it is a duty, and partly to be thought religious; then, if such a double motive were known, how I should be held up to the just scorn and contempt of others! But do we not act like this when we are expecting to gain heaven itself, partly by our knowledge of Christ, and partly by our prayers, almsdeeds, or refined sanctities, when, as a fact, we are half-worldly and only half-religious, and will not go as helpless, bankrupt sinners, and in brokenheartedness, and faith, and love to Christ? We have all need, brethren, to keep constantly before us the principles of the new covenant of grace, as distinguished from the old covenant of works. (Louis Stanham, M. A.)
Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell
Verse 30. What saith the Scripture?] (In Ge 21:10🙂 Cast out the bond woman and her son: and what does this imply in the present case? Why, that the present Jerusalem and her children shall be cast out of the favour of God, and shall not be heirs with the son of the free woman-shall not inherit the blessings promised to Abraham, because they believe not in the promised seed.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
We read, Gen 21:10, that when Sarah saw Ishmael mocking at her son Isaac, she was not able to bear it, but speaketh to her husband Abraham, saying:
Cast out this bondwoman and her son; for the son of this bondwoman shall not be heir with my son, even Isaac. The principal design of the apostle seems to be, by that type of the ejection of Ishmael out of Abrahams family, to let them know the mind and will of God:
1. Concerning the exclusion of the law from a partnership with Christ and the gospel, in the justification of sinners before God.
2. Concerning the rejection of the Jews, upon the calling of the Gentiles.
3. Concerning the total destruction of the Jewish church and nation, for their persecution of Christ and the Christian church.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
30. Gen 21:10;Gen 21:12, where Sarah’s wordsare, “shall not be heir with my son, even with Isaac.“But what was there said literally, is here by inspiration expressedin its allegorical spiritual import, applying to the New Testamentbeliever, who is antitypically “the son of the free woman.”In Joh 8:35; Joh 8:36,Jesus refers to this.
Cast outfrom the houseand inheritance: literally, Ishmael; spiritually, the carnal andlegalists.
shall not be heirTheGreek is stronger, “must not be heir,” or”inherit.”
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
Nevertheless, what saith the Scripture?…. This is a Talmudic form of citing Scriptures, and answers to , “what says the Scriptures e?” the passage referred to is Ge 21:10 and which are the words of Sarah to Abraham; but inasmuch as she spake them under divine inspiration, and they were approved of and confirmed by God, as appears from Ge 21:12 they are ascribed to God speaking in the Scripture:
cast out the bondwoman and her son, for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the free woman. There is very little difference in the citation from the original. The apostle omits the word “this” in both clauses, which though very proper to be expressed by Sarah, to point out the person she meant, and as being in a vehement passion, was not absolutely necessary to be retained by the apostle, since by the context there is no difficulty of knowing who is meant by her; though the Alexandrian copy has the word in it: and instead of “with my son, with Isaac”, the apostle says, “with the son of the free woman, Sarah”; there speaking of herself, whose character the apostle gives, in opposition to the bondwoman: in like manner a Jewish writer f reads and interprets it,
“for the son of this woman shall not be heir , “with the son of the mistress”.”
The casting of Hagar and Ishmael out of Abraham’s family was a type and emblem of the rejection of the carnal and self-righteous Jews from the Gospel church state; nor ought any carnal persons, any that are after the flesh, unregenerate ones, or that trust to their own righteousness, to be in a Gospel church; as they will also be excluded and thrust out of the kingdom of heaven, into which no unregenerate and unrighteous, or self-righteous persons shall enter. The Jews make this ejection of Hagar and her son to be both out of this world and that which is to come g. The reason given why the one should not be heir with the other perfectly agrees with the Jewish canons; which was not because he was the son of a concubine, for the sons of concubines might inherit, if they were Israelites, and free, but because he was the son of a bondwoman, for thus they run h;
“all that are near of kin, though by iniquity, are heirs, as they that are legitimate; how? thus for instance, if a man has a son that is spurious, or a brother that is spurious, lo, these are as the other sons, and the other brethren for inheritance; but if, , “his son is by an handmaid”, or by a strange woman, he is no son in any of these matters, , “and no heir at all”:”
and again i,
“an Israelite that hath a son by an handmaid, or by a Gentile, seeing he is not called his son, he that he has after him by an Israelitish woman, , “is the firstborn for inheritance”, and takes the double portion.”
The reason assigned for non-inheritance in the text implies that the children of the free woman, the spiritual seed of Abraham, shall inherit the privileges of God’s house, the blessings of grace, and eternal glory; they are children of the promise, and heirs according to it; when the children of the bondwoman, self-righteous ones, shall not; for the inheritance is not of the law, neither are they heirs who are of the works of it; nor is it to be enjoyed by mixing the law and Gospel, grace and works, in the business of salvation.
e T. Bab. Beracot, fol. 9. 2. f R. Abraham Seba, Tzeror, fol. 21. 3. g Pirke Eliezer, c. 30. h Maimon. Hilch. Nechalot, c. 1. sect. 7. i Ib c. 2. sect. 12.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
Cast out (). Second aorist active imperative of . Quotation from Ge 21:10 (Sarah to Abraham) and confirmed in 21:12 by God’s command to Abraham. Paul gives allegorical warning thus to the persecuting Jews and Judaizers.
Shall not inherit ( ). Strong negative ( and future indicative). “The law and the gospel cannot co-exist. The law must disappear before the gospel” (Lightfoot). See Gal 3:18; Gal 3:29 for the word “inherit.”
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
1) “Nevertheless what saith the Scripture?” (alla ti legei he graphe) “But what does the Scripture say?” What the Scripture says, understood in its context setting is what counts, in time and eternity, in life and in death, Gen 21:10.
2) “Cast out the bondwoman,” (ekbale ten paidisken)
cast or toss out the maidservant,” Hagar, the Egyptian slave held for ten years- punish her without mercy- this is law-bondage Gen 21:9-13; Gen 16:3-6.
3) “And her son,” (kai ton huion autes) “And the son of her,” Ishmael. The expulsion of Ishmael is here used as a warning that those who observed the law only have no abiding inheritance in the Father’s House, Mat 5:20.
4) “For the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir,” (ou gar me kleronomesei ho huios tes padiskes) “For by no means shall the son of the maidservant inherit;” The law is superseded (replaced) by the gospel; only those born of the Spirit receive, either the Spirit, or an inheritance of heirship with Jesus Christ, Joh 3:7; Rom 8:9; Rom 8:17.
5) “With the son of the freewoman,” (meta tou huiou tes eleutheras) “With the heir (son) of the freewoman;” mere circumcision of the flesh, required for temporary abiding in households of Israel, did not qualify Gentiles or heathens for inheritance rights, nor does baptism or practice of the ordinances of the church without the spiritual birth prepare one for heaven’s entrance or the earthly reign with Christ, Gen 17:9-27; Mat 5:20; Joh 14:6; Act 4:12; Gal 4:26; Eph 2:8-10.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
30. But what saith the Scripture ? There was some consolation in knowing that we do but share the lot of our father Isaac; but it is a still greater consolation, when he adds, that hypocrites, with all their boasting, can gain nothing more than to be cast out of the spiritual family of Abraham; and that, to whatever extent they may harass us for a time, the inheritance will certainly be ours. Let believers cheer themselves with this consolation, that the tyranny of the Ishmaelites will not last for ever. They appear to have reached the highest pre-eminence, and, proud of their birthright, look down upon us with contempt; but they will one day be declared to be the descendants of Hagar, the sons of a slave, and unworthy of the inheritance.
Let us be instructed by this beautiful passage,
“
not to fret ourselves because of evil-doers, neither be envious against the workers of iniquity,” (Psa 37:1,)
when they hold a temporary habitation and rank in the Church, but patiently to look for the end which awaits them. There are many pretended Christians, or strangers, who hold a place in the Church, but who afterwards give evidence of their departure from the faith, as he who, proud of his birthright, at first reigned, was cast out like a foreigner with the posterity of Ishmael. Some censorious persons smile at Paul’s simplicity, in comparing a woman’s passion, arising out of a trifling quarrel, to a judgment of God. But they overlook the decree of God, which took effect in such a manner, as to make it manifest that the whole transaction was directed by a heavenly providence. That Abraham should have been commanded to humor his wife (Gen 21:12) entirely in the matter, is no doubt extraordinary, but proves that God employed the services of Sarah for confirming his own promise. In a word, the casting out of Ishmael was nothing else than the consequence and the accomplishment of that promise, “In Isaac shall thy seed be called,” (Gen 21:12,) — not in Ishmael. Although, therefore, it was the revenging of a woman’s quarrel, yet God did not the less make known his sentence by her mouth as a type of the Church.
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
(30) What saith the scripture?In Gen. 21:10 the words are put into the mouth of Sarah, but they are afterwards endorsed by the divine command.
The son of the bondwoman shall not be heir.A bold declaration of the incompatibility of Judaism with Christianity, by which the Apostle clinches his argument against the practices which the Galatian Judaisers were trying to introduce. This is followed by an emphatic assertion of the point on which the whole gist of the previous allegory consiststhat the essential character of the Christian Church is freedom. The practical conclusion is given in the opening verse of the next chapter, which should be taken in close connection with the end of this.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
30. Nevertheless In spite of the apparent triumph of these persecutions.
Cast out It is the destiny of the persecutor to be rejected and reprobated.
The bondwoman The rejected Jewish Church.
Her son The converts they make in Galatia to circumcision.
Shall not be heir Shall not inherit the kingdom of God by faith.
Free woman The New Testament Churches; free because released from the heavy yoke of Judaism.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
DISCOURSE: 2076
JUSTIFICATION FAITH MAINTAINED
Gal 4:30. Nevertheless what saith the Scripture? Cast out the bond-woman and her sun: for the son of the bond-woman shall not be heir with the son of the free-woman.
THE whole of Gods blessed word is highly instructive; and the Old Testament is an excellent preparative for the New. Indeed, those who are at all conversant with Scripture, expect to find mysteries in the ceremonial law, because that is confessedly a shadow of good things to come: but few are aware how much is to be found in the historical parts of the Old Testament. We are, however, in no danger of erring, if we say that the sacrifice which Abel offered was not a mere accidental difference from that of Cain; but a typical exhibition of the sacrifice of Christ, to which, by faith, the pious offerer had respect [Note: Heb 11:4.]. The preservation of Noah from the deluge, too, was not a mere mercy vouchsafed to himself and family; but a type of the benefit which we receive by baptism, which, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, saves us, (on a supposition we have received it aright,) as the ark, by its buoyancy, saved him from destruction by the tempestuous billows [Note: 1Pe 3:20-21.]. In my text, there is reference to what we might have supposed to be an accidental disagreement in Abrahams family. We might naturally suppose that a wife and a concubine would not agree very well, and that their children would prove a source of mutual animosity. And so it turned out. But was this a mere accidental circumstance? No: it was permitted of God, in order to afford a good occasion for illustrating the covenant of grace, and the exclusive blessedness of those who adhered to it. You will perceive, that, in my text the words of Hagar are cited as a general rule of procedure in reference to the souls of men at the last day: and as they are somewhat intricate, and have at the same time an appearance of harshness and severity, I will endeavour to explain and vindicate the declaration contained in them.
Here is evidently a sentence denounced: and my endeavour shall be,
I.
To explain the sentence
To understand it aright, we must consider what was the subject in dispute between the Apostle and his opponents.
Some Judaizing teachers had drawn away his Galatian converts from the pure Gospel which he had taught them, to an affiance in the ceremonial law. And, to bring them back to the truth of Christ, he shewed them, throughout this whole epistle, that salvation is by faith alone; and that to attempt to build our hopes in any measure on the law of works, was to pervert the Gospel, and, in fact, to introduce another Gospel [Note: Gal 1:6-7.]. In confirmation of this sentiment, he proves, at large, that salvation is by faith only: he proves it, I say,
1.
In a way of argumentative discussion
[In the beginning of the preceding chapter, after reminding them that through the preaching of faith, and not by any works of the law, they had obtained the miraculous influences of the Holy Spirit [Note: Gal 3:2; Gal 3:5.], he reminds them of the way in which Abraham was justified. This was by faith, as the Gospel preached to Abraham had foretold, in relation both to himself and all his spiritual seed: and, consequently, we must be saved in the same way as he [Note: Gal 3:6-9. All the verses quoted from this chapter and the next should be cited at length.] He then proves the same from the very terms in which the Law and the Gospel are promulgated; the one requiring obedience, and the other faith; the one killing, and the other giving life [Note: Gal 3:10-12.] He next adduces the end for which Christ came into the world. This was not to give men an opportunity of saving themselves by the law; but to redeem them, by his own death, from the curses of the law; and to open a way for the blessing which had been promised to Abraham to descend upon them through the exercise of faith [Note: Gal 3:13-14.] From thence he leads them to the contemplation of the covenant in which all the blessings of salvation were contained. This covenant had been made with Abraham, four hundred and thirty years before the law was given to Moses; and in it, all the believing seed of Abraham were interested. Now, this covenant could never be annulled, except by the consent of all the parties contained in it. But a very small part of those who were interested in that covenant were present when the law was given. That was only given to Abrahams children after the flesh: his spiritual children had nothing to do with it: and therefore to them is the covenant of grace as valid as ever; the publication of the law having made no difference in it whatever [Note: Gal 3:15-18.] Here, supposing naturally that his opponent would ask, Of what use then the law was? he proceeds to shew, that it was not given in order to establish any thing in opposition to the Gospel, but to operate in subserviency to the Gospel; shewing men their need of it; and, like a schoolmaster, disciplining them for the grateful reception of it [Note: Gal 3:19-24.] and, consequently, now that the Gospel was fully revealed they should adhere to it, and look for acceptance solely by faith in it [Note: Gal 3:25-29.]
Here another question would arise. If the law was given to the Jews from the time of Moses, in what state were those Jews? Were they under the covenant of grace, or under the covenant of works? This he answers, by shewing that they were, in fact, under the covenant of grace; but yet, that they were like minors, who, whilst they are under age, differ but little from servants; not having any further enjoyment of their inheritance than their tutors and governors judged expedient for them. The time, however, being now come for them to enter on their possessions without restraint, he exhorts them to avail themselves of their liberty, and to walk no more as servants under bondage; but as sons and heirs, at perfect liberty [Note: ver. 17.]
Thus he has made it appear, that to live under bondage to the law, is to abandon our dearest privileges, and to violate our most solemn duties.
He now proceeds, after some suitable admonitions, to establish the same truth,]
2.
In a way of allegorical illustration
[In the history to which the Apostle refers, we should not, I confess, have seen any confirmation of the doctrine before us, if one who was inspired of God himself had not explained it to us. The transaction was this: Sarah, Abrahams wife, saw Ishmael, who was Abrahams son by Hagar, mocking her son Isaac. I apprehend that Ishmael derided Isaac, the younger son, for presuming to assert his title to his fathers inheritance, in preference to him, who was the elder. Sarah, indignant at this behaviour, desired Abraham to expel Hagar and her son from his presence; saying, Cast out the bond-woman and her son; for the son of the bond-woman shall not be heir with my son, even with Isaac. This was exceedingly grievous to Abraham, who felt a paternal love for Ishmael, and knew not how to part with him: but God himself confirmed the word that had been spoken; and enjoined Abraham to comply with his wifes request, since it was his determination that in Isaac should Abrahams seed be called [Note: Gen 21:9-12.].
Now, in my text, we are told, that under this domestic occurrence a great mystery was veiled; for that it represented the distinction which, should, to all eternity, be made between those who cleaved to the covenant of works, and those who should lay hold on the covenant of grace. Hagar, a bond-woman, represented the legal covenant which should in due time be made on Mount Sinai; as her son Ishmael did the persons who should adhere to it: whereas Sarah, the married wife, represented the covenant of grace which had already been made with Abraham; and her son Isaac, the persons who should obtain an interest in that. Now, all persons, by nature, live under the covenant of works: but divine grace, where it operates, brings men under the covenant of grace: but all the former will be cast out from God; and the latter only will be partakers of his inheritance: and this distinction, we are told, was intended to be marked in the foregoing history. It may appear hard that such a distinction should ever be made: but made it shall be; God having declared this to be his sovereign will, his irrevocable decree: Cast out the bond-woman and her son; for the son of the bond-woman shall not be heir with the son of the free-woman [Note: ver. 2131.].
Shall it be said, that this is too figurative and too recondite to add any weight to the preceding argument? I answer: This very circumstance, of its being so figurative and so recondite, gives it, in my mind, even greater weight than if it had been more plain and obvious; because it shews the unspeakable importance of that truth which it is brought to confirm. Had not the doctrine of justification by faith alone been of prime and indispensable necessity to every child of man, the Apostle would have been satisfied with establishing it by the train of argument which he has pursued: but, feeling that the rejection of it would prove fatal to the soul, he would omit nothing that could contribute to the enforcing of it on mens consciences, or the impressing of it on their minds.]
Aware, however, that, in the opinion of many, there are strong objections to this doctrine, I will proceed,
II.
To vindicate it
Against the very act itself, which is referred to in my text, we should have been rather disposed to object, if it had not been approved by God himself: we should have thought Abraham would have been better employed in pacifying the rage of Sarah, than in lending himself as an instrument to give it energy and effect. We should have thought it more worthy of him to use his influence for the purpose of allaying domestic feuds, than to exert his authority for the rendering of them irreconcileable and eternal. But God commanded it; and therefore it must, of necessity, have been right, whether we can explain the reasons of it or not. And the doctrine which it was intended to shadow forth is right, whether we can understand it or not. To exclude from salvation all who adhere to the covenant of works, and to save those only who lay hold on the covenant of grace, may appear unjust, severe, and partial: but we will undertake to vindicate it from all that can be said against it, even from every charge,
1.
Of injustice
[If it had pleased God to deal with fallen man precisely as He had dealt with fallen angels, what injustice would he have done to any? Wherein did we merit an interposition in our favour more than they? Why, when we had violated the old covenant, should he enter into a new covenant, whereby we might be restored to his favour? Why, in order to render this measure consistent with his glorious perfections, should he give us his only-begotten Son to bear our sins, and to effect a reconciliation for us through the blood of his cross? Could we claim any such mercy at his hands? Or, could any one have had reason to complain, if no such mercy bad been ever manifested? What injustice, then, can be done to any one, by confining mercy to this particular channel; and by requiring this new covenant in Christ Jesus to be made our hope and our plea, in order to our participation of its benefits? If we neither had, nor could have, any claim for mercy at all, we certainly can have no ground for complaint against God, for offering it in a way honourable to himself; and not granting it in a way of our own, that would reflect dishonour on every one of his perfections.]
2.
Of severity
[Though the shutting up of mankind to one only way of salvation may not be altogether unjust, yet it may be deemed somewhat unmerciful and severe; because it makes the rejection of that salvation a fresh ground of offence, and involves the offender in deeper guilt and misery than he could otherwise have incurred. But there is no undue severity in this. Let us suppose that God had acted towards the fallen angels as he has towards us. Let us suppose that he had sent his only dear Son to bear their punishment in his own person, and to work out a righteousness whereby they might be justified: and that he had offered to restore to his favour very soul among them who would accept it in his Sons name; but would account all who should reject this overture as having added pride and ingratitude to all their other sins, and make them answerable for this their augmented guilt: is there one of us that would conceive God to be acting with severity towards them? Is there one who would not regard this as a stupendous effort of love and mercy, and acknowledge, that all who should despise this proffered mercy would deserve their appointed doom?
But there is another evil, which the despisers of the new covenant are guilty of: they invariably mock and deride those who found all their hopes upon it. They may not, indeed, be open scoffers, like Ishmael; but in their hearts they do of necessity mock at the counsel of the poor, who putteth his trust in God [Note: Psa 14:1-7.]. At this hour, as well as in the Apostles days, it may be said, As, then, he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now. How then can it be supposed that these contemners of Gods people should be made heirs together with them? or, what severity can there be in refusing to them a portion which they so wantonly despise? The sentence, as denounced by Sarah, might have been deemed severe; but, as inflicted by the Most. High God, it is merited in its full extent: for not even Satan himself was ever guilty of rejecting a Saviour, and pouring contempt on redeeming love.]
3.
Of partiality
[It is not persons, but characters, that are rejected of God: nor is it from descent, but from choice, that they fall short of the promised inheritance. In this respect, the parallel between the history and the doctrine established by it must be drawn with a due attention to all the circumstances, and must not be pressed too far. That was but a shadow; and we must distinguish between resemblance and identity. Ishmael shadowed forth those who are born after the flesh: Isaac represented those who are born after the Spirit: the former therefore characterizes all of us in our natural state; the latter, those who are regenerated by the Spirit of God. The latter, it is true, owe all their happiness to Gods electing love: but the former can never ascribe their misery to any decree of absolute reprobation. The blessings of salvation are offered equally to all: the sins of all were equally borne by the Lord Jesus Christ in his own body on the cross: for he is a propitiation, not for our sins only, but also for the sins of the whole world. The Lord laid on him the iniquities of us all. Though born of the bond-woman, we may by grace become children of the free: and, if we will not avail ourselves of this proffered mercy, the fault is altogether our own. In the parable of the Marriage-supper, the man who was cast out for not having on the wedding-garment, is represented as speechless, having not a word to utter in his own defence. He, it is true, was poor, and had been brought in suddenly from the highways and hedges: but a wedding-garment had been provided for him by the Master of the feast, and would have been given him if he had asked for it: and therefore he was justly punished for presuming to appear at table without it. So is salvation provided for every child of man: and he who neglects to seek it, must trace his failure to that neglect. The word of our blessed Lord is decisive upon this point: Him that cometh unto me, I will in no wise cast out: if therefore the sentence be passed on us, Cast out that son of the bond-woman, we know whom alone we have to blame: the fault is not in God, as unwilling to save us; but in ourselves, as neglecting to seek salvation at his hands.]
From this subject we may see,
1.
What is the one standard and test of truth
[Men place reliance on their own opinions, and cite as authority the opinions of others. But man is weak and fallible. Even in relation to things which come most under his cognizance, he is apt to err: but in the things of God, which, of necessity, are so remote from his apprehensions, he is entitled to no confidence at all; seeing that he can know nothing, any further than it has been revealed to him by God himself. But it is in the sacred volume alone that we have any revelation from God; and therefore that must, of necessity, be the only standard and test of truth. To the word and to the testimony, says the prophet: if men speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them [Note: Isa 8:20.]. Tell me not then, thou vain disputer, what thy sentiments are. What saith the Scripture? Thou imaginest that thou canst lay down laws for God, and tell how he shall regulate his proceedings in the day of judgment: but I must declare to thee, that thy wisdom, however great thou mayest imagine it, is foolishness with God; and that his counsel shall stand, whether thou wilt hear, or whether thou wilt forbear.]
3.
On what ground our eternal destinies shall be fixed
[I well know that men shall be judged according to their works. But we greatly mistake, if we suppose that our faith shall not become a ground of decision, either against us or in our favour, as much as any other work. It is as much a command from God, that we believe in his Son, as that we should love one another [Note: 1Jn 3:23.]:and our compliance with it must equally be made a subject of inquiry at that day. We may think it strange, perhaps, that God should take such matters into account in the final judgment: but, whatever opinion we may form respecting it, God will then say, Cast out the bond-woman and her son: for the son of the bond-woman shall not be heir with the son of the free-woman. It will not be found a matter of such indifference, then, whether we believed in Christ or not, and whether we embraced the covenant of grace. No: this new covenant contains all the wonders of Divine wisdom, and love, and mercy: and, if we flee not to it from the terrors of the broken law, and from the fallacious hopes which are engendered by pride, his sentence will come forth against us, to our irreparable and eternal ruin. Take ye care then, beloved, that ye deceive not your own souls. Examine diligently whose children ye are, and to which family ye belong. Renounce all dependence on your own works, and lay hold on the promises of God in Christ Jesus. So shall you, like Isaac, be the children of promise [Note: ver. 28.]; and with him be partakers of an everlasting inheritance.]
Fuente: Charles Simeon’s Horae Homileticae (Old and New Testaments)
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.
Ver. 30. Shall not be heir ] No justiciary (official of justice) can be saved. A Papist cannot go beyond a reprobate. Purus putus Papista non potest servari. Rev 19:21 .
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
30 .] , as in E. V., ‘ nevertheless :’ notwithstanding the fact of the persecution, just mentioned. The quotation is adapted from the LXX, where stands for . We need hardly have recourse (with Ellic.) to the fact that God confirmed Sarah’s words, in order to prove this to be Scripture : the Apostle is allegorizing the whole history, and thus every part of it assumes a significance in the allegory.
] See Jdg 11:2 (LXX), . , . , , . “The distinction drawn by Hermann on d. Col. 853, between with future indicative (duration or futurity) and with aorist subjunctive (speedy occurrence), is not applicable to the N. T. on account of (1) various readings (as here): (2) the decided violations of the rule where the MSS. are unanimous, as 1Th 4:15 ; and (3) the obvious prevalence of the use of the subjunctive over the future, both in the N. T. and ‘fatiscens Grcitas:’ see Lobeck, Phryn. p. 722.” Ellicott.
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
Gal 4:30 . Again, the expulsion of Ishmael gives warning that those who observe the letter of the Law only, and lack the true spirit of sonship, though they render formal obedience to the will of the Father, have no abiding inheritance in His house.
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
Cast out. Greek. ekballo. App-174.
not = by no means. Greek. ou me. App-105.
be heir = inherit. Greek. kleronomeo. See 1Co 6:9, Quoted from Gen 21:10.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
30.] , as in E. V., nevertheless: notwithstanding the fact of the persecution, just mentioned. The quotation is adapted from the LXX, where stands for . We need hardly have recourse (with Ellic.) to the fact that God confirmed Sarahs words, in order to prove this to be Scripture: the Apostle is allegorizing the whole history, and thus every part of it assumes a significance in the allegory.
] See Jdg 11:2 (LXX), . , . , , . The distinction drawn by Hermann on d. Col. 853, between with future indicative (duration or futurity) and with aorist subjunctive (speedy occurrence), is not applicable to the N. T. on account of (1) various readings (as here): (2) the decided violations of the rule where the MSS. are unanimous, as 1Th 4:15; and (3) the obvious prevalence of the use of the subjunctive over the future, both in the N. T. and fatiscens Grcitas: see Lobeck, Phryn. p. 722. Ellicott.
Fuente: The Greek Testament
Gal 4:30. , the Scripture) Sarah [said], concerning Isaac [literally]; the Scripture [saith so] by allegory.-, cast out) from the house and the inheritance.- , the bond-maid and her son) The servile condition of itself deserves expulsion; but persecution [on the part of the bondservant] against spiritual sons furnishes a handle for putting the punishment in execution.- , for he shall not be heir) Sarah looks to the Divine appointment regarding Isaac as the one and only heir, although Ishmael also had been circumcised.
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
Gal 4:30
Gal 4:30
Howbeit what saith the scripture? Cast out the handmaid and her son: for the son of the handmaid shall not inherit with the son of the freewoman.-The slave woman must be cast out to give place to the lawful wife. The covenant of Sinai must be done away, taken out of the way to give place to the covenant made with Abraham and his seed, which the law, given afterward, could not annul, and which had its fulfillment in Christ. Which means that the law of Sinai, the law of works, the law written on the tables of stone were taken out of the way and superseded by the law of faith, the law written in the tables of the heart, that are spiritual and eternal in their character.
Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary
what: Gal 3:8, Gal 3:22, Rom 4:3, Rom 11:2, Jam 4:5
Cast: Gen 21:10-12, Rom 11:7-11
for: Joh 8:35, Rom 8:15-17
Reciprocal: Jdg 11:2 – thrust out Eze 46:17 – to the year Rom 9:17 – For
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
Gal 4:30. ; , -Nevertheless what saith the Scripture? Cast out the bond-maid and her son, for the son of the bond-maid shall in nowise inherit with the son of the free woman. This quotation is from the Septuagint, with a necessary alteration. The words in Gen 21:10 are those of Sarah: , as D1, F, and some of the fathers read; but her wish became the divine command, and the apostle naturally adapts it as . Nothing is said of Sarah as to her jealousy or heartlessness, for it was her premature plot to expedite the promise that led to the birth of Ishmael; and nothing is said of Abraham’s natural displeasure at Sarah’s request, for those domestic incidents belong not to the allegory, with which alone the apostle is concerned. See Turner, Genesis, p. 283. What saith the Scripture? The introduces a thought in cheering contrast to the previous statement. The significant question leads to a conclusive and definite reply: Cast out the bond-maid and her son; their doom was immediate and complete expulsion from the Abrahamic household. There could be no division of the inheritance, no joint heirship. For the son of the bond-maid shall in nowise inherit- , the verb having the emphasis, the future being read in B, D, , as in the Septuagint. As Winer remarks, on account of the various readings, and the use of the subjunctive more than of the future in the New Testament, the rule of Hermann is not to be pressed. Hermann says, Note on Soph. OEdip. Col. 848, that the aorist subjunctive is used aut in re incerti temporis, sed semel vel brevi temporis momento agenda; while the future, ad ea pertinet quae aut diuturniora aliquando eventura indicare volumus, aut non aliquo quocunque, sed remotiore aliquo tempore dicimus futura esse. The application of this canon to the New Testament or the Septuagint has no sure ground. Thiersch, Pent. p. 109. The remark applies to the later Greek also. Gayler, De Part. neg. pp. 433, 440; Baumlein, Griech. Part. p. 308; Winer, 56, 3. The double negative is intensive, at least in this place, though it had become a familiar unemphatic formula, and it is of frequent occurrence in the Septuagint. An explanation will be found in donaldson, Cratylus, 394, and Gram. 544.
The command is precise and unambiguous. Ishmael must be sent away, that Isaac alone may inherit. Ishmael had no title. The case of Jephthah’s disinheritance is not wholly analogous, for he was the son of an harlot, a strange woman, not of a secondary wife. Selden, De Success. cap. iii., Works, vol. ii. p. 11. The two children, so different in temper and social position, could not have lived together; coheritage was divinely prohibited; the purpose of God necessitated separation. The bond-mother and her son must go out into the wilderness. Isaac, the free woman’s child, remains at home, and succeeds to the inheritance. The lesson from this portion of the allegory is, that Judaism is in no sense to be combined with Christianity; that they were intended to be kept asunder, and to no extent to be amalgamated; that they are so opposed in genius and working-flesh and spirit, bondage and freedom-that any compromise between them is impossible. The inheritance belongs alone to Abraham’s spiritual seed, and cannot be obtained by mere natural descent from the patriarch. And all this on highest authority, that of Scripture, to whose teachings they professed to yield implicit obedience. Not many at this period could acquiesce in this teaching; for Judaism was still tenaciously clung to by myriads who believed, and who could not so fully emancipate themselves from early bias and national prepossession as did the apostle of the Gentiles. See under Gal 2:1-10.
Fuente: Commentary on the Greek Text of Galatians, Ephesians, Colossians and Phillipians
Gal 4:30. Nevertheless. The idea is that the persecutor was stopped, and Paul quotes the passage that proves it; the statement is in Gen 21:10. Sarah was acting purely because of her motherly resentment against the envious treatment being accorded her son by Ishmael. However, her performance proved to be a prediction of another important one, namely, the rejection of the Sinaite covenant as a religious system for God’s people.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
Gal 4:30. Nevertheless what saith the Scripture? Cast out the bondmaid and her son; for the son of the bondmaid shall in no wise inherit with the son of the freewoman. Words of Sarah to Abraham on the occasion of the mocking of Ishmael, Gen 21:10, but approved and confirmed by God, Gal 4:12, so that Ishmael was actually expelled from the house of Abraham. Paul quotes from the LXX., with a slight change of my son Isaac into the son of the freewoman, which adapts it to his argument and saves explanation. The Apostles were no slavish literalists, but used the Bible freely in the very Spirit which gave it.Shall in no wise inherit. The double negation in Greek is emphatic: assuredly not. Judaism and Christianity, bondage and freedom, cannot exist together: the one must exclude the other. This appears very plain to us now, but before the destruction of Jerusalem it sounded strange and incredible, at least to the Judaizers, who held on to the old traditions as long as they could. It is scarcely possible (says Lightfoot) to estimate the strength of conviction and depth which this declaration implies. The Apostle thus confidently sounds the death-knell of Judaism at a time when one half of Christendom clung to the Mosaic law with a jealous affection little short of frenzy, and while the Judaic party seemed to be growing in influence and was strong enough, even in the Gentile churches of his own founding, to undermine his influence and endanger his life.
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
The apostle goes on in explaining and applying this typical history of Ishmael and Isaac, and tells us, that the casting out of Ishmael the son of Hagar the bond-woman, did typify the exclusion of the law from a partnership with the gospel in the justification of a sinner before God. As Ishmael was cast out of Abraham’s family, and none but Isaac must inherit; so they that depend upon the promise of God, and expect to be justified by faith, without legal performances, they only shall be heirs of grace and mercy.
The doctrine of justification by the works of the law, when it is not only doctrinally maintained, but practically pursued and walked in, doth exclude persons from having any part or share in the kingdom of heaven. So much was typified and prefigured by the son of the bond-woman being cast out, and not allowed to be heir with the son of the free-woman.
Fuente: Expository Notes with Practical Observations on the New Testament
Howbeit what saith the scripture? [Gen 21:10] Cast out the handmaid and her son: for the son of the handmaid shall not inherit with the son of the freewoman.
Fuente: McGarvey and Pendleton Commentaries (New Testament)
Verse 30
Cast out, &c The rejection of Hagar thus represents the rejection of the bondage and servitude entailed by the Jewish law.
Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament
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.
This is reference to the passage just quoted in Genesis twenty-one. We as believers are not of the bondwoman but of the freewoman and Paul states this in the next verse.
Fuente: Mr. D’s Notes on Selected New Testament Books by Stanley Derickson
Third, Christians should exclude legalists from their midst since legalists have no inheritance with the legitimate sons of God. As Abraham cast Ishmael out of his household, so the Galatians should cast the Judaizers out of the church. This does not mean church leaders should excommunicate all legalistic Christians. However, it might be wise to exclude promoters of legalism and nomism if they do not change their teaching. Paul’s point was that nomists will not inherit as much blessing from God as those who live by the Spirit.