I mean that the heir, as long as he is a child, is no different from a slave, though he is the owner of everything, but he is under guardians and managers until the date set by his father. In the same way we also, when we were children, were enslaved to the elementary principles of the world. But when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law, to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons. And because you are sons, God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, “Abba! Father!” So you are no longer a slave, but a son, and if a son, then an heir through God.

Galatians 4:1-7 ESV

While I used to be convinced that Christmas ought to very firmly begin the Friday after Thanksgiving, my revulsion at the celebration of darkness and horror during Halloween is making November 1 one of my favorite days of the year, since the focus shifts to Thanksgiving and Christmas. It is gracious timing of the Lord that in this first weekend of November we come to one of the most important texts in all of Scripture, which also serves as a beautiful declaration of the great story that we continue to recount at Christmas. And since this could certainly qualify as a Christmas sermon, I will begin with a Christmas poem that captures many of the themes of our present text.

I sing the birth was born tonight,
The Author both of life and light;
    The angels so did sound it,
And like the ravished shepherds said,
Who saw the light, and were afraid,
    Yet searched, and true they found it.

The Son of God, the eternal King,
That did us all salvation bring,
    And freed the soul from danger;
He whom the whole world could not take,
The Word, which heaven and earth did make,
    Was now laid in a manger.

The Father’s wisdom willed it so,
The Son’s obedience knew no “No,”
    Both wills were in one stature;
And as that wisdom had decreed,
The Word was now made Flesh indeed,
    And took on Him our nature.

What comfort by Him do we win?
Who made Himself the Prince of sin,
    To make us heirs of glory?
To see this Babe, all innocence,
A Martyr born in our defense,
    Can man forget this story?

NO DIFFERENT FROM A SLAVE // VERSES 1-3

As many commentators note, we should be quick to remind ourselves that verse and chapter divisions are not divinely inspired. Galatians was written as a letter, and it would have been read in each of the Galatian congregations as just that. Thus, as we begin chapter 4, we are not breaking into an altogether new thought; rather, Paul is continuing to do what he has been doing all through chapter 3: he is building upon one continuous argument through a variety of different angles.

To these Gentile Galatians, who were in danger of circumcising themselves and placing themselves under the law, the apostle has been highlighting the purpose and limitations of the law and contrasting it with God’s promise to Abraham and our redemption in Christ. Again, as Paul explained, the law is good, but it was never given for the purpose of justification. In fact, it was given to show us that we cannot justify ourselves before God. Instead, the law was like both a prison and a pedagogue that kept God’s people under protective custody until the coming of Christ, of which Paul described the glories in verses 27-29. These first seven verses of chapter 4 are essentially a repetition of 3:23-29 but from a different angle and using a slightly different metaphor.

I mean that the heir, as long as he is a child, is no different from a slave, though he is the owner of everything, but he is under guardians and managers until the date set by his father.

I think the NIV’s translation of these two verses is also helpful to keep in mind. It reads:

What I am saying is that as long as an heir is underage, he is no different from a slave, although he owns the whole estate. The heir is subject to guardians and trustees until the time set by his father.

As with the pedagogue in 3:24, Paul is drawing here on a common and well-known practice in Greco-Roman culture, where a son would be under the care of his father’s most trusted slaves until he reached the designated age in which he would become lord of his inheritance. As his father’s heir, the son was the lord, master, and owner of everything, but while he is a minor, he does not look any different than a slave. Of course, this was for the son’s benefit, as even Plato notes:

And of all animals the boy is the most unmanageable, inasmuch as he has the fountain of reason in him not yet regulated; he is the most insidious, sharp-witted, and insubordinate of animals. Wherefore he must be bound with many bridles; in the first place, when he gets away from mothers and nurses, he must be under the management of tutors on account of his childishness and foolishness; then, again, being a freeman, he must be controlled by teachers, no matter what they teach, and by studies; but he is also a slave… (Laws 7:808)

While calling a boy the most insidious of beasts is definitely an overstatement, the point is largely the same. While it is not pleasant that children have no more freedom than a slave, it is for their ultimate good since they do not yet have the knowledge, understanding, and wisdom to make their own choices. Being subject to the guardians and managers that he would one day lord over was for his own good until he was mature enough to be the head of his own household. As John Brown notes:

The condition of the minor son was thus to be borne patiently–it was vastly preferable to abandonment; viewed in contrast to such a state, and in reference to the object in view, the preparing the son for a higher position, it was a condition to be thankful for–but certainly in no point of view was it to be fondly cleaved to when its ends had been answered, or preferred to the liberty for which this state of restriction was intended as preparation. (186-187)

Paul now applies the analogy of verses 1-2 just like did in chapter 3: In the same way we also, when we were children, were enslaved to the elementary principles of the world.

It is unclear precisely what Paul means by the elementary principles of the world. The word for elementary principles (στοιχεία) “was sometimes used to refer to basic teachings like the ABCs (or the “alpha, beta, gammas,” as they were called back then)” (Ryken, 158). Many commentators argue that Paul is referring to the law of God. Indeed, Ryken makes a case that the law can be thought of as an elementary school for God’s people, and he quotes the William Perkins as saying that Israel was like “a little school set up in the corner of the world; the law of Moses was, as it were, an ABC, or primer, in which Christ was revealed to the world, in dark and obscure manner, specially to the Jews” (158).

That very well may be the case, but if so, it differs from how that phrase is used elsewhere. Only a few verses down in v. 9 Paul will use the same wording, and he is apparently referring back to verse 8, where he says of the Galatians’ pagan past: “Formerly, when you did not know God, you were enslaved to those that by nature are not gods.” The exact same phrase is found in Colossians 2:8, which reads: “See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ.” These uses fit with Thielman’s description of how that phrase was generally used outside the New Testament:

Greek speaks used the term translated “elements” (stoicheia) to refer to the basic elements of which the world is constructed. In antiquity, these were thought to be earth, water, air, and fire, and sometimes these elements were worshiped. The Jewish philosopher Philo, a near contemporary of Paul, writes that people associated fire with the god Hephaestus, air with Hera, water with Poseidon, and earth with Demeter. (620)

Of course, that makes sense for the Gentiles, who were blatantly pagan, but what about the Jews? Sadly, reading the Old Testament quickly reveals that Israel was often no less idolatrous than the nations around, and I think that is Paul’s point. The law itself is not a part of the elementary principles of the world, but it was not capable of liberating the Israelites from them. Again, it wasn’t designed to do so. The law could only reveal the depths of their idolatrous hearts, but it could not cleanse their hearts. Thus, while being under the law served a necessary function for Israel (like the heir being under a trustee), to place oneself under its yoke again after Christ’s coming is like reverting to paganism. Indeed, if a third temple were constructed in Jerusalem and sacrifices were reinstated, they would be just as abominable as a sacrifice made to Baal, Zeus, or Odin.

And this is not a new idea. Even while Israel was under the law, God’s elect were only saved through faith in Christ, for the sacrifices pointed them toward the ultimate and once for all sacrifice of God’s Son. They saw only the shadow of Christ through the rituals and ceremonies of the law. Any who, like the Pharisees, thought themselves justified through their obedience were ignoring the shadow being cast upon them. That was sin enough, but now that Christ is clearly seen, the sin of legalism is even greater.

TO REDEEM THOSE WHO WERE UNDER THE LAW // VERSES 4-7

But if the law of God could not liberate us from our enslavement to the elementary principles of the world, what or, more accurately, who could?

But when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law, to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons.

These are two verses where each phrase is more than sufficient to fill a sermon, yet we will move through them more quickly than that in effort to not lose the forest for the trees.

First, Christ was sent when the fullness of time had come. This means that Christ came at the date set by His Father. Practically, God in His providence orchestrated that worldly conditions were ready for the gospel of Jesus. Through Alexander the Great, Greek had become the lingua franca of the world, and through the Romans, roads had been built to make travel throughout the world easier. But while the fullness of time does not mean less than God creating the proper socio-political climate for Christ’s coming, it certainly means far more. Specifically, about the word for fullness (πλήρωμα), Sproul writes:

To understand what pleroma means and the concept of the fullness of time, I like to use the illustration of a glass of water that is three-quarters of the way filled. That’s not pleroma. Even if you fill the glass to the edge of the lip, it’s still not pleroma. Pleroma happens when you put the glass under the faucet and the water fills up the glass and starts running over the sides of the glass because there’s no space left to contain it. God had appointed a time–not just the year or the week or the day, not even just the hour or the minute, but the very second. From all eternity, God said, “In that precise second, the virgin will give birth to My Son.” That was the day the glass was filled to overflowing by the providence of God. The birth of Jesus into this world was not an accident. It was according to God’s divine purpose, down to the very second. (88)

Next, God sent forth his Son. There are more to these words than meets the eye. As Calvin says with lucid brevity, “The Son, who was sent, must have existed before he was sent; and this proves his eternal Godhead. Christ therefore is the Son of God, sent from heaven” (118). Indeed, Jesus is the eternal Word who has always been with God because He is God. Also, while Paul is building toward the glorious truth of our adoption as God’s sons, Jesus is the only begotten Son of God. We are made sons of God through the work of Christ alone, but He is the eternal Son of the Father, who is (as we confess each month) “God of God, light of light, very God of very God.”

With the divinity of Christ in mind, we should gaze in wonder at the following two phrases: born of woman, born under the law. Both emphasize the incarnation of the Son of God. The infinite King of glory was born, just like us. He became one of us, flesh and all. By saying, born of woman, Paul is saying two things at the same time. First, he is declaring the true humanity of Christ, for that is the common thread that every human apart from Adam and Eve shares. And Christ shares it with us. Second, it also ought to bring Genesis 3:15 to mind, where God promised that the seed of woman would crush the serpent. Thus, Christ was also uniquely born of woman because He had no earthly father but was conceived of the Holy Spirit.

Being born under the law also emphasizes Christ becoming like us. Taking up Paul’s imagery from chapter 3, F. F. Bruce writes that Jesus “entered into the prison-house where his people were held in bondage so as to set them free.” It was necessary that Christ become human so that He could stand as our representative, and it was necessary that He was born under the law so that He could fulfill all the legal demands that we were required to fulfill. His dying the death that we deserved was only sufficient because He also lived the life that we were required to live. He met the demands of obedience and of justice.

Verse 5 then gives us the twofold reason for all of verse 4: to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons. Paul has already explained how Christ accomplished this redemption in 3:13. Christ not only perfectly lived under the law; He also died under the penalty of the law, becoming a curse for us to deliver us from the curse of the law. And, because Christ has perfectly fulfilled the law and paid its penalty, we are no longer under the law if we are in Him. John Eadie comments:

God’s own children living under the law differed little from slaves. Spiritual freedom was denied them. Minute prescriptions were given for diet, dress, travel, labour, for home and for field, for farm and orchard, for private piety and public worship, for ceremonial purity and ethical relations, for birth and marriage, for each day and for the Sabbath-day, for trade and for war, for child and for parent, for tax and for tithe. The entire and multifarious code lay a heavy burden upon them,–nothing was left as a matter of choice to them,–almost in nothing were they masters of themselves; so that the national life must have been to a great extent mechanical–a routine of obedience into which they were so solemnly drilled–the service of δοῡλοι.

Indeed, while there are plenty of commands to be found in the New Testament, they are not as detailed or specific as the laws of the Old Testament, and that is purposeful. In Christ, we are no longer under the guardian. Because the curse of the law has been fully paid, we are able to consider the principles for thankful obedience in both Old Testament laws and New Testament commands. But we are no longer bound by them from the outside; rather, the Spirit within us creates a longing within us to follow in the footsteps of our Lord. That is the beauty of the fruit of the Spirit, which we shall study in a few weeks. And it is also how the gospel has transformed and is transforming the world.

For example, nowhere in the New Testament do we find a blueprint for managing a Christian culture and society. Yet we do have commands for how Christian households are to be ordered, and as even Aristotle acknowledged, the household is the basic building block of any society. In His incarnation, the infinite Christ took on our smallness. And through that act of humility, nothing has ever been the same. Or perhaps we can say that the most thorough changes take place at the molecular level.

While to redeem those who were under the law pairs with the phrase born under the law, the second purpose, so that we might receive adoption as sons, goes with Christ’s being born from woman. The only Son of God, who was loved of the Father “before the foundation of the world” (John 17:24), became one of us to make us one with Him. Christ did not die in our place simply to free us from the punishments of sin; He died to bring us into the household of God, not as slaves but as sons. The death of Christ cancelled the debt of our sin and also sealed our adoption papers before the Father. And this is only found in Christ. Again, we should rejoice that God is fatherly toward all His creation and is gracious and merciful even toward those who hate Him. But only those who are in Christ can rightly call God their Father.

Verse 6 further expands that thought: And because you are sons, God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, “Abba! Father!” In Romans 8:15, Paul calls the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of adoption, for exactly this reason. The proof and benefit of our sonship is the Holy Spirit within us. As Bruce notes, “Two sure signs of the indwelling Spirit, for Paul, are the spontaneous invocation of God as ‘Abba’ and the spontaneous acknowledgement of Jesus as κύριος, ‘Lord’ (1 Cor. 12:3).”

Ryken comments that Abba “is a term of respect as well as endearment. It means “Dear Dad,” or “Dearest Father.” It is the special work of God’s Spirit to put this filial word into our hearts and onto our lips” (165). Indeed, we hear Christ pray these very words at His moment of greatest anguish in the garden, where He was sweating blood, and He prayed: “Abba, Father, all things are possible for you. Remove this cup from me. Yet not what I will, but what you will” (Mark 14:36). So, it is now with all who are in Christ. Just as a child naturally calls for his father, so does the Spirit within us cause us to call to God as our Father. In fact, the word that Paul uses for “crying” is κράζον, which is the same word used to describe Bartimaeus’ calling for Jesus. Calvin notes:

Hesitation does not allow us to speak freely, but keeps the mouth nearly shut, while the half-broken words can hardly escape from a stammering tongue. “Crying,” on the other hand, expresses firmness and unwavering confidence. (121)

So you are no longer a slave, but a son, and if a son, then an heir through God. This is the climactic conclusion to all that Paul has been building toward. We are no longer simply slaves of God but sons of God. And because we have received sonship, we are also heirs to the inheritance of God. Paul’s readers would have had a firm sense of how great the blessing of adoption could be. The first two Roman emperors were adopted as heirs (Augustus by Julius and then Tiberius by Augustus). And while biological sons could be disinherited, one could not do so with an adopted heir because the adopted son was directly chosen by the Father. Our adoption is a far greater adoption than being adopted by Caesar. The King over all kings has chosen us. The Maker of heaven and earth has made sons and daughters out of rebels and traitors.

When we consider the vast wonder of all this, I do not think that J. I. Packer is exaggerating whenever he says:

If you want to judge how well a person understands Christianity, find out how much he makes of the thought of being God’s child, and having God as his Father. If this is not the thought that prompts and controls his worship and prayers and his whole outlook on life, it means that he does not understand Christianity very well at all. For everything that Christ taught, everything that makes the New Testament new and better than the Old, everything that is distinctly Christian as opposed to merely Jewish, is summed up in the knowledge of the Fatherhood of God. “Father” is the Christian name for God. (Knowing God, 201)

Is that you? Do those words describe you? Does the Spirit of Christ cause you to cry out to God as your Father? If not, place your trust in Christ today, for this adoption is through Him alone. If so, then let the Table before us be a visual proclamation of our place in God’s family. With this bread and cup, we proclaim the atoning death of Christ for our sins and for our adoption. Thus, let us come to this Table as our family meal where we have fellowship with our Father and with one another.