The Greatest Commission

By S. Lewis Johnson, Jr.

An Exposition of Galatians 4:1–7 [1]

Lewis Johnson regularly ministered the Word at Believers Chapel in Dallas for more than thirty years. During his academic career he held professorships in New Testament and Systematic Theology at Dallas Theological Seminary and Trinity Evangelical Divinity School. At the time of his death in January 2004 he was Professor Emeritus of New Testament Studies at Dallas Seminary. Both MP3 files and written notes of Dr. Johnson’s sermons and theological lectures may be downloaded from the web site of Believers Chapel «www.believers-chapel.org/index.html».

Introduction

“The atonement as a completed work of Christ,” John Murray has sensibly said, “must always be viewed in the light of the inter-Trinitarian economy of salvation.” [2] Or, in other words, if we are to understand the atonement, the very heart of Christianity, then we must understand the distinctive functions of the three persons of the Godhead. We are aware of the fact that only of Christ can the atoning obedient death be predicated. He alone bore the penalty of the broken Law and its curse for us. He alone is the propitiating sacrifice.

It was from the love of the Father, however, that the divine plan arose. The people of God are the products of the Father’s electing love in Christ before the foundation of the world (cf. Eph. 1:3). Thus, the whole plan of redemption cannot be divorced from the invincible love of the First Person. His love is the source of the atonement (cf. Rom. 5:8; 1 John 4:9–10). We must never think of the Father as the just God and of the Son as the merciful God—as if the Father is unmerciful and the Son, unjust.

Nor must we exclude from the atoning work the activity of the Third Person, the Holy Spirit. While the stress of the Bible rests upon the activity of the Son in the work of atonement, the Holy Spirit was the source of his power through constant enduement for the work (cf. John 3:34).

It is a striking fact that the passage in Galatians to which we now come is loaded with references to the atonement and to other important doctrines connected with it. We have references to the incarnation, the true humanity of our Lord, his full deity, the doctrine of redemption, adoption, the indwelling of the Spirit, and the believer’s sonship. The greatest truth is perhaps that of sonship through the grace of the divine ransom in Christ.

Paul has been surveying 2, 000 years of the Old Testament record, pointing out the relationship between the promises of God to Abraham, the giving of the Law to Moses, and the coming of Christ. Simply stated, God gave Abraham unconditional promises, which included justification, life, and the Spirit, and the conditional covenant with Moses and Israel cannot annul these promises. They have found their fulfillment in the coming of Jesus Christ, who is the seed in whom the Abrahamic promises were to find their ultimate fruition. The Law acted solely as a preparatory instrument, being intended as a means toward moral preparation for the coming of the Messiah. These are the truths the apostle has been expounding in Galatians 3:15–29.

Since Paul has just mentioned the word “heirs” (κληρονόμοι, kleµronomoi, cf. 3:29), a careful listener to the apostle’s argument might at this point comment, “Yes, Paul, I agree with you that the Galatians may be said to be Abraham’s seed and heirs of his promises, but were not old Testament believers in the same position? And did they not have the Law, too? Why not, then, the Galatians?” This train of thought will lead Paul on to a fuller exposition of the alteration of the program of the ages, which has come with Christ’s advent and the completion of his ministry. The age of the Law has passed; the age of the promise has come to its completion. Slavery has been succeeded by sonship. “The date set by the father” is present (v. 2).

The Human Illustration, verses 1–2

Now I say, as long as the heir is a child, he does not differ at all from a slave although he is owner of everything, but he is under guardians and managers until the date set by the father.

The apostle begins the section with a human illustration. The picture he draws is of a child, the heir to a vast estate, who is placed by his father under guardians and trustees, controllers of his person and all that he shall inherit. [3] During his minority he is “owner of everything,” but his condition is actually that of a slave. He is under the control of others and subject to their discipline.

The apostle’s use of the phrase “under guardians and managers” (ὑπὸ ἐπιτρόπους καὶ οἰκονόμους, hypo epitropous kai oikonomous), may indicate something significant. [4] Many young men only had either a guardian or a manager over them, but not both. Evidently the apostle has in mind a young man who is heir to a vast amount of property. That would suit the reality, because the Abrahamic promises are the reality to which the illustration points. Land promises and promises of justification and sonship are some of the issues of the promises God gave to the patriarch.

The expression “the date set by the father,” indicates that the program of the ages is ultimately under the control of the Father in heaven. It is he who determines the precise time at which the Son shall become incarnate to carry out the redemptive work, the basis of the covenant promises. It was the father’s right, according to ancient custom, to fix the day when the son would come of age for purposes of inheritance, the day when he exchanged the toga praetexta for the toga virilis. [5]

The Spiritual Application, verses 3–5

So also we, while we were children, were held in bondage under the elemental things of the world. But when the fullness of the time came, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the Law, so that He might redeem those who were under the Law, that we might receive the adoption as sons.

The Preparation for the Son, verse 3

The opening words of verse 3, “So also we” (οὕτως καὶ ἡμεῖς, houtoµs kai heµmeis) introduce the application of the preceding illustration. The apostle alludes, of course, to the period of time when Israel was under the Mosaic Law.

What Paul means by “the elemental things of the world,” (τὰ στοιχεῖα τοῦ κόσμου, ta stoicheia tou kosmou) is not clear. Etymologically, the word first referred to anything placed in a row, then to the alphabet, and finally it came to be used in the sense of rudiment, or element. It may refer to the physical elements (cf. 2 Pet. 3:10, 12) or to regulations regarding both immaterial and material things (cf. Col. 2:8, 20). [6] The externals of religion seem to be in view here. Hendriksen defines the term elemental things as meaning, “elementary teachings regarding rules and regulations, by means of which, before Christ’s coming, people, both Jews and Gentiles, each in their own way, attempted by their own efforts, and in accordance with the promptings of their own fleshly (unregenerate) nature, to achieve salvation.” [7] All legal efforts to achieve salvation by human merit, both by the Mosaic Law or by the Gentile religions, were simply the results of bondage. One might ask how bondage to the Law can be bad, when it was God who gave Israel the Law. Paul is not, of course, implying that the Law was in itself bad (cf. Rom. 7:7–12). He refers to the way in which Israel took a good thing that had been designed to reveal their sin to them and so twisted its purpose that it became for them an attempted means of salvation. Used in this way, it enslaved them. As Stott says:

“God intended the law to reveal sin and to drive men to Christ; Satan uses it to reveal sin and to drive men to despair. God meant the law as an interim step to man’s justification; Satan uses it as the final step to his condemnation. God meant the law to be a stepping-stone to liberty; Satan uses it as a cul-de-sac, deceiving his dupes into supposing that from its fearful bondage there is no escape. [8]

The bondage continued for about 1300 years, but finally there came the time for release from “guardians and managers.” To that, Paul now turns.

The Coming of the Son, verse 4

“The fullness of the time” is “the date set by the father” in the illustration (cf. v. 2). It is the time when the father is ready to transfer the son from the status of a minor son, in bondage to the guardian, to that of an adult son, freed from the guardians and managers and enjoyer of the fruits of his sonship and heirship. The guardianship is supposed to have done its work.

In reality, “the fullness of the time” (τὸ πλήρωμα τοῦ χρόνου, to pleµroµma tou chronou) is the time of the coming of the Son, the Lord Jesus Christ. He, too, came at the time set by the Father. A great deal of discussion has taken place over the suitability of the coming of our Lord in Roman days. Various factors have been singled out for special mention. For example, Rome had conquered the then-known inhabited earth and made it possible for communication to take place with relative ease via Roman roads and Roman legions. That made it easier for the gospel to spread over the earth. Further, the Greek language and Greek culture had been spread over the earth by Alexander, and the Romans, who were great admirers of the Greeks, had maintained this emphasis. The ancient gods of Greece and Rome were losing their hold on the ancient peoples, and a spiritual vacuum of sorts now prevailed, making them fitter subjects for the gospel. Judaism was bankrupt, and paganism had always been so. All of these things, combined with the peace that Rome brought to the world, the fabled pax Romana, contributed to the preparation of the world for Christ. [9]

To summarize: There was political preparation of the Roman Empire for Christ (cf. Luke 2:1). There was economic preparation by the fine transportation system that grew up (cf. Col. 1:23). And, due to the fact that Greek had become the lingua franca, the language-medium of commerce, culture, and philosophy, it was possible for the gospel and the gospel literature to reach a universal audience. Finally, there was religious preparation, even some evidence that a revival of Messianic hopes was flourishing over the world at that time. In the words of Philip Schaff, “‘In the fullness of the time,’ when the fairest flowers of science and art had withered, and the world was on the verge of despair, the Virgin’s Son was born to heal the infirmities of mankind. Christ entered a dying world as the author of a new and imperishable life.” [10]

The majestic statement, “God sent forth His Son,” is filled with doctrinal content. In the first place, we must make the point that this is the basis of the freedom of the sons, namely, the coming of the Son and the redemption he would accomplish. We often have heard the commission given the disciples at the conclusion of Matthew’s gospel, “Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations” (Matt. 28:19) called, “The Great Commission,” but is it not much more appropriate to call this one (“God sent forth His Son”) THE Great Commission?

The verb used by the apostle, “sent forth” (ἐξαπέστειλεν, exapesteilen), is a word that suggests the fact that the Lord Jesus came out from God himself. It is a double compound verb, meaning literally, “to send away from,” and it suggests that he came out from God himself in heaven. The fact that he is called God’s Son (υἱος, huios), and not his child (παιδίον, paidion) also contributes to the impression of his preexistence. He was sent as a Son (cf. Isa. 9:6; John 1:1), not born as a child, except with reference to his human nature. He was sent as a Son, for he was a divine person. The picture that we get is of an eternal Son, possessed of full deity, although we may only claim from this text his preexistence. [11] Implicit in all this is that which becomes explicit through the full revelation of the Word: he was God’s Son, supernaturally begotten as to his human nature by the Holy Spirit and supernaturally preserved from defilement from the womb of Mary. Yet he was one person, the eternal Son of God.

The words “born of a woman” (γενόμενον ἐκ γυναικός, genomenon ek gynaikos, lit., “having come to be of a woman”) point to his true humanity. [12]

It is the contention of several respected commentators that the words do not constitute a reference to the virgin birth but simply to his humanity. [13] It is true however that, in the light of the Jewish practice of relating a son to his father, it would have seemed more natural for Paul to trace the Son’s humanity to his father if he had a natural one. Therefore, while we cannot claim that the phrase (or clause) is a testimony to the virgin birth, it certainly is not opposed to that doctrine (cf. Gen. 3:15; Isa. 7:14.). [14]

Thus we have a Son who was preexistent as to his person, sent forth from God and given a true human nature. He therefore has become one who can and will become the satisfaction for sin that a holy God demands. If he had not possessed true humanity, he could not have died for men. If he had not possessed full deity, he could not have delivered men. If he had not been God’s Son, he could not have made men the sons of God by redemption. Since he was a divine person with a true humanity, he is able to do everything necessary to redeem us..

The last clause of verse 4, “born under the Law” (γενόμενον ὑπὸ νόμον, genomenon hypo nomon), relates him to the Law of Moses (cf. Luke 2:21–22, 27; Matt. 3:15; 5:17). The reference to his status under Law would have been better stated by a reference to his Jewish father, but he had no natural father. The clause strengthens the possibility that the apostle is alluding to the virgin birth in the previous clause. The clause here may also contain a reference to the doctrine of the active obedience of Christ. [15]

The Purpose of His Coming, verse 5

The apostle expresses the purpose of the coming of the Son in this way “So that He might redeem those who were under the Law, that we might receive the adoption as sons.” There are several things to be said about this redemption. In the first place, it is an accomplished redemption, the aorist tense (ἐξαγοράσῃ, exagoraseµ) adding strength to this. Is it not an interesting fact that, when the atonement of Christ is referred to, it is not referred to in terms of conditionality. It is not “to make it possible that those under the law be redeemed,” but, “to redeem them.” It is the language of certainty. It is not “to render those under the law redeemable, or savable but “to redeem.” He accomplishes his purposes. The inter-trinitarian economy of salvation makes this necessary. The Father elects a people. The Spirit invincibly brings the identical people to the Father. Shall we say that the Son, contrary to the design of the Father and the Spirit, has a contrary design?

The redemption is that described in 3:13, the same verb in the same tense being used (ἐξηγόρασεν, exeµgorasen). It is a redemption accomplished by a ransom price, his blood, from the curse of the Law. It is, then, in 3:13 and 1:4 that we have the details of the how of the redemption’s accomplishment.

The second purpose, namely, “that we might receive the adoption as sons,” is the positive side of the matter. It is not simply a rescue that God has in mind; he desires to make slaves into sons. The metaphor may come from Graeco-Roman customs, whereby a wealthy childless man might, desiring a son, take into his family a slave, who is then made a son and an heir. [16] On the other hand, the apostle may still be thinking of the custom of the togas and of the historic succession of the New Covenant age of revelation upon the old Covenant age of revelation, as in the preceding context. In that case, the word “adoption” would refer to the formal recognition of the legal standing of the son as son and heir after the time spent under guardians and managers. The article “the” in “the adoption” (τὴν υἱοθεσίαν, teµn huithesian) supports the latter view (cf. vv. 1–2). [17]

The verb “receive” (ἀπολάβωμεν, apolaboµmen) is an intensive one, suggesting the idea of “to receive in full.” It is a word of grace, and the new status as sons replaces the old slavery. The “we” of the subject of the verb is probably inclusive of both Jews and Gentiles.

The apostle has dealt a lethal blow to the Judaists. Legalists are still under guardians and managers, while those under grace are now fully accredited sons and heirs. One is a minor, the other an adult son. Why go back to childhood with its burdens?

The Divine Attestation, verses 6–7

Because you are sons, God has sent forth the Spirit of His Son into our hearts, crying, “Abba! Father!” Therefore you are no longer a slave, but a son; and if a son, then an heir through God.

The Corroboration of Our Status, verse 6

It is not enough for the Father to send the Son in the greatest commission; he also, in another great commission, sent the Holy Spirit into our hearts because we are sons (cf. Rom. 8:15–16). It is because we are sons that he comes. In other words, his presence is the test of the possession of genuine spiritual life. It is not a striving after a second blessing, speaking in tongues, or any other experience that brings the Spirit. It is sonship, received through faith alone (cf. 3:26; John 1:12–13).

It seems clear from this verse that it is the apostle’s intention that we consider the Holy Spirit as the one who takes the place of the Law in the lives of believers. It is he who takes the place of the guardians and managers of old Covenant times.

When he comes to the believing heart, it is with the cry, “Abba, Father” (Αββα ὁ πατήρ, Abba ho pateµr). The word Abba is the Aramaic word for “father” and is used here, no doubt, out of an affectionate remembrance of our Lord’s use of the term (cf. Mark 14:36). It is, then, the intimate word used by the Lord Jesus in his prayer to the Father. What a privilege it is to use the same term! We are sons by position and are to become such in prayer as well. It is the Spirit who has confirmed our sonship. The Father is no longer Lawgiver, but Father.

The Conclusion of the Argument, verse 7

Thus, due to the change of ages, believers are sons, not slaves, and, because sons, heirs “through God” (διὰ θεοῦ, dia theou, the preferable reading of the Greek text). The last phrase, “through God,” is very emphatic, stressing that their position is entirely God’s doing. The Law has nothing to do with it. The age of the Son has brought redemption, the status of sons, the confirming presence of the Holy Spirit, and heirship. It is all “through God.” Soli Deo Gloria! The whole Trinity—the Father with his commissioning initiative, the Son with his redeeming and ransoming accomplishment, the Spirit with his confirming indwelling presence—in the inter-trinitarian harmonious economy of salvation has saved us completely. “Oh, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and unfathomable His ways” (Rom. 11:33)!

Conclusion

The legalist, then, has failed to see that the ages have been altered. The set time has already come. The children are no longer slaves, but sons. The guardians and the managers are persons of the past. The Mosaic Law, while holy, just, and good, has been replaced by the Holy Spirit.

The glorious work is the accomplishment of a Trinity of persons, Father, Son, and Spirit, who have worked in beautiful concert to bring to consummation the eternal covenant of redemption.

The glory, Lord, from first to last,
Is due to thee alone;
Aught to ourselves we dare not take,
Or rob thee of thy crown.
(Augustus H. Toplady)

Notes

1. This is article ten in a sixteen-part series, “Expositional Studies in the Epistle to the Galatians.”
2. John Murray, “The Atonement,” in Collected Writings of John Murray, vol. 2: Select Lectures in Systematic Theology (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1977), 143.
3. Paul’s statement that the heir “does not differ at all from a slave” is, says Longenecker, “a hyperbole for the sake of the illustration. What he means is that they are alike in that they both live under rules and regulations.” See Richard N. Longenecker, Galatians, WBC (Dallas: Word, 1990), 162.
4. On the source of Paul’s illustration, cf. Ernest De Witt Burton, The Epistle to the Galatians, ICC (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1921), 211–15.
5. When a boy reached maturity (it was often at a relatively young age, between fourteen and seventeen), he discarded the purple-bordered toga, the toga praetexta (“bordered toga”) that boys wore. He then, in the presence of the family, donned the pure white toga, the toga virilis (“virile,” “manly,” or “adult” toga) and was received into the councils of the hierarchy. See William Barclay, The Letters to the Galatians and Ephesians, rev. ed. (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1976), 34.
6. Longenecker, Galatians, 165; G. Delling, “στοιχεῖον,” TDNT, 7:670–87.
7. William Hendriksen, Galatians, NTC (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1968), 157. The italics are those of Hendriksen.
8. John R. W. Stott, The Message of Galatians, BST (London: Inter Varsity Press, 1968), 105.
9. Editor’s Note: Noll wrote, “When Paul spoke of ‘the fullness of the time’ (KJV, NASB), he meant primarily the divine economy. God was not waiting passively for the right circumstances to develop on earth before He was able to send the Son. Rather, the second person of the Trinity entered human history when He did because of the eternal plans and purposes of God to redeem a people for the glory of His name” (Mark A. Noll, “The Fullness of Time,” Table Talk [Dec., 1990], 11). Bruce also cautions against interpreting Paul’s “fullness of time” as primarily referring to the political, cultural, moral, and religious conditions of the first century. Yet he does concede that there is much truth in the observation, particularly if one sees these conditions as providentially arranged (F. F. Bruce, The Time is Fulfilled [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978], 31–32). Numerous scholars do focus on these providentially arranged conditions. Helpful and succinct treatments are found in Stewart, The Life and Teaching of Jesus Christ, 15–21; James Hastings, ed., The Great Texts of the Bible, 20 vols. (New York: Scribner’s, 1913), 16:364–70; Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, 8 vols., vol. 1: Apostolic Christianity (3d. ed., 1890; reprint ed., New York: Scribner’s, 1910; reprint ed., Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1971), 55–89; Earle E. Cairns, Christianity Through the Centuries (6th ed., Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1966), 37–47; and W. E. Vine, “B.C. and A.D., or How the World was Prepared for the Gospel,” in The Collected Writings of W. E. Vine, 5 vols. (Glasgow: Gospel Tract Publications, 1986), 5:63–76.
10. Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, 1:89.
11. “If the Spirit was the Spirit before God sent him, the Son was presumably the Son before God sent him” (F. F. Bruce, The Epistle to the Galatians, NIGTC [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982], 195).
12. Burton, The Epistle to the Galatians, 218. The participles (γενόμενον ... γενόμενον) are attributive participles, used substantively in apposition, the lack of the articles giving to the phrases a qualitative force “which may be expressed in English by translating ‘his Son, one born of woman, one made subject to law.’”
13. Cf. Alan Cole, The Epistle of Paul to the Galatians, TNTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1965), 115; Burton, The Epistle to the Galatians, 217; Longenecker, Galatians, 171.
14. Cf. J. Gresham Machen, The Virgin Birth of Christ (New York: Harper & Row, 1930; reprint ed., Grand Rapids: Baker, 1965), 259–60.
15. John Calvin, The Epistles of Paul the Apostle to the Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians and Colossians, trans. T. H. L. Parker (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1965), 74. Calvin speaks here of Christ becoming liable to keep the Law that he might obtain exemption, or freedom, for us. Editor’s Note: In Lutheran and Reformed theology there is a distinction made between the active obedience (obedientia activa) and the passive obedience (obedientia passiva) of Christ. According to proponents of the distinction, Christ’s active obedience was that obedience by which our Substitute placed himself under the obligation to fully obey the Law in our place by his perfectly holy life. His passive obedience is that obedience by which he placed himself under the curse of the Law and suffered and died for the sins of the world. Galatians 4:4–5 is a locus classicus (“classic place or passage” i.e., a primary support) for this distinction (also see: Matt. 3:15; Rom. 5:18–19; 8:3–4; 10:3–4; 2 Cor. 5:21). Cf. John Theodore Mueller, Christian Dogmatics (St. Louis: Concordia, 1955), 306–7; Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology (4th ed., Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1949), 380–81. According to James Denney (The Death of Christ, rev. ed. [London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1911; reprint ed., Minneapolis: Klock & Klock, 1982], 112), there is nothing in Scripture, let alone this text, to support the doctrine of the active obedience of Christ. “If we wish to put the whole work of Christ under that heading [i.e., “obedience”], we must remember that what we have to do with is not the ordinary obedience of men, but the obedience of a Redeemer.” H. A. W. Meyer wrote (Critical and Exegetical Handbook to the Epistle to the Galatians, trans. G. H. Venables [New York: Funk & Wagnalls, 1884; reprint ed., Winona Lake: Alpha, 1979], 172), “The imputation of the active obedience of Christ is not borne out by the exegetical proof, of which our passage is alleged to form part.” C. F. Hogg and W. E. Vine (The Epistle to the Galatians [1922; reprint ed., Grand Rapids: Kregel, n.d.], 186) added, “It is nowhere said in the New Testament that Christ kept the law for us.” It is interesting to note that one of the debates among the early Brethren was over this distinction (i.e., between the active and passive obedience of Christ), the followers of J. N. Darby rejecting the doctrine of Christ’s active obedience as taught by the Lutherans and Reformed, and the followers of B. W. Newton defending it. For Darby’s views, cf. J. N. Darby, “A Letter on the Righteousness of God,” in The Collected Writings of J. N. Darby, 34 vols., ed. William Kelly (reprint ed., Oak Park: Bible Truth Publishers, 1972), 7:302–48 (esp. pp. 330–31); idem., “The Pauline Doctrine of the Righteousness of Faith,” 7:349–87 (esp. pp. 370–71, 379–80); idem., “Brethren and Their Reviewers,” 10:43–90 (esp. pp. 58, 66, 72); idem., “Divine Righteousness,” 10:148. Newton’s perspective is ably defended by S. P. Tregelles, Five Letters to the Editor of “The Record,” on Recent Denials of Our Lord’s Vicarious Life, 2d. ed. (1864; reprint ed., London: Hunt, Barnard & Co., 1910), 3–40.
16. In other Greek literature the word “adoption” (υἱοθεσία) refers to the act by which the place and condition of a son is given to one to whom it does not belong by natural descent. This meaning is taken by a number of commentators. Cf. John Eadie, Commentary on the Epistle of Paul to the Galatians (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1884; reprint ed., Minneapolis: James & Klock, 1977), 300; J. B. Lightfoot, The Epistle of St. Paul to the Galatians (1865; reprint ed., Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1957). 168; Bruce, The Epistle to the Galatians, 197–98.
17. In the present passage Paul is thinking not of the “adoption” of a child who is not one’s natural descendant. Rather, he is thinking of a natural descendant who has arrived at the time of enjoyment and privilege of a mature son in the family. “The article τήν is doubtless restrictive, pointing to the thought of vv.1, 2 that at the time appointed of the father the child is released from subjection to tutors and governors, and comes into direct relation to the father as a mature son—an intimation more fully developed in v.6” (Burton, The Epistle to the Galatians, 220–21; Longenecker, Galatians, 172).