LCMS Convention Workbook St. Louis, Missouri — 2019, Page 267

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

II. THEOLOGICAL DOCUMENTS­­—COMMISSION ON THEOLOGY AND CHURCH RELATIONS
nomon, “under law”] (vv 4f.). He speaks of the time
during which the people of God lived ‘under law’ as
the time they spent in the infant class learning their
ABCs — which for them amounted to ‘the rudimentary notions of the world’ … But this was not merely
a time of elementary education; it was a time of
bondage … For the present stage of Paul’s argument
it suffices to observe that the law ranks as one of the
στοιχεῖα [stoicheia; “principles”].100
Commenting further on the phrase when it reappears in
verse 9, Bruce writes,
The στοιχεῖα [stoicheia; “principles”] to which the
Galatians had been in bondage were the counterfeit
gods of v 8; the bondage to which they were now
disposed to turn back was that of the law. But in our
discussion of 3:13f. and 4:4f. we concluded that Gentile as well as Jewish believers are reckoned to have
been redeemed from existence ‘under law’—not, so
far as Gentiles are concerned, explicitly under the
Mosaic law, in relation to which they were ἄνομοι
[anomoi, “without law/lawless”] (cf. 1 Cor. 9:21; Rom.
2:12ff.), but under legalism as a principle of life. ‘The
demonic forces of legalism, then, both Jewish and
Gentile, can be called “principalities and powers” or
“elemental spirits of the world.”’ [G. B. Caird, Principalities and Powers [Oxford, 1956], 51)101
These “demonic forces of legalism” sound a little less ancient and esoteric if we think of the kind of contemporary
fatalism that finds expression in sayings like “that’s just the
way things work.” People today, too, have a sense that the
universe operates according to certain unchangeable, inviolable principles — which are almost always “stacked against
me.” Like Paul’s Galatian hearers, many people today find it
all but impossible to believe that God and the salvation He
offers are not also subject to these basic “rules” of how the
universe “works.”
[Note: The text for this session is intentionally short. It is
hoped that this will allow not only for careful treatment of
the passage but also, since this is the final session of this
study, for additional questions and discussion.]

The Text: Gal. 4:4–5
Although this is a relatively short text, it’s always a good
F. F. Bruce, The Epistle to the Galatians: A Commentary on the Greek Text, New
International Greek Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982), 194.

100

101

Bruce, The Epistle to the Galatians, 203.

idea to read the whole passage together before discussing it.
Since we have the luxury of looking at this text in detail, we
will organize the discussion around each major phrase.
4a “the fullness of time”
Many readers may mistakenly insert a complete break between this passage and what comes before, perhaps because
Paul’s language here reminds us of Luke’s language in his
birth narrative. Note the similarity between this phrase and
Luke’s clauses in 1:57 (of Elizabeth) and in 2:6 (of Mary):
Galatians 4:4 τὸ πλήρωμα τοῦ χρόνου
(to plērōma tou chronou)

the fullness of time

Luke 1:57

ἐπλήσθη ὁ χρόνος
(eplēsthē ho chronos)

the time was fulfilled

Luke 2:6

ἐπλήσθησαν102 αἱ ἡμέραι
(eplēsthēsan hai hēmerai)

the days were fulfilled

Because of these similarities, we might be tempted to think
that, in Galatians, Paul has in mind the same overarching
plan of salvation that Luke discusses. That would not be
entirely wrong, but it would miss the connection with the
immediate context in Galatians, and it would miss the specific point that Paul is making about this point in time.
3. What point in time is it, according to the metaphor
Paul has been developing? Recall the metaphors that Paul
has been developing. In 3:23-26, Paul has spoken of a
time of imprisonment and captivity under the guardianship
of law. In 4:1-3, Paul develops the metaphor of the minor who is heir but not yet of legal age to take possession
of his inheritance. His enjoyment of the inheritance must
wait until that time which the father has set in his will. It is
this time, the time when the heirs will be able to enjoy the
inheritance that is already theirs, that Paul announces in the
opening phrase of verse 4. We will see, however, that it is
not simply a matter of the infant-heirs finally reaching the
age of majority. No, something else must be done first.

103

Cf. John 3:17, 34; 6:57; and 7:29.

fulfil involved his voluntarily taking on himself the
curse which others, by their failure to fulfil it, had
incurred. Only so could he accomplish the purpose
of redeeming those who were ‘under law’ (v 5).111

In those cases where there is no article, the context must
decide the question of whether or not the noun is meant to
be definite. Paul, in fact, often means “the Law” even where
there is no article present. Robertson even argues that this is
the norm.109 Our understanding of verse 3 (above) and verse
5 (below) will, however, urge us to see a more inclusive idea
here. As Lightfoot explains in his comments on verse 5,

8. Does the phrase “under the law” mean nothing more
than “Jewish”?

Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics (Grand Rapids:
Zondervan, 1996), 247.
Cf. A. T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of
Historical Research (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1934), 796: “Νόμος [Nomos] is
a word that is used with a deal of freedom by Paul. In general when νόμος [nomos]
is anarthrous [i.e., without an article] in Paul it refers to the Mosaic law, as in
ἐπαναπαύῃ νόμῳ [epanapauē nomō; “you rely on the law”] (Ro. 2:17). So ἐὰν
νόμον πράσσῃς [ean nomon prassēs; “if you do the law”] (2:25), etc. It occurs so
with prepositions, as ἐν νόμῳ [en nomō; “in the law”] (2:23), and in the genitive,
like ἐξ ἔργων νόμου [ex ergōn nomou; “by works of the law”] (Gal. 2:16). Cf.
ἐγὼ [γὰρ] διὰ νόμου νόμῳ ἀπέθανον [egō gar dia nomou nomō apethanon; “for I
through the law died to the law”] (2:19), ὑπὸ νόμον ἀλλὰ ὑπὸ χάριν [hypo nomon
allα hypo charin; “under the law but under grace”] (Ro. 6:14).” And yet, not even
all of Robertson’s examples would be accepted by all readers.

109

J. B. Lightfoot, The Epistle of St. Paul to the Galatians (2nd ed., rev.; London:
Macmillan, 1866), 267. J.B. Lightfoot, The Epistle of St. Paul to the Galatians: With
Introductions, Notes and Dissertations, revised ed. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan),
168.
110

In focusing on very specific “small” questions, we sometimes
lose the grandeur of the “big thing” that is being said. Paul
is saying — and on this everyone agrees — that God became
man, that God’s own Son took upon Himself our human
nature and was born of a human mother just as we are.

What makes the use of the verb special in this case is, first
of all, the identities of the Sender and the One who is sent.
Paul is speaking of the sending forth by God of His own
Son. Secondly, notice what characteristics of this Son are
highlighted.
4c “born of woman”
Luther and some of the other early interpreters were not
quite correct in interpreting this phrase to mean “He was
born, not of a male and a female but merely of the female
sex” and when they argued that “born of woman” is the
equivalent of “born of a virgin.”105
4. What is Paul emphasizing when he describes Christ as
“born of woman?” Our Lord uses almost the same words
when speaking about John the Baptist in Matt. 11:11,
where he refers to humanity in general as “those born of
women.” Witherington explains more fully:
Jesus was born of woman, which simply conveys the
idea that he was a normal human being, coming into
the world the normal way. Job 14.1 and Mt. 11.11/
Lk. 7.28 and Josephus Ant. 7.21 (cf. 16.382) show
that the phrase itself conveys nothing special about
the person being referred to.106

Ben Witherington III, Grace in Galatia: A Commentary on St Paul’s Letter to the
Galatians (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 288.

104

105

AE 26:367.

106

Witherington, Grace in Galatia, 288.

5a “to redeem those who were under the law”
We noted that verse 4 gives two characteristics of the One
sent. Verse 5 now gives two purposes for His being sent, and
these two purposes relate chiastically112 to the characteristics.
The two clauses correspond to those of the foregoing verse in an inverted order by the grammatical
figure called chiasm; ‘The Son of God was born a
man, that in Him all men might become sons of
God; He was born subject to law, that those subject
to law might be rescued from bondage.’ At the same
time, the figure is not arbitrarily employed here, but
the inversion arises out of the necessary sequence.
The abolition of the law, the rescue from bondage,
was a prior condition of the universal sonship of the
faithful.113

Bruce, The Epistle to the Galatians, 196.

The figure of speech “chiasm” takes its name from the Greek letter that is written
in the shape of an “x.” In the figure, an author will list several ideas and then treat
them again in reverse order. This gives the argument an “x-shape”:
A B

112

X

Bʹ

Aʹ.

113
Lightfoot, The Epistle of St. Paul to the Galatians, 168. See note for footnote
120.

Justifying Christmas — Leader’s Guide |

Sometimes we need the perspective of a non-believer to
help us realize how incredible this sounds. One of the authors of this study was once questioned about his faith by
a fellow passenger on a long overseas flight. That passenger
was simply astounded to find that anyone “still believed that
stuff.” With amazement, rather than sarcasm in his voice, he
asked, “So you really believe that God came down to earth
and walked around on it as a human being?” Hearing the
question put that way restored the author’s sense of wonder
in the “old, old story” that we so often tell with equal parts
pride and nonchalance.
5. What does it mean to you that God’s own Son was
“born of woman”?
6. How would you explain to your children or to your
siblings the importance of this first characteristic of the
One sent out by God?
7. How can we help rekindle and enhance for each other
this year our sense of wonder at the Christmas story?
4d “born under the law”
Paul’s phrase has no definite article before the noun νόμον
(nomon), “law.” Since ancient times, readers have tried to
make a distinction between “law” and “the Law” based on
the absence or presence of the article. In a Greek prepositional phrase, however, no article is required to make the
noun definite; that is to say, our phrase ὑπὸ νόμον (hypo
nomon) could be translated “under law” or it could be translated “under the law.” Daniel Wallace explains,

26 | Justifying Christmas — Leader’s Guide

Even if Paul begins this section (vv 3–7) by thinking
in particular of Jewish Christians (καὶ ἡμεῖς [kai
hēmeis; “and we”]), who had lived more directly ὑπὸ
νόμον [hypo nomon, “under law”], it is plain now
that the beneficiaries of Christ’s redeeming work
(as in 3:13f.) include Gentiles as well as Jews. The
oscillation between ‘we’ (ἵνα … ἀπολάβωμεν [hina
… apolabōmen, “in order that … we might receive”],
v 5; cf. εἰς τὰς καρδίας ἡμῶν [eis tas kardias hēmōn;
“into our hearts”], v 6), ‘you’ (ὅτι δέ ἐστε υἱοί [hoti
de este huioi; “and because you *plural* are sons”],
v 6) and ‘thou’ (οὐκέτι εἶ δοῦλος [ouketi ei doulos;
“you *singular* are no longer a slave”], v 7), attests
the inclusive emphasis of Paul’s wording and argument (as in 3:23–26).114

This was truly a remarkable duel, when the Law, a
creature, came into conflict with the Creator, exceeding its every jurisdiction to vex the Son of God with
the same tyranny with which it vexed us, the sons
of wrath (Eph. 2:3). Because the Law has sinned so
horribly and wickedly against its God, it is summoned to court and accused. Here Christ says: “Lady
Law, you empress, you cruel and powerful tyrant
over the whole human race, what did I commit that
you accused, intimidated, and condemned Me in My
innocence?” Here the Law, which once condemned
and killed all men, has nothing with which to defend
or cleanse itself. Therefore it is condemned and
killed in turn, so that it loses its jurisdiction not only
over Christ — whom it attacked and killed without
any right anyway — but also over all who believe in
Him. Here Christ says (Matt. 11:28): “Come to Me,
all who labor under the yoke of the Law. I could
have overcome the Law by My supreme authority,
without any injury to Me; for I am the Lord of the
Law, and therefore it has no jurisdiction over Me.
But for the sake of you, who were under the Law, I
assumed your flesh and subjected Myself to the Law.
That is, beyond the call of duty I went down into the
same imprisonment, tyranny, and slavery of the Law
under which you were serving as captives. I permitted the Law to lord it over Me, its Lord, to terrify Me,
to subject Me to sin, death, and the wrath of God—
none of which it had any right to do. Therefore I
have conquered the Law by a double claim: first, as
the Son of God, the Lord of the Law; secondly, in
your person, which is tantamount to your having
conquered the Law yourselves.117

It remains for us, then, only to comment on the idea of
redemption. Looking at these two verses alone, we might
wonder why Paul introduces such an important concept
with so little comment. Although the idea should be a
familiar one to Bible readers both ancient and modern, Paul
is not simply assuming that his readers will know what he is
talking about. He has already explained very clearly the way
in which Christ has redeemed those under the curse of the
law in chapter 3. Read Gal. 3:10–14 (again).

27

These words portray Christ truly and accurately.
They do not ascribe to Him the work of establishing
a new Law; they ascribe to Him the work of redeeming those who were under the Law.115
Luther goes on to note how difficult it is for those in his
generation to escape the picture of Christ that they grew
up with. Even the young, though, who are “unspoiled and
uninfected” by such false teaching about Christ, because of
their sinful flesh will naturally regard Christ as a Lawgiver
rather than as a Redeemer. Luther urges,
Therefore you must contend with all your might, in
order that you may learn to acknowledge and regard
Christ as Paul portrays Him in this passage.116
With regard to the redemption itself, Luther waxes eloquent. We must not, however, let his signature language
— both powerful and colorful — encourage us to enjoy it as
114

Bruce, The Epistle to the Galatians, 196.

115

AE 26:368.

116

AE 26:368.

Witherington, Grace in Galatia, 288.

Luther’s and thus miss the point. Taking up and expanding
Paul’s metaphor of Law as the master to whom we were
enslaved, Luther writes,

We add a few comments from Luther, then pause for questions and discussion.

We have already spent some time on the idea of being
“under the law.” At this point, we need only add that those
who argue that the Jews are the only people properly “under
the law” would be forced to also regard the redemption
Paul speaks of here as solely for the Jews as well. Surely
that cannot be Paul’s meaning. Bruce presents a view that
is much easier to defend based on Paul’s own language
in this section:

111

Discussion Questions

107

25

9. How do these two characteristics, “born of woman”
and “born under the law,” find expression in the Christmas narratives of Matthew and Luke? As you skim over
Matthew 1 and Luke 2, note the vulnerability of the
Holy Family, the need to provide for basic necessities
and the prominent (and sometimes hostile) presence of
political authorities.

Born under the Law, Christ was the perfect slave and found
this subjection no slavery to Him, yet this is not the first
time in this epistle where Paul has talked about what it
means to be “under the law.” As Bruce explains,

108

That said, as Ben Witherington reminds us, “one must exist
before one can be sent.”104 The order of the ideas as Paul
arranges them and the logic of the thought do suggest that
Paul is thinking of the pre-existent Son of God here, even
if the verb cannot be turned into a technical term requiring
that concept.

102

Thus, when a noun is the object of a preposition, it
does not require the article to be definite: if it has the
article, it must be definite; if it lacks the article, it may
be definite.108

Paul might have put on the lips of Christ the language of Ps. 40:8, ‘I delight to do thy will, O my God;
thy law is within my heart’ … but when he speaks
here of Christ having been born under law he bears
in mind what he has already said about the curse of
the law (3:10, 13). In Paul’s thinking, for the Son of
God to be born under that law which he rejoiced to

And yet, like Luther, Witherington may say too much. Paul’s
language neither requires nor excludes the idea of “born
of a virgin,” but it does allow for it. This normal phrase
for describing a human being is still and even somewhat
ironically true of this man who did not come into the world
quite “the normal way.” Still, Witherington is correct that
the emphasis here is on Jesus’ full and true humanity, not on
the mode of His conception and birth.107 And that is where
our focus should be, too.

In the first phrase, Paul sounded just a little bit like Luke. In
this phrase, he sounds just a little bit like John, with John’s
emphasis on the sending of the Son by the Father.103 The

Justifying Christmas — Leader’s Guide |

St. Paul refers primarily to the Mosaic law, as at
once the highest and most rigorous form of law, but
extends the application to all those subject to any
system of positive ordinances. We seem to have the
same extension, starting from the law of Moses, in
1 Cor. ix. 20, ἐγενόμην τοῖς Ἰουδαίοις ὡς Ἰουδαῖος
… τοῖς ὑπὸ νόμον ὡς ὑπὸ νόμον [egenomēn tois
Ioudaiois hōs Ioudaios … tois hypo nomon hōs hypo
nomon; “I became to the Jews like a Jew … to those
under law like one under law”].110

verb that Paul uses here, ἐξαποστέλλω (exapostellō), is a
very common verb used for sending someone out on a mission. Although it is used here of God’s Son, and elsewhere
of the Spirit and of angels, it is also used of Paul (Acts 17:14),
of Barnabas (Acts 11:22) and of the Hebrew patriarchs (Acts
7:12). In Christian literature outside the New Testament it is
also used of non-personal things like plagues and punishments (Shepherd of Hermas, Visions 4.2.6). The verb itself,
then, does not indicate anything in particular about the
sender or the person or thing being sent — only that it is
being sent to accomplish the purpose of the sender.

4b “God sent forth his Son”

The noun in Galatians is the nominative singular of πλήρωμα (plērōma;
“fullness”), and both verbs in Luke are aorist passive forms of πίμπλημι (pimplēmi;
“fulfill/fill full”). Both words may most probably be traced back to a common IndoEuropean root, *pleh-, which has to do with the idea of “fill.” See Robert Beekes,
Etymological Dictionary of Greek (Leiden: Brill, 2016), 1191. The similarity,
actually a little closer in English than in Greek, has more to do with the coupled
ideas of “filling up” and “time” than with identical vocables.

267

10. How does Christmas make you feel? Merry? Jolly? Bright? Tired? Overwhelmed? Guilty? At what
moments are you most tempted to think that Christ
comes to you as a Lawgiver rather than as your Redeemer?

AE 26:370–371. Luther speaks very strongly against the Law here, but it is
important to keep in mind, especially for those less familiar with Luther’s writings,
that he is speaking specifically of the Law in the context of justification. A little bit
earlier in this commentary, Luther wrote, “Apart from the matter of justification, on
the other hand, we, like Paul, should think reverently of the Law. We should endow
it with the highest praises and call it holy, righteous, good, spiritual, divine, etc.”
See AE 26:365.

117

28 | Justifying Christmas — Leader’s Guide

2019 Convention Workbook