Galatians 4:21–23

From the 8. verse of this chapter to the 20. verse, Paul hath handled the conclusion of the principall argument of this Epistle touching the Apostasie of the Galatians: and here he returnes againe to his former doctrine touching the iustification of a sinner by faith, without the workes of the law: and he confirmes it by an other Argument, the summe and substance whereof is this: Your libertie from the law, was prefigured in the familie of Abraham: therefore ye are not bondmen to the law, but freemen.

The argument is at large propounded, and it hath foure parts: a preface in the 21. verse: an historie of Abraham and his familie, vers. 22. 23. the Application of the historie from the 24. verse to the 30. the conclusion, v. 31.

And first of the Preface. Law] the word (law) in the first place, is taken properly for the morall and Ceremoniall lawe of Moses: and in the second place, for the bookes of Moses, and namely, for the booke of Genesis. And in this sense the word is taken, when Christ is said to expound the law and the Prophets, Luk. 24. And sometime it signifies all the bookes of the old testament, Ioh. 15. 15.

Vnder the law] to be vnder the lawe, is to hold our selues bound to the fulfilling of the lawe: and to looke for life eternall thereby.

Doe ye not heare the law?] that is, ye read and heare indeede, but ye vnderstand not the scope and drift of that which you read.

In this preface, first Paul meetes with the pride of mans nature, whereby the Galatians went about to establish their owne righteousnesse by the lawe, when he saith, ye that will be vnder the lawe, &c. with this pride were the Iewes tainted, Rom. 10. 3. and the young Prince that came to Christ and said, Good master what must I doe to be saued? And the Papists of our time, who will not be subiect to the iustice of God, but set vp their owne iustice in the keeping of the law. The like doe the ignorant people among vs, who hold that they are able to fulfill the law, and that they are to be saued thereby. And when they say, they looke to be saued by their faith, they vnder stand thereby their fidelitie, that is, their good dealing.

Againe, Paul here notes the seruile disposition of men that loues rather to be in bondage vnder the law, then to be in perfect libertie vnder the grace of God. This we see in daily experience. All professe Christ among vs: yet is it euen a death to the most, to forsake the bōdage of the flesh. Christ we professe, yet so as we take libertie to liue after the lustes of our owne hearts.

When Paul saith, doe ye not heare the lawe? he notes the cause of our spirituall pride, and of the seruile disposition before named, namely, ignorance in mistaking and misconceiuing the true scope of the law: for the Galatians did not consider that Christ was the scope of the lawe, but they supposed that the very obseruation of the lawe euen since the fall of man, did giue life and iustifie. This ignorance was to the Iewes as a vaile before their eies in the reading of the lawe, 2. Cor. 3. 14. And this ignorance hath blinded the Papist at this day: for he supposeth that the Gospell is nothing els but the lawe of Moses: & that Christ indeed is but an instrument to make vs keepers of the lawe, and consequently sauiours of our selues.

In the historie of Abraham I consider three things, the facte of Abraham in taking two wiues: the Euent vpon this fact, he had two sonnes by them: the condition of these sonnes.

Touching the fact of Abraham, it may be demanded, what is to be iudged thereof? The ground to the answer shall be this: that marriage is the indiuisible coniunction of one man and one woman onely. This Christ of purpose teacheth. Math. 16. where he saith that God created them at the first man and woman, and not women, v. 4. that a man must for sake father and mother and cleaue to his wife, not to his wiues, v. 5. that they twaine shall be one flesh, v. 6. And in all this Christ makes no newe lawe, but onely reuiues the first institution of marriage made in Paradise. And Moses hauing set down this diuine institution, addes withall that Lamech was the first that brake it, by taking many wiues.

Now then, the answer to the question is twofold. Some say, that Abraham and the rest of the Patriarks had a dispensation from God to marrie many wiues, and therefore that it was no sinne in them. Of this minde are sundrie learned men, both Protestants and Papists. But the answer is onely coniecturall, and hath no euidence in scripture.

The second answer is, that God did not approoue the polygamie of the fathers, or commend it, but did onely tolerate it, as a lesser euill, for the preuenting of a greater. This tolleration appeares, in that God commanded that the king must not multiply his wiues, Deut. 17. 17. and that the child of the hated wife, (though shee be the second wife,) if it be first borne, shall be the heire. Deut. 21. 15. The occasions of this tolleration were two. One was, a desire in the Patriarches to multiply their posteritie, that if it were possible, the Messias might descend of their line. The second was, the common custome of men in the east countries, who made no matter of it, to mary many wiues: and common custome bred a common errour, and a common errour, bred common ignorance, whereby that which was indeed a sinne, was esteemed no sinne.

It may be obiected, if the hauing of many wiues were an offence, that Abraham and the rest of the holy Patriarches liued and died in a sinne without repentance: because we finde nothing in scripture teaching their repentance for their sinne. Answer. Known sinnes require particular repentance: but if sinnes be vnknown, or vnconsidered, by reason that men are carried away with the sway of the times (as the Patriarches were) a generall repentance sufficeth, Psal. 19. 12.

Againe, it may be alleadged, that Abraham tooke Agar by the consent of Sara. Ans. that sufficeth not to make a full excuse for Abraham. For if marriage were a meere ciuill contract, as it is made by the consent of men and women, so it might be dissolued by like consent: But it is more then a ciuill contract: because in the making of it, beside the consent of the parties, the authoritie of God is interposed: and therefore Saraes consent (in giuing Agar to Abrahā) is nothing, without the allowance of God: and we may not thinke that God will allowe of that which is directly against his owne ordinance.

Thirdly, it may be alleadged, that if the hauing of may wiues be a fault, then Abraham and the rest were adulterers. Ans. Not so, the polygamie of the fathers is to be placed in the middle, betweene adulterie, and holy wedlocke. They tooke not wiues of a leude minde, for the satisfying of their lust, but of a conscience not rightly informed in this point.

The euent vpon the facte of Abraham was, that his two wiues, bare him two sonnes. He had indeed more sonnes by Ketura, Gen. 25. 2. but these two, Ismael and Isaac are onely here mentioned: because by the speciall appointment of God, they were ordained as types of true beleeuers, and hypocrites. Read Rom. 9, 7, 8.

The condition of the children is set forth, by a double difference. The first is, that one was borne of a bonde woman, & therefore a bondman, the other of a free woman, and therefore a free man, and the heire. Here it may be demanded, how the same person can be both a wife and a bond woman? Answ. Among the heathen (as also among the Iewes) there were two sorts of wiues. Of the first kinde were they, that were ioynt gouernors Vxor materfamilias. of the family with the husband, and they were called mistresses of the house. Of the second sort were they, that serued onely for propagation, and were in all other respects as seruants or strangers. Vxor Vsuaria. Of the first kind, was Sara, and of the second, Hagar and Ketura.

The second difference of the children was this. One, that is, Ismael was borne after the flesh, that is, by the strength of nature, and according to the fleshly counsel of Sara, who did substitute Hagar into her own roome. The other, namely Isaac, was borne by the promise, that is, according to the order of nature, yet not by the strength of nature, but by the vertue of the promise of God.

In the birth of Ismael Saras desire was good, that the promise of God might be accomplished: but the meanes was carnall, the substitution of her handmaid, This is the condition of the godly: they intēd & desire the best things, but they faile in the manner of doing. The spirit stirs vp good motions, and the flesh corrupteth them. Paul saith, that to will was present with him, but he could not doe that which was good as he ought. This must cause vs alwaies to humble our selues for our best works.

Againe, we are here taught not to make haste to accomplish our desires, but when God promiseth any thing, to waite his leasure, and in the meane season to liue in subiection. Sara with all her haste could not preuent Gods prouidence. Shee hath her desire in the birth of Ismael, but yet he is borne according to the flesh, in bondage, and he is not the promised seed.

In the birth of Isaac we see the vertue of the promise of God, when it is mixed with our faith: for then it makes things possible, that are otherwise impossible, Math. 17. 20. If then we desire any good things at the hands of God, our dutie is in silence and patience to rest on the promises of God, and then our desire shall indeed be accomplished.