Galatians 4:30

An Exegetical Analysis of Galatians 4:30

This exegetical study of ‘Gal 4:30 λεγει as a Perfective Present?’ is based on a b-greek discussion from May 30, 1999. The initial inquiry focused on several grammatical and syntactical aspects of Galatians 4:30, specifically questioning whether the verb λεγει should be understood as a “perfective present” indicative of a past statement with ongoing, binding relevance. Further points of investigation included the nature of the genitive phrases ὁ υἱὸς τῆς παιδίσκης and τοῦ υἱοῦ τῆς ἐλευθέρας, inquiring if they constituted rare “genitives of relationship” or more common possessive forms. The presence and function of the emphatic negative particle οὐ μὴ before κληρονομήσει were also raised, with consideration given to the verb’s potential mood as either a future active indicative or an aorist active imperative. Lastly, the discussion sought to clarify the force of the imperative ἔκβαλε, proposing whether it functions as a permissive or conditional imperative rather than a simple command.

The main exegetical issue embedded within these grammatical questions is how Paul’s quotation of Genesis 21:10 (LXX) functions within his allegorical argument in Galatians. The precise nuances of verb tense, mood, negation, and genitive relationships directly impact the interpretation of God’s authoritative decree concerning Hagar and Ishmael, and by extension, Paul’s theological application to those who seek justification through the Law versus those who live by the Spirit and faith in Christ. A thorough grammatical and rhetorical analysis is crucial for understanding the strength of Paul’s conclusion regarding the exclusion of those who depend on legalism from the inheritance of God’s promises.

Ἀλλὰ τί λέγει ἡ γραφή; Ἔκβαλε τὴν παιδίσκην καὶ τὸν υἱὸν αὐτῆς· οὐ γὰρ μὴ κληρονομήσει ὁ υἱὸς τῆς παιδίσκης μετὰ τοῦ υἱοῦ τῆς ἐλευθέρας.
(Nestle 1904)

Key differences with SBLGNT (2010):

• The primary textual variant in Galatians 4:30 concerns the verb following οὐ γὰρ μὴ. Nestle 1904 reads κληρονομήσει (future active indicative). SBLGNT (2010) and most modern critical editions (e.g., NA28) read κληρονομήσῃ (aorist active subjunctive).

Textual Criticism and Lexical Notes

The textual variant regarding the verb κληρονομέω (to inherit) is significant for interpreting the precise force of the negation. The reading κληρονομήσῃ (aorist subjunctive), favored by NA28 and SBLGNT, represents a stronger and more definitive negation when combined with οὐ μὴ than the future indicative reading κληρονομήσει found in earlier editions like Nestle 1904. The external evidence (e.g., Codex Vaticanus, Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus, Ephraemi Rescriptus) overwhelmingly supports the subjunctive reading, making it the preferred critical text reading.

Lexical Notes:

• λέγει (from λέγω): BDAG defines λέγω as “to say, state, tell,” or “to mean, signify.” In the context of “what does the Scripture say?” (τί λέγει ἡ γραφή;), it signifies an authoritative and often timeless pronouncement from divine revelation. Kittel (TDNT IV, 100-140) emphasizes its role in conveying truth and its connection to divine speech.
• παιδίσκην (from παιδίσκη): BDAG defines it as “a young girl, maid,” or more specifically in this context, “a slave girl, female slave.” In Galatians 4, it refers allegorically to Hagar, representing the covenant of Sinai. Kittel (TDNT V, 637-653) highlights the social implications of this status and its theological significance in the Abrahamic narrative.
• κληρονομήσῃ (from κληρονομέω): BDAG defines it as “to acquire, take possession of, inherit.” It denotes the reception of an inheritance, whether material or spiritual. In Galatians, it refers to the spiritual inheritance of God’s promises. Kittel (TDNT III, 767-785) discusses its usage in both legal and theological contexts, particularly in relation to the promises made to Abraham.
• ἔκβαλε (from ἐκβάλλω): BDAG defines it as “to cast out, throw out, expel.” This verb carries a strong sense of forceful removal. Kittel (TDNT II, 505-510) notes its varied applications, from physical expulsion to spiritual separation, underscoring its decisive nature.

Translation Variants with Grammatical & Rhetorical Analysis

The grammatical issues raised concerning Galatians 4:30 profoundly influence its translation and theological interpretation:

1. The Aspect of λέγει: The suggestion of λέγει as a “perfective present” is grammatically problematic. The present tense of λέγω when used with ἡ γραφή is commonly understood as a historical present or a gnomic present. It indicates an action that was spoken in the past but whose truth or relevance is eternally valid and continually “speaks” in the present. It conveys the authority and ongoing applicability of Scripture. There is no distinct grammatical category of a “perfective present” in Koine Greek that would apply to λέγει in this context, unlike verbs that intrinsically carry a perfective aspect (e.g., ἥκω ‘I have come and am present’). The present tense here aptly captures the enduring nature of the scriptural decree without needing a specialized aspectual label.

2. The Nature of the Genitive Phrases: The phrases ὁ υἱὸς τῆς παιδίσκης (“the son of the slave woman”) and τοῦ υἱοῦ τῆς ἐλευθέρας (“the son of the free woman”) are best understood as straightforward genitives of possession or origin/description. These genitives clearly define the familial relationship and status of the sons. While genitives can express a wide range of relationships, labeling these as a rare “genitive of relationship” unnecessarily complicates a clear syntactical function. They simply denote “the son *belonging to* the slave woman” and “the son *belonging to* the free woman,” or “the son *who is from* the slave woman,” emphasizing lineage and status within the household.

3. The Force of οὐ μὴ with κληρονομήσῃ: The combination of οὐ μὴ with the aorist subjunctive (κληρονομήσῃ, as per NA28/SBLGNT) creates an emphatic negation, signifying a strong, definitive prohibition or denial. This construction is often referred to as a “double negative of emphatic denial” and effectively means “never will… / by no means will…”. If the reading were the future indicative (κληρονομήσει, Nestle 1904), the negation would still be strong, but the subjunctive offers a slightly more categorical and timeless prohibition. As noted in the discussion, this construction is often considered a Semitism, reflecting Hebrew idioms for absolute denial, common in the Septuagint and subsequently in the New Testament. It expresses a certainty that the stated action will not, under any circumstances, occur. The original question contemplating an aorist active imperative is ruled out by the verb’s form; it is unequivocally a subjunctive, reflecting a potential (though here, emphatically denied) action rather than a direct command.

4. The Imperative ἔκβαλε: The verb ἔκβαλε is an aorist active imperative. While the question was raised about whether it functions as a “permissive” or “conditional” imperative, the context of τί λέγει ἡ γραφή; strongly indicates a direct and authoritative divine command. Paul is quoting Scripture not to suggest a possibility but to declare an unalterable decree. Therefore, it is best interpreted as a simple command, reflecting God’s decisive action to expel Hagar and Ishmael from Abraham’s household. In Paul’s allegorical application, this imperative takes on a powerful rhetorical force, urging the Galatian believers to recognize the necessary exclusion of those who cling to legalism from the spiritual inheritance.

Conclusions and Translation Suggestions

The exegetical analysis of Galatians 4:30 reveals a passage rich in grammatical nuance and theological significance. The present tense of λέγει emphasizes the enduring authority of Scripture. The genitive phrases clearly delineate familial status. The emphatic negation οὐ μὴ κληρονομήσῃ powerfully asserts the absolute exclusion of those represented by the slave woman’s son from the inheritance. Finally, the imperative ἔκβαλε functions as a direct, authoritative command, underscoring the decisive nature of God’s redemptive plan.

Three possible translations are offered, each emphasizing slightly different nuances:

1. “But what does the Scripture declare? ‘Cast out the slave woman and her son; for by no means will the son of the slave woman inherit with the son of the free woman.'”
   This translation emphasizes the authoritative, declarative nature of the scriptural statement and the absolute certainty of the exclusion.
2. “However, what is the Scripture’s pronouncement? ‘Expel the slave and her son, for the son of the slave will never, ever inherit alongside the son of the free woman.'”
   This version aims for a slightly more dynamic rendering of λέγει and uses stronger English emphasis for οὐ μὴ to convey its forceful denial.
3. “What, then, does Scripture say? ‘Drive out the bondwoman and her son, because the son of the bondwoman shall certainly not share the inheritance with the son of the free woman.'”
   This translation focuses on the consequence (because) and the definitive nature of the denial, while maintaining a formal tone.