Cheryl Schatz

Pastor Burleson,
I fixed the spelling of your name.  I also fixed the typos on my own post.  Boy, we are all getting old, eh?

Don,
The problem with Nyland’s translation is that she misses an extremely necessary piece of Greek and she focuses on something that by itself has no guarantee of the inheritance.

Galatians 4:7 says “IF” and “then”.  The word “if” is the Greek word “ei”  It is a primary particle of conditionality.

What is “if” connected to?  Paul writes “if” a son “then” an heir.  The ending result is being an heir.   One cannot get to the point of being an heir without being a son.  This was their system.  Only sons were heirs.  So Paul’s point is that they were slaves but they are no longer slaves.  They have gone from the position of having no privileges, no rights and no importance, to the place of adoption as a son.  The sonship (which is the “if”) must lead to the inheritance (which is the “then”).  “IF” sons “THEN” heirs.  If we remove the male part of being a son, the part of inheritance is not a natural flow nor is there a guarantee.  The reason is because if one is a daughter there is no if/then relationship with the inheritance.  Full sonship for all, both men/women, Jews/Gentiles, slaves/freeborn is in view and ALL without exception receive adoption as sons.

If we remove the conditional part of the Greek, then we also have no place to focus the guaranteed rights of sonship.  Paul is focusing on our position right now.  IF we are sons, THEN there is a guarantee of inheritance.  IF we are sons and daughters, then there is not a full guarantee of inheritance.  Legal adoption does not guarantee the inheritance.  Only sonship does.

Does this make sense?