Paul’s Allegory to the Galatians (Gal 4.21-31)
What follows is Paul's continued plea that the Galatians not live under bondage to the Mosaic Law at the insistence of the Judaizers. He does so by taking the historical story of Abraham's two sons Isaac and Ishmael and allegorizes1 the historical event to convey to the theme the freedom they now enjoy and to not regress into slavery.
'Tell me, you who want to be under law, do you not listen to the law?' (vs. 21)
The patriarchic narrative surrounding Abraham wasn't a part of the Mosaic economy, but in a Jewish mindset the narrative of Abraham would've been included in the Torah (‘Law') so Paul includes the narrative in talking about the Jewish law. His rhetorical question states that the Galatians who were falling into slavery under the Mosaic Law didn't even understand what the 'law' (in this instance the narrative of Abraham's sons) really said.
'For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by the bondwoman and one by the free woman.' (vs. 22)
Here Paul starts to unfold the narrative of Genesis 16-21 through the eyes of sonship/slavery. There are two sons corresponding to two women, and one was a bondwoman (slave) and the other a free woman. Both of these women will represent two covenants. Paul uses this language to describe which covenant the Galatian Christians are actually under.
'This is allegorically speaking, for these women are two covenants: one proceeding from Mount Sinai bearing children who are to be slaves; she is Hagar. (vs. 24)
Remember the story of Abraham. Yahweh promised to make a great nation from Abraham (Gen 12:1-3). Abraham walked in faith, but his faith was tested by the fact that he was old and was starting to realize that he didn't have a son to carry on this line and therefore this promise from Yahweh (Gen 15:3). But Yahweh ensures him that he will have a son of promise to carry on his great nation: 'one who will come forth from your own body, he shall be your heir' (Gen 15:4).
The lesson to be learned is that Abraham, despite Yahweh's promise decided to take it upon himself by works to have a son. Sarai, Abraham's wife, then tells Abraham to conceive a child through Hagar since she has been barren.
Now Sarai, Abram's wife had borne him no children, and she had an Egyptian maid whose name was Hagar. So Sarai said to Abram, "Now behold, the LORD has prevented me from bearing children. Please go in to my maid; perhaps I will obtain children through her." And Abram listened to the voice of Sarai. (Gen 16:1-2)
Hagar did have a son Ishmael, but Yahweh's promise would not be thwarted; He would provide a son of promise. Abraham even cries out to Yahweh to accept Ishmael, but Yahweh says that Ishmael is not the one that would carry on the promised nation (Gen 17:18-19). Yahweh then tells Abraham that 'My covenant I will establish with Isaac, whom Sarah will bear to you at this season next year' (Gen 17:21).
Hagar was a slave of Sarah, and anyone in that time period who was born of a slave inherited that social status (similar to the current Hindu caste system). So anyone that proceeded from Hagar/Ishmael were slaves, but Yahweh wants sons of freedom not of slavery (Gal 4:28) so He will deliver a son of promise through the free woman (Sarah).
'Now this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children.' (vs. 25)
Paul applies the person of Hagar and her children and ascribes them to the covenant that came from Mount Sinai.2 This covenant was the Mosaic Covenant that gave forth the Mosaic Law. We should note that the Judaizers were pressing circumcision yet the rite of circumcision was passed onto Abraham in Gen 17 before the establishment of Israel under the Mosaic economy.3 Paul makes the reference that Hagar represents the 'present Jerusalem' which I understand to be the whole of Judaism to which the physical Jerusalem was the epicenter of that faith.4 Paul's lesson is that anyone 'underneath the [Mosaic] law' is in slavery.
'But the Jerusalem above is free; she is our mother.' (vs. 26)
Paul then moves on to the other covenant symbolized by Sarah. This covenant is different, because it is a covenant of promise not slavery; freedom not bondage; eternal not temporal. This covenant is often listed as the New Covenant of Jeremiah 31:31-34, 2 Corinthians 3, and Hebrews 8 to which Christ inaugurated in His death (Luke 22:20), but Paul's focus throughout the last two chapters have been comparing the Abrahamic to the Mosaic covenants. But all three of the major commentaries I utilized ascribed covenant as the New Covenant. I'll let the reader come to their own conclusion. Regardless, the inheritance mentioned with the 'Jerusalem above' is one of freedom not slavery.
Let's construct a table comparing the two sides of the allegory:
| Hagar | Sarah |
|---|---|
| Ishmael | Isaac |
| Law | Promise (Gospel) |
| Slavery | Freedom |
| Mosaic Covenant | Abrahamic/New Covenant |
| Works | Faith |
| The present Jerusalem (Topographical = Judaism) |
The Jerusalem above (the Church of Christ) |
| Judaizers | Galatians |
For it is written, "REJOICE, BARREN WOMAN WHO DOES NOT BEAR; BREAK FORTH AND SHOUT, YOU WHO ARE NOT IN LABOR; FOR MORE NUMEROUS ARE THE CHILDREN OF THE DESOLATE THAN OF THE ONE WHO HAS A HUSBAND." (vs. 27)
Paul then quotes from Isaiah 54:1 and by doing so applies that chapter to the Church age. Remember that the historical context of Isaiah 54 is an Israel that (children of physical Jerusalem) was in exile, but Israel is to be restored with more children than were lost.5 It could be stated that the Gentiles who were 'barren' as Sarah in terms of being outside of a relationship with Yahweh had been brought close in the Church age (Eph 2:11-22; Gal 3:29; Rom 2:28-29, 9:22-25; Phi 3:3; 1 Pet 2:9).
'And you brethren, like Isaac, are children of promise. But as at that time he who was born according to the flesh persecuted him who was born according to the Spirit, so it is now also.' (vs. 28-29)
He reminds the Galatian Christians that they are children of promise by faith. The Spirit had overcome Abraham and Sarah's old age and given them a child; so now, the Spirit is the agent of our birth by faith (Tit 3:3-7). There is a reminder set to them that Ishmael (the one 'born according to the flesh') persecuted Isaac ('born according to Spirit') and so the children of slavery (the Judaizers) will persecute the children of freedom (Galatian Christians). On the celebration of Isaac's weaning Ishmael was mocking Isaac (Gen 21:9), and after seeing this Sarah demanded that Abraham drive Hagar and Ishmael out. This sets the scene for Paul's next quotation.
'But what does the Scripture say? ‘CAST OUT THE BONDWOMAN AND HER SON, FOR THE SON OF THE BONDWOMAN SHALL NOT BE AN HEIR WITH THE SON OF THE FREE WOMAN.'' (vs. 30)
Implicit in this quotation from Genesis 21:10 is that the Galatian Christians are to drive out the Judaizers by this quotation. The bondwoman and her son are to be thrown out (the Judaizers). Sarah was worried that as long as the first born was around (Ishmael) he could potentially threaten the inheritance promised to Isaac.6 Therefore, drive out the one who could take away from the inheritance of promise.
'[This quotation is to] enshrine the basic gospel truth: legal bondage and spiritual freedom cannot coexist.'7
'So then, brethren, we are not children of a bondwoman, but of the free woman.' (vs. 31)
'Remember,' Paul emphatically states again, 'you are not children of slavery, law, and futility but of freedom, faith, and life.' It's Paul's final admonition in this chapter not to revert to a life of futility through the Mosaic Law.
Here is a final admonition from Phillip Graham Ryken concerning this allegory:
'We forget that Christianity is a form of liberty, and not slavery. We reduce faith in Christ to a list of rules or traditions. We evaluate our spiritual standing by what we do for God, rather than what God has done for us in Jesus Christ. In truth, we are all recovering Pharisees, in constant danger of forgetting to live only by faith and choosing instead to go right back under the law.'8
Footnotes
- Allegorize: The entities in the story stand for something other than their prima facie [at face value] sense. [Back]
- It is often thought that the 'great nation' promised to Hagar (Gen 21:18) and Abraham (Gen 17:20) for Ishmael as a son of Abraham is in fact the modern day Arabs corresponding to Arabia, but that is outside the context of this passage. [Back]
- I am going to deduce that Paul understands a correlation of circumcision to be included in a command that has passed in the New Covenant (another argument for Credobaptism), and that Paul wants to emphasize a larger lesson that New Covenant believers are free from all Old Testament commands. Although, I cannot right prove this exegetically so I am still deciding on this interpretation. But for the purpose of this exposition we can move on. [Back]
- F.F. Bruce, The Epistle to the Galatians: The New International Greek Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982) pg. 220. [Back]
- F.F. Bruce, pg. 222. [Back]
- Ibid., pg. 224. [Back]
- Ibid., pg. 225. [Back]
- Phillip Graham Ryken. Galatians (New Jersey: Presbyterian & Reformed Publishing, 2005), pg. 181. [Back]
Sep 26th 2006 
3 Comments 
Sep 27th 2006
Chris,
Excellent stuff -- Galatians 3 and 4 are two of my favorite chapters in the bible (although I would probably say that about a lot of others as well). I just have one comment, regarding the New/Abrahamic covenant question you brought up: I think the passage has to have the new covenant in mind, since Paul is addressing new covenant members, and explaining to them their true position. However, that does not mean that the Abrahamic covenant is not in view as well -- remember in chapter three, Paul said that the law could not abrogate the Abrahamic promise, and that it was thus still in force? And further, that the promise had been fulfilled to Christ, and hence, to all those who are in Christ? I think the New Covenant is really one and the same as the Abrahamic Covenant, with the further advance that, what was only promised to Abraham is now fulfilled for us. He had the promises of Christ (or the Christ who would fulfill the promises), we have the Christ who did fulfill the promises, the Christ in whom all the promises of God find their amen (II Cor. 1).
Anyway, I guess my only point is that, there is such an organic unity between the Abrahamic promise and the new covenant, that it would not be at all improper to think of the members of the "jerusalem which is from above" either as members of the new covenant or partakers of the fulfilled Abrahamic covenant -- either way, you're really saying one and the same thing.
Thanks again for the article. I really enjoyed it. Nathan
Sep 27th 2006
Thanks Nathan. I struggle, because up to that verse he is contrasting Mosaic to Abrahamic. To make such a sudden switch seems, not unlikely, just odd.
I would be hesitant to say that the Abrahamic and New Covenants are one and the same. I agree that Christ is the fulfillment of the Abrahamic Covenant, but there are people who could be a "seed of Abraham" (physical) and not be in the New Covenant (spiritual). I think that's the thrust of Romans 9 (esp. vs. 6). On top of that, there were people "in" the Abrahamic Covenant but were unregenerate, and that is not the case for the New Covenant.
Sep 27th 2006
Chris,
Although not every one of the persons who were formally incorporated into the Abrahamic Covenant were regenerate, yet every person who was an actual partaker was indeed regenerate – and that from the very beginning. The Abrahamic Covenant was a covenant of spirtual life and inclusion in Christ, not merely of physical blessings. From its inauguration it was spoken of as a covenant which was everlasting, and furthermore, which promised to those who were indeed a part of it that God would be a God to them, and to their seed after them. God is not truly the God (in the special elective sense) of anyone but the regenerate. However not all those who were formally included were actual partakers, as Romans 9 indicates.
This truth is the same truth for believers today – not everyone who has formally been incorporated into the covenant is an actual partaker. Those who are imposters will be cut off (see Romans 11). That they will be cut off indicates, first, that they are not truly regenerate, or they would not be cut off at all. And second, that they were, in some lesser sense, incorporated into the covenant – or they would not in the first place be grafted in, so that they could later be cut off at all.
And that the Abrahamic Covenant is the Covenant in which the regenerate partake today (albeit an advanced or renewed form of the covenant, as the promises have now been fulfilled) is made clear by Galatians 3:13-29; Ephesians 2:12-13; and Ephesians 3:4-6. Notice especially Ephesians 2, which says clearly that the Gentiles were formerly “strangers from the covenants of promise,†but are no longer so. This necessitates that the covenant which they participate in is one and the same covenant as the true Israelites of old participated in – no matter how great an advance was wrought in that same covenant by the completed work of Christ.