By Angus Harley

21 Tell me, you who want to be under law, do you not listen to the law? 22 For it is written….

Paul is going on the attack to argue that the Galatian Christians were ‘backing the wrong horse’ in following the Law of Moses. He most likely distinguishes the Mosaic Law (“under law”) from the written Law. Now, this could be the Pentateuch, for the story is about Abraham, or it might be the OT Scriptural witness in general. If the latter, there is arguably the same contrast in Romans 3:19, “Now we know that whatever the Law says, it speaks to those who are under the Law, so that every mouth may be closed and all the world may become accountable to God”. In Romans 3:10-18, Paul quotes from different places in the OT to show how all men are condemned as sinners. It is my belief that it is this model that Paul is using again in Galatians 4. The OT Scriptures in general, in other words, demonstrate the principle of the bondage of all men in sin, an enslavement that the Law of Moses (Covenant Law) was specifically created to magnify (Gal.3:19; Rom.4:15; 5:13-14; 7:7-12). This distinction is important, for Paul is knocking the legs from under the Judaizers’ appeal to both Moses’ Covenant Law and to the OT.

22 …Abraham had two sons, one by the bondwoman and one by the free woman.

Abraham is the focus, and his sons in particular, through two different women: one who was a slave, and the other who was free. Paidiske generally means in the NT a female servant; but were any of them not slaves? Certainly, Paul’s allegory taught that this woman was a slave (v25). Notice how slavery is sharply contrasted to freedom, with Hagar as slave and Sarah as free.

23 But the son by the bondwoman was born according to the flesh, and the son by the free woman through the promise.

The slavery of the bondwoman is rooted in fleshliness. As a result, she produces a fleshly offspring or son. By sharp contrast, the free woman is rooted in the promise, and consequently she gives birth to a son through the promise.

24 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.

Paul is confident enough to take the historical circumstances of Abraham and his two wives and to apply them to his own day in which the Galatian Christians were being seduced to follow the Mosaic Law, to come under it. This method Paul calls ‘allegorical’. These two women represent two covenants. We learn here of one of those covenant-women, Hagar. She represents the Old Covenant on Mount Sinai. The Jewish covenant of the Law. This ‘holy mountain’ and its covenant, and by extension its holy Law, are lumped into the same status of enslavement as Hagar, the slave woman, who was not of the promise, and was an Egyptian (Gen.16:1). Both women rightly laid claim to Abraham, but Hagar’s claim was merely fleshly. By extension, Mount Sinai, the Law, and the Old Covenant rightly laid claim to Abraham, but only in the fleshly sense. Fleshly Hagar’s fleshly son, Ishmael, is considered to be the offspring of Mount Sinai, the Law, and the Old Covenant.

25 Now this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children.

For Paul to repeat so soon that Hagar is Mount Sinai is to deliberately underscore the fleshly nature of Mount Sinai. This is drawn out by the addition “in Arabia” to give to the Jewish ‘holy mountain’ and the Mosaic Covenant, its son, and its Law, a Gentile flavor and location. Paul then blows wide open the allegorical door by saying that Mount Sinai in Arabia is but a figure of modern Jerusalem and its Jewish inhabitants or children. So, Jerusalem itself, and not just the place of the Old Covenant, Mount Sinai, is considered a place of enslavement that produces fleshly, in bondage, children. Note how the two ‘holy places’ where God came to meet with Israel are turned into Gentile-like, godless, fleshly areas of this world. Paul is, in other words, going above and beyond to imprison any classic idea that promoted Law-priority, Israel-privilege, and Covenant-right. And let’s be exceptionally clear on Paul’s words here. He does not for one second suggest that Israelites are blessed, or elect, or in a privileged Covenant with God. Israel the people, its holy places, its Covenant, and its Law are all quarantined in enslavement, bondage, and the flesh. Indeed, if one looks at Galatians, nowhere is the Mosaic Law ever directly identified with God or with Jesus Christ. Nor is the Old Covenant. Nor is Israel of the flesh; Galatians 6:15-16 is concerning the true Israel of God, the assembly.

Let us pause for a second to consider the OT narrative on Abraham, Hagar, and Ishmael. It is apparent from Genesis 16-21 that Ishmael is not the son of promise, nor Hagar the wife of the promise. Hagar’s son Ishmael’s descendants are deliberately separated from Isaac and his progeny (Gen.25:12-18). Yet, here is Paul lumping in Ishmael, the son of the flesh, with Israel and its sons, so that, allegorically speaking, the Israelites are, effectively, Ishmaelites.

Israel is therefore enslaved, Jerusalem enslaved, Mount Sinai and its Covenant is enslaved, too. To suggest for a micro-moment that Israel are therefore not enslaved, and are still special, along with the Mosaic Law (or parts of it), is to blatantly, crudely, and directly, contradict Paul’s teaching.

26 But the Jerusalem above is free; she is our mother.

Now Paul moves on to the second woman, to Sarah. She, allegorically, is the Jerusalem above, the Covenant above, and is free. It is therefore a Covenant of freedom. This heavenly Jerusalem is set in complete contrast to the earthly Jerusalem of Hagar. Sarah, heavenly Jerusalem, is the mother of all the children of freedom, the assembly. They are not children of the Law, children of the flesh, children of the Old Covenant, nor children of this world, nor, specifically, children associated with any earthly holy place belonging to Israel. They are heavenly children of the heavenly Jerusalem-woman-Covenant.

Anyone who was Jewish and who was a believer was not categorized, therefore, as a Jew from below, but a son of Jerusalem from above- a Jew from above. This same teaching is brought out in Galatians 6:15-16, “15 For neither is circumcision anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creation. 16 And those who will walk by this rule, peace and mercy be upon them, and upon the Israel of God.” Fleshly Jewishness, or fleshly Gentileness, is neither here nor there in the Israel of God. In like fashion, Galatians 3:27-29 states:

27 For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s descendants, heirs according to promise. (see Col.3:11)

Once more, in Romans 4 Paul could not have been more clear if he’d tried:

9 Is this blessing then on the circumcised, or on the uncircumcised also? For we say, “Faith was credited to Abraham as righteousness.” 10 How then was it credited? While he was circumcised, or uncircumcised? Not while circumcised, but while uncircumcised; 11 and he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while uncircumcised, so that he might be the father of all who believe without being circumcised, that righteousness might be credited to them, 12 and the father of circumcision to those who not only are of the circumcision, but who also follow in the steps of the faith of our father Abraham which he had while uncircumcised.

13 For the promise to Abraham or to his descendants that he would be heir of the world was not through the Law, but through the righteousness of faith. 14 For if those who are of the Law are heirs, faith is made void and the promise is nullified; 15 for the Law brings about wrath, but where there is no law, there also is no violation.

16 For this reason it is by faith, in order that it may be in accordance with grace, so that the promise will be guaranteed to all the descendants, not only to those who are of the Law, but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all, 17 (as it is written, “A father of many nations have I made you”) in the presence of Him whom he believed, even God, who gives life to the dead and calls into being that which does not exist. 18 In hope against hope he believed, so that he might become a father of many nations according to that which had been spoken, “So shall your descendants be.” 19 Without becoming weak in faith he contemplated his own body, now as good as dead since he was about a hundred years old, and the deadness of Sarah’s womb; 20 yet, with respect to the promise of God, he did not waver in unbelief but grew strong in faith, giving glory to God, 21 and being fully assured that what God had promised, He was able also to perform. 22 Therefore it was also credited to him as righteousness. 23 Now not for his sake only was it written that it was credited to him, 24 but for our sake also, to whom it will be credited, as those who believe in Him who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead, 25 He who was delivered over because of our transgressions, and was raised because of our justification.

27 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.”

This verse presents another crucial insight into Paul’s allegory. Not only is Paul citing again the OT, but this time in relation to Israel’s return from exile. Here the OT is used positively, not negatively. Isaiah 54:1 is cited, and it was originally concerned with Israel’s return from exile in Babylon, and the lack of progeny in Jerusalem itself; Yahweh will reverse that distress, providing numerous children for mother Jerusalem (see; Isa.1:8; 10:11; 37:22 49:2; 51:1-3, 18; 66:7-12; cf., 21:9; 47:1). Curiously, two wives are mentioned, but only one has a husband. The heavenly wife, in this verse, has no husband. Back in the day, exile was approximate to divorce (Isa.501; Jer.3:1-10). At that time of exile, Israel had no husband; yet, by God’s grace she will produce. The wife with the husband might be a reference to Babylon the city (Isa.21:9; cf., 47:1) and its fidelity to its gods, but it is difficult to know. Isaiah was intimating that the wife without the husband would be restored and miraculously bear children. This, of course, means that Israel would become again Yahweh’s wife (Isa.54:5; 62:1-5).

We must remember that Paul is utilizing the OT within an allegorical model. So, Paul takes this verse that refers to Israel returning from Babylon and directly applies it to the heavenly Covenant and heavenly Jerusalem that gives birth to children. The children of the fleshly city of Jerusalem, Mount Sinai, Hagar, Ishmael, the earthly Covenant, and the Law are all put into the same category of the wife with the husband in bondage. Whereas, the wife without the husband is the wife of the promise and is free, with her sons, the heavenly Jerusalem, and the heavenly Covenant. The true wife is therefore the woman above, in heaven, the heavenly city of Jerusalem.

28 And you brethren, like Isaac, are children of promise.

Confirmation of the above interpretation. Isaac is a corporate figure like Ishmael is, and Hagar and Sarah, too.

29 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.

We read of Ishmael mocking Isaac, but not persecuting him (Gen.21:9). I think it possible that his spirit was corrupt and jealous, a bit like Cain. Nonetheless, Paul is using Ishmael as a corporate figure for those sons of the flesh based in the earthly city of Jerusalem and its Covenant. The son of the fleshly covenant persecuted the son of the heavenly covenant. One just needs to read some of the parables of Jesus, or his interaction with the Jewish leaders, to know all about the Jewish sons of the covenant that persecute. Paul says that in his day that same form of persecution continues. In his case, it was that the Judaizers and Jews persecuted the people of God. Paul had already experienced persecution.

Paul adds a new angle: the sons of the heavenly Jerusalem were born according to the Spirit. This recalls Paul’s teaching elsewhere about a true Jew:

25 For indeed circumcision is of value if you practice the Law; but if you are a transgressor of the Law, your circumcision has become uncircumcision. 26 So if the uncircumcised man keeps the requirements of the Law, will not his uncircumcision be regarded as circumcision? 27 And he who is physically uncircumcised, if he keeps the Law, will he not judge you who though having the letter of the Law and circumcision are a transgressor of the Law? 28 For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh. 29 But he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that which is of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter; and his praise is not from men, but from God. (Rom.2:25-29)

Moreover, Paul’s reference to the Spirit is a typical one that contrasts Spirit to flesh (Gal.3:3; 5:16, 17; 6:8, etc.). Once again, two absolute categories, both opposed to each other, neither ever syncing with the other. One from below, the other from above.

30 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.”

Paul’s citation of Genesis 21:10 here follows through on his previous citation, in v29, of Genesis 21:9. Once again, the OT Scriptures are acting to define both groups of people: of the flesh, of the Spirit; in bondage, free. To be cast out was the equivalent of a divorce. Abraham cut off his wife and his son. Sarah, his true wife, was jealous, but she nevertheless understood that the promise was only for Isaac, and that God would not tolerate both sons. Paul takes this same theology and shapes it to speak about the fleshly sons of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and anyone seeking to come “under the Law”. Only the son of the promise, born according to the Spirit, miraculously, and in fulfillment of the promise, could be the heir.

31 So then, brethren, we are not children of a bondwoman, but of the free woman.

Paul concludes about “we”, the assembly, the sons of Abraham, that they are not born of Hagar, but of Sarah, the heavenly and free woman, the Covenant from above, the heavenly Jerusalem.

From beginning to end, Paul has consistently held the position that there is no bleed, nor continuity, between: Hagar and Sarah, Ishmael and Isaac, non-heir and heir, Jerusalem from below and Jerusalem from above, the wife with the husband and the wife without the husband, the flesh and the Spirit, Mount Sinai and heaven, the earthly Covenant and the heavenly Covenant, the Law and the promise, the enslaved and the free. It is an absolute, clean-cut, right down the middle, divide, never broken, with no hint of there ever being any positive line of continuity between one side unto the other.