Miles de Libros Cristianos Gratis. Accede a nuestra Biblioteca Virtual

Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Galatians 4:21

Para un estudio avanzado de: “Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Galatians 4:21” utilice nuestra app.

Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law?

21 31. The Allegory of the two Covenants, pointing to liberty only in Christ

21. The final argument is an appeal to Scripture, to that very law to which the Galatians were desiring to subject themselves. If they would but listen to the teaching of the law they would hear it declaring its own inferiority to the Gospel, the bondage of its children as compared with the liberty of those who are the children of God through faith in Jesus Christ and heirs of the promise. Calvin says that St Paul in these verses employs a very beautiful illustration of the doctrine on which he has been insisting, but that viewed merely as an argument it has no great force. But he seems to forget that the cogency of an argument is relative to the habits of thought of the persons addressed. Some of those employed by our Lord seem to us inconclusive, because we find it difficult to put ourselves in the place of the Jews who heard Him. To them His words carried conviction or at least provoked no answer, e.g. Luk 11:47-48; Mat 22:31-33; Mat 22:41-46.

under the law ] perhaps ‘under (i.e. subject to) law’, legal observances, used in a wider and less definite sense than ‘ the law’ which here refers to the Pentateuch. St Paul adopts the well-known Jewish division of the O.T. Scriptures, the Law (or Pentateuch), the Prophets, the Hagiographa (or rest of the sacred writings).

do ye not hear ] Either ‘do ye not listen to its teaching?’ or ‘is it not read in your hearing?’ Act 15:21. Some copies have ‘do ye not read the law’, i.e. aloud in the Synagogues? Comp. Luk 4:16-17. The first is probably the meaning.

Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges

Tell me … – In order to show fully the nature and the effect of the Law, Paul here introduces an illustration from an important fact in the Jewish history. This allegory has given great perplexity to expositors, and, in some respects, it is attended with real difficulty. An examination of the difficulties will be found in the larger commentaries. My object, without examining the expositions which have been proposed, will be to state, in as few words as possible, the simple meaning and design of the allegory. The design it is not difficult to understand. It is to show the effect of being under the bondage or servitude of the Jewish law, compared with the freedom which the gospel imparts. Paul had addressed the Galatians as having a real desire to be under bondage, or to be servants; the note at Gal 4:9. He had represented Christianity as a state of freedom, and Christians as the sons of God – not servants, but freemen.

To show the difference of the two conditions, he appeals to two cases which would furnish a striking illustration of them. The one was the case of Hagar and her son. The effect of bondage was well illustrated there. She and her son were treated with severity, and were cast out and persecuted. This was a fair illustration of bondage under the Law; of the servitude to the laws of Moses; and was a fit representation of Jerusalem as it was in the time of Paul. The other case was that of Isaac. He was the son of a free woman, and was treated accordingly. He was regarded as a son, not as a servant. And he was a fair illustration of the case of those who were made free by the gospel. They enjoyed a similar freedom and sonship, and should not seek a state of servitude or bondage. The condition of Isaac was a fit illustration of the New Jerusalem; the heavenly city; the true kingdom of God. But Paul does not mean to say, as I suppose, that the history of the son of Hagar and of the son of Rebecca was mere allegory, or that the narrative by Moses was designed to represent the different condition of those who were under the Law and under the gospel.

He uses it simply, as showing the difference between servitude and freedom, and as a striking illustration of the nature of the bondage to the Jewish law, and of the freedom of the gospel, just as anyone may use a striking historical fact to illustrate a principle. These general remarks will constitute the basis of my interpretation of this celebrated allegory. The expression tell me, is one of affectionate remonstrance and reasoning; see Luk 7:42, Tell me, therefore, which of these will love him most? Compare Isa 1:18, Come, now, and let us reason together, saith the Lord.

Ye that desire to be under the law – See the note at Gal 4:9. You who wish to yield obedience to the laws of Moses. You who maintain that conformity to those laws is necessary to justification.

Do ye not hear the law? – Do you not understand what the Law says? Will you not listen to its own admonitions, and the instruction which may be derived from the Law on the subject? The word law here refers not to the commands that were uttered on Mount Sinai, but to the book of the Law. The passage to which reference is made is in the Book of Genesis; but; all the five books of Moses were by the Jews classed under the general name of the Law; see the note at Luk 24:44. The sense is, Will you not listen to a narrative found in one of the books of the Law itself, fully illustrating the nature of that servitude which you wish?

Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible

Gal 4:21

Tell me.

The value of a pointed question

The question that prompts us to tell what we know sharpens our knowledge; and, similarly, the question that makes us tell what we are doing may greatly influence our conduct. For many a man drifting on in a course of evil that he has never stopped to define, it would be a good thing if some one by a pointed question could get him to say out, in plain words, just what he is doing. If he would only honestly state it to himself he would shrink from it with horror. But not only for clearing away the haze that obscures an unworthy purpose, but also for removing the fog in which good purposes are sometimes involved, a pointed question may serve us. There are those whose intention to do right and live the highest life is rather nebulous. If some question could be put to them that would lead them to objectify their purpose in language so that they could look at it and understand it, it would be of great service to them. (Washington Gladden.)

Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell

Verse 21. Ye that desire to be under the law] Ye who desire to incorporate the Mosaic institutions with Christianity, and thus bring yourselves into bondage to circumcision, and a great variety of oppressive rites.

Do ye not hear the law?] Do ye not understand what is written in the Pentateuch relative to Abraham and his children. It is evident that the word law is used in two senses in this verse. It first means the Mosaic institutions; secondly, the Pentateuch, where the history is recorded to which the apostle refers.

Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible

Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law; you that cannot be content to receive Jesus Christ alone, for justification; but have a mind to maintain a necessity of obedience to the law of circumcision, and other Judaical rites;

do ye not hear the law, that law which curseth every one who continueth not in all that is therein written to do it? Or rather, the story which follows; which is taken out of one of the books of the law, which the apostle makes a mystical revelation of the Divine will, that there should come a time when circumcision should be cast out.

Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole

21. desireof your own accordmadly courting that which must condemn and ruin you.

do ye not heardo yenot consider the mystic sense of Moses’ words? [GROTIUS].The law itself sends you away from itself to Christ [ESTIUS].After having sufficiently maintained his point by argument, theapostle confirms and illustrates it by an inspired allegoricalexposition of historical facts, containing in them general laws andtypes. Perhaps his reason for using allegory was to confute theJudaizers with their own weapons: subtle, mystical, allegoricalinterpretations, unauthorized by the Spirit, were their favoritearguments, as of the Rabbins in the synagogues. Compare the JerusalemTalmud [Tractatu Succa, cap. Hechalil]. Paul meets them withan allegorical exposition, not the work of fancy, but sanctioned bythe Holy Spirit. History, if properly understood contains in itscomplicated phenomena, simple and continually recurring divinelaws. The history of the elect people, like their legalordinances, had, besides the literal, a typical meaning (compare1Co 10:1-4; 1Co 15:45;1Co 15:47; Rev 11:8).Just as the extra-ordinarily-born Isaac, the gift of grace accordingto promise, supplanted, beyond all human calculations, thenaturally-born Ishmael, so the new theocratic race, the spiritualseed of Abraham by promise, the Gentile, as well as Jewish believers,were about to take the place of the natural seed, who had imaginedthat to them exclusively belonged the kingdom of God.

Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible

Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law,…. Not merely to obey it, as holy, just, and good, from a principle of love, and to testify subjection and gratitude to God; so all believers desire to bc under the law: but these men sought for justification and salvation by their obedience to it: they desired to be under it as a covenant of works, which was downright madness and folly to the last degree, since this was the way to come under the curse of it; they wanted to be under the yoke of the law, which is a yoke of bondage, an insupportable one, which the Jewish fathers could not bear; and therefore it was egregious weakness in them to desire to come under it: wherefore the apostle desires them to answer this question,

do ye not hear the law? meaning either the language and voice of the law of Moses, what it says to transgressors, and so to them; what it accused them of, and charged them with; how it declared them guilty before God, pronounced them accursed, and, ministered sententially condemnation and death unto them; and could they desire to be under such a law? or rather the books of the Old Testament, particularly the five books of Moses, and what is said therein; referring them, as Christ did the Jews, to the Scriptures, to the writings of Moses, and to read, hear, and observe what is in them, since they professed so great a regard to the law; from whence they might learn, that they ought not to be under the bondage and servitude of it. The Vulgate Latin version renders it, “have ye not read the law?” and so one of Stephens’s copies; that is, the books of the law; if you have, as you should, you might observe what follows.

Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible

Affectionate Remonstrance.

A. D. 56.

21 Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law? 22 For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman. 23 But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise. 24 Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar. 25 For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children. 26 But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all. 27 For it is written, Rejoice, thou barren that bearest not; break forth and cry, thou that travailest not: for the desolate hath many more children than she which hath a husband. 28 Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise. 29 But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now. 30 Nevertheless what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman. 31 So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free.

In these verses the apostle illustrates the difference between believers who rested in Christ only and those judaizers who trusted in the law, by a comparison taken from the story of Isaac and Ishmael. This he introduces in such a manner as was proper to strike and impress their minds, and to convince them of their great weakness in departing from the truth, and suffering themselves to be deprived of the liberty of the gospel: Tell me, says he, you that desire to be under the law, do you not hear the law? He takes it for granted that they did hear the law, for among the Jews it was wont to be read in their public assemblies every sabbath day; and, since they were so very fond of being under it, he would have them duly to consider what is written therein (referring to what is recorded Gen 16:1-16; Gen 21:1-34), for, if they would do this, they might soon see how little reason they had to trust in it. And here, 1. He sets before them the history itself (Gal 4:22; Gal 4:23): For it is written, Abraham had two sons, c. Here he represents the different state and condition of these two sons of Abraham–that the one, Ishmael, was by a bond-maid, and the other, Isaac, by a free-woman and that whereas the former was born after the flesh, or by the ordinary course of nature, the other was by promise, when in the course of nature there was no reason to expect that Sarah should have a son. 2. He acquaints them with the meaning and design of this history, or the use which he intended to make of it (v. 24-27): These things, says he, are an allegory, wherein, besides the literal and historical sense of the words, the Spirit of God might design to signify something further to us, and that was, That these two, Agar and Sarah, are the two covenants, or were intended to typify and prefigure the two different dispensations of the covenant. The former, Agar, represented that which was given from mount Sinai, and which gendereth to bondage, which, though it was a dispensation of grace, yet, in comparison of the gospel state, was a dispensation of bondage, and became more so to the Jews, through their mistake of the design of it, and expecting to be justified by the works of it. For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia (mount Sinai was then called Agar by the Arabians), and it answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children; that is, it justly represents the present state of the Jews, who, continuing in their infidelity and adhering to that covenant, are still in bondage with their children. But the other, Sarah, was intended to prefigure Jerusalem which is above, or the state of Christians under the new and better dispensation of the covenant, which is free both from the curse of the moral and the bondage of the ceremonial law, and is the mother of us all–a state into which all, both Jews and Gentiles, are admitted, upon their believing in Christ. And to this greater freedom and enlargement of the church under the gospel dispensation, which was typified by Sarah the mother of the promised seed, the apostle refers that of the prophet, Isa. liv. 1, where it is written, Rejoice, thou barren that bearest not; break forth and cry, thou that travailest not; for the desolate hath many more children than she who hath a husband. 3. He applies the history thus explained to the present case (v. 28); Now we, brethren, says he, as Isaac was, are the children of the promise. We Christians, who have accepted Christ, and rely upon him, and look for justification and salvation by him alone, as hereby we become the spiritual, though we are not the natural, seed of Abraham, so we are entitled to the promised inheritance and interested in the blessings of it. But lest these Christians should be stumbled at the opposition they might meet with from the Jews, who were so tenacious of their law as to be ready to persecute those who would not submit to it, he tells them that this was no more than what was pointed to in the type; for as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, they must expect it would be so now. But, for their comfort in this case, he desires them to consider what the scripture saith (Gen. xxi. 10), Cast out the bond-woman and her son, for the son of the bond-woman shall not be heir with the son of the free-woman. Though the judaizers should persecute and hate them, yet the issue would be that Judaism would sink, and wither, and perish; but true Christianity should flourish and last for ever. And then, as a general inference from the whole of the sum of what he had said, he concludes (v. 31), So then, brethren, we are not children of the bond-woman, but of the free.

Fuente: Matthew Henry’s Whole Bible Commentary

That desire to be under the law ( ). “Under law” (no article), as in Gal 3:23; Gal 4:4, legalistic system. Paul views them as on the point of surrender to legalism, as “wanting” () to do it (Gal 1:6; Gal 3:3; Gal 4:11; Gal 4:17). Paul makes direct reference to these so disposed to “hear the law.” He makes a surprising turn, but a legitimate one for the legalists by an allegorical use of Scripture.

Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament

Tell me. He plunges into the subject without introduction, and with a direct appeal.

Desire [] . Are bent on being under the law. See on verse 9. Under the law [ ] . For nomov with and without the article, see on Rom 2:12. Here, unquestionably, of the Mosaic law.

Hear [] . (Do ye not) hear what the law really says : listen to it so as to catch its real meaning? Comp. 1Co 14:2; LXX, Gen 11:7; Deu 28:49. 7 5 The law [ ] . In a different sense, referring to the O. T. For a similar double sense see Rom 3:19. For nomov as a designation of the O. T. generally, see 1Co 14:21; Joh 10:24; Joh 11:34; Joh 14:25.

Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament

1) “Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law,” (legete moi hoi hipo nomon thelontes einai) “Tell me, the ones (of you) who desire to be under the law;” It has a curse, a condemnation, can you hear it? Gal 3:10; Gal 3:13. Answer me, have you done or are you trying to do, “all things” written in the law? If not and you are under it, you are cursed, See: Luk 24:44-45.

2) “Do ye not hear the law?” (ton nomon ouk akouete) “Hear ye not the law?” Rom 3:19-20. For the law indicts of sin guilt and speaks of the need of a redeemer, in types, shadows, and object lessons, all of which pointed to and were fulfilled in Jesus Christ, Gal 3:19; Gal 3:24-25.

Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary

21. Tell me. Having given exhortations adapted to touch the feelings, he follows up his former doctrine by an illustration of great beauty. Viewed simply as an argument, it would not be very powerful; but, as a confirmation added to a most satisfactory chain of reasoning, it is not unworthy of attention.

To be under the law, signifies here, to come under the yoke of the law, on the condition that God will act toward you according to the covenant of the law, and that you, in return, bind yourself to keep the law. In any other sense than this, all believers are under the law; but the apostle treats, as we have already said, of the law with its appendages.

Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary

CRITICAL AND EXPLANATORY NOTES

Gal. 4:24. Which things are an allegory.Under the things spoken ofthe two sons, with their contrast of parentage and positionthere lies a spiritual meaning.

Gal. 4:25. Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children.Judaism as rejecting the light and liberty of the new dispensation.

Gal. 4:26. But Jerusalem which is above is free.Is the spiritual reality which, veiled under the old dispensation, is comparatively unveiled in the dispensation of grace, and destined to be fully and finally manifested in the reign of glory. Christians are very different in standing to slave-born slaves.

Gal. 4:27. The desolate hath many more children than she which hath an husband.The special purpose of the quotation appears to be to show that the idea of a countless Church, including Gentiles as well as Jews, springing out of spiritual nothingness, was apprehended under the Old Testament as destined for realisation under the New.

Gal. 4:30. Cast out the bondwoman and her son.Even house-room to Judaism is not matter of right, but only by sufferance, and that so long and so far as it leaves the gospel undisturbed in full possession.

MAIN HOMILETICS OF THE PARAGRAPH.Gal. 4:21-31

The History of Hagar and Sarah allegorical of the Law and the Gospel.

I. The two women represented two different covenants.

1. Hagar represented Sinai, typical of the law with its slavish exactions and terrible threatenings (Gal. 4:22; Gal. 4:25). Sinai spoke of bondage and terror. It was a true symbol of the working of the law of Moses, exhibited in the present condition of Judaism. And round the base of Sinai Hagars wild sons had found their dwelling. Jerusalem was no longer the mother of freemen. Her sons chafed under the Roman yoke. They were loaded with self-inflicted burdens. The spirit of the nation was that of rebellious, discontented slaves. They were Ishmaelite sons of Abraham, with none of the nobleness, the reverence, the calm and elevated faith of their father. In the Judaism of the apostles day the Sinaitic dispensation, uncontrolled by the higher patriarchal and prophetic faith, had worked out its natural result. It gendered to bondage. A system of repression and routine, it had produced men punctual in tithes of mint and anise, but without justice, mercy, or faith; vaunting their liberty while they were servants of corruption. The Pharisee was the typical product of law apart from grace. Under the garb of a freeman he carried the soul of a slave.

2. Sarah represented Jerusalem, typical of the gospel with its higher freedom and larger spiritual fruitfulness (Gal. 4:26-28).Paul has escaped from the prison of legalism, from the confines of Sinai; he has left behind the perishing earthly Jerusalem, and with it the bitterness and gloom of his Pharisaic days. He is a citizen of the heavenly Zion, breathing the air of a divine freedom. The yoke is broken from the neck of the Church of God; the desolation is gone from her heart. Robbed of all outward means, mocked and thrust out as she is by Israel after the flesh, her rejection is a release, an emancipation. Conscious of the spirit of sonship and freedom, looking out on the boundless conquests lying before her in the Gentile world, the Church of the new covenant glories in her tribulations. In Paul is fulfilled the joy of prophet and psalmist, who sang in former days of gloom concerning Israels enlargement and world-wide victories (Findlay).

II. The antagonism of their descendants represented the violent and incessant opposition of the law to the gospel.As he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now. Cast out the bondwoman and her son (Gal. 4:29-30). Sooner or later the slave-boy was bound to go. He has no proper birthright, no permanent footing in the house. One day he exceeds his licence, he makes himself intolerable; he must be gone. The Israelitish people showed more than Ishmaels jealousy toward the infant Church of the Spirit. No weapon of violence or calumny was too base to be used against it. Year by year they became more hardened against spiritual truth, more malignant towards Christianity, and more furious and fanatical in their hatred towards their civil rulers. Ishmael was in the way of Isaacs safety and prosperity (Ibid.).

III. The gospel bestows a richer inheritance than the law.The son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman. We are children of the free (Gal. 4:30-31). The two systems were irreconcilable. The law and the gospel cannot coexist and inherit together; the law must disappear before the gospel. The higher absorbs the lower. The Church of the future, the spiritual seed of Abraham gathered out of all nations, has no part in legalism. It embraces blessings of which Mosaism had no conceptionan inheritance incorruptible, and undefiled, and that fadeth not away.

Lessons.

1. The law and the gospel differ fundamentally

2. The law imposes intolerable burdens.

3. The gospel abrogates the law by providing a higher spiritual obedience.

GERM NOTES ON THE VERSES

Gal. 4:21-31. Legal Bondage and Spiritual Freedom contrasted

I. In their inception and development (Gal. 4:21-27).

II. In their ceaseless antagonism (Gal. 4:29).

III. In their inevitable results (Gal. 4:28; Gal. 4:30-31).

Gal. 4:21. A Lesson from the Law

I. Addressed to those eager for its subjection.Ye that desire to be under the law.

II. Is suggestive of solemn warning.

III. Should be seriously pondered.Tell me, do ye not hear the law?

Gal. 4:26. Jerusalem Above.

I. The Church of Christ as she exists in the present world.Jerusalem, above and free.

1. Above; that is, seen in connection with God and the scenes of the heavenly world.

(1) Her Head is from above.
(2) If we take the Church as a whole, though she is in part on earth, the greater number of her members are in heaven.
(3) Our Jerusalem is above because her members all fix their affections there and thither tend as the great end of their profession.
2. Jerusalem above is free, and so are her children.From the bondage of seeking salvation by works of law, from the guilt of sin, from its dominion.

II. The filial sentiment with which we ought to regard the Church of Christ.She is the mother of us all. The general idea is, that if we are indeed spiritual, under God, we owe all to the Church. To her God has committed the preservation of His truth. In stormy times she has sheltered her lamps in the recesses of the sanctuary, and in happier times has placed them on high to guide and save. The Spirit of God is in the Church. To her you owe your hallowed fellowships. In the Church it is that God manifests Himself.

III. The animating anticipations we are thus taught to form of the Church as glorified.Turn to the description given in Rev. 21:1. Mark the wall great and highdenoting the perfect, impregnable security of those who dwell there.

2. At the gates are angelsstill ushering in the heirs of salvation, and disdaining not to be porters to this glorious city.

3. Mark the foundations, garnished with all manner of precious stonesimplying permanency.

4. Mark the circumstance that in the twelve foundations are inscribed the names of the twelve apostlesthe whole being the result of their doctrine.

5. The whole city is a temple all filled with the presence and glory of God. No holiest of all is there where every part is most holy. All are filled, sanctified, beatified, by the fully manifested presence of God. He is all in all; all things in and to all.Richard Watson.

Jerusalem a Type of the Universal Church.

I. God chose Jerusalem above all other places to dwell in. The Church catholic is the company chosen to be the particular people of God.

II. Jerusalem is a city compact in itself by reason of the bond of love and order among the citizens. In like sort the members of the Church catholic are linked together by the bond of one Spirit.

III. In Jerusalem was the sanctuary, a place of Gods presence, where the promise of the seed of the woman was preserved till the coming of the Messias. Now the Church catholic is in the room of the sanctuary, in it we must seek the presence of God and the word of life.

IV. In Jerusalem was the throne of David. In the Church catholic is the throne or sceptre of Christ.

V. The commendation of a city, as Jerusalem, is the subjection and obedience of the citizens. In the Church catholic all believers are citizens, and they yield voluntary obedience and subjection to Christ their King.

VI. As in Jerusalem the names of the citizens were enrolled in a register, so the names of all the members of the Church catholic are enrolled in the Book of Life.

VII. The Church catholic is said to be above:

1. In respect of her beginning.
2. Because she dwells by faith in heaven with Christ.Perkins.

Gal. 4:28. Believers Children of Promise.

I. The character.

1. Believers are the children of promise by regeneration.
2. By spiritual nourishment.
3. In respect of education.
4. With respect to assimilation, likeness, and conformity.

II. State the comparison.

1. Isaac was the child of Abraham, not by natural power. Believers are children of Abraham by virtue of promise.
2. Isaac was the fruit of prayer, as well as the child of promise.
3. Isaacs birth was the joy of his parents. Even so with reference to believers.
4. Isaac was born not after the flesh, but by the promise; not of the bondwoman, but of the free. So believers are not under the law.
5. Isaac was no sooner born but he was mocked by Ishmael; so it is now.
6. Isaac was the heir by promise, though thus persecuted. Even so believers.

III. How the promise hath such virtue for begetting children to God.

1. As it is the discovery of divine love.
2. The object of faith.
3. The ground of hope.
4. The seed of regeneration.
5. The communication of grace.
6. The chariot of the Spirit.

Inferences.

1. If believers are children of promise, then boasting is excluded.

2. Then salvation is free.
3. The happiness and dignity of believersthey are the children of God.Pulpit Assistant.

Gal. 4:29. On Persecution.

I. That no privilege of the Church can exempt her from persecution.

1. From the consideration of the quality of the persons here upon the stage, the one persecuting, the other suffering.

(1) The persecutingborn after the flesh. Like Hannibal, they can part with anything but war and contention; they can be without their native country, but not without an enemy. These whet the sword, these make the furnace of persecution seven times hotter than it would be. The flesh is the treasury whence these winds blow that rage and beat down all before them.
(2) The sufferingborn after the Spirit. Having no security, no policy, no eloquence, no strength, but that which lieth in his innocency and truth, which he carrieth about as a cure, but it is looked upon as a persecution by those who will not be healed. For he must appear, said Seneca, as a fool that he may be wise, as weak that he may be strong, as base and vile that he may be more honourable. If thou be an Isaac, thou shalt find an Ishmael.
2. From the nature and constitution of the Church which in this world is ever militant.Persecution is the honour, the prosperity, the flourishing condition, of the Church. When her branches were lopped off she spread the more, when her members were dispersed there were more gathered to her, when they were driven about the world they carried that sweet-smelling savour about them which drew in multitudes to follow them.

3. From the providence and wisdom of God who put this enmity between these two seeds.Gods method is best. That is method and order with Him which we take to be confusion, and that which we call persecution is His art, His way of making saints. In Abrahams family Ishmael mocketh and persecuteth Isaac, in the world the synagogue persecuteth the Church, and in the Church one Christian persecuteth another. It was so, it is so, and it will be so to the end of the world.

II. The lessons of persecution.

1. The persecution of the Church should not create surprise.

2. Not to regard the Church and the world as alike.

3. Build ourselves up in faith so as to be prepared for the fiery trial.

4. Love the truth you profess.

5. Be renewed in spirit.A. Farindon.

Gal. 4:30. Cast out the Bondwoman and her Son.To cast out is an act of violence, and the true Church evermore hath the suffering part. How shall the Church cast out those of her own house and family?

1. By the vehemency of our prayers that God would either melt their hearts or shorten their hands, either bring them into the right way, or strike off their chariot wheels.
2. By our patience and longsuffering.
3. By our innocency of life and sincerity of conversation.
4. By casting our burden upon the Lord.Ibid.

The Fate of Unbelievers.

I. All hypocrites, mockers of the grace of God, shall be cast forth of Gods family, though for a time they bear a sway therein. This is the sentence of God. Let us therefore repent of our mocking, and become lovers of the grace of God.

II. The persecution of the people of God shall not be perpetual, for the persecuting bondwoman and her son must be cast out.

III. All justiciary people and persons that look to be saved and justified before God by the law, either in whole or in part, are cast out of the Church of God, and have no part in the kingdom of heaven. The casting out of Hagar and Ishmael is a figure of the rejection of all such.Perkins.

Fuente: The Preacher’s Complete Homiletical Commentary Edited by Joseph S. Exell

Sarah and Hagar Gal. 4:21-31

TEXT 4:2124

(21) Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law? (22) For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, one by the handmaid, and one by the free woman. (23) Howbeit the son by the handmaid is born after the flesh; but the son by the free woman is born through promise. (24) Which things contain an allegory: for these women are two covenants; one from mount Sinai, bearing children unto bondage, which is Hagar.

PARAPHRASE 4:2124

21 Tell me, ye who wish to be under the law of Moses as the rule of your justification, why do ye not understand the law, which teaches that Abrahams children by faith, who are heirs of the promises, are free from the bondage of the law?
22 For it is written in the law, that Abraham, the father of the people of God, had two sons; one by the bond-maid Hagar, and one by the free-woman Sarah, his wife.
23 But he, verily, who was of the bond-maid, was begotten by the natural strength of his parents, and being born a slave, had not title to inherit his fathers estate: But he who was of the free-woman, was begotten through the strength supernaturally communicated to his parents by the promise Lo, Sarah thy wife shall have a son, and like his mother being free, was his fathers heir.
24 Which things, concerning the sons and wives of Abraham, and the power by which these sons were begotten, and the state into which they were born, are an allegory. For these women, as the mothers of Abrahams children, are types of the two Covenants, by which men become the church and people of God. The one is that verily, which was given from Mount Sinai, which made Abrahams posterity by Isaac only the visible church and people of God, and bringeth forth its children into bondage to the law; which covenant it fitly represented by Hagar, who brought forth her son Ishmael into bondage.

COMMENT 4:21

Tell me

Here Paul invites them to think seriously about an allegory.

After the lesson is presented they are to answer his question.

ye that desire to be under the law

Have you really read and heard the law?

Those who understand the Scripture can see a deeper meaning behind the Scripture.

Therefore Paul is challenging their very best.

They needed to heed 2Ti. 2:15.

hear the law

It is as though Paul would end his argument in Gal. 4:20, but he decides to give them a lesson from the law itself.

The law has a wide meaning as seen by Pauls use of the term.

Mosaic institutionsthose that they were returning to.

Pentateuchwhere the history is recorded to which the apostle refers.

Scripture is cleartherefore heed itdont treat it like the false teachers do.

THE TWO COVENANTSBOND AND FREE 4:2131

The false brethren disturbed the brethren in Galatia by adding the law to their Christian experience. Paul states that this is a loss of freedom in Christ. The differences in the covenants are very manifest when placed side by side.

TWO TWO COVENANTS CONTRASTED

FIRST OR OLD

SECOND OR NEW

Given by MosesMal. 4:4

By ChristHeb. 12:24; Joh. 1:17

Given Only to IsraelDeu. 5:1-4

To All MenMar. 16:15-16

Written on Stones2Co. 3:7

In Hearts2Co. 3:3; Heb. 8:10

Blood of AnimalsHeb. 9:18-19

Blood of ChristHeb. 9:12

No Clear ConscienceHeb. 9:8-9

Makes PerfectHeb. 7:18-19

God Found FaultHeb. 8:7

Better, PerfectHeb. 8:6, Jas. 1:25

Figure of TrueHeb. 9:24

True TabernacleHeb. 8:1-2

Carnal OrdinancesHeb. 9:10

Spiritual Sacrifices1Pe. 2:5

Only Purify FleshHeb. 9:13

Purify Our Souls1Pe. 1:22

10.

Priests Had Sins AlsoHeb. 7:27

10.

Sinless High PriestHeb. 7:26

11.

Was to Pass Away2Co. 3:11

11.

Remains2Co. 3:11, Mat. 24:35

12.

Temporal InheritancePsa. 105:11

12.

Eternal Inheritance1Pe. 1:4

COMMENT 4:22

For it is written

The Scriptures bear witness.

See Gen. 16:15.

See Gen. 21:2.

This was the method of Jesusappealing to God.

that Abraham had two sons

The Sons were symbolic.

Ishmael was born of a bond-maidHagar.

Isaac was born of a free womanSarah.

Paul emphasizes that Sarah is the free woman.

She is mentioned four times as a free woman without calling her by name.

Sarah was a princess in name and held a prominent place in history as the mother of Israel.

She is the type of the New covenant and the covenant of freedom.

Hagar is the symbol of the bond woman.

Physical descent from Abraham is not what is decisive, but spiritual affinity to him.

The children who go back to the law, go back to the woman and her son born in bondage.

COMMENT 4:23

Howbeit the son by the handmaid

This is Ishmaelwho was not of promise.

He was born a slave and came into the world according to the usual course of nature.

Ishmael persecuted Isaac and so in Pauls day, the progeny of the law persecuted the children of the gospel.

born through promise

Isaac was born after the age of procreation had passed.

His birth was supernatural.

COMMENT 4:24

an allegory

From two words meaning another and to speak.

This, signifies a thing that is representative of another.

Here, it is a representative of a spiritual meaning.

for these women are two covenants

Hagar typifies Sinai, the old covenantbondage.

Sarah typifies the Messiah, the new covenantfreedom.

STUDY QUESTIONS 4:2124

526.

Is Paul enforcing the law on them, since they seem to prefer it?

527.

How is the word law used by the apostle? Does it always refer to Moses, to the Ten Commandments?

528.

Where is the scripture found that Paul quotes?

529.

Who were Abrahams sons?

530.

How are the mothers described?

531.

Who was born after the flesh?

532.

Was his birth natural or supernatural?

533.

Why did God allow this and fail to condemn it, or did He?

534.

What was miraculous about the birth of Isaac?

535.

How is his birth a part of the promise?

536.

Define allegory.

537.

What is represented?

538.

Is a physical seed automatically a child of the promise?

539.

Define covenants.

Fuente: College Press Bible Study Textbook Series

(21) Ye that desire to be under the law.A direct appeal to those who were inclined to give way to the Judaising party.

Do ye not hear the law?Hear is probably to be taken in the sense of give heed to, listen to with attention, as in Mat. 10:14; Mat. 13:9; Mat. 13:13; Luk. 16:29; Luk. 16:31. Some have thought that it merely refers to the practice of reading a lesson from the Old Testament, which was adopted into the Christian Church from the synagogue.

Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)

(21-31) The next eleven verses contain an elaborate argument from the history of the two sons of Abraham, as types of the two covenants, in further proof that freedom is the essential character of the Christian dispensation.
We have seen that St. Paul applies the history of the natural Israel allegorically to the spiritual Israel; and not only does he do this with reference to the history of the formed theocracy, but he goes back to its origin in the time of the patriarchs, and traces there the first beginnings of the separation between the Law and the promise. The same history had been already allegorically treated by Philo. The treatment of it by St. Paul is, however, quite different, and in keeping with the line of argument followed in the context.
The points of parallelism, which are drawn out in much detail, may be exhibited thus:

Jewish Church.

Christian Church.

The bondwoman, Hagar.

The freewoman, Sarah.

Son of the bondwoman, Ishmael.

Son of the freewoman, Isaac.

Natural birth (the flesh).

Supernatural birth (the promise).

Mount Sinai.

Mount Zion.

The Law.

The Promise.

The earthly Jerusalem.

The heavenly Jerusalem.

Enslaved.

Free.

Fruitful.

Barren.

Small offspring.

Large offspring.

Persecuting.

Persecuted.

Expulsion.

Inheritance.

The Jewish Church is enslaved.

The Christian Church is free.

Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)

8. Superiority of faith over legalism illustrated by the history of Sarah and Hagar, Gal 4:21 to Gal 5:1.

21. Tell me As if after an interval since writing the last tenderer paragraph, St. Paul resumes the more severe and imperative strain of Gal 2:1-7.

Desire under the law The observers of seasons, as in Gal 4:10.

Hear the law The Jews did hear the law read to them in the synagogue every sabbath; but Paul demands now whether they will hear it with the earnest ear of the soul. He is going to frame for these legalists an argument after the style and manner of their own legal teachers.

The ensuing allegorical exposition of the Abrahamic history was shaped after a form of composition current in the Jewish schools. The passage has been much attacked by adverse criticism, and even evangelical expositors. It is asked, Was this Old Testament narrative allegory, and not true history? Or, if true history, can we suppose that this combination of events and characters was divinely framed to evolve this lesson deduced by St. Paul?

All these difficulties would have vanished, we think, in a moment if our commentators had noted what none of them seems to have done that Paul has merely here put into an allegorical form the very same thought as in logical form he gives in Rom 9:6-10, (where see our notes.) The thought simply is this: That Christianity does, by its very nature, disclose an underlying subsense in the Old Testament; not only in its ritual, but in its history. And an allegory is simply an external surface history under which there lies an internal subsense.

Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

‘Tell me, you who desire to be under the Law, do you not hear the Law?’

So some of the Galatians want to come ‘under the Law’, being circumcised, observing the Feasts and Feast days, using ritual washings, abstaining from ‘unclean food, and so on? Well, let them now consider the Law. Are they deaf to what the Law actually says? (The Law in the latter phrase refers to the books of the Law, the first five books of the Bible, although sometimes it is used more loosely of the whole of the Scriptures).

Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett

A Lesson from the Old Testament Law ( Gal 4:21-31 ).

Paul now turns to the Old Testament for examples of what he is trying to say.

Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett

Biblical Illustration of Christian Liberty: the Bondwoman and the Freewoman – In Gal 4:21-31 Paul gives us an allegory from the Old Testament Law to explain that we are born of the free woman, and not to the bondwoman. Paul draws upon the biblical analogy of Sarah and Hagar in order to illustrate their heritage of freedom. He explains to them that they are the children of promise, as was the child of Sarah, while Judaism represents the children of bondage, which are the children of Hagar.

We are born in the spirit, not after the flesh. In the fourth chapter of Galatians Paul uses two illustrations to explain their liberties in Christ Jesus. He first uses the illustration of sonship as an heir of Christ (Gal 4:1-11). Then in Gal 4:12-20, Paul pleads for the heart of the Galatians to receive him above his competitors. Paul will then use the allegory of Sarai and Hagar to give them a second illustration of their freedom in Christ (Gal 4:21-31). After giving a Greco-Roman illustration from their culture (Gal 4:1-7) Paul then takes an illustration from the Hebrew culture, which was the comparison of Sarah and Hagar (Gal 4:21-31). This illustration could be easily understood by those Jewish converts who were a part of the churches in Galatia.

Note how appropriate this illustration is since in Joh 8:33-47 the Pharisees claimed that their inheritance was in the lineage of Abraham, rather than in the faith of Abraham.

Gal 4:26 Comments – The Jews called Jerusalem the “mother” city. Therefore, Paul writes to the Galatians and calls heavenly Jerusalem the mother of all of the believers.

It is within this context that Jesus tells a Jewish scholar named Nicodemus that he must be born again, or from above, from the heavenly mother, and not the earthly mother (Joh 3:3).

Joh 3:3, “Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.”

Gal 4:29 Comments – Not only do we see this as a reference to Isaac and Ishmael, but also to their descendants as well.

Illustration – The Medianites were also Ishmaelites, who were warring against Israel (Jdg 8:24).

Jdg 8:24, “And Gideon said unto them, I would desire a request of you, that ye would give me every man the earrings of his prey. (For they had golden earrings, because they were Ishmaelites.)”

Gal 4:30 “Cast out the bond woman and her son” – Comments – In Gal 4:23-24, we see that the bondwoman is the old covenant from Mt Sinai and her sons are those in the flesh under the Law. We see from this that to cast them out means that we put aside the Law and realize those who seek to be justified by the Law have no inheritance with those under the New Covenant.

Fuente: Everett’s Study Notes on the Holy Scriptures

Gal 4:21. The Apostle exhorts the Galatians to stand fast in the liberty with which Christ hath made them free; shewing those who are so zealous for the law, that if they mind what they read in the law, they will there find that the children of the promise, or of the new Jerusalem, were to be free; but the children after the flesh, of the earthly Jerusalem, were to be in bondage, to be cast out, and not to have the inheritance.

Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke

Gal 4:21 , without any connecting link, leads most energetically ( : “urget quasi praesens,” Bengel) at once in mediam rem . On the , so earnestly intensifying the question, comp. Bergler, ad Aristoph. Acharn . 318.

. . .] Ye who wish to be under the law . This refers to the Judaistically inclined readers, who, partly Gentiles and partly Jewish Christians, led astray by the false teachers (Gal 1:7 ), supposed that in faith they had not enough for salvation, and desired to be subject to the law (Gal 4:9 ), towards which they had already made a considerable beginning (Gal 4:10 ). Chrysostom aptly remarks: , , .

;] Hear ye not the law? Is it not read in your hearing? Comp. Joh 12:34 ; 2Co 3:14 . The public reading of the venerated divine Scriptures of the law and the prophets, after the manner of the synagogues (Rom 2:15 ; Act 15:21 ; Luk 4:16 ), took place in the assemblies for worship of the Christian churches both of Jewish and of Gentile origin: they contained, in fact, the revelation of God, of which Christianity is the fulfilment, and an acquaintance with them was justly considered as a source of the Christian knowledge of salvation; for its articles of faith (1Co 15:3 f.) and rules of life (Rom 13:8-10 ; Rom 15:4 ) were to be . Now the hearing of the law must necessarily have taught the Galatians how much they were in error. Hence this question expressive of astonishment, [210] which is all the stronger and consequently all the more appropriate, the more simply we allow to retain its primary literal signification. Hence we must neither explain it (with Winer; comp. Matthies) as audisse, i. e. nosse, notum habere (see Heind. ad Plat. Gorg . p. 503 C; Ast, ad Plat. Legg . i. p. 9; Spohn, Lectt. Theocr . i. p. 25); nor, with Jerome and many others, including Morus, Koppe, Rosenmller, Borger, Flatt, Schott, Olshausen, as to understand (comp. on 1Co 14:2 ), which Paul conceives as the hearing of the speaking behind the (so Holsten, z. Evang. d. Paul. u. Petr . p. 382); nor, with Erasmus, de Wette, Ewald, Wieseler, Hofmann, as , to give attention , that is, to bestow moral consideration (rather, to have an ear for , as 1Co 14:2 ; Mat 10:14 ; Joh 8:47 ).

is used here in a twofold sense (comp. Rom 3:19 ): it means, in the first place, the institute of the law; and secondly, the Pentateuch , according to the division of the Old Test. into Law, Prophets , and Hagiographa . See on Luk 24:44 . The repetition of the word gives emphasis.

[210] Hofmann (comp. also his Schriftbew . II. 2, p. 57) deals with our passage in an unwarrantable and intolerably violent manner by writing (as relative ), but makes the summons ( tell me, ye who, wishing to be under the law, do not hear the law ) to be only prepared for by ver. 22 ff., and that which Paul had in view in the of ver. 21 to follow at length in ver. 30. The address runs on simply and appropriately, and affords no occasion for any such intricacy.

Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary

Gal 4:21-30 . Now, at the conclusion of the theoretical portion of his epistle, Paul adds a quite peculiar antinomistic disquisition, a learned Rabbinico-allegorical argument derived from the law itself , calculated to annihilate the influence of the pseudo-apostles with their own weapons, and to root them out on their own ground.

Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary

THE TWO COVENANTS

Gal 4:21-5:12 .

This discussion commences at Gal 4:21 , and we note first the distinct paragraphs in what remains in this letter. From Gal 4:21 , where we commence, to Gal 5:1 is a distinct paragraph. That chapter division is very unfortunate. Gal 5 should commence at Gal 5:2 . The next paragraph is from Gal 5:2-6 . There the most of the argument of the book ends, though he takes up an argument after that. The next paragraph Isa 5:7-12 . The next paragraph Isa 5:13-26 . The next paragraph Isa 6:1-10 . Then we have the closing paragraph. It would be well if, instead of chapters and verses, the book had been divided on the paragraph plan as I have suggested, and as we would find if we were studying it in the Greek.

I call attention to some textual matters: Gal 4:31 ; Gal 5:1 ought to be really just one verse, and it is an exceedingly difficult matter, according to the manuscripts, to tell just how that verse should stand as to its parts. The oldest manuscripts are followed in the American Standard Revision. Lightfoot insists that we should read those two verses this way: “Wherefore, brethren, we are not children of a handmaid [or bond woman] but of a freewoman in the liberty with which Christ has made us free; therefore stand and be not entangled again in the yoke of bondage.” That is the way Lightfoot would read it. It is just a question of the manuscript about the position of the words. The Revised Standard Version follows the best manuscripts, making it read just as we have it here, only it is not all one verse: “Wherefore, brethren, we are not children of a handmaid but of the freewoman. For freedom did Christ set us free: stand fast therefore, and be not entangled again in a yoke of bondage.” I would call attention to a great many others of that kind if we were studying the Greek. In the Standard Revision Gal 4:25 reads: “Now this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to the Jerusalem that now is: for she is in bondage with her children.” Some manuscripts make that read: “Sinai is a mountain in Arabia.” I don’t agree with those manuscripts at all. Everybody knows that Sinai is a mountain in Arabia, and the Revised Version follows the best texts in that.

We will now take up the exposition of Gal 4:21 : “Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do you not hear the law?” I call attention to the fact that what the law here says does not occur in Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, or Deuteronomy, but it occurs in Genesis, and the point about it is this, that the New Testament as well as the Old Testament, calls the history in the Pentateuch law, as well as the legislation itself. The history is the background of the statutes the whole of it. History and legislation is called the law. If we get that clear in our minds it will save us from the mistakes of the radical critics. Whether it be history in Genesis or legislation on Mount Sinai, it is called the law.

Gal 4:22 : “It is written that Abraham had two sons.” He says the law (which is in Genesis) tells us that there was one by a handmaid and one by a freewoman. The next verse shows us the distinction between the births of those children. The son of the handmaid ‘is born after the flesh a perfectly natural birth. The son of the freewoman is born through promise. The birth of Isaac was just as supernatural as any miracle can be. There were no powers of nature in either Abraham or Sarah to bring about the birth of Isaac. It was supernatural. Now that is what the scripture says. Paul expounds that scripture in order to show that the Old Testament history is itself prophetic that it has more than a literal, historical sense. It has that, but it has more. He says, “Which things contain an allegory.” That part of the history of Genesis, besides its literal meaning, contains an allegory. Here the radical critics object to what they say is a strained interpretation that Paul puts upon plain history, and they say that he gets his allegory from Philo, an Alexandrian Jew, or he follows the rabbis in allegorizing the history of the Jewish people. Did Paul get the idea of the allegorical significance in that history from Philo the Jew, or from the rabbis, and if from neither, where did he get it? It is true that Philo did allegorize, but his allegories and Paul’s are poles apart as we see if we put them down and read them together as I have done many times. In the second place, Paul did not get the idea from what the rabbis had said, but he got it from the Old Testament, and particularly, from the book of Isaiah. The book of Isaiah consists of two parts. Isaiah 1-39 relate to one thing, and the rest of it relates to spiritual Israel, and it is called the Old Testament Book of Comfort. And whenever Isaiah from Isa 40 on, speaks of Israel, he is referring to spiritual Israel. For instance, in Isa 51 he refers to Abraham and Sarah, and then in Isa 54 he uses the language that Paul cites here in the context, showing that Sarah occupied a representative and allegorical position in his mind, and the quotation is specified here: “Sing, O barren, thou that didst not bear; break forth into singing, and cry aloud, thou that didst not travail with child: for more are the children of the desolate than the children of the married wife.” That is Isaiah’s use of it in which he is addressing Sarah as representing the motherhood of spiritual Israel, and she that hath been barren is called desolate; because no children have been born to her, she is called more desolate than Hagar. So Paul gets his theory from the inspired people; he simply follows the history when he says, “that scripture contains an allegory.”

Let us now see what the allegory contained. These women are two covenants. As, in the dream of Pharaoh, the seven lean kine are seven years of famine. Pharaoh uses the verb, “are” in the sense of “represent,” is., the seven lean kine represent seven years of famine. And, as where our Saviour says, “this is my body,” that is, “this unleavened bread represents my body.” He is showing what the allegory represents that those two women represent two covenants one from Mount Sinai bearing children into bondage which is Hagar. The Hagar woman represents, allegorically, the Mount Sinai covenant. He goes on to say in the next verse that Hagar, that is, this allegorical Hagar that he is speaking about, is Mount Sinai in Arabia and answereth to the Jerusalem that now is and is in bondage with her children. Sarah represents the Jerusalem, not the Jerusalem that now is, but the Jerusalem which is above that is our mother. We, the children of the freewoman, represent the Jerusalem which is above. It is necessary to make clear the meaning of Jerusalem above as contradistinct from the Jerusalem on earth. In Heb 12:18 ff., distinguishing between the two covenants the two regimes, this language is used: “For ye are not come unto a mount that might be touched, and that burned with fire, and into blackness, and darkness, and tempest, and the sound of a trumpet, and the voice of words; which voice they that heard entreated that no word more should be spoken unto them; . . . and so fearful was the appearance, that Moses said, “I exceedingly fear and quake.” In other words, “Ye Christians are not under the Mount Sinai regime, but ye are come unto Mount Zion, . . . the heavenly Jerusalem.” That is the Jerusalem above, or in the place of “heavenly” we may use “spiritual.” We are not come to the literal mountain in Arabia, nor are we come to the literal Jerusalem situated over yonder in the Holy Land, but to the spiritual Jerusalem. How many of our hymns are written with that ideal In Revelation that thought is elaborated about the spiritual Israel, the spiritual city, Rev 3:12 : “He that overcometh I will make him a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go out hence DO more, etc.,” and in the closing part of Revelation, “I saw the New Jerusalem come down out of heaven.” In view of this, I point out the folly of the crusades, preached by Peter the Hermit and encouraged by subsequent popes. The object of the crusades was to rescue the Holy Jerusalem from infidels that Jerusalem which has lost ‘its value. They were to rescue the empty tomb of Jesus. The crusades did an immense amount of good, but there never wag a more profound piece of folly than to think it was necessary to rescue the city under the curse of God, with an empty tomb in it, as a religious duty.

We will go on with our allegory: “For it was written.” Here he quotes that passage in Isa 54 , and here is his conclusion from the allegory in Gal 4:28 : “Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are children of promise” i.e., supernaturally born, regenerated “but as then he that was born after the flesh [Ishmael] persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, so also it is now.” The literal Jerusalem and the Judaizing spirit will persecute the spiritual Israel. Just as Ishmael did, so will the Jews do now. Gal 4:30 : “Howbeit what saith the scripture?” Notice then that the scripture is again personified. The words, ta hiera grammata refer to the whole collection of scriptures; every one of those scriptures is God-inspired. So Paul takes a part of the history in Genesis and says, “The scripture saith.”

I am giving this to show the folly of the people who say, “The book contains the word of God, but not all of it is the word of God.” Well, what did the scripture say? “Cast out the handmaid and her son: for the son of the handmaid shall not inherit with the son of the freewoman.” Sarah used these words to Abraham: “This bond-slave child should not inherit with my child; cast her out and her son.” It grieved Abraham until God spoke to him and endorsed what Sarah said, God having in mind not only what was best for them at that time, but having in mind the allegorical meaning of those two women.

Here is an important matter: The ablest debater that I ever read after was the great Presbyterian, N. L. Rice, and here let the reader note just what Rice said about the covenant and how the covenant puts the infants in the church. A certain man was once quoting Rice to me on that and he said, “The Old Testament put the children in with the parents; and now if it put them in, how are you going to put them out?” I said, “Here is the passage, ‘Cast out the bondwoman and her son.’ ” That casts the covenant out and infant membership. It is true that the children come in the new covenant; it is true that we baptize every child in the new covenant, but he is a regenerated child a spiritual child and nobody in the world can answer that. And yet I never heard a pedobaptist make an argument that he did not bring in the relation that the children bore to the old covenant, viz.: that they were in the covenant. That is their first and, indeed, their only respectable argument.

A certain Baptist wrote a book with this title: Baptists the only Pedo baptists, i.e., the Baptists are the only denomination that really baptize children. They baptize every spiritual child if he is only converted, and if his spiritual childhood is only an hour old. The Baptists baptize him, and others don’t do that; they baptize the goats those that are not children. He makes a very fine argument, and if we just understand him, he is hitting the nail on the head. The Baptists don’t baptize anything but children, but they belong to spiritual Israel, and they often baptize them the very day they are new born. They don’t wait eight days.

Let us now consider those joined verses of Gal 4:31 : “Wherefore, brethren, we are not children of a handmaid, but of the freewoman. For freedom did Christ set us free: stand fast therefore, and be not entangled again in a yoke of bondage.” Where does Christ himself discuss that just as Paul does? It is very important to see that Christ and Paul are in agreement in that very matter. Joh 8:31 : “Jesus therefore said to those Jews that had believed him, if ye abide in my word, then are ye truly-my disciples; and ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free. They answered unto him, We are Abraham’s seed, and have never yet been in bondage to any man: how sayest thou, Ye shall be made free? Jesus answered them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Every one that committeth sin is the bondservant of sin. And the bondservant abideth not in the house forever; the Son abideth forever. If therefore the Son shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed. I know that ye are Abraham’s seed [that Is, the fleshly seed]; yet ye seek to kill me, because my word hath not free course in you.” Joh 8:39 : “They answered and said unto him, Our father is Abraham. Jesus sayeth unto them, If ye were Abraham’s children, ye would do the works of Abraham. But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I heard from God; this did not Abraham. Ye do the works of your father. They said unto him, We were not born of fornication; we have one Father, even God.” Joh 8:44 : “Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father it is your will to do.” Paul says, “For freedom did Christ set us free.” I am showing that Christ taught precisely on the line that Paul did here in this letter to the Galatians.

I now commence Gal 5:2 . This paragraph consists of the following thoughts (in Gal 5:2-6 he discusses circumcision): First, he says, “If you insist on circumcision Christ will profit you nothing. Second, if you insist on being circumcised, then you are a debtor to do the whole law. Third, if you insist on being circumcised and being a Jew in order to salvation, then you are severed from Christ; you are fallen away from grace.”

A man once said to me, “Does the Bible teach falling from grace?” I said, “Yes.” “Well,” he says, “I thought you didn’t believe in apostasy.” I said, “I don’t; we mean by apostasy, (1) that a man has to be regenerated and (2), that this regenerated man is finally lost. This falling from grace here does not mean that; it simply means that a man who will turn from salvation by grace to being a Jew in order to be saved, that that man is fallen from grace. The Bible does not teach that he severs himself from Christ.”

The next thought presented here is that “Christians through the Spirit by faith wait for the hope of righteousness.” What is the hope of righteousness for which the Christian waits? He is speaking of the doctrine of justification by faith, and that doctrine by faith had a certain hope in it. And what is the hope? The hope includes everything that is involved in the final coming of the Lord to give the crowning glories to those that are justified by faith; it has a hope that refers to the future. That hope is, If my name is written in the Lamb’s book of life, it not only stands secure, but it will bring everything else that it has promised, as “whom he justified, them he also glorified.”

The next thought is, that “in Christ neither circumcision nor uncircumcision availeth anything.” We don’t get into Christ because we are circumcised, and we don’t get into Christ because we are not circumcised. We get in on an entirely different term, as the next thought shows, “faith working by love.” The Roman Catholics teach certain doctrines based on this verse, “Faith worketh by love,” that is, they say that “worketh” should be translated “wrought.” Therefore, the Catholics have a doctrine that they call fides caritate formosa, “Faith made by love,” that is their special doctrine based on that verse. But the verb is not in the passive voice. It isn’t “being worked;” it is the doing, the working. And this leads me to another observation that when Paul talks about faith working by love he bridges an apparent chasm between him and James. James, in his letter, says that the faith that is apart from energy, or work, is dead. Paul says that the faith that justifies is the faith with energy; it works by love. As that passage bridges the apparent chasm, there is no discrepancy between Paul and James. Practically the argument closes here, but he brings up some argument later.

The next paragraph is Gal 5:7-12 : “Ye were running well; who hindered you?” Let us consider that as it is in the Greek’ the idea is that of a foot race. The foot race is along a prescribed or prepared track. Here is a man running on that prepared track, and suddenly he comes to a place where the track is all broken up. The word “hindered” means a broken-up track. “You were running well? Who broke up the track? He who started you would not break up the track ahead of you; if that track is broken up, the enemy did it.” The next thought in this paragraph is that they seemed to have said that if they had gone astray it was a small matter, and he is answering that when he said “A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump.” “You think the wedge ‘is little, but that wedge will split the whole log. It is a vital and fundamental thing.”

The next thought is the distinction which Paul makes between the Galatians and the one that side tracked them. He says, “Now, brethren, I am confident that you will come to my way of thinking about this. I don’t think that about the one that is misleading you.” There he mentions him in the singular for the first time. “Whoever broke up that road will have to bear his penalty and will have to pay the penalty of what he has done.”

The next thought is that he seems to reply again to an accusation that they had made saying, “Why does he object to our views of circumcision? I am told that he circumcised Timothy and preached circumcision himself.” He answers that: “If indeed I preach circumcision as you are preaching it, i.e., if I am on a line with them, why am I persecuted?” Then he said, “If I presented it to you as they do I would take away the stumbling block of the cross and there would be no issue between me and these men who are misleading you.” “The Jews find the cross a stumbling block,” says Paul in his letter to the Corinthians. He says here, “I would that they that unsettle you would even go beyond circumcision.” What does he mean by that? The thought is this: “You are insisting upon the physical mutilation of the body; now why not go to the whole length like the idolaters that were among you?” They mutilated themselves, cut their bodies with knives. “If you are going to insist on this use of the knife, why not take it to that extreme?”

QUESTIONS

1. What does the law of Gal 4:21 say, where is it found, and what bearing has this on the meaning of the word “law,” as used in the Old and New Testaments?

2. Explain the allegory in Gal 4:21-5:1 from these standpoints: (1) Where did Paul get the idea of this allegory, and what the evidence? (2) Ishmael and Isaac. (3) Hagar and Sarah. (4) Jerusalem that now is and the Jerusalem above. (5) Show the parallel in the two covenants. (6) Give the distinctions as expressed in Hebrews. (7) What the folly of the crusades? (8) What the attitude of the children of the flesh toward the children of the Spirit? (9) What argument is sometimes made for infant church-membership, and what the answer? (10) Then who the children of the handmaid and who the children of the free woman?

3. What is the exhortation based upon this allegory, and where does Christ discuss this same idea?

4. What four things does Paul show are the result of their insistence on being circumcised? Explain particularly the last clause of Gal 5:4 .

5. What is the hope of righteousness for which the Christian waits?

6. Expound “but faith working through love.” What the Catholic interpretation of it, and how does the true interpretation bridge the apparent chasm between Paul and James?

7. Explain Gal 5:7 : “Ye were running well; who hindered you, etc.?”

8. What is the force of “a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump”?

9. What distinction does Paul make between the Galatians and the one who side tracked them?

10. What accusation does Paul seem to reply to in Gal 5:11 , what the stumbling block of the cross, and what does he mean by “beyond circumcision” in Gal 5:12 ?

Fuente: B.H. Carroll’s An Interpretation of the English Bible

21 Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law?

Ver. 21. Ye that desire, &c. ] That are ambitious of slavery, of beggary, Gal 4:9 . How many have we at this day that rejoice in their bondage and dance to hell in their bolts!

Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

21 30 .] Illustration of the relative positions of the law and the promise, by an allegorical interpretation of the history of the two sons of Abraham : “intended to destroy the influence of the false Apostles with their own weapons, and to root it up out of its own proper soil” (Meyer).

Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament

21 . ] , , . Chrys.

. ] do ye not hear (heed) the law , listen to that which the law imparts and impresses on its hearers? Meyer would understand, ‘do ye not hear the law read?’ viz. in the synagogues, &c. But the other seems to me more natural.

Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament

Gal 4:21-30 . PATRIARCHAL HISTORY IS EMPLOYED TO ILLUSTRATE THE PERSECUTION OF CHRISTIANS, WHO ARE THE PROMISED SEED OF ABRAHAM, BY JEWS WHO ARE HIS SEED AFTER THE FLESH. HAGAR AND HER SON, SARAH AND HER SON, FURNISH PROPHETIC TYPES OF THE MUTUAL RELATIONS BETWEEN THE TWO. AS HIS ELDER SON, THE SLAVE-BORN ISHMAEL, WAS CAST OUT FOR MOCKING THE FREEBORN CHILD, SO THE OLDER ISRAEL UNDER BONDAGE TO THE LAW WILL BRING ON THEMSELVES THE DOOM OF NATIONAL REJECTION BY PERSECUTING THE TRUE ISRAEL OF GOD WHOM CHRIST HATH ENDOWED WITH THE FREEDOM OF THE SPIRIT. The force of this illustration depends on the distinction drawn in Gal 3:16-22 between the seed of promise and the seed of Abraham after the flesh. The argument of Rom 9:6 is likewise based on the successive exclusion of the latter from inheritance of the blessing. John the Baptist and Jesus Himself expressly warned the Jews not to rely on their claim to be sons of Abraham.

Isaac the child of promise, only son of a free mother after years of barrenness, and heir to an indisputable birthright, aptly prefigured the Church of Christ, born in the fulness of time, made free by the gift of the Spirit, and established for ever in the house of their heavenly Father by an eternal covenant of adoption. Ishmael again, who had for some years filled the position of a son without the birthright which could entitle him to inherit the blessing, but was eventually driven out for his mockery of the promised child supplied an exact prototype of Israel after the flesh, long recognised as the people of God, but bound under the Law, and eventually destined to be shut out from the household of God for their guilt in persecuting Christ and His Church. . . This is a remonstrance addressed to men who are bent on upholding the authority of the Law, but are indifferent to the lessons which it teaches. has this force of listening , not only when used absolutely, but when coupled as it is here with an accusative ( cf. Luk 10:39 , Eph 1:13 ).

Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson

NASB (UPDATED) TEXT: Gal 4:21 to Gal 5:1

21Tell me, you who want to be under law, do you not listen to the law? 22For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by the bondwoman and one by the free woman. 23But the son by the bondwoman was born according to the flesh, and the son by the free woman through the promise. 24This is allegorically speaking, for these women are two covenants: one proceeding from Mount Sinai bearing children who are to be slaves; she is Hagar. 25Now this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children. 26But the Jerusalem above is free; she is our mother. 27For it is written,

Rejoice, barren woman who does not bear;

Break forth and shout, you are not in labor;

For more numerous are the children of the desolate

Than of the one who has a husband.”

28And you brethren, like Isaac, are children of promise. 29But 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. 30But 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.”

31So then, brethren, we are not children of a bondwoman, but of the free woman. Gal 5:1 It was for freedom that Christ set us free; therefore keep standing firm and do not be subject again to a yoke of slavery.

Gal 4:21 “Tell me, you who want to be under law, do you not listen to law” Paul used the writing of Moses to combat errors based on Moses. This verse resumes the thought of Gal 4:7. Gal 4:8-20 are another personal, emotional appeal by Paul. The concepts of “sonship” and “heir” in Gal 4:7 and “seed” in Gal 3:15-18 are the antecedents to this typology.

Gal 4:22 “Abraham had two sons” Abraham had more than two sons, but the ones spoken of here are contrasted: his first son, Ishmael, recorded in Genesis 16, and his second son, Isaac, recorded in Genesis 21. The whole point of the typology is that one was born by natural means by a servant girl and one was born by supernatural means according to the promise of God by a free woman, his wife. The emphasis throughout this context has been, as in Gal 4:23, on the promise of God versus human effort.

Gal 4:23-24 The Jews would have agreed with Paul’s typology until Gal 4:23, where he said that in the sense of human effort, the Jews were really the descendants of Ishmael, while the Church was the true descendant of Sarah because of “the promise.”

Gal 4:24 “allegorically” This is not “allegory” as used by Philo, Clement or Origen, but rather typology. Paul saw the current situation as analogous to the two children of Abraham; one by social custom, one by divine promise. One corresponds to works righteousness (Ishmael), the other to free grace (Isaac)! For Paul, the Law could not save but had become a death sentence on sinful mankind (cf. Col 2:14). Only in Christ could true salvation be found. The essence of OT faith was not found in Mosaic Law but Abrahamic faith.

SPECIAL TOPIC: TYPOLOGY

Gal 4:25 “Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia” There have been two ways of interpreting “is” here: (1) “it represents” or (2) there is some kind of popular etymological connection between Hagar and Mount Sinai. The name “Hagar” is spelledmuch like the Hebrew term for “rock” (metonymy for mountain). Most commentators choose option #1. Hagar stands for the Mosaic Law given on Mt. Sinai and, thereby, Judaism.

Arabia was a far wider geographical designation in Paul’s day than today.

SPECIAL TOPIC: THE LOCATION OF MT. SINAI

“corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children” The metaphor here is between the current system of Judaism centered in Jerusalem and the coming, eschatological city, New Jerusalem. This city, not made with hands, exists eternally in the heavens (cf. Heb 11:10; Heb 12:22; Heb 13:14 and Rev 21:2; Rev 21:10).

Notice that Paul made the Jerusalem above apply to the Church. NT apostolic writings change the focus of the OT (Jews vs. Greeks) to believers vs. unbelievers. The NT reorients the OT geographical promises from Palestine to heaven (earthly Jerusalem vs. heavenly Jerusalem). It is this basic change of focus that allows the book of Revelation to refer to (1) believers, not Jews or (2) a universal kingdom, not a Jewish kingdom.

Gal 4:26 “free” Freedom here refers to the believer as being released from the obligation of both Judaism (i.e., free from the curse, cf. Gal 3:13) and paganism (the stoicheia). Freedom is not related to the believer becoming self-directed, but

1. we are free to serve God (cf. Romans 6)

2. we are free from the terrible tyranny of the fallen self

To put it another way, believers are free “to serve” and free from “self.” It is a dual freedom! We willingly serve the Father and the family as sons and daughters, not slave and servants!

Gal 4:27 This is a quote from Isa 54:1. In context it refers to the restoration of the city of Jerusalem after the Babylonian exile. The New Jerusalem is mentioned specifically in chapters 65 and 66. Paul projected this eschatological understanding into his typology.

Gal 4:28 The believers in the Galatian churches were the true descendants of Abraham by faith (cf. Rom 2:28-29).

Gal 4:29 Paul associated all true followers of Jesus with the true descendants of Isaac through God’s promise. Although the OT does not specifically mention persecution (i.e., Jewish tradition), it does mention Hagar’s haughty attitude toward childless Sarah (cf. Gen 16:4-5), but also Sarah’s mistreatment of Hagar (cf. Gen 16:6). The rabbis interpreted Gen 21:9 as Ishmael mocking Sarah and her child. The Hebrew text itself reads “playing” or “laughing” (BDB 850, KB 1019). Possibly Paul was referring to the later animosity between Jews and Gentiles.

The last phrase of Gal 4:29, “so it is now also,” implies that the physical descendants (i.e., children of the Mosaic Covenant) of Abraham are still persecuting the spiritual children (i.e., faith children) of Abraham. There is conflict between the two mountains!

Gal 4:30 “But what does the Scripture say? Cast out the bondwoman and her son'” This is a quotation from Gen 21:10 (quoting Sarah, Peil imperative, BDB 176, KB 204). The Greek verb is aorist active imperative meaning to “drive off the slave girl” and in the context of Galatians would mean “kick the Judaizers out!”

Scripture is personified (cf. Joh 7:42; Rom 9:17; Gal 3:8; Gal. 4:36; Jas 2:23; Jas 4:5). This may be a metaphorical way of referring to the Father or the Spirit speaking, which would be a way of referring to “inspiration” (cf. Mat 5:17-19).

Gal 4:31 “So then, brethren, we are not children of a bondwoman, but of the free woman” This was the summary of the argument. We who trust in Jesus Christ are full heirs of the Abrahamic promise and not simply those who are of racial, or natural Israel. This same truth is expressed in Romans 9-11.

Fuente: You Can Understand the Bible: Study Guide Commentary Series by Bob Utley

21-30.] Illustration of the relative positions of the law and the promise, by an allegorical interpretation of the history of the two sons of Abraham: intended to destroy the influence of the false Apostles with their own weapons, and to root it up out of its own proper soil (Meyer).

Fuente: The Greek Testament

Gal 4:21. , tell me) He urges them, as if he were present, tell me.- ; do ye not hear?) when it is publicly read. You therefore act, as if you heard nothing of Abraham written in the law. He has recourse to an allegory only by the force of extreme necessity. This is, as it were, a sacred anchor, Gal 4:20.

Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament

Gal 4:21

Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law,-This is addressed to those who were inclined to follow the Judaizing teachers, and make legal observance as well as faith in Christ the ground of acceptance with God.

do ye not hear the law?-The law of Moses is, of course, in this argument, the great embodiment of the principle of law. Moreover it had a divine sanction which belongs to none other. It is immaterial whether we restrict the word law to the Pentateuch, or regard it as synonymous with the Old Testament generally.

Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary

Children of Promise

Gal 4:21-31

In this allegory of Sarah and Hagar, it is important to notice that Paul is not dealing with the principle of evil within our hearts, but with the attempt to mingle two dispensations or methods of religious experience-the Law and the Gospel.

He says that the poor slave girl, Hagar, whom Abraham bought as a personal attendant for his wife, stands for Mount Sinai, the mountain of the Law, in the district of Arabia, from which she may have originally come. Hagar also stands for the Judaizers, whose headquarters were at Jerusalem, while their emissaries everywhere dogged the Apostles movements, insisting that his converts must come under the old Levitical ceremonialism. Paul says that the Galatians must choose between their slavish observance of outward ritual and a simple faith in the finished work of Jesus; and exhorts them to cast out Hagar and Ishmael, which savor of the flesh, and to give themselves to the service of the Spirit, which stands for freedom, peace, and joy in God. Let us also guard against a religious scrupulosity and subservience to the outward, and cultivate a quick sensitiveness to the Holy Spirit.

Fuente: F.B. Meyer’s Through the Bible Commentary

Lecture 11

A Divine Allegory

Gal 4:21-31

Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law? For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman. But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise. Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar. For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children. But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all. For it is written, Rejoice, thou barren that bearest not; break forth and cry, thou that travailest not: for the desolate hath many more children than she which hath an husband. Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise. But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now. Nevertheless what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman. So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free. (vv. 21-31)

Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law? We have already noticed that while the Galatians were a Gentile people who had been saved by grace, they had fallen under the influence of certain Judaizing teachers who were trying to put them under the law. They said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved (Act 15:1), and so in this letter the apostle Paul has taken up the great question of Law and Grace and has been expounding it, clarifying it, making clear that salvation is not by works of the law but entirely by the hearing of faith.

Undoubtedly these Jewish teachers who had gotten into the Christian company were referring the believers back to the Old Testament, and they could give them Scripture after Scripture in which it seemed evident that the law was the supreme test, and that God had said, The man which doeth those things shall live by them (Rom 10:5), and, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them (Gal 3:10). And so they sought to impress upon these believers the importance of endeavoring to propitiate God, of gaining divine favor by human effort.

Now he says, You desire to be under the law, do you? Do you want to put yourself under the law of Moses? Why do you not hear the law? Why do you not carefully read the books of the law and see just what God has said? He uses the term law here in two different ways. In the first instance as referring to Moses law, the law given at Sinai with the accompanying rules and regulations, statutes and judgments, that were linked with it, but in the second, as referring to the books of the Law. Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law [the legal covenant], do ye not hear the law [the books of the law in which God tells us of the covenants]?

Then he turns them back to Genesis and says, For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman. We know that story. Abrahams wife was Sarah, and God had promised that Abraham and Sarah should be the parents of a son who was to be the precursor of the coming Seed in whom all nations of the earth should be blessed, but the years passed by and it seemed as though there was to be no fulfillment of that promise. Finally, losing hope, Sarah herself suggested that they should descend to the lower custom of the people of the nations around them, and that Abraham should take another woman, not exactly to occupy the full status of a wife, but one to be brought into the home as a concubine. Abraham foolishly acceded to that and took Hagar. As a result of that union a son was born who was called Ishmael, and Abraham fondly hoped that he would prove to be the promised one through whom the Messiah should come into the world. But God said, No, this is not the one. I told you you should have a child of Sarah, and this one is not the promised seed. Abraham pleaded, O that Ishmael might live before thee! (Gen 17:18). But God said, as it were, He can have a certain inheritance, but he cannot be the child of promise. In due time Sarah herself shall have a child, and in that child My covenant will stand fast.

The apostle now shows us that these events had a symbolic meaning. He does not mean to imply that they did not actually take place as written. They did. Scripture says in 1Co 10:11, speaking of Old Testament records, Now all these things happened unto them for [types]: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come. Notice, All these things happened. Some people say they did not happen, that they were just myths, or folklore, or something like that, but the Holy Spirit says, All these things happened. And so what you read in the Word concerning different Old Testament characters, the nations, cities, and so on, all these are to be received as historic facts. During the last hundred years when the voice of archeology has been crying out so clearly and loudly, not one thing has been discovered to refute anything written in Scripture, while thousands of discoveries have helped to bear witness to and authenticate the Bible record. It does not need to be authenticated, of course, as far as faith is concerned, for we believe what God has said. However, these important discoveries have helped in a large measure to shut the mouths of skeptics who would not believe the statements of Scripture to be true. Abraham lived, Sarah lived, Hagar was a real personage, the two sons were real personages. From Ishmael came the Arabs, from Isaac, the Hebrews. From the beginning the two boys did not get on together, and these nations were not friendly. That explains the trouble in Palestine today. They could not get on in the beginning, and cannot today. But the apostle undertakes to show that these mothers and their sons had symbolic significance.

But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh [and so he speaks of all who are only born after the flesh]; but he of the freewoman was by promise [Isaac was the child of grace]. It would have been absolutely impossible from a natural standpoint for Abraham and Sarah to become parents at the time Isaac was born. It was a divine manifestation, a miracle. Isaac was a child of promise, and hence the child of grace. The apostle tells us that these things are an allegory. All through the Word God has used allegories in order that we might receive great moral, spiritual, and typical lessons from these incidents, and here the Spirit of God Himself unfolds one of them for us.

Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar. For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children. But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all. These two women represent the two covenants: Sarah, the Abrahamic covenant, and Hagar, the Mosaic covenant. What was the difference between these two? The Abrahamic covenant was the covenant of sovereign grace. When God said to Abraham, In thee and in thy seed shall all nations of the earth be blessed, He did not put in any conditions whatsoever. It was a divine promise. God said, I am going to do it; I do not ask anything of you, Abraham, I simply tell you what I will do. That is grace. Grace does not make terms with people; grace does not ask that we do anything in order to procure merit. Many people talk about salvation by grace who do not seem to have the least conception of what grace is. They think that God gives them the grace to do the things that make them deserving of salvation. That is not it at all. We read, Being justified freely by his grace (Rom 3:24), and that word freely literally means gratuitously. The same word is translated without a cause in another portion of Scripture. It is said of the Lord Jesus Christ that the Scripture was fulfilled which was written concerning Him, They hated me without a cause (Joh 15:25). Jesus never did anything to deserve the bad treatment that men gave Him, and you and I cannot do one thing to deserve the good treatment that God gives us. Jesus was treated badly by men freely; we who are saved are treated well by God freely. I hope that you understand this wonderful fact, and that your soul is thrilling with the joy of it! What a marvelous thing to be saved by grace! One reason that God saves people by grace is that, It is more blessed to give than to receive, and He must have the more blessed part.

Years ago a wealthy lady in New York built a beautiful church. On the day of dedication her agent came up from the audience to the platform and handed the deed of the property to the Episcopal Bishop of New York. The bishop gave the agent one dollar for the deed, and by virtue of the one dollar, which was acknowledged, the property was turned over to the Episcopal Church. You say, What a wonderful gift! Yes, in a certain sense it was, for the passing over of one dollar was simply a legal observance. But after all, in the full Bible sense it was not a gift, for it cost one dollar; and so the deed was made out not as a deed of gift but as a deed of sale. It was sold to the Episcopal Church for one dollar. If you had to do one thing in order to be saved, if you had even to raise your hand, to stand to your feet, had but to say one word, it would not be a gift. You could say, I did thus and so, and in that way earned my salvation, but this priceless blessing is absolutely free. If by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work (Rom 11:6). That is what the Spirit of God tells us in the Word.

And so we see the covenant of grace illustrated in Sarah. God had said to Sarah, You shall have a child, and that child will be the means of blessing to the whole world. It seemed impossible that that could ever be, but in Gods good time His Word was fulfilled, at last through Isaac came our Lord Jesus Christ who brought blessing to all mankind. Hagar, on the other hand, was a bondwoman, and she speaks of the covenant of law, of the Mosaic covenant, made at Mount Sinai, for there God said, The man that doeth [those things] shall live in them, but no man was ever found who could keep that perfectly, and therefore on the ground of law no one ever obtained life. Sarah, who typifies grace, became the mother of the child of promise; Hagar typifies law, and became the mother of the child of the flesh. The law speaks only to the flesh, while the believer is the child of promise and has been born of divine power. Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God (Joh 3:3). Why is it that people generally are so ready to take up with legality and so afraid of grace? It is because legality appeals to the natural mind.

I remember going through Max Mullers set of translations of Oriental sacred literature in thirty-eight large volumes. I read them through in order to get an understanding of the different religious systems in oriental lands, and found that though they differed in ten thousand things, they all agreed on one thing, and that is that salvation was to be won by self-effort, the only difference being as to what the effort was. All taught salvation by works, and every religion except that which is revealed from heaven sets people doing something or paying something in order to win divine favor. This appeals to the natural man. He feels intuitively that God helps those that help themselves, and that if he does his best, surely then God will be interested enough to do something for him. But our best amounts to absolutely nothing. All our righteousnesses are as filthy rags (Isa 64:6), and the sooner we learn that we have no goodness of our own, that we have nothing to present to God with which to earn our salvation, the better for us. When we learn that, we are ready to be saved by grace alone. We come to God as poor, needy, helpless sinners, and through the work that the Lord Jesus Christ has done for our salvation we who believe in Him become the children of promise.

Hagar typified Jerusalem, which is here on earth because Jerusalem at that time was the center of the legal religion. But Sarah typifies Jerusalem above which is the mother of us all, or literally, our mother. The law is the earthly system, it speaks to an earthly people, to men after the flesh, whereas grace is a heavenly system which avails to children of promise. Jerusalem above is our mother. Why? Because Christ is above. Christ has gone up yonder, and having by Himself made purification for sins He has taken His seat on the right hand of the Majesty in the heavens and there He sits exalted, a Prince and Savior, and from that throne grace is flowing down to sinful men.

Grace is flowing like a river,

Millions there have been supplied;

Still it flows as fresh as ever,

From the Saviours wounded side;

None need perish,

All may live since Christ has died.

Have you trusted this Savior? Have you received that grace? Can you say, Yes, I am a citizen of heaven; Jerusalem above is my mother? Even Abraham looked for that heavenly city. God promised him an inheritance on earth, and some day his children will have that. They are trying to get it now after the flesh, and are having a very hard time. Some day in accordance with the promise, they shall have it, and then it will be all blessing for them. That will be after their eyes are opened to see the Lord Jesus Christ as their Messiah. A great many people are troubled about Palestine. I am deeply interested in what is going on over there, and recognize in it a partial fulfillment of the Word, but the reason why the Jews were driven out of Palestine nineteen hundred years ago was because they knew not the time of their visitation, and when their own Savior came they rejected Him. They said, We have no king but Caesar. And when Pilate asked, What shall I do with Jesus which is called Christ? they cried, Away with him, away with him, crucify him (Joh 19:15), His blood be on us, and on our children (Mat 27:25). How terribly that malediction has been answered through the centuries. That does not excuse the wickedness of the persecution of the Jews, but it is an evidence of divine judgment. They would not have the Savior, and they have been under Caesars iron heel ever since. But now they are going back to Palestine. Have they changed in their attitude, in their thoughts? Have they turned to God and confessed the sin of crucifying the Lord of glory? No. Then how can they expect blessing as they go back to the land? No wonder there is trouble, trouble which will continue and increase until the dark and dreadful days of the Great Tribulation. They are but the children of Hagar, but some day when the church has been caught up to be with the Lord, and God turns back to Israel, a remnant from them will be saved. They shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son (Zec 12:10), and when they own as Savior and Lord, Him whom once they rejected, He will cleanse them from their sins; He will take them back to the land; He will bring them into blessing; He will destroy all their foes; and they themselves will become a means of blessing to the whole earth. That is the divine program as laid down in the Word of God.

I should like to urge any Jewish friends to search their own Scriptures. Will you not turn to your own Bible and read Isaiah 53, Psalm 22, Psalm 69, the last three chapters of the book of Zechariah, and then if you have a New Testament, read the epistle to the Hebrews and the gospel of Matthew, and see if the Spirit of God will not show you what is the whole trouble with Israel today? All their troubles have come upon them because they sought the blessing not after the Spirit but after the flesh, and so refused the promised Seed when He came. And you Gentiles, if you are seeking salvation by church membership, by observing ordinances, by charity, by your own good works, prayers, and penances, can you not see that you too are seeking the blessing after the flesh when God would give it to you on the ground of pure grace? Oh, that you might become children of Sarah, of the covenant of grace, who can say, Thank God, Jerusalem above is our mother. Our [citizenship], says the apostle, is in heaven; from whence also we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ (Php 3:20). And Abraham, we are told, looked for a city which hath foundations, whose builder and maker is God (Heb 11:10). Abraham is in heaven, and all his spiritual children who have died in the past are with him there. The Lord Jesus tells of the poor beggar, the child of Abraham, who died and was carried by the angels to Abrahams bosom. All the redeemed who have passed off the scene are in this same glorious paradise where Abraham is, and by-and-by, when Jesus comes, we all shall join that glad throng.

And then, not only now but through the millennial age, how many will be the children of God! So the apostle quotes from Isa 54:1: Rejoice, thou barren that bearest not; break forth and cry, thou that travailest not: for the desolate hath many more children than she which hath an husband. What a strange Scripture! First notice its character. The chapter that precedes it is Isaiah 53. There we have the fullest, the most complete prophecy of the coming into the world of the Lord Jesus, His suffering and death and resurrection, that is to be found anywhere in the Bible. Isaiah seems to see Him suffering, bleeding, and dying on the cross, and he says: He was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all (Isa 53:5-6), and the prophet closes that chapter with the wonderful words, He bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors (v. 12). And then the very next word, when you come to chapter 54, is Sing! There is enough there to make you sing: He bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors. Sing! Of what shall we sing? Of the matchless grace that God has manifested in Christ. Paul translated that word, sing, rejoice. Why? Because Jesus has died, the sin question is settled, and now God can let free grace flow to poor sinners. Grace in the past had been like a woman who was forsaken and alone, and longed to be the mother of children, but wept and mourned alone. And on the other hand here is legality typified by another woman, and she has thousands of children, people who profess to be saved by human effort, saved by their own merits. Yes, legality is a wonderful mother, she has a past family, and poor grace does not seem to have any children at all. But now the gospel goes forth, and what happens? Grace, the one forsaken, neglected, becomes the mother of more children than legality. For it is written, Rejoice, thou barren that bearest not; break forth and cry, thou that travailest not: for the desolate hath many more children than she which hath an husband. And so grace now has untold millions of children, and there will be millions more in the glorious age to come.

Millions have reached that blissful shore,

Their trials and their labors oer,

And still theres room for millions more.

Will you go?

Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise. Are you sure that is true of you? Have you believed Gods promise? He has promised a full, free, and eternal salvation to every one who trusts His Son. We who have believed are children of promise. But the children of legality cannot understand this. No one hates grace as much as the man who is trying to save himself by his own efforts.

But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now. During the dark ages, for more than one thousand years, the doctrines of grace were practically lost to the church, and many were trying to save themselves by penances, by long weary journeys, by thousands and thousands of prayers repeated over and over, by giving of their wealth to endow churches and build monasteries. The children of legality were a great host, and God opened the eyes of Martin Luther, John Knox, John Calvin, William Farel, and a host of others, and they found out that while men had been trying to save themselves by human effort it was the will of God to save poor sinners by grace. Luther took hold of the text, The just shall live by faith, and the truth began to ring out all over Germany and Europe and then spread to Britain, and soon bitter persecution broke out and people cried, Put them to death, these people who believe in salvation by grace, who do not believe that they can be saved by penances and human merit; burn them, starve them, shoot them, behead them, do everything possible to rid the world of them! They do not get rid of them in those ways today, but the world still hates and detests the people who are saved by grace. If you come into a community where people are going on in a smug self-righteousness, imagining they are going to heaven by church attendance, because they were baptized as babies, were confirmed at twelve years of age, have given of their money, and have attended to their religious duties, and you ask, Are you saved? their answer will be, Nobody can ever know until they get to the judgment seat, but I am trying to be. Well, you say, you can be sure; and you tell them of salvation by grace, and they exclaim, What is this? What detestable fanaticism! and at once they will begin to persecute you. The children of the flesh cannot stand the children of the Spirit.

Nevertheless what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman. God says, My children are the children of promise; My children are those who are saved by grace. Do you know the blessedness of the reality of it in your own soul?

So then, brethren, the apostle concludes, we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free. In other words, we have nothing to do with the legal covenant but we are the children of the covenant of grace.

Grace is the sweetest sound

That ever reached our ears,

When conscience charged and justice frowned,

Twas grace removed our fears.

Fuente: Commentaries on the New Testament and Prophets

Chapter 23

Two Covenants

(Gal 4:21-24)

In the preceding chapters of this epistle the Apostle Paul has clearly established the doctrine of justification by faith. He has shown that the law was given for the purpose of shutting sinners up to the grace of God in Jesus Christ for their justification. It has been his aim throughout the book to bring Gods children to enjoy the Spirit of adoption, who has set us free from the bondage of the law, by bringing us to faith in Christ. Now, Paul proceeds to a deeper and fuller teaching of the Scriptures.

Two Covenants

In Gal 4:21-31 Paul explains the teaching of Holy Scripture regarding the two covenants of works and grace. Using Abrahams two sons, Ishmael and Isaac, and their mothers, Sarah and Hager, as an allegory, the Apostle shows us that these two distinct covenants operate by two distinct principles: the flesh and the Spirit. The covenant of works, he shows us, always brings bondage, and the covenant of grace, liberty. Pauls message is crystal clear. The covenant of works and the covenant of grace are distinct and mutually exclusive.

In these verses the Holy Spirit gives us the spiritual meaning of the historical relation of Sarah and Hagar, as recorded in Genesis 16, 21. He tells us that the things recorded in those two chapters of Genesis were, by Gods design, an allegory an earthly picture of gospel truth.

We can never be sufficiently thankful to God the Holy Ghost for giving himself the spiritual meaning of those records; for never, untaught of God, could it have entered into the mind of man, that matters of so important a nature were veiled under that covering. We might, and should no doubt, have read the history of both again and again, as the different characters are there stated in the Holy Scripture, and have considered the whole an interesting memoir in the family of the patriarch Abraham, in that early age of the world; but to have supposed that it had so vast a reference to ourselves, and that in the son of Sarah was intended to show the election of grace; and in the son of the bond-woman Hagar was meant what the apostle calls the rest (Rom 11:7), such a spiritual apprehension of the subject, untaught of God, would have been for ever impossible, (as indeed it is now, without the same divine instruction,) and must have been unknown. (Robert Hawker)

The doctrine here revealed is essential to a proper understanding of the gospel. God deals with men only in covenant relationships. You may ask, What is a covenant? A covenant is a promise made upon the fulfillment of stipulated conditions. The covenant of works was initiated in Eden and later more fully revealed at Sinai. It says, Do this and live. This is the law. The covenant of grace was initiated in eternity and gradually revealed in many promises to Gods elect. It is fully realized in the person and work of Christ, the Surety of the covenant (Heb 7:22). It declares that Christ has done all.

The Word of God plainly teaches these two covenants. The covenant of works was that agreement made between God and Adam, and it included all of Adams posterity. God promised Adam life and happiness, on the condition that he would perfectly keep his commandments; and God threatened Adam with death if he broke his commandments (Mat 19:17; Luk 10:28; Hos 6:7).

The covenant of grace is an agreement made between the persons of the Sacred Trinity. It is the agreement of salvation for Gods elect made in eternity by God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. It was agreed that the race should fall in Adam and be redeemed by Christ (Isa 53:10; Heb 8:6). The covenant of works stood between God and Adam. Adam fell and now it is hopelessly broken. The covenant of grace stands forever established upon Christs blood and righteousness. The covenant of works said, Do, oh man, or die! the covenant of grace says, Christ has done all that men may live. All the conditions of the covenant of grace were forever and perfectly fulfilled by Christ. Every sinner, looking to Christ as his Savior, can say with David, Although my house be not so with God; yet he hath made with me an everlasting covenant, ordered in all things and sure (2Sa 23:5).

My God! The covenant of Thy love

Abides forever sure;

And, in its matchless grace, I feel

My happiness secure.

What though my house be not with Thee,

As nature could desire!

To nobler joys than nature gives

Thy servants all aspire.

Since Thou, the everlasting God,

My Father art become,

Jesus, my Guardian, and my Friend,

And heaven my final home

I welcome all Thy sovereign will,

For all that will is love;

And when I know not what Thou dost,

I wait the light above.

Thy covenant in the darkest gloom

Shall heavenly rays impart,

And when my eyelids close in death,

Sustain my fainting heart.

No Mixture

God of Glory is the God of grace. His grace is free, everlasting, and boundless. How men ought to love His grace. Yet, men are forever shunning his grace and clinging to the law. Men, by nature, prefer the covenant of works to the covenant of grace. Some do not deny grace, but simply mix it with the law. But any mixing of the two is a denial of grace (Rom 11:6; Gal 5:1-4). Even among those who are born of God, there is a terrible, evil inclination toward works. How often we find ourselves foolishly looking within, looking to our works, our experiences, and our feelings as a basis for assurance and peace! The result is always bondage.

It is God himself who has made that vast distinction between law and grace. The two covenants are as different as east and west, as light and dark, as fire and water. The law is death; grace is life. This distinction lies at the very heart of the gospel. One of the most difficult things in the world is to see the difference between law and grace, between my doing something for righteousness and salvation and another doing everything in my place for the totality of my acceptance with the holy Lord God. Even those who are clear sighted enough to realize that justification must be all of grace, are, yet, very often deluded into thinking that they are sanctified by the keeping of the law, and, thus, make themselves more acceptable to God. Somehow, we tend to think that rituals and ceremonies and good works will give us merit and favor with God. But this can never be. We are accepted before God in our Covenant Head, the Lord Jesus Christ, and in the covenant he is everything to Gods people. For of him are we in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us, wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption. Christ is everything in the matter of salvation. We cannot make too much of our Savior or ascribe too much to him. He is the sum total of the covenant of grace. It is written, I will give thee for a covenant of the people, to establish the earth, to cause to inherit the desolate heritages; that thou mayest say to the prisoners, God forth (Isa 49:8-9). In Christ, by his obedience and death as the Surety of the covenant and Representative of his elect, the temporary covenant of works (the law of condemnation and death) has been permanently supplanted by the everlasting covenant of grace through Jesus Christ.

A Question for Legalists

There were many in Pauls day, as there are many in our day, who attempted to bring Gods saints back under the bondage of the law, while professing to trust Christ as their Savior. We have seen this throughout the book of Galatians. Few would claim to perfectly obey the law. Rather, they profess that they sincerely live by the law and obey it to the best of their ability. That is the problem. Doing our best will never do for righteousness. Our best efforts will never please God. So Paul raises a question in Gal 4:21 that needs to be answered. It is not a mere rhetorical question. Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law?

The question is just this: Do you who seek to make yourselves righteous, who seek acceptance with God, who seek assurance and peace before God by your obedience to the law, do you not hear what the law really says? The law never speaks peace or pardon, but declares us all to be guilty (Rom 3:19-20). It sentences us to wrath and condemnation. The law does not minister life, but death (2Co 3:7). The law does not require a sincere effort of obedience, but perfect obedience (Gal 3:10). Do you really want to be under the yoke of bondage and death? Do you really want to be under the law?

Edgar Andrews points out the fact that, Paul is using the law here in two different senses. His meaning is, You who desire to be under the law of Moses, do you not hear (or heed) the Mosaic scripture? Of course, there is no sleight of hand intended. Paul is simply pointing out that the Sinaitical law forms part of a larger body of Scripture from the hand of Moses, namely the Pentateuch. Had the Galatians seen Moses law in the context of all Moses writings, implies Paul, they would have rejected the Judaizers advances.

The Judaizers at Galatia, like legalistic work-mongers today, interpreted the law very narrowly. The Judaizers with whom Paul contended applied only the ten commandments, circumcision, and selected holy days to believers in the gospel age. Their followers today, with rare exception, make only the ten commandments applicable, altering the laws regulating sabbath keeping to suit themselves. By such a narrow interpretation and application of the law, they take it totally out of the context of the Old Testament, particularly the five books of the Old Testament written by Moses (Genesis through Deuteronomy), commonly referred to as the law. Thereby, they totally ignore and refuse to hear and heed what the law says. While professing to love and honor the law, they would destroy the law.

The message of the law is exactly the same as the message of the gospel Salvation by Christ! The whole Word of God is the declaration of redemption, grace, and salvation by Christ (Luk 24:27; Joh 5:39; Heb 1:1-14). Paul shows us in Gal 4:22-24 that this is the case, using Sarah and Hagar and their two sons, Isaac and Ishmael (by divine inspiration) as an allegory portraying the message of the gospel and the covenants of works and of grace. These two women and their sons were not merely people who lived long, long ago. They were, by the design and purpose of God, typical of spiritual truths. They were living parables (an allegory), demonstrating the futility of works and the efficacy of Gods free grace in Christ.

Two Sons

For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman (Gal 4:22). Actually, Abraham had many sons (Gen 25:1-4); but Ishmael and Isaac were specifically intended to be illustrations of works and grace. Ishmael was born of a slave, Sarahs handmaid, Hagar. As such, he was but a servant himself and not the heir. Isaac was born of Sarah, Abrahams wife, who was a free woman, one who was joined to Abraham in a family relationship. That made Isaac a free man, a son, and the heir.

Paul uses this allegory to show us that all who are in bondage to the law are slaves, the spiritual descendants of the bondwoman, Hagar. Those who enjoy the liberty of grace are free in Christ, spiritual descendants of the freewoman, Sarah. Hagar and her son, Ishmael, owned nothing. They had none of the privileges belonging to Sarah and her son, Isaac, who possessed all things by virtue of their relationship to Abraham.

Pauls doctrine is obvious. Those who seek to obtain righteousness by works, even by trying to obey Gods holy law, are mere slaves. Though they follow after righteousness, they cannot attain to the law of righteousnessFor they being ignorant of Gods righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God. For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth (Rom 9:31 to Rom 10:4). But all who come to God by faith in Christ, without the deeds of the law, inherit all things in Christ.

Though Abraham was an old man and his wife, Sarah, was an old woman, whose womb had been barren, the Lord promised Abraham a son (Gen 13:16; Gen 15:4-6). Though everything seemed to be against it ever happening, Abraham believed Gods promise (Gen 15:6; Rom 4:18-22). But, as the years passed and they grew older, it seemed increasingly unlikely that the child of promise would ever be born without Abraham and Sarah doing something to make it happen.

So Sarah came up with an idea. She suggested, and Abraham agreed to it, that the Lord would fulfil his promise in a way that involved their own effort, by giving God a hand. So Sarah gave her handmaid, Hagar, to Abraham as his mistress for a night. Their faith wavered. They mixed human reason with divine revelation, and, as is always the case, the wisdom of the flesh flew in the face of divine revelation and was a denial of the promise of God. Therefore, Paul tells us that, he who was born of the bondwoman was born after the flesh (Gal 4:23).

Abraham and Sarah did not abandon Gods promise altogether. They simply decided that God needed their help to fulfil his promise. And their help produced Ishmael, a slave who caused unceasing pain and trouble as long as he was in the house. That is precisely the error of all who attempt to mix law and grace, the works of the flesh and the work of God in the matter of obtaining righteousness before God. Every attempt to obtain the promise of God by human effort (law obedience, religious ceremony, good works, decisions, etc.) is doomed to failure and only produces bondage and trouble.

Isaac, on the other hand, was born of the free woman, Sarah, and was born by promise (Gal 4:23). He was not conceived by the flesh or born in a natural way, but by the promise of God accomplished miraculously. His father was nearly 100 and his mother was 90 years old and barren (Rom 4:19). They were simply too old to have children. With men this was impossible; but with God all things are possible (Mark 19:26). Had it been possible for Isaac to have been born in a natural way, no faith would have been involved and no righteousness imputed to Abraham. But Isaac was born because Abraham believed God. He not only believed that God would give him a son, he believed that God would give him his Son (the Seed of woman who would crush the serpents head and bring the blessing of Gods salvation); and God declared him righteous (Rom 4:20-22).

Being the seed of promise, Isaac was a type and picture of our Lord Jesus Christs incarnation (Gal 3:16-18). His birth also illustrates the new birth. Every child of God is, like Isaac, born after the Spirit (Gal 4:29). Our Savior said, That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit (Joh 3:6). The new birth is not the work of the flesh, but of the Spirit, a sovereign, irresistible, unaided work of Gods grace, according to covenant promise (Eze 36:25-27). As Isaac, not Ishmael, was Abrahams heir, so all who are born again by Gods free grace are heirs of God and joint-heirs with Christ (Rom 8:17).

Isaac was born out of the common order and course of nature; his conception and birth were owing to the promise and power of God, and to his free grace and favor to Abraham. This son of promise was a type of the spiritual seed of Abraham, whether Jews or Gentiles, the children of the promise that are counted for the seed; who are born again of the will, power, and grace of God, and are heirs, according to the promise, both of grace and glory, when they that are of the law, and the works of it, are not. (John Gill)

An Allegory

In Gal 4:24 the Apostle tells us that which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar. Paul does not mean for us to understand that these events of history just happen to illustrate what he is teaching. By divine inspiration, he is telling us they came to pass by Gods intention and purpose to teach us these things. The purpose of God in bringing them to pass and recording them in the book of Genesis was to convey to us a picture of the distinction between the old covenant of works and the new covenant of grace.

We cannot understand the Bible correctly if we fail to see the constant distinction it makes between these two covenants. God established the old covenant of works in the garden with Adam and gave it to Israel through Moses at Mt. Sinai. The new covenant, the covenant of grace and promise, was established in eternity with Christ, our Surety, the Surety of the covenant (Heb 7:22), and was ratified in time by the shedding of his blood at Calvary (Heb 9:11-28). This new covenant is seen in Gods covenant with Abraham and was spoken of in prophecy by David, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel (Psalms 89; Jeremiah 31; Ezekiel 36; cf. Heb 8:10-13; Heb 10:16-22).

In the old covenant of law and works God laid all responsibility upon the shoulders of men. It was a load that no man can carry. In the new covenant the Lord God laid upon his own darling Son the full weight of responsibility, making him alone totally responsible for the salvation of his people. Looking upon Christ as our Surety as the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world, trusting to him the whole of his glory and the whole of our salvation, the Lord God declared the whole work of redemption and grace done in that covenant before the world began (Eph 1:3-14; Rom 8:28-30).

This new covenant of life and grace, redemption and peace, though the first made, was the last revealed. Though made in eternity, it is called the new covenant because it is always new and never old. The covenant of law and works is set before us in Genesis 2, where God commanded Adam to do something and threatened him with death, declaring that in the day he broke his covenant he would surely die. The new covenant, the covenant of grace, is set before us in Genesis 3 after the fall, when God promised to send his Son, the Seed of woman, to crush the serpents head and save his fallen children. He even pictured how the covenant would be fulfilled by Christ slaying an innocent victim and clothing Adam and Eve with the skins of the slain victim. This covenant of grace was gradually revealed in greater fulness in Gods covenant with Noah, his covenant with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and his covenant with David. But we see it fully accomplished in the finished work of our Lord Jesus Christ.

While children of the bondwoman moan in bondage, trying to work themselves into the favor of God, every believer, the children of the free woman, walk at liberty and rejoice in the free, immaculate, immutable, indestructible grace of God, singing with David, Although my house be not so with God; yet he hath made with me an everlasting covenant, ordered in all things, and sure: for this is all my salvation, and all my desire, although he make it not to grow (2Sa 23:5).

With Davids Lord and ours,

A covenant once was made,

Whose bonds are firm and sure,

Whose glories neer shall fade;

Signed by the Sacred Three in One

In mutual love, ere time begun.

Firm as the lasting hills

This covenant shall endure,

Whose potent shalls and wills

Make every blessing sure;

When ruin shakes all natures frame

Its jots and tittles stand the same.

Fuente: Discovering Christ In Selected Books of the Bible

ye that: Gal 4:9, Gal 3:10, Gal 3:23, Gal 3:24, Rom 6:14, Rom 7:5, Rom 7:6, Rom 9:30-32, Rom 10:3-10

do: Mat 21:42-44, Mat 22:29-32, Joh 5:46, Joh 5:47

the law: Joh 10:34, Joh 12:34, Joh 15:25, Rom 3:19

Reciprocal: Isa 8:20 – the law Mar 10:3 – What Mar 10:19 – knowest Joh 8:17 – also Rom 7:1 – them that 1Co 9:20 – are under Gal 4:5 – redeem 1Ti 1:7 – to Heb 2:15 – subject Heb 7:18 – the weakness

Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge

Gal 4:21. , , ;-Tell me, ye who desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law? The appeal is abrupt-urget quasi praesens (Bengel). The parties addressed are not persons of heathen birth (Flatt, Rckert), nor specially of Jewish birth (Schott, De Wette), but those who had a strong desire to place themselves under the law, in whom the Judaistic teaching had stirred up this untoward impulse, which Chrysostom says came from their . The phrase, Do ye not hear the law? is supposed by Meyer and others to mean, Do ye not hear the law read? But the plain meaning of the terms is the best. The verb is not to be taken as signifying do ye understand? (Jerome, Borger, Olshausen, Kttner, and others), nor as denoting, Do ye not submit to the law? (Gwynne), which is utterly wrong, or as having any modification of that sense; but it is, Ye who would submit to the law, give ear to its statements. The reading is an old gloss found in D, F, found also in the Latin version (legistis) and in several of the fathers, and may have been suggested by the reading of the law in the synagogues, or by a wish to give a more palpable form to the question. The repetition of is emphatic: in the first clause it is the legal institute; in the second with the article it is the book of the law. Luk 24:44; Rom 3:21. Hofmann needlessly takes the whole verse as one thought-Tell me ( relative), ye who desiring to be under the law do not hear the law; but this view does not harmonize with the beginning of the next verse. The apostle now sets before them a striking lesson of the law, so presented and interpreted as to be specially intelligible to them, as being also quite in harmony with their modes of interpretation-

Fuente: Commentary on the Greek Text of Galatians, Ephesians, Colossians and Phillipians

Verse 21. The very document (the Old Testament) that the Judaizers professed to respect so much, predicted in numerous places that there was to be a new prophet come into the world, who would give another system of religious government. Paul is challenging them to hear that law, which means for them to respect its predictions, and cease disturbing Gentile Christians with their subversive teaching.

Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary

Gal 4:21. Tell me. This makes the question more urgent and compels the Judaizing Galatians to an evangelical answer.

Ye that desire to be under law, do ye not hear the Law? Ye who are so anxious to live under the power and authority of the legal dispensation, will ye not listen to the lesson of the book of the Law? Comp. Mat 13:13; Mat 24:15; Luk 16:29. Others take it as a question of astonishment! Is not the Law (which ought to convince you of your error) constantly read in your synagogues? Comp. Luk 4:16; Joh 12:32; Act 15:21; 2Co 3:14. The law in the first clause means the legal institute and authority; the Law in the second clause designates, as often, the Pentateuch (the Thora), as distinct from the Prophets (Nebiim), and the remaining sacred writings (Chetubim or Hagiographa).

Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament

Subdivision 2 (Gal 4:21-31; Gal 5:1-6.)

The testimony of the law itself.

1. If they would not listen any more to the gospel or to the one who had spoken to them for Christ, the apostle would appeal now to the very law itself, which undoubtedly they must hear. Zealous law-keepers must hear the law. Here he goes back to Abraham again, and in a manner which, to some who scarcely fully accept the typical character of Old Testament history, would appear strange. Yet to “foolish Galatians” he can use this without questioning their ability to realize, not only the likeness to truth, but the truth itself that is in it. In fact, these typical pictures speak for themselves and are designed to speak. When once we have the key to them, their perfect agreement with the truth can be nothing else than that designed of God to set it forth. Abraham’s two sons thus naturally speak of those two classes of his offspring of which the apostle has been speaking. There is the seed after the flesh; there is the seed after the Spirit, the natural child “and the spiritual child,” the child “of faith.” It is not hard, therefore, to understand the similitude when he emphasizes the one seed as that by a bondmaid, the other by a free woman. Bondage and freedom have been his theme already. How fully plain does it become when he tells us that he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh, in the ordinary course of nature, with nothing necessarily of God in it, and on the other hand he of the free woman was by promise. He has already spoken of this promise, has already connected its “in thee,” said of him whose faith was reckoned to him for righteousness, with the faith of those who are the children of promise. These things, he says, not, “are an allegory,” exactly, but “are allegorized.” They were true things, things which had actually taken place, no question, but which nevertheless had “happened to them,” as the apostle says of other things in their history, “for types.” They had a divinely intended meaning in them and not merely could be used to show forth such things. These two, then, are the two covenants, the one from the Mount Sinai, the law bringing forth to bondage, which is Hagar; the other, that of promise “Jerusalem which is above,” “which is the mother of us all,” or “which is our mother.” “Jerusalem which is above” naturally carries our thoughts on to that of which John gives us in his Revelation by and by a fuller view. It was the home city, the city of which all the people of God now are children. The apostle speaks of it as having a present reality and a place which faith indeed alone can recognize, but which is none the less real. Paul turns to the prophet here, in order to show us that while, in fact, the barren was not bearing (before the time of Israel’s real travailing and birth, as in a day to come,) there would be, nevertheless, the strange paradox of many more children to her than when she had an husband. This is language which the apostle’s word about the olive-tree in the epistle to the Romans should enable us clearly to understand. The branches are broken off, but yet there are branches in their place which are counted as part of the olive-tree itself. They are, in fact, in a true sense, the fruit of Israel, although Israel has in the meantime lost that fruitful condition, and here we find the children which, in fact, should more rejoice her heart, when looking at things from the divine point of view, than all the generations of the nation in the flesh merely. Here, of course, are the children of promise. Here is the true Isaac, but the opposition between the one born after the flesh and this new spiritual birth is manifest. This very apostle is proof of it even now, but the known opposition everywhere manifest on the part of Israel to Christ and to His people was, of course, the greatest proof. Israel after the flesh was persecuting the children of promise, but what would be the result? The casting out of the bondwoman and her son. God had, in fact, disclaimed the principle of the law, which was the principle of bondage, and if He had now sons that were really of the free woman, children of promise, children that divine grace had made such, there could not be a common recognition of these and of those so totally opposite. “We then,” he says, “brethren, are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free.” The law could easily, as it were, and naturally, bring forth children to God. How natural it is for men to accept a system of this sort and to be put upon such terms with God. The whole nation of Israel at once and decisively took this ground without a question. On the other hand, the true seed desired of God must be all born by divine power; born slowly, as one may think, long years passing while they seem to be only scanty in number and slow enough to mature, yet, after all, God will have His own. Scorn as Israel might those who now were being by the Spirit of God led to Christ and Christianity, Israel’s casting out was already manifestly at hand, when the very place of their holy house would be dug up by the Roman people and the worship ordained of God for the people in the flesh would no longer be possible to them. Their house was left to them desolate. It was their house, not God’s, but that was the sentence upon it. It would soon be not even their house any longer.

2. The apostle closes with the exhortation to “stand fast therefore in the liberty with which Christ hath made us free” and not to be “entangled again with the yoke of bondage.” He is very strong that there could be no profit of Christ to those who put themselves under the law. If they were circumcised, Christ would profit them nothing. A circumcised man was a debtor to do the whole law. This may seem strange from one who, as we know, before this time had himself circumcised Timothy, but the circumstances were entirely different. Timothy was a Jew by his mother’s side, and it was, in that case, such a concession on the part of one not under the law putting himself under it in the very liberty that he had to gain others, as made it a sign, therefore, of liberty instead of bondage. With the Galatians it would be entirely different. They, as Gentiles, were not debtors to the law in any way, and if they put themselves under it, it was to gain from it a spiritual blessing; it was a real addition, therefore, to Christ that they were making, but by this, as we have already seen, they would be “fallen from grace,” for grace cannot admit the conditional principle of law without losing all its character. Again, we see also that he has no thought of any one taking up the law as a rule of life simply; it is of justification by it that he speaks, and this was in fact the only question that the law raised; but as Christians in possession of the Spirit, which we have seen to be the sign of their Christianity, they were outside the law, and necessarily in possession of a righteousness which the Spirit of God could seal, a righteousness perfect before God. They only waited in faith for the hope which was connected with this; not for righteousness as a hope, but for the hope of glory attaching to it. Thus, they were beyond any possible need of law; and “in Christ,” as he declares, “neither circumcision” availed “anything, nor uncircumcision.” A man was quite outside both the Jewish and the Gentile acceptance. God accepted nothing, except as faith, which, as the sign of dependence, drew blessing from Him; and which, in its nature, worked not by the principle of fear, which was that of law, but by love.

Fuente: Grant’s Numerical Bible Notes and Commentary

Our apostle here proceeds to the end of this chapter, in showing the Galatians that it was the design of God, at the coming of Christ, to abolish the legal dispensation, and free men from the servitude and bondage of that law.

And, first, he argues with them from the nature of the law they were so willing, yea, so desirous, to be under, Ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law? That is, “Ye that desire to be justified by your legal performances, by observing circumcision, &c. do you not hear and take notice how the very law itself doth sentence, curse, and condemn you? And do you not find in the Old Testament, the story of Sarah and Hagar, of Ishmael and Isaac? Are you ignorant that Abraham had two sons, Ishmael by Hagar the bond-woman, and Isaac by Sarah the free-woman? Ishmael the bond-woman’s son was born after the flesh; that is, by the ordinary strength of nature in generation, Hagar being young, and Abraham being strong. But Isaac was the son of the promise; God gave him, by virtue of his promise made to Abraham when his body was dead, unfit for generation, and Sarah past conception also.”

Now from this history of Abraham’s family, considered in itself, (without the mystery prefigured by it,) we learn,

1. That the best of men are imperfect men; the holy patriarchs lived in the sin of polygamy, or taking more wives than one, contrary to the first institution of marriage, either not knowing or not considering it was a sin. Abraham had two wives.

Learn, 2. That the truth and veracity of God engages him to fulfil and make good all his promises, though all ordinary means and secondary causes fail, and become impotent and unable to bring about the thing promised.

Thus here, a promise being made to Abraham, that Sarah should have a child, she conceiveth and beareth Isaac; not according to the course of nature, but through virtue of the promise: He of the free-woman was by promise.

Fuente: Expository Notes with Practical Observations on the New Testament

Gal 4:21-23. Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law Of Moses, as the rule of your justification; do ye not hear the law? Regard what it says? how it teaches that Abrahams children, by faith, who are heirs of the promises, are free from the bondage of the law? The argument the apostle is going to use being taken from the law of Moses, was urged with much propriety, not only against the Judaizers, who affirmed that obedience to the law of Moses was necessary to mens salvation, but against those Gentiles also whom the Judaizers had seduced to receive the law. For if the apostle made it evident, from the law of Moses itself, that Abrahams children, by faith, were free from the bondage of the law, no further argument was necessary to prove that obedience to the law is not necessary to justification. Macknight. It is written that Abraham had two sons Here he illustrates the doctrine of justification by faith, and of the abolition of the legal dispensation, by the history of Abrahams family, in which it was prefigured. The plain import of what he advances is this: That as in Abrahams family there were two mothers, and two sorts of children, which were differently treated; so, in the visible church, there are two sorts of professors; some that seek justification by the works of the law, who are in a servile and miserable condition, and shall at last be cast out from the presence of God, and the society of the saints; others that seek justification by faith in Christ, and in the promises of God through him: and these are the free sons of Gods family, and in a happy condition, and shall at last certainly obtain the inheritance of eternal life. The one Namely, Ishmael, by Hagar, a bond-maid, the other Namely, Isaac, by Sarah, a free-woman. But there was a great difference between them; for he who was of the bond-woman That is, Ishmael; was born only after the flesh In the common order of nature, without any particular promise of God, or any unusual interposition of his power and providence. But he of the free-woman That is, Isaac; was by promise Through the strength supernaturally communicated to his parents by the promise, Lo Sarah, thy wife, shall have a son; and, like his mother, being free, was his fathers heir.

Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law?

Fuente: McGarvey and Pendleton Commentaries (New Testament)

Gal 4:21 to Gal 5:1. The new thing he tries is an allegorising spiritualising application of an OT story. Slave-born Ishmael mocked (Gen 21:10*) free-born Isaac, and the son of the slave was righteously cast out. God means us to learn from this! Once more it is claimed that the OT supports Paul. A second quasi-allegory is intertwined with the first. According to later Jewish theology, the real Jerusalem, like all other sacred things, existed originally in heaven. And according to Paul the material or earthly Jerusalem, which rejects Jesus and clings to Law, is in hopeless bondage. Isa 54:1 must refer to the heavenly Jerusalem, partially manifested in the NT Church. Once more then, choosebetween Christ and Law; Ishmael and Isaac; the true Jerusalem and the sham. Nay, they have chosen. Let them stand by their good choice! Let them not frustrate Christs design (Gal 5:1 mg.).

[Gal 4:25. The meaning is apparently that the word Hagar is in Arabia used for Mt. Sinai. That this is philologically uncertain is no proof that Paul did not mean this. It gives an excellent sense, for it justifies the equation of Hagar with the Sinaitic covenant. Paul may say in Arabia rather than in the Arabian language, because he is referring to a local usage. If mg. gives the correct text, it is probably a gloss. An interesting suggestion has been made to the effect that the verb rendered answereth to means has the same numerical value as. The Gr. words rendered Hagar Sinai = 1365, the Jerusalem that now is = 1364. But the Alpha in the former equation has to mean both 1 and 1000, there is a difference between the totals, and there is no indication of this sense in the passage. The verb means is in the same category with.A. S. P.]

Fuente: Peake’s Commentary on the Bible

SECTION 18. THE COVENANTS OF BONDAGE AND OF FREEDOM.

CH. 4:21-5:1.

Tell me, ye who wish to be under law, do ye not hear the Law? For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by the maid and one by the free woman. Yet he by the maid was born according to flesh: but he by the free woman, through promise. Which things contain an allegory. For these women are two covenants; one from Mount Sinai bearing children for bondage, which is Hagar. Now this Hagar: Mount Sinai in Arabia; and stands in line with the Jerusalem that now is: for she is in bondage with her children. But the Jerusalem above is free, which is our mother. For it is written, Rejoice, barren one that bearest not; burst forth and shout, thou that dost not travail in birth. For many are the children of the desolate woman, more than of her who has the husband. (Isa 54:1). And we, brethren, like Isaac are children of promise.

But just as then he that was born according to flesh was persecuting him born according to Spirit, so also now. So But what says the Scripture? Cast out the maid and her son: for the son of the maid shall not inherit with the son of the free woman. (Gen 21:10.) For which cause, brethren, we are not children of a maid but of the free woman. For freedom, Christ has made us free. Stand then, and be not again held fast by a yoke of bondage.

Another appeal, an argument based upon facts recorded in the Book of the Law taken in connection with the teaching in Gal 3:23; Gal 4:1-3 that all who are under law are in bondage.

Gal 4:21. Law: the general principle, Do this and live.

Under law: as in Gal 4:4; Rom 6:14.

Wish to be under law; describes suitably an apostacy now going on, as do the present tenses in Gal 1:6; Gal 4:9; Gal 5:3-4; Gal 6:12-13. They desire to have as the basis of their relation to God, and as the means of obtaining His favour, a prescribed rule of conduct, viz. the rule embodied in the five Books of Moses: i.e. practically, they wish to stand, or rather to lie in helpless bondage, under the authority of law.

Hear the Law: cp. Rom 2:13, Joh 12:34. It recalls vividly the public reading in the synagogues, when this was, for Jews and proselytes, the chief means of acquaintance with the Jewish Scriptures.

Paul asks of those who wish to be under a prescribed rule, Do you not hear what is said by those Books which are an authoritative embodiment of such rule?

Gal 4:22-23. The foregoing question will now be justified by a fact about Abraham recorded in the Books of the Law.

Two sons; prepares us for a difference between them.

Maid: same word in Gen 16:1; Gen 16:3; Gen 16:5 f, Gen 16:8; Gen 21:10; Gen 21:12 f; Mat 26:69; Act 12:13; Act 16:16 : in N. T. always a maid-servant, but not so Rth 4:12. The word free implies that here the maid was a slave. Abraham had one son by the well-known maid-servant, and one by the well-known free woman.

According to flesh: the process of birth corresponding to the constitution of human or animal bodies. This reminds us that Ishmael stood to Abraham in the same relation as the Jews of Pauls day, viz. that of natural descent. This is embodied in the argument of Rom 9:8. [The Greek perfect tense intimates that the birth of Ishmael according to flesh has abiding significance. So 1Co 15:4; 1Co 15:14; 1Co 15:27. In reference to events so definite, the English language, which has no tense corresponding to the Greek perfect, uses the preterite, was born.]

Through, or by means of, promise. Not only was Isaacs birth a fulfilment of promise, but the faith elicited by the promise was an essential condition, according to the principles of the kingdom of God, of the putting forth of divine power and of the fulfilment of the promise. Hence the promise was the channel through which the power of God operated, producing first faith, in Abraham, and then the birth of Isaac. Similarly, in the birth of Jesus a promise to Mary was the vehicle through which the Spirit of God operated. Although both were sons of Abraham, yet the offspring of the slave girl was born (and the significance of this fact remains) according to the ordinary laws of human bodies, the offspring of the free woman was produced by the special voice of God, by the word of promise which Abraham believed.

Gal 4:24. Which things: or rather, which class of things.

Contain an allegory, or are-allegorized: they have another meaning beside the historical one. Same word and tense in Philo, vol. i. p. 143: The cherubim are, according to one manner, in this way allegorized. So Clement of Alex., Exhortation ch. xi. The serpent is allegorized as pleasure, crawling upon its belly, an earthly vice, turning to matter. That the narratives of Genesis are fact, Paul ever assumes: see my Romans, Diss. iii. He now declares that under the facts (as Philo says of the cherubim) lies spiritual significance. This significance, the rest of Gal 4:24 explains.

Are two covenants: cp. 1Co 11:25. This cup is the New Covenant. In a mutual relation similar to the relation of these two women there actually are two covenants. Therefore, in Pauls thought, and in objective reality, (for the relationships are real,) the women and the covenants are the same. So the word is, denoting practical identity, in Rom 1:12; Rom 1:16; 1Jn 5:3-4; Mat 13:37-39.

The two covenants; recalls 2Co 3:6, written probably shortly before this letter.

Of these two covenants, one is expounded in Gal 4:24 b, Gen 4:25; the other, under an altered form of speech, in Gal 4:26-28. The Old Covenant, an abiding possession, was received from God speaking on Mount Sinai.

Bearing children for bondage: just as children of a slave-mother are also slaves. This metaphor is the more easy because the word rendered covenant is feminine. They who accept the Law as the basis of their relation to God, and whose religious life is derived from and determined by it, are children of the Covenant (cp. sons of the Covenant, Act 3:25) which had its origin at Sinai. And Paul has shown (Gal 3:10 to Gal 4:3) that, in consequence of the nature of the covenant then given, such persons are, and must be, in bondage. Thus their position is analogous to that of the boy who, though Abrahams offspring, yet, because his mother was a servant, was not a sharer of the rights of Abrahams son. For, the religious life derived from the Law, a life of bondage, was derived from God who gave the Law at Sinai. That Ishmael was not actually a slave, does not weaken this comparison. For, because he was a slaves child, he could not claim a sons rights. And this defect of Ishmael, the Jews eagerly asserted.

Gal 4:25. Between readings (1) Now this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia and (2) For Sinai is a mountain in Arabia, evidence is almost equally balanced. We find r. 1 in the Vat. and Alex. MSS., the Latin part of the Clermont MS., and the Coptic version; evidence perhaps slightly stronger than that for r. 2, viz. the Sinai and Ephraim MSS., two Greek-Latin uncials, and the Latin Vulgate Version. Uniting these two readings, the later Greek MSS. and the Syriac Version which often accompanies them read (3) for this Hagar is Mount Sinai, etc. Chrysostom read, as the tenor of his exposition proves, this Hagar is Mount Sinai. And existing copies of his exposition read also for this Hagar, etc. But the difference between now and for does not affect his argument.

Consequently, in view of the great frequency of this last reading in later copies, we cannot be sure that Chrysostom himself accepted it. It seems to me that the documentary evidence for r. 1 preponderates slightly over that for r. 2. The difference is only three Greek letters, which must have been wrongly either inserted or omitted. Their accidental insertion is perhaps rather the more easy to conceive. For the insertion of , making into , might have been suggested by the same word at the end of Gal 4:24 : and the need for a particle would suggest the insertion of . But this possibility only counterbalances the slightly preponderant documentary evidence.

Of Critical Editors, Lachmann gives r. 2 in his text, r. 1 in his margin. Tischendorf gave r. 3 in his 7th, and gives r. 2 in his 8th, edition. Tregelles places r. 3 in his text and r. 1 in his margin. Even the joint editors part company here, Westcott preferring r. 2 and Hort r. 1: but, like the R.V., their joint text gives r. 1, with r. 2 in the margin.

Amid this conflict of evidence and opinion, I shall further test the readings by endeavouring to expound them.

Reading 1. This Hagar: i.e. Hagar looked upon, not as a woman, but simply as an abstract object of thought and comparison. Already Paul has said that one covenant is Hagar. With Hagar he now links in his allegory Mount Sinai, from which (Gal 4:24) the covenant was received.

Is: as in Gal 4:24 : in the allegory, Hagar and Sinai are the same. To assert this practical identity, is the purpose of Gal 4:25 a.

In Arabia; recalls the geographical position of Sinai, where in solitary grandeur, away from the land promised to Abraham, the rugged mountain looks down upon the wilderness home of the children of Hagar. The position of Sinai reveals the appropriateness of the allegory. And this sufficiently accounts for these words, without the exposition of Chrysostom: The bondwoman was called Hagar; and Mount Sinai is thus interpreted in the language of the locality. For this last statement we have hardly any confirmatory evidence. Some Arabian tribes bore their mothers name: e.g. Psa 83:6; 1Ch 5:10; 1Ch 5:20; Eratosthenes in Strabo bk. xvi. 767. Possibly this tribal name may have been heard by Paul during his sojourn in Arabia, and have suggested the contrast of the sons of Hagar and of Sarah. But even this supposition is needless. We notice, however, that the Epistle which tells of Pauls journey to Arabia contains this comparison. It may have been suggested by meditations on the spot.

Goes in the same line: like soldiers in file. It recalls (Aristotle, Nicom. Ethics bk. i. 6. 7) the Pythagorean Lists of corresponding Opposites. In such a list, Hagar, Ishmael, Sinai, the Old Covenant, the now Jerusalem would stand opposite to Sarah, Isaac, Golgotha, the New Covenant, the Jerusalem above. Paul has just said that in his allegory Hagar, the mother of the alien race, is identical with Mount Sinai whence they who trust in the Law derive their spiritual life. He now takes the allegory a step further by saying that Hagar is in the same line with Jerusalem that now is, or the now Jerusalem, the metropolis of the Jewish state and seat of the old Theocracy. This statement, the following words prove.

Is in bondage: viz. Jerusalem, as proved by the contrast with Jerusalem above which is free. Moreover, to say that Hagar is in bondage, etc., would merely and needlessly repeat Gal 4:24 b, and would do nothing to prove that either she or Mount Sinai goes in the same line with the now Jerusalem: whereas, that Jerusalem is in bondage, etc., as practically proved in Gal 3:23 to Gal 4:9, places the Mother-City of the Jews in line with Hagar and her banished offspring; which is the chief point of this allegory.

With her children: cp. Mat 23:37 : with those who look up to the old Theocratic state as their political and spiritual mother. For these are under the Law, and therefore (cp. Gal 3:23 ff) in spiritual bondage; by the very nature of the Theocracy to which they owe their spiritual life.

Reading 2 should probably be rendered For Sinai is a mountain in Arabia.

It calls attention to the geographical position of Sinai, giving definiteness to our conception of the great mountain and silently reminding us that it was the home of Hagars children. Paul then, without further mention of Hagar, says that Sinai belongs to the same category as the present Jerusalem. For this statement, the following proof still holds good: for, that Jerusalem is in bondage with her children, places her in the same line both with the mother of the exiled race and with the mountain in Arabia whence Israel derived its spiritual life.

Since it was more important, for Pauls argument, to place Jerusalem in relation with Hagar, whom all Jews regarded as an alien, as in r. 1, rather than with Sinai, on which all looked with reverence, and since for r. 1 the documentary evidence slightly preponderates, we may perhaps accept it, with the R.V., as slightly the more likely.

If we had proof that Sinai was actually called Hagar, we might take Gal 4:25 a to mean that in Arabia Hagar is a name given to Sinai. But, as we have seen, this is needless for the argument. For, that Mount Sinai is in the land of Hagars children, whether or not the mountain bore her name, reveals in clear light the appropriateness of Pauls allegory.

Gal 4:26. The second of the two Covenants, described in an altered form suggested by the foregoing words.

Jerusalem above: or the above Jerusalem. Cp. the heavenly Jerusalem, Heb 12:22; the new Jerusalem coming down out of heaven, Rev 21:2; the city having the foundations, Heb 11:10; the city to come, Heb 13:14. It is the future home of the saved, looked upon as a city and a metropolis. The above different conceptions of it, we may harmonize by conceiving it as already existing in the purpose and forethought of God and influencing the thought and action of men. This city is free, with all that pertains to it. Restraint is needless there, and unknown.

Our mother: that city is a mother, and we are her children. For it is the source, by the laws of spiritual generation, of our spiritual life; a life which partakes the nature of its source: in other words, our spiritual life is an outflow of the eternal and divine forces which will find their visible and necessary manifestation in that future city. Moreover, the city will be an integral part of the place of glory where already, surrounded by angels, the Risen Saviour sits enthroned. Therefore, to that future city we already look up as our mother. That city is no mere idea we are endeavouring to realise, and whose realisation is contingent; but actual reality, infinitely more real than the things we see around us. This eternal and spotless City stands in absolute contrast to that towards which the men of the Old Covenant looked up with filial reverence or fanatical devotion.

Gal 4:27. Proof that the Jerusalem above is a mother, and we her children. It is word for word (LXX.) from Isa 54:1; and recalls Isa 49:17-23; Isa 51:17-20; Isa 52:1-2; Isa 54:4-13; Isa 60:4; Isa 62:4-5; Isa 66:7-8. It is also an outburst of song evoked by this momentary vision of the heavenly city, and suitably clothed in the language of ancient prophecy.

Barren: a past state spoken of as if now present, for vivid contrast with the actual present.

She that does not bear: an abiding and melancholy characteristic.

Burst forth: with joy, as implied by the word rejoice. The Hebrew reads shout for joy break forth a joyful shout.

Does not travail with child: more graphic than does not bear. (Cp. Isa 66:7.)

Desolate: not only barren but without a husband, in lonely solitude. Yet she has many children, more even than some other woman who with her husband are (in the LXX.) definite objects of the prophets thought.

After his vision of the smitten Servant of Jehovah, who bore the sin of many, Isaiah bursts into song, in view of the glory which will follow. in this song he bids Jerusalem join, describing her as a woman once without children and even without husband, but now having many sons. For, God (Isa 54:5) is her husband: and her sons will be taught by Him and have great peace. The prophets words imply sudden and unexpected and great increase of the citizens of the Kingdom of God; and infinite splendour and blessing awaiting them. These words found no adequate fulfilment in the exiles returning from captivity. But Paul had seen thousands of aliens and heathens turning to God, entering by the power of God a new life derived from above, and becoming children of God. And he looked forward to the day when these lately born children of the one Father will tread the streets of that city which from afar Isaiah saw. Already, in the unchangeable purpose of God, and to the eye of faith, the city stands secure in heaven, the eternal home of freedom, its future inhabitants look up to it with longing eyes; and from it derive all their hopes. In this wondrous accession to the people of God Paul sees fulfilled the ancient prophecy: and the vision moves him to re-echo the prophets song. The prophecy also justifies his assertion that Jerusalem above is mother of his readers and himself.

Whatever may have been Isaiahs own thought, Pauls exposition points to the reality which in indistinct and distant outline the prophet saw. His exposition is, therefore, in the highest sense correct. it is reproduced by Justin, 1st Apology, ch. 53.

Gal 4:28. As Gal 4:27 justified the word mother in Gal 4:26, so Gal 4:28 justifies the word our by proving that Paul and his readers are among the children foretold by Isaiah. The reading we or ye is uncertain and unimportant.

Like Isaac: on the model of Isaac, our birth corresponding with his.

Children of promise: almost the same words in Rom 9:8, proving how familiar to Paul was this thought. it recalls Gal 4:23 b.

Of promise: viz. the Gospel, the instrument by which God brought into being His children in Galatia. Cp. 1Co 4:15; Jas 1:18. Now, only in those whom by the Gospel promise God adds to His family does the above-quoted prophecy of Isaiah find fulfilment. Consequently, not only is (Gal 4:26) the Jerusalem above a mother but she is our mother.

Gal 4:29. A further development of the analogy, a contrast and a comparison.

But, or nevertheless: although children of promise, yet, just-as Isaac was then, so we also now are exposed to persecution.

Born according to flesh: the point of contrast (Gal 4:23) with Isaac.

According to Spirit; Rom 8:4-5 : the Holy Spirit as a standard determining the manner of birth. For He (Joh 3:5) is the agent of the new birth: and all His works correspond with His nature. (Notice that whatever comes through belief of a promise is wrought by the Spirit, the divine Agent of all supernatural good.) The word here is suggested by Pauls constant contrast of flesh and Spirit: Gal 3:3; Gal 5:16-17; Gal 6:8; Rom 8:4. The Hebrew text of Gen 21:9 reads, Sarah saw the son of Hagar mocking: but the LXX. reads, playing with Isaac her son. Sarahs demand, made at the festival, implies some aggravation from Ishmael: and her comparison of the two boys suggests that the aggravation was something done to Isaac. And this idea was taken up by Jewish tradition. This ridicule from Ishmael Paul describes, in order to place the Christians of his day in line with Isaac, by the word persecuted, which recalls the many persecutions aroused against Christians by Jews: cp. 1Th 2:14; Act 13:50; Act 14:5; Act 14:19.

Gal 4:30. But: or nevertheless, as in Gal 4:29 : a complete and now triumphant contrast. The words of Sarah, (Gen 21:10 nearly word for word from the LXX.,) inasmuch as her request was approved by God, are introduced simply as the Scripture says: so Rom 9:17; Rom 10:11; cp. Gal 3:8; Gal 3:22. This implies that for Paul the Scripture had the authority of God. He quotes that authority in the literary form in which it lay before him. That Sarahs petulant request obtained Gods sanction, and that a trifling sport of Ishmael caused his expulsion from Abrahams home lest his presence should interfere with the unique honour due to Isaac, reveal in clearest light the infinite difference of position between the two sons. This difference gives great force to the contrast in Gal 4:23-28. The last words of Gal 4:30 are changed from with my son, even with Isaac to with the son of the free woman, to suit Pauls quotation. The change also places the two mothers in conspicuous contrast, the maid or slave girl and the free woman.

Inherit: Gen 15:3-4; Gen 15:7-8; Gen 17:8; receive, in virtue of relation to Abraham, the blessings promised to Abrahams children.

Gal 4:31. Result, not inference, from Gal 4:30. [For always points back to a cause or motive, of which it introduces an actual or desired result.] Gal 4:30 embodies an essential principle of the Kingdom of God which found historic expression in the story of the two sons of Abraham, viz. that the blessings of the Kingdom are for the free and for these only, and that freedom or bondage depends upon the source of our spiritual life. For this cause, i.e. that we may obtain the inheritance possessed only by the free, God gave us a spiritual life derived from the Gospel, the mother of freemen, not from the Law which by its nature can produce only slaves. The negative side is put generally: we are not a slave girls children, i.e. our relation to Abraham and to God is not derived from a source which involves us in bondage, as the Law would. The positive side is definite, the free woman: for there is only one mother of spiritual freemen.

Gal 5:1. General statement linking the allegory to the general teaching of this Epistle. The transition is indicated by the word Christ, not found in 18 till now.

For freedom: in order that we may enjoy the Gospel freedom.

Us: emphatic, revealing our great privilege as compared with others. That we may be free is the aim of (Gal 4:4) the mission, and (Gal 3:13) the death, of Christ.

Stand then: practical application of Gal 4:1 a, and of the foregoing allegory.

Stand: maintain your position of erectness; cp. Rom 11:20; 1Co 15:1; 2Co 1:24. It courteously assumes that the readers, although on the eve of falling, have not yet fallen. So Gal 1:6; Gal 4:9.

Not again: recalls Gal 4:9, ye wish to be again in bondage.

Yoke of bondage: 1Ti 6:1; cp. Act 15:10. It is, like maid in Gal 4:31, quite general.

That Christ has made us free, is a motive for not being again held in anything which destroys Christian freedom.

THE ARGUMENT of 18, we will now endeavour to understand as a whole, and to estimate.

Paul recognised (Rom 4:11 f) in believers a spiritual offspring of Abraham, in whom, and in them only, will be fulfilled the promises to Abraham and to his seed. Consequently, Abraham has a double offspring, the Jewish nation and the Christian Church, each looking up to him as father, and claiming inheritance through him. The Jewish nation based its claim on ordinary bodily descent: the Christian Church owes its existence to supernatural power working out in those who believe it, a fulfilment of the Gospel promise. And Paul has proved (e.g. Gal 3:10) that they whose claim rests on bodily descent are outside the blessings promised to Abraham; which are therefore reserved for those who are sons by supernatural birth. All this recalls, and corresponds with, the historical facts of Abrahams family. For he had two sons, one born according to the ordinary laws of human generation, the other by the extraordinary power of God in one who had believed a promise: and the older was expelled from the home in order that the inheritance might belong only to the younger. Consequently, the Jewish nation and the Christian Church correspond, in these particulars, to Ishmael and Isaac.

Nay more. The Jewish nation owes its spiritual life to the Covenant received from Sinai, a covenant which from its nature can produce only bondmen. For, as Paul has proved, a spiritual life derived from law is helpless bondage. Consequently, Mount Sinai may be called the mother of Judaism, a mother whose children are slaves: and Paul remembers that she raises her rugged head amid the scattered and disinherited sons of Hagar.

Again, for many long centuries the Jewish nation had been looking up to Jerusalem as its mother-city. And this ancient city gives form, not merely to the visions of the old prophets, but to the hopes of the Christian Church. Even to this day we sing of Jerusalem the golden: and its foreseen glory and rest have been to Christians in all ages a refuge from fiercest storms. But the city we look for is above. And though actually a place of the future, it is nevertheless the birthplace of our present spiritual life, our home, and our mother. That City and her children, wherever they be, are essentially and for ever free. The wonderful and unexpected increase of her children in Pauls day was the beginning of the fulfilment, of the only worthy fulfilment, of the glorious visions of Isaiah. The Jerusalem above is, therefore, the city he beheld.

This close parallel, like the similar argument in Rom 9:7-9, overthrows completely the claims of the Jewish disturbers in Galatia. For their relation to Abraham is simply that of Hagars descendants. And this reply is made the more crushing by the geographical position of the mountain whence they received the Law in which they trust. The worthlessness of such claims is revealed by the expulsion from Abrahams home, at the bidding of the mother of the true seed, of Hagar and her son. So far then this historical comparison serves well a legitimate purpose.

But this is not all. Under this apparently accidental coincidence lie important and eternal truths.

Paul has taught (Gal 3:22-24) that the Law is a necessary preparation for the Gospel. Consequently, the Jewish nation and the Christian Church represent two stages in the development of the kingdom of God, and indeed two stages in the spiritual history of every Christian.

And we cannot doubt that the sequence of events was controlled by God to embody in historic form great spiritual realities. Already in Rom 4:10 ff, we have seen the significance of Gods Covenant with Abraham, immediately after his faith and many years before the command to circumcise. Similarly, the long delay in the birth of Isaac is analogous to the delay in the mission of the divine Son into the world. And, without assuming any sanction of God for Abrahams relation to Hagar, we may yet believe that the two sons of Abraham were designed by God to prefigure, even in the order of their birth the spiritual offspring of the two Covenants of God with man. In other words, abiding truths find expression in historical facts. And this involves the deeper truth that throughout the universe of God great and broad principles find various embodiments, sometimes in trifling details, which details frequently become valuable indications and memorials of the principles they embody.

Probably the above argument was due to Pauls Rabbinical training. And it is an example of the one good element of this training, viz. careful sifting of the spiritual significance of the details of Holy Scripture. Pauls use of Scripture assumes its historic truthfulness; and rests on broad principles already and independently proved to be true. Moreover, both here and else. where, he points to a correspondence which bears on its face the mark, not of accident, but of divine purpose.

Fuente: Beet’s Commentary on Selected Books of the New Testament

Week Nine: 4:21-31 Paul Explains The Difference Between Isaac And Ishmael

Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law? 22 For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman. 23 But he [who was] of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman [was] by promise. 24 Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar. 25 For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children. 26 But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.

Paul sticks a board in their ear in the first verse of this section, “Hey, folks you are following the law but are you listening to what it says?” “You certainly aren’t listening to it from the looks of things.” Now, I don’t claim to know what Paul was thinking or meaning, but if I were a follower of the Judaizers teachings, and Paul said that in a letter, I would have become indignant – “Of course I hear the law, that is why I am doing this stuff!” might be the response.

Immediately he lets them know where he is going with his comments – it should have been obvious to them that if they weren’t disgusted with his thinking by now, it was certainly time to leave the gathering, because it sure wasn’t going to get any better.

Then he gets into the basics of the Old Testament; things that they had learned early in their spiritual lives – what is the apostle doing? He is telling us the stuff we learned in Sunday school, why is he not giving us the deeper stuff? Bingo, that is just where he is going.

First, what is an allegory (mentioned in verse 24)? An allegory is, according to Webster’s 1828 dictionary: “ALLEGORY, n. [Gr. other, to speak, a forum, an oration.] A figurative sentence or discourse, in which the principal subject is described by another subject resembling it in its properties and circumstances. The principal subject is thus kept out of view, and we are left to collect the intentions of the writer or speaker, by the resemblance of the secondary to the primary subject. Allegory is in words that hieroglyphics are in painting. We have a fine example of an allegory in the eightieth Psalm, in which God’s chosen people are represented by a vineyard. The distinction in scripture between a parable and an allegory is said to be that a parable is a supposed history, and an allegory, a figurative description of real facts. An allegory is called a continued metaphor. The following line in Virgil is an example of an allegory.

“Claudite jam rivos, pueri, sat prata biberunt.

“Stop the currents, young men, the meadows have drank sufficiently; that is let your music cease, our ears have been sufficiently delighted.”

Gen 16:1 ff gives us the story of Sarah and her bareness and her impatience and her lack of faith in God’s promise of a son. She gave Hagar, her handmaiden, to Abraham to raise up a son – a son that became the Arabic nations of the Middle East. He was born out of a sinful relationship, and a lack of faith in God’s promise of a seed.

We might add that this was a normal practice in the culture in which Abraham lived. This is not license to do whatever “culture” does because “culture” is normally the Devil’s world, that of lost unregenerate people doing what they want. (See also Gen 30:3-9; Gen 30:13 for further example of this practice.)

I will get off the subject only briefly – divorce used to be a worldly thing, but it became culturally acceptable and the church has adopted it as an alternative to right and correct living. Soon homosexuality will be accepted in the culture, and the church is in some cases already embracing it.

Gen 21:9 ff gives the account of the dispute between Hagar and Sarah which ended in Abraham sending Hagar and son packing.

We see the result of Hagar’s dismissal from Abraham’s camp in Gen 21:17 ff And God heard the voice of the lad; and the angel of God called to Hagar out of heaven, and said unto her, What aileth thee, Hagar? fear not; for God hath heard the voice of the lad where he [is]. 18 Arise, lift up the lad, and hold him in thine hand; for I will make him a great nation. 19 And God opened her eyes, and she saw a well of water; and she went, and filled the bottle with water, and gave the lad drink. 20 And God was with the lad; and he grew, and dwelt in the wilderness, and became an archer. 21 And he dwelt in the wilderness of Paran: and his mother took him a wife out of the land of Egypt.”

The generations of Isaac and Ishmael are listed in Gen 25:12 ff.

Notice that all that was promised for Ishmael was that he would become a great nation. There is no explanation as to the meaning of that phrase; there is no indication of anything other than a great seed, so why does Paul give us this great meaning to Hagar’s seed? Is he embellishing history, is he sharing information that just isn’t recorded in Scripture, or is he just using “poetic license” to provide an illustration? It would seem that he assumed the Galatians would relate completely to what he said, thus they must have had the same information, or understood it as license.

The Genesis account says nothing of Ishmael’s bondage to the law which actually implies total complete lostness for all his seed and their seed. Are all Arabic peoples lost, are they all non-elect, are we not to take time to give them the Gospel? Some interesting questions – in my mind at least. It would seem that Ishmael was under bondage to the law, due to his being circumcised, but the following seed would seem to be external from that bondage.

They would have no relationship to God because they were outside of promise – outside of God’s people, and most likely as I understand it because of Ishmael’s rejection of God. The great seed was for Abraham’s benefit – to help him feel better about the situation.

We do see in Gen 17:21 a note that Ishmael was under the same covenant as Abraham, as the son of Abraham. This is the connection that Ishmael had with the covenant – he was under the law. “And Abraham said unto God, O that Ishmael might live before thee! 19 And God said, Sarah thy wife shall bear thee a son indeed; and thou shalt call his name Isaac: and I will establish my covenant with him for an everlasting covenant, [and] with his seed after him. 20 And as for Ishmael, I have heard thee: Behold, I have blessed him, and will make him fruitful, and will multiply him exceedingly; twelve princes shall he beget, and I will make him a great nation. 21 But my covenant will I establish with Isaac, which Sarah shall bear unto thee at this set time in the next year. 22 And he left off talking with him, and God went up from Abraham. 23 And Abraham took Ishmael his son, and all that were born in his house, and all that were bought with his money, every male among the men of Abraham’s house; and circumcised the flesh of their foreskin in the selfsame day, as God had said unto him. 24 And Abraham [was] ninety years old and nine, when he was circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin. 25 And Ishmael his son [was] thirteen years old, when he was circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin.

Fuente: Mr. D’s Notes on Selected New Testament Books by Stanley Derickson

4:21 {6} Tell me, ye that {u} desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law?

(6) The false apostles urged this, that unless the Gentiles were circumcised Christ could profit them nothing at all, and also this dissension of those who believed in the circumcision, against those who believed in the uncircumcision, both these things being full of offence. Therefore the apostle, after various arguments with which he has refuted their error, brings forth an allegory, in which he says that the Holy Spirit did through symbolism let us know all these mysteries: that is, that it should come to pass that two sorts of sons should have Abraham as a father common to them both, but not with equal success. For as Abraham begat Ishmael by the common course of nature, of Hagar his bondmaid and a stranger, and begat Isaac of Sara a free woman, by the virtue of the promise, and by grace only, the first was not heir, and also persecuted the heir. So there are two covenants, and as it were two sons born to Abraham by those two covenants, as it were by two mothers. The one was made in Sinai, outside of the land of promise, according to which covenant Abraham’s children according to the flesh were begotten: that is, the Jews, who seek righteousness by that covenant, that is, by the Law. But they are not heirs, and they will at length be cast out of the house, as those that persecute the true heirs. The other was made in that high Jerusalem, or in Zion (that is, by the sacrifice of Christ) which begets children of promise, that is, believers, by the power of the Holy Spirit. And these children (like Abraham) do rest themselves in the free promise, and they alone by the right of children will be partakers of the father’s inheritance, whereas those servants will be shut out.

(u) That desire so greatly.

Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes

3. The biblical illustration 4:21-31

Paul interpreted allegorically (i.e., figuratively, NIV) features of the history of Abraham’s two sons to convince his readers that they were in danger of joining the wrong branch of Abraham’s family. The apostle appears to have used the story of Abraham the way he did because this was a common rabbinic method that the Judaizers probably employed in their teaching in Galatia. [Note: R. Alan Cole, The Epistle of Paul to the Galatians, pp. 128-29. Longenecker wrote an excursus on "The Hagar-Sarah Story in Jewish Writings and in Paul," pp. 200-6.] Paul used the same method on the false teachers but taught his readers truth rather than falsehood with it.

"We have one Old Testament story, but two complimentary interpretations of it. The first [Gal 4:22-27] defends the equation of existence hupo nomon [under law] with captivity and thus takes up a theme from what precedes. The second [Gal 4:28-30] makes a statement about the freedom of the believer in preparation for what is to come." [Note: Charles H. Cosgrove, "The Law Has Given Sarah No Children [Galatians 4:21-30]," Novum Testamentum 29:3 (July 1987):235.]

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)

The biblical story 4:21-23

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)

Paul challenged his readers, who claimed to value the Law so highly, to consider what it taught. He chose his lesson from Genesis, a book in the "Law" section of the Old Testament. Thus he used the term "law" to refer to two different things in this verse: the Mosaic Law and the Old Testament. Again Paul returned to Abraham, the founder of Judaism.

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)

Chapter 19

THE STORY OF HAGAR.

Gal 4:21-31 – Gal 5:1

THE Apostle wishes that he could “change his voice” (Gal 4:20). Indeed he has changed it more than once. “Any one who looks closely may see that there is much change and alteration of feeling in what the Apostle has previously written” (Theodorus). Now he will try another tone; he proceeds in fact to address his readers in a style which we find nowhere else in his Epistles. He will tell his “children” a story! Perhaps he may thus succeed better than by graver argument. Their quick fancy will readily apprehend the bearing of the illustration; it may bring home to them the force of his doctrinal contention, and the peril of their own position, as he fears they have not seen them yet. And so, after the pathetic appeal of the last paragraph, and before he delivers his decisive, official protest to the Galatians against their circumcision, he interjects this “allegory” of the two sons of Abraham.

Paul cites the history of the sons of Abraham. No other example would have served his purpose. The controversy between himself and the Judaisers turned on the question, Who are the true heirs of Abraham? {Gal 3:7; Gal 3:16; Gal 3:29} He made faith in Christ, they circumcision and law-keeping, the ground of sonship. So the inheritance was claimed in a double sense. But now, if it should appear that this antithesis existed in principle in the bosom of the patriarchal family, if we should find that there was an elder son of Abrahams flesh opposed to the child of promise, how powerfully will this analogy sustain the Apostles position. Judaism will then be seen to be playing over again the part of Ishmael; and “the Jerusalem that now is” takes the place of Hagar, the slave-mother. The moral situation created by the Judaic controversy had been rehearsed in the family life of Abraham.

“Tell me,” the Apostle asks, “you that would fain be subject to the law, do you not know what it relates concerning Abraham? He had two sons, one of free, and the other of servile birth. Do you wish to belong to the line of Ishmael, or Isaac?” In this way Paul resumes the thread of his discourse dropped in Gal 4:7. Faith, he had told his readers, had made them sons of God. They were, in Christ, of Abrahams spiritual seed, heirs of his promise. God had sent His Son to redeem them, and the Spirit of His Son to attest their adoption. But they were not content. They were ambitious of Jewish privileges. The Legalists persuaded them that they must be circumcised and conform to Moses, in order to be Abrahams children in full title. “Very well,” the Apostle says, “you may become Abrahams sons in this fashion. Only you must observe that Abraham had two sons. And the Law will make you his sons by Hagar, whose home is Sinai-not Israelites, but Ishmaelites!”

Pauls Galatian allegory has greatly exercised the minds of his critics. The word is one of ill repute in exegesis. Allegory was the instrument of Rabbinical and Alexandrine Scripturists, an infallible device for extracting the predetermined sense from the letter of the sacred text. The “spiritualising” of Christian interpreters has been carried, in many instances, to equal excess of riot. For the honest meaning of the word of God anything and everything has been substituted that lawless fancy and verbal ingenuity could read into it. The most arbitrary and grotesque distortions of the facts of Scripture have passed current under cover of the clause, “which things are an allegory.” But Pauls allegory, and that of Philo and the Allegorical school, are very different things, as widely removed as the “words of truth and soberness” from the intoxications of mystical idealism.

With Paul the spiritual sense of Scripture is based on the historical, is in fact the moral content and import thereof; for he sees in history a continuous manifestation of Gods will. With the Allegorists the spiritual sense, arrived at by a priori means, replaces the historical, destroyed to make room for it. The Apostle points out in the story of Hagar a spiritual intent, such as exists in every scene of human life if we had eyes to see it, something other than the literal relation of the facts, but nowise alien from it. Here lies the difference between legitimate and illegitimate allegory. The utmost freedom may be given to this employment of the imagination, so long as it is true to the moral of the narrative which it applies. In principle the Pauline allegory does not differ from the type. In the type the correspondence of the sign and thing signified centres in a single figure or event; in such an allegory as this it is extended to a group of figures and a series of events. But the force of the application depends on the actuality of the original story, which in the illicit allegory is matter of indifference.

“Which things are allegorized”-so the Apostle literally writes in Gal 4:24 -made matters of allegory. The phrase intimates, as Bishop Lightfoot suggests, that the Hagarene episode in Genesis {Gen 16:1-16; Gen 21:1-21} was commonly interpreted in a figurative way. The Galatians had heard from their Jewish teachers specimens of this popular mode of exposition. Paul will employ it too; and will give his own reading of the famous story of Ishmael and Isaac. Philo of Alexandria, the greatest allegorist of the day, has expounded the same history. These eminent interpreters both make Sarah the mother of the spiritual, Hagar of the worldly offspring; both point out how the barren is exalted over the fruitful wife. So far, we may imagine, Paul is moving on the accepted lines of Jewish exegesis. But Philo knows nothing of the correspondence between Isaac and Christ, which lies at the back of the Apostles allegory. And there is this vital difference of method between the two divines, that whereas Pauls comparison is the illustration of a doctrine proved on other grounds-the painting which decorates the house already built (Luther)-with the Alexandrine idealist it forms the substance and staple of his teaching.

Under this allegorical dress the Apostle expounds once more his doctrine, already inculcated, of the difference between the Legal and Christian state. The former constitutes, as he now puts the matter, a bastard sonship like that of Ishmael, conferring only an external and provisional tenure in the Abrahamic inheritance. It is contrasted with the spiritual sonship of the true Israel in the following respects:-It is a state of nature as opposed to grace; of bondage as opposed to freedom; and further, it is temporary and soon to be ended by the Divine decree.

I. “He who is of the maid-servant is after the flesh; but he that is of the free-woman is through promiseJust as then he that was after the flesh persecuted him that was after the Spirit, So now” (Gal 4:23; Gal 4:29). The Apostle sees in the different parentage of Abrahams sons the ground of a radical divergence of character. One was the child of nature, the other was the son of a spiritual faith.

Ishmael was in truth the fruit of unbelief; his birth was due to a natural but impatient misreading of the promise. The patriarchs union with Hagar was ill-assorted and ill-advised. It brought its natural penalty by introducing an alien element into his family, life. The low-bred insolence which the serving-woman, in the prospect of becoming a mother, showed toward the mistress to whom she owed her preferment, gave a foretaste of the unhappy consequences. The promise of posterity made to Abraham with a childless wife, was expressly designed to try his faith; and he had allowed it to be overborne by the reasonings of nature. It was no wonder that the son of the Egyptian slave, born under such conditions, proved to be of a lower type, and had to be finally excluded from the house.

In Ishmaels relation to his father there was nothing but the ordinary play of human motives. “The son of the handmaid was born after the flesh.” He was a natural son. But Ishmael was not on that account cut off from the Divine mercies. Nor did his fathers prayer, “O that Ishmael might live before Thee,” {Gen 17:18} remain unanswered. A great career was reserved by Divine Providence for his race. The Arabs, the fiery sons of the desert, through him claim descent from Abraham. They have carved their name deeply upon the history and the faith of the world. But sensuousness and lawlessness are everywhere the stamp of the Ishmaelite. With high gifts and some generous qualities, such as attracted to his eldest boy the love of Abraham, their fierce animal passion has been the curse of the sons of Hagar. Mohammedanism is a bastard Judaism; it is the religion of Abraham sensualised. Ishmael stands forth as the type of the carnal man. On outward grounds of flesh and blood he seeks inheritance in the kingdom of God; and with fleshly weapons passionately fights its battles.

To a similar position Judaism, in the Apostles view, had now reduced itself. And to this footing the Galatian Churches would be brought if they yielded to the Judaistic solicitations. To be circumcised would be for them to be born again after the flesh, to link themselves to Abraham in the unspiritual fashion of Hagars son. Ishmael was the first to be circumcised. {Gen 17:23; Gen 17:26} It was to renounce salvation by faith and the renewing of the Holy Spirit. This course could only have one result. The Judaic ritualism they were adopting would bear fruit after its kind, in a worldly, sensuous life. Like Ishmael they would claim kinship with the Church of God on fleshly grounds; and their claims must prove as futile as did his.

The persecution of the Church by Judaism gave proof of the Ishmaelite spirit, the carnal animus by which it was possessed. A religion of externalism naturally becomes repressive. It knows not “the demonstration of the Spirit”; it has “confidence in the flesh.” It relies on outward means for the propagation of its faith; and naturally resorts to the secular arm. The Inquisition and the Auto-da-fe are a not unfitting accompaniment of the gorgeous ceremonial of the Mass. Ritualism and priestly autocracy go hand in hand. “So now,” says Paul, pointing to Ishmaels “persecution” of the infant Isaac, hinted at in Gen 21:8-10.

The laughter of Hagars boy at Sarahs weaning-feast seems but a slight offence to be visited with the punishment of expulsion; and the incident one beneath the dignity of theological argument. But the principle for which Paul contends is there; and it is the more easily apprehended when exhibited on this homely scale. The family is the germ and the mirror of society. In it are first called into play the motives which determine the course of history, the rise and fall of empires or churches. The gravamen of the charge against Ishmael lies in the last word of Gen 21:9, rendered in the Authorised Version mocking, and by the Revisers playing, after the Septaguint and the Vulgate. This word in the Hebrew is evidently a play on the name Isaac, i.e., laughter, given by Sarah to her boy with genial motherly delight (Gal 4:6-7). Ishmael, now a youth of fourteen, takes up the childs name and turns it, on this public and festive occasion, into ridicule. Such an act was not only an insult to the mistress of the house and the young heir at a most untimely moment, it betrayed a jealousy and contempt on the part of Hagars son towards his half-brother which gravely compromised Isaacs future. “The wild, ungovernable and pugnacious character ascribed to his descendants began to display itself in Ishmael, and to appear in language of provoking insolence; offended at the comparative indifference with which he was treated, he indulged in mockery, especially against Isaac, whose very name furnished him with satirical sneers.” Ishmaels jest cost him dear. The indignation of Sarah was reasonable; and Abraham was compelled to recognise in her demand the voice of God (Gal 4:10-12). The two boys, like Esau and Jacob in the next generation, represented opposite principles and ways of life, whose counter-working was to run through the course of future history. Their incompatibility was already manifest.

The Apostles comparison must have been mortifying in the extreme to the Judaists. They are told in plain terms that they are in the position of outcast Ishmael; while uncircumcised Gentiles, without a drop of Abrahams blood in their veins, have received the promise forfeited by their unbelief. Paul could not have put his conclusion in a form more unwelcome to Jewish pride. But without this radical exposure of the legalist position it was impossible for him adequately to vindicate his gospel and defend his Gentile children in the faith.

II. From this contrast of birth “according to flesh” and “through promise” is deduced the opposition between the slave-born and free-born sons. “For these (the slave-mother and the free-woman) are two covenants, one indeed bearing children unto bondage-which is Hagar” (Gal 4:24). The other side of the antithesis is not formally expressed; it is obvious. Sarah the princess, Abrahams true wife, has her counterpart in the original covenant of promise renewed in Christ, and in “the Jerusalem above, which is our mother” (Gal 4:26). Sarah is the typical mother, {Comp. Heb 11:11-12; 1Pe 3:6} as Abraham is the father of the children of faith. In the systoichia, or tabular comparison, which the Apostle draws up after the manner of the schools, Hagar and the Mosaic covenant, Sinai and the Jerusalem that now is stand in one file and “answer to” each other; Sarah and the Abrahamic covenant, Zion and the heavenly Jerusalem succeed in the same order, opposite to them. “Zion” is wanting in the second file; but “Sinai and Zion” form a standing antithesis; {Heb 12:18-22} the second is implied in the first. It was to Zion that the words of Isaiah cited in Gal 4:27 were addressed.

The first clause of Gal 4:25 is best understood in the shorter, marginal reading of the R. V, also preferred by Bishop Lightfoot ( k.t.l.). It is a parenthesis-“for mount Sinai is in Arabia”-covenant running on in the mind from Gal 4:24 as the continued subject of ver. 25b: “and it answereth to the present Jerusalem.” This is the simplest and most consistent construction of the passage. The interjected geographical reference serves to support the identification of the Sinaitic covenant with Hagar, Arabia being the well-known abode of the Hagarenes. Paul had met them in his wanderings there. Some scholars have attempted to establish a verbal agreement between the name of the slave-mother and that locally given to the Sinaitic range; but this explanation is precarious, and after all unnecessary. There was a real correspondence between place and people on the one hand, as between place and covenant on the other. Sinai formed a visible and imposing link between the race of Ishmael and the Mosaic law-giving. That awful, desolate mountain, whose aspect, as we can imagine, had vividly impressed itself on Pauls memory, {Gal 1:17} spoke to him of bondage and terror. It was a true symbol of the working of the law of Moses, exhibited in the present condition of Judaism. And round the base of Sinai Hagars wild sons had found their dwelling.

Jerusalem was no longer the mother of freemen. The boast, “we are Abrahams sons; we were never in bondage,” {Joh 8:33} was anunconscious irony. Her sons chafed under the Roman yoke. They were loaded with self-inflicted legal burdens. Above all, they were, notwithstanding their professed law-keeping, enslaved to sin, in servitude to their pride and evil lusts. The spirit of the nation was that of rebellious, discontented slaves. They were Ishmaelite sons of Abraham, with none of the nobleness, the reverence, the calm and elevated faith of their father. In the Judaism of the Apostles day the Sinaitic dispensation, uncontrolled by the higher patriarchal and prophetic faith, had worked out its natural result. It “gendered to bondage.” A system of repression and routine, it had produced men punctual in tithes of mint and anise, but without justice, mercy, or faith; vaunting their liberty while they were “servants of corruption.” The law of Moses could not form a “new creature.” It left the Ishmael of nature unchanged at heart, a child of the flesh, with whatever robes of outward decorum his nakedness was covered. The Pharisee was the typical product of law apart from grace. Under the garb of a freeman he carried the soul of a slave.

But Gal 4:26 sounds the note of deliverance: “The Jerusalem above is free; and she is our mother!” Paul has escaped from the prison of Legalism, from the confines of Sinai; he has left behind the perishing, earthly Jerusalem, and with it the bitterness and gloom of his Pharisaic days. He is a citizen of the heavenly Zion, breathing the air of a Divine freedom. The yoke is broken from the neck of the Church of God; the desolation is gone from her heart. There come to the Apostles lips the words of the great prophet of the Exile, depicting the deliverance of the spiritual Zion, despised and counted barren, but now to be the mother of a numberless offspring. In Isaiahs song, “Rejoice, thou barren that bearest not” (54.), the laughter of the childless Sarah bursts forth again, to be gloriously renewed in the persecuted Church of Jesus. Robbed of all outward means, mocked and thrust out as she is by Israel after the flesh, her rejection is a release, an emancipation. Conscious of the spirit of sonship and freedom, looking out on the boundless conquests lying before her in the Gentile world, the Church of the New Covenant glories in her tribulations. In Paul is fulfilled the joy of prophet and psalmist, who sang in former days of gloom concerning Israels enlargement and world-wide victories. No legalist could understand words like these. “The veil” was upon his heart “in the reading of the Old Testament.” But with “the Spirit of the Lord” comes “liberty.” The prophetic inspiration has returned. The voice of rejoicing is heard again in the dwellings of Israel. “If the Son make you free,” said Jesus, “ye shall be free indeed.” This Epistle proves it.

III. “And the bondman abideth not in the house for ever; the Son abideth for ever”. {Joh 8:35} This also the Lord had testified: the Apostle repeats His warning in the terms of this allegory.

Sooner or later the slave-boy was bound to go. He has no proper birthright, no permanent footing in the house. One day he exceeds his license, he makes himself intolerable; he must begone. “What saith the Scripture? Cast out the maidservant and her son; for the son of the maidservant shall not inherit with the son of the freewoman” (Gal 4:30). Paul has pronounced the doom of Judaism. His words echo those of Christ: “Behold your house is left unto you desolate”; {Mat 23:38} they are taken up again in the language of Heb 13:13-14, uttered on the eve of the fall of Jerusalem: “Let us go forth unto Jesus without the camp, bearing His reproach. We have here no continuing city, but we seek that which is to come.” On the walls of Jerusalem ichabod was plainly written. Since it “crucified our Lord” it was no longer the Holy City; it was “spiritually Sodom and Egypt”, – Egypt, { Rev 11:8} the country of Hagar. Condemning Him, the Jewish nation passed sentence on itself. They were slaves who in blind rage slew their Master when He came to free them.

The Israelitish people showed more than Ishmaels jealousy toward the infant Church of the Spirit. No weapon of violence or calumny was too base to be used against it. The cup of their iniquity was filling fast. They were ripening for the judgment which Christ predicted. {1Th 2:16} Year by year they became more hardened against spiritual truth, more malignant towards Christianity, and more furious and fanatical in their hatred towards their civil rulers. The cause of Judaism was hopelessly lost. In Rom 9:1-33; Rom 10:1-21; Rom 11:1-36, written shortly after this Epistle, Paul assumes this as a settled thing, which he has to account for and to reconcile with Scripture. In the demand of Sarah for the expulsion of her rival, complied with by Abraham against his will, the Apostle reads the secret judgment of the Almighty on the proud city which he himself so ardently loved, but which had crucified his Lord and repented not. “Cut it down,” Jesus cried, “why cumbereth it the ground?”. {Luk 13:7} The voice of Scripture speaks again: “Cast her out; she and her sons are slaves. They have no place amongst the sons of God.” Ishmael was in the way of Isaacs safety and prosperity. And the Judaic ascendency was no less a danger to the Church. The blow which shattered Judaism at once cleared the ground for the outward progress of the gospel and arrested the legalistic reaction which hindered its internal development. The two systems were irreconcilable. It was Pauls merit to have first apprehended this contradiction in its full import. The time had come to apply in all its rigour Christs principle of combat, “He that is not with Me is against Me.” It is the same rule of exclusion which Paul announces: “If any man hath not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of His”. {Rom 8:9} Out of Christ is no salvation. When the day of judgment comes, whether for men or nations, this is the touchstone: Have we, or have we not “the Spirit of Gods Son”? Is our character that of sons of God, or slaves of sin? On the latter falls inevitably the sentence of expulsion. “He will gather out of His kingdom all things that offend, and them that do iniquity”. {Mat 13:41}

This passage signalises the definite breach of Christianity with Judaism. The elder Apostles lingered in the porch of the Temple; the primitive Church clung to the ancient worship. Paul does not blame them for doing so. In their case this was but the survival of a past order, in principle acknowledged to be obsolete. But the Church of the future, the spiritual seed of Abraham gathered out of all nations, had no part in Legalism. The Apostle bends all his efforts to convince his readers of this, to make them sensible of the impassable gulf lying between them and outworn Mosaism. Again he repeats, “We are not children of a maidservant, but of her that is free” (Gal 4:31). The Church of Christ can no more hold fellowship with Judaism than could Isaac with the spiteful, mocking Ishmael. Paul leads the Church across the Rubicon. There is no turning back.

Ver. 1 of chap. 5 (Gal 5:1), is the application of the allegory. It is a triumphant assertion of liberty, a ringing summons to its defence. Its separation from chap. 4 is ill-judged, and runs counter to the ancient divisions of the Epistle. “Christ set us free,” Paul declares; “and it was for freedom-not that we might fall under a new servitude. Stand fast therefore; do not let yourselves be made bondmen over again.” Bondmen the Galatians had been before, {Gal 4:8} bowing down to false and vile gods. Bondmen they will be again, if they are beguiled by the Legalists to accept the yoke of circumcision, if they take “the Jerusalem that now is” for their mother. They have tasted the joys of freedom; they know what it is to be sons of God, heirs of His kingdom and partakers of His Spirit; why do they stoop from their high estate? Why should Christs freemen put a yoke upon their own neck? Let them only know their happiness and security in Christ, and refuse to be cheated out of the substance of their spiritual blessings by the illusive shadows which the Judaists offer them. Freedom once gained is a prize never to be lost. No care, no vigilance in its preservation can be too great. Such liberty inspires courage and good hope in its defence. “Stand fast therefore. Quit yourselves like men.”

How the Galatians responded to the Apostles challenge, we do not know. But it has found an echo in many a heart since. The Lutheran Reformation was an answer to it; so was the Scottish Covenant. The spirit of Christian liberty is eternal. Jerusalem or Rome may strive to imprison it. They might as well seek to bind the winds of heaven. Its home is with God. Its seat is the throne of Christ. It lives by the breath of His Spirit. The earthly powers mock at it, and drive it into the wilderness. They do but assure their own ruin. It leaves the house of the oppressor desolate. Whosoever he be, Judaist or Papist, priest, or king, or demagogue-that makes himself lord of Gods heritage and would despoil His children of the liberties of faith, let him beware lest of him also it be spoken, “Cast out the bondwoman and her son.”

Fuente: Expositors Bible Commentary

Disfruta de miles de canciones cristianas en exclusiva sólo en Bibles