22<\/strong>. it is written<\/em> ] This is not a quotation of any particular passage. ‘It is recorded in Scripture’.<\/p>\n a bondmaid<\/em> ] Lit. ‘ the<\/em> bondmaid’, Hagar; so ‘ the<\/em> free woman’, Sarah. Hagar was an Egyptian slave in the house of Abraham. God having promised to Abraham that in his seed all nations should be blessed, Sarah, becoming impatient because the fulfilment of the promise was delayed, gave Hagar as a concubine to her husband. This resulted in the birth of Ishmael (Gen 16:1-3<\/span>; Gen 16:15<\/span>.) Thirteen years later the Lord promised that Abraham should have a son by Sarah when she was past the age of child-bearing. This was fulfilled in the birth of Isaac.<\/p>\n The marked features of contrast in this narrative, which have their counterparts in the antitype are:<\/p>\n The bond maid and her son.<\/p>\n The free woman and her son.<\/p>\n Birth in the ordinary course of nature (‘after the flesh’).<\/p>\n Birth out of the course of nature, ‘through the promise’.<\/p>\n Ishmael, born a slave.<\/p>\n Isaac, born free.<\/p>\n Hagar and her son driven forth into the desert.<\/p>\n Sarah and her son abiding in the home.<\/p>\n To these correspond<\/p>\n The Old Covenant (or dispensation) given on Mt Sinai.<\/p>\n The New Covenant, the Gospel.<\/p>\n The earthly Jerusalem.<\/p>\n The Heavenly Jerusalem.<\/p>\n Natural birth into bondage.<\/p>\n Spiritual birth to freedom.<\/p>\n Persecuting.<\/p>\n Persecuted.<\/p>\n Expulsion.<\/p>\n Inheritance.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n For it is written – <\/B>Gen. 16<\/B><\/span>; 21<\/span>.<\/P> Abraham had two sons – <\/B>Ishmael and Isaac. Abraham subsequently had several sons by Keturah after the death of Sarah; Gen 26:1-6<\/span>. But the two sons by Hagar and Sarah were the most prominent, and the events of their lives furnished the particular illustration which Paul desired.<\/P> The one by a bond-maid – <\/B>Ishmael, the son of Hagar. Hagar was an Egyptian slave, whom Sarah gave to Abraham in order that he might not be wholly without posterity; Gen 16:3<\/span>.<\/P> The other by a free woman – <\/B>Isaac, the son of Sarah; Gen 21:1-2<\/span>.<\/P> <\/p>\n Gal 4:22-23<\/span><\/p>\n That Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a free woman.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n St. Pauls outlook and vision<\/strong><\/p>\n The principle from which he views the Old Testament history may be compared to those lines of light which, on a misty day, open up glimpses among the mountains, in which that which is definitely seen is as nothing to the crowded and mysterious shapes suggested to the imagination. First his mind turns to the tents of the patriarchs, to that simple and pathetic tale–Sarah and Hagar–Isaac and Ishmael. Concentrated in them he sees the spirit of the two covenants. First the Egyptian slave, which gendereth unto bondage, which is Mount Sinai. But this covenant reminds him of Jerusalem which now is in miserable bondage. But then, high above all, the apostles spirit rises to another Jerusalem, where the fetters fall from the soul of every slave that sets foot upon that soil. Jerusalem which is above is free. (Bishop Alexander.<\/em>)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Points of parallelism<\/strong><\/p>\n Jewish Church.<\/strong><\/p>\n The bondwoman, Hagar. Christian Church.<\/strong><\/p>\n The freewoman, Sarah. (W. Sanday,<\/em> D. D.<\/em>)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Bond and free<\/strong><\/p>\n Look at the two covenants as represented by Hagar and Sarah.<\/p>\n 1. <\/strong>They have the same origin. Those who are outside the covenant of promise are still children of the Heavenly Father.<\/p>\n 2. <\/strong>They have to a great extent the same elements. Promise on Gods part and conditions on mans. Ishmael got promises, and Isaac was subjected to conditions. Sinai had its promises; the gospel has its conditions.<\/p>\n 3. <\/strong>For a time they largely influence each other. Ishmael and Isaac live together. The law was permeated by the gospel; the gospel by the law.<\/p>\n 1. <\/strong>The degrees of prominence in those elements which they possess in common. The covenant becomes under the new dispensation also a testament with large bequests.<\/p>\n 2. <\/strong>In the absence or presence of one great vital element–grace, forgiveness.<\/p>\n 3. <\/strong>In their effects on mens natures. The law, like Hagar, bringeth forth children of bondage; the <\/strong>gospel, like Sarah, children of freedom. (Clerical World, 3, 441.<\/em>)<\/p>\n Verse 22. For it is written<\/B><\/I>] Viz. in Ge 16:15<\/span>; Ge 22:1<\/span>, c., that Abraham had two sons<\/I>, Ishmael and Isaac the one<\/I>; Ishmael, by<\/I> a bond maid<\/I>, Hagar; the other<\/I>, Isaac, by a free woman<\/I>, Sarah.<\/P> <\/p>\n The substance of this is written, Gen 16:1-16<\/span>, where we read of Abrahams having Ishmael by Hagar his bondwoman; and Gen 21:2<\/span>, where we read of the birth of Isaac, whom he had by Sarah, who was his wife. <\/P> <\/p>\n 22.<\/B> (Gen 16:3-16<\/span>;Gen 21:2<\/span>). <\/P> Abraham<\/B>whose sons yewish to be (compare Ro9:7-9<\/span>). <\/P> a bond maid . . . a freewoman<\/B>rather, as Greek,<\/I> “the bond maid . . . the<\/I>free woman.”<\/P><\/p>\n For it is written<\/strong>,…. In Ge 16:15<\/span><\/p>\n that Abraham had two sons<\/strong>, not two sons only; for besides the two referred to, he had six more, Ge 25:2<\/span> but it being only pertinent to the apostle’s purpose to take notice of these two, he mentions no more, though he does not deny that he had any more. These two sons were Ishmael and Isaac:<\/p>\n the one by a bondmaid<\/strong>. Ishmael was by Hagar, Sarah’s servant, who represented the covenant the Jewish nation was under the bondage of.<\/p>\n The other by a free woman<\/strong>. Isaac was by Sarah, Abraham’s proper and lawful wife, who was mistress of the family, and represented in figure the covenant, and Gospel church state, and all believers, Gentiles as well as Jews, as under the liberty thereof.<\/p>\n By the handmaid <\/B> ( <\/SPAN><\/span>). From Ge 16:1<\/span>. Feminine diminutive of <\/SPAN><\/span>, boy or slave. Common word for damsel which came to be used for female slave or maidservant (Lu 12:45<\/span>) or doorkeeper like Mt 26:29<\/span>. So in the papyri. <\/P> <\/p>\n For [] <\/SPAN><\/span>. Your determination to be under the law is opposed by Scripture, if you will understand it, for it is written, etc. <\/P> A bondmaid [ ] <\/SPAN><\/span>. The bondmaid, indicating a well known character, Hagar, Gen 16:3<\/span>. The word in Class. means also a free maiden; but in N. T. always a slave. So almost always in LXX; but see Rut 4:12<\/span>; Judith 12 13.<\/P> <\/p>\n <\/strong><\/p>\n 1) “For it is written,”<\/strong> (gegraptai gar) “For it has been written,” in the law, recorded and recounted for our profit, 1Co 9:10<\/span>; 1Co 10:11<\/span>; Rom 15:4<\/span>. This refers, not to a direct quotation, but to a summary of facts that follow.<\/p>\n 2) “That Abraham had two sons,”<\/strong> (hoti Abraam duo huios eschen) “That Abraham had two sons,” two sons of prominence, Ishmael and Isaac Gen 16:15<\/span>; Gen 21:2<\/span>. The latter, Isaac was one through whom the covenant was kept, Gen 17:21<\/span>.<\/p>\n 3) “The one by a bondmaid,”<\/strong> (hena ek tes paidiskes) “One out of the maidservant,” the Egyptian handmaid of Hagar, brought back from Egypt when he and Sara fled there because of a famine. They went down to Egypt of their own accord, without God’s bidding, found and picked up lasting grief and age-long trouble, Gen 12:10<\/span>; Gen 16:1-6<\/span>.<\/p>\n 4) “The other by a freewoman,”<\/strong> (kai hena ek tes eleutheras) “And one out of the freewoman,” Gen 21:1-13<\/span>.<\/p>\n The term “Egypt” means “black” and is a type of sin into which men voluntarily enter of their own accord, and once entering, find trouble. Abraham was no exception to the principle.<\/p>\n <\/strong><\/p>\n 22. For it is written. No man who has a choice given him will be so mad as to despise freedom, and prefer slavery. But here the apostle teaches us, that they who are under the law are slaves. Unhappy men! who willingly choose this condition, when God desires to make them free. He gives a representation of this in the two sons of Abraham, one of whom, the son of a slave, held by his mother’s condition; (73) while the other, the son of a free woman, obtained the inheritance. He afterwards applies the whole history to his purpose, and illustrates it in an elegant manner. <\/p>\n In the first place, as the other party armed themselves with the authority of the law, the apostle quotes the law on the other side. The law was the name usually given to the Five Books of Moses. Again, as the history which he quotes appeared to have no bearing on the question, he gives to it an allegorical interpretation. But as the apostle declares that these things are allegorized, ( ἀλληγορούμενα,) Origen, and many others along with him, have seized the occasion of torturing Scripture, in every possible manner, away from the true sense. They concluded that the literal sense is too mean and poor, and that, under the outer bark of the letter, there lurk deeper mysteries, which cannot be extracted but by beating out allegories. And this they had no difficulty in accomplishing; for speculations which appear to be ingenious have always been preferred, and always will be preferred, by the world to solid doctrine. <\/p>\n With such approbation the licentious system gradually attained such a height, that he who handled Scripture for his own amusement not only was suffered to pass unpunished, but even obtained the highest applause. For many centuries no man was considered to be ingenious, who had not the skill and daring necessary for changing into a variety of curious shapes the sacred word of God. This was undoubtedly a contrivance of Satan to undermine the authority of Scripture, and to take away from the reading of it the true advantage. God visited this profanation by a just judgment, when he suffered the pure meaning of the Scripture to be buried under false interpretations. <\/p>\n Scripture, they say, is fertile, and thus produces a variety of meanings. (74) I acknowledge that Scripture is a most rich and inexhaustible fountain of all wisdom; but I deny that its fertility consists in the various meanings which any man, at his pleasure, may assign. Let us know, then, that the true meaning of Scripture is the natural and obvious meaning; and let us embrace and abide by it resolutely. Let us not only neglect as doubtful, but boldly set aside as deadly corruptions, those pretended expositions, which lead us away from the natural meaning. <\/p>\n But what reply shall we make to Paul’s assertion, that these things are allegorical ? Paul certainly does not mean that Moses wrote the history for the purpose of being turned into an allegory, but points out in what way the history may be made to answer the present subject. This is done by observing a figurative representation of the Church there delineated. And a mystical interpretation of this sort ( ἀναγωγή) was not inconsistent with the true and literal meaning, when a comparison was drawn between the Church and the family of Abraham. As the house of Abraham was then a true Church, so it is beyond all doubt that the principal and most memorable events which happened in it are so many types to us. As in circumcision, in sacrifices, in the whole Levitical priesthood, there was an allegory, as there is an allegory at the present day in our sacraments, — so was there likewise in the house of Abraham; but this does not involve a departure from the literal meaning. In a word, Paul adduces the history, as containing a figurative representation of the two covenants in the two wives of Abraham, and of the two nations in his two sons. And Chrysostom, indeed, acknowledges that the word allegory points out the present application to be ( κατάχρησις) (75) different from the natural meaning; which is perfectly true. <\/p>\n (73) “ La servile condition de sa mere.” “His mother’s condition as a slave.” <\/p>\n (74) “ Et pour ceste cause elle engendre plusieurs sens et de diverses sortes.” “And therefore it produces many meanings, and of various kinds.” <\/p>\n (75) “A cataehresis borrows the name of one thing to express another; which thing, though it has a name of its own, yet, under a borrowed name, surprises us with novelty, or infuses into our discourses a bold and daring energy. The Sacred Scriptures will furnish us with many instances of this trope. Lev 26:30<\/span>, — ‘And I will cast your carcases upon the carcases of your idols;’ that is, upon the ruins of your idols, which shall be as much destroyed as the body is when it is slain, and become a dead carcase. So Deu 32:14<\/span>; Psa 80:5<\/span>; Hos 14:2<\/span>. But the boldest catachresis, perhaps, in all the Holy Scriptures, is in 1Co 1:25<\/span>., Because the foolishness of God,’ says the apostle, ‘is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men;’ that is, what men are apt to account foolishness in God surpasses their wisdom, and what they may be ready to misconstrue as weakness in God, excels all their power. Gibbons’s Rhetoric. <\/p>\n (22) For.<\/strong>This particle would naturally not be expressed in English. It was a reason for the question which had been asked just before: For the Law does<\/em> supply a case in point.<\/p>\n The one by a bondmaid.<\/strong>Hagar, it seems from Gen. 16:1<\/span>, was an Egyptian. The word for bondmaid was not confined to this sense in earlier Greek, but was used for any young girl.<\/p>\n 22<\/strong>. <\/strong> It is written<\/strong> The ordinary deferential form of quotation from the old canon. Genesis 16, 21. <\/p>\n Abraham<\/strong> The great representative of the covenants, both old <\/em> and new. <\/p>\n <\/em><\/p>\n Two sons<\/strong> That Ishmael. the natural-born, as distinguished from Isaac, as miracle-born, represents the unregenerate as distinguished from the Church of the regenerate, and especially represents the falsely regenerate, who seek salvation by work and law as distinguished from the truly regenerate, who seek salvation by faith in Christ, we have explicitly shown in our note on Rom 9:8<\/span>. And it is from this standpoint that the false expositions of Stuart, and Calvinistic interpreters in general, of Rom 9:8<\/span>, is clearly shown; and by consequence the falseness of their entire interpretation of the book of Romans.<\/p>\n The correspondent points between the outer and inner meaning of the history appear in the following synopsis:<\/p>\n <\/em><\/p>\n HAGAR, the old covenant. SARAH, the new covenant. <\/p>\n ISHMAEL and the legalists. ISAAC and the justified by faith. <\/p>\n Sinai. Zion?<\/p>\n Old Jerusalem. Heavenly Jerusalem. In bondage. In freedom.<\/p>\n Cast out of heirship. Heirs with the Son.<\/p>\n The doctrine of this programme is equally clear and true. Isaac, as miraculously, under promise, born of Sarah, is type of all the faithful, who are freely justified by faith, and heirs of the new Jerusalem; while Ishmael, as born of the alien bond-woman, is palpable type of the falsely regenerate by law and works, who are still adhering to old Jerusalem, are in legal bondage<\/strong>, and bound to be cast out <\/strong> of the inheritance. And St. Paul has as much right to frame this into a full allegory, giving it a conceptual form to occupy the imagination and memory of his readers, as any man would to shape it into a metaphor, a poem, or a parable.<\/p>\n ‘For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by the handmaid and one by the free-woman. But the son by the handmaid is born after the flesh, while the son by the free-woman is born through promise.’<\/p>\n For the Law itself indicates two ways, one the way of freedom, and the other the way of bondage. Just as Abraham had had two sons, one born under freedom, and one born under bondage.<\/p>\n ‘It is written.’ Indicating the word of God given through Scripture. And what does the Scripture tell us? It tells us that of Abraham’s two sons one was born of the handmaid by human choice following fleshly aims and desires, and was born in the normal way, ‘of the flesh’, but the other was born in God’s will as a result of the specific promise of God, as the child ‘of promise’, and was born miraculously.<\/p>\n Thus the lesson of the Law is that it is possible to be a son of Abraham by human fleshly descent and it is possible to be a son of Abraham as a result of being born supernaturally through promise. The former was the boast of the Judaisers (and all Jews). They claimed that they were, by human descent, sons of Abraham. (The fact that this was not true for many was lost in the mists of time). But if they would only realise it this simply associated them with Ishmael.<\/p>\n But then there are other sons. They are sons through promise and through the miraculous working of God. These Paul will tell us represent those who have responded to the promise of God offered in the Gospel.<\/p>\n And it is this basic idea that then leads on to the application of the two covenants, the covenant of promise and the covenant of works (or of the flesh), to the mothers of these two types of son, by allegory.<\/p>\n ‘Born after the flesh — born through promise.’ Ishmael was the result of human planning and manipulation. He was basically the product of unbelief. But Isaac was promised beforehand by God and came in accordance with that promise and all the promises that had gone before which would apply to him. He was the child of promise. And it was through believing in these promises that Abraham had been reckoned as righteous by faith. That occurred because he believed God’s promises. Thus Abraham’s blessings came as a result of faith in God’s promises, a faith which resulted in his being reckoned as righteous (Gal 3:8<\/span>), and not as a result of his fleshly activity, planned and wrought by the flesh, when he produced Ishmael.<\/p>\n Gal 4:22<\/span> . ] now gives the explanation of and warrant for that question, by citing the history, narrated in the law, of Ishmael and Isaac, the two sons of the ancestor of the theocratic people. See Gen 16:15<\/span> f., Gen 21:2<\/span> f.<\/p>\n ] by the<\/em> (well-known) bondswoman, Hagar<\/em> . See Gen 16:3<\/span> . As to the word itself (which might also denote a free<\/em> maiden), see Wetstein, I. p. 526 f.; Lobeck, ad Phryn<\/em> . p. 259 f.<\/p>\n .] Sarah<\/em> .<\/p>\n DISCOURSE: 2075 Gal 4:22-24<\/span>. It is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bond-maid, the other by a free-woman. But he who was of the bond-woman was born after the flesh; but he of the free-woman was by promise. Which things are an allegory<\/em>.<\/p>\n THERE are many things in the Old Testament which we should have passed over as unworthy of any particular notice, if their use and importance had not been pointed out to us in the New Testament. Such is the occurrence which is here referred to; and which the Apostle found to be of singular use to illustrate the nature of the Gospel covenant. He was endeavouring to counteract the influence of those Judaizing teachers, who had perverted the faith of the Galatians: with this view he expostulates with those who had turned aside to a compliance with the ceremonial law; and shews them, by an allegorical explanation of the history before us, that the law itself might have taught them a very different conduct. I.<\/p>\n In their nature<\/p>\n [Ishmael, the son of the bond-woman, was born according to the common course of nature: but Isaac, the son of the free-woman, was born in a preternatural way, through the more immediate agency of God himself. This is the first point of distinction which the Apostle himself notices; and it is confirmed by the declaration of our Lord, that whatsoever is born of the flesh is carnal; whereas, that which is born of the Spirit (as all who embrace the new covenant, are) is spiritual [Note: ver. 23. with Joh 3:6<\/span>.].]<\/p>\n II.<\/p>\n In their disposition<\/p>\n [Ishmael, being born of the bond-woman, was himself a slave; and therefore must, of necessity, have a servile spirit: but Isaac, the child of promise, felt all that freedom of spirit which an affectionate and beloved child is privileged to enjoy. This distinction too is marked by the Apostle, who says also in another place, that believers have not received the spirit of bondage again<\/em> to fear, but the spirit of adoption, whereby they cry Abba, Father [Note: ver. 24, 25. with Rom 8:15<\/span>.].]<\/p>\n III.<\/p>\n In their conduct<\/p>\n [Whatever outward conformity Ishmael might shew to his fathers will, it is certain he was averse to it in his heart; for he persecuted Isaac on account of his superior piety, and derided him for claiming an exclusive right to his fathers inheritance: but Isaac patiently endured the trial, knowing in whom he had believed, and that He was faithful who had promised. IV.<\/p>\n In their end<\/p>\n [Ishmael, by his conduct, brought upon himself that very exclusion, which he had confidently supposed would never take place: and Isaac in due time inherited the portion, which, in dependence on Gods word, he had professed to expect. Nor was the difference made merely through the partiality of the parents, but by the express order of God himself [Note: Gen 21:10<\/span>; Gen 21:12<\/span>.].<\/p>\n Thus shall they, who are under the law, be, ere long, banished from their Fathers house. In vain shall they plead their carnal<\/em> relation to God, and his people: they belong to a covenant that entails on them a curse, and not a blessing [Note: Gal 3:10<\/span>.] and though they will not be persuaded of their danger now, yet will they find at last, that their confidence was presumption, and their hope vanity [Note: ver. 30. with Joh 8:35<\/span><\/u> and Mat 8:11-12<\/span>.]. On the contrary, they who are under the covenant of grace will inherit the promised laud: their professions shall be vindicated, their expectations realized, their hopes accomplished: and to eternity shall they dwell with God, as monuments of his sovereign grace, and his unchanging faithfulness.]<\/p>\n We shall still continue to follow the Apostle in the improvement of this subject. It is useful, For examination<\/p>\n [There cannot be a more interesting inquiry than this, Am I a child of the bond-woman, or of the free [Note: ver. 31.]? Nor will it be at all difficult to attain a satisfactory knowledge of our state, if we will but follow the clew, which this instructive allegory affords us. Let us ask ourselves then, What have I that nature cannot give, and that evidently marks me as born of God? Am I walking with God in the daily exercise of filial affection, accounting his service to be perfect freedom; or am I rendering him only a formal, partial, and constrained obedience? Do I look for heaven as the free gift of God through Jesus Christ; and expect it solely on the humiliating terms of the new covenant: or am I ready to take offence at the electing love of God, and to deride as deluded enthusiasts those, who found all their hopes upon it? According to the answer which conscience gives to these queries, we may determine to which covenant we belong, and consequently, what our end must be when we go hence. Let our inquiries then be prosecuted with care and diligence, that, when our state is ascertained, we may tremble or rejoice, as the occasion may require.]<\/p>\n 2.<\/p>\n For direction<\/p>\n [When we are brought under the covenant of grace, we are ever in danger of returning, as many of the Galatians did, to the covenant of works. We are prone to indulge self-righteous hopes, and servile fears. We are ready to confound the covenants by associating works with our faith as joint-grounds of our hope. But we must carefully avoid this, and watch against every approach towards it. We must stand fast in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free; and never more be entangled with the yoke of bondage [Note: Gal 5:1<\/span>.]. Salvation is by grace through faith: and it is by faith, that it may be by grace. The very instant we mix any work of ours with Christs obedience unto death, we fall from grace, and Christ becomes of no effect to us [Note: Gal 5:2<\/span>; Gal 5:4<\/span>.]. Faith and works, as grounds of our justification before God<\/em>, are opposites, and can no more be blended than light and darkness [Note: Rom 11:6<\/span>. with 4:14.]. Let us then hold fast the covenant of grace; and, in spite of all the persecution which our profession may bring upon us, let us maintain our confidence, and the rejoicing of our hope, firm unto the end.]<\/p>\n<\/p>\n 22 For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman. <\/p>\n<\/p>\n <\/strong><\/p>\n Ver. 22. For it is written<\/strong> ] It was enough of old to say, “It is written;” there was no need to quote chapter and verse, as now. Men were so ready (skilled) in the Scriptures, they could tell where to turn to anything at first hearing. <\/p>\n 22<\/strong> .] <\/strong> answers to a tacit assumption of a negative answer to the foregoing question ‘nay, ye do not: for<\/em> ,’ &c. Phrynichus says on <\/strong> , , , .<\/p>\n Gal 4:22<\/span> . . The statement which follows is not a quotation, but a summary of recorded facts.<\/p>\n Hagar and Sarah are entitled the<\/em> handmaid and the<\/em> freewoman because they are accepted types of each class in Scripture. In the LXX denotes any<\/em> young woman ( e.g.<\/em> , Ruth) as it does in Attic Greek, but in the N.T. , a handmaid<\/em> , corresponds to , a male servant.<\/p>\n by. Greek. ek. Same as “of”, Gal 4:4. <\/p>\n bondmaid. Greek. paidiske, as verses: Gal 4:23, Gal 4:30, Gal 4:31, Elsewhere translated “maid “or damsel”, <\/p>\n the other = and one. <\/p>\n 22.] answers to a tacit assumption of a negative answer to the foregoing question-nay, ye do not: for, &c. Phrynichus says on , , , .<\/p>\n Gal 4:22. , it is written) Genesis 21-, Abraham) whose sons you wish to be.<\/p>\n Gal 4:22<\/p>\n Gal 4:22<\/p>\n For it is written,-These words generally introduce a quotation from the Old Testament; here they introduce a brief summary of Old Testament history, and take the Judaizers on their own ground.<\/p>\n that Abraham had two sons,-Ishmael and Isaac.<\/p>\n one by the handmaid,-Hagar, an Egyptian servant, servant to Sarah and mother of Ishmael.<\/p>\n and one by the freewoman.-Sarah, Abrahams wife (Gen 20:12), and mother of Isaac. [The article is attached to each of these words as to persons whose history was well known to Jews and Christians in Galatia.]<\/p>\n that: Gen 16:2-4, Gen 16:15, Gen 21:1, Gen 21:2, Gen 21:10 <\/p>\n Reciprocal: Gen 21:9 – mocking Isa 8:20 – the law Isa 41:8 – the seed Mat 3:9 – We Rom 4:12 – to them Rom 9:8 – They which Gal 3:29 – Abraham’s Gal 4:26 – free Gal 5:13 – ye 1Pe 3:6 – daughters<\/p>\n Gal 4:22. , , -For it is written that Abraham had two sons; one by the bond-woman, and one by the free woman. The introduces illustrative proof. It tacitly takes for granted a negative reply to the previous question, and thus vindicates the propriety of putting it: Klotz-Devarius, 2.234; or it may mean profecto-doch wohl: Ellendt, Lex. Soph. 1.332. The two mothers Hagar and Sarah are particularized by the article as well known: Genesis 16, 21. sometimes, however, means a free-born maiden, as in Rth 4:12, Xen. Anab. 4.3, 11. But in Gen 21:10 it represents in the Sept. the Hebrew , H563, and in Gen 16:1 the Hebrew , H9148, and in the New Testament it is used only in the sense of slave. was the earlier Greek term. Phrynichus, ed. Lobeck, 239; Cremer’s Lex. sub voce . <\/p>\n The apostle refers to some very remarkable points in Abraham’s domestic history with which they must all have been well acquainted- <\/p>\n Verse 22. To avoid confusion, it is well to keep in mind that no parable or other illustration is big enough to include every detail of the subject to which comparison is made. As a result there may be some items in one illustration that do not apply to the subject at hand, and may even seem to contradict some parts of another illustration on the general subject. But the whole story has to be told in order to make it understood at the point where it does apply. Furthermore, the same facts or truths may be used at different times to represent different subjects, or different phases of the same subject. It is generally understood that Christians are under the law of Christ, which was given at Jerusalem in Palestine, while the Jews were under the law of Moses that was given at Sinai in Arabia. Yet in this and the following verses, Sarah is represented as the mother of Christians, notwithstanding she was an ancestor of Moses by whom the law for the Jews was given. All of this will clear up by simply remembering that Abraham and Sarah were not only the parents of Isaac as the one from whom the Jewish nation was derived, but also were the parents of Isaac as the one from whom was to come the seed (Christ) that was to bless “all the families of the earth” by giving them the Gospel to take the place of the law of Moses. It is in the latter sense that the present use is made of the two sons of Abraham.<\/p>\n Gal 4:22. Abraham had two sons, one by the bondmaid, the other by the freewoman. See Gen 16:1 ff; Gen 21:1 ff. The bondmaid is Hagar, the freewoman is Sarah. In the national legends of the Mohammedan Arabs who derive their descent from Ishmael, Hagar is represented as the lawful wife, and Ishmael as the legitimate son of Abraham; they settled in Mecca and were refreshed from the well in the holy Kaaba, which was from time immemorial and is to this day a sanctuary and resort of pilgrimage. The Mohammedans pray five times a day with their face turned to Mecca. It is remarkable how the relation of Ishmael to Abraham has been perpetuated in history. The Mohammedans are in their religion genuine Ishmaelites, bastard Jews, and wild sons of the desert, whose hands are against every man. (Gen 16:12).<\/p>\n For it is written [Gen 16:15; Gen 21:2], that Abraham had two sons, one by the handmaid, and one by the free woman. <\/p>\n Verse 22 <\/p>\n A bond-maid; Hagar.<\/p>\n He pointed out two contrasts between Ishmael and Isaac. First, Ishmael’s mother was a slave, but Isaac’s mother was free. These conditions affected the status of their sons in Abraham’s household. Second, Ishmael was born naturally, but Isaac was born supernaturally in fulfillment of God’s promise.<\/p>\n "In the scriptural record of the birth of these two sons of Abraham Paul recognizes the same opposition between reliance on self (’according to the flesh’) and reliance on God (’through promise’) as exists between those who would be justified by legal works and those who are justified by faith." [Note: Fung, p. 206.] <\/span><\/p>\n For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman. 22. it is written ] This is not a quotation of any particular passage. ‘It is recorded in Scripture’. a bondmaid ] Lit. ‘ the bondmaid’, Hagar; so ‘ the free woman’, Sarah. Hagar was an … Continue reading “Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Galatians 4:22”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-29095","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-commentary"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/29095","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=29095"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/29095\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=29095"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=29095"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=29095"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Son of the bondwoman, Ishmael.
Natural birth (the flesh).
Mount Sinai.
The Law.
The earthly Jerusalem.
Enslaved.
Fruitful.
Small offspring.
Persecuting.
Expulsion.
The Jewish Church is enslaved.<\/p>\n
Son of the freewoman, Isaac.
Supernatural birth (the promise).
Mount Zion.
The Promise.
The heavenly Jerusalem.
Free.
Barren.
Large offspring.
Persecuted.
Inheritance.
The Christian Church is free.<\/p>\n
I. <\/strong>Their points of connection.<\/p>\n
II. <\/strong>The points of difference.<\/p>\nFuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible <\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
SARAH AND HAGAR TYPES<\/strong><\/p>\n
To understand the allegory in all its parts, we must attend carefully to the main scope of it, which is, to shew, that, as both Sarah and Hagar brought forth children to Abraham, yet those children differed widely from each other; so the old and new covenants bring forth, as it were, children to God; but there will be found, between their respective offspring, such a difference as may well deter men from returning to the covenant of works, and make them resolutely adhere to the covenant of grace.
We may observe then a corresponding difference between the two women and their offspring, and the two covenants and their offspring,<\/p>\n
Thus they, who are under the law, have nothing but what they derive in a natural way from their parents. They may possess strong intellects, and discover many amiable qualities; but whatsoever they have, it is all carnal; no part of it is spiritual; their reason is carnal reason; their affections are carnal affections. But they, who are under the covenant of grace, are born of God; their faculties are all renewed; their views and desires are spiritual; they have put off the old man, and put on the new; yea, they are partakers, as far as flesh and blood can be, of a divine nature [Note: 2Pe 1:4<\/span>.]. Hence they are called new creatures; and are as much distinguished from the mere natural man, as light is from darkness, or Christ from Belial [Note: 2Co 6:14-15<\/span>.].<\/p>\n
Thus the children of the old covenant are brought forth to bondage. They may obey in many respects the will or their Father; but they are invariably actuated, either by self-righteous hopes, or slavish fears. Whatever they do for God, it is grudgingly and of necessity: his work is irksome to them; or, if at any time it be pleasant, their satisfaction arises from pride and self-complacency, and not from any delight they feel in his service. But the children of the new covenant are enabled to walk before God with holy confidence and joy. They serve him, not from fear, but from love; not that he may<\/em> save them, but because he has<\/em> saved them. Whatever they want, they make known their requests to him, assured that he will gladly do for them more than they can ask or think. Thus they maintain sweet fellowship with him, regarding him in all things, not as a master or a judge, but as a father and a friend.<\/p>\n
Thus it is with all the children of the old covenant: they may obey the law in many points; but they do not really love it in any respect: on the contrary, they hate those, whose superior piety is a reproach to them, and who profess, that the children of promise shall exclusively inherit their Fathers kingdom. The saints<\/em> and the elect<\/em> are with them<\/em> terms not of respect and honour, but of mockery and derision. Our Lord teaches all his followers to expect this treatment, and to expect it on this very account from those, who are merely born after the flesh: if, says he, ye were of the world, the world would love its own; but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you [Note: ver. 29. with Joh 15:19<\/span>.]. The children of the new covenant, in the mean time, meekly bear the cross; being defamed, they entreat; being persecuted, they suffer it; committing themselves to him that judgeth righteously, and waiting the accomplishment of all his promises.]<\/p>\n
1.<\/p>\n
<\/strong><\/p>\nFuente: Charles Simeon’s Horae Homileticae (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: The Greek Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Commentary on the Greek Text of Galatians, Ephesians, Colossians and Phillipians<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: McGarvey and Pendleton Commentaries (New Testament)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"