Galatians 4 v 24b – 26 - Jerusalem and Jerusalem above

 ‘For these are two set arrangements, one indeed away from Mount Sinai, penetrating towards bringing forth enslavement – which is Hagar. 25 Now Hagar is Mount Sinai within Arabia, and she ranks together with Jerusalem at this present time, because she is a slave in company with her children. 26 But Jerusalem above, who is our mother, is free and unbound’, (Galatians 4 v 24b - 26).

The later imposition of chapter and verse numbers onto the original text, whilst very useful for reference purposes, does not always fit well with the logical reasoning of the Apostle. Such is the case here, where I have to divide verses in half in order to bring out the structure of Paul’s logical argument.

These two events, 

Ishmael brought forth down from flesh

by means of Hagar, the slave-woman and thus

born a slave

Isaac brought forth by means of an announced promise

by means of Sarah, wife and free-woman, and thus

born free and unbound

speak allegorically to Jews by pointing to two Covenants or set arrangements. 

Hagar points to the Covenant away from Mount Sinai, with its attendant written codes of law given to Jews, that penetrates towards bringing forth enslavement as we have seen in the previous verses. That is the first part of Paul’s argument here. Hagar points to the set arrangement under which many Jews labour and work to attain divine approval by means of their own ability and strength as they seek to observe the written codes of Sinai Covenant law. But this leads to their enslavement to the impulses of their own fleshly constitution and to being tied to self-forfeiture and loss. 

That is what Paul explains in verse 25. ‘Now Hagar is Mount Sinai within Arabia, and she ranks together with Jerusalem at this present time’.  The first clause has been the subject of much conflicting opinion. The reading of the Greek text is itself much debated, and in the original manuscripts it appears in a great variety of forms. But detailed discussion of this latter point would be out of place here. 

So let’s break down what Paul is saying into manageable pieces. ‘Now Hagar is Mount Sinai’ means that Hagar allegorically points to Mount Sinai. ‘Mount Sinai’ refers to the whole Covenant infrastructure for Jews that was brought forth from there at the time of Moses. So the Levitical priests, injunctions of law and so on were brought forth from Sinai as part of the Sinai Covenant. 

Then Paul introduces a new element of this allegory. Hagar is ‘in alignment together with’ or ‘marches in order together with’ ‘Jerusalem at this present time’. Hagar resembles Jerusalem at the time of the Apostle. In metaphorical terms, ‘Jerusalem’ points to the delegated leadership infrastructure of Jews – of the temple, the high priest, priests, sacrifices, Covenant laws and so on. Why does Hagar allegorically point to Mount Sinai and Jerusalem at the time of the Apostle? ‘Because she is a slave in company with her children’. The delegated leadership of Jews, together with their infrastructure, meant that Jews and their leaders were existing within enslavement. ‘With her Children’ means ‘all who are dependent upon her’ - the Jewish system and all who belong to it. Israel’s delegated leadership and leadership infrastructure is portrayed as a mother bringing forth her children. But the delegated leadership authority of Jews, along with those dependent upon it, were in subjection to and enslaved to many legal observances, and under a sentence of divine condemnation if they committed the least wilful offence. In literal terms they were also in bondage to the Romans to whom they were now tributaries as an occupying force. 

Paul then contrasts ‘Jerusalem at this present time’ with ‘Jerusalem above’. This maintains the interpretation of ‘Jerusalem’ in allegorical terms as the ‘delegated leadership infrastructure’ of God’s chosen people. But the reference here is not to delegated leaders such as the high priest, or the Sanhedrin, or Levitical priests and scribes, but to God and His delegated rulers and authorities in the unseen heavenly realm. ‘Jerusalem above, who is our mother, is free’. Christians, including Hebrew Christians, are those chosen by God and brought forth down from the government and delegated leadership above, in the unseen heavenly realm. It is God, and His anointed deliverer and the set-apart clean Breath that bring forth Christians, as a free gift, free from slavery to the written codes of divine law and condemnation.  

Thus we have – 

Hagar 

Represents the Sinai Covenant and its written codes of law

Stands in line with present day Jerusalem

‘Jerusalem’ is a metaphor for Israel’s leadership and infrastructure

‘Jerusalem’ is enslaved in company with her children

But,

Jerusalem above 

Is the leadership and infrastructure within the heavenly realm

Constitutes the Christian’s ‘mother’

Is free and unbound

Galatians 4 v 23, 24a - Hagar and Sarah, allegories of two Covenants [2]

 ‘But on the one hand, the from out of the slave girl was brought forth down from flesh; but the from out of the free by means of an announced promise, 24 which are speaking allegorically. For these are two set arrangements’, (Galatians 4 v 23, 24a).

Paul makes one last attempt to restore the Hebrew Christians who were turning back to Covenant law, and he addresses their failure to listen to divine law so as to hear or comprehend what it says. He turns their attention to their patriarch, Abraham, and the birth of his two sons, Ishmael and Isaac. He contrasts them like this – 

Ishmael was brought forth down from flesh

By means of Hagar, the slave-woman and thus

born a slave

Isaac was brought forth by means of an announced promise

By means of Sarah, his wife and free-woman, and thus

born free

Paul says that these are ‘speaking allegorically’. The Greek word is ‘allégoreó’ - from ‘allos’, meaning ‘other’, and ‘agoreuó’, meaning ‘to speak in the assembly or broad gathering’. The word does not occur elsewhere in the New Testament, nor is it found in the Septuagint, though it often occurs in the classic writers. An ‘allegory’ is a sustained metaphor in which known events and experiences are used as ‘stepping stones’ to point to unseen realities. Paul says that Abraham’s situation says something to Jews in general, something other than what the words themselves imply. Within the Jewish assembly or community, they speak beyond the literal sense, in a way that reveals a hidden or parallel truth, often pointing to unseen heavenly realities. Sarah and Hagar were allegorised by Philo the Jew, before Paul did so. 

The allegory points to ‘two set arrangements’, (verse 24a). The Greek word is ‘diathéké’, usually translated into English as ‘covenant’ - a set-arrangement or disposition that has complete terms determined by the initiating party. The Apostle goes on to explain what these covenants are. They point to the difference between those who rested in the Messiah only, and those who trusted in obeying the law, and this is pointed to by the histories of these two women and their sons, as Paul goes on to explain.

Galatians 4 v 21 – 24a - Hagar and Sarah, allegories of two Covenants [1]

 ‘Tell me, those wishing to exist under law, are you not listening to and comprehending law? 22 Because it is written that Abraham had two sons, one from out of the slave girl, and one from out of the free, unbound woman. 23 But on the one hand, the from out of the slave girl was procreated down from flesh; but the from out of the free by means of an announced promise, 24 which are speaking allegorically, because these are two set arrangements’, (Galatians 4 v 21 – 24a).

After gathering his thoughts together, Paul has one last attempt to restore the Hebrew Christians who were turning back to Covenant law. He addresses them directly and begins to point out their inconsistency. You who are ‘wishing to exist under law, are you not listening to and comprehending law?’. He implies that they are turning to Covenant law but are not listening to it so as to hear or comprehend what it says. 

He turns their attention once again to their patriarch, Abraham, from whom Jews were keen to show their physical descent. Abraham was married to Sarah who was ‘barren’, or unable to bear children. Nevertheless, God announced a promise to Abraham that he would have a son. However, the promise of a son was not immediately fulfilled, and the years went by. So after a time, Abraham and Sarah concluded that since Sarah was barren, God must mean that Abraham would have a son by means of him entering into union with their slave-girl, making Hagar Abraham’s concubine. So Sarah gave Hagar to Abraham so that he would not be completely without descendants, and in this way fulfil God’s promise, (Genesis 16 v 3). The son of Abraham and Hagar was named Ishmael. But God told Abraham that Ishmael was not the announced promised son. In due course, contrary to expectation, Sarah became pregnant and gave birth to Isaac, who was the son of the announced promise. Thus Paul tells us, it is written that Abraham had two sons, one from out of the slave girl and one from out of the free, unbound woman’ (verse 22). The word ‘freewoman’ is never applied to Sarah in the story in Genesis, not even in the Genesis passage that is freely quoted later in verse 30, but it is an obviously true description, and it is introduced in complete fairness as an antithesis to Hagar. 

Abraham’s two sons are contrasted in this way –

   

Ishmael was procreated down from flesh

born a slave

Isaac by means of an announced promise

born free

Now why did Paul decide to look at the events surrounding Abraham and the birth of his two sons? It is because these two situations are ‘speaking allegorically, because these are two set arrangements’. Paul will go on to explain what he means. 

New resource - Section-by-section Commentary on the Book of Revelation

 

A complete Commentary on the Book of Revelation is now available HERE. The site offers a section-by-section exploration and Commentary on the Book of Revelation, completely free. It offers an important and relevant resource for personal study or study groups at this present time. 

Principles of living a set apart, godly life [27] – Divine Law, Priesthood and the Millennium Reign [3]

 There are a number of different perspectives that propose what Israel will be like in the Millennium Reign. This is not surprising because Scripture only presents glimpses here and there as to what this age will be like, and different scholars have drawn out and speculated on different facets of this coming age. 

One of the most comprehensive descriptions is to be found in chapters 40 – 48 of Ezekiel. There we find an account of how Israel will be governed in this new season of the reconciliation and restoration of the household of Israel. We see the division of the Promised Land between Israel’s tribes, and the building of a new Temple. We also see the establishment of a neo-Levitical priesthood, the consecration of the altar and the establishment of daily sacrifices on earth as part of the New Jerusalem. 

Now this creates a problem for many Protestant Christians. Because the Protestant Reformers and their successors divide Sinai Covenant Law into ‘Moral Law’ and ‘Ceremonial Law’. I consider this to be a mistake, a false division. Instead, I consider that Sinai Covenant Law is an integrated whole. But many Protestant Christians then go further. They then propose that the ‘Ceremonial Law’, such as sacrifices, has already been done away with because its purpose is to constitute an outline shadow of the person and work of the Messiah. So they then propose that because the Messiah has come and been made clear, these ‘outline shadows’ have now been done away with. But this means that they have difficulties with these chapters in Ezekiel and often feel obliged to interpret them in metaphorical or allegorical ways.

I also propose that perspectives that Jesus will return in such a way as to enter into and sit within this new Millennium Age Temple are mistaken. So also are perspectives that suggest that all Jews will come recognise or perceive Jesus and in effect become Christians.