Galatians 4 v 30, 31, 5 v 1a - The exclusion of Hagar the slave girl and her son Ishmael from the inheritance

 ‘But what is Scripture saying? ‘Be throwing out the slave girl and her son, because the son of the slave girl will absolutely not inherit in company with the son of the free woman’. 31 Therefore on this basis brothers, we are absolutely not children of the slave girl, but on the contrary, of the free woman, the free’, (Galatians 4 v 30, 31, 5 v 1a).

Paul refers to the language of Sarah to Abraham when she requested him to throw out Hagar and Ishmael, (Genesis 21 v 10). Her words received endorsement, ‘And rulers and judges said to Abraham, ‘Don’t let it be displeasing in your sight because of the boy or your concubine. All, whatever Sarah has said to you, listen and pay attention to her voice, because your seed will be called out within Isaac’, (Genesis 21 v 12). Thus, as the Galatians could read for themselves in the Scriptures, delegated rulers and judges said that Hagar and Ishmael were indeed to be sent away from Abraham’s family. The son of the slave girl was not to share the inheritance with Isaac. In the same way, on this account, all Jews who continue to exist under 'Jerusalem' and the legal Covenant of Sinai, enslaved to seeking to obtain judicial approval by observing its written codes of law, are excluded from the ‘family’ of those brought forth as a result of the announced promise. They are excluded from the divine inheritance. Thus Jesus says to Jews, ‘Struggle to go in by means of the narrow door. For I am saying to you, many will seek after entering in and will not be able, 25 away from which the master of the house having roused up and shut the door. And you begin to stand outside, knocking the door, saying, ‘Lord, open to us’. Answering, he will say to you, ‘I don’t know you, from what place you are’. 26 Then you will begin to say, ‘We ate and drank in front of you, and you taught in our streets’. 27 And he will say, ‘I am telling you, I don’t know where you are from, stand away from me all workers of injustice. 28 There will be the lamentation and the grinding of teeth when you see Abraham and Isaac and Jacob and all the prophets within the Kingdom of God, but you being thrown out. 29 They will come from the east and west, and from north and south, and will recline in the Kingdom of God. 30 And look! Those existing last who will be first, and those existing first who will be last’, (Luke 13 v 24 – 30). 

Paul comes to a conclusion. ‘Therefore on this basis brothers…’. They are his brothers on account of being fellow Jews, but more especially they are his brothers because along with Paul, they ‘are absolutely not children of the slave girl, but on the contrary, of the free woman, the free’. Paul applies the allegory and brings it to its conclusion. Paul said earlier ‘Now if you [are] of the anointed, then you are existing Abraham’s seed, heirs down from announced promise’, (Galatians 3 v 29). And again, So therefore, you are no longer existing a slave, but if a son by means of God, also an heir, allotted a share, (Galatians 4 v 7). His logic then is this, if we are heirs, ‘we are not children of the slave girl’, whose son, according to Scripture, was ‘not to be heir’ (verse 30). But we are of the free woman whose son was, according to Scripture, to be heir. We Hebrew Christians are not ‘thrown out’ like Ishmael, but accepted as sons and heirs in God’s household on the basis of God’s announced promise.

Galatians 4 v 28, 29 - The children and heirs of God’s announced promise

 ‘But you brothers are down from Isaac, are children of announced promise. 29 But just as at that time the one having been procreated down from flesh persecuted the down from Breath, [Pneuma], in this manner also at this present time. 30 But what is Scripture saying? ‘Throw out the slave girl and her son, because the son of the slave girl will absolutely not inherit in company with the son of the free’. 31 Therefore on this account brothers, we are absolutely not children of the slave girl, but on the contrary, of the free’, (Galatians 4 v 28, 29).

‘But you brothers are down from Isaac’. Paul continues the allegory that he introduced in verse 23. He is not talking about physical descent from Abraham and Isaac, but about a line of ‘children of promise’, as he confirms in the next phrase – you ‘are children of announced promise’. Remember, Paul is speaking to and about Jews, and the contrast is between -

Jews existing under the Sinai Covenant and its written codes of law, and

 

Jews existing under the announced promise of God, by means of entrustment

The allegory describes -

Jews under the Sinai Covenant in terms of Abraham, Hagar and Ishmael

Jews under the announced promise in terms of Abraham, Sarah and Isaac

Scripture describes the animosity between Ishmael, born of the flesh, and Isaac who was brought forth as a result of the announced promise, down from the Breath. The particular reference made by Paul is doubtless to Genesis 21 v 9 where Ishmael treated Isaac with ‘outright scornful laughing’, jeering and deriding him. Jewish commentators pretty much also agree that Ishmael took his bow and shot an arrow at Isaac, with an intention to kill him, though he pretended it was but in play. The incident is recorded in the non-canonical Book of Jasher. ‘And Ishmael the son of Abraham was grown up in those days; he was fourteen years old when Sarah bare Isaac to Abraham. 12 And God was with Ishmael the son of Abraham, and he grew up, and he learned to use the bow and became an archer. 13 And when Isaac was five years old he was sitting with Ishmael at the door of the tent. 14 And Ishmael came to Isaac and seated himself opposite to him, and he took the bow and drew it and put the arrow in it, and intended to slay Isaac. 15 And Sarah saw the act which Ishmael desired to do to her son Isaac, and it grieved her exceedingly on account of her son, and she sent for Abraham and said to him, ‘Cast out this bondwoman and her son, for her son shall not be heir with my son, for thus did he seek to do unto him this day’.’, (Book of Jasher 21 v 11 – 15). Other commentators suggest that there was also contention about the inheritance, which Sarah’s words to Abraham seem to confirm. Ishmael claimed the birthright, despising Isaac as the younger son, and insisting on his right to the inheritance. He mocked the promise of God with respect to Isaac and threatened what he intended to do to Isaac should Isaac claim it.  Mocking has been always reckoned as a form of persecution.

Paul applies this animosity to the present situation. Just as Ishmael persecuted Isaac, so now at this present time, Jews under the Sinai Covenant with its written codes of law pursue and persecute Jews, and indeed Gentiles, who are ‘down from the Breath’.

Galatians 4 v 27 - The cry of the deserted woman and her children

 ‘For it has been written: ‘Be well understanding, the barren, the not bringing forth, break forth and shout, the one not labouring in birth pangs; because many the children of the desolate woman, more than of her possessing the husband’, (Galatians 4 v 27).

The quotation Paul refers to is from Isaiah. ‘‘Cry out, you sterile, not bringing forth; burst forth a ringing cry and cry shrilly you not writhing in birth pains, because many more the sons of the desolated woman than sons from the married woman’, says Yahweh’, (Isaiah 54 v 1). 

‘Jerusalem above’ - the delegated leadership and leadership infrastructure within the heavenly realm - is free and unbound, (verse 26). This statement is placed in contrast to ‘Jerusalem below at this present time’ - the enslaved delegated leadership and infrastructure of Israel. Given this context, the ‘the barren and not bringing forth’ refers to ‘Jerusalem at this present time’. The delegated rulers, authorities and judges of Israel – metaphorically referred to as ‘Jerusalem’ – are barren and not bringing forth, and are enslaved to law and flesh. Thus the delegated rulers, judges and authorities in Israel - ‘Jerusalem’ - are exhorted to be ‘well understanding’ (verse 27), to perceive their position and to ‘cry out with a ringing, shrill cry’, (Isaiah 54 v 1). The phrase ‘well understanding’ is from the Greek word ‘euphrainó’, usually translated into English as ‘Rejoice’, ‘Sing’, or ‘Be glad’, but it is actually an imperative to have a ‘good mind’. It can indeed refer to rejoicing and being glad, but this is not necessarily the case, and such a meaning is not intended here. In Isaiah the Hebrew word is ‘ranan’, meaning is ‘to cry out’, ‘to shout’. This is not a call to rejoice or be glad – just the opposite. Isaiah 54 ultimately leads to a prophecy concerning the Millennium Reign and the restoration of Israel. In verse 1 Israel is in a barren state and the call is to cry out. In verse 2 expansion is exhorted, because in verse 3 and the verse following, their restoration is prophesied. 

In Galatians it is the enslaved delegated leadership and leadership infrastructure of Israel, and given the quote from Isaiah, Israel itself, that is to cry out and shout with a shrill voice. Why? ‘Because many the children of the desolated woman, more than of her possessing the husband’ and ‘because many more the sons of the desolated woman than sons from the married woman’. 

By way of explanation Paul continues to refer to Hagar and Sarah. Hagar, points to the Sinai Covenant and its written codes, she is the ‘desolated woman’. The Greek word is ‘erémos’ meaning ‘deserted, abandoned’. Following the birth of Sarah’s son, Isaac, immediate animosity arose between Ishmael and Isaac, and between Sarah and Hagar, such that Sarah insisted to Abraham that Hagar and Ishmael be removed. Accordingly they were given some provisions and sent away into the desert – they were ‘deserted’. However, earlier, an angel/messenger had delivered a promise to Hagar, as recorded in Genesis 16 v 10, ‘I will greatly multiply your offspring so that they will be too numerous to count’. Hagar fled toward Egypt, and when in despair at the want of water, an angel/messenger again appeared to her, pointed out a supply of water close by, and renewed the former promises to her, (Genesis 21 v 9 - 21). Ishmael afterwards established himself in the wilderness of Paran, where he married an Egyptian, (Genesis 21 v 20, 21). Paul will refer to some of these events in verse 30. 

In the allegory here in Galatians, Hagar and her descendants point to Israel’s delegated rulers, and Israel’s leadership infrastructure at present, together with Jews themselves, as being enslaved under the Sinai Covenant with its written codes of law, from whom God's honour and praiseworthiness has departed. They are compared to Hebrew Christians who are described as ‘sons of the married woman’ – Sarah, who is free and unbound. 

Why is Israel to be ‘well understanding, and break forth and shout’? Because many are those who are under the Sinai Covenant, whereas few are brought forth by means of the announced promise. Jesus put what is being referred to here in another way - ‘Wide the gate and broad the way leading towards ruin and loss, and many are those going through it. Because small the gate and pressed in the way leading towards Life, and few are those finding it’, (Matthew 7 v 13, 14). There are many more descendants of Abraham who are seeking divine approval by means of Covenant law, leading to their ruin, loss and withering away, than there are descendants of Abraham who are children of God’s announced promise leading towards Life. 

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.