The Fullness Of Time

Chapter Nine
Abraham's Two Sons

In Galatians 4:21-31, Paul uses an allegory to illustrate what he has been asserting in the theological argument of the Epistle. He writes,

21Tell me, you who want to be under the law, are you not aware of what the law says? 22For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by the slave woman and one by the free woman. 23His son by the slave woman was born in the ordinary way; but his son by the free woman was born as the result of a promise. 24These things may be taken figuratively, for the women represent two covenants. One covenant is from Mount Sinai and bears children who are to be slaves: This is Hagar. 25Now Hagar stands for Mount Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to the present city of Jerusalem, because she is in slavery with her children. 26But the Jerusalem that is above is free, and she is our mother. 27For it is written:

"Be glad, O barren woman,
who bears no children;
break forth and cry aloud,
you who have no labor pains;
because more are children of the
desolate woman
than of her who has a husband."

28Now you, brothers, like Isaac, are children of promise. 29At that time the son born in the ordinary way persecuted the son born by the power of the Spirit. It is the same now. 30But what does the Scripture say? "Get rid of the slave woman and her son, for the slave woman's son will never share in the inheritance of the free woman's son." 31Therefore, brothers, we are not children of the slave woman, but of the free woman.

In attaching a symbolical meaning to this historical narrative, he does not imply that the characters mentioned are fictional or open the door for wild and fanciful allegorization. He does not seek to uncover some deeply hidden, spiritual meaning in this historical narrative. He simply applies the facts of the case.

He introduces this section by challenging those who desire to be under the law, to hear what the law (the Old Testament) is saying to them (21). He then briefly relates the account of Abraham's two sons (22-23, cf. Gen 16:1; 21:1-11). One of them, Ishmael by name, the son of the bondwoman (Hagar), was born after the flesh. He was conceived as a result of unbelief (Gen 15:1-5; 16:1-3). He was conceived according to natural principles of procreation. He was related to Abraham by natural birth alone. The other one, Isaac by name, the son of the free woman (Sarah), was born by promise. He was conceived through faith in God's promise (Heb 11:11-12). He was conceived supernaturally (Rom 4:19). He was related to Abraham both naturally and spiritually.

The Symbolical Significance

Two Covenants

Having related the facts concerning the circumstances of the births of Abraham's two sons, Paul attaches a symbolical significance to their mothers, Hagar and Sarah (4:24-26). He tells his readers that these two women represent two different covenants (4:24-26). Hagar represents the Mosaic covenant--Mt. Sinai (the law). She is in the same rank with (corresponds to) Jerusalem that now is (Judaism in its present state of bondage--earthly, material, natural, and temporary). Sarah, on the other hand, represents the Christian economy (the gospel). She, in contrast to Hagar, corresponds to heavenly, spiritual,and eternal Jerusalem which is free and is the mother of all new covenant believers. Paul here refers to the gospel covenant which gives birth to all the true worshippers of God, in contrast to the law covenant which can only produce fear and despair.

Two Conditions

Hagar and Sarah also represent two different conditions (4:26). Hagar represents the law, that produces bondage (4:24-25). She corresponds to the present Jerusalem in that both are in bondage and both produce slave-children. Sarah represents the gospel covenant that produces liberty 4:(26). She corresponds to the heavenly Jerusalem which is free.

Different Ways of Producing Children

Hagar and Sarah also represent two different ways of producing children (worshippers). Only the gospel can produce spiritual children. Hagar represents the inability of the law to produce free-born, spiritual children or genuine worship. Although Ishmael was Abraham's offspring in the physical and natural sense of the word, he was a stranger to the spiritual promises of the Abrahamic covenant. Sarah represents the covenants of promise, confirmed in the gospel, which alone can produce true, spiritual children and worship acceptable to God.

Old Testament Support

Paul, at this point in his argument, quotes a prophecy from the Old Testament (Isa 54:1) to support his argument (4:27). The prophet has made the same point that Paul makes in Galatians. The imagery is the same. It was the prophet who established the allegory. Paul simply calls attention to it.

He then notes the symbolical significance of Ishmael and Isaac (4:28-29), as representative of the adherents of two different covenants--worshippers produced by those covenants (4:28). Ishmael represents the Israelites under the law. Isaac represents the children of promise. Ishmael's attitude toward Isaac represents the attitude of Judaism under the old covenant to the true children of God under the new covenant (4:29). Ishmael persecuted (mocked) Isaac (see--Gen 21:8-9). Those in bondage to the law, even now, persecute those who enjoy the true freedom that is in Christ.

Finally, he notes the symbolical significance of the fate of Hagar and her son (4:30). Hagar and Ishmael were thrown out of Abraham's household. Ishmael could not share the inheritance with Isaac. Paul's point is that there can be no enjoyment of the inheritance through the covenant of Sinai. The inheritance cannot be granted as long as the law, as a covenant, is in force. Those who look to the law for either justification or sanctification cannot share the inheritance with those who look to Christ in the gospel (the children of promise).

In keeping with the allegory, Paul counsels the Galatians to "get rid of the slave woman and her son." In doing so, he merely repeats, in symbolical language, what he has been saying in the theological section of the Epistle, i.e., do not seek to be blessed by God or to receive the inheritance through the covenant of Sinai.

He then concludes, "Therefore, brothers, we [Christians] are not children of the bond woman but of the free" (4:31).

O. Palmer Robertson, in his book, The Christ of the Covenants, using what he calls a "formula of equivalences," argues that when Paul says that, "Hagar is (represents) Mt. Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to the present city of Jerusalem, because she is in slavery with her children" (4:25), his reference is not to the law, as such, but to legalism. He writes,

It is essential to understand Paul's reference to Sinai in the context of the equivalencies which he has developed. The covenant of "law" corresponds to the "present Jerusalem," the Jerusalem of the Judaizers. It is the legalistic misapprehension of the Sinaitic law-covenant that is in the mind of the apostle (Robertson 1984,181).

Essential to What?

There are several remarks that come to mind in response to the above observations on this text. The first takes the form of a question. Why is it "essential to understand Paul's reference. . . ." in the way that Robertson understands it? Is it essential to the proper understanding of Paul's teaching in the Galatian Epistle? We think not! It is essential, however, to the maintenance of the usual approach of covenant theology to this issue. Once it is admitted that the Sinaitic law-covenant is essentially different from the covenants of promise, it becomes impossible to maintain the view that the old covenant is but a different administration of an overarching covenant of grace. It is necessary, therefore, for Robertson to take this view in order to avoid having to admit that God intended for the Mosaic covenant itself (not that covenant as misunderstood) to be an enslaving, and condemning, covenant of death. Douglas Moo seems to concur with this observation when he writes, ". . . the motivation for interpreting nomos as legalism is usually, explicitly or implicitly, the desire to avoid attributing to Paul an overly negative evaluation of the OT economy" (Moo 1983,87).

Jerusalem=Legalism?

Our second response to Robertson's interpretation of this passage is to remark that the Judaistic legalism of Paul's day was not the equivalent of "the present Jerusalem."²⁷ That is to say that when Paul writes,"Hagar represents Mt. Sinai in Arabia, which corresponds to the present Jerusalem . . . ." this is not the only point of comparison that he has in mind. He plainly states the primary point of correspondence when he writes, "because she is in bondage with her children" (4:25). Bondage, not legalism, is the link between Hagar, Sinai, and Jerusalem.

The word translated "corresponds to" is a military term that literally means "to line up in the same rank with." If Robertson were correct in asserting that the Jerusalem of Paul's day represents not the law itself but "the legalistic misapprehension of the law-covenant", he would be proving the opposite of what he intends to show. If Hagar, Mt.Sinai, and Jerusalem line up in the same rank together (correspond to each other) and "present Jerusalem" represents legalism, then Mt. Sinai in Arabia must also represent, not the Mosaic covenant, but "the legalistic misapprehension of that covenant." It also means that Hagar must represent legalism. If Hagar=Mt. Sinai=Jerusalem (in Robertson's scheme of things, legalism), then Hagar must equal Jerusalem (legalism). Now, Paul, in 4:24, tells his readers that these two women (Hagar and Sarah) represent "two covenants." If Hagar represents both the Mosaic covenant and legalism ("a legalistic misapprehension of the law-covenant"), then what is the nature of that covenant? Would not the Mosaic covenant, in this case, have to be construed as a legalistic covenant. It is unlikely that Robertson would be happy with this conclusion.

In reality, it is not Jerusalem that represents the legalists in Paul's allegory. It is Jerusalem's children, those who are begotten according to the flesh (4:25,29) and whose worship is begotten by the law, who are persecuting the true heirs. It is Hagar's son, not Hagar, who is the legalist. She is (represents) the covenant that produced him. Paul's concern is not, "Who is your father; but who is your mother?" Are you and your worship begotten by grace or by law?

The Real Misapprehension

There is no doubt that Paul, in this allegory, was addressing the legalistic misapprehension of the law-covenant that characterized the Judaizer's teaching. Their misapprehension of the law-covenant, however, was not that they had expected, while under that covenant, God's continued blessing as they continued to obey God's commandments set forth in that covenant. That is precisely what God had promised their fathers when He entered into covenant with them (Exo 19:5-6). They were not mistaken in teaching that the old covenant measured holiness in terms of law-keeping. As we have already seen, prior to the advent of the Messiah, the Israelite's love for God and neighbor was expressed in obedience to every point of the law, not just the Decalogue. It was unholy to commit adultery. It was unholy to gather sticks on the Sabbath (Num 15:32-36). It was unholy to reap an entire field (Lev 19:9-10). It was unholy to eat certain kinds of food (Deut 14:7-8). It was not possible to omit any duty prescribed by the law or commit any transgression forbidden by the law and still be considered holy.

Furthermore, they were not mistaken in teaching that if a man kept the law, the law would declare him righteous. The reason they could not be justified by the law is that, in their sinful depravity, they had neither the inclination nor the ability to keep God's law according to its inward, spiritual demands. They could not keep its precepts. They could not satisfy its penalties. If the Judaizers misapprehended the law in reference to justification, it was because they vainly flattered themselves in imagining that they truly loved God and had kept His covenant.

The real "misapprehension" of the law that Paul addresses in the Epistle to the Galatians is the failure of the Judaizers to understand that the old covenant that God made with Israel has been fulfilled by Christ. They had failed to grasp the fact that the new covenant has been inaugurated, and that it is now time to "cast out the bond woman (the law covenant) and her son (the worshippers and the worship begotten by that covenant)."

Christian Freedom, from Law or Legalism?

A third observation concerning Robertson's position is that if He is correct in asserting that Paul is concerned not with the law but with the legalistic misapprehension of the Sinaitic law-covenant, then it must follow that Christ delivered His people (Gal 5:1), not from the law, but merely from legalism ("the legalistic misapprehension of the law.)" If this were the case, then it would be very difficult to explain the relationship of Gal 5:13ff. to Paul's argument. Did Paul really mean to say, "Brethren, although you are still under the law, you are free from legalistic misapprehensions concerning it. You now know that it is incapable of declaring you righteous, but do not use this new understanding of yours as a base of operations for gratifying the flesh?" Does it not make far better sense to understand Galatians 5:13ff. as Paul's safeguard against libertine conclusions that might (wrongly) be drawn from His assertion that the new covenant believer has been freed from the law? If Paul were only saying that new covenant believers are free from a "legalistic misapprehension of the law," then there would be no need to guard against the rise of libertinism.

Conclusion

We should conclude, then, that Paul is, in this allegory, exhorting his readers to get rid of the Mosaic covenant and its devotees. The reason for doing so is clear. That covenant was an external, condemning, and confining instrument of death, that could not produce either free-born, spiritual children or acceptable spiritual worship. The best efforts of the flesh to produce spiritual heirs by means of this "bond woman" will invariably fail. "The slave woman's son will never share in the inheritance with the free woman's son" (4:30, N.I.V.).

27 We should be very careful about using the word "equivalent" in describing biblical correspondences, e.g., circumcision, under the old covenant is not the equivalent of baptism under the new covenant. There is certainly a correspondence between them, in that both terms are used in the New Testament to describe God's work of grace in sinners (Col 2:11-13). If they were equivalent, however, Paul, being an astute theologian, would no doubt have used this equivalence to answer the demands of the Judaizers for Gentile circumcision. He would simply have reminded them that since baptism is the equivalent of circumcision, there was no need to circumcise these Gentiles since they had already received, in baptism, the equivalent of circumcision. In reality, if circumcision and baptism were equivalent, the Epistle to the Galatians would never have been written.