Sermon Number 11
Paul's Allegory (4:21-5:1)
Jim Bordwine, ThD
Introduction
In the last sermon, we studied Paul's personal appeal to the Galatians in which he made use of his previous relationship in order further to persuade them to return to the truth of the one gospel. This appeal was based on three things. First, there was Paul's identification with the Galatians in their struggle to fight off the temptation of a works-righteousness mentality. Paul, having been a Pharisee himself, understood what it was like to be caught up in that doctrinal error. Second, his appeal was based on his experience with the Galatians during an earlier visit. Paul knew them to be compassionate people; he knew them to be loving and kind. The Galatians had, in the past, behaved in a manner which revealed their true character, so Paul reminds them of how they once related to him and how they once trusted him. Third, Paul's appeal was based on his demonstrated concern for the Galatians. There was no reason for the Galatians to mistrust Paul now; nothing about their past relationship, nothing about his present demeanor should lead the Galatians to view Paul as anything other than a friend and teacher.
I introduced our last passage by saying that it was, in some ways, the most effective in the whole epistle in terms of its powers of persuasion. Now we come to a passage which, regardless of how you look at it, is probably the most puzzling in the whole letter. The passage begins in 4:21 and runs into chapter 5. This is one of those places where the chapter division, which is meant to make the Scriptures easier to read and reference, is ill-advised. Paul's thoughts on the present subject clearly run through the first verse of chapter five. Therefore, we'll be looking at 4:21-5:1.
As Paul moves past his personal appeal, he writes:
21 Tell me, you who want to be under law, do you not listen to the law? 22 For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by the bondwoman and one by the free woman. 23 But the son by the bondwoman was born according to the flesh, and the son by the free woman through the promise. 24 This is allegorically speaking, for these women are two covenants: one proceeding from Mount Sinai bearing children who are to be slaves; she is Hagar. 25 Now this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children. 26 But the Jerusalem above is free; she is our mother. 27 For it is written, “REJOICE, BARREN WOMAN WHO DOES NOT BEAR; BREAK FORTH AND SHOUT, YOU WHO ARE NOT IN LABOR; FOR MORE NUMEROUS ARE THE CHILDREN OF THE DESOLATE THAN OF THE ONE WHO HAS A HUSBAND.” 28 And you brethren, like Isaac, are children of promise. 29 But 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. 30 But 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.” 31 So then, brethren, we are not children of a bondwoman, but of the free woman. 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.
The bulk of this passage is an allegorical treatment of a familiar story from Gen. 16. There we read that Abraham fathered a son by Sarah's Egyptian maid Hagar. The boy was called “Ishmael” and, along with his mother, was, in time, banished from Abraham's company. The subject which follows Gen. 16 is God's promise to Abraham that he would have a son by Sarah who, at this point, was childless. The Scriptures clearly pit the scheming of Sarah and Abraham to have an heir through Hagar against the seemingly impossible promise from God that Sarah herself would bear a son for Abraham. So, even a brief reading of this portion of Genesis shows us a conflict between human effort and simple belief in the promise of God. This is the theme which Paul expands upon in the passage just read. The method of his elaboration, however, is what causes some to be puzzled.
01. The Reason for Paul's Allegory (v. 21)
Before mentioning the Hagar incident, Paul indicates a change in tone: “Tell me, you who want to be under the law, do you not listen to the law?” (v. 21) Routinely, it is believed that Paul is here addressing the Galatians who were showing interest in the teaching of the Judaizers. However, I wonder if this is the complete picture. It makes more sense to me to believe that the apostle is addressing the Judaizers themselves in this passage. I say this because Paul is writing to Gentiles who would have had no knowledge of the story on which he comments. The record of Hagar and Ishmael may be familiar to us now, but it certainly would have been unknown to Gentiles of the first century.
The fact that Paul picks what would have been an obscure historical event argues, I think, in favor of the notion that Paul is speaking primarily to the Judaizers (I should point out, by the way, that Paul's use of the term “law” here is meant as a reference to the whole Pentateuch. This was a normal way of describing the first five books of the Old Testament.). There's no reason to doubt that the Judaizers would have eagerly read or listened to this letter from Paul since it is about them. This, in turn, explains the sudden change in Paul's tone. We just considered a passage in which the apostle speaks gently and personally. Verse 21 is an abrupt transition as if Paul is now returning to his attack upon the Judaizers. He is calling the Judaizers to explain themselves in light of the teaching of the Law which they were promoting.
As we'll see soon, the apostle demonstrates how the Judaizers have no ground on which to stand as they entice the Galatians away from the true and pure gospel. It is a perfectly fair question, then, which Paul asks: “You who want to be under the law, do you not listen to the law?” The Judaizers deliberately placed themselves under the yoke of a works-based approach to God. Paul is going to show them how misguided they are by using a portion of Scripture which they regarded as authentic and authoritative.
The reason for Paul's allegory, which follows, is the misguided presumption of the Judaizers that their position could withstand scrutiny. Paul is going to use their own flawed method of interpreting Scripture to show them that the word of God opposed them.
02. The Substance of Paul's Allegory (vv. 22-27)
As this section begins, Paul makes reference to the births of Ishmael and Isaac (v. 22). He emphasizes the authoritative nature of this information when he says: “For it is written…” The Judaizers had to recognize that Paul was using a story from a portion of Scripture which they, themselves, would accept as genuine and trustworthy. Using this story, as I said earlier, Paul is going to reveal the error of the Judaizers once again. For the moment, I'm going to follow along with Paul's use of this story and when we get to v. 24, I'll have something to say about Paul's method and his peculiar interpretation of Gen. 16.
Abraham had two sons, Paul writes, “one by the bondwoman and one by the free woman.” Right here we get a hint that Paul is doing something out of the ordinary with this passage. He is contrasting the “slave” status of Hagar, who is the “bondwoman,” to the “free” status of Sarah, who was the wife of Abraham. There were two sons, then, one born “in slavery,” we might say, and one born “in freedom.” Paul then says something about the circumstances of these births: “the son of the bondwoman was born according to the flesh, and the son of the free woman through the promise.” Now we get more insight into Paul's thinking.
As I noted previously, the story to which Paul refers is found in Gen. 16. We read there of Sarah's scheming to gain Abraham a son. She was barren, so she convinced Abraham to have relations which her servant Hagar. Hagar conceived as a result, we could say, of Sarah's planning. This is what Paul means when he says that the son of the bondwoman was born “according to the flesh.” Ishmael, the child in question, was the fruit of Sarah's attempt to alter her status and the status of her husband Abraham. She manipulated circumstances to get what she thought would bring happiness to the family.
I also mentioned before that the promise that Sarah would bear a child in her old age is what follows the record of Ishmael's birth. In that case, God promised a son to Abraham even though all circumstances argued against such a possibility. Sarah schemed and manipulated to get that which God simply promised. Therefore, the son born to Sarah, according to the word of God to Abraham, is the son “through the promise,” as Paul calls it here.
We have, then, two women and two sons and, as Paul is using the story, these two sons represent two methods of gaining favor-the son of Hagar represents human effort to gain God's favor, while the son of Sarah represents not human effort, but belief in the promises of God to gain His favor. In other words, one way is the way of works and the other is the way of grace, which is in line with the major issue being addressed in this epistle; one way is the way of earning God's blessings and the other is the way of trusting God to give His blessings.
Now we come to v. 24 and this is where we are told what Paul is doing and why. So, let me urge you to listen carefully to the explanation not only of what Paul means, but also of why he engages in this particular form of interpreting a story from the Old Testament. You can probably guess that these verses have given rise to all sorts of speculation. At least one or two erroneous theories regarding Biblical interpretation have been proposed based upon Paul's treatment of the story of Hagar. To be charitable, I'll say that it is understandable that this passage would cause some difficulty. It is one of the most unusual passages in all of Paul's letters.
The puzzlement which readers often feel is based upon the fact that Paul appears to deduce a meaning from a story in the Old Testament which is not completely apparent to the normal student of Scripture. What Paul has written up to this point is nothing out of the ordinary; but it is the use which he makes out of this event which is out of the ordinary. Some have wondered, as I indicated, if Paul's work here, where he takes a story and finds a hidden meaning in it, is an example for us to follow in our interpretation of the Old Testament Scriptures. Should we take such historical episodes, in other words, and find some “deeper” meaning, a meaning beyond what is plain to us upon first reading? Does Paul's example mean that the historical character of events recorded in the Old Testament is less important than we thought or, perhaps, not important at all? Since Paul, in the coming verses, assigns symbols to the elements in the story of Hagar, is it alright for us to do the same when we read episodes from the Old Testament history books?
Much of the confusion surrounding the analysis of Paul's method in this passage is caused by one simple oversight. I believe that the leading cause of the unproductive inference which accompanies the study of these verses is a failure to hear what Paul is saying. Some look at this passage and get caught up in what they think is some kind of special “apostolic hermeneutics” which we don't see operating most of the time. Please note carefully the beginning of this verse: “This is allegorically speaking…” After referring to the story of Hagar and Abraham, Paul indicates that he is engaging in something uncharacteristic of him. Paul notifies the reader that the way in which he is using this passage is not the intended sense of the passage.
In fact, the word he uses, which is translated “allegorically” (allegoreo), is a compound of two words, the first meaning “other” and the second meaning “to speak.” And so, the term means to speak something other than what the language means. To repeat, then, the apostle tells us what he is doing, so there is no excuse for turning this passage into some kind of “new hermeneutics.” We have no license to go from this passage to some Old Testament story and start looking for hidden or symbolic elements. This is not what Paul is doing. He is taking a story, a story which really happened, and using it to make a few points. He is not suggesting that the events in Gen. 16 are untrue or unimportant as historical facts; he is not even suggesting that what he is about to do is the best way to interpret the passage. He is using a true story as a parable. That's all. This doesn't mean that all the stories in the Old Testament should be turned into parables so that we can discover their “true” meaning.
Of course, you might wonder why Paul would deliberately resort to this method of interpretation and then give away the fact that he is making up the meaning which he is about to explain. Why bother? Why go to the trouble of referring to a true story, one recorded in Scripture, only to depart from it as a fact of history in order to engage in symbolic interpretation? There is a very good answer to these questions and the answer shows the brilliance of Paul once again.
The answer is that Paul is making use of a Rabbinic technique which found hidden meanings in just about every passage of Old Testament Scripture. He is using a method of interpretation which was employed by the Judaizers to whom he is speaking in this passage, as I suggested earlier. The apostle's use of an allegorical interpretation of Gen. 16 is further evidence, I believe, that he is not writing to the Galatians at this point, but to the Judaizers. The Galatians would have had no knowledge of this allegorical approach to the Scriptures, but the Judaizers would have been quite familiar with it. Allegory was a leading category of interpretation among the Jewish leaders of the day.
So, Paul is doing what he has done before; he is turning the tables on the Judaizers and exposing their error by using their own method of interpreting the Bible. Paul certainly does not intend here to teach a method of exegesis which would have us look for secret meanings in the texts of Scripture. Knowing how the Judaizers handled Scripture and that they were troubling the Galatians at this point in time, leads us immediately to the correct conclusion. Paul is taking a well-known passage and, using the hermeneutics of his opponents, showing once again that they are false teachers. This really is a masterful move on Paul's part.
With this information, let's move ahead and see what Paul does with the story of Hagar. In the rest of v. 24, he writes that “these women are two covenants, one proceeding from Mount Sinai bearing children who are to be slaves; she is Hagar.” He then draws a symbolic correspondence between the Mosaic covenant and the present Jerusalem or the present state of Israel under the teaching of the Judaizers. Just as Hagar and Ishmael represent human effort to gain God's favor, so the present state of the Jews under the influence of the works-righteousness doctrine of the Judaizers represent an attempt to earn God's blessings. The Judaizers had enslaved the people of Jerusalem with their teaching that righteousness is based on Law-keeping.
Now we see that Paul is expanding upon his early statements concerning the status of the two sons, Ishmael and Isaac-one being the offspring of a slave and the other the offspring of a free woman, one born according to human effort and one born according to grace (that is, the promise of God). Paul is taking the symbolism one level deeper. Now the two women represent two covenants, the covenant established at Mount Sinai under the administration of Moses, and the covenant established with Abraham.
But, as Paul has been saying, the gospel is not about earning God's blessings, it is about believing in God's promise to bless. Those who believe this gospel, as he pointed out earlier, are the descendants of Abraham and Isaac, the child of promise. Following Paul's use of symbolism, these believers are not children of Hagar and they are not enslaved in the present Jerusalem which is on earth. On the contrary, they are children of promise, like Isaac; they are children of the heavenly Jerusalem, the true Jerusalem where God dwells in peace with those who believe instead of work, who trust God's promises instead of attempting to earn God's favor. This true Jerusalem “is our mother,” Paul declares (v. 26).
In Paul's parable, Hagar and Sarah and their sons represent two approaches to God, one works-based and the other promise-based. So, the two Jerusalems mentioned by Paul also represent two approaches to God, one based on Law-keeping, according to the teaching of the Judaizers, and the other based on faith, according to the teaching of Paul and the other apostles. Paul then quotes from Isa. 54 where the blessings of salvation are pictured as many children being given to a barren woman (v. 27) and thus he continues the image originally introduced with reference to Hagar and Sarah. It is the woman who does not labor to produce children who can rejoice because her children come not through her efforts but are gifts from God.
This, then, is the content or substance of Paul's allegory. It may be a bit difficult to grasp the first time through, but all he really is doing is emphasizing the same truths written about previously. He is, once again, showing the futility of seeking righteousness based on works while extolling the notion that God's blessings come in response to simple faith, simple belief of His promises. Using a technique of interpretation popular among the Judaizers, Paul has discredited them once again.
03. The Relevance of Paul's Allegory (vv. 28-5:1)
Paul now tells the Galatians how all of this applies to their present situation: “You brethren, like Isaac, are children of promise.” (v. 28) What was Paul's point before? When he made a parable out of the story of Hagar, his point was that God's blessings come to those who believe the promise of God, regardless of other factors. Ishmael was a child produced by human scheming and the blessings of salvation did not come through him. Currently, the Jews were enslaved to a works-righteousness mentality and the blessings of salvation were not coming to them. But the Galatians had initially rejected the works-righteousness approach and had believed the preaching of Paul which said that salvation comes by grace, through faith alone. Their status as God's children was based on their belief of His promise, just like Isaac's birth to Abraham was based on the patriarch's belief of God's promise.
The allegory told by Paul was a picture of what was going on in Galatia. Two ideas were battling; two means of justification were at odds. Hagar was fighting against Sarah, Ishmael was fighting against Isaac, the present Jerusalem was fighting against the Jerusalem which is above; however we describe it, whichever of Paul's allegorical images is used, the implication is the same. The Judaizers, who taught that God's blessings come in response to works, were fighting against Paul, who taught that God's blessings come in response to faith.
Referring to an incident recorded in Gen. 21, Paul draws a further parallel between then and now. Ishmael behaved in a threatening manner toward his much younger brother Isaac; the one born according to works persecuted the one born according to the promise (cf. v. 29; although, this time, Paul refers to Isaac as the one born “according to the Spirit,” which underscores Isaac's supernatural conception). It was then that Sarah insisted on Ishmael's banishment. So it is now, Paul says. This statement confirms the animosity between the Judaizers and the preachers of the gospel. Quoting again from Gen. 21, Paul tells the Galatians that God concurred with Sarah and allowed the banishment of Ishmael because God's blessings to Abraham would come through Isaac, the child of promise. Ishmael, the product of scheming, would not be allowed to inherit the blessings which would come to Abraham by faith. Paul's implication, then, is that the Judaizers, who are the sons of Ishmael, should be driven out of the region.
Making an important point once again, Paul writes: “So then brethren, we are not children of a bondwoman, but of the free woman.” (v. 31) Paul's gospel taught that salvation comes by grace, through faith alone and this is what the Galatians previously professed to believe. Paul reminds them of their status and in reminding them of their status, he shows them that they must “cast out” the Judaizers who were teaching a contradictory doctrine. The Galatians had been freed from works-righteousness in Christ and should, therefore, remain true to that calling and not allow themselves to be ensnared once again by the slavery of work-righteousness (cf. 5:1). Paul took a story and used the elements of it in a symbolic fashion to refute the Judaizers, to encourage the Galatians and to establish once again the supremacy of the gospel of grace.
Conclusion
Briefly, for our application, I'll return to that last verse in this section where Paul says: “It was for freedom that Christ set us free; therefore keep standing firm and do not be subject again to a yoke of slavery.” There is an implication here which we must not overlook. After his unusual method of refuting the Judaizers, Paul concludes with this call to steadfastness. This last verse is like a battle cry, it is like a defining declaration regarding the conflict between the Judaizers and the apostles. “Christ has set us free,” Paul declares; “Christ did not die in order for us to be subject to the Law; Christ freed us.” Since this is true, Paul writes, every believer has a charge to keep: “keep standing firm… keep standing firm.” There is be no end to this battle for truth. The gospel will always be opposed by its enemies; there will always be false gospels being promoted. Keep standing firm, Paul insists.
The battle going on in Galatia is over, but only in one sense. The battle is over for those saints who heeded Paul's call and “kept standing firm” against error. They have gone to heaven. But the battle between the gospel and false teaching continues even in our day. You are called to stand firm and to battle against those who would turn salvation into slavery. Christ has set us free and we are to live in the state of freedom-freedom from anything that even remotely resembles works-righteousness. The integrity of the gospel demands that we not tolerate teaching which would undermine the substitutionary work of our Savior.
Don't think that we are immune to such controversy. Just when we begin thinking that way we will find ourselves in the middle of conflict. Be every-ready to defend the pure gospel, the gospel of salvation by grace, through faith alone. Be sure that it is being attacked even now-if not in this church, then in one down the block and if not in this denomination, then in another denomination. Paul calls us to vigilance for as long as we walk this earth. Be prepared to defend and promote the pure gospel of grace in your home, on your job and wherever and whenever God gives you opportunity. Make sure your children know that Christ has set them free and that they are to live in that freedom for His glory. Let us all recognize the incredible mercy of God in providing for our salvation and in putting us in the state of freedom. He is our God and we are His people and this is His doing, His work for us.