Commentary on Galatians (49)

GALATIANS 4:21-31
Tell me, you who want to be under the law, are you not aware of what the law says? For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by the slave woman and the other by the free woman. His 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.

These 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. Now Hagar stands for Mount Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to the present city of Jerusalem, because she is in slavery with her children. But the Jerusalem that is above is free, and she is our mother. For 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 the children of the desolate woman than of her who has a husband."

Now you, brothers, like Isaac, are children of promise. At that time the son born in the ordinary way persecuted the son born by the power of the Spirit. It is the same now. But 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 with the free woman's son." Therefore, brothers, we are not children of the slave woman, but of the free woman.

This passage presents an allegorical or figurative use of Old Testament narrative. It is often regarded as a piece of rabbinical exegesis in which Paul employs his opponents' method of handling Scripture against them. Perhaps the Galatians have been fascinated by the fanciful exegesis of the Judaizers, and Paul presents to them a more sober and proper handling of the Scripture using allegorical interpretation.

In fact, the case for justification by faith has already been firmly established by this point, and even if this passage does not formally contribute to the argument, it is at least an apt illustration from Scripture that, as we will see, summarizes several important points at the same time. But I would say that the passage does more than this, and does contribute to the overall argument. It is allegorical not in the sense that the historical setting is ignored or that various elements in the narratives are ascribed arbitrary meanings. Rather, it is one illustration of how those theological principles that have been true at all times play themselves out in the stories of God's people (1 Corinthians 10:11).

Verses 22-23 recount the facts concerning Abraham's two sons. Ishmael was conceived through Hagar, a slave woman, and in the ordinary way. Isaac, on the other hand, was conceived through Sarah, a free woman, and according to promise. The slave woman gives birth to slaves, and the free woman gives birth to free children. But Isaac, the child of promise, was conceived by divine power and not the effort of the flesh. Thus although both the children of the flesh and the children of promise claim Abraham as their father, the question is now, "Who is your mother?"

In this illustration, Hagar represents Mount Sinai, and corresponds to the present or earthly Jerusalem, "because she is in slavery with her children." She is the mother of those who depend on the flesh rather than on promise. Accordingly, those who depend on the law are slaves, and not free. But the children of promise (v. 28) are like Isaac – ordained by God's decree and born "by the power of the Spirit" (v. 29). These are free children, not slaves, and are heirs to the inheritance.

And just as the slave child persecuted the free child at that time, so those of a slave religion now persecute those who are the children of promise, born by divine power. With this in mind, the citation of Genesis 21:10 is most significant: "But 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 with the free woman's son.'" Slave religions "will never share in the inheritance with the free woman's son," and we know that to Paul the religion of promise is restricted to the gospel of justification by faith in Christ Jesus.

Cole offers an excellent statement on this matter: "The reason why all 'natural' religious systems are bound to come into conflict with Christianity, the 'supernatural' system, is because they cannot co-exist as parallel paths to the same goal. That is why the 'persecution' mentioned above is inevitable. Christianity is in this sense inevitably 'narrow-minded'. This is an unpopular doctrine today when open-minded 'conversation' with non-Christian faiths is often suggested, rather than preaching the gospel."

The way forward is to "get rid of the slave woman and her son." This seems to be Paul's indication that the Judaizers should be expelled from the community of the Galatians, along with their doctrines and practices. And this is also the way that we must treat all religious systems that would enslave us under adherence to Jewish rituals and customs, or inordinate reverence for Jewish culture and ancestry. Some forms of so-called "Messianic Christianity," for example, would subject Christians under such slavery again. Rather than expressing interesting and obedience to these doctrines, the false teachers should be expelled from the church community. They do not introduce a superior version of the faith, but rather a slave religion, one that will not share in the inheritance. But there are numerous other applications.