I. The historical background of this allegory Paul immediately points out an inconsistency with a question (4.21): Tell me, you who

Transcription

1 An Allegory about Freedom from Slavery (Gal ) WestminsterReformedChurch.org Pastor Ostella January 20, 2019 Tell me, you who desire to be under the law, do you not listen to the law? 22 For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by a slave woman and one by a free woman. 23 But the son of the slave was born according to the flesh, while the son of the free woman was born through promise. 24 Now this may be interpreted allegorically: these women are two covenants. One is from Mount Sinai, bearing children for slavery; she is Hagar. 25 Now Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia; she corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children. 26 But the Jerusalem above is free, and she is our mother. 27 For it is written, "Rejoice, O barren one who does not bear; break forth and cry aloud, you who are not in labor! For the children of the desolate one will be more than those of the one who has a husband." 28 Now you, brothers, like Isaac, are children of promise. 29 But just as at that time he who was born according to the flesh persecuted him who was born according to the Spirit, so also it is now. 30 But what does the Scripture say? "Cast out the slave woman and her son, for the son of the slave woman shall not inherit with the son of the free woman." 31 So, brothers, we are not children of the slave but of the free woman. Introduction In our text for today (Gal ), Paul essentially puts a capstone on his argument against the false teachers and on behalf of the Galatian churches being influenced by them. It is an interesting text because the apostle gives insight on how to interpret and apply the OT. He presents two sons, two women, two covenants, and two cities to tell a story in the form of a large metaphor about slavery and freedom; about freedom from slavery. He tells us that these doublets can be interpreted allegorically. To follow Paul s thinking about this allegory, let s consider its historical background, the figurative meaning, and the practical application. I. The historical background of this allegory Paul immediately points out an inconsistency with a question (4.21): Tell me, you who desire to be under the law, do you not listen to the law? Law in this context refers to all the books of Moses and it thus includes Genesis. You want to be under the law, well then, let's look at what the law says because if you want to be under it, you ought to listen to it, but are you listening? I think not. As you should know, it is much more than commands and precepts. In the law is a record of God's covenant purposes in the promise of Christ, and you need to attend carefully to it. The implication is that there you will find something very different than the contrary view of justification by works of the law, as we have already seen in the example of Abraham s righteousness by faith (3.6). But there is more. Specifically, he says, recall the account in Genesis of Abraham and his two sons, Isaac and Ishmael. One was born to a slave woman and the other to a free woman (4.22): For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one [Ishmael] by a slave woman [Hagar] and one [Isaac] by a free woman [the wife of Abraham, Sarah]. And he notes the manner of the birth of each (4.23): But the son of the slave was born according to the flesh, while the son of the free woman was born through promise. Ishmael's birth was in the ordinary or natural way (according to the flesh). Not that the polygamy was natural. Nor is natural meant here in the sense of fleshly or in an ungodly way. There is ungodliness in the context to be sure, but that is not the point here. The point is that while Ishmael's birth was in the ordinary way, Isaac's birth was extra-ordinary. In this context, natural is contrasted with miraculous. Let's go back to the account. Remember that Abraham was promised offspring (Gen 12.3a: Then the LORD appeared to Abram and said, To your offspring I will give this land. But time passes and he remains childless and this causes deep concern and perplexity. So he suggests that his trusted servant, Eliezer, be heir (Gen ). But God promises an heir from Abraham's own body (Gen 15.4): This man shall not be your heir; your very own son shall be your heir. Sarah is concerned too and being childless she suggests that the heir come through her maid-servant, Hagar (Gen ). The son by Hagar was called Ishmael (Gen.

2 ! ). But he is not the chosen heir; God promises that the heir will come through Sarah. God says no regarding Ishmael (17.19, No, but Sarah your wife shall bear you a son, and you shall call his name Isaac. I will establish my covenant with him as an everlasting covenant for his offspring after him). The covenant is with Isaac to be born of Sarah (Gen 17.21); he is chosen before born and Ishmael is passed over. Although the passage of time brought Sarah beyond the age of childbearing, God reiterates His promise (18.10): Sarah your wife shall have a son. This elect child will be a miracle child. That is at the core of what it means to be a child of promise (4.23): born through promise. The fact of Abraham s and Sarah s lack of faith, looking respectively the one to Eliezer and the other to Ishmael, indicates a contrast between trusting in one s own ingenuity to bring about God s will versus trusting the promise. Thus, the deeper contrast is between human endeavor to bring about the promise of a son and the promise bringing about its own fulfillment in the way of a miracle. Thus the promise is clearly shown to be efficacious; it is not merely an overture to be received by faith. Instead, it guarantees and grants what it promises. 1 The covenant-making God is also covenant-keeping. What He promises, He guarantees and He grants fulfillment according to His eternal purpose in accord with His promise revealed from the foundation of the world (Gen ). II. The figurative meaning of the allegory When Paul speaks of interpretation (v. 24a: Now this may be interpreted allegorically), he is saying that broader meaning can be given to the events when we see them in the big picture of the history of redemption from Abraham to the present (see fn.3 about allegory in preaching today). What we discover is the representation of two covenants and two cities. A. Two covenants The slave women and the free woman are (v. 24b): two covenants, which Paul goes on to explain. He looks at what has come forth from each by birth. He begins with Hagar (Sarah is treated later by implication, v. 28). According to 4.24c, Hagar is equated with the covenant from Mount Sinai (One is from Mount Sinai, bearing children for slavery; she is Hagar). Therefore, the Mosaic covenant is personified as bearing children by this equivalence with the slave who bears a son who is a slave. Not that the law merely enslaved; that resulted because of its misuse by sin. Although not mentioned yet, the covenant with Abraham is the other covenant in that Sarah (the free woman) is to be the mother of nations (Gen ), which is an unpacking of the covenant with the patriarch. Reference to the same two covenants is implied in Galatians where Paul emphasizes that the one that came 430 years afterward (Sinai) did not annul the one previously ratified by God (the covenant with Abraham). One thing that the law did not do is render the Abrahamic covenant null and void. The accent here is on the misuse of the Mosaic covenant both in OT history and in the Galatian situation, but it is clear that there are two covenants. There is therefore a unity with diversity because both covenants serve the purpose of God. The difference is not that the law eliminates the promise, nor is it that the law had no proper function in relation to the promise of salvation because it paved the way to Christ by exposing sin, our To emphasize the important point: justification is not only by faith without works, but also the faith that justifies is 1 bestowed efficaciously. We are in every way indebted to grace for both justification and justifying faith. Paul makes clear what he means by being called (1.5) and being known (4.9); coming to know God and coming to faith are the result of God s irresistible grace. The power of grace is required for our justification by faith because we were slaves to sin and this required that we be set free by the sacrifice of Christ (1.4). Also, the law had no such power to save, while at the same time it contributed to the outworking of God s redemptive purpose by exposing sin and preparing for Christ in types and shadows of its ceremonies.

3 !3 need, and the remedy in sacrifice. 2 So, he begins the interpretation by identifying two distinct covenants. Then he adds two cities to the allegory by which it is tweaked and expanded to engulf the entire history of redemption. B. Two cities This part of the story about present Jerusalem and Jerusalem above allows Paul to establish a connection to the Galatians (and us). 1. The present city of Jerusalem Thus, to establish this connection, Hagar and Mount Sinai are interwoven with contemporary Jerusalem (v. 25): Now Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia; she corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children. Now we can see his point. Paul is talking about particular offspring of the law of Moses (of Hagar): present Jerusalem who is in bondage with her children. This refers to the Jews that look to the law instead of trusting in Christ. The people of Israel are represented as a city-community. They are represented by the capital city of the nation, Jerusalem. But it is Jerusalem seeking acceptance with God by law-keeping. This brings all the children into bondage in sin and death. All who come forth from Mount Sinai without faith in Christ alone are from the slave women, Hagar who gives birth to slaves. Hence, the application is made in Galatians 2.21 to gaining righteousness by the law: if righteousness were through the law, then Christ died for no purpose. It is not Moses per se that is bad. It is the use of Moses in unbelief that gives rise to slavery generation after generation, and that is manifested presently in the teaching of the false brothers among the Galatian churches. 2. The Jerusalem above Thus, there is another woman in the allegory but this woman is not Sarah per se. We have another personification in which Sarah becomes Jerusalem above (Gal 4.26): But the Jerusalem above is free, and she is our mother. This part of the analogy is explained in v. 27, quoting from Isaiah 54: (For it is written, Rejoice, O barren one who does not bear; break forth and cry aloud, you who are not in labor! For the children of the desolate one will be more than those of the one who has a husband. ). Paul again looks across the history of redemption from Abraham to the present. Simply put he is saying that out of the old Israel, the old Jerusalem, has come a new Jerusalem. The old Jerusalem, the old Israel was judged in the days of Isaiah. She became barren and desolate. She had no children. She had no husband. The children of Israel were judged by God and cast away from the land of Canaan. But Isaiah looks forward to the dawning of a new day when the Messiah will come. Then the barren and desolate woman who has lost her husband will have more children than those of the one who has a husband. It will be miraculous. This will be the work of God the Almighty. Isaiah spoke of the time of Christ when there would be a new Israel, a new Jerusalem (in Gal. 6:16, the NT people of God are identified as the Israel of God). Thus, both covenants of promise and law have their principle of unity, at least partially, in the covenant with Eve 2 (Gen 3.15). Although both speak of a redeemer (offspring of Abraham for blessing and the sacrifices of Moses to give right relationship with God), the unity is partial because the promise to Eve does not mention the land accented in the promises to Abraham and Moses. Therefore, the unifying principle is further back in the creation covenant that promises Sabbath rest on the earth at the end of history. Due to the fall that promise requires redemption for attainment by the offspring of Eve and Abraham and by the sacrifices typified in the Mosaic covenant. But being a prelapsarian (pre-fall) covenant, it does not address redemption. So, for a unifying principle, we must go further back on one hand to God s pre-temporal covenant of redemption that unifies all the redemptive covenants with the backdrop of the fall, and on the other hand to God s purpose in the creation of man and all things, which is the display of His own glory through male and female image bearers on the earth in an eternal Sabbath that can only be attained by redemption because of the fall. Therefore, the eternal purpose of God s own glory is the ultimate principle underlying the eternal covenant of redemption and unifying all of the covenants of history from beginning to end (creation, life, Eve, Noah, Abraham, Moses, David, Jeremiah in the OT and NT). In the end, the importance seeing a covenantal unity to all the historical covenants pertains to reading the entire Bible in context of the covenant-making and covenant-keeping Creator and Redeemer.

4 !4 III. The practical application of the allegory Paul gives practical application in four points that you, the Galatians, and all readers should know. A. Promise is your mother In 4.28, he says: Now you, brothers, like Isaac, are children of promise. What does it mean for Isaac to be a child of promise? What does it mean to say that your mother goes by the name and has the nature of promise? As we saw in Genesis, for Isaac it means that he was born by a miracle, by the power of God (Gen ). And it means He was chosen while Ishmael was passed by (Gen , in the no to the one and yes to the other). Paul summarizes this fulfillment of election and miracle by reference to the power of the Holy Spirit (Gal 4.29: [Isaac] was born according to the Spirit). This idea of the miraculous is confirmed by Isaiah (54.1) where a desolate woman will have an abundance of children. What you are to know is that you (brothers and sisters) are saved by God's election and by His miraculous working despite sin and judgment. This is what the allegory means for you. The Isaac account is a prophetic enactment and when interpreted allegorically (by reference to the history of redemption), we know that the nations (including you Jews and Gentiles) are blessed (as justified heirs) by the power of the promise through the efficacious work of the Spirit. Of course, this entails justification by faith without our law-works because it is a gift of God s working and not our works as helpless slaves in sin. This is a truth to know and live by. B. Conflict is expected Continuing the allegory, Paul explains that persecution in the time of Isaac is a prophetic enactment that anticipates the same in the present time (Gal 4.29): But just as at that time he who was born according to the flesh persecuted him who was born according to the Spirit, so also it is now. Just as Ishmael mocked Isaac to the distress of his mother Sarah (Gen 21.9) so mocking, opposition, and conflict should not surprise us as the people of God. If we keep the larger picture of redemptive history in mind, we will see that enmity between unbelievers (the offspring of the serpent) and believers (the offspring of Eve through Christ) continues since the fall as predicted. Also, Jesus forewarned the disciples in this regard that they not stumble so we should expect opposition whenever we take a stand for Christ. This is surely what will happen if the Galatians turn back from following the Judaizers. Knowing this ahead of time gives readiness to endure. C. Judgment is certain What happened to Ishmael in Genesis 21 is an illustration that gives some balance about the suffering of believers at the hands of unbelievers. Notably, mocking can be a painful form of persecution and we are not to take revenge because that is God s to dispense, as He says, do not go there because vengeance is mine, says the Lord, I will repay (Rom 12.9). Nor do we gloat about judgment when it falls. Simply put, it helps to know that the wrongs will be righted in the end (Gal 4.30): But what does the Scripture say? Cast out the slave woman and her son, for the son of the slave woman shall not inherit with the son of the free woman. But more deeply, if an inheritance (of God s blessing; right relationship, fellowship) is sought by natural/ordinary means, not extra-ordinary, if sought by our own works instead of by God s promise, then no inheritance is forthcoming. Judgment is what will occur to those who trust in the works of their hands. Scripture reports this word of Sarah recorded in Genesis 21.10: So she said to Abraham, Cast out this slave woman with her son, for the son of this slave woman shall not be heir with my son Isaac. ). The pronouncement of judgment by Sarah was authorized by the Lord, even through it displeased Abraham (21.12): Whatever Sarah says to you, do as she tells you, for through Isaac shall your offspring be named. Her word was God s word and God s word is what Scripture says about the choice of Isaac and not Ishmael. Again, the promise belongs to the miracle child. Inheritance, right standing, and justification are by the power of God, and therefore totally removed from any

5 !5 basis in keeping the law. The allegory has a peculiar clarity regarding judgment on those who take the path of the law for justification, as there was judgment at that time, so it is now in Galatia and for all who trust in what they do to attain a right standing with God. D. Freedom is your mother (freedom gives birth to freedom) By electing love and the power of the Spirit, you are free from the law as a yoke of salvation. To be children of the slave (here in 4.31) means bondage with slavery as your mother. This is a hard yoke around your neck that, as Peter said, neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear (Acts 15.10). Instead, the covenant relation with Abraham, Sarah, and Isaac is the covenant in which the efficacious promises were given and from which has come your birth into freedom. Again, Paul uses the family terminology of brothers not just Galatians (4.31): So, brothers, we are not children of the slave but of the free woman. This fits his analogy of the two mothers and stresses that we are a family of brothers and sisters. And the central point is that Christ has set us free by the power of the Spirit without any action on our part (the flesh profits nothing, Jn 6.63). In other words, being children of the free woman, children of promise, of election, and of miracle, we have a remarkable freedom that not only has its origin in freedom, in God s freedom and free grace, but it also is a freedom that is nurtured and sustained by the God of freedom and free grace. What can we say to these things? We must speak with a profound sense of humility and say we are debtors to amazing grace, amazing powerful, irresistible, efficacious, saving grace! 3 Let us fall down before the majesty of God in deep thankfulness for the freedom from bondage to sin that we have been granted as underserving and helpless sinners by the effectual power of grace; may the Spirit bless us with a lived understanding of His powerful working, to the glory of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, now in Christ s church and forevermore, amen. On allegory in preaching, Hays states that Paul goes beyond the literal happenings of the Hagar narrative to discern 3 parallels in the circumstances of his readers. Preachers do this when they "see the circumstances of their own day illumined or prefigured by the stories of Scripture." In this way, all Christian preaching is inescapably allegorical. Preaching the OT cannot simply be stating historical facts. It must make metaphors to link the ancient text with the present life of the congregation in fresh and imaginative ways so that the text reshapes the congregation's vision of its life before God (Hays, 309). Much here is commendable. But we must unpack the idea of metaphorically linking of the ancient text with the present life of the congregation in fresh and imaginative ways and of seeing today s circumstances illumined or prefigured by the stories. What we need is constant touch with the theme of the OT from the beginning: God s covenant-making and covenant-keeping. For example, how do we apply Abraham s experience of burying Sarah by seeing allegorical parallels in the burying of believers who die today? There is no parallel beyond the idea of burial. Surely, we do not learn not to grieve or how to grieve by negotiating over the cost of burying a loved one. But if we work from the history of redemption broadly, we will focus on the land of Canaan and for short on the promise in her burial of resurrection life on the new earth. This obviously applies meaningfully as a promise to all who die in the Lord. If we think of prefiguration we must focus on the gospel promise of Christ, the descendant of Sarah through whom our resurrection is secured for life on the new earth and heavenly Canaan. An example to discuss from Joshua: In retrospect on the Book of Joshua, you should take the exhortations of Joshua to heart (23-24); they are founded on the history of redemption from Egypt to the present conquest that this book records and Hebrews 4 reiterates. Your duty is grounded in God, the mighty covenant keeping God who prepares His people for warfare, gives them victory at every turn, and who summons His people to possess their possessions. Therefore, Christians in the time between who strive to enter rest: arise, go, and possess your possessions in the battle with sin; apply the imperatives of Romans 6 to possess more and more fully the rest you have now in Christ! Joshua thus gives encouragement and warns of consequences for disobedience per the defeat at Ai. Therefore, do not harden your hearts as Israel did; instead, work hard striving What gives relevance and prevents excessive spiritualization (bad allegorization) at the same time? Answer: attention to context defined by the over all theme of all Scripture. What allows relevance to the church today in the time between for the NT writings which is slightly different than the promise to fulfillment nature of the OT? Key fact: we live in the same historical-historicalredemptive time as the recipients of the NT writings, we live in the time between the comings of Christ awaiting now for the not yet of God s promise-keeping.