Galatians 4:21-31

Please read the passage first.

Paul now offers his seventh and final argument, this time an allegory based upon the biblical woman, Hagar and Sarah. I invite you to read the story in Genesis 16, 21, and the genealogy of Ishmael in 25:12-19. Paul uses the allegory to suggest the difference between the two covenants. Interestingly, some ancient rhetoric thought of allegory as a weak argument. Yet, others thought that “darkly hinting expressions” can be quite effective. The power of the flow of his argument is that he ends by emphasizing the contrast between slavery and freedom. I invite you to reflect upon how shocking it must have been that those who valued Jewish tradition are actually children of Hagar and Ishmael, while Christians are actually children of Sarah and Isaac. Paul confronts the audience, again, with a metaphorical contrast. The contrast is between spiritual freedom and spiritual slavery (in this instance, in particular, the notion "son[s] of the slave girl" versus the "son[s] of the free woman"), but also the metaphorical contrast between flesh and promise. He further suggests the salvation history under which he understands the relationship between Law on the one hand and Christ on the other. As Paul sees it, the Law is not the timelessly valid form of the divine will. It is a positive historical entity.

Paul wonders if they have listened to the witness of Scripture. It is not enough to be descended from Abraham, for Ishmael is an example.  It is necessary to be a spiritual rather than physical descendant.  Isaac's birth pre-figured Christians.  Pau now endeavors to reinforce his argument by means of an allegorical interpretation of the Genesis story of Hagar and Sarah, with their respective sons Ishmael and Isaac. Paul calls his interpretation allegorical in verse 24.

In verse 26, for Paul, the Christian is now part of a spiritual city symbolized by Jerusalem. His reference suggests it was common in early Christian communities to make such reference. One can see this in Hebrews 12:22, 11:10, 16, Revelation 3:12, 21:2, 9ff.

In verse 29, Ishmael represents Jews while Isaac represents Christians. 

In verse 30, Law and Gospel cannot co-exist.  The Law must disappear.  Lightfoot was of the opinion that in Paul's day half of Christianity clung to the Law. Calvin and Luther unite in saying that Paul refers to both the ceremonial and moral law. Luther refers to the scholastics, who teach this distinction. However, later, so would John Wesley.

According to Betz, the argument goes something like this:

Hagar¢ Slave woman¢ Ishmael¢ Flesh    ¢ Jerusalem         ¢ Judaism

Sarah¢ Free woman  ¢ Isaac     ¢ Promise¢ New Jerusalem¢ Christianity

 Lightfoot breaks out the allegory in this way.

Hagar the bondwoman - Sarah, the free woman

Ishmael, the child of the flesh - Isaac the child of promise

Old Covenant - New Covenant

Earthly Jerusalem - Heavenly Jerusalem

Muhammad developed an elaborate argument to say that life was in Abraham because he lived before the law. Of course, they went a quite different direction, continuing with food prohibitions, stated times of prayer, facing toward Mecca, and ultimately, seeking to shape Islamic Law and culture throughout a people.

For Tolmie, in this passage Paul uses the authority of Scripture to present an allegorical exposition of the Hagar-Sarah stories dominated by a metaphorical contrast between two kinds of adoption as children, one characterized by slavery and the other by freedom. He does so in order to urge the Galatians not to yield to the opponents, but rather to remain "free." Furthermore, the metaphorical contrast is used to vilify the opponents as their "gospel" is categorized as religious "slavery."