Galatians 4:21–26

He uses the word "law" in two different senses in this verse. You who desire to be under the principle of law, do you not hear what the books of the law say? That is, the early writings of the Bible. Sometimes "law" means the word of God in general as it was revealed at that time. Psalm 19 is an example: "The law of the LORD is perfect, reviving the soul." But when it is called something the Christian is not under, it means this principle: the conscience is put under certain obligations to gain a standing with God. This is the fallacy Paul is laying bare.

The Judaizing teachers would put the Galatians under the law of Sinai. They had placed themselves under the law, and they were in the process of bringing others there. Now Paul is going to show how inconsistent they were. He asks, "Do you not listen to the law?" His argument was this: "If you are under the law, you had better listen to the law. But you are not listening to the law at all. You are totally inconsistent!"

He has another witness in reserve. He now brings this witness forward. His aim is to complete their confusion and put a final stop to all further legal questions or leanings on their part. By the law's own mouth he will convince them of their folly in wanting to take up its yoke. He now turns to Moses's inspired account of how Abraham's double family began. The apostle's reasoning rests on a principle of Jewish law: the child followed the social condition of its mother. Abraham had one son by a slave woman, and the other by his free wife.

These two women set forth the two covenants. One is the covenant of law, which makes the blessing depend upon man carrying out his part. The other is the covenant of promise, in which the blessing for man depends entirely upon the sovereign grace of God. The two sons set forth the two conditions that come out of these covenants: one a condition of bondage, the other of liberty. These two covenants, and the conditions that come from them, are connected with Mount Sinai, where God gave the law, and with the Jerusalem above, from which sovereign grace flows out to the world.

In vain he says he is born again; the law knows no such distinction. It asks, "Are you what I require?" "No, I am not," says the born-again man, who indeed is the only one who truly says so. "Then," says the law, "I curse you." But you say, "I am not under you for justification, only as a rule." "But I curse you," says the law, "because you have not kept the rule." The law will not and cannot do anything else.

The Galatian believers were truly converted and had the Spirit. Yet they were turning back to the law as a rule of life. In practice they were making their blessing depend on their own efforts. In the language of the allegory, they became the children of Sinai. Their character took on the traits of the flesh. Jerusalem above sets forth sovereign grace. Had they been connected with its liberty, they would have shown the character of Christ. Instead, putting themselves under law made them proud and boastful, and that spirit led to envy. They were biting and devouring one another, and the world was drawing them in.

The Apostle now appeals to the law itself, to show how unreasonable it is to turn back to it. If they would not hear the gospel, nor listen to the Apostle, let them listen to the law they were turning to. He recalls the times of Abraham. He uses some facts in his history as an allegory. It teaches us the contrast between the bondage of a believer under law and the liberty of a believer under grace. Abraham had two sons by different women, one a slave and the other a free woman. The son by the slave "was born according to the flesh," entirely according to the will of man. The other, by the free woman, was born by God's sovereign intervention.

The word allegoreo occurs only in Galatians 4:24. The passage does not mean that Abraham having two sons was an allegory. It was history. But that history had an allegorical application, and Paul, by the Holy Spirit, explains it fully. The Greek word means 'to speak otherwise,' and an allegory is a description of one thing under the image of another.

One son, the elder, Ishmael, was born in the natural way. But his mother was a slave, and he was born to be a slave too. The other child, Isaac, was not born in the natural way. That was because his father was a hundred years old and his mother was ninety. She had long ago lost the power to have children. But God had promised that Sarah should have a son... By her own natural power Sarah could not have borne a son. But God Himself gave her that power, because He had promised to do so.

These two women stand for the two covenants. One is the covenant of law. It makes the blessing depend on man carrying out his part of the covenant. The other is the covenant of promise. In it, man's blessing depends entirely on the sovereign grace of God. The two sons also stand for the two conditions that come out of these covenants. One is a condition of bondage, the other of liberty.

When God makes a promise, there is no "if" attached to it. He makes it with no conditions, and He is determined to keep it. Faith rests in Him, in perfect liberty of heart. A divine promise needs no effort of nature to bring it to pass. This is the very point where Abraham and Sarah failed. They made an effort of nature to reach a certain end. God's promise had already made that end completely sure. This is the great mistake of unbelief.

Look at Abraham and his house. Look at Hagar the servant, and at Isaac and Ishmael. There you have in a figure the two parties still found on the earth: the law party pictured by Ishmael, the child of flesh; and those who cling to the grace of God, who have their pattern in Isaac, the child of promise... Abraham, their main support as they thought, had two sons. But according to Scripture the two sons stood on completely different principles... Which son represented them? Under which type did they fall — Ishmael or Isaac?

Here is the application. The moment we want to get blessing based on our own initiatives, actions, strength, goodness, power, whatever, we are using 'works of law.' That puts us on the ground of bondage, not the liberty God calls us to as sons — as Isaac had the place of son and heir.

The apostle now appeals to the law itself, to show how unreasonable it is to turn back to it. If they would not hear the gospel, and would not listen to the apostle, let them listen to the law they were turning to. At once the apostle recalls the times of Abraham. He uses some facts from his history as an allegory. It teaches us the contrast between a believer's bondage under law and a believer's liberty under grace. Abraham had two sons by different women, one a slave and the other a free woman. The son by the slave "was born after the flesh," entirely according to the will of man. The other, by the free woman, was born by the sovereign intervention of God.

At 85, Abraham still had no son. In Genesis 16, the anxiety of both Sarai and Abram prompted them to devise a plan to try to fulfil God's promise. They could not wait for God to fulfil it in His own way and His own time. Using their own cleverness, Abram had a son by the slave woman, Hagar. What a striking picture of Israel trying to get the promise of God by their own righteousness, by their law-keeping! They set out to establish their own righteousness, and so they have not submitted to the righteousness of God (Rom. 10:3). Abraham did the same. He tried to establish God's promise in his own way, and showed no real faith that the promise was altogether God's promise. So the son of the slave woman was born after the flesh. The whole affair was human devising and no fulfilment at all of the promise of God. The son of the slave woman cannot enjoy the full liberty of a son's place. He is really himself in bondage, a servant.

"Under" is applied to sin and law; "after" to flesh, as in Romans 8:4-5, 12, 13. These are nowhere swapped round. "Under" expresses domination; "after" expresses inclination or disposition. So it is always "under the law," "under sin," but "after" the flesh. The same distinction can be seen in Galatians 3:25 and 4:4, 23, 29.

Isaac is this child of promise, born to Sarah when she was 90 years old and Abraham 100, when their bodies were as good as "already dead" (Rom. 4:19), and any natural hope of childbearing was long gone. But it was God who stepped in, in sovereign grace, to fulfil His own word... Isaac then is a beautiful picture of Christ, the promised Seed (Gal. 3:16). He came to earth not because of man's successful law-keeping or anything of the sort. He came because of the unbreakable promise of God, fulfilled by grace alone.

In this important passage, "the flesh" stands opposite "promise." So we get God's own idea of what the term "flesh" means. We also get His idea of Abraham's effort to get the seed through Hagar instead of resting in God's "promise."... But the Sarah-covenant reveals God as the God of promise. That promise is completely independent of man. It rests on God's willingness and ability to fulfil it. When God makes a promise, there is no "if" attached to it. He makes it unconditionally, and He is resolved to fulfil it; and faith rests in Him, in perfect liberty of heart.

The sentence of Scripture is: 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. Grace refuses partnership with law or flesh. The child of promise alone inherits.

The Apostle now appeals to the law itself, to show how unreasonable it is to turn back to it. If they would not hear the gospel, nor listen to the Apostle, let them listen to the law they were turning to. At once he recalls the days of Abraham. He uses some facts from Abraham's life as an allegory. They teach us the contrast between the bondage of a believer under law and the liberty of a believer under grace.

Real historical facts can sometimes carry an allegorical sense, as the apostle used the story of Hagar and Ishmael in Galatians 4:21-31. But they are still facts.

How do we guard against misusing what was written long ago? First, we must carefully refuse to start any doctrinal argument of our own from an earlier historical event, as an inspired writer has done here. Second, we must keep inside the limits of stated apostolic teaching when we try to draw a Christian sense out of the ancient Jewish Scriptures.

These two women stand for the two covenants. One is the covenant of law, which makes blessing depend on man carrying out his part. The other is the covenant of promise, in which man's blessing depends entirely on the sovereign grace of God. The two sons stand for the two conditions these covenants produce: the one a condition of bondage, the other of liberty.

Enjoying the results of the covenant depended on both sides being faithful. At Mount Sinai God promised blessing on His part, if Israel were faithful to His will. So Israel was bound to obey, to enjoy the privileges granted under the law. What God had promised to Abraham with no conditions attached, the people accepted at Sinai on condition of their own obedience.

The law and the covenant of Sinai were tied to man in the flesh… For man, the law and its regulations were only bondage. They aimed at holding the will in check without changing it… And notice that the apostle is not speaking here about breaking the law, but about the principle of the law.

She is the covenant "from Mount Sinai, bearing children for slavery." It is the only kind of religion man's own thinking leads him to, and what we sink back to whenever grace is left behind. So Hagar is an Egyptian, a child of nature… God took up the principle of law for the purposes of His wisdom, but it was never His own thought. He uses it so that man, fully tested by it, may prove to himself the folly of his own ideas… How little Christians suspect this tendency in the very thing they use to seek holiness and fruit!

The two could not be united; the one shut out the other.

This mixing up of the law with the gospel is as harmful as it is unscriptural. "For you have not come" to Sinai, but to Zion, even had we been Jews. "By grace you have been saved through faith." It rests on a completely opposite principle.

These two women stand for the two covenants. One is the covenant of law. It makes the blessing depend on man carrying out his part of the covenant. The other is the covenant of promise. In it the blessing for man depends completely on the sovereign grace of God. The two sons stand for the two conditions that come out of these covenants: the one a condition of bondage, the other of liberty.

The apostle's language here is bold. What truly justifies it is the divine authority by which he wrote. But it is also supported by its fitness as an allegory, and by a fact of geography that his readers most likely knew. Hagar was Sinai, and Sinai was Hagar, in the speech of the local people descended from the original slave woman. Keeping her name alive in that place gives a fair basis for the parallel he draws here.

Those who are under the law must keep the law in order to receive blessing. "Do this, and you will live" (Luke 10:28). This is bondage and slavery. We must work and do in order to obtain, and we can never obtain this way. Those who are under this covenant are those who put themselves under law, and they are slaves, like the children of Hagar. They are from Mount Sinai. God gave the law at Mount Sinai, and so Mount Sinai stands for the law. People think that Hagar went to Arabia when Abraham sent her away. So Arabia seems to speak of the land of slavery, or the bondage of the law.

Now this Hagar is Mount Sinai. She answers to Jerusalem with her children — that is, to the system of the law of which Jerusalem was the centre — and also to those who are under the law. But Jerusalem which is above is free, and she is our mother. She is the true church of God seen in her heavenly state.

Hagar speaks to us of the energy of the flesh, and of bondage too. The apostle shows that this is where Jerusalem now is, whatever the boast of the law-teachers who had troubled the Galatians. "Now Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia; she corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children" (v. 25). Yet the Jews boasted to the Lord that they were never in bondage to anyone (John 8:33)!

The gospel does not go up to Jerusalem on earth. It does not try to join with the law or anything else here below. It wants no such allies, but rejects them all. The very reverse of their system is true. The true link is with Jerusalem above, as our pattern is Isaac, the child of the free woman. Theirs was the slave's son — Ishmael.

How strange, yet how true, that we should prefer spiritual bondage to spiritual freedom. But the reason is plain. If we are set free, it must be owing completely to the grace of God, and our proud hearts refuse to submit to this... When Christians lost the sense of a calling that is heavenly and not of this world, as the apostle's keen eye saw the Galatians beginning to do, they looked to Hagar, not to Sarah.