GALATIANS 4:21-31

This is an interesting but challenging passage to examine. Here are some collected comments from New Testament scholars presented in a verse-by-verse order, beginning with the division of Paul's argument into three parts by Mikolaski: Historical situation (22-23), Paul's interpretation (24-27), and application to Christians (28-31).

Galatians 4:21

verse 21: Several commentators have noted the marked change of pace beginning with this verse. “So far as the tone of the writing goes, the conclusion of Chapter 4 differs strikingly from what has gone before...the tone is still lively and penetrating, though less tender, and more commanding now.” (Ridderbos)

Paul uses the term “law” twice in this verse. He addresses first those who wish to be under the “law,” meaning all of the Jewish rules and regulations. But when he then tells them to “listen to the law,” he is referring to the whole Pentateuch. “It is sometimes forgotten today that when a Jew refers to the law, he means Genesis as much as Leviticus or Deuteronomy. If “Torah' be the 'instruction' of God to his people, then history, interpreted as the story of the saving acts of God, has just as much place as legislation.” (Cole)

Galatians 4:22-23

Paul begins his argument by citing the historical incidents in Genesis 16:1-4,15; 21:1-7 involving Abraham and his two wives who differed in their status. There is Hagar the slave and Sarah the free woman. And each one of them had a son. Here again there is a difference between the two in that Ishmael was born in the regular manner (“according to the flesh”) while Isaac's birth was unexpected since Abraham and Sarah were quite elderly when he was conceived. Therefore it became obvious that Isaac was the child promised to them by God years earlier.

Hamilton notes, “Paul does not contrast flesh with Spirit, as elsewhere in Galatians, until v. 29; rather, he contrasts flesh with promise. This is Paul's way of contrasting the ordinary circumstances surrounding Ishmael's conception/birth with the supernatural circumstances surrounding Isaac's conception/birth.”

Galatians 4:24-27

It is at this point that Paul usually begins to lose his modern audience through his apparently free-wheeling use of Scripture in a way it was never intended to be utilized. Even scholars seem to be at a loss as to what kind of exegesis to call Paul's argument. Silva states that “considerable disagreement exists regarding Paul's use of Scripture here.” Various labels have been attached to it:

Rabbinical Exegesis:

Mikolaski states, “Paul invokes rabbinical argument against those who rest on the rabbinical tradition.”

Similarly, Cole says, “The Galatians are fascinated by rabbinic exegesis of the law, are they? Good; here then is an argument that, on their own terms, they must accept.”

L.A. Turner offers a reasonable scenario behind Paul's choice of this particular passage of Scripture: “It is now generally accepted that Paul's allegory concerning Hagar and Sarah is a rejoinder to an argument of his Judaizing opponents, who were appealing to the same scriptural examples. Their precise argument is unavailable to us, but apparently included an assertion that uncircumcized Gentile Christians were not true sons of Abraham...the manner in which Paul argues his case reflects midrashic traditions which his opponents have obviously been using...and which Paul utilizes in order to oppose them with their own logic.”

Calvert agrees with this contention when he states: “Paul's apparently arbitrary exegesis in this allegory may indicate that this was not his choice of text (Gen 16:15; 21:2-12), but that it was being used by his opponents to their own advantage.”

Typology:

“While the comparison is called an allegory (v. 24) it is not allegory in the Philonic sense. Key elements are aspects of the historical narrative...It is more in the nature of typology...” (Mikolaski) Hanson echoes this opinion when he says that the 'allegory' is “really an elaborate piece of typology.”

Allegory:

Silva points out that many others are convinced that the apostle “is treating us here to a full-blown allegorical interpretation.” But he notes one vital difference also mentioned by Mikolaski above: “In contrast to Philo, Paul casts no doubts on either the factual nature or the historical value of the Genesis narrative.”

D.K. Campbell explains in more detail how the two types of “allegory” differ: “This 'allegorizing' is a far cry from the practice of 'allegorical interpretation' – followed by Origen, Augustine, and many others down through the ages and into the present day – in which the historical facts are relegated to a lower, less significant level and fanciful, hidden meanings unrelated to the text, are considered vastly more important.”

Analogy:

All of the above approaches rely on a comparison between one thing and another. Thus, Ross takes the safe approach by simply stating that “Paul used the biblical record analogically to make his point about the Judaizers who were trying to undermine the truth of the gospel.”

Whatever label we wish to put one Paul's argument, he appears to create the following equations in his comparison:

    Hagar = Mt. Sinai = contemporary Jerusalem = old covenant

    Sarah = new covenant = Jerusalem from above

    Isaac = believing Galatian Gentiles

    Ishmael = Judaizing opponents

Verse 24: “Paul uses the plural of 'covenant' again only in Rom. 9:4 and Eph. 2:12...the plural of 'covenant' never appears in the OT.” (Hamilton)

Verse 25: Briggs points out the textual uncertainties in this verse with some manuscripts reading “Now [de] Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia” while others say, “For [gar] Sinai is a mountain in Arabia.” Metzger explains how this confusion may have arisen in the first place: If the original was de 'Agar Sina (“Hagar from Sinai”), some manuscripts may have replaced de with gar. But that would give rise to two similar words (gar 'Agar) being juxtaposed, giving rise to some copyists deleting one of the two words and some the other.

Verse 26: The phrase “Mother Jerusalem” appears to be a strange one, but Psalm 86:5 in the Septuagint (cf. Ps. 87:5) contains the phrase “Mother Zion.” Briggs feels that “Paul draws on the prophets' vision of the pilgrimage of the nations to the restored Jerusalem (Isa 51.2-6; ch 60; 62.1-2; Zech 2.10-12).”

“This heavenly city which one day will come to earth (cf. Rev 21:2), is now the 'city of the living God' (cf. Heb. 12:22), the home of departed believers of all ages.” (Campbell)

Verse 27: “The link between a sterile Sarah and a forsaken, cursed Jerusalem had previously been established by Isaiah [Is. 51:1-2] this background gives Paul the canonical authority to quote Isa. 54:1 within the context of the Genesis narrative.” (Silva)

Bruce says, “As the earthly Zion was the meeting place for the tribes of the old Israel, so the heavenly Zion is the meeting place for the new Israel. (See Rev 14:1)...If the movable tabernacle in the wilderness was constructed according to the pattern of the sanctuary on high, so the temple and city of Jerusalem were material copies of eternal archetypes...the rabbis inferred the existence of the heavenly archetype from the words of Ps. 123:3, which they rendered: 'Jerusalem which is built like the city that is its fellow.'”

Galatians 4:28-31

Now that we come to the application portion of Paul's argument, there is considerable disagreement regarding which group of people he is targeting for his harsh words and what he is really saying about them. This conclusion is, in any case, based on the historical fact of Abraham casting out Ishmael because of his ill-treatment of the child Isaac (see Genesis 21:9-10).

As Ross explains, “His choice of words to describe what Ishmael did is interpretive – it attempts to express what Sarah perceived to be a real threat to Isaac. Ishmael may have been playing with Isaac, but if he was permitted to continue, his real effort would have been to supplant this new heir.”

As to the actual group Paul is targeting, look at these diverse opinions (especially the underlined words):

    “The stinging implication is that Jews who take pride in their natural descent from Abraham (as he himself did: cf. 2 Cor. 11:22; Phil. 3:34) are really no better than Ishmael. The sons of grace are the true heirs of Abraham.” (Milolaski)

    “The Jews are rejected by God, they are excommunicated as it were; they have lost their heritage. The church alone is the heir.” (Wagner)

    “The Galatians who are being persecuted for not being obedient to the Law are to 'cast out' those who are persecuting them.” (Calvert)

    “Lightfoot remarked that Paul's confident application of Scripture in v. 30 is a striking tribute to his prophetic insight: at that time it was, to human eyes, far from certain the the old Jewish system would be cast out from its inheritance.” (Coad)

    “The unbelieving Jews, enslaved to the Torah, persecute believing Christians who are free in Christ. The unbelieving Jews are rejected by God.” (Hanson)

    “A fundamental incompatibility remains between Law and grace, between a religion based on works and a religion based on faith.” (Campbell)

In addition, there are those who would limit Paul's call to “excommunication” to only the Judaizers within the church. And then there is the strong opinion of Victor Hamilton, who firmly rejects any possibility that Paul in his allegory is contrasting Judaism with Christianity “and that he uses Hagar to represent Israelites or Jews (that would be an odd association!) and Sarah to represent Christians and the new covenant. Those who follow that approach are forced to admit that Gal. 4:21-31 is among Paul's most demeaning attacks on Judaism.”

Thus, the jury is still out on this issue.

Galatians 5:1

It is a matter of interpretation whether Paul's argument in this section ends with 4:31 or 5:1. Martyn opts for the latter and translates it as “It was to bring us into the realms of freedom that Christ set us free. Stand your ground, therefore, and do not ever again take up the yoke of slavery.” This statement would be an apt conclusion to Paul's argument in 4:21-31, but on the other hand it would equally well serve as a return to the subject of slavery that began chapter 4.