Gal 4:21-31 | Barnes | STEP | Verse 21. Tell me , etc. In order to show fully the nature and the effect of the law, Paul here introduces an illustration from an important fact in the Jewish history. This allegory has given great perplexity to expositors, and, in some respects, it is attended with real difficulty. An examination of the difficulties will be found in the larger commentaries. My object, without examining the expositions which have been proposed, will be to state, in as few words as possible, the simple meaning and design of the allegory. The design it is not difficult to understand. It is to show the effect of being under the bondage or servitude of the Jewish law, compared with the freedom which the gospel imparts . Paul had addressed the Galatians as having a real desire to be under bondage, or to be servants. . He had represented Christianity as a state of freedom, and Christians as the sons of God--not servants, but freemen. To show the difference of the two conditions, he appeals to two cases which would furnish a striking illustration of them. The one was the case of Hagar and her son. The effect of bondage was well illustrated there. She and her son were treated with severity, and were cast out and persecuted. This was a fair illustration of bondage under the law; of the servitude to the laws of Moses; and was a fit representation of Jerusalem as it was in the time of Paul. The other case was that of Isaac. He was the son of a free woman, and was treated accordingly. He was regarded as a son--not as a servant. And he was a fair illustration of the case of those who were made free by the gospel. They enjoyed a similar freedom and sonship, and should not seek a state of servitude or bondage. The condition of Isaac was a fit illustration of the New Jerusalem; the heavenly city; the true kingdom of God. But Paul does not mean to say, as I suppose, that the history of the son of Hagar, and of the son of Rebecca, was mere allegory, or that the narrative by Moses was designed to represent the different condition of those who were under the law and under the gospel, He uses it simply as showing the difference between servitude and freedom, and as a striking ILLUSTRATION of the nature of the bondage to the Jewish law, and of the freedom of the gospel , just as any one may use a striking historical fact to illustrate a principle. These general remarks will constitute the basis of my interpretation of this celebrated allegory. The expression "tell me," is one of affectionate remonstrance and reasoning. See : "Tell me, therefore, which of these will love him most?" Comp. : "Come now, and let us reason together, saith the Lord." Ye that desire to be under the law . . You who wish to yield obedience to the laws of Moses. You who maintain that conformity to those laws is necessary to justification. Do ye not hear the law ? Do you not understand what the law says? Will you not listen to its own admonitions, and the instruction which may be derived from the law on the subject? The word "law" here refers not to the commands that were uttered on Mount Sinai, but to the book of the law. The passage to which reference is made is in the book of Genesis; but all the five books of Moses were by the Jews classed under the general name of the law. . The sense is, "Will you not listen to a narrative found in one of the books of the law itself, fully illustrating the nature of that servitude which you wish?"

Galatians 4:21-31

Verse 21. Tell me, etc. In order to show fully the nature and the effect of the law, Paul here introduces an illustration from an important fact in the Jewish history. This allegory has given great perplexity to expositors, and, in some respects, it is attended with real difficulty. An examination of the difficulties will be found in the larger commentaries. My object, without examining the expositions which have been proposed, will be to state, in as few words as possible, the simple meaning and design of the allegory. The design it is not difficult to understand. It is to show the effect of being under the bondage or servitude of the Jewish law, compared with the freedom which the gospel imparts. Paul had addressed the Galatians as having a real desire to be under bondage, or to be servants. Gal 4:9. He had represented Christianity as a state of freedom, and Christians as the sons of God--not servants, but freemen. To show the difference of the two conditions, he appeals to two cases which would furnish a striking illustration of them. The one was the case of Hagar and her son. The effect of bondage was well illustrated there. She and her son were treated with severity, and were cast out and persecuted. This was a fair illustration of bondage under the law; of the servitude to the laws of Moses; and was a fit representation of Jerusalem as it was in the time of Paul. The other case was that of Isaac. He was the son of a free woman, and was treated accordingly. He was regarded as a son--not as a servant. And he was a fair illustration of the case of those who were made free by the gospel. They enjoyed a similar freedom and sonship, and should not seek a state of servitude or bondage. The condition of Isaac was a fit illustration of the New Jerusalem; the heavenly city; the true kingdom of God. But Paul does not mean to say, as I suppose, that the history of the son of Hagar, and of the son of Rebecca, was mere allegory, or that the narrative by Moses was designed to represent the different condition of those who were under the law and under the gospel, He uses it simply as showing the difference between servitude and freedom, and as a striking ILLUSTRATION of the nature of the bondage to the Jewish law, and of the freedom of the gospel, just as any one may use a striking historical fact to illustrate a principle. These general remarks will constitute the basis of my interpretation of this celebrated allegory. The expression "tell me," is one of affectionate remonstrance and reasoning. See Lk 7:42: "Tell me, therefore, which of these will love him most?" Comp. Isa 1:18: "Come now, and let us reason together, saith the Lord."

Ye that desire to be under the law. Gal 4:9. You who wish to yield obedience to the laws of Moses. You who maintain that conformity to those laws is necessary to justification.

Do ye not hear the law? Do you not understand what the law says? Will you not listen to its own admonitions, and the instruction which may be derived from the law on the subject? The word "law" here refers not to the commands that were uttered on Mount Sinai, but to the book of the law. The passage to which reference is made is in the book of Genesis; but all the five books of Moses were by the Jews classed under the general name of the law. Lk 24:44. The sense is, "Will you not listen to a narrative found in one of the books of the law itself, fully illustrating the nature of that servitude which you wish?" Verse 22. For it is written. Gen 16, Gen 21.

Abraham had two sons. Ishmael and Isaac. Abraham subsequently had several sons by Keturah, after the death of Sarah, Gen 25:1-6. But the two sons by Hagar and Sarah were the most prominent, and the events of their lives furnished the particular illustration which Paul desired.

The one by a bond-maid. Ishmael, the son of Hagar. Hagar was an Egyptian slave, whom Sarah gave to Abraham in order that he might not be wholly without posterity, Gen 16:3.

The other by a free-woman. Isaac, the son of Sarah, Gen 21:1,2.

(c) "one by a bond-maid" Gen 16:15 (d) "the other" Gen 21:1,2 Verse 23. But he who was of the bond-woman was born after the flesh. In the ordinary course of nature, without any special promise, or any unusual Divine interposition, as in the case of Isaac.

But he of the free-woman, etc. The birth of Isaac was in accordance with a special promise, and by a remarkable Divine interposition. See Gen 18:10, 21:1,2, Heb 11:11,12. Comp. Rom 4:19-21. The idea here of Paul is, that the son of the slave was in a humble and inferior condition from his very birth. There was no special promise attending him. He was born into a state of inferiority and servitude, which attended him through his whole life. Isaac, however, was met with promises as soon as he was born, and was under the benefit of those promises as long as he lived. The object of Paul is to state the truth in regard to a condition of servitude and slavery. It is attended with evils from beginning to end; from the birth to the grave. By this illustration he means to show them the folly of beaming the voluntary slaves of the law after they had once been made free. (e) "bond woman" Rom 9:7,8 Verse 24. Which things. The different accounts of Ishmael and Isaac.

Are an allegory. May be regarded allegorically, or as illustrating great principles in regard to the condition of slaves and freemen; and may therefore be used to illustrate the effect of servitude to the law of Moses compared with the freedom of the gospel. He does not mean to say that the historical record of Moses was not true, or was merely allegorical; nor does he mean to say that Moses meant this to be an allegory, or that he intended that it should be applied to the exact purpose to which Paul applied it. No such design is apparent in the narrative of Moses, and it is evident that he had no such intention. Nor can it be shown that Paul means to be understood as saying that Moses had any such design, or that his account was not a record of a plain historical fact. Paul uses it as he would any other historical fact that would illustrate the same principle, and he makes no more use of it than the Saviour did in his parables of real or fictitious narratives to illustrate an important truth, or than we always do of real history to illustrate an important principle. The word which is here used by Paul αλληγορεω is derived from αλλος, another, and αγορευω, to speak, to speak openly or in public. --Passow. It properly means to speak anything otherwise than it is understood, (Passow;) to speak allegorically; to allegorize. The word does not occur elsewhere in the New Testament, nor is it found in the Septuagint, though it occurs often in the classic writers. An allegory is a continued metaphor. See Blair's Lectures, xv. It is a figurative sentence or discourse, in which the principal object is described by another subject resembling it in its properties and circumstances.-- Webster. Allegories are in words what hieroglyphics are in painting. The distinction between a parable and an allegory is said to be, that a parable is a supposed history to illustrate some important truth, as the parable of the good Samaritan, etc.; an allegory is based on real facts. It is not probable, however, that this distinction is always carefully observed. Sometimes the allegory is based on the resemblance to some inanimate object, as in the beautiful allegory in the eightieth Psalm. Allegories, parables, and metaphors abound in the writings of the East. Truth was more easily treasured up in this way, and could be better preserved and transmitted when it was connected with an interesting story. The lively fancy of the people of the East also led them to this mode of communicating truth; though a love for it is probably found in human nature. The best sustained allegory of any considerable length in the world is, doubtless, Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress; and yet this is among the most popular of all books. The ancient Jews were exceedingly fond of allegories, and even turned a considerable part of the Old Testament into allegory. The ancient Greek philosophers also were fond of this mode of teaching. Pythagoras instructed his followers in this manner, and this was common among the Greeks, and was imitated much by the early Christians. --Calmet. Many of the Christian fathers, of the school of Origen, made the Old Testament almost wholly allegorical, and found mysteries in the plainest narratives. The Bible became thus with them a book of enigmas, and exegesis consisted in an ingenious and fanciful accommodation of all the narratives in the Scriptures to events in subsequent times. The most fanciful and the most ingenious man, on this principle, was the best interpreter; and as any man might attach any hidden mystery which he chose to the Scriptures, they became wholly useless as an infallible, guide. Better principles of interpretation now prevail; and the great truth has gone forth, never more to be recalled, that the Bible is to be interpreted on the same principle as all other books; that its language is to be investigated by the same laws as language in all other books; and that no more liberty is to be taken in allegorizing the Scriptures than may be taken with Herodotus or Livy. It is lawful to use narratives of real events to illustrate important principles always. Such a use is often made of history; and such a use, I suppose, the apostle Paul makes here of an important fact in the history of the Old Testament.

For these are. These may be used to represent the two covenants. The apostle could not mean that the sons of Sarah and of Hagar were literally the two covenants; for this could not be true, and the declaration would be unintelligible. In what sense could Ishmael be called a covenant? The meaning, therefore, must be, that they furnished an apt illustration or representation of the two covenants; they would show what the nature of the two covenants was. The words "are" and "is," are often used in this sense in the Bible, to denote that one thing represents another. Thus in the institution of the Lord's Supper: "Take, eat; this Is my body," (Mt 26:26;) i.e., this represents my body. The bread was not the living body that was then before them. So in Gal 4:28: "This is my blood of the new covenant;" i.e., this represents my blood. The wine in the cup could not be the living blood of the Redeemer that was then flowing in his veins. Gen 41:26.

The two covenants. Marg., testaments. The word means, here, covenants or compacts. 1Cor 11:25. The two covenants here referred to are the one on Mount Sinai made with the Jews, and the other that which is made with the people of God in the gospel. The one resembles the condition of bondage in which Hagar and her son were; the other the condition of freedom in which Sarah and Isaac were.

The one from the mount Sinai. Marg., Sin. The Greek is Sina, though the word may be written either way.

Which gendereth to bondage. Which tends to produce bondage or servitude. That is, the laws are stern and severe; and the observance of them costly, and onerous, like a state of bondage. Acts 15:10.

Which is Agar: Which Hagar would appropriately represent. The condition of servitude produced by the law had a strong resemblance to her condition as a slave.

(a) "allegory" 1Cor 10:11 (1) "covenants" "testaments" (2) "Sinai" "Sina" (b) "Sinai" De 33:2 Verse 25. For this Agar is mount Sinai. This Hagar well represents the law given on Mount Sinai. No one can believe that Paul meant to say that Hagar was literally Mount Sinai. A great deal of perplexity has been felt in regard to this passage; and Bentley proposed to cancel it altogether as an interpolation. But there is no good authority for this. Several MSS. and versions read it, "For this Sinai is a mountain in Arabia;" others, "to this Hagar Jerusalem answereth," etc. Griesbach has placed these readings in the margin, and has marked them as not to be rejected as certainly false, but as worthy of a more attentive examination; as sustained by some plausible arguments, though not in the whole satisfactory. The word Hagar in Arabic is said to signify a rock; and it has been supposed that the name was appropriately given to Mount Sinai, because it was a pile of rocks, and that Paul had allusion to this meaning of the word here. So Chandler, Rosenmuller, and others interpret it. But I cannot find in Castell or Gesenius that the word Hagar in Arabic has this signification; still less is there evidence that the name was ever given to Mount Sinai by the Arabs, or that such a signification was known to Paul. The plainest and most obvious sense of a passage is generally the true sense; and the obvious sense here is, that Hagar was a fair representation of Mount Sinai, and of the law given there.

In Arabia. Mount Sinai is situated in Arabia Petraea, or the Rocky. Rosenmuller says that this means "in the Arabic language;" but probably in this interpretation he stands alone.

And answereth to Jerusalem. Marg., Is in the same rank with. The margin is the better translation. The meaning is, it is just like it, or corresponds with it. Jerusalem as it is now, (i.e., in the days of Paul,) is like Mount Sinai. It is subject to laws, and rites, and customs; bound by a state of servitude, and fear, and trembling, such as existed when the law was given on Mount Sinai. There is no freedom; there are no great and liberal views; there is none of the liberty which the gospel imparts to men. The word συστοιχει (answereth to) means, properly, to advance in order together; to go together with, as soldiers march along in the same rank; and then to correspond to. It means here, that Mount Sinai and Jerusalem as it then was would be fitted to march together in the same platoon or rank. In marshalling an army, care is taken to place soldiers of the same height, and size, and skill, and courage, if possible, together. So here it means that they were alike. Both were connected with bondage, like Hagar. On the one, a law was given that led to bondage; and the other was in fact under a miserable servitude of rites and forms.

Which now is. As it exists now; that is, a slave to rites and forms, as it was in fact in the time of Paul.

And is in bondage. To laws and customs. She was under hard and oppressive rites, like slavery. She was also in bondage to sin, (Jn 8:33,34;) but this does not seem to be the idea here.

With her children. Her inhabitants. She is represented as a mother; and her inhabitants, the Jews, are in the condition of the son of Hagar. On this passage, comp. 1Cor 10:4, for a more full illustration of the principles involved here.

(3) "answereth" "is in the same rank with" Verse 26. But Jerusalem which is above. The spiritual Jerusalem; the true church of God. Jerusalem was the place where God was worshipped, and hence it became synonymous with the word church, or is used to represent the people of God. The word rendered "above" (ανω) means, properly, up above, that which is above; and hence heavenly, celestial, Col 3:1,2, Jn 8:23. Here it means, the heavenly or celestial Jerusalem. Rev 21:2: "And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God, out of heaven." He 12:22: "Ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem." Here it is used to denote the church, as being of heavenly origin.

Is free. The spirit of the gospel is that of freedom. It is freedom from sin, freedom from the bondage of rites and customs, and it tends to promote universal freedom. Gal 4:7. Comp. Jn 8:32, Jn 8:36; 2Cor 3:17.

Which is the mother of us all. Of all who are true Christians, whether we are by birth Jews or Gentiles. We should not, therefore, yield ourselves to any degrading and abasing servitude of any kind. Comp. 1Cor 6:12.

(a) "Jerusalem" He 12:22, Rev 21:2,10 Verse 27. For it is written. This passage is found in Isa 44:1. For an exposition of its meaning as it occurs there, see my Notes on Isaiah. The object of the apostle in introducing it here seems to be to prove that the Gentiles, as well as the Jews, would partake of the privileges connected with the heavenly Jerusalem. He had in the previous verse spoken of the Jerusalem from above as the common mother of ALL true Christians, whether by birth Jews or Gentiles. This might be disputed or doubted by the Jews; and he therefore adduces this proof from the Old Testament. Or if it was not doubted, still the quotation was pertinent, and would illustrate the sentiment which he had just uttered. The mention of Jerusalem as a mother seems to have suggested this text. Isaiah had spoken of Jerusalem as a female that had been long desolate and childless, now rejoicing by a large accession from the Gentile world, and increased in numbers like a female who should have more children than one who had been long married. To this Paul appropriately refers when he says that the whole church, Jews and Gentiles, were the children of the heavenly Jerusalem, represented here as a rejoicing mother. He has not quoted literally from the Hebrew, but he has used the Septuagint version, and has retained the sense. The sense is, that the accession from the Gentile world would be far more numerous than the Jewish people had ever been--a prophecy that has been already fulfilled.

Rejoice thou barren that bearest not. As a woman who has had no children would rejoice. This represents probably the heathen world, as having been apparently forsaken and abandoned, and with whom there had been none of the true children of God.

Break forth and cry. Or, "break forth and exclaim;" i.e., break out into loud and glad exclamations at the remarkable accession. The cry here referred to was to be a joyful cry or shout; the language of exultation. So the Hebrew word in Isa 44:1, means.

For the desolate. She who was desolate and apparently forsaken. It literally refers to a woman who had seemed to be desolate and forsaken, who was unmarried. In Isaiah it may refer to Jerusalem, long forsaken and desolate, or as some suppose to the Gentile world. Isa 44:1.

Than she which hath an husband. Perhaps referring to the Jewish people as in covenant with God, and often spoken of as married to him, Isa 62:4,6, 44:5.

(b) "it is written" Isa 44:1 Verse 28. Now we, brethren. We who are Christians.

Are the children of promise. We so far resemble Isaac, that there are great and precious promises made to use. We are not in the condition of Ishmael, to who no promise was made.

Persecuted him that was born after the Spirit. That is, Isaac. The phrase, "after the Spirit," here is synonymous with "according to the promise," in the previous verse. It stands opposed to the phrase, "after the flesh," and means that his birth was by the special or miraculous agency of God. See Rom 4. It was not in the ordinary course of events. The persecution here referred to, was the injurious treatment which Isaac received from Ishmael, or the opposition which subsisted between them. The particular reference of Paul is doubtless to Gen 21:9, where it is said that "Sarah saw the son of Hagar the Egyptian, which she had borne unto Abraham, mocking." It was on account of this, and at the special request of Sarah, that Hagar and her son were expelled from the house of Abraham, Gen 21:10.

Even so it is now. That is, Christians, the children of the promise, are persecuted by the Jews, the inhabitants of Jerusalem, "as it now is," and who are uninterested in the promises, as Ishmael was. For an illustration of this, see Paley's Horae Pauline, on this [Epistle, No. V. Dr. Paley has remarked, that it does not appear that the apostle Paul was ever set upon by the Gentiles, unless they were first stirred up by the Jews, except in two instances. One of these was at Philippi, after the cure of the Pythoness, (Acts 16:19;) and the other at Ephesus, at the instance of Demetrius, Acts 19:24. The persecutions of the Christians arose, therefore, mainly from the Jews--from those who were in bondage to the law, and to rites and customs; and Paul's allusion here to the case of the persecution which Isaac the free-born son endured, is exceedingly pertinent and happy.

(d) "he that was born" Gen 21:9 (e) "even so it is now" Jn 15:19 Verse 30. Nevertheless. But, (αλλα.)

What saith the Scripture? What does the Scripture teach on the subject? What lesson does it convey in regard to the bondman?

Cast out the bond-woman and her son. This was the language of Sarah, in an address to Abraham, requesting him to cast out Hagar and Ishmael, Gen 21:10. That was done. Paul uses it here as applicable to the case before him. As used by him, the meaning is, that everything like servitude in the gospel is to be rejected, as Hagar and Ishmael were driven away. It does not mean, as it seems to me, that they were to expel the Jewish teachers in Galatia, but that they were to reject everything like servitude and bondage; they were to adhere only to that which was free. Paul cannot here mean that the passage in Gen 21:10 originally had reference to the gospel, for nothing evidently was farther from the mind of Sarah than any such reference; nor can it be shown that he meant to approve of or vindicate the conduct of Sarah; but he finds a passage applicable to his purpose, and he conveys his ideas in that language as exactly expressing his meaning. We all use language in that way wherever we find it.

(f) "what saith the Scripture" Gen 21:10,12 Verse 31. So then, brethren. It follows from all this. Not from the allegory regarded as an argument--for Paul does not use it thus--but from the considerations suggested on the whole subject. Since the Christian religion is so superior to the Jewish; since we are by it freed from degrading servitude, and are not in bondage to rites and ceremonies; since it was designed to make us truly free, and since by that religion we are admitted to the privileges of sons, and are no longer under laws, and tutors, and governors, as if we were minors; from all this it follows, that we should feel and act, not as if we were children of a bond-woman, and born in slavery, but as if we were children of a free-woman, and born to liberty. It is the birthright of Christians to think, and feel, and act like freemen; and they should not allow themselves to become the slaves of customs, and rites, and ceremonies, but should feel that they are the adopted children of God.

Thus closes this celebrated allegory--an allegory that has greatly perplexed most expositors, and most readers of the Bible. In view of it, and of the exposition-above, there are a few remarks which which may not inappropriately be made.

(1.) It is by no means affirmed that the history of Hagar and Sarah in Genesis had any original reference to the gospel. The account there is a plain historical narrative, not designed to have any such reference.

(2.) The narrative contains important principles, that may be used as illustrating truth, and is so used by the apostle Paul. There are parallel points between the history and the truths of religion, where the one may be illustrated by the other.

(3.) The apostle does not use it at all in the way of argument, or as if that proved that the Galatians were not to submit to the Jewish rites and customs. It is an illustration of the comparative nature of servitude and freedom, and would, therefore, illustrate the difference between a servile compliance with Jewish rites, and the freedom of the gospel.

(4.) This use of an historical fact by the apostle does not make it proper for us to turn the Old Testament into allegory, or even to make a very free use of this mode of illustrating truth. That an allegory may be used sometimes with advantage no one can doubt, while the "Pilgrim's Progress" shall exist. Nor can any one doubt that Paul has here derived, in this manner, an important and striking illustration of truth from the Old Testament. But no one acquainted with the history of interpretation can doubt that vast injury has been done by a fanciful mode of explaining the Old Testament; by making every fact in its history an allegory; and every pin and pillar of the tabernacle and the temple a type. Nothing is better fitted to bring the whole science of interpretation into contempt, nothing more dishonours the Bible, than to make it a book of enigmas, and religion to consist in puerile conceits. The Bible is a book of sense; and all the doctrines essential to salvation are plainly revealed. It should be interpreted, not by mere conceit and by fancy, but by the sober laws according to which are interpreted other books. It should be explained, not under the influence of a vivid imagination, but under the influence of a heart imbued with a love of truth, and by an understanding disciplined to investigate the meaning of words and phrases, and capable of rendering a reason for the interpretation which is proposed. Men may abundantly use the facts in the Old Testament to illustrate human nature, as Paul did; but far distant be the day when the principles of Origen and of Cocceius shall again prevail, and when it shall be assumed that "the Bible means everything that it can be made to mean."

*See Appendix, pp. 1731 if., Note 57