Galatians Chapter 4

vs 21

We can often think that the Law just includes all those rules. But the term "The Law" is more what we would call the Pentataeuch. So that includes all that important stuff in Genesis and the beginning of Exodus. And that's what Paul includes here.

vs 22

This is where Paul's argument style really comes out with both guns blazing. It is not a logical argument, but it is supposed to be a convincing argument. I'm pretty sure this forms a rabbinical argument, but I'll be damned if I can find the book I'm looking for that says so, so I'll just move on.

vs 23

So one child represents the will of God, and the other one the will of man.

vs 24

Paul openly admits that he is taking this story figuratively, and yet he considers (and expects the Galatians to consider) this a valid intepretation of God's Law. So Hagar's child represents a covenant to make slaves of its children.

vs 25

The reason Hagar stands for Mt Sinai is because that is where the Law was given. The reason she stands for Jerusalem is because that is where the Law is followed. So Hagar the slave girl will always give birth to slaves, and as such the covenants of Sinai and Jerusalem will always be covenants of slavery, according to Paul.

vs 26

But heaven is a place of freedom, the new Jerusalem.

vs 27

Now I'm not sure if Isaiah was talking about Sarah's children in this verse, but he might have been. But what Paul is saying is that the children of the free woman covenant, of the heavenly covenant, are far more than that of the slave covenant of Jerusalem. And in numbers, that would easily have been true. Jews have never been all that populous.

vs 28

So the Galatians, and we assume ourselves, are children of the promise - Isaac, the one God said Abraham would have.

vs 29

So in the history of Judaism, the Ishmaelites harassed and persecuted the Israelites. And now, says Paul, the Jews persecute the Christians. He is drawing comparisons to show that Christianity is superior to Judaism.

vs 30

Oh come one Paul, this is completely out of context! If I were to preach a sermon on this level of analogous reasoning, I'd be drummed out of church! If I were to write an essay on this sort of logic, I'd be failed. And it is still not correct to do this sort of interpretation ourselves. But where it is done in the Bible, we've got to accept it. God does use whole stories as analogies, we know that. But we've got to be sure that he has used them and how far the analogies go before we get too deep into them. Paul goes pretty deep here, but we accept that it is true because it's Scripture. And God has said that the Jew will not share in the inheritance of the Christian. What does this mean for all those dispensationalist pro-Israel people? I don't know. But I wouldn't want to disobey God. Doesn't mean I want to round up Jews and put them into Concentration Camps either. It does mean I would not tell a Jew that their position in heaven is secure because of the blood in their veins.

vs 31

"Therefore..." ??? So the argument goes, "here's a story from Genesis. I've made the bits all mean different things and represent stuff, and because I've done that, therefore you fit into one side and not the other". Well, you've convinced me Paul. Tell me the one again about how sheeps' bladders can be used to prevent earthquakes.