Genesis 16:13-16 Part 3 Bible Teaching

WELCOME
PRAYER
SONG
SILENCE

Genesis 16.13-end Part III
October 30th 2022
So, we are going to wrap up Paul’s insights from Galatians 4 relative to Hagar and Sara before returning to
Genesis 17.

Remember that Paul writes to the believers at Galatia because they were wrongly embracing the Law of Moses as believers and Paul has made, and will make it clear, that this is only an act that will put them in BONDAGE.

Because the Law appeals to the flesh and not the Spirit Paul (in addition to what we talked about last week) speaks of Ishmael as of the flesh but added last week –

But he who was of the free-woman (Isaac) was in accordance with a special promise from God by and through a remarkable heavenly intervention.

So, the idea of Paul here seems to be that the son of the slave was in an inferior condition relative to God from his very birth. There was no special promise attending him other than God reassuring his mother that he too would become a great nation.

But he was born into a state of inferiority and servitude, which attended him through his whole life and appears to exist someone in the nation that followed him (and I mean this spiritually).

But Isaac was met with promises as soon as he was born and was under the benefit of those promises as long as he lived as were those who came from His loins – meaning the covenant nation of Israel.

In this Paul seems to be trying to illustrate the end product of the Law – it works in and against the flesh, is geared toward the flesh and as a result, operates in and on the flesh resulting in bondage.

With it are evils from beginning to end; from the birth to the grave (as illustrated in the life of Ishmael) but blessing is illustrated through the conception, birth and life of the son of Promise.

We note that even though Ishmael’s birth and life was fleshly and subject to bondage as a man, God still blessed him – and made him a great nation which proves that even though many are not his children (God is Spirit and His children are of the Spirit) He still blesses and keeps and oversees His creations.

Paul is not interested in showing the benefits of slavery, however, even though God loves those who are in it. He want’s his reader (and those who came to know Christ) to see themselves as freemen and not slaves.

And so after introducing both Ishmael and Isaac last week he says at verses 24-26:

24 Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.
25 For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children.
26 But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.

Let’s try and wrap up with these last three verses. Paul begins by saying, “which things (that he has mentioned) are an allegory” or perhaps, “May be regarded allegorically, or as illustrating great principles in regard to the condition of slaves and freemen.”

Of course, he is not saying that the stories about Abraham’s two sons are allegories – not in the least – or that Moses had any design when writing the history to say that the story of Abraham should be seen as allegorical.

The word Paul uses here is derived from another word that means, “to speak in public” and the word does not occur anywhere else in the New Testament, nor is it found in the Septuagint, though it does occur often in the writings of the classic Greek writers.

The distinction between a parable and an allegory is that a parable is a non-factual illustration depicting an important truth (as in the parable of the good Samaritan) but an allegory is based on substantive facts used to teach something.

This is the way to see Paul’s use of the term. In our day allegory does not necessarily mean the same thing which is why we need to be careful in our assessment of what Paul is actually saying here and how he is saying it.

Allegories, parables, and metaphors abound in the writings of the East as it seems that Truth was more easily passed along in this mode and could be better preserved and transmitted when it was connected with an interesting story.

The ancient Jews were really fond of allegories, and even turned a considerable part of the Old Testament into allegory.

The ancient Greek philosophers were also fond of this type of teaching, especially guys like Pythagoras. So, the style crept into the style of many early Christians as well.

When we come to early church leaders like Origen it is not surprising that he took the liberty to take most of the Old Testament and make it allegorical – finding mysteries and meaning in some of the most simplest of content.

In so doing, the Bible became a book of mysteries wrapped in enigmas. The temptation continues today.

I tend to teach the events as factual and let people discover what they will from them by the Spirit.

But in the end, spiritualizing or allegorizing the text can become really fruitless as the most imaginative insights often bypass simplicity and humility and as a result most biblical principles get lost when allegorizing is rampant and unrestrained.

But Paul appears to use the art of allegorizing rather simply here and so the meaning of the real story is not lost. And he says:

“for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.
25 For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children.
26 But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.

And here is where Paul’s allegorizing of the two sons and their mothers jumps around. He says

For these two parties – one coming from Hagar through Ishmael and the other coming from Sarah through Isaac – are the two covenants.

Most scholars dispute the simple meaning of this and say that there is no way that there were two covenants represented OR that there is no way that Ishmael could represent “a covenant” – but I don’t see why not? Especially when Paul in his allegorizing say he does.

Didn’t God himself say that he (God) would make him a great nation – and has God not fulfilled this with the Arab nations?

Scholars suggest that Paul must mean that the two furnished an apt illustration or a representation of the two covenants – or better yet, they would show what the nature of the two covenants was – one was of bondage and one of freedom.

We will come back to these verses later because this is where it gets more difficult to understand what Paul means through his allegory.

In any case, after presenting us with the story out of the Law of Abraham and Sarah and Hagar and the two sons created in that situation, Paul presents us with, beginning at verse 24, a cumbersome set of passages, saying (again):

24 Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.
25 For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children.
26 But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.

I find the King James too cumbersome to explain these passages (to tell you the truth) as words like “gendereth” and “answereth” only complicate the matter.

So, I went to the RSV which is a pretty good substitute for the King James in terms of straight across translational clarity and the passages there say:

Galatians 4:24 Now this is an allegory: these women are two covenants. One is from Mount Sinai, bearing children for slavery; she is Hagar. (RSV)
25 Now Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia; she corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children. (RSV)
26 But the Jerusalem above is free, and she is our mother. (RSV)

Let’s work through these three passages with this translation as they are the reason we have turned to Galatians 4 in the first place. Paul says at verse 24

Galatians 4:24 Now this is an allegory:

And from here he explains how he was using the story from the Law (the first five books of the Tanakh) allegorically and he tells us, saying:

these women (Sarah and Hagar) are two covenants. One is from Mount Sinai, bearing children for slavery; she is Hagar.

Now, this is where interpretation gets a little dicey because Paul takes Hagar and assigns the Law given to the Jews on Sinai to her.

(Let me repeat this!)

She was an Egyptian slave and to do this in his allegory makes the whole thing a little cumbersome because Sarah, of either of them, would be most naturally associated with the Law of Moses which was to come.

Never-the-less, Paul takes the Egyptian slave Hagar, and the way she experienced life relative to the way Sarah and Isaac experienced life, and calls Hagar Sinai!

In doing this he makes his point – connection to the Law is equal to slavery, which is why he adds

these women (Sarah and Hagar) are two covenants. One is from Mount Sinai, bearing children for slavery; she is Hagar.

This is the whole point – to be of Sinai is to be of slavery – speaking of the Jews – and to be a child of Hagar, who is Sinai in this allegory – is to be a slave. Bondage. He continues and reiterates, saying:

25 Now Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia; she corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children.

In this verse Paul clarifies his allegory a bit better and says:

Hagar corresponds to the Present state of things – which was still standing in Paul’s day – the present Jerusalem – the brick and mortar material Jerusalem and he adds a major line:

“For she (Jerusalem) is in slavery with her children.” (the Jews)

In other words, Paul is saying directly that the COI, who were his present-day Jerusalem, were in slavery – to what? To the Law of Moses which was given on Sinai to Moses and which the Gaul’s were attempting to insert into their Christian lives.

And at this point Paul makes a really important clarification – all the way back nearly 2000 years ago. Are you ready? He says:

26 But the Jerusalem above is free, and she is our mother.

Whoa nelly! Hang on Bessie, can you hear what Paul is saying?

I don’t know how Christians today can miss the import of this passage. That since 70AD and the destruction of that city, Jerusalem of the dust, of the Law, of the former economy, the Jerusalem that was in Paul’s day which was below is over.

Jerusalem below was of the Law. It was of bondage. But it was shaken to the dust – all the way to the dust to the point that nothing of its temple remained (LISTEN) and even while it stood PAUL SPEAKS OF A JERUSALEM THAT IS ABOVE and that this New Jerusalem, which is heaven-set and spiritual, is the place where all true Christians have their citizenship as Paul calls her FREE and our mother.”

Again, in his writings Paul refers to the future Jerusalem as being above here (as it had not yet moved above in His day for the first tabernacle still stood) but this is the complexity of Paul’s teaching.

There is zero need for brick and mortars to try and resurrect Jerusalem from the dust and to give her a new temple as many crazy groups continue to promote. The real Jerusalem is above, and while we are here it – because it is spiritual – abides in us, as Jesus plainly said:

The Kingdom of God is within you.

Physical Jerusalem was the place where God was worshipped, and hence it became synonymous with the word church.

The Greek word rendered “above” (anw) means, properly, “up above,” and therefore we are told here by Paul that His church is heavenly, celestial and our mother, the real Jerusalem, reigns there.

This fact is what caused Paul to write in Colossians 3:1-2

If then you have been raised with Christ, seek the things that are above, where Christ is, seated at the right hand of God. Set your minds on things that are above, not on things that are on earth.

Why can’t we take these words seriously, that if or since we have been raised (to new life) with Christ, we ought to be seeking things that are above (like the New Jerusalem where God and Christ dwell) and set out mind ON those things (ready . . .)

AND NOT on things that are on earth?

The writer of Hebrews 12:22 says:

“Ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem.”

And in describing this New Jerusalem above John writes in Revelation 21:2:

“And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God, out of heaven.”

What does Paul wind up saying about the New Jerusalem which is above here in Galatians, which is our mother? He says two things:

But the Jerusalem above is free, and she is our mother.

First, Paul says that she is “free.”

I cannot emphasize this point enough as it is foundational, in my estimation, to the heart of God for His children – FREEDOM.

And in the face of this I boldly state that whatever impinges on freedom and liberty, especially the freedom and liberty granted all by and through Christ, is anathematic to God’s intentions for His true family of faith.

These impingements are especially true of the law, religion, demands, condemnations and manipulations.

Jerusalem above is FREE. And it is the place where God and His Christ dwell.

See, the spirit of the gospel is that of freedom. It is freedom from sin, freedom from the bondage of rites and customs, and it promotes universal freedom.

It is a city of consummate truth and as Jesus said, “the truth will set people free.”
If the truth sets us free, then lies bind and imprison.

Light reveals, darkness obscures the truth.

Love opens and welcomes, hate closes and maligns.

The Jerusalem which is above, which we are citizens of here in our hearts, is free – and therefore its citizens ought to be free and never put in any sort of bondage – any. Ever.

Speaking of God Paul says in 2nd Corinthians 3:6 “who has made us competent to be ministers of a new covenant, not in a written law but in the Spirit; for the written law kills, but the Spirit gives life.”

For this reason, we do not become lawyers who are experts in the written codes and laws, but lovers who are free to forgive and accept all – meaning we literally, as 1st Corinthians 13 states, “ believe all things, bear all things, hope all things.”

Paul confirms the spirit of Liberty and Freedom that abides in both the true Christian AND the New Jerusalem by saying in 2nd Corinthians 3:17

“Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.”

Then, in addition to saying that it is free, Paul calls the Jerusalem above,

“the mother of us all.”

In the Book of Revelation, chapter 21, John writes the following:

2 And I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband;

Here Paul calls this “holy City,” this “New Jerusalem,” the “mother of us all.”

And if (or since) she is the mother, and “a bride adorned for her husband” (who we know is Jesus) then we have our heavenly parents of the faith described as “Jesus the groom,” and the New Jerusalem above as the bride, or mother, and then all of the inhabitants of that city their children – or the Children of God.

We walk by faith that this is so. And sometimes it becomes obscured in our lives here on earth. Cling, claw, grasp – but hold to this future home in your heart. Expect it.

(beat)

Okay, so that covers the three verses we hit on last week. Let’s read on as Paul continues to appeal to this allegory.

He has said that Jerusalem above is the mother of us all and at verse 27 he cites a passage from Isaiah that is tied to the idea of a mother, and offers up a difficult passage at first sight, saying:

27 For it is written, Rejoice, thou barren that bearest not; break forth and cry, thou that travailest not: for the desolate hath many more children than she which hath an husband.

And then he continues and says to the believers at Gaul:

28 Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise.
29 But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now.
30 Nevertheless what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman.
31 So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free.

Okay, back to verse 27.

27 For (in light of what I have said in my allegory) it is written (in Isaiah 54:1)

“Rejoice, thou barren that bearest not; break forth and cry, thou that travailest not: for the desolate hath many more children than she which hath an husband.

Okay – an admission – the use of this passage remains a mystery to me because I cannot really understand the meaning of the passage when Isaiah wrote it let alone get the meaning of Paul in citing it.

Some believe this chapter in Isaiah is speaking to the Gentiles; some, to the Jewish Church; and some to the earliest Christians and the conversion of the Jews to Christ.

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.

We might say this because Paul has in the previous verse spoken of the “Jerusalem from above” as the common mother of all true Christians, whether by birth were Jews or by conversion Gentiles.

For Paul to use this on the Gaul’s is even more confusing to me.

The only parallel I can find in this passage is the passage DOES speak of a mother (albeit a barren one) and in this there seems to be a parallel between the mother of us all and the woman in the passage as Isaiah had spoken of Jerusalem as a female that had been long desolate and childless, now rejoicing by a large increase from the Gentile world.

Anyway, when Paul, citing Isaiah, writes:

For the desolate hath many more children than she which hath an husband.”

The allusion seems to be that the Desolate (the Gentiles) has many more children that she that has a husband (meaning the COI who were betrothed to God). But I cannot say for sure.

At this point Paul returns to some clarity and says directly to the believers at Galatia:

28 Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise.

We, who are believers, are the children of promise. In this allegory we resemble Isaac and are therefore free and of the freewoman, Sarah, having been adopted into the Children of Abraham.

And he adds

29 But as then he that was born after the flesh (Ishmael) persecuted him that was born after the Spirit (Isaac), even so it is now.

I don’t think Paul was referring to the Arabs persecuting the Jews here. Context suggest that the allegory is to believers being persecuted by the Judaisers, and since the believers are described by Paul as free, and the Jew as in bondage due to the law, this is a better application in my estimation.

In other words, Paul was saying that as believers, or “children of the promise lead by the Spirit and citizens of the New Jerusalem,” they were being persecuted by the Judaisers whose Kingdom was material Jerusalem under the Law which was about to be destroyed. Verse 30

30 Nevertheless what saith the scripture? (In other words, what does the scripture say about the bondwoman and her son?)

He answers this and says that it says, “Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman.”

Of course, this was the language Sarah used on Abraham when she asked him to remove Hagar and Ishmael from their lives because the son of flesh was tormenting the son of promise.

But Paul uses it here in his allegory and is essentially saying, in my estimation:

Just as Sarah had the slave bondwoman cast out from the presence of the freewoman and her son of promise, SO SHOULD EVERY CHRISTIAN CAST OUT, REMOVE, SEND OFF any semblance of bondage or appeal to bondage that is foisted upon them by written laws or the demands of Man!

Of course, while Paul may have been literal in this advice, I am not so sure that this was a literal radical call here from Paul for the believers at Galatia to physically remove Jews from their presence. We are talking about spiritual bondage here, not material distancing from people and things that we do not agree with. He adds at verse 31:

31 So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free.

By using, “so then,” he brings us back from the allegory (and his use of it) to the point of his message in the first place:

“So then brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free.”

Point made.

And the celebrated allegory—one which has greatly perplexed many scholars and bible expositors over the years – has served its purpose. Or it should.

Again, Paul appealed to the contents of the story found in Genesis to create his allegory – and this is important because we cannot make the story fit the allegory in any other way.

At this point Paul takes all he has said about the Law, having appealed to the story of the two sons and gives it application to the lives of the Gaulish believers.

This means it is time for us to go back to the original story in Genesis 17.

1 When Abram was ninety-nine years old the LORD appeared to Abram, and said to him, “I am God Almighty; walk before me, and be blameless.

Alright back to verse 1

1 When Abram was ninety-nine years old the LORD appeared to Abram, and said to him,
“I am God Almighty; walk before me, and be blameless.

Again, we come to the question of the Lord appearing to someone and since we have covered all the permutations of this there is no need to repeat them.

What in interesting is the name God assigns to himself here, saying

“I am the Almighty God”

The word in Hebrew translated Almighty is shaw-dad.

It literally means, “to be burly,” therefore powerful, and then by extension, “what destroys or ravages.”

In 1982 Christian pop singer Amy Grant made the name El Shaddai famous in a song and from it and other interpretations that exist we have come to see El Shaddai as meaning provider or supplier of all of our wants.

But the root word and the translation of it to Almighty in scripture is more in harmony with, “I am a burley God – I am not to be messed with.” Yes, I will provide and can provide and supply all needs as the Almighty, but I am more. Perhaps the best meaning of his name here, which is so beautiful is, “I cannot be overcome.”

I love that interpretation – I am God that cannot be overcome. Want to place your faith on something incomprehensibly victorious – put it on a God who cannot be overcome.

Everything else is susceptible to being beaten. Not God Almighty. And having introduced Himself to Abraham this way (this is the first time in the scripture that the Hebrew word is used) the record is set straight for Him.

We have seen thus far in Genesis that God progressively reveals Himself over time, don’t we? He will reveal His name to Moses ultimately some 900 plus years later.

And having introduced Himself to Abraham this way, what does he say to him? He says to Abram

“walk before me, and be blameless.”

Walk before me means, “set thyself to walk” be firmly purposed, thoroughly determined to obey before me.

I am God Almighty, my eye is on you therefore know who watches thee.

I mean this is phrasing sobering and hard to really believe. Is there a stronger incitement to a conscientious life than someone who has God Almighty directly introduce himself and then to direct them to walk and, he adds, (from the King James)

“And be thou perfect.”

Interestingly, these verse words were echoed by Jesus in Matthew 5:48 when He too said

Matthew 5:48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

The Word translated perfect from the Hebrew is tawmeem and means

“Be entire, having integrity, without blemish, complete and full, undefiled.”

When God is speaking, who is truth and who cannot lie, the command is meant – Abram, be complete.

The Word in Greek is teleos and it also means complete. When Jesus said it to His own, it meant the same.

God, who is holy, is not about imperfections or failures or a lack of integrity. When He speaks, He demands the ultimate expression from His creations.

This does not mean perfection was possible for Abram in a literal sense, which is why Abram was still separate from God at death. But I would suggest that in terms of human completion all things considered, he was okay.

Same with Job, where we read a description of him in the very first verse of the book using his name which says

Job 1:1 There was a man in the land of Uz, whose name was Job; and that man was perfect and upright, and one that feared God, and eschewed evil.

When Jesus came and taught, sharing the same command the Almighty gave to Abram, He couched the statement with His teaching on the Mount which served to show his listeners what was expected by God of His children.

Completion.

At the end of the day, all that Jesus said, while acceptable in terms of standards from God, were impossible. Actually, and literally impossible. In fact they were so impossible that His apostles came to Him and asked in exacerbation, “Who then can be saved?”

Jesus will tell them the purpose and point of the command for perfection and for the Law, and He said, “that with man (alone) it is impossible, but with God all things are possible.”

And that is the point of both the Good and the Great News – God so loved this world that He sent His Son who, when people look to Him in faith, justifies sinful souls before His father AND sanctifies them, making Man complete, whole, and possessing perfect integrity.

You want to be perfect and complete? Look to Jesus in faith who fulfilled the Law, the prophets, and all other things, and God will see you as such.

We will stop there.

QUESTIONS/COMMENTS
PRAYER