Casting Shadows, Part 6: St. Paul to the Galatians

Tell me, you who desire to be under law, do you not hear the law? For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by a slave and one by a free woman. But the son of the slave was born according to the flesh, the son of the free woman through promise. Now this is an allegory: these women are two covenants. One is from Mount Sinai, bearing children for slavery; she is Hagar. Now Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia; she corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children. But the Jerusalem above is free, and she is our mother. For it is written, "Rejoice, O barren one who does not bear; break forth and shout, you who are not in travail; for the children of the desolate one are many more than the children of her that is married." (Gal. 4:21-27)

Any discussion of St. Paul's epistle to the Galatians almost has to include a lengthy pre-discussion of the Jerusalem Council and the heresy of the Judaizers. You can read all about it in Acts 15, in fact.

I do not intend to spend the time having that lengthy discussion here, since the examination of Gal. 4:21-27 will be quite lengthy all by itself. By way of summary, then, let me just outline the problem that is the background of the Epistle to the Galatians:

The Jews had been given, through Abraham, an everlasting covenant sign: circumcision on the eighth day. When God gave this covenant to Abraham, there was certainly no indication that it would ever cease: "This is my covenant, which you shall keep, between me and you and your descendants after you: Every male among you shall be circumcised ... He that is eight days old among you shall be circumcised ... So shall my covenant be in your flesh an everlasting covenant." (Gen. 17:10, 12, 13)

In the early Church the question arose almost immediately: Gentile converts to the Old Covenant had to receive circumcision as their sort of "sacrament of initiation" - do Gentile converts to the New Covenant have to receive circumcision as well?

We so easily dismiss this question today, because the issue has been settled. Quite literally, St. Peter has spoken, the case is closed. But try to understand the difficulty; try to put yourself in St. Paul's shoes.

You have no New Testament yet. All you have is the Old Testament. And the last thing we heard from God in the Old Testament was that this circumcision thing was absolutely necessary. What does the Old Testament say? Observe:

1) This is an everlasting covenant "in your flesh" (Gen. 17:13)

2) Anyone who does not receive circumcision "shall be cut off," because "he has broken my covenant." (Gen. 17:14)

3) Every great saint and patriarch of the Old Testament - Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Judah, Joseph, Moses, Aaron, Joshua, Gideon, Samson, Samuel, David, Solomon, Isaiah, Ezekial, Amos, Hosea, Daniel - for nearly 4,000 years, all of the saints submitted to this rite

4) Moses was nearly killed by God for failing to circumcise his son; his wife circumcised the boy at the last minute and saved Moses' life (Ex. 4:24-26)

5) Joshua had all Israel circumcised before they entered the Promised Land - although they had not been circumcised during their wilderness wanderings, yet when it was time to receive God's inheritance, they prepared for it by circumcision

Appreciate St. Paul's challenge! He has to demonstrate to these Jewish converts to Christianity that circumcision is an out-moded ritual that is no longer necessary in the New Covenant - and there is nothing in the Scriptures that say that circumcision was a temporary provision.

These Judaizers in the Christian Church were going around preaching the gospel of circumcision - according to Acts, these men were saying, "Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved." (Acts 15:1) St. Paul himself seems to have been perplexed by the question, because he goes straight to St. Peter and St. James to confirm his suspicions - this becomes the occasion for the Jerusalem Council.

At the council, Acts tells us, there was "much debate." (vs. 7) Finally, St. Peter makes the decree: "why do you make trial of God by putting a yoke upon the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear? ... we believe that we shall be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will." (vss. 10-11)

Although the Church rendered the dogmatic decree, still the Judaizers continued to stir up trouble in the churches - Galatia among them. The entirety of St. Paul's epistle to the Galatians is a sustained diatribe against the necessity of circumcision. He takes the Galatians to task because they, after having been brought into the New Covenant and trained in the gospel, were now starting to listen to the Judaizers and contemplating circumcision.

Here, in chapter 4, he continues his argument against circumcision by appealing to the story of Sarah and Hagar.

You've got to love St. Paul. In spite of the fact that there is no explicit proof in the Old Testament for his anti-circumcision gospel, not only does he turn to the Old Testament to prove his case, he runs right to Abraham himself - the one figure in all of the Old Testament whom the Judaizers could have pointed to - and probably did - as proof of the necessity of circumcision.

"Remember Abraham! God said this was an everlasting covenant!"

St. Paul does not shy away here - he dives right into the controversy and attempts the impossible: to claim Abraham as a proof for a gospel apart from circumcision.

To appreciate what a daring move this is, consider this analogy: imagine if a Protestant said to you, "I'm going to prove that salvation is by faith alone, and to do so, I'd like you to turn to James 2." For those of you who know your New Testament, you know that James 2 is a happy hunting ground for Catholics who need prooftexts in favor of justification by faith and works. James 2 is full of such useful texts! Any Protestant who would immediately run to James 2 to prove salvation by faith alone would have to be crazy.

St. Paul certainly seems a bit crazy here.

Watch carefully, though, how he constructs his case with precision. "Abraham had two wives," he says, "one was a slave and one was free."

Already, he has framed the question in the way he wants it framed, and given us our two categories: we are not looking at the categories of circumcised versus uncircumcised, we are looking at the categories of freedom versus slavery. Interesting twist, isn't it?

Notice that he names no one yet. He does not name Isaac, Ishmael, Sarah, or Hagar. Here, and in the next verse, they are simply the "slave," the "freewoman," and the respective "sons" of the two women.

Everyone knows who he is talking about: Isaac and Ishmael. Isaac, the "son of promise," born of Sarah; and Ishmael, the "son according to the flesh," born of Hagar, Sarah's Egyptian handmaiden.

What happened to these two sons? Ishmael was cast out and disinherited; Isaac was the chosen seed through whom Israel (and later, the Messiah) would be born. In fact, so complete is the casting out of Ishmael in Gen. 21, that in Gen. 22 God can say, "Take your son, your only son Isaac, whom you love, and go to the land of Moriah..."

How does this relate to circumcision? Both sons were circumcised, were they not? Ah, but only one of them was circumcised in a way that fully corresponded to God's command. Abraham was given the command when Ishmael was 13, and Isaac was not yet born. Thus, Ishmael was circumcised at 13 years of age, and Isaac was circumcised on the 8th day, according to God's desires.

Hear what I'm saying: Genesis 21, the casting out of Ishmael, is a perfect proof-text for the Judaizers. "See there, Paul! So necessary is this circumcision that even Ishmael was cast out because he was not circumcised according to the Law!"

But St. Paul executes here what Richard Hays calls "hermeneutical jujitsu" - he reaches for this very text which would seem to support the Judaizers, and uses its strength to his own advantage.

The trap is sprung with these words: "these women are two covenants." Two peoples, two nations - that would make sense, and indeed, the rabbis often interpreted these two women as symbols of the Gentiles (Hagar) and Israelites (Sarah) ... but "two covenants?"

See how St. Paul strings them together:

1) Hagar --> Sinai --> Arabia --> Slavery
2) Sarah --> Heavenly Jerusalem --> Freedom

While his opponents reel from the blow, the pieces start to fall into place: Hagar was an Egyptian; Ishmael was the father of the Arab nations; Mt. Sinai is in Arabia; the Israelites went there after leaving Egypt, where they had been for centuries in slavery.

But is this not the ultimate irony? The Covenant of Sinai was given after Israel had been set free from slavery - it was a covenant of freedom, was it not? Not according to St. Paul:

"Now Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia; she corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children. But the Jerusalem above is free, and she is our mother." (vs. 25-26)

Do not confuse something here: when St. Paul speaks of "two covenants" here, we modern-day Christians tend to think he means "Old Covenant" and "New Covenant." That is, Moses vs. Christ.

Not so.

When St. Paul says "two covenants," he is actually thinking of "Old Covenant" vs. "Older Covenant" - Moses vs. Abraham. This is what he explains quite explicitly in the previous chapter:

"... the law [the Old Covenant with Moses], which came four hundred and thirty years afterward [after the Covenant with Abraham], does not annul a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to make the promise void."

So what was the purpose of the Old Mosaic Covenant? "It was added because of transgressions, till the sperma ("seed") should come to whom the promise had been made."

Wait, wait, wait! What is he talking about? The "seed" to whom the promise had been made? That was Isaac, right? No.

"Now the promises were made to Abraham and to his spermati [singular]. It does not say, 'And to spermasin,' [plural] referring to many; but, referring to one, 'And to your spermati,' which is Christ." (3:16)

Do you catch the force of St. Paul's argument? The promise was to Abraham and to his singular seed, Christ. And what happened in the meantime, while the world was waiting for this singular seed to come and receive His promise? In the interim, because of sin, the Mosaic Covenant was added.

For what purpose???

"... the law was our paidagogos until Christ came, that we might be justified by faith. 25 But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a paidagogon." (vs. 24-25)

What is this "paidagogos?" The word means "custodian," "schoolmaster," "instructor," "teacher," and so on. Strong's Concordance has an interesting historical note: "Among the Greeks and the Romans the name was applied to trustworthy slaves who were charged with the duty of supervising the life and morals of boys belonging to the better class. The boys were not allowed so much as to step out of the house without them before arriving at the age of manhood."

In other words: sons, heirs to the father's estate, were placed under the care of these custodians until the sons arrived at the age of manhood, when they could finally be treated as true sons and rule with authority.

But what were they until that time? What were these sons while they were under the authority of the paidagogos? St. Paul sets it up for us in the beginning of chapter 4: " the heir, as long as he is a child, is no better than a slave, though he is the owner of all the estate; but he is under guardians and trustees until the date set by the father." (vs. 1-2)

Do you see the connection yet? The Mosaic Law was a temporary provision, a paidagogos meant to rule over the sons until the Seed came to receive His promise - which meant that, until Christ came, the sons were "no better than slaves."

And who was the slavewoman? Hagar. So who is the mother of the Mosaic Covenant children, those who are "no better than slaves?" Hagar. Which makes the son-slave children associated with whom? Ishmael.

"But, Paul, Ishmael was the slave-son who was cast out!"

Precisely, says St. Paul: "But what does the scripture say? 'Cast out the slave and her son; for the son of the slave shall not inherit with the son of the free woman.'" (4:30)

And now St. Paul has taken Genesis 21 - potentially the Judaizers' most powerful prooftext - and turned it back on them: they are Ishmael, and just as Ishmael was disinherited as a son of Abraham, even though he could claim "but I was circumcised!", so likewise these Judaizers are still sons of Hagar who can potentially be disinherited as Abraham's biological children - even though they can claim circumcision.

They are biological children of Abraham, it is true; but that is why St. Paul introduces that very distinction: "the son of the slave was born according to the flesh, the son of the free woman through promise." (4:23)

At this point, his opponents are staggering. They are sons of Abraham by flesh and blood; but so was Ishmael. They were circumcised; but so was Ishmael. And now St. Paul drops the final bomb: "But as at that time he who was born according to the flesh persecuted him who was born according to the Spirit, so it is now." (vs. 29)

Boom.

Ishmael persecuted Isaac, at least, according to the rabbinic traditions. The Gen. 21 text just says: "Sarah saw the son of Hagar the Egyptian, whom she had borne to Abraham, playing with her son Isaac." This prompts her to say, "Cast out this slave woman with her son; for the son of this slave woman shall not be heir with my son Isaac." (21:9-10)

Now that word, "playing," is tsaw-KHAK, which can have the connotation of mocking, making sport, etc. The rabbis read all sorts of things into this verse, from violence, to mocking, to molestation.

At any rate, St. Paul has made the Judaizer-Ishmael connection stick: they are sons of Abraham "according to the flesh"; they received circumcision; and they are now persecuting the Christians. Incidentally, I believe this is why St. Paul spends the time early in the epistle to remind everyone of his former life as a Jew: "I persecuted the church of God violently and tried to destroy it ... [the Jewish Christians] only heard [of my conversion] and said, 'He who once persecuted us is now preaching the faith he once tried to destroy.'" (1:13, 23) He also attributes this persecution to the Judaizers particularly: "he who is troubling you will bear his judgment ... if I, brethren, still preach circumcision, why am I still persecuted? ... I wish those who unsettle you would mutilate themselves!" (5:10-12)

The persecution perpetrated by the Judaizers, then, aligns them with Ishmael - the conclusion is unavoidable. And precisely because of this persecution by Ishmael, it was Sarah who said "cast out this slave woman with her son." So likewise, St. Paul says to the church at Galatia, "Cast out the slave and her son; for the son of the slave shall not inherit with the son of the free woman." (4:30)

Note that he has slightly modified the original text, without changing anything of substance, in order to make it suit his argument:

Original - "for the son of this slave woman shall not be heir with my son Isaac."

Modified - "for the son of the slave shall not inherit with the son of the free woman."

As Hays pointed out, the effect of this slight modification is powerful: St. Paul has transformed this from the word of Sarah to Abraham, to the Word of Scripture to the Church of Galatia. It is no longer Sarah who is speaking thousands of years ago, it is the Voice of Scripture speaking in the present day.

To summarize, then: by already setting up the discussion in terms of slaves versus sons (4:1-7), by drawing upon the analogy of a son-slave under the authority of a "custodian," (3:16-4:2) and by interpreting Abraham's "seed" as being Christ, not Isaac, (3:16) St. Paul has set the stage to receive and amplify the echoes of Sarah, Hagar, Isaac, and Ishmael.

The attributes of Hagar (Egyptian, slave, mother of the Arabs) naturally lend themselves to association with the Mosaic Covenant (sworn in Arabia, with former slaves, recently escaped from Egypt), and help St. Paul to make the Hagar-slave-Egypt/Moses-Sinai-Slavery connection even stronger.

The momentum of all these various elements work together to hurl the Jewish reader into the inevitable conclusion: the Judaizers are Ishmael, persecuting the Christian Isaac, and as such, are condemned by Scripture to be "cast out" and disinherited.

This leaves us with one riddle left to solve: why does St. Paul quote from Isaiah in the middle of this argument? Observe:

"Now Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia; she corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children. But the Jerusalem above is free, and she is our mother. For it is written, 'Rejoice, O barren one who does not bear; break forth and shout, you who are not in travail; for the children of the desolate one are many more than the children of her that is married.'" (Gal. 4:25-27)

This seemingly irrelevant quotation would be nearly impossible to explain apart from the groundwork already laid above - but once we have the clear picture of the Hagar-Slave-Judaism and Sarah-Son-Christianity dichotomy painted for us by St. Paul, this quote from Isaiah makes a lot more sense.

Sing, O barren one, who did not bear; break forth into singing and cry aloud, you who have not been in travail! For the children of the desolate one will be more than the children of her that is married, says the LORD ... For a brief moment I forsook you, but with great compassion I will gather you. (Is. 54:1, 7)

Naturally, this quote all by itself explains very little. It is the context of Isaiah 54 that reveals its usefulness here, and in this case, the "context" takes us all the way back to Isaiah 51.

Look to Abraham your father and to Sarah who bore you ... For the LORD will comfort Zion ... and will make her wilderness like Eden, her desert like the garden of the LORD. (Is. 51:2-3)

And the ransomed of the LORD shall return, and come to Zion with singing; everlasting joy shall be upon their heads. (Is. 51:11)

Break forth together into singing, you waste places of Jerusalem; for the LORD has comforted his people, he has redeemed Jerusalem. (Is. 52:9)

Yet it was the will of the LORD to bruise [His servant] ... when he makes himself an offering for sin, he shall see his offspring ... he shall see the fruit of the travail of his soul and be satisfied. (Is. 53:10-11)

Sing, O barren one, who did not bear; break forth into singing and cry aloud, you who have not been in travail! For the children of the desolate one will be more than the children of her that is married, says the LORD. (Is. 54:1)

Many images collide here, but the central one is that of two Jerusalems: a barren, wilderness-like, wasted Jerusalem, and a future Jerusalem that is fruitful, garden-like, and bearing many children.

In St. Paul's quote, the "children of the desolate one," who is "the barren one," are more numerous than "the children of her that is married." The proxmity of Is. 54:1 to Is. 51:2 suggests that maybe, in St. Paul's mind, the "barren one" is Sarah, who will have more children than "her that is married."

But who is Sarah? In St. Paul's allegory, he follows all the way through with the image and says that Sarah is the "Jerusalem above," who is "free," and who is "our mother." (4:25-26) Thus, Sarah is the New and Fruitful Jerusalem, which is the Mother Church, while Hagar is the barren and wasted Jerusalem, "the present Jerusalem ... in slavery with her children," which is Judaism.

The message is clear: the Galatians must reject the advances of the Judaizers, lest they be placed back under the Mosaic paidagogos, revert to being "no better than a slave," and lose their sonship - to accept circumcision as part of a religious requirement is to trade their freedom for slavery, to become Ishmael instead of Isaac, and to finally become the object of the command to "cast out the slave woman and her son!"

Hurtling through his flawless argument, St. Paul arrives with authority at his concluding point, an excellent summary of everything that has just been said: "For freedom Christ has set us free; stand fast therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery." (5:1)

Now that we understand the steps he has taken to arrive here, perhaps we can better appreciate the force of this passionate concluding statement.