to 5:1 Life of Legalism Portrayed, Pt. 2

Let's read Galatians 4.21 down to 5.1, and Myles is going to take part three next week. So the title of our lesson is Life of Legalism for Trade. This is part two, and I'll review part one briefly after you read the scripture. Okay, starting with verse 21. Tell me, you who want to be under the law, do you listen to the law?

For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by the bondwoman and one by the free woman. But the son by the bondwoman was born according to the flesh, and the son by the free woman through the promise. This is allegorically speaking, for these women are two covenants, one proceeding from Mount Sinai bearing children who are to be slaves. She is Hagar. Now this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is slavery with her children, but the Jerusalem above is free. She is our mother, for it is written Chapter 5, verse 1? No,

47. Rejoice, barren woman, who does not bear, bring forth and shout, you who are not in labor, for more numerous are the children of the desolate than of those who has a husband. And you, brethren, like Isaac, are children of promise, But as at that time he who was born according to flesh persecuted him who was born according to the Spirit, so it is now also. But what does the Scripture say? Cast out the bondwoman and her son, for the son of the bondwoman shall not be an heir with the son of the free woman. So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free woman. It was for freedom that Christ set us free. Therefore, keep standing firm and do not be subject again to the yoke of slavery.

All right, thank you, Bob. So Myles is going to cover this next week. I'm going to let him interpret the passage from Isaiah. This will be a challenge in itself, right? But I'm sure he'll do a better job than I could. So look forward to next week's teaching, Myles. All right, so let's take a look, as we usually do. It's the last week's lesson. I think kind of two bullet points here.

I think part one, the Galatians are challenged about not only their hearing, but their understanding of the law. It wasn't that they could hear the law, maybe speak the law, but understanding the law, ultimately, Paul said, you haven't cut it. You're not making it. And secondly, they're reminded that Abraham had two sons, one born of a bondwoman, and the other which is after the flesh, and the other of a free woman after the promise.

And this is an allegory or symbolic in terms of its interpretation. We're going to return to that term allegory in today's lesson. Now one thing you'll see in this passage, and I think if you followed closely enough with what Bob read, Ultimately, there's a lot of redundancy in these 11 verses or so. So we're going to kind of come back over the same thing time and time again, and Myles next week will reinforce this, I think, and maybe add some embellishment to it. But nevertheless, the redundancy is purposeful. And if you think of the book of Galatians overall, there's a lot of redundancy in the book of Galatians. You could probably take the six chapters and summarize it in two, but that's not what the Lord has for us. This is an important message that Paul is giving the church at Galatia, and I think it's an important message for us today.

All right, so first verse for today. This is Galatians 24b. I stopped halfway through 24 just because I think the theme kind of changes a little bit within this text. So let's look at 24b. For there are two covenants, or these are two covenants. The one from Mount Sinai, which gives birth to bondage, which is Hagar. And let's stop and just think about what's a covenant.

A promise? Speak loudly, please. A promise? A promise? that contract. Other thoughts? Agreement. Agreement. All right. Let's look first at what Merriam-Webster calls a covenant. It's a formal, solemn, and binding agreement or a compact or a contract. It's an agreement that really is between two parties, a person who in fact generates the covenant and a person who agrees to it. Let's see what Strong says about this, and this is the Greek term diatheke, I think the emphasis on the third part of this, diatheke. The word covenant is used to denote the close relationship which God entered into first with Noah, then with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and their posterity, but especially with Abraham and afterwards through Moses with the people of Israel. So that's the definition given by Strong and Thayer, et cetera, and the sources we all have access to.

Now, the question for the class, what's the difference between the covenants of God and man? Let's summarize. The one of man is that it's a contract. And that of God is a little different. What's different here? Conditions. I'm sorry? Conditions. Whether it's conditional or not. Is it conditional? Some are and some aren't. Right. Well, the ones mentioned here by Strong, are those conditional? Right.

Maybe you can trust it, and if he decides not to do it, then you have to go to court, and you have to go down that road. But with God, I mean, it's just, it is what, you can't just trust it. Well, but back to Bob's comment, conditional would mean what, if it's conditional on contract, or a promise is conditional? It could be broken. Well, it's conditional on certain things that are in the contract, and maybe if one party doesn't what they're supposed to do, the contract can be broken. Let's think about that in context here.

You know, the book of Galatians refers to the promise to Abraham, doesn't it? Is that conditional? No. I mean, in general, these covenants that God has formed with the nation of Israel and people who preceded it really were not conditional on anything. These were in fact mandates of God in terms of what really promise is a better term. These are promises to individuals, including Abraham, but also Noah and others, Isaac, Jacob, etc., of what was to follow.

They weren't conditional on their response. Ultimately, God will see his plan to be fulfilled. It's conditional to the extent we have a responsibility to understand the covenant, but to live up to it isn't the only condition. God's covenant is not requiring any human response. Yes, Jim.

When God made the covenant with Abraham, Abraham wasn't even involved in that covenant. point about the condition, what was the condition, what made this conditional in any sense at all? What was Abraham's response needed to be? He had to respond by faith, right? And that's, Abraham is the giant of faith, is he not? It's the first perfect example. I mean, Noah responded in faith too, he built the ark. It took him about 80 or 100 years to build it, but he built the ark. So Bob? Yeah, go ahead.

So the Abrahamic Covenant, the unconditional part is eternal, but it is conditional in that it was offered over and over again, but rejected. Even when Christ came the first time, it was rejected. So that part of the Abrahamic Covenant was conditional, but ultimately it's unconditional because it's eternal.

God will That's the point I'm trying to make. The covenant from God is unconditional. We have a response by faith to all of these covenants that he's generated. This isn't a contract, in a sense. This is God's word to be fulfilled eternally. And the response that's demanded is one by faith. We live by faith today and all the promises he's made to us as a church, right? Ultimately, the believer is the only one who can respond to that covenant that he's made with the church, not the unbeliever. So the condition is for us to respond by faith.

But yet, eternally, you said it well, Bob, it's an eternal covenant. It's given by God to be fulfilled. Yes. Just a thought, in clarification, it might help to look at the Noahic covenant. It was two parts. By faith, he built the ark, yes, but on God's part, he gave us the rainbow signifying his part. Unconditionally, he will not flood the earth again.

OK, but we didn't know that that was part of the covenant that was offered by Noah, do we? I think so. It's in scripture. Well, no one didn't know that there was going to be a rainbow, right? God gave that as part of his covenant, didn't he? So that we would know that.

Okay, well we could spend a whole day talking about this, but I think in general God's covenants really are from him with the expectation that by faith we respond. Whereas the contract between man and another man or woman is a different kind of deal. You know, both have responsibilities, they both sign the contract, right? So that's really what Merriam-Webster has defined here as a formal solemn binding agreement that relates to both the person who generates the covenant and the person who signs on to it. All right, let's go ahead.

The one from Mount Sinai which gives birth to bondage, which is Hagar, is the second part of this verse. Why do you think that Paul feels that the Holy Spirit led him to relate Mount Sinai to bondage and Hagar? That's where the law was given? Yeah, that's where the law was given. Well, let's see what some commentators said about this. Paul, while using the story as an illustration, does so in order to prove his argument to the effect that the law is superseded by grace.

Then he speaks of the covenant of law that was given at Mount Sinai, and this is allegorically, back to allegories again, identified with Hagar. This covenant places its children in a condition of bondage. So a little bit of verbiage there, but in a sense I think he probably says this better than I could.

Constable, if the Judaizers in Galatia were using a similar kind of argument to persuade the Christian, that sonship to Abraham entailed circumcision and observance of the law would be especially appropriate for Paul to turn his opponent's own weapons back against them. The gospel is the fulfillment of the promise made to Abraham that in him and his offspring all nations would be blessed. The law, which was given later, was a parenthetical dispensation introduced by God for a limited purpose. Its validity continued only until the promise to Abraham was fulfilled in Christ, and even while it was valid, it did not modify the terms of the promise.

Two scholarly commentators have defined this in a little bit more detail. But this is this constant oil and water comparison between law and grace. Now, looking at just one side of this, the one from Mount Sinai which gives birth to the bondage, and this is Hagar. We're going to look at Hagar in a little bit more detail. Now here's a reminder, I think, of Peter's decree to the Jews during the early church age. And whosoever is the mother of the son gives birth or engenders the offspring. So here is bondage. And this is kind of a principle that's biblical from start to go throughout scripture.

So let's look at Acts 3.25. We looked at this in our study of Acts months ago, maybe even years ago at this point. So this is the early church. And here Peter is stating this to the Jews directly in terms of reminding them that their seed of all the families of the earth shall be blessed, and of course that relates to the Lord Jesus Christ.

In 2 Corinthians 3.14 we kind of see what even ultimately the Church of Corinth is reminded of, but their minds were blinded For until this day, the same veil remains unlifted. By the way, my text didn't like unlifted as a term, so I accept this into the dictionary. Unlifted in the reading of the Old Testament because the veil is taken away in Christ. So in other words, the Jewish community continues to relate to Old Testament law and principles that relate to it, and not to the promise of Abraham having been fulfilled. But the promise to Israel remains, and whether this is an appropriate text to go to here, we can discuss this, but I don't want to spend a lot of time here.

Hebrews 10.15, but the Holy Spirit also witnesses to us, for after he had said before This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, says the Lord, and I will put my laws into their hearts and into their minds and I will write them, then he adds, their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more. So this is the eternal promise that relates to the everlasting covenant promised to the nation of Israel and that's yet to be fulfilled. But ultimately I think here in context we're looking at a nation that in fact is not thinking ultimately to the Kingdom Age kind of promises that God has made to their nation. Any thoughts about this? All right, let's continue.

Verse 25. For this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia and corresponds or answers to Jerusalem. What corresponds better, although some of the translations say answers to Israel, up to Jerusalem, which now is, And she is in bondage with her children. Some versions have she is in bondage. All right. So where's Arabia? Well, south of Israel. Here's the way Arabia is described. A well-known peninsula of Asia lying towards Africa and bounded by Egypt, Palestine, Syria, Mesopotamia, Babylonia, the Gulf of Arabia, the Persian Gulf, the Red Sea, and the Indian Ocean.

And geography, advanced geography will be next week, okay? But I thought this was kind of an interesting map. Look at this map here. So find Ishmael, find Mount Sinai, And this whole issue of Arabia Felix was his initial name. And if you look at the details, Arabia Felix is really what today is Yemen, which is really the southeastern part of the Arabian Peninsula. But what I found interesting, if you look at the colors here, look at the outcome of the heritage and legacy of the family of Sarah and Isaac in purple. You see Jerusalem in the upper left?

That's Israel. And look at that. Forget the yellow, because I don't want to go there. That's a whole different topic. But look at Hagar and Ishmael. The whole Arabian Peninsula really is their turf and was. And by the way, we know that I think the next verse or the one after that is going to deal with the fact that what happened to Hagar after ultimately she was sent away.

Where'd she go? A desert, right? Yep, and she went to Arabia, but you can't envision that she went down all the way to where Arabia Felix is, which is really Yemen. So if you go to the map, This is Yemen down here, at the tip here. She must have gone here. She couldn't have gone all the way down there.

But anyway, I just think the map is, the interesting thing about it is I think all of this here is really the Muslim nations, right, and beyond. Well, if you count land mass, they have presently a lot more than Israel has, right? And most of it's sand, right? And if you look at a current map today, Israel is just a little tiny dot, and the rest are Muslim. Right, right. But it's interesting, if you look at the final analysis, Israel has all their land that God gave them, all that land, not all of it, a good part of it.

So anyway, just FYI, I thought this was kind of interesting. Alright, so how should we interpret it? This Hagar is Mount Sinai. By the way, it's not Hagar is Mount Sinai, it's this Hagar. We're going to look at this in a little bit more detail. I find this very interesting. Of interest, this is not Hagar who fled into Arabia. Here's the verse I alluded to. Genesis 21, 14.

So Abraham was early in the morning and took bread and a skin of water and putting it on her shoulder. He gave it and the boy to Hagar and sent her away. And then she departed and wandered in the wilderness of Beersheba, which is the northern part of Saudi Arabia currently. And she couldn't have wandered all the way down to Yemen where the southwest part, she probably wouldn't have survived with a skin of water and a bit of food.

Anyway, all that aside, the findings are kind of interesting. Now, but this Hagar, how do we interpret this Hagar? And that's not Hagar, it's this Hagar. If you knew this, I'd be surprised, because I had no idea. There it says, since the Arabians, according to Paul, called the rocky Mount Sinai by a name similar in sound to Hagar, the apostle in the passage refers to and employs the name Hagar allegorically, I told you we'd hear that term again, to denote the servile sense of fear with which the Mosaic economy inbred its subject. So the idea is this, this Hagar is not Hagar.

It's a name that sounds very similar to Mount Sinai, like the name rock. And so this Hagar is really referring directly to Mount Sinai and everything that it stands for. Kind of interesting. Well, many times with is, you can put an equal sign there. It's equivalent. So it's Hagar equals Mount Sinai. So that actually strengthens your point even more.

But the interpretation, and we can relate it to the woman, the Bond woman, but ultimately, because these terms sound alike, they were equated. And I think, you know, in terms of interpretation, I find it very interesting. about the bondwoman, we're going to come back to a little table later, but everything about the bondwoman relates to law, it relates to Mount Sinai, doesn't it? And so the idea that these terms are very similar in the way they sound and mean rock, we're seeing a foundation that's laid against the bondwoman and everything she stands for. Vincent, this covenant is the Hagar of that allegorical history, which is explained by the resemblance of her name to the Arabic name of Sinai. That's interesting. I hadn't heard that before. That's trivia, in a sense. But it is interesting when we really dig down into sect scripture, maybe overzealously at times, this Hagar does relate directly to Sinai.

How should we interpret corresponds to Jerusalem, which is now? Maybe I'll ask it in a different way. Isn't it extending the parallelism? So Jerusalem's in bondage, too, because it's all these and he says the current Jerusalem is there at the same spot. Well, first of all, is not Jerusalem an anti-type to Mount Sinai in terms of context in the book of Galatians? I mean, that's the free woman versus the bond woman, right? And so Jerusalem is an outcome of the free woman.

So we'll, again... But we use the word present Jerusalem, which is interesting. No, okay. So here's the question that I think maybe requires a little bit more conversation. Is Jerusalem only a present temporary existence and or in contrast with the spiritual Jerusalem of the gospel? Yeah. What do you think? You're making us think, Bob. You're making us think. Well, I'd like to make you think. What do you think?

Paul is writing and says the Jerusalem which is now. Does Paul, do you think, relates to Jerusalem as the center for the church? Bob, what about our study in Acts? Is Jerusalem the center of the church that Paul's writing to? No. Where's the church center at this time?

Ephesus? Antioch, maybe? Yep, Antioch, Ephesus, good. located in heaven. And that's 326, the Jerusalem of Baal. Well, it seems like the present Jerusalem, he's lumping in with the Mount Sinai and Hagar. They're all being held by the law in bondage. The book of Hebrews brings out this same thing in chapter 12 and it contrasts two mountains, Sinai and Zion. And of course, Sinai is the law, and Zion, which here in Galatians is Jerusalem, is grace.

What verses in Hebrews are you in? Are you chapter 12? Chapter 12, around verse 18. Okay, I'm going to go a little bit past that and come back to that. But yes, I think you're in the right place scripturally. And how would you interpret this then, based on that scripture? Well, you're comparing the Law and Grace. You're comparing two mountains, Mount Zion and Mount Sinai. Law... So you think that Mount Zion relates to Jerusalem and it's timely here interpreting Jerusalem at the time that Paul was writing, which is now, right? Mount Zion.

Yeah. Okay. Good. Now that we've concluded that complex part of scripture, let's go to verse 26. But the Jerusalem above is free, which is the mother of all, of us. People say of us, it's not in the original text. So we'll come back to that. The Jerusalem which is above, how should we interpret this? Another question to the class. So let me just point out that above or which is above is a noun. talks about a place, or is it used as an adjective describing where it is? That may be helpful to trying to understand this. What Jerusalem above is free? Remember to whom Paul is writing. It could be an adjective in the fact that when it talks about Jerusalem here, it is far above, grace is far above the law. Okay, I like that concept. Other thoughts about this? I'm going to say, is not this in a way positional truth?

And or is this the heavenly Jerusalem which was familiar to the rabbinical teachers? Apparently, the rabbis had the concept that there is a heavenly Jerusalem. I mean, they don't know it as the church knows it, but they had the idea, particularly the Pharisees who believed in the resurrection, had the view that ultimately there is a heavenly Jerusalem. And were they thinking only a kingdom age at that point in time?

I can't answer that question. But, you know, I'm looking at this, maybe I'm looking at this in too much view from above, but I'm looking at this as positional truth. That Paul is reflecting that Jerusalem above is free. We're free. Go ahead, Bob. The passage in Hebrews has reference to the coming kingdom, but here in Galatians It has reference to the grace of God as opposed to the law.

And just scripture to remind us of that. Colossians 3, 1 and 2, if then you were raised with Christ, seek those things which are above where Christ is. Sitting on the right hand of God, set your mind on things above, not on things of the earth. And one of my favorite verses, Philippians 3, 20, for our citizenships in heaven. from which we also eagerly wait for the Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ. I mean, I think Paul deals a lot with this. his epistles, but here I'd like to interpret that Jerusalem above is free, he's comparing grace with law, and I think that's my best interpretation of this. But let's look at another. Why does Paul in this verse refer to this as the mother of us all? We're going to go back to Hebrews 12 where you were a little bit further along. Why is Paul referring to this as the mother of all, mother of us all?

This is going to tie in really well with this morning's message in Romans 6.14. And who's teaching that? I will be. Oh. No wonder you're so familiar with it. I happen to know that this is going to tie in. A preview of coming attractions. Yeah. The commercial. Yeah. The commercial.

We either operate under law as children of the law, or we operate under grace as children of grace. We've been born, we've been severed from law, we've been born anew under grace, and that's the imagery that Paul is playing off of here. You're either a slave-born child or a free-born child. And I mentioned about 10 minutes ago or so that the mother is really bearing a child that reflects the outcome in terms of ultimately law versus grace. That's why we're comparing, why Paul and the Lord allows us so much scripture that defines Hagar from Sarah and the promises made by God going forward.

So I'm going to turn to Hebrews 12 and a little bit past where Bob was. 22 and 23, but you are come unto Mount Sinai, or Mount Zion, my bad, to Mount Sinai and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an immeasurable company of angels, to the General Assembly and Church of the Firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect. So how do we fit those promises or that statement into what we're studying today, Jesus?

Bob, your thoughts. Well, once Christ came and offered his sacrifice on the cross, We have now done away with Mount Sinai, and we've come into Zion, which, once again, is comparing law and grace. Grace has taken the place of law. I don't like the way I just said that.

Well, the church of the firstborn, right? We're relating Mount Sinai here to the Church of the Firstborn. And who's the Firstborn? Christ. The Firstborn of the Church, right? So I think that this kind of fits with the idea of the mother of us all in terms of here in Mount Zion is what you said a few minutes ago, comparing Mount Sinai with Mount Zion in terms of the outcome that really reflects this passage of the mother of us all.

And the mothers, of course, are the bond servant versus the free woman. And thinking about the mother, maybe think about the passage in Revelation, and this is what I found. Revelation 17, 4 and 5, and the woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet color and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls, having a golden cap on her hand full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication. And upon her forehead was written, Mystery Babylon of the Great, the mother of harlots and abominations of the earth. Mother, right? Look the way Ultimately the end times are described in terms of Satan reflected as the harlot and the mother of that whole unsaved generation. So this mother concept seems to play out even in prophecy that relates to the future. So here's a little table that we developed here.

So on the left is Hagar, the bondwoman, and Sarah, the free woman. Ishmael was born naturally. I think Myles will get into this more again next week. And Isaac was born spiritually. Hagar is part of the old covenant. Sarah is part of the new covenant. Or think of Hagar, bondwoman, earthly Jerusalem. And we're heavenly citizens, which we, I think, referred to in this passage today. And Hagar, the bondwoman, is Judaism as it still currently exists.

And of course, Christianity reflects the Lord Jesus Christ, his sacrifice and resurrection that we all relate to. And I think this summary by Garvey, I think, is pretty nice and will end with us today. It's all important to understand that man under the law is man in the flesh.

When born again, dead and risen again, he's no longer under law, which is only dominion over man and that he is alive here below. read Jerusalem, which is above our mother, not the mother of us all. It is in contrast with Jerusalem on earth, which is in its principle answered to Sinai. And observe that the apostle is not here speaking of the violation of the law, but of its principle.

I love that sentence. The law itself puts man in a state of bondage. It is imposed on man in the flesh. who is opposed to it by the very fact that he has self-will, the law and that will are in conflict. Self-will is not obedience. And the only thing I can say to that is amen.

You know, Darby sometimes, anyway, says things in a very respectful way, and I was moved by this. thoughts before we end our prayer today? Jim, could you close us in prayer please this morning? Father, we thank you for your word. It is deep, yet it is encouraging. We just thank you. We ask that you Let us put this into our hearts and remember it. We pray this in Jesus' name. Amen.