Expositor's Bible Commentary Commentary Galatians 4:25

"Now this Hagar is mount Sinai in Arabia and answereth to the Jerusalem that now is: for she is in bondage with her children." — Galatians 4:25 (ASV)

This basic distinction between the two sons and in the manner of their conception and birth Paul now carries out in more complete spiritual terms, using the historical account as an allegory. This does not mean that Paul’s exegesis is fanciful, as some have implied, but only that he uses the story for the sake of its major principle, which he then quite properly applies to the struggle between Judaism and Christianity. The best way to understand the allegory is to carry it through in parallel columns.

Hagar, the slave woman Ishmael, a natural birth Sarah, the free woman Isaac, a supernatural birth The The old covenant Earthly Jerusalem Judaism new covenant Heavenly Jerusalem Christianity In this arrangement Hagar, the slave woman, stands for the old covenant enacted at Mount Sinai, while her son, Ishmael, stands for Judaism with her center at earthly Jerusalem. On the other hand, Sarah, the free woman, stands for the new covenant enacted on Calvary through the blood of the Lord Jesus Christ, and her son, Isaac, stands for all who have become part of the church of the heavenly Jerusalem through faith in Christ’s sacrifice. On the most superficial level, Isaac and Ishmael were alike in that both were sons of Abraham. But on a more fundamental level they were entirely different. In the same way, Paul argues, it is not enough merely to claim Abraham as one’s father (cf. Romans 9:6–9). The question is: Who is our mother and in what way were we born? If Hagar is our mother, then we were born of purely human means and are still slaves. If our mother is Sarah, then the birth was by promise, and we are free.

It is significant that when Paul contrasts “the present city of Jerusalem” with “the Jerusalem that is above” he mixes two metaphors so as to enrich his meaning. Strictly speaking, the phrase “the present city of Jerusalem” should be matched with “the Jerusalem that is to come,” and the phrase “the Jerusalem that is above” should be matched with “earthly Jerusalem.” These connotations are more or less evident. But by not actually saying “the Jerusalem that is to come,” Paul suggests that while it is true that there is a Jerusalem to come (Revelation 21:2), this Jerusalem is also now present in those born again by God’s Spirit.