The Galatians You've Never Heard - Part 4

So far in this series, I have addressed my overall concern of exclusively reading the Bible "backward," specifically illustrating the problem by reading Paul's letter to the Galatians through the lens of Moses in Deuteronomy. Read part 1, part 2, and part 3 before moving into this last piece. 

Today, in the final installment of the series, I am covering what, in my opinion, is one of the most misunderstood passages in Paul's entire letter—the allegory of the two covenants. 

Tell me, you who want to be under the law, do you not understand what the law says? For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by the slave woman and the other by the free woman. His son by the slave woman was born according to the flesh, but his son by the free woman was born through the promise. These things serve as illustrations, for the women represent two covenants. One covenant is from Mount Sinai and bears children into slavery: This is Hagar. Now Hagar stands for Mount Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to the present-day Jerusalem, because she is in slavery with her children. But the Jerusalem above is free, and she is our mother. Now you, brothers and sisters, like Isaac, are children of promise. At that time the son born according to the flesh persecuted the son born by the power of the Spirit. It is the same now. But what does Scripture say? "Get rid of the slave woman and her son, for the slave woman's son will never share in the inheritance with the free woman's son." Therefore, brothers and sisters, we are not children of the slave woman, but of the free woman.

Galatians 4:21-25, 28-31

A quick Google search will yield countless articles, all repeating similar interpretations: The women symbolize the Old and New Covenants. 

One of the articles I came across is from a popular women's devotional that goes so far as to describe the Hagar as a "backup plan," implying that Sinai was a temporary, failed experiment that Jesus came to reverse. I hope you can already sense the problem that is at the center of this kind of "anti-law" reading of Paul's letter.

If we view the Mosaic covenant as defective and the law as inherently bad, we fracture the continuity of Scripture and distort the purpose of the covenant. Covenants have always come with terms. And laws are those terms. 

Being anti-law is ultimately being anti-covenant. This is an untenable position for a follower of Jesus to take, who is the very fulfillment of God's covenant faithfulness. 

To understand Paul's allegory, we need to examine the comparison he made. Contrary to most interpretations, I do not believe Paul was contrasting the Old and the New Covenants. Rather he contrasted two different ways of relating to God's promises.

Abraham had two sons—Ishmael, who was born to Hagar by human effort. And Isaac, who was born to Sarah by God's promise.

Paul associated Hagar with Mount Sinai, not because the law itself was intended for salvation, but because that's how the Galatians were treating it. They emulated Abraham's actions with Hagar, attempting to obtain God's promise through their effort. This approach led them to enslave themselves to their version of the covenant.

The use of this allegory did not require them to consider which covenant was "right." But asked them to consider what kind of covenant people they were going to be. Would the Galatians trust in God to secure their new identity, or would they distort His good law into a system of performance to try to "earn it"?

I've already illustrated multiple areas in Deuteronomy where Moses pled with Israel for their obedience to be the outworkings of their faith, not their means to obtain it. To conclude the series, I would like to highlight Deuteronomy 32, also known as the Song of Moses. This song tells the entire covenant story of Israel, beginning with their rescue from Egypt, through the inevitable future rebellion, and ending with a promise of atonement and a restored relationship with God. 

Within this song, Moses used two key themes that are also found in Paul's allegory in Galatians. One is a warning against becoming a people who believe they can earn grace. The other is the use of parental language to describe the true heirs of God's promise.

Midway through the song, Moses used the name "Jeshrurn," which means "upright one," as an ironic title for Israel (Deut 32:15). In the context of the song, Moses employed this term to warn the people that they would one day attribute their success to effort instead of recognizing their blessings were result of God's grace. As the song progressed, he continued:

You deserted the Rock, who fathered you; you forgot the God who gave you birth.

Deuteronomy 32:18

This is precisely what Paul observed in Galatia. The people had forgotten that covenant children are born from a promise, not through effort. Paul's allegory illustrates that being a child of the free woman, Sarah means understanding that your identity is a gift from God, not something earned through works.

The consequence of turning the law into a badge of performance is the same for both Moses and Paul. 

I will hide my face from them… for they are a perverse generation, children who are unfaithful.

Deuteronomy 32:20

Get rid of the slave woman and her son, for the slave woman's son will never share in the inheritance with the free woman's son.

Galatians 4:30

Paul invited the Galatians to reject works-based identity, not the law itself. And ultimately Moes and Paul's say the same thing:

God gives life. He births covenant people through promise, not performance.

And they both issue the same warning:

Do not reject the God who gives you life. Do not exchange grace for effort because it will not save you. The covenant is for those who believe by faith.

I encourage you to take some time to study the Song of Moses in its entirety. I've only been able to touch on a few verses here for brevity.

Even more, I hope that you feel inspired to explore the Old Testament with fresh eyes. Much of the New Testament's language, metaphors, and theology flow directly from these texts.

Paul and the apostles did not interpret grace as a new feature in God's plan; they understood that grace had been there from the beginning. They wrote with the Old Testament in mind, so we should read our Bibles the same way. Forward, not backward.