|
|
Post by R' Y'hoshua Moshe on May 3, 2004 20:22:52 GMT -8
What do you think Sha'ul (Paul) is saying in the following passage?...
"Tell me, you that desire to be under the law, don't you listen to the law? For it is written that Avraham had two sons, one by the handmaid, and one by the free woman. However, the son by the handmaid was born according to the flesh, but the son by the free woman was born through promise. These things contain an allegory, for these are two covenants. One is from Mount Sinai, bearing children to bondage, which is Hagar. For this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia, and answers to the Yerushalayim (Jerusalem) that exists now, for she is in bondage with her children. But the Yerushalayim (Jerusalem) that is above is free, which is the mother of us all. For it is written, "Rejoice, you barren who don't bear. Break forth and shout, you that don't travail. For more are the children of the desolate than of her who has a husband." Now we, brothers, as Yitzchak (Isaac) was, are children of promise. But as then, he who was born according to the flesh persecuted him who was born according to the Spirit, so also it is now. However what does the Scripture say? "Throw out the handmaid and her son, for the son of the handmaid will not inherit with the son of the free woman." So then, brothers, we are not children of a handmaid, but of the free woman."
Shalom,
Reuel
|
|
|
|
Post by Mark on Mar 26, 2005 5:46:16 GMT -8
Paul is talking about "conditional salvation" (keeping in mind that he prefaced his comments in Galatains 1:6 that he is arguing against those who teach "another gospel"). Abraham was married to Sarah, his wife. They had a covanental relationship: you know the drill, "in sickness and in health, for better or for worse, till death do us part." I'm not sure he was a Methodist; but the same sort of logic is implied. He had entered into a relationship with Sarah that said she would be his wife no matter what. Isaac was a product of that relationship and heir to all that Abraham had, no matter what.
Hagar was property. She was not even Abraham's; but Sarah's property. There was no covenant between Abraham and Hagar. He did not need to issue a writ of divorcement. He could legally abandone her or sell her off to the nearest slave merchant. Her relationship with Abraham was conditional and through her, his relationship with Ishmael was equally conditional.
If I have two employees, one is my son and the other some snot-nosed kid off the street; my relationship with them will be quite different. If my son messes up repeatedly, I'm going to be all over him day and night to try to get him to come up to standard. The other kid, I'll work with him up to a point; but when he decides he doesn't have to do what I say, I'll hand him his walking papers. Paul is saying that God has called us to be sons and these Galatians are trying to live like employees. By the way, the standard of obedience is no different. It is the result of disobedience that Paul is trying to get us to understand.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mishkan on Dec 10, 2005 20:40:30 GMT -8
What do you think Sha'ul (Paul) is saying in the following passage? Well, to start off... This passage contains a standard rabbinic-style midrash. That is, he uses an allegory based on a  story to make his point. He draws an interpretation lf the Sarah/Hagar story to illustrate his understanding of the relationship between believers and unbelievers. But what is the point of the allegory? Let's step through the passage, and see what we find. Tell me, you that desire to be under the law, don't you listen to the law? (4.21) Rav Sha'ul introduces his allegory with a rhetorical question. He believes that the legalists have missed something important from the . For it is written that Avraham had two sons, one by the handmaid, and one by the free woman. However, the son by the handmaid was born according to the flesh, but the son by the free woman was born through promise. These things contain an allegory, for these are two covenants. (4.22-24) This is the restatement of the factual text that introduces the midrash. Sha'ul introduces his allegory by reminding his readers of the text. They didn't have chapters and verses back then, after all. But then he clearly introduces his allegorical scheme--that Sarah and Hagar represent two different modes of existence, or two "covenants". One covenant represents freedom and promise. The other is "according to the flesh". These two modes of existence are opposite and mutually exclusive. One is from Mount Sinai, bearing children to bondage, which is Hagar. For this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia, and answers to the Yerushalayim (Jerusalem) that exists now, for she is in bondage with her children. (4.24-25) This is an interesting series of identifications: Hagar = Sinai = Jerusalem What is the point of this identification? To equate the Sinai covenant with the first century Jerusalem leadership, and to equate both with the handmaiden who was eventually thrown out of the Abraham's household. But the Yerushalayim (Jerusalem) that is above is free, which is the mother of us all. For it is written, "Rejoice, you barren who don't bear. Break forth and shout, you that don't travail. For more are the children of the desolate than of her who has a husband." (4.26-27) The other half of the contrast is: Sarah = Jerusalem Above I have always been intrigued by the missing third identifier here. Sha'ul doesn't equate Sarah with Calvary or Mount Moriah, as one might expect. I don't know if there is theological significance to this missing detail, or not. Finally, Sha'ul explains his own allegory. He has given us the premise that Sarah and Hagar represent two different relationships with God. One is through the Sinai covenant, the other appears reminiscent of Jeremiah's New Covenant. But how do these two modes of access relate to you and me? Now we, brothers, as Yitzchak (Isaac) was, are children of promise. But as then, he who was born according to the flesh persecuted him who was born according to the Spirit, so also it is now. However what does the Scripture say? "Throw out the handmaid and her son, for the son of the handmaid will not inherit with the son of the free woman." So then, brothers, we are not children of a handmaid, but of the free woman. (4.28-31) At last, we reach the real purpose of this elaborate midrash. Ultimately, Sha'ul wants to identify the believers of his day with Sarah/New Jerusalem/Isaac, and the unbelievers with Hagar/Earthly Jerusalem/Esau. Why? I believe that his purpose is to demonstrate that the rabbinic leadership, with its oral tradition, represents a sensual, earthly approach to God--and should be rejected. Meanwhile, the believers are equated with Sarah, and the spiritual seed that came from her as a result of the Promise to Abraham. In other words, I find this passage to represent the reasoning behind Galatians 3.29. Sha'ul is merely explaining the constant contention between the "traditional" rabbinic leadership and the Messianic brotherhood. He is telling us why we can't, "just all get along". The non-believers will never be satisfied to allow the believers to peacefully co-exist. There is no attempt here to contradict the , certainly. After all, Sha'ul is relying on the to make his point. But there is a contrast assumed between the Sinai and the eventual "New Covenant". But I think the identification of the "New Covenant" is a matter for further discussion. Shalom, Mishkan |
|
|
|
Post by Wavy_Wonder on Dec 10, 2005 22:24:57 GMT -8
I agreed with everything up till here. Since both of the women were identified with Abraham, and since Abraham's promise/covenant as it relates to these Galatians is his apologetic against the "works of law" group trying to make Jewish prosyletes out of these new believers, I think the second covenant speaks of the Abrahamic covenant, not the new covenant.We can't deny the fact that Sinai was mentioned (not saying you are). With all due respect, I don't think you've touched on Sinai (from which came) as it relates to Jerusalem. You've only equated Jerusalem with Hagar. If i have missed something, please show me.Indeed. Many people skip over this point. According to their logic, Paul is basically saying, "aren't you listening to the ? the is telling you not to keep itself!!!?"This, of course, is absurd.Indeed.
|
|
|
|
Post by R' Y'hoshua Moshe on Dec 16, 2005 0:08:19 GMT -8
Well said.  |
|
Bob
Junior Member
Posts: 67
|
Post by Bob on Feb 27, 2008 16:49:52 GMT -8
I am still having some problems with this passage. Can someone help me? The context appears to equate Hagar (the bondwoman) with the law delivered at Sinai. On the other hand Isaac (of whom Israel is the children of and who the law was delivered to) is the son of freedom. What am I missing?
|
|
Tyler
Junior Member
Posts: 64
|
Post by Tyler on Feb 27, 2008 20:34:52 GMT -8
Hey Bob!
I think it may have been mentioned but I always understood it to be talking about flesh vs. spirit.
Ishmael = fleshly fulfillment of the promise to Abraham
Isaac = spiritual fulfillment
Hagar is a slave. Sarah is a wife.
Sinai was a contract between a King and His bond-slaves.
Heavenly Jerusalem is the Bride of the Lamb.
A slave does not have free access to the King, but must follow royal protocol.
i.e. Priests, Levites, Temple service, animal sacrifices, veil over the Most Holy Place, etc.
A free-born son has unlimited access to his Father.
i.e. we now have free access to the Holy of Holies.
|
|
Bob
Junior Member
Posts: 67
|
Post by Bob on Feb 28, 2008 17:53:29 GMT -8
Thanks Tyler, This makes much more sense now  |
|
story to make his point. He draws an interpretation lf the Sarah/Hagar story to illustrate his understanding of the relationship between believers and unbelievers.
