Galatians 4:21-30—“He who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh …”

 

Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law? For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman. But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise.  Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar. For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children. But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all. For it is written, Rejoice, thou barren that bearest not; break forth and cry, thou that travailest not: for the desolate hath many more children than she which hath an husband. Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise. But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now. Nevertheless what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman. (Gal. 4:21-30).

  

Q. “Doesn’t this passage say that Ishmael’s birth was ‘after the flesh’? … Doesn’t it say that he was not to be an heir? … Surely this must mean that Ishmael was not elect, and therefore not saved?”

  

(I)

 

Galatians 4 is an allegory (or an analogy) and cannot be used to say that Ishmael was a reprobate. The otherwise suggestion cannot be so, for the data in Genesis clearly points to both Ishmael and Hagar being of God’s people.

True, Ishmael sinfully mocked Isaac (Gen. 21), but that doesn’t mean he was not elect, or wasn’t regenerate, any more than Reuben’s sleeping with Bilhah (his father’s concubine) meant he was not elect or regenerate. Ishmael and Reuben were both saved, but, as Scripture teaches, the Messiah (the “Seed”) came through Isaac and Judah’s lines. Does Ishmael’s “mocking” of Isaac imply that he wasn’t saved? Not necessarily. David lusted after and committed adultery with Bathsheba, and Peter denied Christ; yet both were saved. Believers can commit the grossest of sins.

That Galatians 4:23 says that Ishmael was born “after the flesh” simply means (according to the context) that the whole scheme to produce an heir through Abraham’s marriage to a slave woman was but a human attempt to assist God in fulfilling His promise.  It was man’s way of doing things by earthly means and human contrivance. It is not saying that Ishmael was not saved; it is not referring to his salvific state at all.  That Isaac was born “by promise” (Gal. 4:23) simply refers to the wonder-work of God alone in strengthening Sarah and Abraham to conceive and have a son in their old age. It was the power of the promise itself, “Sarah shall have a son,” that ensured that they had that child.

Galatians 4 further mentioning that we are children “born of promise” (Gal. 4:28) is simply saying (according to the context) that our final salvation is not dependent upon our willing or working or keeping the law, but is dependent upon God’s work alone.

And when Galatians 4:29 contrasts those “born after the flesh” with those “born after the Spirit,” again, it is NOT a contrast between “not saved” and “saved,” or “not regenerate” and “regenerate.” It is a contrast between “salvation by man’s striving” and “salvation effected by God’s power alone.” Context matters! (08/11/2020)

  

---------------------------------------------------

 

(II)

 

More to come! (DV)