And we have to kind of break
in. I mean, he's flowing with a thought, trying to convince
them of the futility of being justified or made righteous by
the law. And so he makes one final effort
to convince them in this book, and it's in chapter 4, 21 and
under the end of the chapter. Here we go. Tell me, ye that
desire to be under the law, Do you not hear the law? For it
is written that Abraham had two sons, the one by bondmaid, the
other by a free woman. But he who was of the bondwoman
was born after the flesh, but he of the free woman by promise. which things are an allegory,
or we might say are allegorized, for these are the two covenants,
the one from Mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is
Agar, for this Agar is Mount Sinai in Arabia, and answers
to the 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,"
and watch this verse, then he applies it. Now we, brethren,
as Isaac was, are the children of promise. But as then, he that
was born after the flesh persecuted him born after the Spirit, even
so is it 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 free woman. So then, brethren, We are not
children of the bondwoman, but of the free. And I think chapter
5 and verse 1 ought to be on that same, with that. Stand fast,
therefore, in the liberty wherewith Christ has made us free, and
be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage. Now, I'd like
to read that verse from Isaiah chapter 54 and verse 1. Sing, O barren, thou that didst
not bear. Break forth into singing, and
cry aloud, for thou didst not travail with child. For more
are the children of the desolate than the children of the married
wife, saith the Lord. So let us be carefully here that
we work our way into this passage by a consideration of the overall
context in which our great text of the morning appeared. For
the allegory certainly does not stand alone. It has a connection
with the flow of thought and is not disconnected from it and
is not something separate and by itself. Rather, it is an integral
part of the apostles' attempt to convince the Galatians that
the law can never have hand nor part in their justification before
Almighty God. If I may paraphrase as to the
saving of sinners, what Peter told Simon, thou hast neither
part nor lot in this matter. Now the situation in the churches
in Galatia when Paul wrote was dire indeed. Some were defecting
from the gospel that Paul had preached unto them and that they
had received and even received him as if he had been an angel
of the Lord. If you look at chapter 1, verse
6 and 7, I marvel that you are so soon removed from him that
called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel, which
is not another, But there be some that trouble you and would
pervert the gospel of Christ. Then in chapter 1, verse 8 through
verse 16, Paul pronounces a curse, mind you, upon Enoch. including himself or an angel
from heaven who preached to them any other gospel than what Paul
had preached to them. And he contends that he was given
the gospel by a direct revelation from and through the Lord Jesus
Christ. In that passage, In verse 13
and 14 of chapter 1, he reminds them of something that is pertinent
unto the argument. And that is how he had been at
one time enemy number one of the Christian movement and of
the gospel and of Christianity. And yet God mightily appeared
unto him and called him. Even from his mother's womb,
he said, he had been called to preach the gospel. Then in chapter
2, he rises bolder, how he stood on an equal footing with the
apostles that he met with in Jerusalem, that they added absolutely
nothing to him. And again, in the second chapter,
he tells how he withstood Peter even unto his face, because he
was to be blamed. Galatians chapter 2 and verse
11. In other words, both his gospel
and his apostleship were from God and from the Lord Jesus Christ. And then the apostle begins to
earnestly convince them that righteousness cannot come by
the law, but by Christ alone and by faith in him alone. Galatians
221, if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead
in vain. Chapter 3 and verse 10, as many
as are of the works of the law are under the curse. Chapter
3 and verse 11, That one is that none are justified by the law
in the sight of God It is evident for the just shall live by faith
chapter 3 in verse 12 The law is not of faith chapter 3 and
verse 13 Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law
being made a curse for us Now, as we get ready to consider the
allegory, let's notice something in this great epistle that is
a part of a trinity, or is a triology. There are three proofs here of
the evidence that none are saved by the law, that that was not
its purpose. It was not given that it might
justify. It was not given to save sinners. It was not given to make them
righteous. And each of these three masterpieces
penned by the Apostle Paul, each of them being a masterpiece in
themselves, And each one of them, when we consider, showing that
the law cannot save sinners, that was not its design. And each one of these three would
be capable of producing a separate study and a sermon. But here
are the three cases or the three arguments in Galatian that the
law cannot make righteous. Number one, the example of Father
Abraham. We look at Abraham and see how
it was with him as Paul does in Romans chapter four. But here
in Galatian chapter three, verse six through verse nine, and again
in verse 14 through verse 18, that Abraham believed and was
justified by faith. And two things are important.
That was before the law was ever given. And number two, it was
before he received the covenant or the right of circumcision. And again, the same thing is
stated in Romans chapter four, that God imputed righteousness
under the patriarch Abraham and that prior and apart from both
law and circumcision. Now it goes without saying, the
experience of Abraham should carry great weight with the Jew. And they made much of being the
offspring of Abraham How they brag, we have Abraham to our
father. We be Abraham's seed, his children,
and calling him Father Abraham. So should it follow logically
that they be saved in the same way that Abraham was saved and
justified before God? He is their principal pattern,
if we may say it in that way. And then secondly, the second
great passage is found in Galatians 3 verse 19. running over into
chapter 4 and verse 7. Is the question in chapter 3
and verse 19, and what Paul had been saying unto them, then the
question is raised, why then the law? What is the law? What
is the purpose of the law? Why was it given? What end did
it serve? If or since the law cannot save,
since it did not alter or annul the promise that was made unto
Abraham, and if Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law,
why therefore the law at all? To which Paul answers, it was
added. It came in alongside. It did
not take the place of the promise. It was appended, which is a word
Lightfoot used to describe it, and it did not supersede or annul
what God had promised unto Abraham. So then, Paul likens the law,
and it is possible, he means, the same law mentioned back in
chapter 3, verse 10 through 13, which he reckons to be 400 and
30 years before the covenant was made with our father Abraham,
and then the covenant made at Mount Sinai. That's some 430
years of time separated these two covenants of God. And in that passage in chapter
3, verse 19, to chapter 4 and verse 7, Paul likens the law
to a schoolmaster, or if you will, a pedagogue, a stern pedagogue,
for the word refers to a child trainer. and we read in chapter
4, verse 2, of tutors and of governors. Some render it guardians
and stewards and overseer. These were men who were put over
minor children of the well-to-do family, and they trained them,
and they disciplined them, and they brought them into adult
sonship prepared for that Assumption and then the third one is that
great passage showing the contrast here between the two covenants
in our text today Galatians 4 21 through chapter 5 and verse 1
and Paul writes in verse 24 which things that is the domestic events
of the familial life of Abraham. These things are an allegory,
are allegorized to depict the two covenants that we meet with
in the Old Testament. But let's look back again at
verse 21. Why does Paul bring forth this
allegory unto them. We see that he intended it for
a particular group of people, you that desire to be under the
law. You that desire to be under the
law, he speaks this allegory. The ones wishing to be under,
the ones wanting to place themselves again under law. As one expositor
wrote, Paul sees them at the point of surrender to legalism,
that they were on the verge and maybe even then going over the
cliff. Now that could be only a defection
from the gospel. if they put themselves again
under the law, it was a defection from the gospel. And such a move
would not make them better Christian, and it would not enhance their
sanctification in the sight of God. Imagine, if you can, wanting
to exchange the liberty of the gospel for the bondage of the
law. If we look at chapter 4 and verse
9, we read, I think Paul felt that it may not be possible that
he would be able to turn them back. He did not know in his
mind if per adventure these arguments would prevail with him and would
turn them back. I say that because of chapter
4 and verse 11. I am afraid, I fear for you,
lest I have labored in your behalf in vain. And A.T. Robertson said
that Paul's fear is not about what might happen, but what had
already or was actually happening among them. Again, in chapter
4 and verse 20, and chapter 4, verse 19 and 20, verse 19, he
had travailed for them with labor pain. He likens himself unto
a woman. labor and travail until they
be brought forth and he says until Christ be formed in you
I think that this may be the only time that this word form
is will be found in the New Testament. And some say that the word pictures
an embryo developing into the full child or complete child. To Christ be fully formed you
not just in the beginning but until he be formed in you you
could compare 2nd Corinthians chapter 11 and verse 2 I am jealous
over you with a godly jealousy that I may present you as a chaste
virgin unto Christ but here is in chapter 4 and verse 20. He said, I desire, I long, I
wish I could be present with you that he might change his
voice and convince them. Verse 17, the legalists were
among them in person to pay them court. And Paul wishes that he
could do the same. The purpose of the legalists
was to cut them off. And now the question in the end
of verse 21. You that are desiring to be under
the law, here is my question unto you. Do you not hear the
law? Do you not hear what it said? Hear you not the law? Are you
not hearing it? Are you not listening? or you're
not catching what it is saying. Paul realizes that their desire
to be under the law did not spring from their love to God or to
Christ or for honoring the law, but they would be under it to
seek their justification and their acceptance with God and
be under it as a covenant of works. John Gill called such
a desire on their part, and I'm quoting, downright madness and
folly to the last degree and egregious weakness in them, unquote. What a weakness they had to desire
to be under the law again. So beginning in verse 22 of our
text, he allegorizes the familial history of Abraham and of Sarah
and of his house. For he said, it is written up
in the scripture, Abraham had two sons. Now actually, in reading
the Old Testament, we find that Abraham had six more sons beside
when he married Keturah. Genesis chapter 25 verse 1 and
2. But Paul is speaking of the two
sons of Ishmael and of Isaac. The first, Ishmael, he said,
was born of a bondmaid. The other, Isaac, was born of
a free woman, that is, of the true and legal wife of Abraham. Both of them fathered by Abraham,
but with different wives or mothers. Now the bondwoman, of course,
was Hagar, an Egyptian house servant or slave. She was under
Sarah, who waited on Sarah. Genesis 16 and verse 1 declares
it. Now the free woman was Sarah,
the lawful wife of Abraham. But let's look at verse 23 of
our text in Galatians chapter 4. He who was of the bondwoman
was born after the flesh, but he of the free woman by promise. Now again reminding us that Abraham
fathered them both. And yet Paul makes the greatest
contrast here between them. Ishmael, though fathered by Abraham,
birthed by Hagar, was begotten or born after the flesh. In other words, This one was
born in the ordinary course of nature. Nothing requiring more
than fleshly ability resulted in the birth of Ishmael. Only
fleshly ability brought him into the world. Again, well, Abraham
fathered them both. On the other hand, the other,
Isaac, also fathered by Abraham, but birthed by Sarah, was born
in accordance not after the flesh, for this was something the flesh
could not perform, but was born in accordance with the promise
of God made unto Abraham. The word of promise being in
Genesis 18 and 10, Romans 9 and 9, This is the promise. Sarah, thy
wife, shall have a son. At the set time, I will come
and turn back the time of life, and Sarah shall have a son, not
after the flesh, but in fulfillment of the promise. Now you have
the birth of Ishmael in Genesis chapter 16. And perhaps you remember
the incidents there. When Sarah thinks within herself,
well, you know, the Lord has restrained me from bearing. Perhaps
it is that God by his providence would give us children and build
us up by the handmade Hagar. And so Sarah sent Abraham to
Hagar's bed to be his wife in case they obtained children by
or through Hagar and to build their house up and see the promise
come to fruition and yet though he was conceived and born this
was not the promised son and not the promised seed for such
as he would only be born of a union of Abraham and of Sarah. It is clear Sarah shall bear
thee a son and I found three times that that is stated to
Abraham in his history chapter 17 verse 19 of Genesis chapter
18 verse 10 and chapter 18 and verse 14, that
it will be Sarah. By the way, I think this is the
first time that God actually revealed that so clearly unto
Abraham. Before, it had been promised,
but the details had not been given. And yet two things were
before their mind. Two things were a hindrance as
it were under this son being born. One, Sarah was barren even
from the beginning of her marriage under Abraham. You have that
chapter 11 and verse 30 of the book of Genesis. She had no child. She could not have children.
She was not Fertile and the second thing was God delayed the promise
until Sarah had passed the time of life or of Fertility and it
ceased to be with her after the manner of women chapter 18 verse
11 of Genesis and according to Romans chapter 4 and verse 9
both of them Abraham and Sarah, their bodies are described as
procreatively dead and still no son. Paul, the deadness yet
of their body and still no son. But still God maintains the promise,
Sarah shall bear thee a son. Now going back to Galatians 4,
this time verse 24, and Paul says, These things are allegorized,
being the two covenants mentioned. This thought to bear in mind.
Think we would agree with this that one could read over and
over again the familial history of Abraham and I don't think
we would ever come to the conclusion that these things are representative
of the two covenant until the Holy Spirit of God seals it up
in our heart and Now, an allegory is a strange thing. It is a literal
event usually with a secondary meaning. My dictionary gives
the meaning as being, quote, a long and complicated story
with an underlying and different from the surface meaning, unquote. That is an allegory. Another allegory might be when
the Lord said to his disciples, take and eat, this is my body. Take and drink, this is my blood. Now we know against Rome that
it did not actually become the blood and the body of the Lord
Jesus Christ, making them to be cannibals. When Paul says
these things are allegorized, I saw something this week that
I had not realized or seen before, not on my own but with the help
of John Brown, in reading his commentary again on the book
of Galatians. And that's this, and think about
it. that Paul is not the one that made this an allegory. Paul is not the one that came
up with this as the allegory. Rather, I think what he is saying
that these things were allegorized by the prophet. They had already
been allegorized by the prophet Isaiah chapter 54 and verse 1
that we read. And he quotes that here in Galatians
4 and 17 to confirm the allegoration of it, which things are these
things are allegorized and then watch For it is written. So let us then read verse 27
one more time. 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
has an husband. Now, why else does the apostle
quote this particular passage from Isaiah but to confirm his
use of the history of Abraham in allegorized form and that
the two women and their states, the one bond and the other free,
are proper representatives of the two covenants that he wishes
to discuss? Now, the two covenants are Number
one from Sinai and look what it said verse 24 gender of bondage
that covenant gender of bondage literally brings forth our bears
children into a state of bondage the children of the bond woman
are enter into her condition. As we remember, both Agar and
Ishmael were cast out of the house of Abraham, Genesis 21
and 10, and here in Galatians chapter 4 and verse 30, as the
son of Agar did not and must not and could not become an heir
with the son of Sarah. The 25th verse, this is Mount
Sinai in Arabia and answer to Jerusalem, which now is and is
in bondage with her children. Notice there the present Jerusalem
which is the then Jerusalem, as Paul wrote, the earthly Jerusalem,
as contrasted from that one which is above, which is the mother
of us all, in verse 26, is in bondage with her children. Now get this. that the Jew born
under the Sinai covenant was born into bondage being a fleshly
Jew after the flesh came under the covenant by mere fleshly
birth as symbolized by Ishmael born of the flesh Yet a child
of a slave mother and cast out with her was Ishmael. Now the second thing in verse
26, the other covenant is allegorized this way. The Jerusalem which
is above is free and is the mother of us all. that Sarah was a symbol. She was a free woman. She was
the true wife, though a long time barren and reproached for
that. Yet in due time, the Lord God
fulfilled his promise, moved upon Sarah, and she begot and
bear the promised son. the one in whom Abraham's seed
were to be called, the son of the free woman who would abide
in the house forever and was in the same condition free as
the mother. And before we pass on this, let's
see if perhaps we can get a better handle on that mysterious 27th
verse here in Galatians chapter 4. Such as, why would Paul quote
it here unless it has a relevant bearing on relationship and on
what he is discussing in this play. It has a relationship to
the argument that Paul is making. And the place where he brings
it in, the way he introduces it by saying, for it is written. And this seems to be brought
in in order to confirm what he had just written about the two
women, the two sons, and the two covenants, which they are
typical of. Now if you read the expositor
you will find them all over the place on this verse of the scripture
and what it's meaning. So that tells me what chance
have I at all to fully open it. We know how the apostles quoted
so frequently from the Old Testament to make a point about the New
Testament covenant. But we notice that Isaiah also
speaks of two women, the barren one and the one with child in
chapter 54 and verse 1, the one desolate, the one with a husband,
one never having given birth, one never having been in the
travails of labor, and the other fertile. But by the providence
of God, said the prophet, a time would come when the desolate
would have children in abundance even more than the abundant one. And whatever be the meaning of
the prophet's word, in verse 28, Paul begins to apply the
allegory to the children of God in the gospel age. And he speaks
further about the distinction between the children of the flesh
and the children of promise. As back in verse 23, the son
of the bondwoman born after the flesh, he of the free woman was
by promise. so now in verse 28 he said now
we in some versions have you now you as isaac was are the
children of promise isaac was born in accordance with a promise
made to abraham Sarah shall bear thee a son, and in him shall
your seed be called." Here's something prominent in the New
Testament, especially in the writing of the Apostle Paul,
and that is he makes such a clear distinction between the children
of the flesh and the children of the promise, and that particularly
in relationship under the Jew. If you want to turn with me back
to the great book of Romans, and it is in chapter 9, and verse
6 through 9 is where we might find this again, Paul discussing
that very same matter. Paul explaining here why it is
that so many Jews were lost in spite of the many privileges
given unto them listed in Romans 9, 4, and 5, and Romans 3, 1,
and 2. But let me read Romans 9, verse
6 through verse 9. Not as though the Word of God
had taken on effect. Watch this. for they are not
all Israel which are of Israel. Neither because they are the
seed of Abraham are they all children, but in Isaac shall
thy seed be called, that is, they which are the children of
the flesh These are not the children of God, but the children of the
promise are counted for the seed. For this is the word of promise. At this time will I come and
Sarah shall have a son. Now that verse six is important. They're not all Israel, which
are of Israel. Murray wrote, The thought here
is that there is an Israel of God in national or ethnic Israel,
just as Paul distinguishes between an outward Jew and an inward
Jew in the end of Romans 2. Not every Jew who was circumcised
in the flesh was circumcised in the heart. Not every Jew,
having fleshly circumcision, had spiritual circumcision, which
marked them as the children of God. Being simply Abraham's natural
seed does not make them children of God. For the children of God
are counted for the seed. I think that ought to be a lesson
for our Paedo-Baptist friends, Fleshly descendancy cannot put
one in the covenant not at all Only those Jews who are in Christ
are the true children of Abraham chapter 3 verse 29 as Isaac was
born after the promise so are the called in Christ Jesus children
of God and children of Abraham Now, another aspect of the allegory
in verse 29, as then, so now. As it occurred then, so now.
What? The one born after the flesh
persecuted him that was born after the spirit. Consider the
hatred of Islam for Christianity. We read in Genesis 16 and verse
4, as soon as Hagar realized that she had conceived and was
with child, quote, her mistress was despised in her sight or
in her eyes, that is Sarah, And Sarah told Abraham, and in verse
5, and then lamented her decision for giving Hagar to be a secondary
wife unto Abraham. Hagar now, pregnant with Abraham's
child, looks down on Sarah, probably mocking her for her barrenness,
thinking that she now is in high favor with Abraham as she carried
within her his heir. She has done what Sarah could
not do and throws it in her face, no doubt. Not only so, but later
on, Genesis 21 and verse 9, when Isaac was officially weaned from
his mother and Abraham gave him a great feast. Sarah saw Ishmael,
perhaps the children at play, mocking him. She saw Ishmael
mocking young Isaac, and it tore out her heart. And Sarah went
to Abraham And she demanded of him that Ishmael be cast out
of the family. That Ishmael be put away. He
shall not inherit with my promised son. As well as Hagar to be cast
out of the family as well. And this is the connection in
Galatians 4 and verse 29. He that was born of the flesh
persecutes him born after the Spirit. And as Matthew Henry
noted, there is a deep-rooted and remaining enmity in the seed
of the serpent against the seed of the woman, unquote. That started
in Genesis chapter 3. We're seeing it play out now
in our society. What a great war. is raging now
against all things Christian and Christianity. So, look at
verse 30 of our text. 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 free woman. Now, in closing, the applied
conclusion of the matter. in verse 31. Let's read it. And verse, so then brethren,
we are not children of the bond woman, but of the free. We the children of God, we the
called of Christ, we born of the spirit. As concerns the allegory
and the two covenant, those Judaizers and all legalists and merit mongers
are descendants of the slave woman, and are but bastard children
while they're born of God or in union with Christ or children
of the free woman. So it is the believers that are
the true seed of Abraham, the true children of God, freed from
the slavish dominion of the law. And if I may quote John Brown
again, quote, the mystical Isaac is born and weaned And the mystical
Hagar is cast out to come unto an end, unquote. And then very
quickly, chapter 5 and verse 1, an exhortation. Stand fast,
therefore, in the liberty wherewith we have been made free like mystical
Isaac in Christ. Cherish it. Cherish and hold
fast to this liberty. How sweet is the liberty that
is in Christ who has freed us from the slavish curse of the
law, from the condemnation and the dominion of sin. We are,
as the hymn writer said, free from the law, oh happy condition. Jesus has bled and there is remission. Cherish the freedom and be not
entangled again with the yoke of bondage." How awful it is
to lose our freedom and be brought in bondage of any kind, but especially
into spiritual bondage. So in view of all that, Paul
says, stand fast in the liberty, later he will say, do not use
it as an occasion to the flesh, but stand fast in that liberty
that we have in Jesus Christ. And may we do that and attempt
to do it as we preach the gospel.