Hagar - Galatians 4:21-31

4:21-31 - Paul wants to know, for those who want to start using the law of Moses, “do ye not hear the law?” Kind of like, “ok you want to use this system, but do you even know what it entails?” Now Paul used to be a Pharisee, so if anyone knows the intricacies of the law, it’s him. Now that he has had probably decades living both the law of Moses and Christianity, Paul is in a unique situation where he can accurately describe in detail the differences between the two and the necessity of each at their appropriate times. I hadn’t considered the uniqueness of Paul’s qualifications, especially considering how critical this point would be when taking the gospel to the gentiles. I truly realized right now just how vital Paul was in this point of the gospel’s expansion. Maybe it’s because I don’t really understand much of what he’s saying because of the uniqueness of his writing style, but I just gained an appreciation for who he was and the enormity of the work that he performed. Anyway, Paul asks them if they really understand what living the law of Moses requires? Surely the gentiles don’t fully comprehend what it would be like, so Paul explains using something they might, Abraham. It’s also pretty likely that the Jewish converts who were trying to lead the gentile converts astray were using the example of Abraham as validation for their position, so the gentiles were probably at least moderately familiar with him. Paul notes that Abraham “had two sons.” Actually Abraham had many sons, Ishmael with Hagar, Isaac with Sarah, and then a whole handful of boys with Keturah, Abraham’s wife after Sarah died. But we are only focusing on Ishmael and Isaac for now. Paul notes that Ishmael’s mother was “a bondmaid,” and Isaac’s mother was “a freewoman.” I don’t love these examples because I always identify with the outcast, Hagar and Ishmael in this instance, but also Leah when it comes to Jacob. But for this example, I will overlook the feelings of the woman and child who are cast off because I know that God loves them just as much as He loves the “chosen” ones and that he took care of them and just take this analogy at face value. The IM quotes Elder Bruce R. McConkie as teaching, “Hagar, the bondwoman bore Ishmael; and Saran, the freewoman, brought forth Isaac. Ishmael was born after the flesh, while Isaac, as a child of promise, came forth after the Spirit. Hagar is thus made to represent the old covenant, the law of Moses, the covenant under which men were subject to the bondage of sin; while Sarah symbolizes the new covenant, the gospel, the covenant under which men are made free, free from bondage and sin through Christ.” There are a few points that the IM puts into a chart that I think are interesting. First is that Hagar had Ishmael “after the flesh” which the chart implies as being born naturally, to a woman who was of child bearing age, who was conceived in the typical fashion. Ishmael’s birth had no miraculous components, unlike Isaac’s. Isaac was born to a woman well passed the age of child bearing, who only conceived by the power of God. This is an interesting point about the nature of the gospel, when it was governed by the law of Moses, the focus was controlling oneself physically, whereas the gospel under Jesus Christ was about controlling oneself spiritually. The chart really doesn’t speak to me, because, for instance, it says “the law of Moses led to bondage, and Jerusalem was in bondage to the Romans.” This doesn’t make any sense to me because God gave Moses the law so that the Israelites could transition out of literal bondage from the Egyptians into a chosen people. So saying that the law of Moses “led to bondage” begs the question, why even give the law at all if it was only going to be to the detriment of the people. This implies that God literally set the Israelites up for failure because instead of giving them commandments as a tool to help them grow spiritually, God gave it to them to enslave them. That doesn’t make any sense, especially since we can look at the Nephites who also lived the law of Moses but understood it to be pointing towards Christ and used it to help them prepare to receive him when he came, or at least some of them did. We know that God doesn’t give commandments in order to enslave us, if that were the case then why would we need to follow the commandments that we have today? Commandments are tools given to us by God to take us from where we are to the next step spiritually. If I believe that to be true about the commandments today, then I have to conclude that an unchanging God would make that true about commandments he gave anciently. So, we are going to look at this analogy without considering the heinousness of slavery, the power deficit between two boys with the same father when one has a slave mother and one has a free mother, even when there is a large age difference. I feel bad for Ishmael because he and his mother were kicked out of camp and left to fend for themselves in the desert because his father’s favorite wife and son felt disrespected. We are going to ignore all that for a few minutes to see if Paul’s analogy could be profitable to the gentile Christian converts he was speaking to. There is a chart from the article on this chapter from gospeldoctrine.com which breaks down the analogy into some interesting pieces: 1. Freedom vs. Bondage – a. Hagar had her rights limited by the law, just like we have our rights limited by justice because we commit sin. “The law brings one under the bondage of sin,” meaning when we commit sin, we become bound by the requirements of justice. b. Sarah was born free meaning that she had rights even though she had sinned, just like “the gospel of Christ frees one from the burden of the law.” c. The atonement is what frees people from their enslaved position because of sin, the law is what demands the people be put into that enslaved position in the first place. 2. Carnal vs. Spiritual – a. Ishmael was “born after the flesh” representing “the Mosaic law (which) was a law of carnal commandments.” b. Isaac was born miraculously and granted the promised covenant, representing “the gospel (as) a spiritual law.” 3. Timing – a. Ishmael was born 13 years before Isaac. b. This represents the Law of Moses being given before the gospel of Jesus Christ. 4. Location – a. “Ishmael lived in the wilderness as an archer” just like “the law was given in the barren deserts of Sinai.” b. Isaac lived in Canaan, the promised land, just like “the gospel was given in the holy city of promise-Jerusalem.” 5. Mockery – a. Ishmael and Hagar “mocked Sarah and Isaac” just like “the Jews mocked the converted gentiles.” b. Again, I would hate to be fed to the wolves just because I inappropriately expressed my bitterness at my enslavement. 6. Promises – a. “Ishmael was promised that he would be the father of 12 princes and a great nation,” just like “the Law of Moses could be the source of great blessings.” This is what I wanted to see explained, that the Law of Moses served its purpose and had great potential when obeyed. b. “Isaac was promised his seed would be as the stars in the heaven,” just like “the Gospel made possible the blessings of exaltation, including the continuation of the seeds.” 7. Inheritance – a. “Ishmael was not entitled to Abraham’s inheritance” just like “the Law cannot qualify one for the Father’s inheritance.” b. “Isaac received the entire inheritance of Abraham,” just like those who accept the gospel become sons and daughters of God and therefore “the heirs (who) are promised all that the Father hath.” Finally, when we consider Ishmael’s mockery of Isaac, we aren’t going to go into the psychology of sibling rivalry, ancient inheritance rights, or slavery power dynamics. But we can consider it as the ancient law of Moses rejecting the gospel of Jesus Christ. For instance, say Ishmael had regarded Isaac as the true heir and stuck around and helped him grow his kingdom, then they both would have been wildly successful, if Isaac had allowed Ishmael to stick around. Likewise, if the followers of the law of Moses had accepted the gospel as it’s successor, then they could have all been saved and blessed. But because they rejected the gospel, they were not entitled to the inheritance.