One benefit of the Apostle’s argument in Galatians 4:21-31 is his demonstration of the fact that two covenants are operable during the Gospel Age. As Jesus ignored the Highway of Holiness (Matt 7:13,14) because it was not an option when he spoke, Paul here ignores the Keturah Covenant because it was not an option for the Gospel Age. This clearly demonstrates that the Law Covenant was yet an option – a Covenant which would continue in some form of existence until its antitype (the New Covenant) would begin. Paul knew well that Abraham had more than two sons (compare Gal 4:22 with Gen 25:1,2), but their representation of New Covenant factors was not relevant to Paul’s argument.

Galatians 4:24 might be paraphrased thus: “These women represent the two covenants now in operation. The one originates from Mount Sinai which generates or gives birth to slavery. This is represented by Hagar.”

In verse 25 is hidden a lovely play on words apparently designed to impress on the Galatian churches the barrenness of the Law Covenant. The reading of the King James Version is questionable. The Sinaitic reads, “For Sinai is a mountain in Arabia.” The first word to notice with care is “for.” It means “because.” By it Paul is linking verse 24 with verse 25. He is saying the Hagar Covenant gives birth to slavery BECAUSE Sinai is a mountain in Arabia. Strange reasoning? Not at all!  Note: Smith’s Bible Dictionary defines Arabia as meaning desolate or barren – an etymology akin to the Hebrew “Arabah” (desert). Linking this meaning with our standard symbolism for mountain, the verse says: The Hagar Covenant gives birth to slavery BECAUSE Sinai (i.e. the Law) is a kingdom of desolation. (I.e., it cannot produce life or freedom from sin.) If we go further and translate Sinai (see McClintock and Strong) which means either “thorny” (i.e., cleft with ravines) or “devoted to sin,” Paul’s play on words is even more forceful.

How could you expect a covenant concluded in a place named “devoted to sin” located in a “kingdom of desolation” to bear fruitage? Paul then identifies which Kingdom this represents.

Kingdoms are symbolized by their capitals, even to our day. Thus Paul introduces his new terminology. “Jerusalem which now is” –i.e., the kingdom of Israel under the Law Covenant as represented by its capital city. This gives him the opportunity for another etymological “trick.” Jerusalem has a plural ending in Hebrew. There is more than one Jerusalem. Therefore, Paul (verse 26) tells us about the other kingdom – the kingdom built on the Sarah Covenant, and that we are the children of that kingdom, represented by its capital, Jerusalem above.

Paul then concludes his point with the ironic reference in verse 27 to Isaiah 54:1. He wants to show prophetically that this Covenant is NOT barren. Sarah has been called BARREN and DESOLATE in prophecy when it is really the Law (concluded in ARABIA = “desolation”) that is desolate. But the prophecy proves the point: The Law produced life for only one individual, the man Jesus (and that life was sacrificed). But the Sarah Covenant, produces life for “many more children” – Jesus as the Christ, and all of his disciples.

The lesson, of course, is obvious; the world sees the fruitful as barren and the barren as fruitful.

– Contributed

Download PDF