Week nine: 4.21-31 Paul explains the difference between Isaac and Ishmael

Rev. Stanley L. Derickson Ph.D.

COPYRIGHT 2004

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopy, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission of the author, except as provided by U.S.A. copyright laws.

21 Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law? 22 For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman. 23 But he [who was] of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman [was] by promise. 24 Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar. 25 For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children. 26 But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.

Paul sticks a board in their ear in the first verse of this section, "Hey, folks you are following the law but are you listening to what it says?" "You certainly aren't listening to it from the looks of things." Now, I don't claim to know what Paul was thinking or meaning, but if I were a follower of the Judaizers teachings, and Paul said that in a letter, I would have become indignant - "Of course I hear the law, that is why I am doing this stuff!" might be the response.

Immediately he lets them know where he is going with his comments - it should have been obvious to them that if they weren't disgusted with his thinking by now, it was certainly time to leave the gathering, because it sure wasn't going to get any better.

Then he gets into the basics of the Old Testament; things that they had learned early in their spiritual lives - what is the apostle doing? He is telling us the stuff we learned in Sunday school, why is he not giving us the deeper stuff? Bingo, that is just where he is going.

First, what is an allegory (mentioned in verse 24)? An allegory is, according to Webster's 1828 dictionary: "ALLEGORY, n. [Gr. other, to speak, a forum, an oration.] A figurative sentence or discourse, in which the principal subject is described by another subject resembling it in its properties and circumstances. The principal subject is thus kept out of view, and we are left to collect the intentions of the writer or speaker, by the resemblance of the secondary to the primary subject. Allegory is in words that hieroglyphics are in painting. We have a fine example of an allegory in the eightieth Psalm, in which God's chosen people are represented by a vineyard. The distinction in scripture between a parable and an allegory is said to be that a parable is a supposed history, and an allegory, a figurative description of real facts. An allegory is called a continued metaphor. The following line in Virgil is an example of an allegory.

"Claudite jam rivos, pueri, sat prata biberunt.

"Stop the currents, young men, the meadows have drank sufficiently; that is let your music cease, our ears have been sufficiently delighted."

Gen. 16.1ff gives us the story of Sarah and her bareness and her impatience and her lack of faith in God's promise of a son. She gave Hagar, her handmaiden, to Abraham to raise up a son - a son that became the Arabic nations of the Middle East. He was born out of a sinful relationship, and a lack of faith in God's promise of a seed.

We might add that this was a normal practice in the culture in which Abraham lived. This is not license to do whatever "culture" does because "culture" is normally the Devil's world, that of lost unregenerate people doing what they want. (See also Gen. 30.3-9, 13 for further example of this practice.)

I will get off the subject only briefly - divorce used to be a worldly thing, but it became culturally acceptable and the church has adopted it as an alternative to right and correct living. Soon homosexuality will be accepted in the culture, and the church is in some cases already embracing it.

Gen. 21.9ff gives the account of the dispute between Hagar and Sarah which ended in Abraham sending Hagar and son packing.

We see the result of Hagar's dismissal from Abraham's camp in Gen. 21.17ff “And God heard the voice of the lad; and the angel of God called to Hagar out of heaven, and said unto her, What aileth thee, Hagar? fear not; for God hath heard the voice of the lad where he [is]. 18 Arise, lift up the lad, and hold him in thine hand; for I will make him a great nation. 19 And God opened her eyes, and she saw a well of water; and she went, and filled the bottle with water, and gave the lad drink. 20 And God was with the lad; and he grew, and dwelt in the wilderness, and became an archer. 21 And he dwelt in the wilderness of Paran: and his mother took him a wife out of the land of Egypt."

The generations of Isaac and Ishmael are listed in Gen. 25.12ff.

Notice that all that was promised for Ishmael was that he would become a great nation. There is no explanation as to the meaning of that phrase; there is no indication of anything other than a great seed, so why does Paul give us this great meaning to Hagar's seed? Is he embellishing history, is he sharing information that just isn't recorded in Scripture, or is he just using "poetic license" to provide an illustration? It would seem that he assumed the Galatians would relate completely to what he said, thus they must have had the same information, or understood it as license.

The Genesis account says nothing of Ishmael's bondage to the law which actually implies total complete lostness for all his seed and their seed. Are all Arabic peoples lost, are they all non-elect, are we not to take time to give them the Gospel? Some interesting questions - in my mind at least. It would seem that Ishmael was under bondage to the law, due to his being circumcised, but the following seed would seem to be external from that bondage.

They would have no relationship to God because they were outside of promise - outside of God's people, and most likely as I understand it because of Ishmael's rejection of God. The great seed was for Abraham's benefit - to help him feel better about the situation.

We do see in Gen. 17.21 a note that Ishmael was under the same covenant as Abraham, as the son of Abraham. This is the connection that Ishmael had with the covenant - he was under the law. "And Abraham said unto God, O that Ishmael might live before thee! 19 And God said, Sarah thy wife shall bear thee a son indeed; and thou shalt call his name Isaac: and I will establish my covenant with him for an everlasting covenant, [and] with his seed after him. 20 And as for Ishmael, I have heard thee: Behold, I have blessed him, and will make him fruitful, and will multiply him exceedingly; twelve princes shall he beget, and I will make him a great nation. 21 But my covenant will I establish with Isaac, which Sarah shall bear unto thee at this set time in the next year. 22 And he left off talking with him, and God went up from Abraham. 23 And Abraham took Ishmael his son, and all that were born in his house, and all that were bought with his money, every male among the men of Abraham's house; and circumcised the flesh of their foreskin in the selfsame day, as God had said unto him. 24 And Abraham [was] ninety years old and nine, when he was circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin. 25 And Ishmael his son [was] thirteen years old, when he was circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin.

26 In the selfsame day was Abraham circumcised, and Ishmael his son. 27 And all the men of his house, born in the house, and bought with money of the stranger, were circumcised with him."

The question now is this. Just why would Paul describe Ishmael as being in the bondage of the covenant as compared to Abraham which was under the promise? It would seem that Ishmael was under the covenant because dad forced it upon him, but not under any subservience or faith in God. God made a deal with Abraham for his son Ishmael thus putting Ishmael under another covenant. He was circumcised under the Abrahamic covenant, but was ultimately under a different promise of God, than the one given to Abraham - that which Isaac came under.

I suspect that Gen 17.18 is the key and the answer, "And Abraham said unto God, O that Ishmael might live before thee!" Evidently Ishmael had rejected God but God wanted to bless him as much as He could for Abraham's sake.

Thus, Agar (Hagar) and Sarah are pictured as the two covenants - one of the law and one of grace; one of bondage, and one of freedom; one of the flesh and one of the spirit; one of sin and one of salvation.

Ishmael had no promise, he had only the law that he could not keep. Abraham and Isaac's seed were under the law, but they also had the promise and the results future of that promise.

Gen. 17.18 is of interest in the NASB. It adds a little to the conversation "But God said, "No, but Sarah your wife will bear you a son,” It seems God knew Ishmael's heart and that it was not going to change so God was moving on the Isaac front. (The NET Bible, ASV, New King James also inserts the "no.")

Jamieson Fausset and Brown suggest that even though Ishmael did not produce the church that he may have enjoyed the benefit of it - not likely from what we've seen thus far.

Isaac is an interesting name in the Hebrew "yits-khawk" is how it is pronounced - imagine calling him to dinner - some would think you were sneezing me thinks. ("yitschaq" is the word.) Now here is the clincher, Isaac means "he laughs."

The comments concerning Jerusalem show once again that the city that is so prominent in the Bible is of spiritual importance as well. It, when contrasted to Mt. Sinai is the contrast between law and grace. Jerusalem is pictured as above Mt. Sinai. This is true geographically, it is north and some east of Sinai, but it is also always up from anywhere in the world to the Israelite - they always went UP to Jerusalem. It is the center of all God's activities with the Jew and in my mind it is the center of all activity with man in general. (See my study on the location of the Garden of Eden.)

Jerusalem is also contrasted with Sinai as free, while Sinai is in bondage.

One further note concerning Jerusalem being the center of activity of God's dealing with mankind - verse twenty-six "But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all." Mother of us all relates directly to spiritually in the context, of believers being free, but it may also look back to the city being the starting point of mankind. How else could it be the mother of us ALL?

You might find Heb. 12.22 of interest in relation to Jerusalem - the city of God. "But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels,"

Jerusalem isn't just a tourist destination to make the pastors and television evangelists of our day money; it is the City of God. It is that place where God has dealt with man for centuries and will for the future unto the end. Jerusalem is God's place on earth to work with mankind. Something special, not just a place of interest.

27 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.

Paul says it is written - where is it written might come to mind? This is from Isa. 54.1 "Sing, O barren, thou [that] didst not bear; break forth into singing, and cry aloud, thou [that] didst not travail with child: for more [are] the children of the desolate than the children of the married wife, saith the LORD."

This seems to continue the picture message that Paul is giving. It relates to the fact that Sarah was barren, but that she was told by God that she would have a child - and she did - the seed that would produce Messiah.

28 Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise.

Isn't that just what I said? :-) Messiah came to provide adoptability for all that would come to the Savior, through the promise.

29 But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him [that was born] after the Spirit, even so [it is] now.

This speaks to the fact that Ishmael gave trouble to the one promised, and that this was true even at that time - those in bondage to the law are persecuting those that are free from the law by grace. What a sharp jab at the Judaizers - Paul couldn't have made a picture more plain for the folks listening to his letter - the Judaizers are after you - to cause you trouble.

Gen. 21.9-10 speaks to this trouble between Ishmael and the promised line. We aren't clear from this passage just what the "mocking" was or who it was related too, but it is clear it was trouble between Ishmael the one under bondage, and the Promised, free, line of Abraham. "And Sarah saw the son of Hagar the Egyptian, which she had born unto Abraham, mocking. 10 Wherefore she said unto Abraham, Cast out this bondwoman and her son: for the son of this bondwoman shall not be heir with my son, [even] with Isaac."

30 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.

This is reference to the passage just quoted in Genesis twenty-one. We as believers are not of the bondwoman but of the freewoman and Paul states this in the next verse.

31 So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free.

What a vivid picture Paul has painted with words to show once again in yet another manner that we are not under the law, we are not outside the family and that we are free, born of the Promised One Jesus Christ.

The further very clear implication is that those under bondage are not acceptable among the free - in short - kick those law following Judaizers out on their legalistic, bondage ridden pants and get back to being the free people that you are!

Just some misc. information that might interest some.

Note should be made of the sons gathering to bury their father (Gen. 25.9), an act of conciliation, though we don't know if there was animosity between the two. Paul's comment rather indicates this possibility as well as the jeering of Isaac early in life.

Smith's dictionary lists pure Arabs as descendant from Joktan while mixed Arabs descend from Ishmael.

It seems that Hagar and Ishmael parted company as both, in the Chronicles, have their own lines, the Hagarites and the Ishmaelites.

Hagar means flight or stranger and was an Egyptian and may have been a gift from Pharaoh when Abraham was down there being a little dishonest.

The angel that appeared to Hagar when she first conceived is actually Christ pre-incarnate. If you do a study of the Angel of the Lord you will find He has qualities of the Godhead and is most likely The Son. There is a study of this on my website for those that are interested.

The seed of Ishmael have no relationship to God due to their father's rejection of God. The implication is that there might have been a relationship had he not rejected God. None of these peoples have a special relation with God, other than what they can have through Christ in our day.

APPLICATION:

1. We saw in Genesis 17.18 that Ishmael was not living unto God, that Abraham was concerned for his being. God, in his concern and love for Abraham told him that even though he was not walking with Him, that He would bless him anyway - bless him as much as he could.

This pictures God's love in a little bit different perspective than usual. He loves the lost children of believers. That should be a comfort to believers that have lost relatives. His love may not be able to overcome their rejection of Him, but He can bless them as much as He can. This might well be a very important praying point for those that do not see their relatives coming to God.

It is also true that God blesses the lost in some manners just as He blesses the believer. Both lost and saved benefit from the rain, the sun, life and all those general items that man as a whole enjoys.

2. Again in Genesis 17 I am left to wonder, after reading it several times, IF Ishmael could have been the promised line. Note the flow of this text. God has announced the coming birth of a son to Sarah, and Abraham laughed at the thought. He then expresses his wish that Ishmael would walk with God. God then mentions that He would make a nation of Isaac, and in deference to Abraham's concern for Ishmael tells him that Ishmael will also become a nation. Now, this had already been promised to Hagar, but is now information given to Abraham.

There are two possibilities here. One, that Ishmael could have been receiver of the promised line, or on the other hand this was just a comment of Abraham that God ignored and returned to Isaac, then after He is finished with Isaac, He consoles Abraham by telling him Ishmael will also be blessed.

Which of these is true? I suspect the first, but I'm not sure there is Scriptural proof of such. It would also give rise to great conversations with the staunch Calvinist and the relationship of the passage to election and free will.

Adam Clarke hints at this when he suggests that Abraham seems to be wishing that Ishmael could have had that relationship with God in Genesis 17.18 (His comment is in his Romans commentary.) Yet, in his Genesis commentary he clearly shows that God had other plans and that this was not a possibility.

I'd like to interject a brief overview of the Genesis account to see if we can sort this out.

Gen. 12.2-3

12.7 the land is promised

13.14-15, 17 the land is again mentioned

13.16 His seed would be as the dust on earth

15.1-3 Abraham complains that Eliezer/servant is his only heir

15.4 heir promised from his own loins

15.5 his seed to be as the stars in number

15.6 Abraham believes and it is counted for righteousness

15.18 the land is given

16.1ff Hagar is given to Abraham and she conceives and of course Sarah is mad.

16.9ff Hagar is told her seed would be multiplied

16.12 Hagar is told that Ishmael will be a handful in adulthood

17.1-5 Abraham is mentioned to be father of nations (nations and kings 12.6)

17.7-8 the land is to go to Abraham's seed/future generations

17.9-14 circumcision is set forth as a coming requirement

17.15-16 Sarah is to have son/mother of nations and kings

17.17 Abraham does not believe

17.18 Abraham laments Ishmael's direction (God already set his course it seems in 16.12)

17.19,21 his coming son through Sarah is to be Isaac -- covenant is to be with him and his seed.

17.20 Ishmael is to be a great nation

17.23-27 circumcision done to all in Abraham's camp including Ishmael

18.1-15 Sarah still unbelieving (laughed) about child. Abraham's belief/disbelief is not mentioned

21.1-8 Isaac comes on the scene

21.9ff Hagar is run off --

21.18 Ishmael is to be a great nation

22.15ff covenant is confirmed -- Abraham is to be blessed, large seed, and in his seed the nations would be blessed (Christ)

I know that Abraham thought Ishmael could possibly be the promised line, but whether this was ever a possible in God's mind/plan, I don't think we can determine. I think logically that since Ishmael came from an incorrect response from Sarah that this probably was not a possibility. It seems however, that Ishmael was not living in a manner consistent with being the promised line.

3. Paul seems to be saying, folks you are attempting to move from the place of sons to the place of rejects, of bondage, of ranker. You are not of the spiritual line of Ishmael, but of the line of promise, why are you trying to live like the other guys?

Is this not what Christians are trying to do today? Today we have all the "Christian" trappings that are identical to the world. We have:

Christian rock

Christian punk

Christian Hip Hop - even a hip-hop version of the Bible

Christian everything the world has in music

Christian action figures

Christian fiction

Christian movies

Christian entertainment

Christian credit counseling

Christian finance

Christian jazzercise

Christian diets

Christian romance novels - based on Biblical characters

Christian television

Christians are living like the other guys!

Christians don't want to be identified with the world, but they want to be just like the world, so they take everything of the world, tack on the term "Christian" and call it theirs. FOLKS THAT IS THE WORLD - tacking on the term "Christian" doesn't change the sum and substance of anything!

God says, that we are to be lighthouses unto the world, how can we be a lighthouse if they can't tell us from themselves?

4. I think Genesis 17.18 is a grand verse for parents, especially those that have an adult child that has not followed the Lord. Here, before God, Abraham laments his sons living, and yet God does not condemn nor reproach Abraham for not raising him properly.

Adult children make adult decisions and must live with the consequences. The parent, if they tried to parent correctly, are not responsible for wandering mature children.

The passage also pictures the great love that Abraham had for this child conceived in sin. This is natural, and should be the attitude of parents in that situation. It is not the child's fault that the parent made a mistake.

This is parenthetical to the point of number four in application and clearly a rabbit trail that I would like to follow for a moment or two. I might mention that I used the phrase "conceived in sin" and I believe this to be the Scriptures analysis of the situation, but there is a major item to consider of Abraham, or any Old Testament saint and their lifestyle. They were not as we. They did not have the Holy Spirit indwelling them as we have. There are many in the reformed camp that would dispute this truth, but there is no reason for the Lord to promise the Spirit to the apostles if they already had Him within.

Without the Holy Spirit within you there is a great lack in the spiritual stalwartness that we enjoy; they had no leading of the Spirit, nor convicting of the Spirit as directly as we. Thus, we must understand that they were just as prone to sin as we, but equipped with fewer tools than we.

We, even enjoying the work of the Spirit, often choose to sin, how much more easily must it have been for the Old Testament saint to choose to sin. I can imagine, Sarah telling Abraham to take Hagar - "hey, whatever works for you, works for me." Yes, a little simplistic and possibly base, but this is about how I see the Genesis account. She offered, he did it, she got mad, and everyone suffered for it.

There is also the fact that the Old Testament saint was not yet regenerated, they were accepted because their sin was COVERED but they were not in the family of God in a complete manner until the work of the cross. Now, if that doesn't ring a bell, that means that they were operating under their fallen nature - not an easy time to refrain from sin if you know the Scriptures.

Consider also, Ishmael - the one that didn't have a vote in the soap opera - he was just dumped into it - people, THINK before you decide to satisfy your own lust, the offspring may suffer immeasurably for your moment of chosen sin.

And now to the real point of this diversion. We in the church age have the Spirit within us to aid us in our control of our inner man. The Old Testament saint did not. Will we not be held to a higher standard than they? We have no real reason to ever sin, other than our own desire to allow it to come to pass. With the Spirit within we have all capability of saying no to ourselves, but we so often opt to sin anyway.

5. We might take a little time to think about our Bible and how we view it. We would hold to inerrancy and defend it to the hilt, yet we allow some mighty sloppy interpretation on the part of pastors and teachers.

We were in a church years ago and the man was drawing things from the verse we were studying that just plain and simply were not there. I in my usual obnoxious fashion asked him how he could say those things came from that particular verse. His reply ran along the line that the quarterly says it so it is so. He would not question the quarterly nor its authority to teach him nor his students.

Inerrancy is important but we should not forget that accuracy of interpretation is as important if not the more. After all wouldn't the Roman church agree with us on inerrancy, wouldn't many cults agree with us on inerrancy, indeed the Calvinist and the Armenian would agree with us on inerrancy, yet look at the wide differences in interpretation that we get from the same inerrant Scriptures.

Of course all interpretations are completely accurate - to those that have interpreted. Each one believes he has the truth.

Thus I guess you need to understand that the Judaizers were honest in their beliefs, even though they were wrong.

This might bring up a question that I am not sure I can answer.

How do we determine who is right in this area of interpretation? Since we are all right (in our own eyes) how do we know we are right, how do I know that I interpret Paul's comments correctly?

Let's list some possible items to consider:

a. Compare Scripture with Scripture.

b. Compare your interpretation of a passage with other Scripture. Is your interpretation consistent with all other Scripture?

c. Be walking closely with God and seeking His guidance in all your study and thinking.

d. Compare your interpretation with that of other known scholars (notice that makes you one too by following this item :-)

e. Compare your interpretation with that of the church in years past. Are you consistent with what other church leaders of past ages taught.

If all these are done, then you have a fair chance of a proper interpretation, but be careful even then, for some of these people you are comparing to may be in error.

So, how did Paul know that he could be so definite on what he was telling the Galatians? He had received his information from Christ Himself - he didn't need to compare with anyone, he was the authority of the day.

More to the point is the fact that the method of interpretation is critical. If you interpret Scripture allegorically, you will end up in the Roman or cultic camp. You will find that there is no authority as to truth in this method.

I might add that this passage is not showing that Paul interpreted allegorically. He was simply using a picture argument to disprove error. See the next item of application.

I might give you a little picture of the importance of being careful in interpretation. It would have been easy for me to continue on in my thinking about Ishmael and the possibility of his being the promised line and gone haywire with super new information for the church, however when I went back to the passage in Genesis and interpreted Scripture with Scripture it was much more clear that it was likely only Abraham that thought this might be a possibility rather than it being a real possibility with God.

6. In a further need of comment in this area, in verse 24 "Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the Mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar." Paul is not interpreting the Genesis account allegorically; he is using the account as an allegory to show a truth. There is a vast difference.

He is not saying that when Moses set down the account that it was meant as an allegory and that all believers since that time should interpret it allegorically, he is saying that this account pictures what I am trying to convey to you Galatians.

He goes on in the following verses to use other parts of the Genesis account in the same manner.

To the point, when you read the Genesis account you need to interpret it literally, and understand the plain literal meaning of the words, not look for some deep spiritual interpretation.

Allegorical interpretation treats the passage as only a vehicle or truck to carry the message. The message once understood enables the reader to discard the actual verse. This is a most dangerous method of viewing the Word.

I once asked a youth group to interpret Revelation 1.13-16 allegorically. The result was hilarious. One that has always stuck in my mind was from a very sharp teenage girl. She said it was a hippie in a Bahai robe standing in an old bathtub with brass claw feet with the water running. I asked the others in the class to prove her wrong and obviously they could not.

Christ in essence used allegory when he used parables. They were fictional accounts that He used to teach literal truths. Paul in this passage just uses a real account to teach his literal truth.

When Scripture uses allegory, it is quite evident in the passage where it is used.

Allegory is used to pass on information more easily to the listener. I once used a wall as an allegory. One day the students wanted to go to the cafeteria for class so they could have coffee with their class - not necessarily a commentary on the teachers interesting lectures, but then again it may have been.

At any rate the information I wanted to convey was the end times. When we arrived at the cafeteria, I realized my overlays would not be useful since there was no overhead projector. I leaned back in my chair about four feet from the wall and proceeded to divide the wall, imaginarily, into the sections of the end time. Each time I would speak of the tribulation I would point to where it was supposed to be on the wall. As the hour went on, I stopped pointing and noticed when I mentioned one of the areas some of the students would actually turn their eyes to that portion of the wall.

I was using the wall to visually teach and convey information. So, Paul used a historical series of events to convey his argument against the Judaizers, and I must say that he couldn't have done a better job of giving forth this information.

7. One other item that some suggest, and probably rightly so, if all this is true, is that the Judaizers are of the law, are of sin, are of bondage, and are of Ishmael so to speak. Since Abraham kicked Hagar and Ishmael out should not the proper living Christians give the Judaizers a swift kick in the get out of here? I think that is probably the direct application that the Galatians should have made.

This would also give rise for immediate reconsideration of your belief system as a person that was following them - do I really want to follow bondage, and leave with the Judaizers or commit myself to the freedom of grace and stick with the good guys? This would have been a highly charged time in the life of the Galatian church.

Those that had rejected the Judaizers would be high on their superior thinking, knowing that they had finally been proven correct - that is just a little application of what I know of human nature, I trust I am incorrect. Anyway, they would have been readying themselves for the expulsion of the Judaizers and would have been turning their sights on those that had been bought into the false teaching.

What a time of soul searching some of the Judaizers must have gone through. Having seen their doctrine split open and exposed as falsehood. There must have been some that were convinced and turned away from their error - surely there must have been.

8. Okay, it is time to get nervous. I am going to talk about the covenants. No, I am not a covenant theologian, no I am not reform, I am unabashedly a dispensationalist, but the Bible talks of covenants and so must we if we are going to do the Bible justice.

There are two covenants mentioned here. The old and the new basically are in view at this point. Specifically it is the Old Testament Law compared to the Promise theology, if you will, of the Old Testament. Both worked together through the time of the law and into the time of Christ. At the point of Christ the Promise covenant was changed, or maybe a better term might be, fulfilled.

The one covenant, that of the flesh and Ishmael lead nowhere spiritually, but were a promise or covenant between God and Hagar/Ishmael whereby they were blessed with a great seed and a great nation. Unfortunately it was separate from the other covenant which lead to great spiritual peace.

The other covenant, the promise made to Abraham is usually tied up in four promises. I think that a fifth is clear from this passage in Galatians.

a. Abraham was to be blessed.

b. Abraham was to be given a land.

c. Abraham would have a great seed.

d. Abraham would bless all nations.

The fifth seems to be the singular seed that Paul mentions, Christ Himself. Christ was not only from the plural seed of Abraham, but was "the Seed" that was to fulfill this promise to Abraham and his progeny.

Gal. 3.16 "Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ."

Gal. 3.19 "Wherefore then [serveth] the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; [and it was] ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator."

Now, I may be splitting straws to make a fifth part of the promise, you could say that there are four and that the third one has two aspects - and you would be within bounds in my mind, but the specific thought of a plural seed or progeny, as well as a singular seed is required by the Word Itself.

9. Let's list the two covenants and their information for ease of observation:

SEED OF ISHMAEL SEED OF ISAAC

of the flesh of the promise

of Ishmael's promise of Isaac's promise

of the old of the new

no singular seed singular Seed, Christ

results in physical numbers results in physical and spiritual numbers

of Sinai of Jerusalem

of the law of grace

of bondage of freedom

of the past of the future

of bareness of fruitfulness (vs. 27)

of conflict of peace (vs. 29)

cast off accepted as heirs

One wouldn't want to miss the picture that Sinai brings forth either - that of idol production and the giving of the law.

10. International Standard Bible Encyclopedia suggests that the Sinai aspect relates to physical Israel even unto today and Jerusalem relates to spiritual, heavenly Israel. Let's consider that for a moment. Is this true or not?

In reality it definitely is true. Present Jews are bound up in the Law while rejecting grace, though a few have left the law and are enjoying salvation through Christ, so indeed, this is true. It is also true that the illustration Paul uses is limited to the lost Jewish law abider versus the saved Jewish/Gentile grace acceptor. (Indeed, there is a possibility that there are Gentiles in the lost Jewish grouping as well because the Old Testament has a complete set of rules whereby a Gentile can be accepted into the Jewish faith as a sojourner or stranger, as they are called in the Old Testament.