Have you ever heard someone say, “He’s beating a dead horse”? It refers to someone who goes on and on and on about a matter or an issue already settled. The phrase conveys a picture of a man who wants his horse to pull a wagon or load. But no matter how much he attempts to motivate the horse, it just won’t pull. Why? Because it’s dead. And no amount of motivation will cause it to pull that load. Transfer that thought to the Apostle Paul’s situation as he wrote to the Galatians. People that he had introduced to Christ were found to be immersed in the rules and regulations of the Mosaic Law.

Knowing that Law keepers find great security and reassurance from their outward conformity to rules and regulations (remember Paul had been a Law keeper as a Pharisee), he proceeded very carefully to deal with the problem. Recognizing that legalists tend to be nitpickers, Paul carefully developed his letter to the Galatian Churches. Two chapters are spent simply establishing that Paul had the authority to address these issues. Once his apostolic authority had been firmly established, Paul spent the following two chapters methodically explaining why salvation (including justification and sanctification) had to be a matter of pure faith, by grace through faith, with works being the consequence, not the cause of deliverance.

He used their own experiences, Abraham’s experience, arguments about the Law, and even his testimony among them to prove beyond any doubt that salvation is by means of faith. So, in Galatians 4.21-31, why are we now dealing with 11 verses that once again drive home what he has already driven home? Before you begin to think that Paul is simply beating a dead horse ... proving something that no longer needs to be proven, I have a suggestion.

Could it be that different people need things explained to them differently? Sure. And I am convinced that the extreme importance of this truth (that every aspect of salvation is a faith matter, not works of the Law matters) is established by the lengths to which Paul has gone to teach it.

In his letter to the Galatians, Paul tried four different ways of teaching this principle. We are examining his fifth and last effort. The truth again is that salvation is by faith apart from works of the Law. This last approach has four simple steps.

STEP NUMBER ONE. ADDRESS (4.21)

“Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law?”

Different kinds of people make the world go ‘round. Some are leaders, and some are followers. That is, they do what they do because others are doing it or to get others to do it. So, it was in Galatia.

From another angle, some folks are ruled by emotion and others by reason. Some Galatians were led into legalism because it made sense to them, based on their limited understanding of God’s Word. But others went into legalism because it was a familiar territory. Do you remember cognitive dissonance and people’s tendency to stay comfortable instead of embracing the true? We have that here. It didn’t necessarily make theological sense to them, but they were used to rules and regulations. So, off they went into the region of comfort rather than the realm of truth.

What kind of people is Paul dealing with in his final run at convincing folks that the Law of Moses is not for them? We are given an excellent clue. Look at the verb “desire,” which translates the Greek word qέelw, in verse 21.

The word refers to will, volition, and determination. Paul was directing his remarks specifically to men and women who were living under the Law of Moses, not because they thought they were supposed to be under it, not because they thought it made biblical sense, not even because they had any reasons at all. They placed themselves under the Law because they wanted to.

There is, in logic, a law of reason. It is a principle by which all rational thought and behavior is governed. It is called the Law of Sufficient Reason. Simply put, you and I have no absolute right to believe and do what we do without good reasons. After 49 verses of explanation, Paul has removed all of the good and sufficient reasons they might have thought they had for placing themselves under the Law of Moses as a rule of life. Those who were left holding onto the Law of Moses as a rule of life and as a tool, erroneously, for advancing their spirituality were those who will do it simply because, through stubborn pride or for some other reason, they want to.

Our text for today is Paul’s last shot at the hard cases of people who don’t like to think about what they do or why they do it.

STEP NUMBER TWO. ABRAHAM

Of those who were under the Law for no good and logical reason, an educated guess would suggest most of them were Jewish believers. For many centuries, their families had been under the Law of Moses, and they were going to be under the Law of Moses. And lest you think such tendencies do not really occur, I would like to inform you of the millions of people in our area who are Catholics simply because their families have always been or who vote Democrat because their families have always voted that way.

Verse 22 is a recitation:

“For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bond maid, the other by a free woman.”

To these primarily Jewish Christians Paul is addressing, mentioning the name Abraham would grab attention. Remember, Abraham was the patriarch of the Israelites. He was the first Hebrew. He was the friend of God. So, Paul referred to two passages in Genesis concerning the two sons that Abraham had sired. One of them, Ishmael, was the son of the bondwoman, the slave Hagar. The other son, Isaac, was the son of Abraham’s free wife, Sarah. Whatever Paul was about to do, his readers were interested. He had taken them back thousands of years. He had brought up an ancient controversy that had always been under the surface. Who are the legitimate heirs of Abraham, those from the son of the slave Hagar or those from the son of Abraham’s wife, Sarah?

Verse 23 is a realization:

“But he who was of the bond woman was born after the flesh; but he of the free woman was by promise.”

Paul showed great contrast between the two sons of Father Abraham. One was a child of the flesh, and the other was a child of promise. Do you see the word “flesh?” It’s such a simple word. There’s nothing complicated about it at all. Rather like the word “church” or the word “baptize.” People would be fine if theologians or “experts” quit trying to complicate matters with these words. We may study this word someday to show you that when Paul refers to “flesh,” he refers to flesh. What Paul pointed out in this verse is very simple. Of the two sons born, one was not the product of divine intervention, and the other, Isaac, was the product of divine intervention. And the divine intervention resulted from a promise God had made to Abraham. Any problem so far? Not from the Jewish believers. Everything Paul had written in these two verses was stuff they already agreed with wholeheartedly.

STEP NUMBER THREE. ALLEGORY

Now, it begins to really get exciting for Paul.

Notice the parallel drawn (4.24)

“Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.”

Looking back to two factual, historical, events, Paul drew a parallel between those two events (which happened exactly the way the Bible says they happened) and two principles Paul was addressing to his Galatian readers. He told his readers that the things he had just referred to, the birth of Ishmael by the slave Hagar and the birth of Isaac by the free woman Sarah, paralleled the two covenants that the Galatians were having difficulty understanding. What are the two covenants? They are the Abrahamic Covenant and Mosaic Covenant. The covenant with Abraham paralleled the birth of Isaac, which came by God’s promise. The covenant of the Mosaic Law, coming 400+ years later, paralleled the birth of Ishmael by his slave mother, Hagar. And notice, if you will, that associated with Mount Sinai, which is the Law of Moses, gendereth to bondage. And the word “gendereth” means to give birth to. Do you see the parallel? The slave’s son is himself a slave. A slave’s offspring is always a slave. Therefore, those under the Law, the slave woman Hagar and her offspring, are themselves in bondage.

That’s the parallel that was drawn. What about the present situation? Let’s read verses 25 & 26 together.

“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.”

In verse 25, Paul points out that the situation that began on Mount Sinai was found in Jerusalem. And what he had said about the Law of Moses paralleling Hagar applied to the present situation in Jerusalem, at the time of his writing. Perhaps we should digress for just a moment. Historians agree that James, the senior pastor of the Jerusalem Church, was a rigid adherent to the Law of Moses. However, from the book of Acts, we only see agreement between James and the Apostle Paul. I think that James lived according to the Law as a means of influencing Jewish folks for Christ since the Jewish community would never respect Jewish Christians who had abandoned the Law. But over some time, James, no doubt, had great difficulty persuading Jewish Christians that you didn’t have to keep the Law to get right with God or to advance spiritually. James did what he did to bring souls to Christ. Others may have followed his example but did so for the wrong reasons. Perhaps they didn’t adhere to the Law of Moses to win others to Christ, but they thought it would save them, or they were hoping to get more spiritual by doing so. The situation got so bad that Paul, as he was inspired by God, authorized a clean break from the Law. So, what Paul was doing about the situation in Jerusalem, not James but those who perverted his noble attempt, is condemning it. It is now clear that all the keeping of the Law accomplishes is to bring folks under bondage. But Jerusalem, which is above, which corresponds to Sarah, is a different story entirely. Her offspring was free. No matter what religion your mother is, no matter what your people have always been, is it not better to be spiritually free than to be in spiritual bondage? Of course, it is.

Now, look at the quoted passage (4.27)

“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.”

I don’t have time to develop this thought and prove it to you conclusively, but we see here, in one verse, what Paul took three chapters to do in a similar vein in his letter to the Romans. If salvation is by faith and all the Law does is place people under bondage, what about the nation of Israel? What happens to them? In Romans, Paul spent chapters 9, 10 & 11 explaining what will happen to Israel in light of God’s plan of salvation. But here, he alludes. The passage quoted by Paul comes right after the famous Isaiah 53 chapter that predicts the suffering and death of Christ and right before the chapter that comforts Israel with the thought that though she is forsaken temporarily by the Lord, she will ultimately be redeemed. The thrust of the allegory in verses 24-27 is to picture the Law as enslaving people, and salvation by faith, the promise of God as was Isaac the promise of God, is pictured as setting people free from spiritual bondage.

PAUL’S LAST STEP IS APPLICATION

I want you to follow very carefully what Paul does with his readers. Let’s read the entire passage and then break it down, 4.28-31:

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

30 Nevertheless what saith the scripture? Cast out the bond woman and her son: for the son of the bond woman shall not be heir with the son of the free woman.

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

In verses 28 and 29, Paul compared the past to the present:

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

As Isaac was the child of promise, we are the children of promise. See? He identified his readers with Isaac. And as Ishmael tormented Isaac, so we are tormented and persecuted. Here, Paul refers to the attacks he and others suffered at the hands of those Jews who insisted on keeping the Law. The idea he conveyed is that if you insist on keeping the Law, you are like those who persecuted Paul; you are like Ishmael, who persecuted Isaac, the legitimate son of Abraham.

In verses 30 & 31, Paul is leading. He wanted his readers to respond comparably to Abraham’s response:

30 Nevertheless what saith the scripture? Cast out the bond woman and her son: for the son of the bond woman shall not be heir with the son of the free woman.

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

See what Paul was leading to? Just as it was not possible for two antagonistic children to live under the same roof, so it is not possible for two antagonistic positions, Law versus grace, to coexist in the household of faith. Abraham tried his best to placate both sons. He put off the unavoidable decision as long as he could. Eventually, however, he had to choose between the illegitimate and legitimate heir, between the child of the flesh and the child of the promise. What did Abraham do? He did the right thing. He cast out the bondwoman so there would be no confusion about who the heir really was. And what did Paul want the Galatians to do? He wanted them to follow the example of their ancestor, Abraham. As Abraham made the difficult decision to cast out the bondwoman, Paul wanted his readers to likewise cast out our bondwoman... the Law of Moses or any system of legalism as a rule of the Christian life. Don’t try to reconcile Law and grace, salvation by works and salvation by grace, or sanctification by works and sanctification by grace. They tried that two thousand years ago, and it didn’t work. And nothing has changed in the interim that would make a mixing of Law and grace work today.

What should we do, then? We should do what Abraham did. We should do what the Galatians were urged to do. Cast out the bondwoman and her son! Throw off the yoke of bondage and recognize that if you are indeed saved, you are not a child of the bondwoman but a child of the free.

Some of you were raised to live under a yoke of bondage. While you were in your parents’ home you were taught to live under a system that you now fully realize was like the Law of Moses, if not the Law of Moses.

It was a religious system of rules, regulations, dos and don’ts, and the authority and dictatorial rule of men, not Christ. But you’re a grownup now. You are responsible for your own decisions.

Perhaps you have heard the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Maybe you have even received Christ as your Lord and Savior, or you think you have. If so, the proof of it will be your willingness to come out from the religion of law you are currently in.

Cast out the bondwoman and be free. Don’t remain just because you want to. Don’t remain because your mother remains. Don’t remain because your friends remain. Make a clean break with 7th Day Adventism, Roman Catholicism, Pentecostalism, Charismatic, Islam, Judaism, and any other religious system that seeks righteousness by the law, by rules and regulations, instead of by grace through faith in Jesus Christ.

When confronted with a choice between liberty or bondage, your loyalty ought to be to Christ, not your mom; to Christ, not your dad; to Christ, not your friends.

Come out of your religion of ritual and formalism. Come out of spiritual darkness into the light of truth.

“But pastor, how do I do that? How do I cast out the bondwoman?”

You come and talk to me, and I will show you how to cast out the bondwoman and find true liberty in Christ. Discover that liberty in Christ is the freedom to do right, not the license to do wrong.

Sarah Versus Hagar