Jean’s Gospel: Allegory of the Barren Church
“For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by a slave woman and one by a free woman. But the son of the slave was born according to the flesh, while the son of the free woman was born through promise. Now this may be interpreted allegorically: these women are two covenants. One is from Mount Sinai, bearing children for slavery; she is Hagar. Now Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia; she corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children. But the Jerusalem above is free, and she is our mother.” (Gal 4:22-26)
To briefly summarize the major points in this opening passage from Paul’s elegant allegory, Paul is describing two groups of people:
(1) Children who are born of natural means, such as Hagar’s son, Ishmael, are born under the Law. Life under the Law is slavery to sin, death and the devil. Slaves receive no inheritance in the Kingdom of God; and
(2) Children who are born by the power of God’s word of promise (i.e., Gospel), like Sarah’s son, Isaac, who are born apart from the Law. Life apart from the Law is freedom from slavery to sin, the sting of death and the power of the devil. Free children receive an inheritance in the Kingdom of their heavenly Father.
The other important point Paul makes in this opening passage is the new locus for God’s presence and saving activity in the world. God has left the earthly Jerusalem and the temple and has abolished the sacrifices and Aaronic priesthood. God’s new locus is in the midst of His Church, where His Word is rightly preached and His Sacraments are administered. Christ rules His bride, the Church, by grace and there, through water and the Word, the Holy Spirit gives birth to free baby Christians. Paul refers to the Church as the “Jerusalem above.”
“For it is written,
‘Rejoice, O barren one who does not bear;
break forth and cry aloud, you who are not in labor!
For the children of the desolate one will be more
than those of the one who has a husband.’” (Gal 4:27)
Hagar, who has the Law for a husband, always appears to be overflowing with fertility. Just look around and see how well legalistic religions grow and seem to prosper. Even many churches, who superficially confess Christ, actually have taken the Law as their paramour.
By contrast, the Jerusalem above appears barren. Christ serves His bride with gifts of absolution, freedom and life by means of preaching the Gospel and the administration of the Sacraments. Sinners are set free by grace through faith in Christ alone.
But grace through faith appears barren to the carnal eye. With grace through faith, there is no two-way exchange between God and man. Christ does all the giving, and Christians do all the receiving. But the carnal eye wants proof that God is actually present and active: a charismatic preacher; moving testimonies; spiritual mentors; spiritual disciplines; entertaining messages; emotional music; manifestations of the Holy Spirit; maybe even a Bible inspired diet plan. Many of these things are done or talked about “in Christ’s name”, but in name only. Meanwhile, the Jerusalem above appears barren. Walking by faith and not by sight appears barren. Christ nailed to a cross appears barren.
“For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths.” (2 Tim 4:3-4) Have you seen this?
Ironically, however, it is only the Jerusalem above who is birthing free baby Christians and filling up heaven with a great multitude of saints. On the other hand, the descendants of Hagar, who appear as numerous as the stars in the sky are actually living in spiritual death and if not saved will be confirmed dead for eternity. Christ does not share His bride with another husband, whether the Law or your works. If you want Christ, it must be “the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast.”
“Now you, brothers, like Isaac, are children of promise. But just as at that time he who was born according to the flesh persecuted him who was born according to the Spirit, so also it is now. (Gal 4:28-29)
Legalists always persecute the Jerusalem from above, because they don’t trust freedom in Christ and they don’t trust faith itself. They would like to bind the Christian conscience with some Law to ensure piety. Then they attack the Christian by attempting to divert him from trusting in Christ’s gifts to relying on other people or themselves for their spiritual formation. But the free Christian is “sure of this, that he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ.” (Phil 1:6)
“But what does the Scripture say? ‘Cast out the slave woman and her son, for the son of the slave woman shall not inherit with the son of the free woman.’” (Gal 4:30)
Paul ends the allegory by exhorting the Galatians to cast out the legalists and their works of the Law. Christ and the Law cannot co-exist in a man’s conscience. A man is either justified freely by faith alone in Christ alone, or he will stand condemned before God, because no one can justify himself under the Law.
Paul also describes in this allegory the spiritual warfare that all Christians face. On the one hand, we are all Hagar’s children by natural descent; so in this respect we are slaves to sin. But on the other hand, by grace through faith in Christ we are re-birthed as free children of Sarah. As children of Hagar, we have no inheritance and are condemned under the Law, whereas as children of Sarah, we have an eternal inheritance free from the Law.
Therefore, Christians endure an internal spiritual battle between the identity of their natural descent (which they see when they look in the mirror) and their new adopted sonship in Christ. This is the battle Paul describes vividly in Romans Chapter 7 where he concludes:
“Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, I myself serve the law of God with my mind, but with my flesh I serve the law of sin.” (Rom 7:24-25)
As children of Hagar (to extend the allegory), we will always be slaves to sin in our flesh. But as free children of Sarah, we are reckoned righteous by God for Christ’s sake apart from the Law. Therefore, Christians can describe themselves as simultaneously sinners and saints.
Therefore, when Paul writes to “cast out the slave woman and her son”, we should also take this as an exhortation to us to daily repent of our sin and turn to Christ who is “faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.” (1 John 1:9)
“For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.” (1 Cor 1:18) Amen.
There is nothing quite like letting the Scriptures speak for themselves, so with no further commentary from me, here is more of them that make up the context from the same book of Galatians, which makes up most of Jean’s argument in this post:
“4 But when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law, 5 to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons. 6 And because you are sons, God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, ‘Abba! Father!’ 7 So you are no longer a slave, but a son, and if a son, then an heir through God.
10 You observe days and months and seasons and years!
5 For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery.
2 Look: I, Paul, say to you that if you accept circumcision, Christ will be of no advantage to you. 3 I testify again to every man who accepts circumcision that he is obligated to keep the whole law. 4 You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace. 5 For through the Spirit, by faith, we ourselves eagerly wait for the hope of righteousness. 6 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything, but only faith working through love.
7 You were running well. Who hindered you from obeying the truth? 8 This persuasion is not from him who calls you. 9 A little leaven leavens the whole lump. 10 I have confidence in the Lord that you will take no other view, and the one who is troubling you will bear the penalty, whoever he is. 11 But if I, brothers, still preach circumcision, why am I still being persecuted? In that case the offense of the cross has been removed. 12 I wish those who unsettle you would emasculate themselves!
13 For you were called to freedom, brothers. Only do not use your freedom as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another. 14 For the whole law is fulfilled in one word: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” 15 But if you bite and devour one another, watch out that you are not consumed by one another.
Keep in Step with the Spirit
16 But I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the flesh. 17 For the desires of the flesh are against the Spirit, and the desires of the Spirit are against the flesh, for these are opposed to each other, to keep you from doing the things you want to do. 18 But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law. 19 Now the works of the flesh are evident: sexual immorality, impurity, sensuality, 20 idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, rivalries, dissensions, divisions, 21 envy, drunkenness, orgies, and things like these. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God. 22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law. 24 And those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires.
25 If we live by the Spirit, let us also keep in step with the Spirit. 26 Let us not become conceited, provoking one another, envying one another.”
I believe there is only one text in the New Covenant scriptures that describes us as sinners, in James. I know this could ensue a debate over Romans 7 but let’s just say no.
Overall I loved this presentation. I see the calvinist overtones all over the narrative and I find them unnecessary and imputed into the language but the exegesis is well said.
For me the legalist of today are the abundant neo-judaizers of various messianic ilk.
The addition of the sonship narratives of Romans and Galatians would sweeten the dialogue considerably but
Well done
Saint Dread
Mr. J,
Forgive me if I’m dense, but are you disagreeing with something (everything) I wrote, or agreeing, or just adding additional Scripture?
BD,
What about 1John 1:8-10 and the Lord’s Prayer in Matthew 6:12, 12-14?
Who says that I need to agree or disagree? All Scripture has a context and it is good to note it. How about the fruits of the flesh: enmity, strife, divisions and dissensions? I agree with Dread about Calvinist overtones being imputed into your interpretation. That is not a sin, but is certainly a bias. My best friend is a Calvinist, by the way. Our relationship goes way beyond disagreeing over minor points of doctrine. My beliefs are closer to NT Wright. The text is about Judaizers in a first century context. Paul knew nothing about the corruption that would overtake Rome and the reaction to that by the Reformers. The text means something today for I know of one woman who converted to Judaism from Christianity when she married a Jew. She threw away her faith in Jesus, just as Galatians states.
Michael,
You’re a Calvinist. Could you help me identify the Calvinist overtones? I’m not trying to argue with anyone, but not being a Calvinist myself, I have no idea what that means.
But I appreciate all the feedback.
Jean,
Whenever anything is written celebrating monergism, the sovereignty of God in salvation, people think “Calvinism”.
I think “biblical”.
Also, for some odd reason , the precious doctrine of the imputation of Christ’s righteousness is considered Calvinistic…
Thanks for clarifying Michael. I hope both your 7 and 8 are evident in the article. I was following Lutheran tradition, but there is substantial overlap between Luther and Calvin on those two points.
I want to be the first Calvinistic Arminian.
Mr J – wouldn’t a non Calvinist view be biased?
Babs, how many mentions in the Bible before you believe something? If James were the only reference and we are not still sinners, then is James in error? Are you channeling your old Lutheran thoughts?
I Timothy1:15 — Paul is speaking in the present tense.
The saying is trustworthy and deserving of full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am the foremost.
no one in their right mind would deny that we Christian are sinners, but sometimes the attempts to explain sainthood coexisting with sin gets very tangled 🙂
James does explain the double-minded man pretty well
Joyce Myer says that she is not a sinner. In reference to I am a poor miserable sinner she once said that she was not poor, she was not miserable and she was not a sinner.
Ted Haggard 6 months before his fall said on Issues etc that he was not a sinner and he told Todd Wilkin the host “if you keep sinning you should stop.
Most evangelicals are reluctant to admit they are sinners after justification – this is why they change the verbs from present tenser to — well they really don’t change them, they say they can still be interpreted as a past term in a present term way. Very silly stuff.
And they definitely deny they are 100% saint (justified) and at the same time 100% sinner. Evangelicals prefer to think of themselves more like 80/20 … with a bullet meaning they are going up (you would have to be a 60s tops 40s fan to understand. 😉 )
Here is the Joyce Myer quote — good stuff;
“I’m going to tell you something folks, I didn’t stop sinning until I finally got it through my thick head I wasn’t a sinner anymore. And the religious world thinks that’s heresy and they want to hang you for it. But the Bible says that I’m righteous and I can’t be righteous and be a sinner at the same time … All I was ever taught to say was, ‘I’m a poor, miserable sinner.’ I am not poor, I am not miserable and I am not a sinner. That is a lie from the pit of hell. That is what I was and if I still am then Jesus died in vain. Amen?”
Explaining sainthood with sinner-hood, which for a Christian are as undivided, yet inseparable, as the incarnation of Christ himself (who was like us in every way, but without sin), is difficult to fathom for many Christians, because of the Wesleyan theology which lies in the background of American evangelicalism.
If pastor’s taught their flock the doctrine of simul justus et peccator (simultaneously saint and sinner), I suspect Michael would be out of a job as a blogger of church scandal. If pastor’s taught the doctrine of simul justus et peccator, churches would not have a Moses model clergy which encourages pastors to abuse their flock, turn them away from Christ, and do the will of the prince of this world. If pastors taught this doctrine, maybe the public wouldn’t think Christians are a bunch of hypocritical jerks.
Jesus did his level best to kill our self righteousness: Die to self; take up your cross; turn the other cheek; forgive your offender every time; sell all your stuff; etc. How do we relativize His teaching? Who is denying himself around here? Anyone?
Is there any doubt that any righteousness we have in God’s eyes is Christ’s righteousness imputed to us by his perfect obedience? Christ is the one who laid down his life, who denied himself, who carried the cross for us. He did all the stuff that God requires, that we can’t. Right?
If anyone wants to please God, listen to Christ:
“Then they said to him, ‘What must we do, to be doing the works of God?’ Jesus answered them, ‘This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent.'” (John 6:28-29)
Just call it the simul — my tongue gets a charlie horse trying to say the whole thing 😉
churches would not have a Moses model clergy which encourages pastors to abuse their flock, turn them away from Christ, and do the will of the prince of this world.
———————————————————————-
Wow.
Uh oh — David woke up Goliath. 🙂
I think we saw the Moses model priesthood in action with the Ortiz sermon which was given at CC Albuquerque last week. But to be fair, he was just being faithful to the CC distinctive, which I quote in part below:
“In the church today we see this structure in a modified form. We see that Jesus
Christ is the Head over the body of the church. It’s His church. He’s the One in
charge. As pastors, we need to be like Moses, in touch with Jesus and receiving
His direction and guidance. As pastors we need to be leading the church in such
a way that the people know that the Lord is in control. Then, when issues come
up, we can say, “Well, let me pray about that.” “Let me seek the wisdom of the
Lord on this.” “Let’s look for the Lord’s guidance.” Also, like Moses, within the
church we have a Board of Elders who are there to pray with us and support us
in seeking the Lord’s leading for the church.”
So, is the pastor receiving Jesus “direction and guidance” outside His Word, in a special revelation which the congregation isn’t privy to? Is this not exactly what the Pope claims for himself as the Vicar of Christ? Is the canon closed or is it open to CC pastors?
Now, if CC pastors are not sinners, if they are fully sanctified, so that they hear Christ without the corruption of self-interest, and if the Holy Spirit is giving special revelation to the CC pastors, then I am totally wrong and will apologize. But, if the Moses model is the spawn of Satan, then I would highly recommend that anyone under such a model leave immediately.
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me a sinner.
I didn’t say we have no sin,
To clarify I am saying the overwhelming emphasis is not our sinfulness but our beloved status in Christ as sons and saints of God.
Mr Jespersen is all over it.
I thought the article was excellent and said so… but when I see a Reformed reference to legalism I know it references the Catholic errors of the 16th century more than the Judaism of the first century. Being saved from hell by good works is not a first century Jewish thought form IMO.
But please accept that I thought it to be wonderful writing and decent exegesis
Adherence to the Law and the rites of the temple priesthood and sacrificial system (good works) was very much first century Jewish thought.
Look at the Pharisee and the tax collector as the Pharisee ticks off his good works to pay homage to a God who can and will destroy.
NT Wright is wrong. 🙂
if one accepts that the “new birth” is a real birth and not an allegory, then all the other pieces fall into place
were we Ishmael’s progeny before being born again? or is the old, rebel dying man an Ishmaelite? i don’t know… but my flesh is the same as Adam’s (& Eve’s), corrupted and dying – my soul is another matter – my conduct can serve either God or my flesh and does…
God keep
“The pleasure of novelty is by its very nature more subject than any other to the law of diminishing returns. And continued novelty costs money, so that the desire for it spells avarice or unhappiness or both. And again, the more rapacious this desire, the sooner it must eat up all the innocent sources of pleasure and pass on to those [God] forbids.”
– C. S. Lewis, The Screwtape Letters