Daniel's Literal Translation and Commentary
A Drash on Hagar, Ishmael and Isaac
"21 Tell me, those under the norm wishing to be: you are not hearing the Law? 22 For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by a slave woman and one by a free woman. 23 But the son of the slave was born according to the flesh, while the son of the free woman was born through promise. 24 Now this may be interpreted allegorically: these woman are two wills—one from Mt. Sinai leads to slavery, which is Hagar. 25 On the other hand, Hagar represents Mt. Sinai in Arabia, that lines up with the present Jerusalem. For she is in slavery with her children. 26 But the Yerushalayim from above is free, and she is our mother." (DLT: torahtimes.org, Gal. 4:21-26, w. ESV base).
Comment. vs. 21. In the first instance Paul uses νομος to indicate what is customary or what the norm is, probably encompassing everything from the norm of judgment to tradition to the normal habits of sin, or from Paul's point of view trying to battle sin for an acquittal. In the second instance he puts the article back in because he is going to illustrate the teaching of the Law. (υπο νομου = under custom, or under the norm, i.e. either subject to the penalty of the Law as the norm, or to the normal habits and sinfulness of the world, as is clear from Paul's previous usages of this phrase.) vs. 24. Paul says he is making an allegory. This means that we must interpret the passage as a drash, דרש. We must seek the point in the comparison and symbolism, and not take the text literally. Since we are talking about inheritance and disinheritance here directly, it would be best to take διαθηκη in its normal Greek sense of "will" (cf. BDAG, def. 1). Paul has connected διαθηκη in the drash with the women. Further, we must remember that the purpose of a drash is never to prove anything. It is only to colorfully illustrate one's point, a point which is already proven. What is being illustrated must be taken from Paul's earlier literal points--namely that if one will be subject to the norm then one will be subject to the norm of sin (slavery) and the norm of judgment, the result of sin. In any case the norm of judgment for transgression does come from Mt. Sinai, because it is God who put the curses in the Torah for the transgressors who would not repent. And Paul's enemies would not repent of trying to get God to view them as wholly righteous. Thus they are rejecters of the Torah and brought under the curse (the norm or what is customary for the world) and into the slavery of sin. Please notice that Paul is not rejecting the "will" from Mt. Sinai. He considers it perfectly proper. For God had to disinherit the transgressors.
There are those lawless interpreters who will take the curses pronounced on the transgressors from Mt. Sinai and try to make it the sum total of what the Torah is, such that everything is viewed in terms of the curse, at least when confronted with the moral claims of Torah. Why try they say if one cannot be good enough to avoid the curse, so they continue to set the Torah aside. This attitude assumes that one must be good enough to avoid the curse. Indeed, it is those seeking an acquittal that pulls the Torah down so that they will not be guilty. They have failed to see the biblical solution for their guilt, which is the gospel.
They will fail to see that the curse in Torah is not universally applied. The curses were not universally applied, but only applied to transgressors who set aside the Torah, but even then in view of Messiah those could be lifted too if the transgressor repented. If one was committed to God, and walked in the Spirit, and confirmed (i.e. upheld) the Torah to do it, then the curses did not apply, and any part of the curse that might apply was put on Messiah instead who paid the penalty (cf. Gal. 5:18-25).
The weird thing is that the lawless want to set aside as much of the Torah as they can, including the curses which they avoid applying to themselves. But the only part of the law they adamantly retain as valid is the curses, not for themselves, but only so that they still have it to apply to those who observe the Torah laws that they have rejected. Such is the mystery of iniquity, and the irrationality of sin, and indeed the heart of anti-Semitism. So the reason that they fail to get the point of Paul's drash in the context of Torah is that they have substituted their own gospel of acquittal for the true gospel of repentance and pardon in the Torah. (DLC: torahtimes.org)
composed 5/13/09
Daniel's Literal Translation and Commentary: (http://www.torahtimes.org/translation/gal0421.html)
All Rights Reserved, 2009 by Daniel Gregg. No part of this article may be copied without including the above reference to the author's original: torahtimes.org. It is preferable only to include what is in the boxes, however the live link in the second box may be omitted if necessary.