Two Jerusalem's, Marriage, Land Promise, Sonship & A.D. 70 Gal 4:21-31

Two Jerusalem's, Marriage, Land Promise, Sonship & A.D. 70 Gal 4:21-31 
                                                     by Joel Sexton
                                         
Outline
Introduction
A.Exegesis of Gal 4:21-31
    1) Sonship/True Sons [Mtt 3:3f; 8:11-12; Rom 4; Gal 3-4; 1 Jn]
    2) [Isa 54:1] in [Gal 4:27]. Paul's Midrash. Sonship, Land Promise, & New Covenant
    3) [Gal 4:28-31] Jews persecuting the true sons. Vindication coming in A.D 70
B. Heb 12:22 source Gal 4:26. Consummation Of The Exodus & Kingdom in A.D. 70!


Introduction

Recently in this section of Galatians,  I have recently noticed Paul quoting from [Isa 54:1] verbatim and so decided to look more into this powerful passage.


Max King in his work, "The Spirit Of Prophecy" (pg 57) states:

    "Paul writing under the influence of the Holy Spirit did not simply choose an apt metaphor, but his choice gives us a glimpse into the rich imagery that God invested in the history of the Old Testament. We might think of God as an epic poet, using the history of the Hebrew people as His medium. What appears to be simply a story in the life of Abraham turns out to have great spiritual significance in the unfolding of God's redemptive plan."   


One of the main theme of Gal 4:21-31 is "sonship" which we see Paul discussing earlier in the chapter with the doctrine of adoption. Not until Christ came would the bondage of law no longer be a burden, as they are no longer in bondage as slaves but now sons, true heirs to the promises of the Abrahamic Covenant.

Now to our text

Tell me, you who want to be under law, do you not listen to the law? For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by the bondwoman and one by the free woman. But the son by the bondwoman was born according to the flesh, and the son by the free woman through the promise. [Gal 4:21-23]


Paul here is making the argument he makes so often in Romans and Galatians. In Rom 4 Gal 3-4 we see Paul arguing that the Abrahamic covenant came before Sinai. So those who want to be under law says to hear the law, Genesis speaks of the promise seed 430 years before Moses [Gal 3:17] for Paul next states:


     For if the inheritance is based on law, it is no longer based on a promise; but God has granted it to Abraham by means of a promise. [Gal 3:18]


To be under law was to be under bondage (sign of the exodus/exile) [Gal 4:3,9;5:1]. Paul's who apologetic is that justification is by faith alone on the ground's of Christ's righteousness alone, and not by works of law. As to go down that road of law keeping first mean circumcision and keeping Torah in its integrity. [Gal 5:1 cf. 3:10-14]


The Jews were born to Ishmael, while the Body of Christ was to Issac.


This is allegorically speaking, for these women are two covenants: one proceeding from Mount Sinai bearing children who are to be slaves; she is Hagar. [Gal 4:24]


In vs. 24 we have two women, two covenants and two cities. (Sounds like Rev 17-21 to me)
Paul is given a Jewish Midrashic interpretation of the story of Abraham, which was not an uncommon method for Paul in his teaching. Top O.T. scholar Walter Kaiser states that in 1 Cor 10:1-11; 2 Cor 3:12-18 and our text, Gal 4:21-31 are among the most noted passages that Paul uses this method in [1]


Don Preston in his work, "We Shall Meet Him In The Air: The Wedding Of The King Of Kings'' (pg 56) sums this section up:


    The apostle tells his famous allegory of Abraham's two wives, Sarah and Hagar. The two sons of the two women represented the two seeds, the natural seed of Abraham and the spiritual seed. The spiritual seed was the body of Christ. These two women and their sons represented the two covenants, the Mosaic Covenant and the New     Covenant of the New Covenant Messiah, and the two seeds. The children of the flesh was Old Covenant Israel. The children of promise were the followers of the Messiah, the seed of Abraham by faith (Galatians 3:6f). [2]


R.T. France in his commentary on Hebrews (pg 174) admits what most won't That the Old Covenant represented earthly Jerusalem while the New the heavenly,


    The author now reinforces the point with a graphic "take of two mountains"-Mount     Sinai, the mountain of fear, which represents the old covenant and all they have left     behind, and Mount Zion, the mountain of joy, which represents the heavenly city , the      new era of salvation through Christ (cf. Gal 4:24-29 for a similar argument concerning     Mount Sinai as representing the old covenant and "the new Jerusalem that is above"     representing the new). Even within the OT, Sinai represented only "a staging-post on the way to a destination, namely Canaan, and ultimately the holy city Jerusalem"     (Gordon, 157); but for our author, the contrast is greater still, since the Zion he speaks of is in heaven, not on earth. [3]


Now this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children [Gal 4:25]


As stated above, this language of slavery brings the picture of the exodus into the discussion. The unbelieving Jews were on their way to destruction [Gal 4:28-31] while the church was on the verge of Zion restored. The heavenly, New Jerusalem ending the exodus.


 But the Jerusalem above is free; she is our mother. [Gal 4:26]


This verse is parallel to [Heb 12:22] which we will touch briefly at the end of this study. We see one group is in slavery and no longer sons, while another group of people is now the true sons and free. I want to touch on this issue of sonship very quickly


In 1 John we see this issue of the true children of God vs that of the devil 1 Jn 3;10. This seems to be a Johannine theme as Jesus cascades the Pharisees in stating,


    You are of your father the devil, and you want to do the desires of your father. He was a murderer from the beginning and does not stand in the truth because there is no truth in him. Whenever he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own nature, for he is a     liar and the father of lies. [Jn 8:44]


Paul, as mentioned, spoke of it in [Rom 4; Gal 3-4] in the context of justification and adoption. And yet we see that "adoption" is Israel's covenantal right in [Rom 9:3-4]. The already and not yet. We are adopted into the covenant family of God once we have faith in Jesus Christ and are fully justified. [Rom 4[. But the "not yet" we see clearly in [Rom 8:18-24] where the sons receive their full adoption
.

Jesus in Mtt 8:11-12 speaks of national Israel being cast out of God's presence (false sons). Matthew picks the theme up in the parable of the Husbandman of [Mtt 21:33-43] where the exact words "sons of the kingdom" are used by Christ, and yet all agree this passage is speaking of Jerusalem's impending judgment in .A.D 70. In [Mtt 22:13] similar language to [Mtt 8:11-12] is used, but again, even though most would not agree [Mtt 8] is A.D. 70, all agree [Mtt 21:33-43; 22:14], the coming of the Lord, with the kingdom, marriage, destruction of Jerusalem and Gehenna hellfire. A lot to admit too! (Sonship is also a theme found in Ephesians & Colossians)


For it is written,
    “Rejoice, barren woman who does not bear;
    Break forth and shout, you who are not in labor;
    For more numerous are the children of the desolate
    Then of the one who has a husband.” [Gal 4:27]


Let me first read Isa 54:1-10 then make a couple quick observations.


    “Shout for joy, O barren one, you who have borne no child; Break forth into joyful shouting and cry aloud, you who have not travailed; For the sons of the desolate one will be more numerous Than the sons of the married woman,” says the Lord. “Enlarge the place of your tent;     Stretch out the curtains of your dwellings, spare not; Lengthen your cords And strengthen your pegs. “For you will spread abroad to the right and to the left. And your descendants will possess nations And will resettle the desolate cities.  “Fear not, for you will not be put to shame; And do not feel humiliated, for     you will not be disgraced; But you will forget the shame of your youth, And the     reproach of your widowhood you will remember no more.“For your husband is your     Maker, Whose name is the Lord of hosts; And your Redeemer is the Holy One of     Israel, Who is called the God of all the earth. “For the Lord has called you, Like a wife forsaken and grieved in spirit, Even like a wife of one’s youth when she is rejected, Says your God. "For a brief moment I forsook you, But with great compassion, I will gather you. “In an outburst of anger I hid My face from you for a     moment, But with everlasting lovingkindness, I will have compassion on you,” Says the Lord your Redeemer. “For this is like the days of Noah to Me, When I swore that the waters of Noah Would not flood the earth again; So I have sworn that I will not be angry with you Nor will I rebuke you. “For the mountains may be removed and the hills may shake, But My lovingkindness will not be removed from you,    And My covenant of peace will not be shaken,” Says the Lord who has compassion on you. [Isa 54:1-10]



There are three themes in common between [Isa 54:1-10] and [Gal 4:21-31] Zion. New Jerusalem, New Covenant & Sonship! A simple comparison shows that Paul might not just be using [Gen 16-21] as Midrash but also [Isa 54:1-10]. Him quoting only vs. 1 doesn't mean a thing since this is his other O.T. backdrop!



And you brethren, like Isaac, are children of promise. But as at that time, he who was born according to the flesh persecuted him who was born according to the Spirit, so it is now also.  But what does the Scripture say?


    “Cast out the bondwoman and her son,
    For the son of the bondwoman shall not be an heir with the son of the free woman.”

So then, brethren, we are not children of a bondwoman, but of the free woman. [Gal 4:28-31]



Galatians was written no later than the early 50's A.D. and we are in the midst of the Jewish persecution on the church (cf. Acts 2-4; 17f; 1 Thess 2:14-17; 2 Thess 1:4-10), but would be vindicated at the Parousia of the Lord Jesus Christ, as all agree across the board, as this was one of his main talking points [Mtt 16:24-28; 21:33-44; 22:1-14; 23:29=39; Lk 18-20]



ALL of the righteous blood would be required of the Jews of that generation in A.D. 70. And that includes that of Gal 4! Notice the casting out of the seed of Ishmael (the Jews)! This is [Mtt 21:33-43]. When the "sons of the kingdom would be cast out" in A.D. 70 [CF. Mtt 8:11-12; 22:1-14].


B. Heb 12:22 source Gal 4:26. Consummation Of The Exodus & Kingdom in A.D. 70!


F.F. Bruce, R.T. France & Ben Witherton lll in their commentaries on Hebrews all assert that Gal 4l26 is being drawn by Heb 12:22. So we will quickly look at Hebrews and even more, nuggets appear that put us in fulfillment.



Heb 12:22 is the completion of the final exodus for God's people as they finally reach Zion, This theme is dominating in Hebrews [cf. 3:7-4-11; 10:25-29; 11; 13:11-14]. In [Heb 3:7-4:11] we see a picture of the first-century saints in their exodus wanderings. Trying to stay on the narrow path of faith in Messiah. This exodus is compared to the old [cf. Num 14; 95] where it is mentioned twice of the "40 years wandering'' comparing it to the Hebrews day.



Remarkably, Top N.T. Commentator & scholar F.F. Bruce on (pgs 22, 95-99) of his commentary on Hebrews, "The Epistle To The Hebrews'' that the second exodus of Heb 3-4 & 10 was completed in A.D. 70! [4] I don't think Bruce sees the implication's of such statements as to be in the land is to be the resurrection, etc.


Notes

[1] ] The Eschatological Hermeneutics Of 'Epangelicalism' : Promise Theology, Walter C. Kaiser Jr. pg. 3, Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 13:2, JETS (Spring 1970), pp. 92-99
[2] We Shall Meet Him In The Air, The Wedding Of The King Of Kings, Dr. Don K, Preston, pg 56, Copyright 2009 Don K. Preston, JaDon Managment Inc. 1405 4th Ave. N.W. #109 Ardmore, OK, 73401, ISBN : 978-0-9799337-5-2
[3] The Expositor's Bible Commentary, Revised Edition, Vol 13, Hebrews-Revelation, General editors Tremper Longman lll & David E. Garland, Zondervan, Grand Rapids, Michigan 49530, USA, 2006, pg 174
[4] The Epistle To The Hebrews, Revised Edition, F.F. Bruce, William B Eerdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapids, Michigan / Cambridge, UK, 1990, Paperback edition 2012, pgs 22, 95-99

Interesting Discussion With Someone Who Seems To Be A "Progressive Dispensationalist"

Interesting Discussion With Someone Who Seems To Be A "Progressive Dispensationalist"

Rose You make a point with regard to dispensational reversion back to the sacrifices in the Millennium. I think disps do fail to be consistent in literal interpretation but you do not really demonstrate it. But the NT never says that the right hand of God = the throne of David and it is wrong to state that it is. The King is in exile until He returns to establish it Himself. The Davidic covenant is ensured by the NC as is the Abrahamic. The Abrahamic is being fulfilled in the church and will also be in the Millennium when the Palestinian and Davidic covenants will be fulfilled. Some disps will admit the Abrahamic is being fulfilled but perhaps not all. There is no evidence for the Davidic and Palestinian being in effect in any sense today. The Bible makes a distinction between the church and Israel and so must we. But unlike disps, we should not separate them. When the NT interprets the OT it does not deny the facts stated in the OT nor should we and this is also the concern of the disp.



Hey Rose. I just typed out a reply and ended up accidentally closing the page Auh!

When it comes to their inconsistency in their literal hermeneutic I was referring especially to the covenants and promises. They read both the Tanak and N.T. differently in that regard. As most Christians are canonically challenged when it comes to the O.T. (a phrase Dr. James White came up with), while the dispensationalist is canonically challenged when it comes to the N.T. interpretation of these promises. And I do demonstrate this, in this video when speaking of dispensationalism and the Davidic covenant, as well as other videos, articles at length. (will post a couple)

As for the N.T. not mentioning Jesus enthroned as the "Son of God" of [Ps 2], which is the enthronement of Messiah, we have from Acts 2-Rev 2 with dozens of texts stating otherwise. Also. When Peter on Pentecost or Paul in Antioch etc. all over the N.T. we see tied into the enthronement of Christ passages that are speaking of the seed of David being enthroned on his seat forever [2 Sam 7:7-14; Ps 2; 72; 89; 101:1,4; Isa 55:3 Zech 6:12-13 etc,]

Jesus, as Priest & King, sits on His throne, in his temple (not made with hands) in the heavenly Zion/Land. This is [Heb 7-8; 11; 12:18f], in which [Zech 6] and especially [Ps 110:4] are applied to him, in the Davidic tabernacle.

As for the King being in exile. Jesus at the cross made an "exodus! Therefore exile was no more! He entered the very presence of God, in the heavenly tabernacle/land/zion." (This is brought out in a number of Gospel texts) When Israel wasn't in exile they were in the land, where the temple dwelt. The very Presence of God on earth within the MHP. This is Jesus who is KING. Not in exile, but in the presence of God, i.e. the land.

I believe the main covenant is the Abrahamic, and the Davidic and New covenants extend from that. So in a sense, we agree there.

As for the Abrahamic being partly filled within the church. This admission of the dispensationalist destroys their Church/Israel distinction! The second main hermeneutical pillar. Yet parts of the Abrahamic covenant I guess just "slipped through" into the church age.

When it comes to the supposed Palestinian covenant which is based upon [Gen 17[..I do not see a difference between Gen 17 and the land promise of [Gen 12; 15]. So instead of 4 covenants that contain Israel's promises, I see 3. Abrahamic, Davidic, & New.

You criticize Dispensational at points and at other's, you seem to agree and hold to their distinct doctrine and theology to some degree. Would you be a "Progressive Dispensationalist" by any chance?

You state when the NT interprets the OT it doesn't change things. Nothing could be further from the truth. The N.T. writer's had different Jewish methods and other's when interpreting a text.

(Will post a video demonstrating this with an article(

Thanks for the comments and observations. God speed.

Paul & Israel's Covenantal Promises [Acts 13; Rom 10; 2 Cor 2-7; Eph 2:11f]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FcZlJnrGbdU&list=PLYxr5Hu9_6CCqois03YWcYARk38KA5TDZ

A Proper Hermeneutic N.T. Interprets The O.T. Promises.& Dispensationalism Failure
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6L1-7-W9II4&index=5&list=PLYxr5Hu9_6CCqois03YWcYARk38KA5TDZ

ISRAEL'S COVENANT'S & RESTORATION: AN EXPOSITION & COMPARISON OF [EPH 1-3; 1 Pet 1-2]
https://justifiedpreterist.blogspot.com/2018/09/israels-covenants-restorationan.html

Paul's Apologetic & Fulfillment of the Abrahamic, Davidic, & New Covenants:
                                                 An Exposition of [2 Cor 2-7]
https://justifiedpreterist.blogspot.com/2018/09/pauls-apologetic-fulfillment-of.html

Mtt 23-24                                               Acts 2
1} End of the age (3)                        1)The Last Days (17) 
2) Christ death to be vindicated (23:35)    2)Christ death vindicated (19-24, 40)
3)Gospel to be preached (14)         3)First Gospel message (2:1-13)
4)The Risen Christ (24:30-31; 26:64)    4)Christ Raised (31-36)
5)Davidic Kingdom (Lk 21:31)      5)Davidic Kingdom (v. 30 ) (Ps 101;132)
6) Preaching from/near the temple (23-24)    6) Peter preaches from the temple (2:46; 3:2)
7)Signs on the earth, in the sky (Lk 21:25-27)   7) Signs in the sky, on the earth (2:19-21)
8)The Day of the Lord (23:39; 24:29-31)        8)The Day of The Lord (2:20-21)
9) All..in this generation (24:34)       9)Be saved of this perverse generation (2:40)

The saints would see the kingdom coming and LIVE THROUGH the "world ending" arrival and would recognize what had happened

Commentary On Mark (TNIGC) R.T. France [Mk 9:1]

The perfect tense of εληλυθυiaν indicates that they are not to see the 'coming' of the βασιλεία but rather to witness the fact that it HAS come. The prediction thus focuses not on its arrival, but on the point at which its presence, already a reality, is (a) visible and (b) displayed ἐν δύναμις toν θεόῦ (pg 344)

[The New International Greek Commentary, The Gospel of Mark, Editors I. Howard Marshall and Donald A. Hagner, 2002 Wm. B Eerdmans Publishing Co. Grand Rapids, Michigan 49503]