Bible Interpretation
We are free to illustrate biblical truths
from scriptural incidents that
do not teach these truths directly,
but we should do so cautiously and sparingly.
Here's Gene:
As we take a look at this
next paragraph in Paul's letter.
From which I've stated this Principle.
I would agree with a lot of Bible interpreters.
Even individuals that know far more
about the Scriptures than I do.
We would agree that this
is a difficult paragraph to understand.
But I think there's a very important
Principle that emerges, once we really
understand where Paul is coming from.
What his major emphasis is in this letter.
And his major emphasis is this:
We are saved by grace through faith
and not by keeping the law of Moses.
Now with that in mind--
and that's the truth he's been
developing throughout this letter.
Let's take a look at what Paul wrote
in this next paragraph. He said this:
Tell me, you who want to be under the law,
don't you hear the law?
For it is written that Abraham
had two sons, [Ishmael and Isaac,]
one by a slave [Hagar] and the other
by a free woman [Sarah].
But the one by the slave was born
as a result of the flesh, while the one by the
free woman was born through promise. ...
And I think basically what Paul is saying
there is that in this particular situation,
we need to understand the culture
and what had actually happened.
And remember that Abraham and Sarah
were chosen out of paganism.
Out of the Babylonian culture.
And when they were married as idolaters,
as worshipers of false gods.
When they were married,
there was a marriage contract.
And in that marriage contract it said--
on the behalf of Sarah:
If I cannot produce a child,
then I'm obligated to provide you
with a woman who can produce that child.
That was written into the contract
in the Babylonian culture.
So when Sarah could not conceive,
what she did was to say to Abraham:
Take my servant, my slave,
and produce a child.
And that's how Ishmael was conceived
and how he came into this world.
And that seems very strange within our culture
that is influenced by Christian values.
But remember that Abraham and Sarah
were in process of coming out of that culture.
It takes a long time to change cultural patterns.
And we see that basically
in the life of this couple, which gave birth
to a very difficult situation.
And we see the problem that existed there
with the birth of those two sons--
even to this day, with the tension
that exists in our world.
But here Paul is using this as an illustration.
Now what he does is he uses figurative language.
I call it an allegory:
These things are being taken figuratively...
In other words, what I'm going to share
with you is not really the historical meaning
of what happened there.
But I'm going to illustrate for you
something that relates to
salvation by grace through faith.
So he says:
...These things are being taken figuratively,
for the women represent two covenants.
One is from Mount Sinai
and bears children into slavery--
this is Hagar.
Now Hagar represents Mount Sinai
in Arabia and corresponds
to the present Jerusalem,
for she is in slavery with her children. ...
Now think for a moment
what he is saying here.
He is simply saying that when
God revealed the law at Mount Sinai.
He says basically, Hagar is illustrated here.
Now to any Jew who believes
that law came through Abraham.
Who came to them through the Jewish line,
is going to be very upset with that.
And so Paul is trying to upset them
to make his point.
And then he says:
...[it] corresponds to present Jerusalem...
What he is saying: Right now in Jerusalem,
they are still under law
and are not teaching God's grace.
They have rejected the Messiah.
Now he's speaking here
to a Jewish community particularly
as he's illustrating this.
He goes on in this passage:
...But the Jerusalem above is free,
and she is our mother.
In other words, the new Jerusalem--
the place where we will spend eternity.
He's contrasting that with the present Jerusalem,
at that moment in history, as he's writing.
So we have an allegory here in terms of
what he's trying to say
and what he's trying to get apart.
Let me review it very quickly.
And to get this in front of us.
Ishmael was the son of slavery.
Isaac, the son of freedom.
That's what he says in this paragraph.
Ishmael "was born as a result of the flesh"--
a human process only.
But Isaac "was born through promise."
It was a human process but it was a miracle.
And God was definitely involved in that process.
Hagar represents the old covenant.
Where Sarah represents the new covenant--
that is in terms of this allegory.
Hagar, he says, from Mount Sinai.
Sarah from Mount Zion--
where Jesus died on the cross.
You see, the present Jerusalem
is still committed to the law.
But the present Jerusalem is contrasted here
with the Jerusalem above.
And you can see these contrasts.
Now what does this mean?
Well let me give you a quotation
from Timothy George.
And I feel like he really captures
what Paul is doing here.
He says this:
"This lineup would have been
very disturbing to any patriotic Jew
just as it must have been
to the Judaizers of Galatia."
To tie them back in with Hagar
at Mount Sinai,
boy, that would raise the hair
on the back of their necks.
Because they believed they came
from Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.
Not from Hagar.
"Everyone knew that
the Jews were the sons of Isaac
and the Gentiles were the descendants of Ishmael."
Which includes, by the way, all of us as Gentiles.
"Paul, however, had correlated
the covenant of Sinai and the
present religious system centered
[at] Jerusalem with the offspring
of the slave woman."
Think about how that would go over
in relationship to understanding their heritage:
coming from Hagar rather than Sarah.
But Paul's making a point.
He's speaking figuratively to make a point.
"There were those who sought
to be justified before God
"according to the flesh," that is,
by observing the works of the law
[that came from Sinai].
Conversely, the children of the free woman
were those who had embraced
the promise of salvation through faith
in Jesus Christ alone."
That's us. That's everyone who puts
their faith in Jesus Christ.
No Jew or Greek, we're all one in Christ.
"[We,] they [he says] were the children
of the covenant of grace."
And of course, that applies to all of us.
So here Paul is using Hagar
as the mother of unbelieving Jews,
which was a total reverse of the
real historical meaning.
He used it however, to get across
a biblical truth.
It was not contradictory to a biblical truth.
Now what does that mean to us?
Well let me illustrate.
I think we have to be very, very careful
how we follow Paul's model there.
But I think we can.
Let me give you an illustration.
You know the story of David and Goliath.
David went out with courage
and boldness and trust in God
and took on Goliath.
What is the true meaning that
comes out of that passage?
I think we can state it this way:
The most important supracultural principle
that comes directly from this
Old Testament story
and that can be verified in the New Testament,
is that even young people should
seek to be bold and courageous
in upholding God's reputation.
That's what David was doing.
And you see that in his life.
This is what David did,
and Paul encouraged Timothy
to do the same in 1st Timothy 4:12.
How can we utilize what Paul did to make a point?
Well we can talk about the fact that
we have giants in our lives.
Is that what the passage is teaching?
Not literally.
That's not the basic meaning of the passage.
The basic meaning is courage
to uphold God's reputation.
But we can say there are giants in our lives.
Now the interesting thing is
there are other passages of the Bible
that could actually support that metaphor,
that allegory, in order to make a point.
So we can do that.
But basically we have to be
very careful in doing that
because it can lead us astray.
And that leads us to this
Reflection and Response question:
What are some of the problems
we may encounter when we illustrate
biblical truths with particular incidents
in Scripture--
which Paul did, by the way, with allegory
--[but that] do not teach these
biblical truths directly and contextually?
What are the dangers?
Now Paul did it right. But we have to be careful.
For example, we can make
the Bible teach something it doesn't--
very easily by taking it out of context.
In using allegory, in using metaphor.
We have to be very careful
that we don't violate Scripture.
We can make texts of Scripture
teach something that is contrary to Scripture.
Let me just give you one illustration.
The Trinity is an incredible concept
in Scripture. But the word
"Trinity" is never used.
The fact is that you have to look at the
whole of Scripture to conclude
that God is one.
One God in three persons:
Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit.
Equal but one God--three persons.
Look at all the interpretations of that truth.
You can actually, if you take it out of context,
you can subordinate Jesus.
And there are passages
you probably could use.
But it's out of context because
Jesus is not subordinate to the Father.
He's equal with the Father.
You can actually interpret
the Holy Spirit as an influence,
rather than a personality.
And there are those who do that--
taking it out of context.
There are those that even say:
There's more than one God.
In fact, one translation of the Bible reads:
In the beginning was the Word,
and the Word was "a god."
The Bible--the Greek text says:
In the beginning was the Word,
and the Word was God.
It doesn't say: He was "a god."
So what I'm simply illustrating is that
you can take passages of Scripture.
And you can allegorize, you can illustrate,
you can speak figuratively.
But you must make sure that
your figurative illustration is supported
by the truth of Scripture.
So that's the basis of this Principle.
So let me repeat it:
We are free to illustrate biblical truths
from scriptural incidents that
do not teach these truths directly,
but we should do so cautiously and sparingly.