Who’s Your Mama?
Galatians 4:21 to 5:1

While both Jews would agree that their ethnic and spiritual roots are traced to Father Abraham, the apostle takes an unusual approach to challenge them to faith alone by reminding the Galatians that Abraham’s children have a choice of mothers!

1. Two mothers and Bible history (4:21-23)
2. Two mothers and heavenly truth (4:24-27)
3. Two mothers and hostility (4:28-30)
4. Two mothers and liberty (4:31-5:1)

It’s like Paul is making one last run from the standpoint of the Bible and theology to convince these people in Galatia. For them to turn away from putting all their trust in Jesus only and going back to adding things to the gospel is unheard of to him. He can’t imagine that and so he uses a story from Bible history regarding Abraham and Abraham’s wife, Sarah and Sarah’s handmaid, a slave named Hagar.

There are a couple things I need to say before I get into this. This is one of the most perplexing passages for many people in the whole book of Galatians. What is Paul doing, bringing in Sarah and Hagar and allegorizing this whole thing? By way of overview, the Galatians, as Christians, and those trying to influence them from the Jewish perspective would both claim Abraham as their father.

Paul would not dispute that. His question isn’t who is your father, but who is your mother? The free wife, Sarah, or her slave, the handmaid Hagar? That’s where he’s coming from here.

Galatians 4

²¹   Tell me, you who want to be under law, do you not listen to the law?
²²   For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by the bondwoman and one by the free woman.
²³   But the son by the bondwoman was born according to the flesh, and the son by the free woman through the promise.
²⁴   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.
²⁵   Now this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children.
²⁶   But the Jerusalem above is free; she is our mother.
²⁷   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
          THAN OF THE ONE WHO HAS A HUSBAND."
²⁸   And you brethren,  like Isaac, are  children of promise.
²⁹   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.
³⁰   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."
³¹   So then, brethren, we are not children of a bondwoman, but of the free woman.

Galatians 5

¹   It was for freedom that Christ set us free; therefore keep standing firm and do not be subject again to a yoke of slavery.

I call it “maternal confusion” and I can find only one other place in the Bible where there is a choice between mothers. In I Kings chapter 3, Solomon establishes divine wisdom from God when these two young ladies professing each to be the mother of the same baby bring their case to him. One of them said, “This is my child.” The other said, “Oh, no, this is my child.” Solomon said, “Get the sword and we’ll have to divide this baby.” Of course the genuine mother said, “No, give her the baby.”

In Galatians, Paul is also challenging the professing believers there to make a choice. Abraham to you isn’t a problem. Abraham became justified by faith, that’s not a problem. But Abraham fathered more than one son. One by a free woman and one by a slave woman. Which mother do you want to claim? That’s going to be the point here.

This is where Paul is going in the book of Galatians, in the whole book. We’re turning a corner with chapter 5, verse 1. He’s going to challenge his readers, his hearers, you and me. Do we want to be children of freedom or do we want to subject ourselves, in any sense, to a yoke of slavery?

The rest of Galatians, chapters 5 and 6, is about that freedom and he’s setting us up for it here by asking us first of all, allegorically if you will, spiritually to identify who our mother is in the faith.

1. Two mothers and Bible history (4:21-23)

Let’s look at the first few verses. Two mothers in Bible history. He starts with this, “Tell me.” and it almost seems like he’s setting us up, which he is, “You who want to be under law, you people who are trying to suck these Galatians into a rule-keeping way of religion, do you want to be under law? Don’t you read the law? They like the rules of Exodus, Leviticus, Deuteronomy. The Law to them are the first five books of the Bible. But he’s saying Genesis also falls in that category. He’s saying, “You want to talk about the law, let’s go to Genesis and we’ll start there.” But perhaps we see more clearly there than elsewhere the spirit of the Law rather than the letter of the Law.

Jesus did a similar turn when he was discussing with the Pharisees the issue of divorce. They came to him in the 10^th chapter of Mark and asked, “Is it permissible for a man to divorce his wife for any cause at all?” He said, “What does the Law say?” They come right out with a quote from Deuteronomy. He says, “How about we quote Genesis and see what God had in mind to begin with.”

In Galatians, he introduces this Abraham having two sons, one by the bondwoman, one by the free. We’ll be going back to Genesis 16. He says the son of the bondwoman was born according to the flesh but the other, the son of the freewoman, through the promise. We see early on there’s a rivalry between the two women and they’re not going to get along. They’re not ever going to get along. That will be a point the apostle pounds on later. Don’t expect compatibility between these two completely different entities.

Genesis 16

¹   Now Sarai, Abram's wife had borne him no children, and she had an Egyptian maid whose name was Hagar.
²   So Sarai said to Abram, "Now behold, the LORD has prevented me from bearing children. Please go in to my maid; perhaps I will obtain children through her." And Abram listened to the voice of Sarai.
³   After Abram had lived ten years in the land of Canaan, Abram's wife Sarai took Hagar the Egyptian, her maid, and gave her to her husband Abram as his wife.
⁴   He went in to Hagar, and she conceived; and when she saw that she had conceived, her mistress was despised in her sight.

“She can have children. I can’t have children.” Abram becomes a father through the handmaid. We are now at odds in a very tangible sense. Sarai says to Abram, “May the wrong done to me be upon you.” “It’s your fault, Abram. Now that she has conceived, I’m despised in her sight.” Abram backs off and says, “Well then, Sarai, do whatever you want.” So Sarai said, “OK, send her away.”

God had told Abram that he would father a race, a nation. Abram took matters into his own hands. In collaboration with his wife Sarai, the two of them, deciding in the flesh, thinking, “How can we help God? How can we, by our efforts, make the promise come about?” Operating in flesh. Hagar, who is owned and a slave, is now in opposition to Sarah, who is free, and is the owner.

The child born is named Ishmael; he is clearly a child of the flesh. Not only was Abraham wrong in taking Hagar physically, but the whole idea that he and Sarai had come up with was wrong. It was outside of the plan of God.

 Genesis 17
¹⁵   Then God said to Abraham, "As for Sarai your wife, you shall not call her name Sarai, but Sarah shall be her name.

Sarah means “princess,” which implies progeny, children.

¹⁶   "I will bless her, and indeed I will give you a son by her. Then I will bless her, and she shall be a mother of nations; kings of peoples will come from her."

She’s old! He’s older by 10 years and she’s never been able to have children. What God is saying here is “Abraham, I’m going to step into this humanly hopeless situation which you tried to fix in your way. You tried to help me out. I’m going to show you, Abraham, what happens when God makes a promise and when God keeps His promise.

Abraham laughed. Why? Because any time God steps in, in our flesh, in our humanness, we are immediately struck with how different this is. God has stepped in. He says, “I’m going to make Sarah a mother and you the father. No more of this Hagar stuff.

He fell on his face and laughed. He said, “Will a child be born to a man 100 years old and will Sarah, who is 90 years old, bear a child?” Who wouldn’t laugh? Which of us would think this made sense? God said, “No. I’ll take care of Hagar’s son and I’ll take care of you by the promise that I lay down before you.

Genesis 18
⁹   Then they said to him, "Where is Sarah your wife?" And he said, "There, in the tent."
¹⁰   He said, "I will surely return to you at this time next year; and behold, Sarah your wife will have a son." And Sarah was listening at the tent door, which was behind him.
¹¹   Now Abraham and Sarah were old, advanced in age; Sarah was past childbearing.
¹²   Sarah laughed to herself, saying, "After I have become old, shall I have pleasure, my lord being old also?"

Sarah laughed because God is about to do something and He has removed His promise from their normal physical capability. The flesh won’t work here. The flesh is dead. Only God will work here and they both know it. That’s why they laughed. The child that was born to Sarah and Abraham, Isaac, (which means, he laughs), that child was in accordance with God’s promise. By the Spirit, supernaturally, not like Hagar, who was not in accordance with the promise and who came about by an act of the flesh. That’s the contrast Paul is setting out. He’s saying, “Look here. One mother is free, of the promise; another mother, slave, in the flesh. How do we want to be characterized spiritually?“ That’s where they go in history.

2. Two mothers and heavenly truth (4:24-27)

In Galatians 4, beginning in verse 24, let’s look at this allegory. Here is the passage that has given so many people so much gray hair as they try to figure out how it works. Beginning in verse 24, Paul comes right out and says it.  Allegorically, which basically means there is a heavenly meaning attached to earthly events. The problem that is introduced here is does that mean we’re all free just to go through the Bible any old way we want and find things that are part of a story in history and attach to them arbitrarily heavenly meanings? Is that ok? That’s what is introduced here as a problem.

I would suggest it isn’t a problem. For one, the apostle Paul comes right out and says I’m going to use an allegory here. I’m going to attach heavenly truth to earthly events. This is Paul the apostle saying it and we know from Scripture where Paul got his material. As an apostle, he got it from Jesus. Jesus has given him the go-ahead to use this story allegorically. Jesus might give the go-ahead anywhere to use a story allegorically. Fine, but let’s not say, “Well, if that’s the case I can about do anything I want with Scripture -- like invent a code or something.” No. That’s beyond the allowable province of God for you and for me.

Paul was a devout Jew. Up to the point on the Damascus road, he was trusting in his righteousness and his religion to get him right with God. He was a good performer as a Pharisee. He was the best of them. All of that self righteousness, all of that depending on his own merit to get him right with God had to be knocked out of him. That’s basically what God did on the Damascus road. Now he’s saying, “This Sarah and Hagar issue makes perfect sense to me.” He’s relating it to his readers and to us.

Verse 24. This is allegorically speaking. These women represent two covenants -- that’s the key. Two covenants, promises, deals, and contracts between God and people --that’s what they represent. The one, proceeding from Mount Sinai, bearing children who are to be slaves -- this is Hagar. He says if you’re going to go with the flesh and if you’re going to go taking matters into your own hand and you’re going to go on helping God out to keep His promise, ok, then identify yourself with this covenant, the one with Hagar. It proceeds from Sinai, it produces slaves.

There’s one Jerusalem, the current one, he would say. That’s where all the Jews hang out. That’s where they make their rules and keep their rules. That’s where they feel religiously good about themselves. That’s where they are in slavery with their children (verse 25). That’s what he is talking about. He’s talking about a religion where people make rules and then try to keep those rules and then look askance at anyone who doesn’t measure up to them. That’s what rule keeping in religion will do -- prompt us to compare with other people to see who is more righteous, who is more godly, who is better at keeping the rules.

So he says this is Hagar, this is her covenant; this is the old covenant he’s talking about. This is the one that came from Mount Sinai. This is the covenant of Exodus 24. This is the current Jerusalem. That was a losing proposition as far as the people were concerned because they said, “We can keep rules. We’re a rule keeping people.” They failed miserably and they failed consistently, but they clung to their own righteousness.  He contrasts that Jerusalem in verse 25 with what he calls the “Jerusalem above” in the next two verses.

He says the “Jerusalem above” is free. He’s going to refer to it as a heavenly city, one that is from God, not put together by people. She is our mother and then he quotes from Isaiah 54, first verse,

Isaiah 54

¹ “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.

This verse was a verse that would contrast Jerusalem under the judgment of God with a future restored Jerusalem. The Jerusalem without God present, without a temple is barren. Nothing is there. But even though you are barren now, you’re going to have more offspring when God restores according to His promise, than you ever had before. Hang in there. This is our city. This is our Jerusalem. This reflects our covenant -- the new covenant. That’s not the covenant that says, “OK, we’ll keep the rules and try to make ourselves right with God.” This is the covenant that says, “You can’t keep the rules, you’re unable to keep the rules, you’ll never succeed in earning your way to heaven so God says, “I’ll just come and fix your heart.” That’s the new covenant. Paul says that is the heavenly Jerusalem.   Paul says, “That’s our mother, the one from above, the covenant where God steps in, where God makes a promise, where God keeps a promise, God makes the changes and He doesn’t need our help. So he contrasts the two.

I think a verse in Hebrews 12 says it very, very well. In Hebrews 12, the apostle, it may have been Paul; contrasts two covenants again and please understand the difference. It is so clear!

Hebrews 12

¹⁸ For you have not come to a mountain that can be touched and to a blazing fire, and to darkness and gloom and whirlwind,
¹⁹   and to the blast of a trumpet and the sound of words which sound was such that those who heard begged that no further word be spoken to them.
²⁰   For they could not bear the command, "IF EVEN A BEAST TOUCHES THE MOUNTAIN, IT WILL BE STONED."
²¹   And so terrible was the sight, that Moses said, "I AM FULL OF FEAR and trembling."

He says that’s not our mountain. That’s the mountain, that’s the covenant of slavery, of oppression, of fear. That’s the now Jerusalem where all of us are in bondage. That’s not our mountain.

²²   But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to myriads of angels,
²³   to the general assembly and church of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven, and to God, the Judge of all, and to the spirits of the righteous made perfect,
²⁴   and to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood, which speaks better than the blood of Abel.

Do you see the difference? One covenant serves to show us our guilt but the other covenant takes us to life. Paul says, “Go there.”

3.      Two mothers and hostility (4:28-30)

As we reviewed in Genesis 16, Sarah and Hagar never got along. In this case where two of them were sharing the same household, one of them is able to have children and the other is not. You can understand why there would be some strife between the two. But that’s not where the story ends. Paul is saying, “Look, Sarah and Hagar didn’t get along. One of them picked on the other one. That hasn’t changed.”

In Genesis 21, Sarah has the miracle baby, they named him Isaac. The child grew and was weaned and (verse 8) Abraham made a great feast on the day Isaac was weaned and then Sarah saw the child of Hagar, the Egyptian, the child of slavery that she had borne to Abraham, mocking. We don’t know exactly what he was doing, but he was at least 10 years older than Isaac and picking on him. There was strife here and it made Sarah mad.

So she says to Abraham, “Drive out this maid and her son for the son of this maid shall not be an heir with my son Isaac. Sarah insisted on separation due to what we might call irreconcilable differences. This arrangement will not work. We have to get rid of this son of the slave. That was true in Genesis; that was true in Paul’s day because the people who had the tendency to add to the gospel or to make the rules to replace the gospel, were continually persecuting those who wanted to put all their trust simply in Jesus.

The party of works and performance-based religion does not get along with those who simply trust in the finished work of Jesus. That always has been the case, always will be the case, and according to the book of Galatians as Paul quotes from Genesis, there’s no future in it either. There will be no shared inheritance. The Psalmist says in the first Psalm that the unrighteous will never be able to stand in the day of judgment, Jesus used the illustration from agriculture of the wheat going into the bin and the chaff going into the fire; the sheep going to the right and the goats to the left. It will never, ever co-mingle in eternal harmony. It just isn’t going to be. There is no inheritance -- the son of the slave with the son of the free.

Why is that? What’s really going on here? There is always a theological basis for big issues. I would commend to you the first chapter of John’s gospel. There’s some principle here that is extremely helpful and we need to understand that this is non-negotiable. This is the way it is in this world and in the next.

John chapter 1 talks about Jesus showing up into an unfriendly environment.

John 1
¹⁰   He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him.
¹¹   He came to His own, and those who were His own did not receive Him.

Jesus came offering life. “Just trust Me.” and they said, “No, we’d really rather work our way to heaven, thank you very much.” And because they disagreed with Him, and because He was inheritantly righteous and they were not, there was opposition.

¹²   But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name,

Who were they? They were the ones born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of the will of God, the children of the promise where God takes the initiative, and God brings people to faith and God changes hearts. God steps in and creates walking miracles out of those who have trusted Him. That’s how it works and that’s why there will never be compatibility.

One is trusting in works and one is trusting only in Jesus and that’s why Jesus will later go on to say in the 15^th chapter of John’s gospel, “A servant is not greater than his master.” He’s getting ready to leave; He’s going to be crucified and be gone. “The way they treated Me, count on it, they’ll treat you.” It isn’t going to change. Never has and it never will.

4. Two mothers and liberty (4:31-5:1)

Paul is wrapping up his story and he’s posturing us to move into the world of freedom in the Lord.

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

So keep standing free and don’t stick your head in the yoke! Stand in freedom. One mother offers ongoing bondage; the other offers freedom. I find it profound that Jesus in His dialogue with the Pharisees challenged them with the truth when He said, “You’ll know the truth and the truth shall make you free.”   

We need to understand something about this freedom. Freedom in Jesus Christ is not spiritual irresponsibility. Freedom in the Lord is not license to do whatever the flesh demands. Paul will talk to the Galatians about that shortly. That’s not the freedom that is discussed here.

I was told one time long ago that freedom in the Lord, once we’ve put all our trust in Jesus, then that freedom means that now we have the power to do what we should. That’s true, but that’s only a part of it. Let’s me allegorize irresponsibility. Irresponsibility is like the little gingerbread man. Run, run as fast as you can. You can’t catch me, I’m the gingerbread man. And in his irresponsibility and in his desire to go where he wanted and do what he wanted he ended up destroyed by one who was more sly.

Think about this. Freedom in Christ is like emerging from darkness to light. That’s the freedom that the gospel has. It’s freedom from being lost. “I once was lost but now am found.” Freedom from being abandoned. It’s freedom from being defeated. It’s freedom from being guilty and knowing it. It’s freedom from wandering and wondering. It’s freedom from uncertainty. It’s freedom from broken relationships. It’s freedom from harmful comparisons with others where one or another never measure up.