Keller: "you’re not going to be free unless Jesus is your salvation"

"...post-everythings are very much against moralism and self-righteousness. But Reformed preachers have Martin Luther to help with this concern. Traditional gospel presentations assume that the people want to be “good.” But our kids’ generation wants to be “free.” Luther said, “Look, you want to be free? Good. It’s good to be free. But you’re not. You are living for something and, whatever that something is, it enslaves you.” If a person lives for reputation, then he is a slave to what people think. If a person lives for achievement, then he will be a workaholic.

"As did Luther, we should tell such people, “You want to be free? Fine. But you’re not going to be free unless Jesus is your salvation.” When post-everythings rejected Christianity they thought moralism and Christianity were the same thing. But we can show post-everythings that the two are not the same, and that freedom really is in Jesus." -- Tim Keller, "Post-Everythings"

Carson: "Paul’s thought is strongly influenced by an ‘eschatological’ or ‘last-days’ view of biblical history"

“...the Hagar—Sarah story (of Galatians 4:21-31) plays a very important role in Paul’s effort to persuade the Galatians. Moreover, the specific distinction between Ishmael and Isaac will become crucial as the apostle elaborates his doctrine in the letter to the Romans (ch. 9, especially vs 6–12). Still, it is proper to recognize that this Genesis story is not the basis of his view of justification, a doctrine that was clearly explained in the previous chapter. It may even be the case that the story had been brought up by the Judaizers themselves and so Paul had to respond to it (this suggestion cannot be proven, however).

“Much discussion has surrounded the meaning of v 24, These things may be taken figuratively. Paul uses the Greek term allēgoroumena, and so a more literal translation might be, ‘These things are written allegorically’, or ‘These things may be interpreted allegorically’. Paul certainly is not making use of the allegorical method made famous by Philo of Alexandria, which strongly downplayed (or even denied) the historical character of OT narrative and which served as the vehicle for formulating complex philosophical systems. In view of the somewhat specialized meaning that the term allegory has today in the minds of many (the corresponding Greek term could be used in several, more general, ways), it is probably misleading to use it in describing what Paul is doing in this passage. On the other hand, there is no question that the apostle here sees something that is not part of what we usually call ‘the historical meaning’ of a passage. The author of the Genesis narrative, as far as anyone can tell, was not seeking to distinguish between two covenants, nor was he trying to depict the relationship between Judaizers and Gentiles. Is Paul then mishandling the OT?

“It is important to keep in mind that throughout the history of redemption one can see clear patterns in the ways events unfold. Perhaps the most obvious is the pattern of ‘testing resulting in disobedience’, seen clearly in Adam, and the Israelites in the wilderness, then broken by Jesus in his temptation. Especially important is the distinction between natural and supernatural, i.e. what humans tend to do in their own strength versus what they depend on God’s power to accomplish. That principle is communicated many times in the biblical history, and the story of Ishmael and Isaac is a particularly powerful example. Surely God was teaching his people to depend on him for their salvation. What could be more appropriate than to bring out that principle and apply it to the Galatian controversy?

“Some scholars prefer to use the term typology (rather than allegory) to describe Paul’s method here. The point is that history, far from being minimized in the interests of theology, is seen as embodying that theology and thus anticipating later events as fuller manifestations of the principle in view. Further, some suggest that even if the human author of Genesis did not have in mind what Paul does with the passage, the divine author did. This approach can easily be abused to justify all kinds of misinterpretations, but it is surely true that an omniscient God (to say nothing of his foreknowledge) clearly sees the implications of events in ways that contemporary humans cannot even imagine. For Paul, it could not be a coincidence that the Genesis story had such important points of correspondence with the Judaizing issue. These correspondences are presented in the form of contrasts, as follows: Hagar/Sarah; slave/free; Sinai covenant/(new) covenant; present Jerusalem/Jerusalem from above; Ishmael/Isaac; ordinary birth (flesh)/birth through promise/Spirit; persecutor/persecuted; cast away/heir.

“Out of several interesting ideas implied by these contrasts, at least two require special attention. First, note the reference to the present Jerusalem over against the one from above (25–26). It is clear that Paul’s thought is strongly influenced by an ‘eschatological’ or ‘last-days’ view of biblical history, according to which the coming of Christ is said to bring in the age to come. The point surfaced in 1:4 and undergirds such ‘fulfilment’ passages as 3:23–25 and 4:4 (cf. also 1 Cor. 10:11).

“Secondly, note the contrast between flesh and promise/Spirit in vs 23, 29 (The niv’s rendering of the Greek ‘flesh’ as born in the ordinary way, expresses the idea correctly, but at the expense of the theological contrast.) That contrast was first brought up in 3:4 (see the comments there), so it is significant that this central section of the letter both begins and ends with such a reference. These terms are strongly related to the ‘last-days’ understanding of the gospel. The flesh—i.e. fallen human nature working in its own natural strength—is the distinguishing characteristic of the present age. The Holy Spirit, on the other hand, inaugurates the coming age, so that Christians may even be said to be sitting in heaven (Eph. 2:6; cf. Phil. 3:20; Col. 3:1–4). The ethical significance of this contrast is developed in 5:13–26.” – D. A. Carson, “The New Bible Commentary”

Note: for those wondering where I may dovetail from Carson slightly... 1. While the author of Genesis (Moses) could not have foreseen the specific context into which Paul was writing, Moses *was* able to distinguish between two covenantal realities, even in the storyline of Hagar and Sarah. The story helps explain to the Israelite desert wanderers the difference between those outside of the covenant and those within the covenant, a point inherent to Paul's understanding of "old" and "new". Further, this seed of the woman – seed of the serpent storyline (metanarrative) weaving itself through the Old Testament does depict the relationship between those who have been redeemed (in Paul’s context, the Gentiles) and those who oppose them (in Paul’s context, the Judaizers). 2. I would take “it is surely true that an omniscient God (to say nothing of his foreknowledge) clearly sees the implications of events” one step further and say it is surely true that an omnipotent God clearly orchestrates events in ways that the NT authors understood them. Paul’s understanding of Hagar-Sarah is due as much to his exegetical understanding of the OT as it is to divine inspiration. Thus, while Paul saw more than what we normally think of as the text's historical meaning (although, this should not be "normal"; our "normal" should be understanding the OT text as Paul and the NT authors understood it, which flies in the face of much of what is considered "normal" interpretation), he was not completely disconnected from the text's original meaning. He is reading the story through the cross and resurrection, but he is picking up on a theme that is already there. – crb

Citizens of a heavenly Jerusalem

“What Paul is saying (in Galatians 4:22-26) is an example, an explanation and an elaboration on it drawn from this Old Testament narrative.

“First, Paul locates them in the narrative he is concerned with and which they may be misusing. He has already argued from the idea of Abraham’s heirs and Abraham’s descendent, Jesus, as the foundation for our being sons. We know we are sons of Abraham and joint-heirs with Christ because we have received the promised Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is the down payment on our inheritance. He is the inauguration of our inheritance, a foretaste of its future glories. Therefore, we are now in the realm of the Spirit and no longer under the realm of the flesh.

“Abraham however had two children, Ishmael and Isaac. Ishmael was born as a result of relying on the ways of the world and thus is born according to the principles of the flesh. Isaac is born as a result of faith in the promises of God and thus is born according to the principles of the spirit. Paul shifts however to look at the mothers of these two children. There is little argument that Isaac and Ishmael all through the Bible represent these two realms, the one of the flesh and the other of the Spirit. But Paul goes on to expand that teaching. The illustration or allegory, as he puts it, can be extended to the mothers. Hagar represents the realm of the flesh, the fallen order in which Law rules. She is not the recipient of the covenant of promise. She has good done for her, but she is not the mother of the covenant. Sarah is the mother of the covenant. She has also been promised descendants and a son. So Hagar represents the realm of the flesh and Sarah the realm of the promise.

“But those two also correspond to two mountains, Mount Sinai and Mount Zion. All through the Old Testament, these two mountains are filled with rich and elaborate allusions to truths greater than the physical locations. Mt. Sinai is the place the Law was received and immediately broken. It is there that God talked face-to-face with Moses. There the people hid and fled from the fearsome glory of God. Mt. Zion is usually the heavenly Jerusalem, even in the Old Testament. It is the ultimate dwelling of the glory God and is the homeland, the Promised Land, for all God’s people.

“Then Paul does a startling thing. He places Jerusalem in the realm of the flesh, in the trajectory of the Law. Now this would have been shocking to both Jew and Gentile. To the Jew, Jerusalem was the center of their Messianic hopes. To the Gentile Christians, Jerusalem was the location of the mother church. But Paul is making a point here. Remember in chapter two, where had the Judaizers come from? They were from a group in the church at Jerusalem. So he is warning them to look to their heavenly promises and graces, not to their earthly Jerusalem. Even though it is the location of the first church, it is neither the source nor the mediator of the promise. We do not identify ourselves as citizens of Jerusalem. We are citizens of heaven." -- Russ Kennedy, "Illustrating the Gospel", mp3