Galatians chapter 4 part 2

*In verses 21-31, Paul is trying to redeem his metaphor of God and God's relationship to the jews and gentiles by comparing it to Abraham's relationship to his two sons, born of Sarah and Hagar. Hagar was a slave, Sarah was a free woman. Abraham's son by Hagar was "born in the ordinary way." That is Abraham consented to have sex with his wife's slave, at his wife's urging. Whether the slave consented doesn't enter into the matter. The child that was born would have been a slave also. The children of slave women, even by their masters, were slaves. This has been a fact of slavery even up to the age of American enslavement of Africans. Let's be clear, "Biblical slavery" was not any different than the slavery that was fought against in more modern times. It certainly wasn't a kinder more humane slavery. Slaves were only treated as well as their masters wanted to treat them.

*According to Paul, Sarah's son was not born in the ordinary way, but was born as the result of a promise. Well, folks, in case you didn't know, there is only one way for children to be born. That is pretty ordinary, promise or no promise. Abraham was a man. Sarah was a woman. If they actually lived and had a child, he was born in the ordinary way. What did god do to cause this birth? Guide the sperm to the right egg? Produce a one time egg in a dried up old woman? Let's not forget that Sarah was ninety years old  and have a little chuckle at the thought. Human female fertility ends well before the age of sixty. If I found out I was pregnant at ninety, I would probably die from the shock. I would probably die laughing if a 100 year old man tried to have sex with me when I am 90.

*Paul says, in a round about way, that  his metaphor is equating the children of the slave woman Hagar with the present day Israelites, who are children of the covenant friom Mount Sinai (the law of Moses). This is how the metaphor works so far:  Abraham= father/god. Hagar= Slave Mother/Mount Sinai/Jerusalem. Hagar's children=Jews/slave children born in the ordinary way. This is turning the tables on the Israelite identity. The Israelites banked on being the legitimate children of god and Abraham, the children of the promise. Paul is saying that may have been the physical reality, but not the spiritual one. I'm sure this did not go over well with the Jews.

*Paul goes on to say that there is a "Jerusalem that is above" that is free. If you follow the metaphor, Sarah=Free (non-slave) mother/spiritual Jerusalem. Isaac=Galatian christians/ gentile christians/ all christians/ children of promise born by the power of the spirit. In the Abrahamic story, the son born in the ordinary way persecuted the son born by the power of the spirit. "It is the same now." Wow. Is Paul actually saying the Jews are persecuting the  christians? Well, he did it himself once, didn't he? (Gal. 1:13) Wait. It gets even more interesting.

*Paul goes on to ask, "What does the scripture say?" Then he claims scripture says," Get rid of the slave woman and her son, for the slave woman's son will never share in the inheritance with the free woman's son" (!!!) It's true. Genesis 21:10 does say this. It is Sarah speaking, not God. Paul knows this. He goes on to say "we" (christians) are not children of the slave woman but of the free woman.  Do you realize what Paul is implying here, in light of his extended metaphor? Spiritual Jerusalem (Sarah) advocates getting rid of physical Jerusalem's (Hagar's) children (the jews) in favor of her own children (christians.) He says the slave woman's son (Jews) will never share in the inheritance with the free woman's son (christians.)

I'm blown away by today's reading. This is something I never heard in church. Sure we read this passage, but it was usually not dissected the way I've done here. Hagar was usually associated with every non believer, not just Jews. But I think it is quite clear that Paul is advocating a complete separation with Judaism, even going so far as to say Jews will not recieve the promised inheritance. We haven't been told what that inheritance is yet, but maybe that is to come.

Genesis chapter 16

After reading chapter 16:

*In spite of Abram's talk with God, Sarai believes God is keeping her from having children. So, she demands that Abram impregnate her Egyptian slave Hagar. Abram has no problem with this and does as he is told. Of course no one asks Hagar if it is ok.

*The slave becomes pregnant and despises Sarai. Who can blame her? Sarai turns the tables and gets mad at Abram for doing exactly what she told him to do. Abram tells Sarai to do whatever she wants to Hagar. So, Sarai mistreats Hagar badly enough for her to want to run away to the desert while pregnant, and Abram couldn't care less. Great guy.

*Here we have the first appearance of an angel of the lord. An angel is basically a messenger. Notice the lack of wings, halo, and white robe.

*The angel tells Hagar to go back and submit to Sarai, and promises to personally make her descendants numerous. Can angels do that? There appears to be some confusion about this angel, because he is also said to be the lord (Yahweh). Plus, Hagar claims to have seen God (El). How can that be when other verses in the bible say no one has seen God? John 1:18

*The angel says Hagar is to name her son Ishma-el. Verse 15 says Abram named the boy.

*Abram was 86, which would have made Sarai about 76. She still expected to have a child? The year was approximately 1970 B.C.E., if we follow Ussher's chronology.