Hagar and Sarah: Two Covenants Allegory

Study notes

Paul presses those who wish to live under the law to listen to what that law actually declares about Abraham's household. By mapping the two mothers onto two covenants, the argument identifies the Sinai covenant with slavery and the present Jerusalem, while locating the readers in the free line descending from the promise. The contrast between flesh and promise, reinforced by the Isaiah quotation, establishes that inheritance belongs exclusively to the children of the free woman. The passage therefore requires the Galatians to recognize their identity as belonging to the Jerusalem above rather than to the covenant that produces bondage, leaving no room for shared inheritance between the two lines.

What is Hagar and Sarah: Two Covenants Allegory about?

Paul addresses those in the Galatian assemblies who want to be under the law. He asks them a direct question drawn from their own stated desire: do they not hear what the law itself says? The unit opens by recalling Abraham’s two sons, one born to the maidservant and one to the free woman, then distinguishes the births—one according to the flesh, the other through the promise. These women are presented as two covenants, one originating at Mount Sinai and producing slavery. That covenant is identified with Hagar and linked to the present Jerusalem, which remains in slavery with its children. The contrast is drawn to the Jerusalem above, described as free and the mother of the readers. The passage then quotes Isaiah’s words to the barren woman and applies the promise to the Galatian believers as children of the promise like Isaac. The immediate setting is Paul’s preceding personal appeal, where he voiced concern that his work among them might be wasted. This allegory therefore functions as the final step in his case before he turns, in the next chapter, to the concrete demand that they stand firm in the freedom already given.

Where does this passage sit in Galatians?

This unit sits directly after Paul’s personal appeal in 4:8-20, where he expresses fear that the Galatians are turning back to “weak and beggarly elements” and questions whether his labor among them has been wasted. The allegory therefore supplies the scriptural warrant for that appeal rather than repeating its emotional tone. By opening with the question whether those who desire the law actually hear what the law says, the passage shifts from pastoral urgency to a controlled reading of Genesis that forces the readers to decide between two lines of descent already named in the preceding chapters.

The immediate neighborhood shows clear verbal threads. The contrast between “flesh” and “promise” in 4:23 reuses language from 3:3 and 4:7, while the identification of the Sinai covenant with slavery echoes the “yoke of slavery” language that will open the next section at 5:1. The quotation of Isaiah 54:1 in 4:27 extends the earlier appeal to Abraham’s promise (3:16-18) by showing how the barren woman’s many children fulfill what the law itself anticipates. At the same time the command to “cast out the maidservant” in 4:30 supplies the decisive action that the personal warning in 4:9-10 could only imply.

Within the larger design of Galatians the passage functions as the final argumentative climax before the letter turns to ethical instruction. Earlier chapters have established that righteousness comes by faith and that the law served a temporary, preparatory role. Here Paul demonstrates that the law itself, read allegorically, distinguishes the covenant of slavery from the covenant of freedom and requires the expulsion of the former. The result is an escalation: what began as a defense of Paul’s gospel now becomes an internal demand that the Galatians align themselves with the free woman’s line or forfeit the inheritance. This prepares the direct imperative of 5:1 without restating the earlier biographical or doctrinal material.

How is the passage structured?

The unit opens with a direct address that functions as both question and summons: those desiring the law are told to listen to what the law itself says. The next two verses set out the raw material from Genesis without interpretation, simply recording Abraham’s two sons and the contrasting circumstances of their births. Verse 24 then marks the decisive turn by declaring that these things are being presented as an allegory and immediately maps the two women onto two covenants. The mapping proceeds in two steps: first Hagar is identified with the Sinai covenant that produces slavery, then the geographical and contemporary correspondence is added so that Hagar stands for Mount Sinai and aligns with the present Jerusalem still in slavery.

At verse 26 the text pivots sharply with “but,” introducing the contrasting figure of the Jerusalem above. This new mother is declared free and is claimed as the readers’ own. The Isaiah quotation that follows does not advance the allegory further but supplies prophetic warrant for the unexpected fertility of the desolate woman, reinforcing the claim that the free line will outnumber the enslaved one. Verse 28 applies the entire construction to the audience in a single sentence, naming them children of the promise like Isaac.

The final movement returns to the original contrast by noting the persecution pattern that repeats “now also,” then poses another rhetorical question that elicits the command to cast out the maidservant and her son. The unit closes with a therefore-statement that reverses the opening desire: the readers are not children of the maidservant but of the free woman. The architecture thus moves from question to narrative data, to allegorical identification, to contrasting claim, to scriptural confirmation, to direct address, to repeated conflict, to exclusionary command, and finally to restated identity.

What is the historical background?

In first-century Jewish and Greco-Roman reading practices, a narrative from the ancestral stories could be treated as an allegory when its details were understood to stand for larger realities beyond the original events. Paul applies this method to the account of Abraham’s household, where the two mothers function as representatives of distinct covenants rather than merely as individuals in a family story.

Under ancient Near Eastern household customs, a wife who remained childless could give her maidservant to her husband so that the servant’s child would be counted as the wife’s own. The child’s legal position, however, remained tied to the mother’s status: a son born to a free woman carried full inheritance rights, while one born to a slave woman did not. Sarah’s later insistence that Hagar and Ishmael be sent away aligned with provisions that protected the inheritance line of the freeborn son once the promised child had arrived.

Mount Sinai, identified in the passage with Hagar, stood in the territory designated Arabia. This geographical note placed the giving of the law outside the boundaries of the promised land itself and associated that covenant with a condition of slavery. The reference to “the present Jerusalem” in slavery with her children reflected the visible city under Roman administration, while the contrasting “Jerusalem above” drew on existing Jewish expectations of a heavenly or future city that would embody freedom and serve as mother to God’s people.

The command quoted from Scripture to cast out the maidservant and her son echoed the precise legal language used in the ancestral narrative to secure the inheritance for the son of the free woman. The Isaiah passage about the barren woman who receives many children belonged to prophetic speech that envisioned unexpected increase for those previously without offspring, a theme readily applied to communities claiming the promise apart from the Sinai covenant.

What does this passage teach about God?

The passage frames God’s covenantal activity as producing two incompatible lines of relation to him. One covenant, traced to Mount Sinai, generates slavery and stands in continuity with the present Jerusalem that remains bound with its children. The other is identified with the Jerusalem above, declared free and the mother of those addressed. This division is not presented as two optional paths within a single economy but as rival origins that determine standing and inheritance.

Birth according to the flesh is set against birth through the promise, and the text states that the one born according to the flesh persecutes the one born according to the Spirit. The theological weight falls on the source of life rather than on human effort or descent. The promise creates children where natural capacity does not exist, and those children receive the status of heirs. The readers are told they stand in Isaac’s line, which means their relation to God rests on the same divine initiative that overrode barrenness.

The Scripture is then quoted to exclude shared inheritance: the maidservant and her son must be cast out, for the son of the maidservant shall not inherit with the son of the free woman. This statement carries a note of judgment. The covenant that produces slavery is not permitted to remain alongside the covenant that produces freedom; one line is removed from the inheritance. At the same time the passage affirms mercy in the form of belonging. Those who receive the promise are declared children of the free woman and therefore not under the covenant that enslaves.

The contrast between flesh and promise therefore functions as a claim about divine action and human identity. God’s promise generates a freedom that the Sinai covenant cannot supply, and this freedom determines who belongs to the inheritance. The text offers no middle ground in which the two lines coexist as co-heirs.

What are the interpretive difficulties?

One question the passage leaves open is how far the allegory is meant to function as a strict one-to-one mapping. Paul states that the two women “are two covenants” and then identifies Hagar with Sinai and the present Jerusalem, yet the text does not spell out every corresponding detail for Sarah or the Jerusalem above. Readers are left to infer the second covenant from the promise to Abraham and from the Isaiah quotation rather than from an explicit second identification supplied by Paul.

A second issue concerns the force of the command in verse 30. The Scripture is quoted as saying, “Cast out the maidservant and her son,” yet the passage itself does not state who is to perform the casting out or what concrete action the Galatian assemblies are expected to take. The wording stops short of directing a specific expulsion of persons; it functions more as a warning that the inheritance cannot be shared. How that warning should translate into community discipline or personal decision remains unstated.

The reference to persecution in verse 29 also raises a question the text does not resolve. Paul asserts that the one born according to the flesh persecuted the one born according to the Spirit “so it is now also,” but he supplies no description of the present persecution. The claim rests on the parallel with Genesis without further evidence supplied in the letter.

Finally, the allegory does not settle the status of the law itself. While it links the Sinai covenant with slavery, the surrounding argument has already treated the law as a temporary guardian rather than an eternal enemy. The passage therefore sharpens the choice between two lines of descent without furnishing a complete account of how the law continues to function for those who belong to the free woman.

Notes accompany the Anselm Project Bible, an AI translation from the original languages. Tap any verse above for the committee's word-level decisions.