The covenant is a central theological concept in Jewish scripture, occurring no less than 285 times in twenty-seven of its thirty-nine books. In the New Testament, however, use of the “covenant” is much more sparse, being limited to some thirty-three occurrences, practically half of which are found in the book of Hebrews. Beyond that letter, its presence is confined to ten New Testament books, in many of these occurring only once. This infrequency can be noticed, more specifically, in the letters attributed to Paul:
One problem in evaluating the importance of the covenant in the New Testament is the ingrained tendency of equating words with concepts.4 The prevalence of a concept is not measured merely by the frequency of a given term but, as Stanley E. Porter has underscored, by “a larger conceptual and grammatical framework,” including “synonyms and antonyms,” “syntactical patterns, literary types, and contextual parameters such as situation and culture.”5 To these, I would add intertextuality, argumentative structure, and theological themes.
For the present article, I have chosen to develop one section of the Pauline corpus, the biblical-theological argument in Galatians 3–4 (the probatio, following various rhetorical analyses), focusing especially on Galatians 4: 21–31, the allegory of Abraham’s two “women.” I will first draw out some of the interpretive problems with this passage, then investigate how Paul develops some major structural elements and covenant motifs, first in Galatians 3–4 generally, then more pointedly in Galatians 4: 21–31. Finally, I will draw out some of the implications of this study for the concept of covenant elsewhere in the New Testament.
1 The Allegory of Abraham’s Two “Women”: An Exegetical Crux
Galatians 4: 21–31 has long been considered a problem passage. Ernest DeWitt- Burton in his 1921 commentary already considered this text as little more than “an afterthought.”6 Daniel Gerber goes so far as to say this:
The emphasis in 4: 21–31 is placed […] on the inheritance reserved exclusively to the ‘sons of the free woman’ alone, but this comes at the expense of a highly forced exegesis due, no doubt, more to anger than to reason, and without which, the basic Biblical data could never lead one to the conclusions Paul draws from them.7
Part of the problem is the allegorical use Paul makes of Hagar and the unnamed Sarah, both of whom are made to represent “two covenants” (v. 24). It must be admitted that nothing in the Genesis story itself suggests this interpretation; one can arrive at it only by means of another agenda – which is, of course, the case in Paul.
In addition to this apparently arbitrary use of scripture is the quote from Isaiah 54: 1 in verse 27, which, although it does mention two women, seems to have no connection either to the Genesis account or to Abraham’s two wives. In fact, the women’s roles in this text appear contrary to what Paul wants to show: Isaiah 54: 1 promises that “the children of the desolate [i.e., the abandoned] woman” will be more numerous than “the children of the one who is married.” In Genesis and Paul’s allegory, however, the roles are opposite: Hagar – or the covenant represented by the agitators – is the one who is “abandoned,” while Sarah is Abraham’s legitimate wife!
The problematic character of the Isaiah quote generally led commentators of an earlier generation, but also more recent ones, to give it only passing mention before moving on to other aspects of the text.8 Charles K. Barrett offered a solution that has proved influential in studies on these chapters: perceiving what he considered to be a strained use of Hebrew scripture throughout Galatians 3–4, Barrett theorized that Paul brought these texts into his argument only because his Jewish-Christian adversaries had used them before him. Paul thus had to make them work to his advantage, even though, objectively, there was little that could be of use to him.9 Barrett’s conclusion is memorable: “Paul’s use of Isaiah 54.1 is […] in a sense arbitrary; he takes from it what he brings to it.”10 This obviously has consequences for how one interprets the covenants in verse 24. By and large, the mention of the covenants in this verse is not considered important for Paul’s argument. Marinus de Boer typifies this idea, stating: “It is perhaps only the fact that the new preachers focus on the covenant at Sinai in their proclamation that causes Paul to speak initially of ‘two covenants’; he then drops the term as quickly as he has introduced it.”11
Interpretation of this passage, however, has evolved fairly dramatically over the last few decades, thanks in large part to Richard B. Hays’s groundbreaking research on intertextuality.12 Hays seeks to show how, time and again, Paul quotes scripture with an eye to the overall message of the original text. More specifically, Hays brings into the discussion the practice of metalepsis, whereby a quote from scripture – which may consist merely of one or two verses – carries with it major thoughts and motifs of the source text. The quote functions as a window into the context of the cited text, thereby exercising an influence on how the receptor text is to be understood. This brought Hays to reread Galatians 4: 21–31, taking into account the message of Isaiah 40–55, thus moving interpretation beyond some of the traditional impasses. Hays’s work has since been taken up and furthered by Karen Jobes,13 Joel Willitts,14 Steven DiMattei,15 and others.16
In my opinion, taking into account Paul’s intertextual cues is a major key to understanding Galatians 4: 21–31. But it also helps sort out what he says about the “two covenants” and, more generally, how he sees the relationship between Christ’s coming and end-times covenant-expectations in Jewish scripture. In order to grasp the import of Galatians 4: 21–31, one must thus take into consideration a triple context: that which Paul develops in his letter to the Galatian churches and Genesis 16–21, but also the message of Isaiah 40–55.
2 Paul’s Argument in Galatians 3–4: Historical and Literary Issues
2.1 The Context and Structure of Galatians 3–4
The historical context of Galatians is well known. Jewish-Christian teachers, based most likely in Judea, had come into the Galatian churches, claiming that non-Jewish believers needed to be circumcised.17 Their argument probably ran like this:
-
Abraham received circumcision as the sign of God’s covenant; this covenant was expanded at Sinai by the gift of the Torah;
-
Jesus, the messiah, renewed the covenant by his death and resurrection, and God poured out his Spirit upon faithful Jesus followers, i.e., the true “sons of Abraham”;
-
Since circumcision remains the sign of the covenant, non-Jews become “sons of Abraham” through faith in Christ and circumcision; and they are to live, as do Jewish believers, by taking upon themselves the yoke of the Torah.
-
Uncircumcised Gentile believers, therefore, are not members of the covenant and do not have access to God’s righteousness and salvation which are at the heart of the covenant.
As Paul’s vocabulary shows, the crux of the matter revolves around the status of “sons of Abraham,” an expression which, in rabbinic literature, designates faithful members of the covenant.18 There is thus every reason to believe that the “agitators’ ” argument revolved around circumcision as a means of entry into the covenant.19 Realizing this, one should notice that Paul’s major statements in chapters 3: 1–4: 7 focus on the Spirit and sonship, two prominent themes in biblical and Second Temple descriptions of God’s end-times covenant:
-
Galatians 3: 1–5: The Galatians have received the Spirit (promised for the eschatological covenant in Ezek. 36–37 and Isa. 44);
-
Galatians 3: 26–29: Because they are “in Christ,” the Son of God, they too have become sons of God (corresponding to the covenant promise in Hosea: “They will be called sons of the living God”).
The thrust of Paul’s argument, therefore, is this: since the Galatian believers have already received the promised Spirit and become “sons of God,” they are, a fortiori, sons of Abraham,20 members of the eschatological covenant, and so have no need of circumcision to become part of that covenant or obtain its righteousness. Significantly, these affirmations bracket the overall argument in chapter three, the rest of that chapter, and the beginning of chapter four, drawing out their biblical rationale.
Understanding the major structural elements of Galatians 3: 1–4: 7 can also give insight into the role the covenant plays in Paul’s argument. After an introductory section (Gal. 3: 1–5) comprised of a series of questions – clinching, in fact, the entire argument – Paul draws attention to a historical succession of events: promise to Abraham, Law, fulfillment of the promise in Christ and the gift of the Spirit (Gal. 3: 6–14). He then reprises these elements in verses 15–29, replacing the Spirit with sonship and inheritance in Christ. Galatians 4: 1–7 again takes up this progression, leaving aside the mention of Abraham, but drawing together the previous mentions of the Spirit and the inheritance. Paul’s argument is thus a “triptych,” repeating a basic historical pattern, progressively introducing complementary aspects (see Annex 1). Several additional comments may be offered:
-
In his initial presentation of the historical pattern (3: 6–14), Paul advances his argument by quoting a series of texts from Hebrew scripture. Several of these can fairly be considered “covenant texts,” i.e., passages in which the immediate or larger context explicitly mentions and develops the idea of covenant (Gen. 15; Deut. 27; Lev. 18: 5).21 In the following sections of the triptych, Paul will no longer quote from scripture, although he will allude to similar passages on several occasions.
-
It thus follows that, when Paul takes up the historical pattern anew in Galatians 3: 15–17 after quoting (v. 6) from Genesis 15, the mention of God’s covenant – his
διαθήκη – with Abraham is specifically the one narrated in that chapter of Genesis. This is confirmed by the seemingly superfluous mention, in v. 17, of the fact that the covenant was made four hundred and thirty years before the giving of the Law: in Second Temple and Rabbinic Judaism, this was the period separating the covenant in which YHWH passed between the animals, Genesis 15, and the gift of the Torah on Mount Sinai.22 By means of this chronological detail, Paul subtly drives his point home: this – and not the circumcision ritual in Genesis 17, which is passed by in silence – is the foundational covenant moment. Theδιαθήκη here, as many commentators recognize, is thus the Abrahamic covenant, although Paul also plays on the testamentary connotations of the term, which he then develops in verses 18–29. -
Through the second presentation of the chronological succession “Abraham-Torah-Christ” (vv. 15ff.), Paul highlights the fact that, as defined by Genesis 15, the Abrahamic
διαθήκη cannot be invalidated or modified in its modus operandi by the later-coming Torah – which includes circumcision. The covenant with Abraham, understood first of all as “promise,” defines the use, and the limits, of the law and not vice versa.23 -
It should further be noticed that not only does the second part of the triptych (3: 15–29) extend the historical succession and overall perspective of the first (3: 6–14), but further, the final section (4: 1–7), repeating this viewpoint, also builds on the testamentary images developed in the second section. The “children” in verses 1–2 are those not yet having attained the age of majority, when they receive the inheritance provided by testamentary stipulation.24
-
Throughout the whole of Galatians 3: 1–4: 7, Paul thus seeks to counter the agitators’ covenant argument with an alternative argument, also based on covenant. He first highlights God’s covenant (
διαθήκη ) with Abraham in Genesis 15, then illustrates it with motifs drawn from testamentary practices. Theδιαθήκη – understood as “covenant” and illustrated as “testament” – is, therefore, one of the more central concepts of this passage, along with the promise, which defines its specific content.
2.2 The Literary Context and Rhetorical Function of Galatians 4: 21–31
How does Galatians 4: 21–31 function in the context of the probatio? After an emotionally charged plea in 4: 8–20, featuring the rhetorical devices of ethos, pathos, and filia, Paul returns to a biblical-theological approach in verses 21ff. In this section, he brings together the major threads developed up to this point in a kind of peroratio, or final case: life “under the Law” (v. 21) and “according to the flesh,” as contrasted with the promise of God (v. 23); the eschatological covenant distinguished from the Sinai covenant (v. 24);25 the status of believers as “Abraham’s sons” (v. 22), “children of the promise” (v. 28) and heirs (v. 30), engendered by the Spirit (v. 29); servitude to the Law (vv. 24–25) as opposed to the freedom now given in Christ (v. 30–31). Topping off this climactic section, Paul gives scripture itself pride of place and allows it to utter the final, decisive word to the Galatians: “Cast out the slave woman and her son, for the son of the slave woman shall not inherit with the son of the free woman!” (Gal. 4: 30, quoting Gen. 21: 10) The whole of the passage carefully picks up the main ideas and vocabulary of Galatians 2: 14–4: 20, bringing the biblical-theological argument to its conclusion. The linguistic ties with the preceding sections are striking, as can be seen in Annex 2. Graham Stanton correctly observes:
The link between the law and slavery had already been established in 3:22–4 and 4:1–10; the contrast between circumcision – law – slavery, and freedom in Christ Jesus had already been drawn in 2:3–4. The Hagar-Sarah allegory is no mere awkward appendix; it recalls one of the passages in the narrative section of Galatians, and brings to a climax the argument Paul has been developing since 2:15–16.26
By way of parenthesis, we should point out that, given the rhetorical function of the passage as peroratio, the mention of the “two covenants” in verse 24 is highly significant. As Paul draws this part of Galatians to a close, he again brings the
Having said that, Galatians 4: 21–31 is not merely a restatement of previous themes. It also introduces decisive new elements. In order to demonstrate this, I will develop R.B. Hays’s insights into intertextuality and explore the literary context of the Isaiah text quoted in verse 27.
2.3 The Context of Isaiah 40–55
As we turn to Isaiah 40–55, the prophetic voice proclaims that the exile God’s people is experiencing in Babylon is nothing less than the judgment by which God has “divorced” his people. Lady Jerusalem has become a “barren widow” at the hands of her enemies, deprived of her husband (YHWH) and her children (population). Yet, in this context of powerlessness and humiliation, the prophet paints the picture of a glorious future: YHWH will once again take Zion as his bride;27 he will intervene as he had done long ago, delivering his people out of captivity by means of a new exodus, and lead them through the desert to their land.28 The barren city will thus be rebuilt and repopulated.29 Lady Babylon, on the other hand, the city who boasts she will never be widowed, will be reduced to captivity, deprived of her population (her “children”).30 Beyond this, though, God promises to pour out his blessing on Lady Zion and her children. So we read: “I will put my spirit on your offspring and my blessings on your children.”31 In that same context, we read: “By the Lord shall they be justified, and all the offspring of the sons of Israel shall be glorified in God.”32 Perhaps most surprisingly the children of redeemed Jerusalem, to whom God himself will give birth, will be so numerous that they will not be able to be counted:
For your sons whom you have lost will say in your ears: ‘The place is too narrow for me; make a place for me so that I may settle.’ Then you will say in your heart, ‘Who has begotten me these (
Τίς ἐγέννησέν μοι τούτους )? But I was childless and a widow, so who has reared these for me?’33
Further on, Jerusalem is exhorted to remember God’s sovereign multiplication of Abraham’s offspring; her present situation is compared to the Matriarch Sarah’s:
Hear me, you that pursue what is righteous (
οἱ διώκοντες τὸ δίκαιον ), and seek the Lord. Look to the solid rock that you hewed and to the hole of the pit that you dug. Look to Abraham your father and to Sarah who bore you (εἰς Σαρραν τὴν ὠδίνουσαν ὑμᾶς ); because he was but one, then I called him and blessed him and loved him and multiplied him.34
Just as God produced a multitude of sons for Abraham through childless Sarah, so will he raise up a multitude of children for barren Jerusalem.35 Several hints in these chapters even suggest that the exponential increase of Zion’s offspring will be the result of the ingathering of the
We should note, additionally, that John Goldingay has adumbrated no fewer than six different meanings for Zion or Jerusalem in these chapters: the material city, a personification of the desolate city, the people of Israel as a whole, the population of Jerusalem left behind during the exile, the population of Jerusalem carried off to Babylon, and, finally, an entity which distinguishes itself from Jerusalem’s inhabitants. In this last category, “Lady Zion” is “a locus of safety, security and strength, independently of its material embodiment and independently of its inhabitants. This is […] because of YHWH’s commitment to it, a commitment that stands prior to any particular embodiments.”37 This understanding is particularly present in Isaiah 54, where Lady Zion represents the redeemed people’s eschatological situation.
Significantly, the covenant plays an important role in all this. From the opening words of Isaiah 40, the covenant formula is alluded to: “Comfort my people, says your God.”38 Isaiah 54: 10, the same passage from which Paul quotes, looks forward to the end-times covenant. There, YHWH says: “Neither shall the mercy that comes from me to you fail, nor shall the covenant of your peace be removed (
In its canonical context, this covenant is, in fact, inseparably bound up with the servant whose work and sufferings are repeatedly mentioned in these chapters. One need only think of Isaiah 49: 8, where, in most of the OG manuscript tradition, God says to his servant: “In an acceptable time I listened to you, on the day of salvation I helped you; I gave you as a covenant to the nations (
This last point is particularly important for understanding Paul’s hermeneutical techniques; as in Galatians 3: 6–14, close inspection reveals that his choice of citations is not based merely on common vocabulary or formal links. Rather Paul takes up texts that function, in scripture as well as in Jewish traditions of the period, as key theological statements.44 This in turn suggests that his recourse to these texts is based not merely on the needs of the moment or arguments of his adversaries, but also (primarily?) on a traditional Jewish understanding and application of scripture, reread through the lens of its messianic fulfillment in Jesus of Nazareth.
3 The Two Covenants in Galatians 4: 21–31
3.1 Galatians 4: 21–31 in the Light of Its Double Context
Traditionally, interpretation of Galatians 4: 21–31 has begun with the Genesis story and, from there, tried to make sense of the passage’s details. The results, as we have seen, have generally been unsatisfactory. A more promising approach is to start with the Isaiah text, taken in its literary context, and work our way out from that vantage point.
This is true, both on the level of details and the overall picture. John Louis Martyn has highlighted the discrepancy between the birthing vocabulary Paul uses in connection with Abraham’s two women (and the covenants they represent), and that found in Genesis. According to Martyn, Paul intentionally avoids
More generally, we have seen that Lady Zion in Isaiah 40–55 is at once a city, a redeemed people and an embodiment of the covenant relationship. This is nowhere more evident than in Isaiah 54, where redeemed Jerusalem and her “offspring” spread out to inherit the nations (vv. 2–3).51 As a consequence of God’s covenant of peace (v. 10), Jerusalem will be adorned with blessing (vv. 11–13) and righteousness (
From whence comes the identification between Sarah and “the Jerusalem above”? As already noted, the Isaiah text itself furnishes that connection.52 But from this vantage point, it requires little further imagination to say that, if Sarah can represent redeemed Zion and her new covenant situation, Hagar can also be taken to represent another covenant, producing a posterity who also claim to be “sons of Abraham.” Given this starting point, allegorizing the Genesis story makes perfect sense. Paul’s polemic centers on the question: do the Galatian believers belong to the covenant or do they need to become “sons of Abraham” through circumcision? In Galatians 3: 1–4: 7, Paul developed the main elements of his response; here, he drives his point home by showing that, already in Genesis, there are two kinds of “sons of Abraham,” begotten by two covenants. As in the patriarchal story, one of these women – covenants is a “maidservant,” subservient to the promise; the other, the “free woman,” embodies the promise. Logically, the inheritance cannot come to the children of the maidservant, the bonded concubine, but only to those who have been begotten by the free woman, i.e., the eschatological Spirit – covenant.
Given the difficulties often pointed out in connection with Paul’s geographical assertion in verses 24–25,53 a few words of explanation may be helpful here. M. de Boer sums up the puzzled reaction of a number of commentators, when he writes: “How Paul comes to the astonishing identification of Mount Sinai, and thus the covenant of the Law, with Hagar is not easily discernable. […] Verse 25a appears to be a parenthetical if obtuse attempt to explain the identification of Hagar with Mount Sinai.”54 Different attempts have been offered to explain this, most notably the suggestion that Paul is making a somewhat gratuitous word association, linking Hagar with the place-name Hagrʾa (in Aramaic), located in Petra, i.e., in Arabia.55 In reality, a much more natural solution exists; in first century CE geography, “Arabia” included what is today known as the Sinai Peninsula. This can be seen, for instance, in Josephus’s description of the descendants of Ishmael:
When the lad was grown up, he married a wife, by birth an Egyptian, from where the mother was herself derived originally. Of this wife were born to Ishmael twelve sons […] These inhabited all the country from Euphrates to the Red Sea, and called it Nabatene. These comprise the nation of the Arabs (
εἰσὶ δὲ οὗτοι οἳ τὸ τῶν Ἀράβων ἔθνος ), and name their tribes from these, both because of their own virtue, and because of the dignity of Abraham.56
Josephus’s description effectively includes the region of Sinai – located between the Euphrates and the Red Sea – as part of “Arabia” and connects it with Abraham’s elder son. The geographer Strabo, writing practically a century earlier, already makes this identification, so we can assume it was widespread.57 Paul is thus merely underscoring an established connection between Hagar and her descendants, and Mount Sinai in Arabia. The theological conclusions he draws, though, would have been as shocking to Jewish ears as the geographical identification was incontrovertible: Mount Sinai, its covenant, and its Law, are not to be associated with the full inheritance of sons and the Spirit. With Christ’s coming, and the fulfillment of the promise through him, they can now only be identified with slavery, a provisional status, and the flesh! Again, the primary impetus for identifying Hagar with the Sinai covenant almost certainly stems from the prior identification between Sarah and the eschatological covenant, based on Isaiah 51: 1ff. But the geographical data close to hand lend themselves admirably to drawing out what Paul sees as a confirmation of his allegorical interpretation of Genesis.
The Isaiah text, set in its overall context, additionally explains the reference Paul makes to “the present Jerusalem (
The whole allegory, therefore, comes from drawing together three argumentative strands: the Isaianic imagery, the Genesis story, and the covenant status defined as “sons of Abraham.” S. Di Mattei sums it up in this way:
Paul’s hermeneutic must be seen in light of Isaiah’s own use of the Abrahamic promises. […] It is through Isaiah’s portrayal of Jerusalem (above) as barren and through his linking together the theme of Zion’s joy, since soon this barrenness will show itself as plenitude, with the covenant promises made to Abraham and his seed, that Paul is able to see in Genesis 16–17 an allegory of two covenants. Isaiah’s exhortation to Jerusalem to rejoice in the new covenant is allegorically represented in God’s proclamation to Abraham and Sarah that she shall not go childless.59
Need one clarify – as many recent commentators have done – that Paul is not mounting a polemic against Judaism per se? The epistle’s contextual clues leave no doubt that the argument is aimed against Judeo-Christian agitators who are pressing Gentile believers to be circumcised. Paul is, however, stressing what he considers to be the superiority of the eschatological “new” covenant to that of the Law. Whereas his adversaries operated from the perspective of a simple accumulation – the Abrahamic covenant supplemented by the Sinaitic, itself supplemented by the eschatological covenant in Christ – Paul seeks to show that such a view ends in an impasse. The promise defining the Abrahamic covenant – i.e., the blessing of justification for the nations, the gift of the Spirit, the inheritance of God’s “sons” –, that is all now given in Christ, apart from the Law covenant. In this final extended argument, Paul thus brings out, with other motifs and images, the same fundamental ideas for which he had already argued in Galatians 3: 1–4: 7.60
Finally, it is worthwhile noting that several elements in the overall argument of Galatians 3: 1–4: 7 may also suggest connections with Isaiah 40–55. In the eschatological situation brought about by Christ’s death, Gentiles (
4 Conclusion: Towards a Greater Relevance of Covenant for the New Testament?
An investigation into aspects of the biblical-theological argument in Galatians, taking intertextual considerations into account, suggests that the mentions of the
How can this exegesis further the discussion on covenant in the New Testament? In Pauline theology, E.P. Sanders, in the 1970’s, pioneered the idea that the fundamental pattern of first century Palestinian Judaism was that of “covenantal nomism”; Paul broke loose from this pattern, highlighting instead participationist motifs: belonging to Christ, being members of his body, etc. Sanders’s work became highly influential in reinforcing the thought that since Paul rarely uses the term covenant, the concept is of negligible importance for understanding his Gospel.66 This is not the place to enter into a discussion of Sanders’s concept of covenantal nomism, which has been much commented on elsewhere. I would merely draw attention to the fact that, interestingly, Sanders himself writes:
[…] One can already see in Paul how it is that Christianity is going to become a new form of covenantal nomism, a covenantal religion which one enters by baptism, membership in which provides salvation, which has a specific set of commandments, obedience to which (or repentance for the transgression of which) keeps one in the covenantal relationship, while repeated or heinous transgression removes one from membership.67
Sanders further states that there is “a good deal to be said for the view that Christianity is a new covenant which, once established […], does function somewhat as does the old.”68 I would demur from several details in Sanders’s description of what he takes to be the usual aspects of Christianity – or, for that matter, from “covenantal nomism,” at least in the way the Hebrew scriptures describe covenant. What is striking, however, is his recognition that the covenantal pattern present in Judaism is not, finally, antithetic to the way the New Testament, and Paul in particular, describe life in relation to Christ and the church.
Morna Hooker’s oft-quoted article remains important for this whole question.69 According to Hooker, Paul’s language evinces the same basic pattern as Second Temple Judaism. The major difference is not that one is participationist and the other covenantal, but that the specific elements making up similar “patterns of religion” have changed.70 In both Judaism and Christianity, there is one basic pattern: covenant/promise, calling forth fulfillment/faith.71 Hooker interprets Paul’s overall argument in Galatians 3–4 in this way:
The covenant on Sinai and the Mosaic Law, which form the heart of Judaism, are now seen as an interlude, sandwiched between the promises and their fulfilment. But the election of Abraham, and the promises made to him – which cannot fail – are part of God’s covenant to Israel, and come to their conclusion with the ‘new’ covenant in Christ’s death.72
This brings us to a more pointedly theological question: how does Paul define the
The eschatological covenant, more clearly than all that precedes it, “engenders” its true members,75 through the proclamation of the gospel, baptism, union with Christ, and the work of the Spirit. What differences are there between this and the covenant with Abraham? I would mention, first and most notably, the work of the Spirit which, though present before Christ’s coming, is now powerfully active in bringing about faith. Secondly, through Jesus Christ, the true seed of Abraham, non-Jews also become in ever-increasing numbers, “children of Abraham,” and “sons of the living God,” faithful members of the covenant, sharing the same standing and privileges as Christ-believing Jews.
In closing, I would suggest that a close study of Galatians 3–4 shows that the covenant concept is more relevant for understanding Paul’s argument than one might infer from the number of occurrences of
Bibliography
Barclay, John M.G. Paul and the Gift. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2015.
Barrett, Charles K. “The Allegory of Abraham, Sarah, and Hagar in the Argument of Galatians.” In Rechtfertigung: Festschrift für Ernst Käsemann zum 70. Geburtstag, edited by J. Friedrich, P. Wolfgang, and P. Stuhlmacher, 1–16. Tübingen: Mohr, 1976.
Betz, Hans D. Paul’s Letter to the Churches in Galatia: A Commentary on Paul’s Letter to the Churches in Galatia. Hermeneia. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979.
Bieringer, Reimund, and Pollefeyt, Didier. “Prologue: Wrestling with the Jewish Paul.” In Paul and Judaism: Crosscurrents in Pauline Exegesis and the Study of Jewish-Christian Relations, edited by R. Bieringer and D. Pollefeyt, 1–14. London: T&T Clark, 2012.
Blenkinsopp, Joseph. Isaiah 40–55: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 19a. New York: Doubleday, 2000.
De Boer, Marinus C. Galatians: A Commentary. NTL. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2012.
Christiansen, Ellen J. The Covenant in Judaism and Paul: A Study of Ritual Boundary Markers, AGJU 27. Leiden: Brill, 1995.
Cobb, Donald E. “What Paul Says About the Covenants in Galatians.” Unio Cum Christo 1.2 (2016): 173–194.
Das, A. Andrew. Galatians. ConCom. Saint Louis: Concordia, 2014.
Daube, David. New Testament and Rabbinic Judaism. London: Athlone, 1956.
Dunn, James D.G. “Did Paul Have a Covenant Theology? Reflections on Rom 9:4 and 11:27.” In The Concept of the Covenant in the Second Temple Period, edited by S.E. Porter and J.C.R. de Roo, 287–307. Leiden: Brill, 2003.
Gerber, Daniel. “Ga 4,21–31 ou l’indéfinissable methode ?” In Typologie biblique: De quelques figures vives, edited by R. Kuntzmann, 166–176. Paris: Le Cerf, 2002.
Goldingay, John. The Message of Isaiah 40–55: A Literary-Theological Commentary. London: T&T Clark, 2005.
Goodrich, John K. “ ‘As Long as the Heir is a Child’: The Rhetoric of Inheritance in Galatians 4:1–2 and P.Ryl. 2.153.” Novum Testamentum 55 (2013): 61–76.
Hansen, G. Walter. Abraham in Galatians: Epistolary and Rhetorical Contexts. JSNTSup 29. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1989.
Hays, Richard B. Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989.
Hays, Richard B. The Letter to the Galatians: Introduction, Commentary and Reflections. NIB. Nashville: Abingdon, 2002.
Hays, Richard B. “ ‘Who Has Believed Our Message?’ Paul’s Reading of Isaiah.” In The Conversion of the Imagination. Paul as Interpreter of Israel’s Scripture, 25–49. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005.
Hooker, Morna D., “Paul and ‘Covenantal Nomism.’ ” In Paul and Paulinism: Essays in Honour of C.K. Barrett, edited by M.D. Hooker and S.G. Wilson, 47–56. London: SCM, 1982.
Jobes, Karen H. “Jerusalem, Our Mother: Metalepsis and Intertextuality in Galatians 4:21–31.” Westminster Theological Journal 55 (1993): 299–320.
Koch, Dietrich A. Die Schrift als Zeuge des Evangeliums: Untersuschungen zur Verwending und zum Verständnis der Schrift bei Paulus. BHTh 69. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1986.
Martyn, John Louis. “The Covenants of Hagar and Sarah: Two Covenants and Two Gentile Missions.” In Theological Issues in the Letters of Paul, 191–208. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1997.
Di Mattei, Steven. “Paul’s Allegory of the Two Covenants (Gal 4.21–31) in Light of First-Century Hellenistic Rhetoric and Jewish Hermeneutics.” New Testament Studies 52 (2006): 102–122.
McNamara, M. “Τὸ δὲ (Ἁγὰρ) Σινᾶ ὄρος ἐστὶν ἐν τῇ Ἀραβία (Gal. 4.25a): Paul and Petra.” Milltown Studies 2 (1978): 24–41.
Meyer, Jason C. The End of the Law: Mosaic Covenant in Pauline Theology. New American Commentary Studies in Bible & Theology. Nashville: B&H, 2009.
Porter, Stanley E. “The Concept of Covenant in Paul.” In The Concept of the Covenant in the Second Temple Period, edited by Stanley E. Porter and Jacqueline C.R. de Roo, 269–285. JSJSup 71. Leiden: Brill, 2003.
Rastoin, Marc. Tarse et Jérusalem: La double culture de l’Apôtre Paul en Galates 3,6–4,7. AnBib. 152 Rome: Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 2003.
Sanders, Ed P. Paul and Palestinian Judaism: A Comparison of Patterns of Religion. London: SCM, 1977.
Schiffman, Lawrence H. “The Rabbinic Understanding of Covenant.” Review and Expositor 84 (1987): 289–298.
Schreiner, Thomas R. Galatians. Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2010.
Stanton, Graham N. “The Law of Moses and the Law of Christ.” In Paul and the Mosaic Law, edited by J.D.G. Dunn, 99–116. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1996.
Steinhauser, M.G. “Gal. 4,25a: Evidence of Targumic tradition in Gal. 4,21–31.” Biblia 70 (1989): 234–240.
Westermann, Claus. Isaiah 40–55. 8th ed. Translated by David M.G. Stalker. OTL. London: SCM, 1990.
Willitts, Joel. “Isa 54,1 in Gal 4,24b–27: Reading Genesis in Light of Isaiah.” Zeitschrift für die Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 96 (2005): 188–210.
Witherington, Ben. Grace in Galatia: A Commentary on Paul’s letter to the Galatians. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1998.
De Witt-Burton, Ernest. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians. 2nd ed. ICC. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1971.
Wright, Nicholas. T. Paul and the Faithfulness of God. Vol. 4. Christian Origins and the Question of God. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2013.
Cf., e.g., Reimund Bieringer, and Didier Pollefeyt, “Prologue: Wrestling with the Jewish Paul,” in Paul and Judaism: Crosscurrents in Pauline Exegesis and the Study of Jewish-Christian Relations, ed. R. Bieringer and D. Pollefeyt (London: T&T Clark, 2012), 1–14.
Cf. Nicholas T. Wright, Paul and the Faithfulness of God, vol. 4, coll. Christian Origins and the Question of God (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2013), 40–41 and passim. Here Wright is summarizing earlier works.
Cf., e.g., James D.G. Dunn, “Did Paul Have a Covenant Theology? Reflections on Rom 9:4 and 11:27,” in The Concept of the Covenant in the Second Temple Period, ed. S.E. Porter and J.C.R. de Roo (Leiden: Brill, 2003), 287–307; John M.G. Barclay, Paul and the Gift (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2015), 402 and passim.
Stanley E. Porter, “The Concept of Covenant in Paul,” in Porter and De Roo, Concept, 271–275.
Porter, “Concept,” 273.
Ernest de Witt-Burton, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians, 2nd ed., ICC (Edinbourgh: T&T Clark, 1971), 251.
“L’insistance est placée en 4,21–31 […] sur l’héritage réservé exclusivement aux seuls ‘fils de la femme libre’, mais cela au prix d’un tour de force exégétique certainement plus imputable à la colère qu’à la raison et sans lequel les données scripturaires de base ne pouvaient conduire à une telle conclusion.” “Ga 4,21–31 ou l’indéfinissable methode?,” in Typologie biblique: De quelques figures vives, ed. R. Kuntzmann (Paris: Le Cerf, 2002), 175.
E.g., Hans D. Betz, Paul’s Letter to the Churches in Galatia: A Commentary on Paul’s Letter to the Churches in Galatia, Hermeneia (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979), 248–49. This tendency is noted by Jobes: Karen H. Jobes, “Jerusalem, Our Mother: Metalepsis and Intertextuality in Galatians 4:21–31,” Westminster Theological Journal 55 (1993), 303.
Charles K. Barrett, “The Allegory of Abraham, Sarah, and Hagar in the Argument of Galatians,” in Rechtfertigung: Festschrift für Ernst Käsemann zum 70. Geburtstag, ed. J. Friedrich, P. Wolfgang, and P. Stuhlmacher (Tübingen: Mohr, 1976), 1–16.
Barrett, “Allegory,” 16.
Marinus C. de Boer, Galatians: A Commentary, NTL (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2012), 298n426 (my italics).
Richard B. Hays, Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989).
Jobes, “Jerusalem,” 299–320.
Joel Willitts, “Isa 54,1 in Gal 4,24b–27: Reading Genesis in Light of Isaiah,” Zeitschrift für die Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 96 (2005), 188–210.
Steven Di Mattei, “Paul’s Allegory of the Two Covenants (Gal 4.21–31) in Light of First-Century Hellenistic Rhetoric and Jewish Hermeneutics,” New Testament Studies 52 (2006), 102–22.
Cf. also Jason C. Meyer, The End of the Law: Mosaic Covenant in Pauline Theology, New American Commentary Studies in Bible & Theology (Nashville: B&H, 2009), 128–30. In the last several years, there has been a renewed interest in this passage, and a burgeoning literature, which the space of this article does not permit to enumerate or interact with.
The present section summarizes several elements that are developed in greater detail in Donald E. Cobb, “What Paul Says About the Covenants in Galatians,” Unio Cum Christo 1.2 (2016), 173–94.
Cf., in particular, Lawrence H. Schiffman, “The Rabbinic Understanding of Covenant,” Review and Expositor 84 (1987), 289–98.
Thus, e.g., Thomas R. Schreiner: “Circumcision was not conceived in Judaism or by the Judaizers as necessary to continue one’s devotion to God. It was required to belong to the people of God”; Galatians, Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2010), 177–78 (italics in the original).
Gal. 3: 29.
As we will see, this can also be said of Isa. 54: 1. Significantly, several of these texts function elsewhere in Second Temple Judaism as important summaries of the content of the Torah (Lev. 18: 5) or, in e.g. the Dead Sea Scrolls, of central covenant practices and aspirations (Gen. 15: 6; Deut. 28: 27; Isa. 54: 1).
Cf. Marc Rastoin, Tarse et Jérusalem: La double culture de l’Apôtre Paul en Galates 3,6–4,7, AnBib 152 (Rome: Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 2003), 189–90, and David Daube, New Testament and Rabbinic Judaism (London: Athlone, 1956), 440. This interpretation is already presupposed in Exod. 12: 40 in LXX and the Samaritan Pentateuch, as well as Josephus, AJ 2.318.
Correctly recognized by J.M.G. Barclay, Paul and the Gift, 402–4, and passim.
Cf. John K. Goodrich, “ ‘As Long as the Heir is a Child’: The Rhetoric of Inheritance in Galatians 4:1–2 and P.Ryl. 2.153,” Novum Testamentum 55 (2013), 61–76.
The covenant represented by Sarah is often understood as the Abrahamic covenant rather than the eschatological (or “new”) covenant: e.g., R.B. Hays, Echoes, 114–15; K.H. Jobes, “Jerusalem,” 316–17. As will be shown, contextual considerations more likely plead for an identification with the eschatological covenant prophesied in Isaiah.
Graham N. Stanton, “The Law of Moses and the Law of Christ,”in Paul and the Mosaic Law, ed. J.D.G. Dunn (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1996), 109.
Isa. 51: 17–23.
Isa. 43: 1–3, 16–17; 48: 20–21; 51: 9–10, etc.
Isa. 49: 17.
Isa. 47: 8–9.
Isa. 44: 3–4. The Old Greek (or LXX, henceforth OG) translates
Isa. 45: 25 (
Isa. 49: 20–21.
Isa. 51: 1–2.
Joseph Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 40–55: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB 19a (New York: Doubleday, 2000), 233. Blenkinsopp emphasizes the presence of the divine promise to Abraham throughout Isaiah 40–66. He writes: “The Abrahamic blessing runs like a strong undercurrent throughout this entire second part of the book. If Israel had obeyed, their descendants would have been like the sand of the seashore (48:18–19 cf. Gen 22:17; 32: 17); Abraham and Sarah were blessed and made many (51:2); the people will be all righteous, like Abraham, and will inherit the land as a mighty nation (60: 21–22 cf. Gen 12: 2; 15: 6); their descendants will be known among the nations as a people blessed by Yahweh (61: 9).”
Isa. 42: 1, 4, 6; 49: 6–8; 51: 4–5; 52: 10, 15; 54: 3; 55: 4–5.
John Goldingay, The Message of Isaiah 40–55: A Literary-Theological Commentary (London: T&T Clark, 2005), 384–85.
Isa. 40: 1 (ESV). OG is, however, more succinct: “Comfort, O comfort my people, says God (
Isa. 55: 3.
Our translation, following the Rahlfs-Hanhart and Göttingen editions (
Isa. 54: 1.
So Claus Westermann, Isaiah 40–55, 8th ed., trans. David M.G. Stalker, OTL (London: SCM, 1990), 271; J. Goldingay, Isaiah 40–55, 522, et alii.
In the Dead Sea Scrolls, Isaiah 54 is quoted in 4QSD, frag. 1, lines 2–6 and 4Q164, the description of redeemed Zion being applied to the yaẖad’s present, eschatologically oriented existence.
Gen. 16: 1–2, 11, 15–16, 17: 17, 19, 21, etc.
John Louis Martyn, “The Covenants of Hagar and Sarah: Two Covenants and Two Gentile Missions,” in Theological Issues in the Letters of Paul (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1997), 197–98.
1 Cor. 4: 15; Philem. 10.
Isa. 49: 20–21.
Isa. 44: 3–4.
Cf., e.g., Dietrich A. Koch, Die Schrift als Zeuge des Evangeliums: Untersuschungen zur Verwending und zum Verständnis der Schrift bei Paulus, BHTh (Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1986), 33; R.B. Hays, “ ‘Who Has Believed Our Message?’ Paul’s Reading of Isaiah,” in The Conversion of the Imagination: Paul as Interpreter of Israel’s Scripture (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005), 25–49.
Thus also, e.g., Di Mattei: “[…] Since Paul and his community had envisioned themselves as living in the end of days, it was only natural to see in Isa 54.1 a prophetic announcement which spoke of their own particular community as Isaiah’s righteous ones. The Gentiles are thus seen as the heirs of the New Jerusalem because, according to Paul’s reading of Isaiah, this is exactly what the prophet speaks of at every turn of the page: the Nations shall be justified and assembled in the end of days. Moreover, the prophet himself declares that Jerusalem’s seed shall inherit the Nations”; “Allegory,” 115–16.
“One [covenant] is from Mount Sinai, bearing children for slavery; she is Hagar. Now Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia.”
De Boer, Galatians, 299–300. (italics added).
M. McNamara, “
Josephus, AJ 1.220–221 (translation slightly modified). See also De Boer, Galatians, 300.
Strabo, Geographica 16: 3,1; 17: 1, 21; 2: 5, 32, etc.
Gal. 4: 25.
Di Mattei, “Allegory,” 102–22.
This point is well recognized by, e.g., R.B. Hays in The Letter to the Galatians, Introduction, Commentary and Reflections, NIB (Nashville: Abingdon, 2002), 303.
Gal. 3: 29.
Isa. 41: 8; 45: 25.
Thus also Jobes, “Jerusalem,” 311–12.
It would be worthwhile to compare Paul’s argument in these chapters with the one he makes in a not altogether different context in 2 Cor. 3. There, Paul contrasts his “new covenant” ministry with that given through Moses (2 Cor. 3: 3–11). Alluding to Jer. 31: 30–31, as well as Ezek. 36–37 and Exod. 34, Paul compares the Mosaic law-covenant (explicitly labeled as such in v. 14:
Cf. G. Walter Hansen for a similar conclusion, in Abraham in Galatians: Epistolary and Rhetorical Contexts, JSNTSup 29 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1989), 162–63.
Ed P. Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism: A Comparison of Patterns of Religion (London: SCM, 1977), 514.
Sanders, Judaism, 513.
Sanders, Judaism, 513.
Morna D. Hooker, “Paul and ‘Covenantal Nomism,’ ” in Paul and Paulinism: Essays in Honour of C.K. Barrett, ed. M.D. Hooker and S.G. Wilson (London: SCM, 1982), 47–56.
Hooker, “Paul,” 49–50.
Hooker, “Paul,” 52.
Hooker, “Paul,” 52.
Cf. Cobb, “What Paul Says,” 177–78, and, on this whole question, 188–93.
It has been claimed by, e.g., Martyn and Christiansen that Paul’s polemic with the “Hagar” covenant, “from Mount Sinai” (Gal. 4: 24) is aimed, not at the Sinai covenant per se, but rather the Jewish-Christian teachers’ misperception of it; see Martyn, “The Covenants,” 199–24; Ellen J. Christiansen, The Covenant in Judaism and Paul: A Study of Ritual Boundary Markers, AGJU (Leiden: Brill, 1995), 243. That this is not a consensus view can be seen in the contrary comments of, e.g., De Boer and Das; see De Boer, Galatians, 298–99; A. Andrew Das, Galatians, ConCom (Saint Louis: Concordia, 2014), 488–89. Although the polemical aspect of Paul’s argument in Gal. 4: 21–31 is undeniable, the terminology of v. 24, especially when compared with the similar vocabulary of 2 Cor. 3, and the overall argument of Gal. 3–4, suggests it is indeed the Sinai covenant which has reached its terminus in Christ’s coming and the gift of the Spirit. The same, however, cannot be said of the Abrahamic covenant which, in Paul’s words, is the “gospel proclaimed beforehand” (Gal. 3: 8); not only is this covenant not superseded by the Law (Gal. 3: 17), but it remains permanently valid, finding its deepest expression in the “new” covenant, and coming to present fulfillment as the nations discover the God of Israel, thus becoming Abraham’s offspring in Christ.
E.g., Deut. 14: 1; 32: 5, 18.