Soul Invictus

I read the chapter to be sure that I was putting it in perspective, and I can't come to any other conclusion. Based on this particular passage, it reads as if Paul is stating that Isaac and Ishmael did not factually exist, but that their characters were allegorical in nature and that they represented two separate covenants. Can anyone come to another conclusion based on the text?

Toto

Paul is using allegorical language, but I don't see that this precludes the historical existence of Isaac and Ishmael.

And I think you meant Gal 4:22-26?

22 For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman.

23 But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise.

24 Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.

25 For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children.

26 But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.

yalla

I think this passage is closely related to Romans 9.6ff.

Gal.4.23 is close to verbatim Romans 9.8....."That is these who are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of god, but the children of the promise are counted as the seed".

It's a theme or argument of Paul's in which he is trying to establish that the younger [son] ie Christians who receive the later promise of the covenant from god are the legitimate heirs of god as compared to the earlier covenant based on the law given to the older, that of the Jews, who do not contain the promise of god because they do not have faith in the son ie JC.
Its complicated rhetoric and sales talk to justify Chritianity, Paul version, as successors to Judaism.
He is just using the 2 sons as metaphor, or allegory if you wish, to justify faith in JC.
An interesting sideline is that both sons of Abe are born physically obviously [mothers are named] but one, the lesser son of the slave he without the covenant, is born "according to the flesh" whilst the other, he born of the freewoman the younger who receives the new covenant is "born of the spirit".
[Interpret the latter as Christians.] As such it is evidence that the 'according to the flesh" phrase does not relate to physicallity or bodily existence [because it is applied to one who is no less or more physical than the other] but as such but is a sign of inferior status in the eyes of god and Paul.
Thats my take anyway.
cheers
yalla

Soul Invictus

Yes I did mean 4:22-26. Thanks for the correction.

Doug Shaver

I think it's obvious that Paul thought they were allegorical, but I agree with Toto that this does not preclude his also thinking that they were historical. I'm not saying he did, only that there would be no inconsistency if he did. My guess would be that he didn't, but it's only a guess.