Galatians 4:23Meaning & Commentary from the Church Fathers

What does "according to the flesh" mean? Since he had said that faith unites us to Abraham, it seemed unclear to his hearers how he could call those who did not descend from Abraham his sons. Therefore he shows that this extraordinary thing was accomplished by God. Isaac, who was born not according to the natural order, not according to the law of marriage, and likewise not by fleshly power, was nevertheless a son, and a true son. He was born from withered bodies and a womb grown old. Flesh did not accomplish the conception, and seed did not produce the fruit. The mother's womb was doubly dead, both by age and by barrenness. But the word spoken by God formed him. The slave, by contrast, was not born in this way, but according to the laws of nature and ordinary marriage.

Since his words, that they are sons of Abraham, seemed incredible, for how could those not born from him according to the flesh truly be Abraham's children, Paul says that Isaac himself, Abraham's own son, was not born from him according to the flesh. Indeed, how could this have happened when nature had grown dead? Rather, the word of God and the promise formed him. Ishmael, however, was born according to the natural order. This is precisely what the expression "according to the flesh" means. Yet the one born according to the flesh is a slave and a stranger to the inheritance. The one born not according to the flesh is lord and heir. What, then, prevents you also from being his sons, although you were not born of Abraham according to the flesh? For you too, through the words spoken at the font, received a new mode of being.

The fact that Isaac was born of a free woman is not enough for him to signify the people who are heir to the New Testament. More important is that he was born according to promise. He could have been born according to the flesh from a bondwoman, and according to the flesh from a free woman, as from Keturah, whom Abraham later married and from whom he begot sons. But they were not according to promise, but according to the flesh (see Gen 25:1-2).

He who was of the bondwoman was born according to the flesh, for he was not according to the promise, as Isaac was, the son of the free woman (cf. Gen chs. 16, 17, 21).

It is written: "And Abraham said to God, 'Oh, that Ishmael might live before Thee!' And God said, 'Sarah thy wife shall bear thee a son, and thou shalt call his name Isaac. I will establish My covenant with him as an everlasting covenant, and with his seed after him. As for Ishmael, I have heard thee. Behold, I will bless him, and make him fruitful, and multiply him exceedingly. Twelve princes shall be born of him, and I will make him a great nation. But My covenant I will establish with Isaac, whom Sarah shall bear to thee at this time next year'" (Gen 17:18-21). From these words it is evident that, by the word of God Himself, Ishmael was born according to promise. Yet this too is resolved in this way: promise is given properly for the fulfillment of the covenant. It is one thing to bless, multiply, and greatly increase, as is written concerning Ishmael. It is another thing to make someone heir by testament.

The divine Apostle said, "which things are allegorized," that is, they can also be understood in another way. He does not reject the historical meaning, but explains what was prefigured by the history. Therefore he adds: "For these are the two covenants: the one from Mount Sinai, bearing children for bondage, which is Hagar. For Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia, and corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in bondage with her children. But the Jerusalem above is free, which is the mother of us all." Why, says the Apostle, do you who are resolved to serve the Law not believe the teachings of the Law? For the Law teaches you that Abraham had two wives and became the father of two sons. One of them was born of the bondwoman, and the other of the freewoman.

Thus history contains the knowledge of past and visible things, as the Apostle also explains: “Abraham had two sons, one by a bondwoman and the other by a free woman. But he who was of the bondwoman was born according to the flesh, and he who was of the free woman through promise.” History means the literal sense of Holy Scripture.

“He who was of the bondwoman was born according to the flesh.” Ishmael was born of the bondwoman Hagar in the eighty-sixth year of Abraham’s life, when the patriarch’s natural powers were still capable of begetting children, and Hagar was likewise capable of bearing them. But Isaac was born of Sarah when both spouses were already advanced in years and had lost the natural capacity for childbearing. Therefore the son of Sarah is called the son of promise.

An exhortation to the Galatians on the needless character of the Old Testament Law, acting chiefly upon their will (Gal 4:21-5:12). In this section St. Paul the Apostle shows how glorious it is to abide in freedom from the Law (Gal 4:21-5:1), how necessary this is (Gal 5:2-6), and how easy it is (Gal 5:7-12). "There are three aspects which, once recognized, move both hands and feet toward the work in which they are seen. Glory attracts by superiority. Necessity compels by inescapability. Ease gives wings by readiness" (Bishop Theophan). St. Paul the Apostle unfolds the glory of freedom from the Law through the figure of the two covenants in the history of Hagar and Sarah (Gal 4:21-5:1). The force of the apostolic words here is as follows. Abraham had two wives, one free and one a slave.

Continuing his discourse on the needless character of the Law, the Apostle depicts the superiority of faith over the Law through an allegorical interpretation. Abraham begot Ishmael according to the flesh, and Isaac according to the promise. The first is presented as an image of the Old Covenant, and the second of the New. To the New Covenant belong sonship of the Jerusalem above, birth into freedom, and the inalienable inheritance of heavenly blessings. Meanwhile Hagar, the bondwoman, bore slaves. The Sinaitic Law bears children for bondage and is in bondage with its children, ruling in the present Jerusalem, the center of life under the Law. In unfolding such a profound allegory, the Apostle was visibly adapting himself to the needs of his readers.

By the preceding question the Apostle only aroused attention. Here he points to the very event from which, if they consider it, they can draw an instructive lesson for themselves. This event was known to all. The Apostle does not recount it in detail. Nor was that necessary. It was necessary only to single out certain features of the event, which serve as the starting point for the conclusion that follows. St. Paul dwells on these, without distracting attention by the other circumstances. These features are the following. Of Abraham's two sons, one was a slave born of a slave woman, and the other was free, born of a free woman. One was according to the flesh, the other according to promise.