Isaac the child of promise, only son of a free mother after years of barrenness, and heir to an indisputable birthright, aptly prefigured the Church of Christ, born in the fulness of time, made free by the gift of the Spirit, and established for ever in the house of their heavenly Father by an eternal covenant of adoption. Ishmael again, who had for some years filled the position of a son without the birthright which could entitle him to inherit the blessing, but was eventually driven out for his mockery of the promised child, supplied an exact prototype of
18—25.
181
22. Γέγραπται γὰρ, ὅτι ᾿Αβραὰμ δύο υἱοὺς ἔσχεν, ἕνα ἐκ τῆς παι-
δίσκης, καὶ ἕνα ἐκ τῆς ἐλευθέρας - ἀλλ᾽ ὁ μὲν ἐκ τῆς παιδίσκης
κατὰ σάρκα γεγέννηται, 23. 6 δὲ ἐκ τῆς ἐλευθέρας δι ἐπαγ-
γελίας.]
24. ἅτινά ἐστιν ἀλληγορούμενα: αὗται γάρ εἰσιν δύο 3
ὃ θῇ , 4 > 4 “65 ~ > , A ΠῚ ΕῚ 4 ιαθῆκαι' μία μὲν ἀπὸ ὄρους Σινᾶ, εἰς δουλείαν γεννῶσα, ἥτις ἐστὶν
“Ayap 25. (τὸ γὰρ ὃ Σινᾶ ὄρος ἐστὶν ἐν τῇ ᾿Αραβίᾳ), συστοιχεῖ δὲ τῇ
1 δι᾽ επαγγελιας SAC 17, 73; δια της επ. BDEFGKLP,
2 δυο (without αι) NCABCDEFGKLP.
ὅτο γαρ ΝΟΕ; το δε 17; το Αγαρ B;
Israel after the flesh, long recognised as the people of God, but bound under the Law, and eventually destined to be shut out from the household of God for their guiltin persecutingChrist and His Church, --τ. νόμον οὐκ ἀκούετε. This is a re- monstrance addressed to men who are bent on upholding the authority of the Law, but are indifferent to the lessons which it teaches. ἀκούειν has this force of listening, not only when used ab- solutely, but when coupled as it is here with an accusative (cf. Luke x. 39, Eph. i, 13).
Ver. 22. γέγραπται ὅτι. The state- ment which follows is not a quotation, but a summary of recorded facts.
Hagar and Sarah are entitled the hand- maid and the freewoman because they are accepted types of each class in Scripture. In the LXX παιδίσκη denotes any young woman (¢.g., Ruth) as it does in Attic Greek, but in the N.T. παιδίσκη» a handmaid, corresponds to παῖς, a male servant.
Ver. 23. The two who were coupled together in the last verse as sons of one father are here contrasted in respect of their different mothers. — γεγέννηται. The perfect is used in order to present the birth as a Scripture record now in existence (cf. Heb. xi. 17, 28... .): other- wise the aorist ἐγεννήθη would have been appropriate. — δι᾽ ἐπαγγελίας. There is an alternative reading διὰ τῆς ἐπ. supported by equal MS. authority: but it is difficult to attach any meaning to the article, whereas δι ἐπαγγ. forms an appropriate antithesis to κατὰ σάρκα. Like διὰ νόµου in 1, 19, 21 it describes the attendant circumstances under which the birth took place, διά not having an instrumental force.
Ver. 24. ἅτινά ἐστιν ἀλληγορούμενα. No doubt is thrown on the historical truth of the patriarchal history by classing the story of Ishmael with allegories: though an additional value is thereby
το δε Αγαρ ADE; το yap Ayap KLP.
claimed for it as embodying spiritual truth,and typifying the permanent relation between the two δεεάς.---αὗται γάρ εἰσιν. The two women are identified with the two covenants, the Sinaitic and the Christian, which they typify: and the characteristic features of the two are declared to be slavery and freedom.— γεννῶσα. This term is applied to the conception of the mother in Luke i. 13, 57 also, though more often applied to the father.
Ver.25. τὸ γὰρ. The variety of read- ings in the MSS., το Ayap, to yap Ayap, το Se Ayap, το yap, indicates some primi- tive error of transcription. It is hardly possible to extract any reasonable sense from the three first: for τὸ ἽΑγαρ cannot mean Hagar herself: it denotes the name Hagar, and Stanley’s attempt to connect this name with Sinai proved futile. How then can the statement be understood that the name Hagar is Sinai, or that it answers to Jerusalem? How again can the superfluous description of Sinai as a mountain in Arabia be explained 2 More- over, the reading τὸ “Ayap without any connecting particle is intolerable in Greek language, and δέ or γάρ was probably added to correct the solecism. Hence I conclude that “Ayap was probably an error in transcription for the original γάρ, suggested by its occurrence immediately before.