The Allegory of Sarah and Hagar

As is well known, the letter to Galatians was written by the Apostle Paul to address an issue that arose in the Galatian community. Alternative Jewish preachers of the Gospel of Christ (although perhaps they were simply Jews who did not follow Christ) convinced the Gentile believers that full acceptance into the people of God required dedication to the Torah in the manner of proselytes. This included God’s universal laws and those specific to Israel. Paul resolutely opposed this viewpoint, asserting that in the past, Gentiles, and now followers of Christ Jesus, were already accepted into the people of God through faith in the Jewish Messiah.

Our study focuses on two key passages: a) the confrontation between Paul and Peter in Antioch (Gal 2:11–19) and b) Paul’s allegorical interpretation linking Hagar, the Law, and the contemporary Jerusalem in a state of bondage—contrasted with Sarah, freedom, and the heavenly capital of Israel, the New Jerusalem (Gal 4:21–30).

The Calling of Paul and the Jerusalem Council

To understand the essence of the Antioch incident, it is necessary to consider how Paul himself viewed his calling. He refers to divine revelation, asserting the complete independence of his apostolic appointment. Immediately after his calling (Acts 9:15–16), he went to Arabia instead of going to the apostles (Gal 1:11–17). First after three years (Gal 1:17–18), and then only after fourteen years, Paul came to Jerusalem to meet with the chief apostles (Gal 2:2, 9) to discuss the essence of the gospel he was preaching. He came to the meeting with his companion, the Jew Barnabas, and the uncircumcised Greek Titus (Gal 2:1–2).

The apostles present (Peter and John, as well as Jesus’ brother James) recognized the division of God’s calling: Paul was the apostle to the nations outside the covenant with the God of Israel, while Peter was to the already circumcised. Most importantly, this authoritative Jerusalem group did not require Titus to undergo circumcision (Gal 2:3–9).

Confrontation for the Truth of the Gospel in Antioch

Paul describes how he opposed the apostle Peter due to a serious error: “But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned.” For before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing those of the circumcision. The hypocritical actions of the rest of the Jews, including Barnabas, led him astray (Gal 2:11–13).

Certain men came from James

Paul recognizes James as a pillar of the Jerusalem church (Gal 2:9) and reports that James approved his type of evangelism for the Gentiles at the meeting in Jerusalem (Gal 2:7–10). So who is meant by the designation “certain men from James”? The incident in Antioch shows that either not everyone in James’s circle shared Paul’s approach (which is entirely logical), or “from James” was merely a reference to geographical location (i.e., Judea, not the diaspora). Let us remember that we are not even sure that “certain men from James” were actually followers of Jesus. This is our assumption, but not a fact.

However, the group around James might have believed that, in the last days they thought they were living in, the Gentiles should join Israel by becoming proselytes, as the prophets had predicted (e.g., Isa 56:6–7). Their goal was not to reject the Gentiles but to “properly” include them in the eschatological people of God. Therefore, their visit to Peter was not a sabotage of the decisions of the Jerusalem Council but an attempt to ensure the success of the largest mixed community in Antioch before God and the Jews of the diaspora. The envoys representing the more strict Jews who believed in Christ Jesus apparently considered Paul’s preaching to be insufficiently thought out. Under their influence, Peter effectively withdrew from table fellowship with former Gentiles, which provoked a sharp rebuke from the Pharisee known to us as the Apostle Paul.

Peter’s refusal reflected the widespread concern among pious Jews about ritual impurity during shared meals with Gentiles (Jub 22:16; Jude 12:1–4; Tob 1:10–11; Dan 1:8). Up to this point, Peter’s earlier participation in meals with former Gentiles (Acts 10:9–48; 11:1–18) did not mean that he was observing Old Testament dietary laws, as he was an apostle to the circumcised (Gal 2:8). Rather, the meals with believers from the nations included only permitted food and were, at that time, a bold theological statement: now in Christ Jesus, Israel and the nations of the earth are united in one community, sharing meals together (cf. Eph 2:11–22). However, when Peter, under the influence of “certain men from James” (Gal 2:12), withdrew from joint meals, Paul accused him of hypocrisy, seeing this as a departure that led other followers of Christ from the Jews astray, including Barnabas (Gal 2:13).

Key Question

We read:

“But when I saw that they were not walking uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas before them all, ‘If you, being a Jew (Ἰουδαῖος ὑπάρχων), live (ζῇς) like a Gentile (ἐθνικῶς) and not like a Jew (καὶ οὐχὶ Ἰουδαϊκῶς), why do you compel Gentiles (πῶς τὰ ἔθνη) to live like Jews (ἀναγκάζεις ἰουδαΐζειν)?'” (Gal 2:14).

The phrase “If you, being a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew…” (Gal 2:14) is particularly significant here.

Three Approaches to Interpretation

Literal: Peter temporarily deviated from Jewish customs (at least in food) and lived like a “Gentile.” This interpretation seems unlikely, considering that Peter was recognized as the “apostle to the circumcised” (Gal 2:8). Such an approach would have permanently discredited him.

Contextually meal-related: Since the refusal to share meals with pagans was a behavioral marker for most Jews in ancient Israel and the diaspora, “living like a pagan” could mean for Peter eating with everyone, while “living like a Jew” meant adhering to traditional segregation. Therefore, his refusal to share meals became a reason for accusations of hypocrisy. The Greek word used (ὑπόκρισις, hypokrisis) originally meant acting in a play. A hypocrite is an actor, a person who wears a mask and plays a role that contradicts their true nature. His actions were not private; they were a public performance for an audience. This display confused other Jews, including Barnabas, a trusted companion.

Theological (M. Nanos, “Paul within Judaism”): The emphasis is not on Peter’s everyday behavior but on the theological reality of “life with God.” According to this view, both a Jew (like Peter, Barnabas, Paul, and James) and any representative of the nations of the world attain “life with God” (ζῇς) in the same way—through faith in Christ Jesus, regardless of adherence to Israel-specific prescriptions (“works of the Law”). Therefore, Paul’s phrase can be understood as follows: “If you, being a Jew, attain life before God in the same way as a Gentile (that is, through faith), and not exclusively in the Jewish way (through the observance of Israel-specific prescriptions), then what is the point of forcing Gentiles to observe Jewish rites and customs?”

His subsequent formulation confirms the last two options: “We are Jews by nature and not sinners from among the Gentiles; yet knowing that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law” (Gal 2:15–16a).

Next, Paul rebukes the members of the Galatian community for straying from the truth (Gal 3:1). He reminds them that they received a) the Holy Spirit and b) saw miracles performed among them by the God of Israel, believing, that is, even before they came under the influence of “certain men from James” (Gal 3:2–5). For Paul, everything makes sense. Faith made Abraham righteous. Circumcision came later (Gal 3:6–9). That is why, for the Galatians, faith—not the observance of specific Israelite prescriptions, as in the story of Abraham’s justification (Gen 15:6)—once again becomes the path to justification before God [Witherington, 159–1. That is why, despite the remaining differences between Jews and Greeks, men and women, and so on, all preferences and hierarchies are eternally abolished in Christ. All believers, both from “Jews” and from “Gentiles,” are children of Abraham and equal heirs of the promise (Gal 3:25–29).

Allegory of Hagar and Sarah

We read,

“For it is written that Abraham had two sons: one by a slave woman and the other by a free woman.” “But he who was of the bondwoman was born according to the flesh, and he of the freewoman through promise” (Gal 4:22–23).

This is a brief reference to one of the foundational stories of the Torah—about Sarah and Hagar. Next follows perhaps Paul’s most complex thesis, especially when considering it outside the framework of “replacement theology”:

“This is said allegorically (ἀλληγορούμενα): for these two women are two covenants: one from Mount Sinai, bearing children for slavery, which is Hagar. For Hagar corresponds to Mount Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children…” (Gal 4:24–25).

Although Mount Zion plays an enormous role in the history of covenants, Mount Sinai occupies a special place in the early history of Israel. Interestingly, the ancient Hebrew word for “mountain” with the definite article—הָהָר (ha-har)—exhibits a phonetic similarity to the name הָגָר (Hagar). This phonetic association could have subconsciously prompted Paul to allegorically identify the Sinai covenant with Sarah’s maidservant, Hagar. However, this similarity could also have been coincidental. It was certainly unreasonable to expect that the Greek-speaking Galatians would understand the message without knowing ancient Hebrew.

The Problem of Interpretation

From a traditional Christian perspective, understanding “Paul’s thought” is not difficult: Judaism, as expressed in the Law of Moses, is presented as having served its purpose. However, reading the letter in the context of the 1st-century Jewish environment (which is the only responsible approach) requires reconciling Paul’s sharp statements in the Letter to the Galatians with two facts: a) his unwavering self-identification as a Pharisee and son of a Pharisee even after his conversion to Christ (Acts 23:6; Phil 3:5) and b) his public refutation of rumors that he teaches Jewish Christians in the diaspora to abandon the Law of Moses, disregard circumcision, or leave ancestral traditions (Acts 21:20–24).

The Meaning of Paul’s Metaphor

In his allegory, Paul associates Hagar with the Law of Moses—a temporary tutor, good and necessary, but, by God’s design, incapable of granting salvation. Paul, who observes and loves the Mosaic Law, is confident that the Law has always had another, very important and beneficial function. Paul does not deny the enduring significance, holiness, and usefulness of the Law, but despite his continuing Pharisaic self-awareness, he asserts that its educational role has reached its goal and fulfillment in Christ.

Paul’s identification of Hagar with the “present Jerusalem,” which “is in bondage with her children,” presents the greatest difficulty in understanding the allegory, as it identifies, albeit allegorically, Mount Sinai (and the covenant made there) with the contemporary Jerusalem, which, according to him, is in bondage. How should this statement be understood?

Slavery as Guardianship

Aside from the possible allusion to Roman occupation, to grasp the likely meaning of the metaphor, it is necessary to understand what the institution of Roman slavery represented in Paul’s time. Paul uses this concept primarily rhetorically, without the moral condemnation characteristic of modern consciousness. Slavery was a fundamental part of the social order. Many slaves (although, of course, not all) were household managers and child educators (παιδαγωγός, paidagogos—the very term Paul uses in Gal 3:24–25). Such a role implied a high status in respected families and significant responsibility. However, regardless of the privileges the slave might have, until the moment of emancipation, he remained completely under the authority and guardianship of the head of the household. It is this sense of subordination, temporary oversight, and controlled existence that the term “slavery” (δουλεία) primarily conveys in Paul’s allegory.

Paul does not see the current Jerusalem and its children as “in bondage” in a wholly negative way, as we do. The Sinai covenant, a holy and good gift, acted as a tutor, steward, and guardian. Not being “under the law” means living in the full freedom of adult heirs. From Paul’s perspective, in the messianic age for all believers, both “Jews” and “Gentiles,” this guardianship has reached its good, intended, and long-awaited goal (τέλος, telos).

The Heavenly Jerusalem Is Free

Taking this into account, Paul continues:

“But the Jerusalem above is free; she is our mother (ἥτις ἐστὶν μήτηρ ἡμῶν). For it is written: ‘Rejoice, O barren one who does not bear; break forth and cry aloud, you who are not in labor; for the children of the desolate one will be more than the children of her who is married'” (Gal 4:26–27).

Gal 4:27 is a direct quote from Isa 54:1, where the prophet Isaiah addresses contemporary Jerusalem, comparing the city devastated after the Babylonian captivity to a barren and widowed woman. God proclaims a paradoxical hope: it is precisely this “barren” and “forsaken” one that will in the future have more children (inhabitants) than the prosperous city. This is a metaphor for the forthcoming restoration.

The image of the forsaken but future fruitful mother not only points to the forthcoming restoration of Jerusalem but also allegorically identifies her with Sarah, the matriarch of God’s people, whose offspring was also born by promise, contrary to the natural order. Thus, for Paul, it is not the contemporary but the future, “heavenly” Jerusalem that is the spiritual mother of all believers born free.

The connection with Romans 9–11 is also important for understanding Galatians 4. Paul expresses his sorrow for Israel in the Epistle to the Romans, while affirming God’s unwavering faithfulness to His promises. This does not allow for the interpretation of the allegory of Hagar and Sarah as a complete rejection of Israel. Paul contrasts not nations but two principles: inheritance “by flesh” (through the Law and descent) and “by spirit” (through faith). “The present Jerusalem embodies the imperfect path chosen by Paul’s opponents, yet its presence does not close the future for Israel—this theme Paul delves into deeply later on.

Children of the Promise

Addressing the followers of Christ in Galatia, former pagans, Paul informs them of an astonishing fact: “But you, brothers, like Isaac, are children of promise” (Gal 4:28). In other words, the restoration of the future Jerusalem is directly linked to the ongoing great incorporation of the nations of the earth into the faith of the God of Israel through His Anointed One, King Jesus.

At the Jerusalem Council, the apostle James, referring to the prophecy of Amos (Am 9:11–12), presents a key argument (Acts 15:13–18). He points out that the current conversion of the Gentiles is the fulfillment of the promise: God is restoring the “fallen tent of David,” and it is the coming of the Gentiles that serves as a sign of this eschatological restoration.

The Apostle Paul in the Epistle to the Galatians gives this fact a profound theological interpretation. He asserts that the believers from the Gentiles are not secondary converts but, like Isaac, are full-fledged “children of promise” (Gal 4:28). Thus, the kingdom of David, restored in the Messiah Jesus, takes on its new spiritual form—the “heavenly Jerusalem” (Gal 4:26). This new people of God is formed from the free heirs of Abraham, united not by the Law but by a single faith in the promise.

Opposition

In the key passage (Gal 4:28–31), Paul, referring to the story of Abraham, creates a sharp polemical dichotomy. He identifies the believers from the Gentiles, who accepted his gospel of freedom, with the freeborn heir Isaac, “born of the Spirit.” Their opponents, who insist on circumcision and works of the law as a condition of the covenant, he allegorically equates with Ishmael, “born according to the flesh.” Referring to Gen 21:10 (“Cast out the slave woman and her son…”), the author interprets it not as a denial of Judaism as a religion, but as a polemical argument in defense of the faithfulness of his mission among the Gentiles in the face of competing Jewish interpretations of the Gospel. The apostle’s conclusion is categorical: “Therefore, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free” (Gal 4:31).

Conclusion

Thus, for Paul, it is fundamentally important to affirm the following: in Christ, all believers—both Jews and Gentiles—become equally children of the free woman, that is, of the heavenly Jerusalem, the coming City of God (Gal 4:26, 31). Their eschatological freedom and inheritance are obtained not through “works of the law” (although their observance is not prohibited, cf. Rom 14:5–6), but exclusively by promise, through faith—in the manner of Abraham, justified before the giving of the Law to Israel and before his own rite of circumcision.

The ritual ordinances of the Mosaic covenant undoubtedly retain their significance as key identity markers for historical Israel. However, in the new reality that has come with the advent of the Messiah and the reception of the Holy Spirit (Acts 10:44–48), these signs are anachronistic for the believing Gentiles. They are not a necessary condition for entering into the covenant with God or remaining in it (Gal 3:28–29; 4:1–7). Therefore, the new, universal people of God is not built on the basis of ethnic-cultural affiliation but on the basis of faith, which in Christ makes all people one and full heirs of the promise given to Abraham (Gal 3:14, 29).

The practical conclusion of this theological position is as follows: Paul’s thought does not deny the right of Christians from among the Gentiles to reverently study the Torah, participate in Jewish festivals, or observe the Sabbath as a spiritual practice. However, it unequivocally denies that such “works” are necessary for “gaining and maintaining a righteous standing before God” (Gal 2:15–16; 5:1). Their status is already confirmed by the gift of the Holy Spirit through grace by faith, making them co-heirs with believing Jews.

VERSION B OF THIS ARTICLE

Sarah, Hagar, and Gentile Belonging

How Paul defended gentile inclusion without diminishing Jewish identity.

Galatians contains some of Paul’s sharpest language. It also contains words that have too often been read as if Paul had rejected Judaism, Torah, and even his own people. Such a reading cannot easily be reconciled with Paul’s continuing Jewish self-identification, his scriptural arguments, or his insistence that God has not abandoned Israel.

The crisis in Galatia concerned gentiles who had come to worship the God of Israel through allegiance to Jesus, Israel’s Messiah. Some influence was pressing them toward circumcision. In the ancient Jewish world, circumcision was not merely one religious practice among many. For an adult gentile male, it could mark entry into the Jewish people through proselyte conversion.

That distinction matters. To become Jewish was not the same thing as choosing to learn from the Torah, to honor Israel’s God, or to share meals shaped by Jewish standards of holiness. A gentile who became a proselyte would naturally take on the responsibilities expected of a Jew. But Paul’s argument is not a campaign against Jewish practice. It is a determined defense of gentiles who were being told that they must become Jews in order to be counted among Abraham’s children.

Paul’s answer is that the promise has already reached the nations through Israel’s Messiah.

What Paul does and does not say about the other side

Paul never clearly identifies the people influencing the Galatians as non-believers in Jesus. Nor does he call them “evangelists.” Those descriptions may be possible, but the letter itself does not settle the question. They may have been Jesus-believing Jews, other Jewish teachers, or a more complex mixture of local pressures and expectations.

What we can say is that they regarded circumcision as necessary for gentiles who wished to secure an unambiguous place within the people of God. Paul regarded that step as a betrayal of the good news entrusted to him for the nations.

This was therefore not simply a conflict between “Christianity” and “Judaism,” categories that belong more naturally to later history. It was a fierce first-century Jewish dispute about the God of Israel, the Messiah of Israel, the promises to Abraham, and the place of gentiles in the unfolding restoration of Israel.

Paul’s disagreement was real and urgent. Yet we should not turn his polemic into contempt for Jewish people or Jewish faithfulness.

Titus and the question of conversion

Paul recalls taking Titus, an uncircumcised Greek, with him to Jerusalem. “Not even Titus, who was with me, was compelled to be circumcised” (Gal 2:3). The point is not that circumcision had become evil, nor that Jews should stop circumcising their sons. Paul himself never makes that argument.

The point is Titus’s identity. Titus was a gentile. If he had been compelled to undergo circumcision in order to be fully accepted, the message would have been clear: trust in Israel’s Messiah was not enough to establish a gentile’s place among God’s people. He would first have to become Jewish.

Paul refuses that conclusion.

This helps us read Galatians 5:2-3 with greater care. Paul warns gentile men considering circumcision that accepting this rite would place them under obligation to do “the whole law” (Gal 5:3). He is not saying that Torah is a curse. He is warning that proselyte conversion is a whole identity-forming step, not a small spiritual addition. A person cannot take the entrance rite while pretending that nothing else follows from it.

For Paul, the Galatians do not need that transformation. They have already received the Spirit as gentiles who entrusted themselves to Jesus the Messiah.

The confrontation in Antioch

The incident involving Cephas, better known as Peter, belongs to this same controversy. Paul writes, “Before certain people came from James, he used to eat with the gentiles; but when they came, he drew back and separated himself, fearing the circumcision group” (Gal 2:12).

We should be cautious about filling in details the text does not provide. Paul does not say that Peter had abandoned Jewish dietary practice. Nor does he say that the shared meals had ignored Jewish concerns about food. A mixed community could share meals prepared in ways Jewish participants could eat.

The issue was deeper than a menu.

Peter’s withdrawal publicly communicated something to gentile followers of Jesus. It suggested that their standing remained doubtful unless they took on a Jewish identity. That is why Paul asks, “If you, though a Jew, live like a gentile and not like a Jew, how can you compel the gentiles to live like Jews?” (Gal 2:14).

The verb often translated as “to live like Jews” is ioudaizein. In this context, it points most naturally toward becoming Jewish, not merely appreciating Jewish customs. Paul’s concern is not that Peter has resumed keeping Torah. Rather, Peter’s conduct risks pressuring gentiles to cross the boundary into Jewish proselyte identity to enjoy full fellowship.

Paul will not permit gentile belonging to be treated as second-class.

Faith is not mere agreement

Paul says that people are not justified “by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ” (Gal 2:16). Whatever else this difficult phrase includes, Paul is not describing a bare mental agreement with a religious proposition.

The Galatians had received the Spirit, suffered for the Messiah, and entered a new way of life. Their faith was trusting allegiance to Jesus, Israel’s crucified and risen Messiah. It involved loyalty, worship, moral transformation, and participation in the community created by God’s Spirit.

The phrase “works of the law” should also be read in the argument Paul is making. Circumcision stands at the center of the letter because it was the decisive rite of proselyte conversion. Paul’s opposition is directed against requiring gentiles to take that step in order to inherit Abraham’s blessing.

This does not mean that Paul imagines a Torah-free world or a Jewish Messiah-movement without Jewish practice. It means that gentiles do not need to become Jews in order to belong to the God of Israel.

Abraham is Paul’s great witness. “Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness” (Gal 3:6; Gen 15:6). The promise came before Abraham’s circumcision. Therefore, God’s faithfulness to Abraham always held within it a future for the nations.

Hagar, Sarah, and a dangerous misreading

Paul’s allegory in Galatians 4:21-31 is among the most difficult passages in his letters. He writes, “These things are being interpreted allegorically: these women are two covenants” (Gal 4:24). He connects Hagar, Mount Sinai, and “the present Jerusalem,” while identifying Sarah with “the Jerusalem above” (Gal 4:25-26).

The passage must not be simplified into a cruel formula: Hagar equals Judaism, Sarah equals Christianity, therefore Christianity replaces Judaism. Paul does not say this. Such a formula also ignores his own Jewish identity and the continuing force of Israel’s Scriptures throughout the letter.

Paul is using the story of Abraham’s household as intense scriptural rhetoric for his gentile readers. Hagar and Sarah become figures in an argument about inheritance, slavery, freedom, promise, and the pressure placed upon the Galatians. He is not delivering a timeless verdict against every Jew, every Jewish practice, or the Jewish people as a whole.

“The present Jerusalem” does not mean that Paul has ceased to love his people or that Jerusalem has lost all place in God’s purposes. The phrase belongs to an allegory shaped by the present crisis and by the contrast between the present age and God’s promised future. It should be read as sharp intra-Jewish polemic, not as permission for Christian anti-Judaism.

Why Hagar is not a rejection of Ishmael

Paul’s use of Hagar and Ishmael has caused pain, especially when readers assume that he is condemning Hagar, Ishmael, or all who honor their story. But Genesis itself refuses such contempt.

God sees Hagar in her distress, hears her son’s cry, and promises that Ishmael will become a great nation (Gen 16:13; 17:20; 21:17-18). Ishmael is Abraham’s son, and his life is not erased by Isaac’s distinct covenantal role.

Paul’s concern in Galatians is not Ishmael’s human worth, nor the worth of Hagar’s descendants. He draws upon the particular narrative contrast between a child born through a humanly arranged solution and a child born through God’s promise. His argument is about how gentiles receive inheritance, not about denying God’s mercy toward Hagar and Ishmael.

When Paul quotes, “Cast out the slave woman and her son” (Gal 4:30; Gen 21:10), he is not instructing followers of Jesus to cast out Jewish people. He is pressing the Galatians not to submit to the conversion path being urged upon them. The allegory’s target is the proposal before them, not an ethnic people.

The Jerusalem above and the promise to the nations

Paul writes, “The Jerusalem above is free, and she is our mother” (Gal 4:26). He then cites Isaiah’s promise to the barren woman: “Rejoice, O barren one who does not bear” (Gal 4:27; Isa 54:1).

Isaiah’s vision is not the destruction of Israel’s hope. It is Jerusalem’s restoration and fruitfulness after devastation. Paul sees gentiles who have come to Israel’s God through the Messiah as participants in that promised future. “Now you, brothers and sisters, like Isaac, are children of promise” (Gal 4:28).

That is Paul’s astonishing claim. Gentiles do not stand outside Israel’s story as spectators. Through the Messiah, they are brought into the blessing promised through Abraham. Yet their inclusion does not require the disappearance of Jewish identity. The God who called Israel has opened His covenantal blessings to the nations through Israel’s Messiah.

Paul does not tell gentiles to despise the Torah, Jewish festivals, or Jewish people. He tells them not to seek a different identity in order to secure what God has already given them.

Conclusion

The Galatians were being tempted to seek a status they believed could be secured by becoming Jews. Paul tells them that God’s promise has already reached them through Israel’s Messiah. They need not erase their gentile identity in order to belong to Israel’s God.

That freedom must never become contempt for Jewish people, Torah, or the present Jerusalem. Paul was arguing as a Jew within Israel’s scriptural world, using Israel’s own family story to defend gentiles who were being drawn into a path not given to them. His target was not Jewish faithfulness. It was the claim that gentiles must become Jews in order to inherit with Abraham.

The Jerusalem above is not a license for arrogance. It calls Jewish and gentile followers of Jesus to live as one family, each honoring God’s calling. God’s promise does not impoverish Israel. In Israel’s Messiah, it opens the door of hope to nations.