Objections to the Salvation of Ishmael and Hagar Answered
I. Two main arguments have been made against Ishmael being a child of God. First, there is his sin of “mocking” Isaac (Gen. 21:9). Ishmael’s transgression occurred at a “great feast” celebrating the day of Isaac’s weaning (8). If Isaac was about three, Ishmael would have been about 17. He was jealous over his younger brother’s higher status: “Everybody is making such a big deal of this little pipsqueak but no one held such a party when I was weaned!” Ishmael undoubtedly sinned in attitude and behaviour, but any child in a covenant home would have struggled had they been in his situation.
The book of Genesis also records iniquities committed by Abraham and Sarah. In chapters 12 and 20, Abraham lied about the identity of his wife and she played along with the deceit. Aged Sarah laughed inwardly in unbelief, when she was told that she would bear a son (18:12). Then she lied about it when the Lord Himself rebuked her (13-15). Just as the transgressions of Abraham and Sarah are no proof of their reprobation, given that Scripture elsewhere teaches that they were believers, so too with Ishmael’s sin in Genesis 21, given the five arguments for his salvation in a recent News (XIX:10).
Second, on two occasions God told Abraham that His covenant would run not in Ishmael’s generations (17:20) but in Isaac’s: “Sarah thy wife shall bear thee a son indeed; and thou shalt call his name Isaac: and I will establish my covenant with him for an everlasting covenant, and with his seed after him … my covenant will I establish with Isaac” (19, 21), for “in Isaac shall thy seed be called” (21:12).
But this does not mean that Ishmael perished everlastingly for the contexts of both passages in the life of Abraham prove the contrary. Genesis 17 asserts that Ishmael “lived before” God’s face in covenant friendship (18, 20) and was blessed by Him (20), as was Sarah (16), the mother of all godly women (I Pet. 3:6). Genesis 21 not only affirms that Jehovah was “with” Ishmael (20), the preposition of spiritual communion, but it also twice declares that He answered teenaged Ishmael’s prayers: “God heard the voice of the lad … God hath heard the voice of the lad” (17).
In Genesis 17 and 21, the Lord predicts that the Old Testament church and people of God would descend from Isaac, as would the Messiah. But no such promise was given regarding the generations of believing Ishmael. They would turn away from the Most High so that the Ishmaelites became enemies of Israel, God’s people. In this, Abraham’s son Ishmael is similar to Abraham’s believing nephew Lot (II Pet. 2:7-8), for Lot’s sons, Moab and Ammon, became the Israelites’ inveterate adversaries.
Romans 9:7 explains that the true spiritual “seed of Abraham” were not in the generations of Ishmael (or even of the descendants of the sons of Keturah; Gen. 25:1-4) for “In Isaac shall thy seed be called,” quoting Genesis 21:12. Likewise, Noah’s son, Japheth, was godly but the covenant line continued in the family of Shem.
Romans 9 makes a further distinction regarding the 12 tribes that descended from Jacob, Abraham’s grandson: “they are not all Israel, which are of Israel … That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed” (6, 8).
II. An argument against Hagar being a child of God has been made from Genesis 16. That chapter records pregnant Hagar despising Sarai her mistress (4-5) and fleeing from her (6). Our response is that Hagar’s sudden elevation occasioned her sin of pride, for the Egyptian slave girl had become Abraham’s concubine and now she, unlike Sarai, had been granted conception. Why did Hagar run away? Sarai dealt harshly with her (6). Then, when the angel of the Lord—the pre-incarnate Christ—told her to return to her mistress and submit to her (9), she obeyed, in accordance with the fifth commandment.
None of this means that Hagar was lost. Remember the five points for her salvation developed in the last issue (XIX:11): (1) Would godly Abraham really have taken an unbeliever as his concubine? (2) The honour of the first appearance of the angel of the Lord in Scripture was given to Hagar and He came to her twice (16:7-14; 21:17-19)! (3) God heard her prayers and affliction (16:11). (4) Hagar confessed Jehovah’s comforting presence (16:13). (5) God told her “fear not” (21:17)!
III. Having considered two arguments against Ishmael’s salvation and one argument against Hagar’s salvation, we turn, finally, to an argument against the salvation of both of them. Some claim that Galatians 4:22-31 teaches that Hagar and Ishmael perished. They add that this passage is in the New Testament which interprets the Old Testament.
The answer is that what we have in these verses is an “allegory” (24), that is, a sort of extended metaphor, as the text itself teaches: “Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar. For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children” (24-25). Obviously, Hagar is not, literally, a covenant or a mountain. The idea is that Hagar represents these things allegorically.
To sum up, as recorded in the book of Genesis, Hagar and Ishmael (historically, individually and personally) were saved, as demonstrated by the five arguments concerning each of them in the last two issues of the News. However, in Galatians 4:22-31, Hagar and Ishmael are presented allegorically. In Paul’s polemics against the Judaizers who were corrupting the churches in the Roman province of Galatia, he uses the fact that Hagar was (economically and socially) a “bondmaid” (22) or “bondwoman” (23, 30, 30, 31) and Ishmael was “of the bondwoman” (23) as her “son” (22, 30, 30) to represent slavery or “bondage” to the law (24, 25; cf. 3, 9). Having already explained and proved the truth of justification by faith alone in Christ alone without the works of the law (1:1-4:21), the apostle presents this gospel doctrine figuratively in the form of an allegory to make it especially memorable (22-31), without contradicting the historical record in Genesis or damning two of God’s Old Testament saints. Rev. Stewart
The Double Procession of the Spirit
A reader asks, “Why is the ‘Filioque clause’ essential doctrine? What clear texts do we use for this and what bearing does this have relating to the gospel? Is this a gospel issue in that, when the eastern church rejected it, they were departing from Christ?”
First, some explanation: the word “Filioque” means “and from the Son.” This Latin word or English clause was added to the Nicene or Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed by the western church in AD 1014 and led to the schism between the western and eastern (later the Eastern Orthodox) churches in AD 1054. The Eastern Orthodox Church still rejects this addition to the creed and its doctrine.
The Nicene Creed, as written at the (first) Council of Nicea in AD 325, ended, “And in the Holy Ghost.” At the (first) Council of Constantinople in AD 381, this article of the creed was enlarged to read, “And in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of life, who proceedeth from the Father, who with the Father and the Son together is worshiped and glorified, who spake by the prophets” (an article concerning the church, baptism, the resurrection and the world to come was also added to the end of the creed at that time).
In AD 1014, the Latin-speaking or western church added the word “Filioque,” so that the article reads in English translation, “And in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of life, who proceedeth from the Father and the Son, who with the Father and the Son together is worshiped and glorified, who spake by the prophets.”
The phrase “and the Son” establishes the double procession of the Holy Spirit, the truth that the Holy Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son, and so by implication the Filioque also establishes the full divinity of the Holy Spirit. It is the confession of most of Protestantism. “The Father is the cause, origin, and beginning of all things visible and invisible; the Son is the word, wisdom, and image of the Father; the Holy Ghost is the eternal power and might, proceeding from the Father and the Son” (Belgic Confession 8). “In the unity of the Godhead there be three persons, of one substance, power, and eternity: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost. The Father is of none, neither begotten, nor proceeding; the Son is eternally begotten of the Father; the Holy Ghost eternally proceeding from the Father and the Son” (Westminster Confession 2:3).
The word “procession,” then, is used to describe the relationship between the Father and the Spirit, and the relationship between the Son and the Spirit, and the unique character of the Holy Spirit as the third Person of the Trinity.
The relationship of the Father to the Son is that He generates or begets the Son (He is the Father in relation to the Son). The relationship of the Son to the Father is that He is generated or begotten by the Father (He is the Son in relation to the Father).
The relationship of the Father to the Spirit is that He sends out or breathes out (spirates) the Spirit (the Spirit is the Spirit of the Father; Matt. 10:20). The relationship of the Spirit to the Father is that He proceeds from or is sent by or is breathed out by the Father (He is the Spirit in relationship to the Father).
And the relationship of the Son to the Spirit is that He sends out or breathes out (spirates) the Spirit (the Spirit is the Spirit of the Son; Gal. 4:6). The relationship of the Spirit to the Son is that He proceeds from or is sent by or is breathed out by the Son (He is the Spirit in relation to the Son).
It must be understood that words like “begotten” and “proceeding” do not mean that the Son or Spirit have a beginning or are in any way less than the Father. They describe the eternal relationship between the Persons of the Trinity and their unique personalities. In other words, the Son is eternally begotten of the Father, and the Spirit eternally proceeds from the Father and the Son.
These relationships are reflected in the revelation of the three Persons in time, that, is, the Father is also the Father of Christ in His human nature and Christ is the only begotten Son incarnate. The Spirit, as the Spirit of Pentecost and the Spirit of Christ who lives in the church, is also sent by and proceeds from the Father and the Son. That is only to say, of course, that God, in time, reveals who and what He is eternally and as the blessed Trinity. This is an important point for, if the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son in time, then the same must be true in eternity.
The last two points in the above list are what the Filioque controversy is all about. Protestants believe that there must be perfect symmetry, harmony and equality in the Trinity, and that the Spirit does proceed, eternally and in equality, from the Father and the Son. This is denied by Eastern Orthodoxy. Do the Eastern Orthodox Churches, therefore, deny the full divinity of the Spirit or the full equality of the Spirit to the Father and Son (the old heresy of Arianism)? Church history shows a tendency in Eastern Orthodoxy towards Arianism, a tendency to make the Spirit in some sense subordinate to the Father and the Son. If this is true it would make the matter a gospel issue indeed.
Is this matter of double procession biblical? Yes. John 15:26, a passage where the English word “proceeds” is found, teaches the double procession of the Spirit: “But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me.” This sending or proceeding of the Spirit in time to the church reflects the eternal Trinity. Both in eternity and in time, therefore, the Spirit proceeds from, and is sent by, the Father and the Son.
The references in Scripture to the Spirit as the Spirit of the Father (Matt. 10:20) and of the Son (Gal. 4:6) also teach the double procession of the Spirit. The Son declared that the Spirit “shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you” (John 16:14). We have no doubt, therefore, that the double procession of the Spirit (from the Father and the Son) is not only Reformed doctrine but biblical teaching.
How glorious is the Triune God: three in Persons and one in Being! How inscrutable is the holy Trinity: the Father is of none, the Son is eternally begotten of the Father, and the Spirit eternally proceeds from both the Father and the Son! “Canst thou by searching find out God? canst thou find out the Almighty unto perfection? It is as high as heaven; what canst thou do? deeper than hell; what canst thou know? The measure thereof is longer than the earth, and broader than the sea” (Job 11:7-9). We must worship Him alone for “his greatness is unsearchable” (Ps. 145:3)! Rev. Ron Hanko
