Does Galatians 4:26 Prove That God The Mother Is Real?

Published by Papa Giorgio

Video Description:

Does Galatians 4:26 Prove That God The Mother Is Real? What was Paul’s point when he mentioned the “Jerusalem above is free”? Is this another God called the Heavenly Jerusalem? The wife of Jesus/Ahnsahnghong? The World Mission Society Church of God (WMSCOG) believes so. But when we test this interpretation very carefully, (with the context and with what the same writer says in other places), does their interpretation still have truth? Let’s see. Is the “mother” in Galatians 4:26 called “God”?

Did the apostle Paul really worship two different Gods? Father and Mother? It’s important for us to start reading from verse 21, or the whole chapter or even the whole book to know the truth.

Galatians Jerusalem 2

Here is an excerpt of an excellent article entitled, “Mother In The Bible: Country Or Korean Lady? Galatians 4:26,” discussing the verse in question… however, as this site notes… this verse is run along other verses to try and make the point:

…When recruiting in shopping malls, heavily populated areas, or on college campuses, WMSCOG recruiters approach people and ask, “have you ever heard of god the mother in the Bible?”  Regardless of what the person says, as long as they are not immediately shunned away, recruiters quickly open the Bible and begin to explain how they arrive at their conclusion that there is a “female god”.  (When I was a member, I was taught to recruit this way).  The WMSCOG “logic” goes something like this:

  1. Revelation 22:17 – WMSCOG recruiters point out that the “Spirit” is capitalized and therefore refers to the Holy Spirit.  The bride has to be “god” because no one else can give us eternal life (as in water of life).  Then, who is the bride?
  2. Revelation 21:2 – The holy city, new Jerusalem coming down out of heaven prepared as a bride for her husband.  Who is the bride’s husband?
  3. Revelation 21:9 – The bride is the wife of the Lamb.  Who is the Lamb?
  4. John 1:29 – The Lamb is Jesus.  Then who is mother in the bible?
  5. Galatians 4:26 – The Jerusalem that is above is our mother.  (I know it’s confusing, hang in there):

So, according to the WMSCOG formula:

mother in the Bible (Galatians 4:26) = Jerusalem above (Galatians 4:26) = Jerusalem bride (Revelation 21:2) = bride wife of Jesus (Revelation 21:9) = bride gives water of life (Revelation 22:17, just like Jesus in John 4:14) = Therefore, bride is mother god

Clear as mud right?  Anyone can clearly see that this does grave violence to the original meaning of the Scriptures.  If you skip around in the Bible this way doing a keyword search, you can make it say anything you want to.  Unfortunately for the WMSCOG, this interpretation easily fails when we read the verses in their proper context (and by the way, if you thought you could make sense of any book by jumping around all over it, grabbing a line from this chapter and another line from another chapter, you should try this with some other book in your library you’ve read before and see how it very poorly communicates the underlying story)….

While I am taking a large swath of the article… it should be read and visited as in context it is well worth the read. But here is the meat of the refutation of the misuse of the verse:

Galatians 4:26 Grossly Misinterpreted

The WMSCOG continues their pattern of misinterpreting Scripture by completely ignoring the context surrounding their cherry-picked verses.  A person can be seriously mislead by this sort of thinking if the context surrounding Galatians 4:26 is not examined.  Considering the context ofGalatians 4 in its entirety, it becomes clear that the apostle Paul was not referring to a “female god”.  Let us read the text as it is written.

Paul begins the chapter by comparing Christians to heirs of their father’s estate (Galatians 4:1-2).  In continuing with this analogy, Paul goes on to explain how we were slaves under the law until Jesus, also born under the law, came to redeem us and adopt us as God’s children, making us heirs of our Father’s Kingdom.

But when the set time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under the law, 5 to redeem those under the law, that we might receive adoption to sonship.[b] 6 Because you are his sons, God sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, the Spirit who calls out, “Abba,[c] Father.” 7 So you are no longer a slave, but God’s child; and since you are his child, God has made you also an heir.  (Galatians 4:4-7)

Paul goes on to express his concern for the Galatians because they had turned back to observing “special days and months and seasons and years” (Galatians 4:9-10).  It is clear that Paul is quite disturbed by the behavior of the Galatians when he says “I fear for you, that somehow I have wasted my efforts on you” (Galatians 4:11) and “I am perplexed about you!” (Galatians 4:20). The Galatians seemed to have turned back to observing the ceremonial law of Moses, (“Tell me, you who want to be under the law” Galatians 4:21) despite having learned about redemption through Jesus Christ.

Paul uses the story of Abraham and his two sons to illustrate his point.  Abraham had two sons, one by a slave woman (Hagar) and one by a free woman (Sarah).  As we read on in Galatians 4, Paul tells us that what he is about to say should be taken figuratively  (aka metaphorically, allegorically, NOT literally).

These things are being taken figuratively:  The women represent two covenants. One covenant is from Mount Sinai and bears children who are to be slaves: This is Hagar. 25 Now Hagar stands for Mount Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to the present city of Jerusalem, because she is in slavery with her children. 26 But the Jerusalem that is above is free, and she is our mother.  (Galatians 4:24-26)

When interpreting the above verses figuratively as Paul intended (and flat out says), the following becomes clear:

  1. Hagar represents the present city Jerusalem, the old covenant, and therefore her children are slaves
  2. Sarah represents the heavenly city Jerusalem, the new covenant, and therefore her children are free

Therefore, in Galatians 4:26, it is clear that when Paul says that the “new Jerusalem is our mother” he is referring to the heavenly country Jerusalem as our motherland.  In order to illustrate this more clearly, here are some additional Biblical examples of the word “mother” being used to refer to a country.

  • We are the peaceful and faithful in Israel. You are trying to destroy a city that is a mother in Israel…  2 Samuel 20:19  (In this verse, mother represents a city in Israel.)
  • You stumble day and night, and the prophets stumble with you.  So I will destroy your mother…  Hosea 4:5  (It is clear, after reading the entire chapter, that mother in this verse refers to Israel as well.)

[….]

Galatians Jerusalem 695

See more here:

I always make a point with people from the cults who do not distinguish the types of genre in the Bible and that it guides the use and understanding of language and the grammar used ~ e.g., the context.

Hermeneutics – (interpretation) Branch of theology dealing with the principles governing Biblical interpretation. It is concerned with various types of interpretation, as allegorical and literal, multiple meanings and senses, is hyperbole used? Is the reader noting the genres involved: historical narrative, law, parables, poetry, and the like. Are there language gaps? Likewise, are there cultural, geographical, and historical gaps involved that would pollute the original authors meaning?

Exegesis – (explanation) Critical exposition or explanation of the meaning of a scriptural passage in the context of the whole Bible. The reader of Scripture studies the word meanings and grammar of the text to discern what… was communicated, drawing the meaning out of the text rather than reading what he wants into the text (eisegesis).

(See more here)

If we do not approach Scripture well, then I could easily point out that God has feather and a very big-nose:

Bible Small TransparentRead Exodus 15:8 and Psalm 91:4

The heretic, Brigham Young, one of the main prophets of Mormonism, says, “Some would have us believe that God is present everywhere. It is not so,” (Journal of Discourses 6:345). Joseph Smith, Mormonism’s founder says, “The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s…” (Doctrine and Covenants, 130:22).

Exodus 15:8 says God parted the Red Sea with a blast of his nostrils. So, God has a nose. It must be an awfully big nose since the Red Sea is quite large. There are Scriptures that show God has an “outstretched arm” and that he “sits” on a throne. Exodus 7:5, “And the Egyptians shall know that I am the Lord, when I stretch out My hand on Egypt and bring out the sons of Israel from their midst.” Numbers 6:24, The Lord make His face shine on you, and be gracious to you.” Psalm 33:6, “By the word of the Lord the heavens were made, and by the breath of His mouth all their host.” Psalm 34:15, The eyes of the Lord are toward the righteous, and His cars are open to their cry.” Psalm 89:10, “Thou Thyself didst crush Rahab like one who is slain; Thou didst scatter Thine enemies with Thy mighty arm.” That is why heretical sects often see God as the one with the big white beard sitting in golden lights on a big throne in some humanized form. It seems he is like a man who has bodily parts. However, at the same time, Scripture says that God has feathers. Now God is a chicken. Psalm 57:1, “Be gracious to me, 0 God, be gracious to me, for my soul takes refuge in Thee; and in the shadow of Thy wings I will take refuge, until destruction passes by.”

In belaboring this, think about the manner in which God communicates to us. Why does God use human terms to communicate with us? Does God really have feathers? or a big nose?

  • C. Matthew McMahon [author] and Therese B. McMahon [editor], The Reformed Apprentice Volume 3: A Workbook On the Doctrine of God (Crossville, TN: Puritan Publications, 2015), 20-21.

Likewise, Faith and Reason Forum notes the following:

Analogy by the use of metaphor. This is the second aspect of accommodation. For example Jesus calls Himself a door (John 10:9), a shepherd (John 10:11), a vine (John 15:1), a roadway (John 14:6), a loaf of bread (John 6:51). God is said to have wings and feathers (Psalm 17:8; 36:7; 91:4). These are all to be under-stood metaphorically, not literally.

Words should be understood in their literal sense unless such interpretation involves a manifest contradiction (as seen above) or absurdity. For example, it would be absurd to say that Jesus was made out of bread or that He was a loaf of bread. If God cannot be seen, and another passage seems to indicate that He was seen, then there must be figurative language taking place—other-wise there is an outright contradiction. Charnock’s explanation is appropriate here as well:

  • Therefore, we must not conceive of the visible Deity according to the letter of such expressions, but the true intent of them. Though the Scripture speaks of his eye and arm, yet it denies them to be “arms of flesh” (Job 10:4; 2 Chron 32:8). We must not conceive of God according to the letter, but the design of the metaphor. When we hear things described by metaphorical expressions, for the clearing them up to our fancy, we conceive not of them that garb, but remove the veil by an act of our reason. When Christ is called a sun, a vine, bread, is any so stupid as to conceive him to be a vine with material branches, and clusters, or be of the same nature with a loaf? But the things designed by such metaphors are obvious to the conception of a mean understanding. If we would conceive God to have a body like man, because he describes himself so, we may conceit him to be like a bird, because he is mentioned with wings (Psalm 36:7); or like a lion, or leopard, because he likens himself to them in the acts of his strength and fury (Hos 13:7, 8). He is called a rock, a horn, fire, to note his strength and wrath; if any be so stupid as to think God to be really such, they would make him not only a man but worse than a monster. ~ Stephen Charnock, The Existence and Attributes of God (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1996), 190.