What does Paul mean by “allegorically”?

Explanation:

Paul explains in Galatians 4:22–23 that Abraham had two sons. The son of the slave, that is, Ishmael, was born according to the flesh, while the son of the free woman, Isaac, was born according to the promise. So far, Paul has simply recalled historical events as recorded in Genesis. Paul also explains that the son born according to the flesh, Ishmael, persecuted the son born according to the promise, Isaac (Galatians 4:29). That Ishmael persecuted Isaac is also recorded in Genesis (Genesis 21:9), and as Paul notes in Galatians 4:30, because of this persecution, Hagar and Ishmael are sent from the camp (Genesis 21:10). Clearly, between Galatians 4:22–23 and Galatians 4:29–30, Paul has the historical narratives of Sarah, Hagar, and their two sons in mind, and Paul interprets these passages typologically.⁵ That is, Paul sees it that Isaac and Ishmael foreshadow the redemptive-historical work of God in Christ. For example, in Galatians 4:28 Paul explains that we, that is, those who place their faith in Christ, are like Isaac, children of the promise. That Isaac was a child of promise foreshadowed the future status of those who place their faith in Christ who are also children of the promise (Galatians 3:22).

At the same time, Paul tells us that he will also apply allegory to the historical narrative of Sarah and Hagar (Galatians 4:24). Specifically, Paul says that Hagar represents Mount Sinai. There is no indication from the Old Testament that there is a connection between Hagar and Mount Sinai, which is why Paul says that he applies an allegory to the story. Paul does this because he wants his audience to understand that to be under the law is like being born according to the flesh (Galatians 4:21), and to be born according to the flesh is to be a slave, and to be cast out (Galatians 4:30–31). In other words, Paul uses allegory to present the gospel to his audience in a form that will bring out its striking nature.⁶ So we see that Paul mixed allegory with typology to reinforce his point that justification before God is through faith, and not the law.

Counterargument:

Paul never says that the stories of Sarah and Hagar are historical narratives. Rather, he recalls the stories from Genesis and then says that they are an allegory. This could mean that the stories as recorded in Genesis are allegorical. It was not uncommon for Jewish writers, such as Philo of Alexandria, to interpret the Old Testament as though its original authors intended the stories to be taken allegorically.⁷ Paul likely does the same here. Paul reads the Old Testament and finds that the author intended an allegorical interpretation where the son born to the free woman represents one covenant, and the son born to the slave woman represents Mount Sinai. Since Paul does not clarify that the stories are to be taken typologically, we should take him at his word that these are to be interpreted allegorically.

Response to counterargument:

First, Paul does not need to point out every time he takes an Old Testament story to be historical narrative, because he simply takes it that the Old Testament is historical narrative. We can deduce this by the way he uses Scripture through his letter to the Galatians, as he treats various biblical stories as historical narratives including the promises to Abraham (Galatians 3:6–9), the giving of the law through mediators (Galatians 3:19), the warnings against disobeying the law (Galatians 3:10), and now the stories of Sarah, Hagar, and their sons. Thus, we should assume that Paul approaches the Old Testament historical narrative passages as historical narrative, unless he says otherwise.

And in fact, that is exactly what Paul does in Galatians 4:24. After introducing the historical narrative of Sarah and Hagar, Paul says that he will now interpret these allegorically. It is not the norm for Paul to treat a passage allegorically, so he points out when he does so. Also, Paul uses the present passive participle form of ἀλληγορέω (to use an allegory), which suggests that Paul will now interpret these allegorically.⁸ In other words, it is not that these passages should always be taken allegorically, but in this moment, Paul will treat them as such.

Explanation:

Contemporary Jewish authors, such as Philo of Alexandria, treat many Old Testament passages as stories that are meant to be taken allegorically, not literally. Paul, on the other hand, tended to treat the Old Testament as literal, and only rarely does he apply an allegorical interpretation. So what is Paul doing in Galatians when he says that he interprets the story of Sarah and Hagar allegorically? Most likely his opponents in Galatia have interpreted the story of Sarah and Hagar in a way that favours the works of the law. Paul corrects their interpretations by showing them that the passages in mind actually favour Paul’s position that justification is through faith and not by the works of the law. Thus, he introduces what he believes are historical narratives, but motivated by his opponents’ exegetical strategy, Paul applies an allegorical interpretation to show that the passages support his view.⁹

Counterargument:

While it is possible that Paul is responding to an exegetical strategy that his opponents in Galatia use to support their own position, there is no indication from the text that this is the case. Rather, he seems to introduce the story of Sarah and Hagar to show that there is a difference between the children of the promise and the children of the flesh. The stories simply support and extend his argument to this point. Of course, that Paul applies allegory to Hagar was a common exegetical strategy, though not one he commonly used, but since it suited his argument, he used it. In other words, there is no need to argue that Paul uses allegory in response to his opponents’ use of allegory. Rather, Paul uses allegory because it suited his argument.

It is hard to find a weakness in this view. This view does a careful job of identifying Paul’s exegetical strategy throughout Galatians 4:22–31. This view understands that Paul takes a generally typological approach to interpreting the story of Sarah and Hagar but applies a specifically allegorical interpretation when he compares Hagar with Mount Sinai. By pointing out that Paul approaches the story of Sarah and Hagar both typologically and allegorically, this view preserves the historicity of the narrative of Sarah and Hagar, and Paul’s use of allegory to make a theological point.

Explanation:

Paul introduces the Old Testament story of Sarah and Hagar in Galatians 4:22–23 explaining that Abraham had two sons, one according to the flesh and one according to the promise. He then writes, Now this may be interpreted allegorically. The word behind this is a relative pronoun in the plural which means that Paul uses it to refer to everything he stated in Galatians 4:22–23.¹³ Thus, when Paul says that this is interpreted allegorically, he refers to the entire story of Abraham and his two sons from Sarah and Hagar.

Counterargument:

The problem with this argument is that it is just as likely that Paul puts the relative pronoun in the plural because he refers to two women.¹⁴ We can deduce that Paul specifically has the women in mind because he goes on to say that the two women represent two covenants, before explaining that Hagar represents Mount Sinai. We know that allegorical interpretation is not the norm for Paul so we should assume that he applies allegory in a limited fashion.

Explanation:

Paul explains that Abraham had two sons. One was born of the flesh and the other of the promise (Galatians 4:22–23). He then says that these are allegorical. After explaining that these are allegorical, he goes on to present the deeper spiritual meaning of the stories of Sarah and Hagar by comparing the women to two covenants.¹⁵ Thus, he interprets Galatians 4:22–23 in the sense that he applies a deeper spiritual meaning to the stories of Sarah and Hagar that is not found in the original text.

Counterargument:

There is more nuance in Paul’s interpretative approach than simple allegory. We can deduce this because the idea that Ishmael was born according to the flesh, and Isaac according to the promise, is a literal aspect of the story of Sarah and Hagar in Genesis.¹⁶ This suits Paul’s argument closely because he has been explaining that the children of the promise are justified by faith, not the works of the flesh.¹⁷ By seeing that Isaac and Ismael correspond to the eras of law and faith, Paul seems to handle the stories typologically. At the same time, there is nothing in the original story of Sarah and Hagar to suggest that Hagar is like Mount Sinai, so when Paul compares Hagar to Mount Sinai, he points out that he now interprets an aspect of the story allegorically. Thus, Paul has a sophisticated exegetical strategy in mind that combines both typology and allegory.

The problem with this view is that it is not careful to articulate the nuance in Paul’s interpretive method. There were other Jewish writers contemporary with Paul, such as Philo of Alexandria, who interpreted the Old Testament allegorically. The problem with Philo’s interpretations is that he treated the Old Testament allegorically because he thought this is how the original authors intended for the stories to be taken.¹⁸ The problem is that such an approach to Scripture downplays the historicity of what’s recorded. We want to be careful not to land Paul in the same exegetical category as Philo by suggesting that he simply treated sections of the Old Testament as allegorical. Rather, Paul treats the Old Testament as historical narrative, and sometimes interprets it typologically, while on rare occasions, such as Galatians 4:24, he interprets an aspect of a historical narrative as allegorical.