Paul's method of interpretation in Galatians 4:21-31 seems a bit unusual as compared to most modern methods. He says these things may be "interpreted allegorically." What is his method of exegesis? How, for example, does he connect Hagar to Mount Sinai in Arabia?

up vote 4 down vote accepted

Good question. There are many fascinating aspects of Paul's hermeneutic that come to the fore here, and we need to do some digging to recognize the source of the connections which he makes.

  1. How is Hagar connected to Sinai? First, the connection is there simply in terms of Paul's own controlling metaphor. Throughout Gal 3:22 and onward, Paul has been connecting Torah to slavery (e.g. it is a paidagogos, which was a trusted household slave who served as a child custodian; being under a slave implied a form of servitude for the child himself/herself).

  2. There is also a geographical connection between Hagar and Sinai; Hagar came from Egypt, the other side of Sinai; and when Sarah mistreated her, she fled to Shur, just north of Sinai (Gen 16:7); and later, following the permanent expulsion, she took Ishmael to the wildnerness of Paran—next to Sinai (Gen 21:21). So basically, her life circled around Sinai. Moreover, the fact that Hagar was an Egyptian aligns with how Paul is depicting the redemption of Israel from Torah as the eschatological form of how Yahweh redeemed Israel from Egypt. Christ has brought a new exodus from Egypt.

  3. Like Moses at Sinai, Hagar saw God (Gen 16:13; see James Jordan, "Call Me Ishmael," Pt 2 here: http://www.biblicalhorizons.com/biblical-horizons/no-118-call-me-ishmael-part-2/). This is a due reminder that Paul's point is not simple denigration of either Hagar or Torah; rather, he is making a point about the eschatological significance of the Abrahamic promises, Isaac, and Christ, over against Torah, Ishmael, and Hagar.

  4. What about the basic manner in which Paul connects to Ishmael and Isaac here? Although there is no record in Genesis that Ishmael was treated as a slave in Abraham's household, yet there are two important points of contact with Paul's argument: (a) Ishmael's was a child of a slave; and (b) Ishmael, while blessed in many respects, did not inherit the things which God promised Abraham. Abraham's "seed," and therefore the connected promise, would not be placed in Ishmael but in Isaac (Gen 21:12). Isaac was the seed through whom the covenant with Abraham would be established (Gen 17:18–21) and thus becomes a sort of second point between Abraham (discussed in Gal 3:6–9) and the ultimate Seed, Christ, for whom the promise was given (3:16). Given this Abraham-Isaac-Christ connection, the contrast to Ishmael, both as the son of a slave, and as the son who does not inherit, is fairly straightforward for Paul's typology.

  • 1
    Tim, I'm a part-time student at MARS and also a frequent user here. Had to say hi – Dan May 30 '13 at 15:05

The context is the most important clue to Paul’s line of thinking. He has been telling the Galatians that to turn back to the Law after being set free of it through the grace of Christ is foolish. If the righteous live by faith, those that rely on the law are under condemnation, because man cannot be justified by the law.

With that background, his thinking is more clear. When Paul says, “Now this may be interpreted allegorically: these women are two covenants,” he is setting up Sarah as the new covenant in Christ, and Hagar as the old covenant of the Law. As a result, their sons are compared to the fruits of each covenant.

Ishmael, the literal son of a slave, is a slave to the covenant of the Law. The comparison of Hagar to Sinai firmly roots this metaphor, as Sinai is the location where Moses received the Law.

Isaac (v. 28), however, is a child of promise, of the covenant of Christ and has the promise of grace upon him.

Essentially Paul’s working thesis boils down to this: Ishmael is a slave to the law which cannot justify him, and Isaac is the son of the promise of justification by faith in Christ which will save. Paul hopes to encourage the Galatians to see the law as bondage, and faith as freedom.

Source:

Dockery, David S. "The Pauline Letters". Holman Concise Bible Commentary: Simple, Straightforward Commentary on Every Book of the Bible. Ed. David S. Dockery. Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1998.

  • I somehow missed this last week. Thanks for the answer; somehow I've never made the analogy Hagar:slave::law:slavery. – Jon Ericson Jun 8 '12 at 2:27

Martin Luther gives a good explanation in his Commentary on Galatians:

[In Romans 9, Paul] argues that all the children of Abraham are not the children of God. For Abraham had two kinds of children, children born of the promise, like Isaac, and other children born without the promise, as Ishmael. With this argument Paul squelched the proud Jews who gloried that they were the children of God because they were the seed and the children of Abraham. Paul makes it clear enough that it takes more than an Abrahamic pedigree to be a child of God. To be a child of God requires faith in Christ.

Basically the faith in God's promise of a Messiah, that ancient promise to reverse the sin and 'curse' of Adam and Eve was bound up in in symbol, type, metaphor, in Isaac and God's 'blessing' through that seed. The idea Paul uses in 'exegesis' is that patterns and themes of the Old Testament were prophetic, predicting future realities. The reality of his day is that Jews born of Abraham were rejecting the freedom of Jews converted to God by faith in Christ. These Jews no longer had to carry the burden of so many ceremonial rules and the Jews without faith (associated to the slave woman) persecuted the Jewish Christians and tried to bring them down. Hagar was tying to get power over Sarah by making her son the firstborn over Isaac. The firstborn had double rights of inheritance. Sarah argued with her husband because the promise was from her womb so they decided the only way to have peace was cast out the salve family. In the same way Jewish Christians were to cast out those laws and jealous judgments that the legalistic Jews who had no faith in the promised seed, Christ.

So Paul's method is accurate and convincing, helping the new Jewish believers at that time.

  • Hi Mike! Welcome to the site and thanks for the answer. I did a little editing to help make your point a little more clear. Feel free to re-edit if you want to change anything I did. Out of curiosity, which answer helped you? – Jon Ericson Jun 8 '12 at 2:14
  • Hi Jon,I was reading Leviticus about skin disease and noticed a misprint in the NIV. I found it confirmed on this site ---Does a leper have yellow hair or black hair? Funny, first misprint that I have noticed. – Mike Jun 8 '12 at 3:11

I will try to answer your first question, What is his method of exegesis?

If we figure that the Apostle Paul was "educated at the feet of Gamaliel" about Jewish religious law Acts 23:3. He had to use the the Jewish traditions of interpretation· and exegesis that were used at the time, a very common is the Pardes, an acronym formed from the name initials of the following four approaches:

  1. Peshat (פְּשָׁט) — "plain" ("simple") or the direct meaning
  2. Remez (רֶמֶז) — "hints" or the deep (allegoric: hidden or symbolic) meaning beyond just the literal sense.
  3. Derash (דְּרַשׁ) — from Hebrew darash: "inquire" ("seek") — the comparative (midrashic) meaning, as given through similar occurrences.
  4. Sod (סוֹד) (pronounced with a long O as in 'bone') — "secret" ("mystery") or the mystical meaning, as given through inspiration or revelation.

I suggest Paul is using the second level of interpretation: Remez(allegoric)

Why pardes? because it was a basic method of the time of Paul and his school (Hillel, Gamaliel), ignore the traditions of interpretation· and exegesis that were used at the time, is to miss a very important tool for understanding the Word of God. Apostle Paul used a lot of references from Rabbinic traditions

  • 1
    Can you support that Paul actually uses this hermeneutic in his writings? He had a rather radical break with Judaism when he was knocked off his horse by the Lord. – Kazark Jun 20 '12 at 23:12
  • 1
    Hello Hazark, that is a whole question, very discussed. Please, lets see Paul in his context and not in our context. But imaging one studied in the best business school, but years later one disagree with them, Will you forget all their methods of doing business? No. So my support is his own verse, Paul says "Which things are an allegory" and allegory in his scholar context is Remez. – Wlanez Jun 21 '12 at 16:52
  • @Wlanez: Can you prove that PARDES was a 1st century A.D. method of hermeneutics? When was PARDES first mentioned? – user862 Jan 10 '13 at 6:19

In conjunction with Romans 4:14, natural Jews, as a company or corporate whole (thus, natural Israel) have no claim to the promises of God; moreover, natural Israel plays no part in eschatology. The only "Israel" that has a place in eschatology is the Israel of God described for us by Paul in Ephesians 2 and 3. This is why the Jews hounded, hassled, and sought to kill this little turncoat tent-maker.

Part and parcel of Paul's gospel ("my gospel, received not from men but by direct relevation...") is the complete loss of distinction between Jews and Gentiles, both inside and outside of Christ and within the redemption transaction described in Ephesians 2. The middle wall of partition was removed and THEN that resulting group was reconciled to the Father. The punch-line to the allegory in Galatians makes it plain: The son of the bondwoman (present Jerusalem in bondage with her children) will NOT be heirs with the son of the freewoman.

Now, individual Jews certainly can and certainly have come to Christ ("...when one turns to the Lord the veil is removed" and not vice-versa, by the way). But as to the idea of some last-day, post-Rapture turning of God's attention BACK to "His people"? That is a myth, unsupported by any NT passage, aside from a misunderstanding of Romans 11:25-26.

Again, no wonder they wanted to kill Paul who, by these two passages (Romans 4:14 and Galatians 4:30-31) was in fact, to cite the Jews themselves, "preaching against our people." (Acts 21:28). Most commentators/teachers simply dance around the text, afraid to be labeled "anti-Semitic" if they let the text (and the writer...) simply speak for itself (himself). One might pay attention to Romans 9:6b... "They are not all (the) Israel (of God) who are descendants of Jacob..."

It might be helpful to inquire, "Why did Paul write this epistle (Galatians); what problem or circumstance is he addressing?" The commonly-held/believed answer is that Paul was dealing with a tendency to try to supplement or improve one's "saved-ness" by an admixture of "good works." A little stricture life-style, more Bible-reading/praying, more giving, more visiting the elderly in nursing homes.

But Paul was addressing something more sinister and specific. Jews were telling Gentiles that they (the latter) must themselves become Jewish (Both Acts 15:1 and 5 express synecdoche, wherein the part represents the whole. What the Judaizers were actually saying - both in Acts 15 and in the Galatian churches was this: "We Jews have all the promises. Unless you Gentiles become Jews, you'll miss out on those promises. This is the 'full' gospel.")

Paul's response is a hard-hitting, far-reaching objection that has implications for both ecclesiology and eschatology... "Not only do you Gentiles NOT have to become Jewish in order to experience the fullness of the Gospel and be full participants in the promise(s), but natural Jews who refuse to believe the Word (Heb. 1:1) spoken in these last days, but who historically have rejected the word of God (see Jeremiah 7, et al., for example); not only do you not have to become Jews, but natural Jews, natural Israel is NOT a participant and will NOT be a participant; again, because "the son of the bondwoman will NOT be an heir with the son of the freewoman."

In Romans 4, Paul contrasts two groups: Jews (those who have had the benefit of the Law and circumcision) and Gentiles (those who, while on occasion actually performing the righteous requirements of the Law as a reflection of the law written on their hearts..., those who do not have the Law). Paul tells us that "...if those who are of the Law are heirs, faith is void and the promise is nullified." But "it is of faith" and the promise has been realized in Christ (Acts 13:23, 31-32).

This is what makes Galatians relevant for today, when so much of the Church-world casts a ga-ga glance at the Middle East, as though present Jerusalem and her bound children are the barometer for eschatology. Paul must be turning over in his grave.

  • Welcome to BH.SE! Please take the tour to get a feel for how the site functions. Blank lines are used to delimit paragraphs. I have edited to insert them as best I could. You can re-edit if necessary. – enegue Dec 12 '17 at 3:50

The entire bible is about two views. The book is a compare and contrast. We have two main covenants in play. The covenant of Law vs Grace. What do these represent?

Law - you currently are not and have to become. Grace - you already are.

Law - came by moses (written) at mount Sinai Grace - came by Jesus, represented as zion. Zion is the promise.

Abraham had two sons in question (yes he later had more). The two in question are Ishmael and issac.

Ishmael came from Hagar who was an Egyptian handmaiden. Egypt represents slavery and confusion. While in Egypt the Israelites via their belief felt separated from god. Abraham had to use his own effort and trusted his wife's suggestion, similar to Eve.

Issac came from sarah and was a promise. It came from God's effort due to Sarah's condition of barrenness.

Ismael represents law and issac represents grace. Paul is trying to teach the galatians that the covenant to follow is grace and not law. That's the entire context of galatians. Paul is teaching the groups of people in the new testament that they believed they were separated from god and had to get back into his good graces by following the law, but they can't because the law was given to show them that they can't earn something they already have. That's the message of law and grace he's teaching and he's using issac and ishmael as an example of the two views.

This is a demonstration of the methods of Sensus plenior to answer the OP. SP is allegory, but it is not free-for-all allegory. It is the claim that SP reproduces Paul's hermeneutic.

Paul's allegory

Paul is interpreting the voice of the judge from the four voices (Prophet, Priest, King, Judge) contained in the OT allegory. He is deriving it's meaning from the text rather than imposing his own meaning upon it. However, he is imposing what he knows of Christ and the gospel upon it as he understands that they are shadows 'of the good things coming' (He 10.1) and can now be properly interpreted in light of Christ. This imposition is not 'forced'. It is validated by the text itself. Paul's allegory is not complete, but merely an example of the method used, by which we can see more details of the allegory.

Gal 4.19 ¶ My little children, of whom I travail in birth again until Christ be formed in you,

My little children – Paul sets the stage for the allegory he will present. The Galatians are his children under the promise in the same manner that Ishamel was a child of the law, and Isaac was a child of the promise.

20 I desire to be present with you now, and to change my voice; for I stand in doubt of you.

change my voice – perhaps refering to taking the tone and sense of the judge.

21 ¶ Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law?

hear the law – the law is a reference to the first five books, or to the full collection of scripture from the OT. Since Paul will include references to Isaiah, he is using the latter.

22 For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman.

one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman - Although we might dismiss this as a repetition of fact, I cannot find a reference to Sarah as a freewoman, so Paul has already started the interpretation. Her name means 'noblewoman' which is obvious to Jewish children. He is comparing the state of the two women without naming them. Hagar is known to be the handmaid, and by the interpretation of her name and by her actual status, Sarah is the 'noblewoman' or 'freewoman'.

23 But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise.

but he of the bondwoman - Ishmael composed of ee – he, shama – harken/obey, el – God . By virtual of his name, he represents the law of God which must be obeyed. By this Paul associated Ishamel with the law.

born of the flesh – Paul has extensively used the Christian dualism of flesh and spirit elsewhere. Ishamael was born of the contrivances of Sarai and Abram in contrast to Isaac who was born by the promise (or the spirit) of God.

24 Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.

from Mt Sanai - Ishmael was born under the covenant of Mt Sanai, specifically the Leverite marriage De 25.5-6.

gendereth (begets) to bondage – The Leverite marriage is commanded and disgrace is given to those who don't perform their duty.De 25.9-10

25 For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children.

Agar - the subroot GR meaning sojourn gives her name the meaning she sojourns which is given in dictionaries as flight. A sojourner is one who does not belong here. It is a temporary state. And as in the NT, we a sojourners are in the flesh.

mount Sinai - thorny interpreted by Jesus's parable of the sower validates that cares of the world ensnare the flesh.

Arabiamixed, desert The meaning of the word confirms the allegory of desolation by the flesh.

I will come back to do the rest when I can. Paul also uses a quote 'out of context' from Isaiah because the Hebrew perspective is that there is only one author and one context.

This can be done from Genesis, but it is a very long story which has a second narrative behind it. From that angle, Paul's hermeneutic is easy to see.

Also see the blessing of Ishmael: Ge 27:40 And by thy sword shalt thou live, and shalt serve thy brother; and it shall come to pass when thou shalt have the dominion, that thou shalt break his yoke from off thy neck.

When Ishamel (law) has dominion, there is no grace. (The yoke of Christ is broken "My yoke is light")

  • Down votes with no comments? Are the voters interested in improvement or censuring? – Bob Jones Aug 23 '16 at 13:34

Your Answer

By clicking "Post Your Answer", you acknowledge that you have read our updated terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy, and that your continued use of the website is subject to these policies.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.