CHAPTER FOUR
HISTORY OF INTERPRETATION
Having introduced Biblical typology in general and how it fits into the larger structures of
Biblical theology and salvation history, it is time to put these principles into practice by
examining the typology in Galatians 4:21-31, especially Paul‟s use of ἀλληγορούμενα. These
verses have given rise to a great deal of controversy and even after centuries of commentaries by
many different scholars, there has been no consensus reached as to their meaning. The
controversy has consistently been around the word ἀλληγορούμενα.1 Hansen plainly points out,
“In all of the New Testament, there is perhaps not a more difficult passage to interpret.”2 Silva
also points out that “Paul‟s use of the story of Sarah and Hagar in Gal. 4:21-31, because of its
significance for the knotty question of allegorical interpretation, has intrigued numerous writers
during the centuries.”3
There is no doubt that there are many interpretive challenges to these verses. For
example, there is significant disagreement over the force of Paul‟s argument. Some see these
verses as strengthening or developing the overall argument, while others see it as a relatively
weak argument, used simply to encourage the Galatians.4 However challenging scholars have
found it to be, this text is key in understanding how Paul uses the Old Testament. Using the
above understanding of Biblical typology, this chapter will show that Paul is in fact using the
Hagar-Sarah narrative in a predominately typological manner.
1
Patrick G. Barker, “Allegory and Typology in Galatians 4:21-31,” StVTQ 38, no. 2 (1994): 194.
2
G. Walter Hansen, Galatians, IVP NT Commentary (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1994), 138.
3
Silva, Interpreting Galatians, 2nd ed (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2001), 15.
4
John Riches, Galatians through the Centuries (Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2008), 227.
31
32
A Brief History of Interpretation of Galatians 4:21-31
The history of the interpretation of the Sarah-Hagar in Galatians 4:21-31 is a complex
story as it has been used in a variety of ways. Riches breaks down the interpretations into two
broad classifications: Firstly, the stress lies on the contrast between the free woman and the slave
woman. Within this group the emphasis mainly lies on the contrast between two historical
groups, namely the Jews and the church of the Gentiles (Chrysostom, Bengel) or Paul before and
after conversion (Lightfoot). Others see this as a contrast between different modes of existence,
namely those born in freedom and those born as slaves of sin (Ambrosiaster) or of those who
whole to a particularistic religion of Law and the religion of spirit and freedom (Bauer, Erasmus,
Luther).5 Secondly, the stress lies in the contrast between the birth according to promise and that
according to the flesh. Again, within this group there is a variety of emphases. Some see this as
a picture of distinct groups such as the elect and the reprobate (Calvin,) or Jews and Christians
(Ambrosiaster) or Sinai Church and the Holy Ghost Church (Watson). Others see it in a more
universal sense of those born of the word and of the flesh (Luther).6
Galatians 4:24 in the flow of Galatians
The apostle Paul writes this letter to the churches in Galatia with a great sense of
urgency.7 This is clearly seen in the first few verses where Paul omits any mention of
commendation, thanksgiving or prayer. He begins by drawing attention to his apostolic status
(1:1) and then reminds his readers that the Lord Jesus Christ gave himself up for our sins and to
rescue us from “the present evil age” (1:3-4). Paul then goes on the offensive and charges his
5
Ibid., 230.
6
Ibid., 230.
7
I will be following the general outline that it provided in Carson and Moo‟s Introduction to the New
Testament, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2005), 456-457.
33
readers for deserting not only the gospel that Paul preached to them, but that they were actually
deserting God, who was the one who called them by the grace of Christ (1:6). They were
deserting God by turning to a different gospel which is no gospel at all because the gospel that he
preached cannot be changed by anyone, whether they are apostles or angels (1:6-10). Paul
insists that the gospel that he preached to them was given to him by revelation from Jesus Christ.
He outlines his former way of life in Judaism and the little contact with the apostles to show that
he is not dependent on anyone else for the gospel he preaches (1:11-2:5). He points out that the
Jerusalem leaders did not require Titus to be circumcised (2:1-5) and that they all agreed that
Peter work as an apostle to the Jews and he to the Gentiles (2:5-10). At a later time, as Paul
points out, when Peter was in Antioch and he withdrew from fellowship with the Gentiles, he
himself confronted Peter and reinforced the truth that both Jews and Gentiles are not saved by
works of the law but by faith in Jesus Christ (2:11-14). Paul summarizes his gospel by saying
that sinners are justified in Christ, have died to the law and live “by faith in the Son of God”
(2:15-21).
Paul begins a new section in the letter by questioning the Galatians about their experience
of receiving the Holy Spirit through faith in Christ and not by observing the law (3:1-5). He
illustrates this point by pointing out that Abraham was justified by faith and was given a promise
that all the nations will be blessed through his offspring (3:6-9). He contrasts this with the law of
Moses in that it brought a curse on sinners, which was the very curse that Christ bore on their
behalf (3:10-14). What Paul is driving at in the contrast between Abraham and Moses is that law
cannot take precedence over, nor replace the promise God previously made with Abraham (3:1518). The law‟s role was turning sin into transgression and keeping the people of God in custody
until Christ came (3:19-25). Paul goes on to highlight the primacy of faith in that through faith
34
there is one family of God and that the same privilege of sonship has been extended to the
Gentiles (3:26-4:7). Paul continues to plead with his readers to not reject his teaching (4:8-20).
He makes one final appeal to Scripture by “allegorically” interpreting the story of Abraham in
Genesis 16:21 in order to convince them to live in freedom by not subjecting themselves to the
law (4:21-5:1). In the last two chapters, Paul shows his readers how they are to live in light of
their freedom in Christ (5:2-6:18).
From the above outline of how the Sarah-Hagar story fits into the argument of the entire
letter Paul wrote to the Galatians, the question arises as to why Paul resorted to this form of
interpretation of the Hagar-Sarah in the argument of this letter. It seems too odd for Paul to use
the Hagar-Sarah story in this fashion. A strong argument has been brought forward by C. K.
Barrett. He believes that the reason why Paul uses this method of interpretation is because
Paul‟s opponents were using this story to their own advantage and Paul had no other choice than
to give the proper interpretation of the Hagar-Sarah story. He writes,
This is a part of the Old Testament that Paul would have been unlikely to introduce of his
own accord; its value for his point of view is anything but obvious, and the method of
interpretation is unusual with him. It stands in the epistle because his opponents had used
it and he could not escape it.8
De Boer also supports this argument by pointing out:
The Christian-Jewish evangelists who invaded the church undoubtedly had their own
favorite scriptural passages to convince the Gentile Christians in Galatia to take upon
themselves the practice of circumcision and thus the other commandments of the Law. A
prime candidate is Genesis 17:9-14, which mandates circumcision for Abraham and his
male offspring, including Ishmael.9
8
C. K. Barrett, “The Allegory of Abraham, Sarah, and Hagar in the Argument of Galatians,” in Essays on
Paul, ed. C. K. Barrett (Philadelphia, PA: Westminister, 1982), 162.
9
.
Martinus C. de Boer, “Isaiah 54.1 in Galatians 4.27,” NTS 50 (2004): 385.
35
It would have been easy for the Judaizers to use the Hagar-Sarah story for their own benefit. All
that the Judaizers would have had to do was to interpret this story in a rather literal way in order
to use for their advantage.10 Bruce outlines how Paul himself would have understood this
passage before he was a Christian. He imagines Paul at rabbinic school working on an
exegetical exercise of on the text, „Abraham had two sons, one by a slave woman and one by the
free woman.‟ Bruce believes that the outline of Paul‟s exegesis would have been rather
predictable: Isaac was the ancestor of the chosen people; the Ishmaelites are Gentiles. The Jews
are the children of the free woman; the Gentiles are children of the slave woman. The Jews have
received the liberating knowledge of the law; the Gentiles are in bondage to ignorance and sin.
The Jews are people of the covenant; such blessings the Gentiles enjoy are uncovenanted
mercies. Bruce concludes that this would be how the Judaizers applied the Hagar-Sarah story.
And Paul would have had to invert the exegesis that he would have learned earlier in his life and
argue against it.11 As likely as this scenario is, Silva wisely points out the fact that we have no
evidence to confirm this theory, either from the text or from any other sources.12 Therefore, we
cannot be certain that this was the reason for Paul to use the Hagar-Sarah story.
Galatians 4:21-31 as an example of Biblical typology
The word ἀλληγορέω, which is the major obstacle for many scholars to interpret this text
typologically, occurs only once in the New Testament and its lexical definition is “to use
analogy or likeness to express something,” which can be interpreted as “speak allegorically.”13
10
C. K. Barrett, “The Allegory of Abraham, Sarah, and Hagar in the Argument of Galatians,” 162.
11
Bruce, The Epistle to the Galatians, 218-219.
12
Silva, Galatians, 808.
13
BDAG, s.v. “ἀλληγορέω.”
36
Buchsel points out that this type of speech was used among the Greeks because many of the
Homeric tales of the gods caused offense. Therefore, this type of speech or interpretation was
meant to be an antidote or a “healing” of myth.14 He goes on to highlight the fact that the first
representative of Greek Judaism to use allegory as a method on interpretation was the
Alexandrian Aristobulus in the middle of the second century B.C.15 Later on, when Philo came
on the historical scene, there were people who allegorized the Law and others who interpreted
the law in a literal sense. Philo himself balances these two extremes in his interpretation.16 Philo
also uses the Hagar-Sarah story as the basis for an entire allegorical treatise.17
There are some scholars who believe that Paul‟s use of ἀλληγορέω in Galatians 4:24 is in
a full-blown allegorical sense. There may be some truth here in the sense that Paul would have
been familiar with the concept of ἀλληγορέω as it had its roots in pre-Christian Greek literature.
As a result, we cannot say for certain that Paul means a non-historical type of interpretation that
was similar to Philo.18 However, even though there are several striking surface similarities
between Philo and Paul‟s interpretation of Galatians 4:21-31, their interpretations are divergent
enough to suggest that there is not any dependence of Paul on Philo.19
14
Friedrich Buchsel, “ἀλληγορέω,” in TDNT, 1:260.
15
Ibid., 260.
16
Ibid., 261
17
Longenecker, Galatians, WBC 41 (Dallas: Thomas Nelson, 1990), 204.
18
Moises Silva, “Galatians,” Commentary on the New Testament use of the Old Testament, ed. G.K. Beale
and D. A. Carson (Grand Rapids, Baker Academic, 2007), 808.
19
Longenecker, Galatians, 205.
37
Many scholars see that there is a mixture of allegory and typology at play here in Paul‟s
interpretation of the Hagar-Sarah story. Betz points out the difference between allegory and
typology:
Typology interprets historical material commonly used in primitive Christianity.
Persons, events, and institutions of Scripture and tradition are taken as prototypes of
present persons, events, and institutions, which are explained as their fulfillment,
repetition, or completion within a framework of salvation history. In distinction to
typology, allegory takes concrete matters mentioned in Scripture and tradition to be the
surface appearance or vestige of underlying deeper truths which the method claims to
bring to light. Thereby concrete matters in the text are transposed into general notions of
philosophical or theological truth.20
This difference that is brought to light by Betz is what distinguishes Paul‟s use of the HagarSarah story with Philo‟s. De Boer points out, “Paul‟s allegorical reading has a historical
(typological) aspect that Philo‟s lacks.”21 There is no hint or suggestion in Paul‟s use of the
Hagar-Sarah story that he rejects the historical nature of the characters involved. As a result,
there is good reason to understand Paul‟s use the Hagar-Sarah story more in line with typology
than with allegory.22 Bruce summarizes Paul‟s method when he says:
He is not thinking of allegory in the Philonic sense (allegory in the Philonic sense was
introduced into Christian interpretation with Origen and his successors); he has in mind
that form of allegory which is commonly called typology: a narrative from the OT history
is interpreted in terms of the new covenant, or (to put it the other way around) an aspect
of the new covenant is present in terms of an OT narrative.23
So, can we conclusively say that Paul using a typological method in Galatians 4:21-31?
To answer this question, this text must be measured against the above criteria for Biblical
typology. The first criterion that was discussed in chapter 2 was that there must be some
20
Hans Dieter Betz, Galatians, Hermeneia (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979), 239.
21
Martinus C. De Boer, “Paul‟s Quotation of Isaiah 54:1 in Galatians 4:27,” NTS 50 (2004): 375, n18.
22
Silva, Galatians, 808.
23
F.F. Bruce, The Epistle to the Galatians, 217.
38
correspondence between the Old Testament type and the New Testament antitype. There is a
similarity between the Old Testament story and the New Testament interpretation by Paul. For
example, in the Old Testament context of the Sara-Hagar story, there is the same contrast
between Sarah-Hagar and Isaac-Ishmael that exists in Paul‟s treatment of the story. The promise
of God in Genesis 17 comes through Sarah -Isaac and God establishes his everlasting covenant
with them, not through Hagar-Ishmael. Therefore, just like in the Old Testament account of the
Sarah-Hagar story, Sarah-Isaac are the favoured ones though whom God is carrying out his
salvific purposes. And Paul picks up that correspondence in Galatians 4:21-31. Fung points out
that “Paul takes it as self-evident that a straight line runs through Sarah and Isaac, the covenant
of faith (because it depends on a promise), the Jerusalem above (v. 26), and Christians . . .”24 As
Carson and Moo point out, “In complex and evocative typology, he reminds them from the
Scriptures that Abraham had a son by Hagar (a slave woman) and another by Sarah (who was
free).25
Even though there are enough correspondences between the type and type of the SarahHagar story is classify Paul‟s use as typological, there are some challenges with the
correspondences Paul makes with Hagar. It is not immediately obvious in the context of the Old
Testament to see a historical correspondence between Hagar, Mount Sinai, and present
Jerusalem.26 Fung clarifies this correspondence by writing,
Representing Mount Sinai in Arabia, then, Hagar corresponds to the earthly Jerusalem of
Paul‟s day, which was in spiritual bondage together with her children just as Hagar was
in physical bondage with her child Ishmael. The fact of the bondage (albeit in two
different senses) hold together Hagar and Ishmael, the Sinaitic covenant of law, the
24
Ronald Y. K. Fung, The Epistle to the Galatians, NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988), 207.
25
Carson and Moo, An Introduction to the New Testament, 457.
26
Walter G. Hansen, Galatians, 142.
39
present earthly Jerusalem (which stands by metonymy for Judaism, with its trust in
physical descent from Abraham and reliance on legal observance as the way of
salvation), and her children, that is, all who adhere to the law as the means of justification
and the principle of life.27
The second criterion for typology that was mentioned was a heightening between type
and anti-type. In Galatians 4:21-31 we see a heightening of the Sarah-Hagar story. In the Old
Testament context, God was beginning to establish his covenant with Abraham and his offspring
Isaac. This covenant is different and is better than the covenant that God made on Mount Sinai
with Moses because in one there is freedom and the other there is slavery. It is a covenant that is
rooted in divine promise and divine initiative. And in the context of Galatians 4, Paul does not
just see a distinction between the two races, but between those who are justified by faith in Christ
and those who seek to be justified by works. Paul sees the Sarah-Hagar story as pointing to
something greater than what is to come, not based solely on a promise, but based on a reality in
Jesus Christ, which is a spiritual heightening. The Old Testament story does point to future
reality that is greater that the experience of the patriarch Abraham as through his true son all the
peoples of the earth will be blessed (Gen. 12:3). And Paul is showing that both Jews and
Gentiles are included in his salvific plan as he says to the Galatians, “Now, you, brothers and
sisters, like Isaac, are children of promise” (Gal. 4:28). As Francis Foulkes points out, “This can
rightly be classed a typological interpretation, because the theological principles involved in the
old narratives are simply taken up and shown to find a new, and a deeper, meaning in Christ.”28
The challenge comes when we try to determine if the third criterion mentioned above is
exhibited here in the text, namely whether or not divine intent is present in the Old Testament
27
28
Fung, Galatians, 209.
Francis Foulkes, “The Acts of God: A Study of the Basis of Typology in the Old Testament,” in The
Right Doctrine from the Wrong Texts?, edited by G. K. Beale (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1994), 368.
40
story.
As was mentioned earlier, this is a hotly debated aspect of typology. The conclusion that
we can come to at this point is that typology can be retrospective as well as prospective. And
here in Galatians 4:21-31 the typology is retrospective. Again, as Fung points out, “He (Paul) is
not expounding the meaning of the OT passage as intended by the original author; he is speaking
of the meaning conveyed to him by the passage as it stands.”29
The last criterion is the historicity of the type. Paul does clearly regard the Sarah-Hagar
story as factual. He recounts the story as it is presented in its original context. Paul is working
from a historical basis as he picks up the theme promise/slavery (Sarah-Hagar) and applies it to
those who are justified by faith and those who seek to be justified by works of the law.
In conclusion, there is enough evidence and reason to see Paul interpreting the SarahHagar story typologically. As Goppelt concludes he writes, “Therefore, when this interpretation
is described as being taken (ἀλληγορούμενα), it simply means that this is an instance in which
the interpretation goes beyond the literal meaning; rather, it is typological throughout.”30
Although Paul‟s use of the Old Testament in Galatians 4:21-31 is not the easiest example of
typology, the best conclusion is to see Paul‟s interpretation of the Hagar-Sarah story as “an
elaborate piece of typology.”31
29
Fung, The Epistle to the Galatians, 206.
30
Goppelt, Typos, 140.
31
Colin Brown, “ἀλληγορέω,” in NIDNTT, ed. Colin Brown (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1976), 2:756.