Galatians 4:24 - Paul's use of allegory?

[Eoghan]

I read over the text and this allegory stuck in my throat a bit. It seems a bit far fetched, but I reasoned with myself that it is a 'type' and I was getting hung up on the term allegory. ADAMS p44 of his commentary notes that allegorical interpretation was a common Jewish exposition technique and that Paul is turning their own weapons on them.

What do others think?

 

[Eoghan]

Hillel set out a list of seven rules of interpretation one of which was allegorical (Berkhof's 'Principles' p16)

 

[sevenzedek]

I read over the text and this allegory stuck in my throat a bit. It seems a bit far fetched, but I reasoned with myself that it is a 'type' and I was getting hung up on the term allegory. ADAMS p44 of his commentary notes that allegorical interpretation was a common Jewish exposition technique and that Paul is turning their own weapons on them.

What do others think?

The saying goes, "Scripture interprets Scripture." Therefore, since I am not a biblical author of Scripture, I would doubt my ability to interpret Scritpure allegorically. Paul's situation is a bit different than ours. However, I don't allow that to stop me from seeing patterns in the way God works. I think the problem with this occurs when subjective revelation/observation spoils objective revelation and begins to replace it. Heresies begin at this point.

 

[Eoghan]

From John Gill (who is very knowledgeable on Jewish matters)
Gal 4:24 Which things are an allegory,.... Or "are allegorized": so Sarah and Hagar were allegorized by Philo the Jew (p), before they were by the apostle. Sarah he makes to signify virtue, and Hagar the whole circle of arts and sciences, which are, or should be, an handmaid to virtue; but these things respecting Hagar and Sarah, the bondwoman and the free, and their several offspring, are much better allegorized by the apostle here. An allegory is a way of speaking in which one thing is expressed by another, and is a continued metaphor; and the apostle's meaning is, that these things point at some other things; have another meaning in them, a mystical and spiritual one, besides the literal; and which the Jews call
מדרש, "Midrash", a name they give to the mystical and allegorical sense of Scripture, in which they greatly indulge themselves. An allegory is properly a fictitious way of speaking; but here it designs an accommodation of a real history, and matter of fact, to other cases and things, and seems to intend a type or figure; and the sense to be, that these things which were literally true of Hagar and Sarah, of Ishmael and Isaac, were types and figures of things to come; just as what befell the Israelites were types and figures of things that would be under the Gospel dispensation, 1Co_10:11.

Philo lived 20 B.C.–50 A.D. according to Wikipedia

 

[Eoghan]

I read over the text and this allegory stuck in my throat a bit. It seems a bit far fetched, but I reasoned with myself that it is a 'type' and I was getting hung up on the term allegory. ADAMS p44 of his commentary notes that allegorical interpretation was a common Jewish exposition technique and that Paul is turning their own weapons on them.

What do others think?

The saying goes, "Scripture interprets Scripture." Therefore, since I am not a biblical author of Scripture, I would doubt my ability to interpret Scritpure allegorically. Paul's situation is a bit different than ours. However, I don't allow that to stop me from seeing patterns in the way God works. I think the problem with this occurs when subjective revelation/observation spoils objective revelation and begins to replace it. Heresies begin at this point.

I think my concern is at allowing allegory as a legitimate expository tool. This does seem to be the only use of the word allegory in scripture (?) If Paul had used the word 'type' I would be happier.

I suspect that Paul is imitating the expository style of the Judaisers.

 

[sevenzedek]

I read over the text and this allegory stuck in my throat a bit. It seems a bit far fetched, but I reasoned with myself that it is a 'type' and I was getting hung up on the term allegory. ADAMS p44 of his commentary notes that allegorical interpretation was a common Jewish exposition technique and that Paul is turning their own weapons on them.

What do others think?

The saying goes, "Scripture interprets Scripture." Therefore, since I am not a biblical author of Scripture, I would doubt my ability to interpret Scritpure allegorically. Paul's situation is a bit different than ours. However, I don't allow that to stop me from seeing patterns in the way God works. I think the problem with this occurs when subjective revelation/observation spoils objective revelation and begins to replace it. Heresies begin at this point.

I think my concern is at allowing allegory as a legitimate expository tool. This does seem to be the only use of the word allegory in scripture (?) If Paul had used the word 'type' I would be happier.

I suspect that Paul is imitating the expository style of the Judaisers.

My concern is that others use the term "allegory" to justify weird preaching.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

The term "allegory" is borrowed from the interpreters of the day, but the substance is Christian and apostolic. It is most assuredly typological and Christocentric; it is apostolic and a proper model for faithful exegetes. It isn't everything a proper hermeneutic should incorporate, but it is an important element.

Paul is dealing with opponents and detractors, in shorthand these are the Judaizing party. Part of what gives such men there supposed power to persuade is that they claim to be the proper interpreters of Scripture, and Paul has it wrong. "Jesus Messiah came, yes indeed, to do important work, no doubt; and his most important work was to bring even the Gentiles unto Moses, and the Law." Jesus isn't central enough to their hermeneutic.

Strict allegory, foisted on the text (which was basically OT Scriptures at that point) makes the guy who is cleverest at spinning a believable tale an important teacher in a group. We are seeing Gnostic tendencies flowering among this sect, would-be teachers in possession of secret knowledge or the key to unlocking the mysteries. It is against this backdrop--these claims by the false teachers of the Judaizers, with their "allegories" of the text, their "superior understanding" to the apostles--that Paul announces his "allegory."

As if he said, "These guys have bamboozled you with what? That? Oh man! Who has bewitched you? I can hardly believe what you people have been taken in by. Here, you want some "allegory?" Here's an "allegory" for you, some reading of the OT Scriptures with Christ at the center. When I show you this, it should blow your mind. Then you can compare this reminder of how I handle the sacred text with the best those jokers have to offer."

And this is what leads into his typological treatment of Sarah and Hagar, the two children, the two mountains, having a Christocentric focus to his explanation. But see, it isn't just Moses' text, or just Paul and his treatment of Moses. He inculpates Isaiah as well (v27, see Is.54) in his interpretation! As if to say, "Now then, before you accuse me of being no better than these Judaizing Scripture-twisters, and coming up with my own self-interested, self-originating interpretation, please note: Isaiah already gave much the same interpretation!"

So, here's Paul bringing an original author to bear as a witness to Christ, a prophetic interpreter of Moses as corrobration, and the apostolic testimony as the cherry on top of all that (see 2Pet.1:19).

 

[Eoghan]

[BIBLE]Isaiah 54:1[/BIBLE]

For it is written,
“Rejoice, O barren one who does not bear;
break forth and cry aloud, you who are not in labor!
For the children of the desolate one will be more
than those of the one who has a husband.”
(Galatians 4:27 ESV)

I had not realised that Hagar was 'married' although she was obviously wife number 2.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

In the Isaiah passage, the word for "married" is from "baal," and means (literally) in this passive form, "to be lorded (over)," but not ordinarily in a negative way (see Is.50:8 for an exception). No, the language is more often used to denote a sense of privilege for the person who has an excellent lord; because, not just anyone can claim this relationship.

In 1Pet.3:6 we read, "Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord." This is not a direct quote of any reference in the OT; but Is.54:1 reinforces the underlying idea that this was (and should not have been interrupted) the language certainly used by Sarah. But Isaiah's point is to say that Sarah was "desolated," made to be alone, abandoned.

Paul's quotation actually varies the language of Isaiah slightly at the end, a paraphrase he makes for emphasis. He writes (literally): "...than those of the one who has the man." I think Paul is underscoring the fact that a usurpation took place; there is a contest over whose "man" or "husband" this one really is.