Click here to read today's passage on Bible Gateway.
An Allegory (?)
In today's passage Paul goes into more explanation and uses some links to the past in order explain. In the ESV, 4:24 reads "Now this may be interepreted allegorically..." Other translations read "figuratively" (NIV) and "as an illustration" (NLT). The ESV opts for the the closest translation, as the Greek word here is "allegoreo" - clearly the source of our English word "allegory". But what does word actually mean? We attach a certain specific meaning to the word "allegory" - here's the definition from Miriam-Webster:
"the expression by means of symbolic fictional figures and actions of truths or generalizations about human existence"
We think of allegory usually as being symbolic of something else. For example, someone might take the creation account of Genesis to be allegorical, meaning that it didn't actually happen that way, but that the days of creation are merely symbolic of a "greater truth" that we are supposed to understand. Some would also take the account of Adam and Eve's sin that way as well. If we believe that the Bible is true, believing these types of things puts us in a very difficult situation in consistently understanding and interpreting the Bible. Why do I bring up this question? There's an important issue to deal with here:
"Before we expound this text, it might be good for us to examine whether this is an allegorical interpretation or a piece of typological interpretation. Definitions are critical here and, I suppose, the final difference is not that great for determining meaning. But it is worth our while to see if Paul is seeking hidden meaning (allegory) or simple correspondences that occur according to God’s plan of redemption (typology)...
...Allegory: “allegory takes concrete matters mentioned in Scripture and tradition (mythology) to be surface appearance or vestiges of underlying deeper truths which the method claims to bring to light.” Typology: “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.”...While Paul clearly emphasizes correspondences (typology), he may hint that such is the deeper meaning of the Old Testament narratives (allegory)...the emphasis ought to be given to the typological." [1]
We talked about typology back in Mark (that post was on our previous website, so unfortunately I can't link back to it). The question is: why does it matter? Why are we even talking about this?
This passage is the go-to passage for support of "allegorical" interpretation of the Bible. This was a common approach early on in the church, but as you might imagine, it leads to problems. This approach basically says that beneath the "literal", obvious meaning of the text is a "spiritual" meaning for those that are godly enough to see it. The problem with this is that it is INCREDIBLY subjective. Even if nearly everyone comes away with the same "literal" meaning of the text, you can find 50 different allegorical meanings from 50 people. It's looking reading into the text things that aren't there. So the question in front of us is what exactly Paul means by "allegorically". I would argue even more strongly than the quote above that what Paul is demonstrating here is not allegory as we think of it and attach meaning to that word in our culture, but rather typology. His approach is grounded in history and doesn't seek to change the meaning of the original passage, but serve to show how it illustrates the Old and New Covenants. It's a complex topic - it's not easy to understand the difference at a glance, but it is very important. Most of us probably don't have a lot of experience with "allegorical interpretation", but it has run amok in the church in centuries past and caused a lot confusion and misunderstanding about what and how God speaks through His word. Here's a longer quote showing the typology of the passage:
"Philo and the early church’s use of allegory and Paul’s use of the same technique differed significantly. The former totally ignored the historical setting, developing teachings entirely foreign to the original author’s intent. Paul’s approach is better characterized as typology. Paul assumed the historical setting of Genesis and the unity of the Old and New Covenants, thus he was able to build on the similarities between them because they have one author—God. In this particular context, Paul compared the Abrahamic Covenant and the Mosaic Covenant and draws application to the New Covenant of Jer. 31:31–34 and the NT.
Four connections in 4:21–31 may be drawn: (1) the two mothers stand for two families; one formed by natural means, the other by supernatural promise; (2) there was tension between these two mothers and their children as there was tension between the Judaizer’s message and Paul’s gospel; (3) both groups claimed to be descendants of Abraham, but one was in bondage to the Mosaic Law and the other was free in Christ’s finished work; (4) two mountains were connected to these different covenants, Mt. Sinai with Moses and Mt. Zion with Abraham. Mt. Zion or Mt. Moriah was where Abraham offered Isaac as a sacrifice (cf. Gen. 22), which later became Jerusalem. Abraham was looking for a heavenly city (Heb. 11:10; 12:22; 13:14, New Jerusalem, Isa. 40–66) not an earthly Jerusalem.
Paul may have used this typology because: (1) the false teachers had used this same approach to their advantage claiming to be the true seed of Abraham; (2) the false teachers may have used an allegory from Moses’ writings to push their Jewish covenant theology so Paul uses the father of the Jewish faith, Abraham; (3) Paul may have used it because of Gen. 21:9–10, which is quoted in verse 30 and says, “drive off” the natural son; in Paul’s analogy this would refer to the Judaizers; (4) Paul may have used it because of the exclusivism of the Jewish false teachers, particularly in their contempt for the Gentiles; in Paul’s typology the Gentiles are accepted and the racially confident ones are rejected by God (cf. Matt. 8:11–12); or (5) Paul may have used this typology because he has been emphasizing “sonship” and “heirship” in chapters 3 & 4. This was the heart of his argument: our adoption into the family of God by faith through Christ alone, not natural descent." [2]
Here's a small chart illustrating:
An Allegory (?)
In today's passage Paul goes into more explanation and uses some links to the past in order explain. In the ESV, 4:24 reads "Now this may be interepreted allegorically..." Other translations read "figuratively" (NIV) and "as an illustration" (NLT). The ESV opts for the the closest translation, as the Greek word here is "allegoreo" - clearly the source of our English word "allegory". But what does word actually mean? We attach a certain specific meaning to the word "allegory" - here's the definition from Miriam-Webster:
"the expression by means of symbolic fictional figures and actions of truths or generalizations about human existence"
We think of allegory usually as being symbolic of something else. For example, someone might take the creation account of Genesis to be allegorical, meaning that it didn't actually happen that way, but that the days of creation are merely symbolic of a "greater truth" that we are supposed to understand. Some would also take the account of Adam and Eve's sin that way as well. If we believe that the Bible is true, believing these types of things puts us in a very difficult situation in consistently understanding and interpreting the Bible. Why do I bring up this question? There's an important issue to deal with here:
"Before we expound this text, it might be good for us to examine whether this is an allegorical interpretation or a piece of typological interpretation. Definitions are critical here and, I suppose, the final difference is not that great for determining meaning. But it is worth our while to see if Paul is seeking hidden meaning (allegory) or simple correspondences that occur according to God’s plan of redemption (typology)...
...Allegory: “allegory takes concrete matters mentioned in Scripture and tradition (mythology) to be surface appearance or vestiges of underlying deeper truths which the method claims to bring to light.” Typology: “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.”...While Paul clearly emphasizes correspondences (typology), he may hint that such is the deeper meaning of the Old Testament narratives (allegory)...the emphasis ought to be given to the typological." [1]
We talked about typology back in Mark (that post was on our previous website, so unfortunately I can't link back to it). The question is: why does it matter? Why are we even talking about this?
This passage is the go-to passage for support of "allegorical" interpretation of the Bible. This was a common approach early on in the church, but as you might imagine, it leads to problems. This approach basically says that beneath the "literal", obvious meaning of the text is a "spiritual" meaning for those that are godly enough to see it. The problem with this is that it is INCREDIBLY subjective. Even if nearly everyone comes away with the same "literal" meaning of the text, you can find 50 different allegorical meanings from 50 people. It's looking reading into the text things that aren't there. So the question in front of us is what exactly Paul means by "allegorically". I would argue even more strongly than the quote above that what Paul is demonstrating here is not allegory as we think of it and attach meaning to that word in our culture, but rather typology. His approach is grounded in history and doesn't seek to change the meaning of the original passage, but serve to show how it illustrates the Old and New Covenants. It's a complex topic - it's not easy to understand the difference at a glance, but it is very important. Most of us probably don't have a lot of experience with "allegorical interpretation", but it has run amok in the church in centuries past and caused a lot confusion and misunderstanding about what and how God speaks through His word. Here's a longer quote showing the typology of the passage:
"Philo and the early church’s use of allegory and Paul’s use of the same technique differed significantly. The former totally ignored the historical setting, developing teachings entirely foreign to the original author’s intent. Paul’s approach is better characterized as typology. Paul assumed the historical setting of Genesis and the unity of the Old and New Covenants, thus he was able to build on the similarities between them because they have one author—God. In this particular context, Paul compared the Abrahamic Covenant and the Mosaic Covenant and draws application to the New Covenant of Jer. 31:31–34 and the NT.
Four connections in 4:21–31 may be drawn: (1) the two mothers stand for two families; one formed by natural means, the other by supernatural promise; (2) there was tension between these two mothers and their children as there was tension between the Judaizer’s message and Paul’s gospel; (3) both groups claimed to be descendants of Abraham, but one was in bondage to the Mosaic Law and the other was free in Christ’s finished work; (4) two mountains were connected to these different covenants, Mt. Sinai with Moses and Mt. Zion with Abraham. Mt. Zion or Mt. Moriah was where Abraham offered Isaac as a sacrifice (cf. Gen. 22), which later became Jerusalem. Abraham was looking for a heavenly city (Heb. 11:10; 12:22; 13:14, New Jerusalem, Isa. 40–66) not an earthly Jerusalem.
Paul may have used this typology because: (1) the false teachers had used this same approach to their advantage claiming to be the true seed of Abraham; (2) the false teachers may have used an allegory from Moses’ writings to push their Jewish covenant theology so Paul uses the father of the Jewish faith, Abraham; (3) Paul may have used it because of Gen. 21:9–10, which is quoted in verse 30 and says, “drive off” the natural son; in Paul’s analogy this would refer to the Judaizers; (4) Paul may have used it because of the exclusivism of the Jewish false teachers, particularly in their contempt for the Gentiles; in Paul’s typology the Gentiles are accepted and the racially confident ones are rejected by God (cf. Matt. 8:11–12); or (5) Paul may have used this typology because he has been emphasizing “sonship” and “heirship” in chapters 3 & 4. This was the heart of his argument: our adoption into the family of God by faith through Christ alone, not natural descent." [2]
Here's a small chart illustrating:
| LAW Hagar Covenant Ishmael (”flesh”) Persecutor Children-Slaves Mount Sinai Earthly Jerusalem in slavery Judaizers Old Covenant | CHRIST Sarah Covenant Isaac (”promise”) Persecuted Children-Free ones (Heaven?) Heavenly Jerusalem in freedom Paul New Covenant |
Like I said, a complex topic that can be somewhat confusing, but it's important to understand what Paul is doing her so we don't misinterpret both this passage and the rest of the Bible.
Questions? Comments?
Questions? Comments?
[1] Scot McKnight, Galatians, The NIV Application Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1995), 229-30.
[2] Robert James Utley, vol. Volume 11, Paul's First Letters: Galatians and I & II Thessalonians, Study Guide Commentary Series (Marshall, TX: Bible Lessons International, 1997), 50.
[2] Robert James Utley, vol. Volume 11, Paul's First Letters: Galatians and I & II Thessalonians, Study Guide Commentary Series (Marshall, TX: Bible Lessons International, 1997), 50.
RSS Feed
