"[T]his may be interpreted allegorically"

[Colo Millz]

21 Tell me, you who desire to be under the law, do you not listen to the law? 22 For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by a slave woman and one by a free woman. 23 But the son of the slave was born according to the flesh, while the son of the free woman was born through promise. 24 Now this may be interpreted allegorically: these women are two covenants. One is from Mount Sinai, bearing children for slavery; she is Hagar. 25 Now Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia; she corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children. 26 But the Jerusalem above is free, and she is our mother. 27 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.”

English Standard Version Catholic Edition (n.p.: Augustine Institute, 2019), Ga 4:21–27.

May there not be very many other OT passages that can be interpreted allegorically?

Is Paul's method here not an exemplar to us of proper exegesis?

Paul assumes the existence of the mystical sense (cf. § 40) in Scripture, in which events and figures of the OT are types of the NT. Taking yet another illustration from the history of Abraham, he shows that those who rely on the Law instead of faith in the Promise áre to be excluded from the inheritance; cf. Prat, op. cit., I, 221. 22. Cf. Gen 16:15; 17:15–21; 21:2, 9. 23. ‘According to the flesh’: on the one side all happened according to nature; but on the other, according to a divine promise, miraculously realized. 24. ‘Which things are allegorically interpreted’ as follows. 25. ‘(For Sinai is a mountain in Arabia)’: a supplementary confirmation of his interpretation inserted in parenthesis; for Ismael is connected with Arabia through being the ancestor of the chief Arab tribe. Arabia then denoted all the land S. and E. of Palestine. ‘She corresponds to that Jerusalem.…’ 26. i.e. the Church. 27. Cf. Is 54:1, with which the Rabbis connected Is 51:2

Dom B. Orchard, “Galatians,” in A Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture, ed. Bernard Orchard and Edmund F. Sutcliffe (Toronto; New York; Edinburgh: Thomas Nelson, 1953), 1117.

24. Which things are said by allegory; literally, ἅτινα ὲστιν ἀλληγορούμενα, which things are allegorized, i.e., the things narrated in Genesis regarding the sons and marriages of Abraham, signifying at the same time other things altogether different from themselves. By an allegory, writers on rhetoric understand a lengthened or continued metaphor. Ecclesiastical writers generally understand it to denote a figure in things, by which one thing is employed to typify or signify another of quite a different nature. “For these,” αὗται γὰρ, i.e., the marriages, or, according to others, the two wives of Abraham. “Are,” i.e., signify “the two Testaments”—viz., the New and the Old. “The one indeed from Mount Sina.” The Old Testament took its rise from Mount Sina; because, there was promulgated the Law, the observance of which was among the primary conditions of the Old Covenant. “Which bringeth forth into bondage.” The Old Testament brought forth children into the bondage of the Mosaic Law, a law of servitude, both on account of the multitude of its precepts, which neither the Jews nor their fathers could bear, as also on account of the spirit of fear which it inspired. “Which is Agar;” and this covenant is represented by Agar.

John MacEvilly, An Exposition of the Epistles of St. Paul and of the Catholic Epistles, vol. 1 (Dublin; New York: M. H. Gill & Son; Benziger Brothers, 1898), 390–391.

Ancient Christian interpreters practised typological and allegorical readings to uncover the spiritual meaning of biblical texts in order to deepen their understanding of God. They did not consider such readings fanciful or arbitrary because they had a different view of reality from us moderns. Ancient interpreters assumed a connection between mind and a higher order of reality. For them, sacred texts were windows to divine realities. Theologians call this the ‘sacramental’ quality of language and texts, that is, their ability to mediate transcendent, divine truths. Already in the Greek philosophical use of Homer or in rabbinic interpretation of the Bible, the text was not read in a strictly literal or historical sense. In contrast to modern literalism, texts were treated as cryptic, containing hidden spiritual insights. Even historical events were means of conveying spiritual truths.

Zimmermann, Jens. Hermeneutics: A Very Short Introduction (Very Short Introductions) (pp. 84-85). OUP Oxford. Kindle Edition.

 

[bbbbbbb]

21 Tell me, you who desire to be under the law, do you not listen to the law? 22 For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by a slave woman and one by a free woman. 23 But the son of the slave was born according to the flesh, while the son of the free woman was born through promise. 24 Now this may be interpreted allegorically: these women are two covenants. One is from Mount Sinai, bearing children for slavery; she is Hagar. 25 Now Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia; she corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children. 26 But the Jerusalem above is free, and she is our mother. 27 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.”

English Standard Version Catholic Edition (n.p.: Augustine Institute, 2019), Ga 4:21–27.

May there not be very many other OT passages that can be interpreted allegorically?

Is Paul's method here not an exemplar to us of proper exegesis?

Paul assumes the existence of the mystical sense (cf. § 40) in Scripture, in which events and figures of the OT are types of the NT. Taking yet another illustration from the history of Abraham, he shows that those who rely on the Law instead of faith in the Promise áre to be excluded from the inheritance; cf. Prat, op. cit., I, 221. 22. Cf. Gen 16:15; 17:15–21; 21:2, 9. 23. ‘According to the flesh’: on the one side all happened according to nature; but on the other, according to a divine promise, miraculously realized. 24. ‘Which things are allegorically interpreted’ as follows. 25. ‘(For Sinai is a mountain in Arabia)’: a supplementary confirmation of his interpretation inserted in parenthesis; for Ismael is connected with Arabia through being the ancestor of the chief Arab tribe. Arabia then denoted all the land S. and E. of Palestine. ‘She corresponds to that Jerusalem.…’ 26. i.e. the Church. 27. Cf. Is 54:1, with which the Rabbis connected Is 51:2

Dom B. Orchard, “Galatians,” in A Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture, ed. Bernard Orchard and Edmund F. Sutcliffe (Toronto; New York; Edinburgh: Thomas Nelson, 1953), 1117.

24. Which things are said by allegory; literally, ἅτινα ὲστιν ἀλληγορούμενα, which things are allegorized, i.e., the things narrated in Genesis regarding the sons and marriages of Abraham, signifying at the same time other things altogether different from themselves. By an allegory, writers on rhetoric understand a lengthened or continued metaphor. Ecclesiastical writers generally understand it to denote a figure in things, by which one thing is employed to typify or signify another of quite a different nature. “For these,” αὗται γὰρ, i.e., the marriages, or, according to others, the two wives of Abraham. “Are,” i.e., signify “the two Testaments”—viz., the New and the Old. “The one indeed from Mount Sina.” The Old Testament took its rise from Mount Sina; because, there was promulgated the Law, the observance of which was among the primary conditions of the Old Covenant. “Which bringeth forth into bondage.” The Old Testament brought forth children into the bondage of the Mosaic Law, a law of servitude, both on account of the multitude of its precepts, which neither the Jews nor their fathers could bear, as also on account of the spirit of fear which it inspired. “Which is Agar;” and this covenant is represented by Agar.

John MacEvilly, An Exposition of the Epistles of St. Paul and of the Catholic Epistles, vol. 1 (Dublin; New York: M. H. Gill & Son; Benziger Brothers, 1898), 390–391.

Ancient Christian interpreters practised typological and allegorical readings to uncover the spiritual meaning of biblical texts in order to deepen their understanding of God. They did not consider such readings fanciful or arbitrary because they had a different view of reality from us moderns. Ancient interpreters assumed a connection between mind and a higher order of reality. For them, sacred texts were windows to divine realities. Theologians call this the ‘sacramental’ quality of language and texts, that is, their ability to mediate transcendent, divine truths. Already in the Greek philosophical use of Homer or in rabbinic interpretation of the Bible, the text was not read in a strictly literal or historical sense. In contrast to modern literalism, texts were treated as cryptic, containing hidden spiritual insights. Even historical events were means of conveying spiritual truths.

Zimmermann, Jens. Hermeneutics: A Very Short Introduction (Very Short Introductions) (pp. 84-85). OUP Oxford. Kindle Edition.

You have opened up a real can of worms here. In answer to your question, yes, one can easily find all manner of allegorical interpretations of both the Old and the New Testaments. Many of these, as I am sure you know, are quite spurious, if not downright heretical. It has been my personal experience that virtually all extrabiblical allegorical interpretations serve a primary purpose to introduce or support extrabiblical doctrines.

 

[Fervent]

The issue with allegorical readings is that excess easily renders the text without true meaning. Allegorical readings require we first establish the literal meaning of the text then move into deeper meanings. The fourfold meaning of the text has a longstanding tradition, but when it was practiced there was an understanding that the literal meaning is the bedrock and spiritual meanings must flow out of the literal meaning. Reducing the texts themselves to allegorical ends up putting too much into subjective leaps that interpreters might make and rob the text of all meaning since it opens it up to meaning anything the interpreter wants.

 

[RandyPNW]

I think finding a common element between two things and then transferring the thought from one thing to another different thing is simply an interesting way of drawing conclusions. It may not have been the thought to condemn all Arabs to "the flesh." However, Paul pointed out how those who lived without a covenant relationship with God exemplified what that looked like compared to those who did live in covenant relationship with God.

Obviously, even Israel, who had that covenant relationship, still persisted in following after the "flesh" on many occasion. But Paul was using the example of Ishmael and Isaac to show that the covenant relationship carried with it God's gracious impartation of virtue, bringing about positive results, as opposed to those who lived without divine virtue.

So the allegorization does not really transcend truth or doctrine. It just illustrates the importance of living by God's Grace.

The same thing can be done by viewing things as symbols. Since the things God created had meaning, the meaning of those things extend to how we view other things, since all things were created by God. They all have a harmonious meaning. For example, eagles are birds of prey, and that concept can easily be transferred to an aggressive army, since in God's world both have similar intentions.

I enjoy seeing the Tabernacle furniture as symbolic of things God has done in history with the Church. But this is simply an extension of what the furniture meant for Israel, extending to how the same truths apply to the Church over time in the NT era.

 

[Aaron112]

Is Paul's method here not an exemplar to us of proper exegesis?

No, not at all.

The Scripture is not by some method, not be nor from man's thoughts,

only from God, God's Thoughts, as God Directed.

 

[Aaron112]

You have opened up a real can of worms here. In answer to your question, yes, one can easily find all manner of allegorical interpretations of both the Old and the New Testaments. Many of these, as I am sure you know, are quite spurious, if not downright heretical. It has been my personal experience that virtually all extrabiblical allegorical interpretations serve a primary purpose to introduce or support extrabiblical doctrines.

yep, and worse.