allegory in Genesis

[rmwilliamsll]

For all the times we've talked about allegory in Genesis, i've never seen a reference to Galatians 4:24

Gal 4:21 Tell me, you who want to be under law, do you not listen to the law?
Gal 4:22 For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by the bondwoman and one by the free woman.
Gal 4:23 But the son by the bondwoman was born according to the flesh, and the son by the free woman through the promise.
Gal 4:24 This is allegorically speaking, for these {women} are two covenants: one {proceeding} from Mount Sinai bearing children who are to be slaves; she is Hagar.
Gal 4:25 Now this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children.
Gal 4:26 But the Jerusalem above is free; she is our mother.
Gal 4:27 For it is written, "REJOICE, BARREN WOMAN WHO DOES NOT BEAR; BREAK FORTH AND SHOUT, YOU WHO ARE NOT IN LABOR; FOR MORE NUMEROUS ARE THE CHILDREN OF THE DESOLATE THAN OF THE ONE WHO HAS A HUSBAND."
Gal 4:28 And you brethren, like Isaac, are children of promise.
Gal 4:29 But as at that time he who was born according to the flesh persecuted him {who was born} according to the Spirit, so it is now also.
Gal 4:30 But what does the Scripture say? "CAST OUT THE BONDWOMAN AND HER SON, FOR THE SON OF THE BONDWOMAN SHALL NOT BE AN HEIR WITH THE SON OF THE FREE WOMAN."
Gal 4:31 So then, brethren, we are not children of a bondwoman, but of the free woman.

where Paul himself is teaching to interpret the historical as an allegory.

....

 

[Critias]

As I have said numerous times here, we understand what is written by the authors intended meaning and then look for what Jesus Christ is saying through it.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

As I have said numerous times here, we understand what is written by the authors intended meaning and then look for what Jesus Christ is saying through it.

you miss the point.
Paul is teaching us hermeneutics. There is nothing in the Genesis story about Haggar and Sarah that would lead one to believe that there is an allegory there. But not only does Paul use the allegorical method to interpret the verses but makes the allegory more important than the historical.

That is far from the only example.
Jesus says that the rock Moses struck was Himself. Not only is the rock an allegory but it is a metaphor. The historical is a metaphor for the spiritual. Likewise in this example the spiritual is more important than the historical.


...

 

[Critias]

translated in Gal 4:24 "contain an allegory" (AV, "are an allegory"), formed from allos, "other," and agoreuo, "to speak in a place of assembly" (agora, "the market-place"), came to signify "to speak," not according to the primary sense of the word, but so that the facts stated are applied to illustrate principles. The "allegorical" meaning does not do away with the literal meaning of the narrative. There may be more than one "allegorical" meaning though, of course, only one literal meaning. Scripture histories represent or embody spiritual principles, and these are ascertained, not by the play of the imagination, but by the rightful application of the doctrines of Scripture.


http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/choice/1124727716-1060.html

 

[Critias]

And where is the Scripture that says Paul is dismissing the historical narrative account of the text?