An Analysis Of Antiochene Exegesis Of Galatians 4:24-26

By Robert J. Kepple

Decatur, Georgia.

Mr. Kepple is presently a graduate student in the Division of Librarianship at Emory University. This fall he will be resuming his doctoral studies in New Testament at Baylor University.

One of the key passages in any examination of the Pauline use of the Old Testament is Galatians 4:21–31. Although Paul frequently quotes and interprets the Old Testament in his epistles, there are relatively few passages where Paul utilizes, or appears to be utilizing, allegorical interpretation.[1] Galatians 4:21–31 is one of the most crucial of these passages.

Two recent writers on the Pauline hermeneutic illustrate the pivotal nature of this passage. Both Richard Longenecker and A. T. Hanson write that there are only two passages in which Paul could be charged with allegorical interpretation—Galatians 4:21–31 and I Corinthians 9:8–10.[2] After examining the passage, however, Longenecker concludes that Galatians 4:21–31 is “a highly allegorical representation of Old Testament history,[3] while A. T. Hanson concludes that in Galatians 4:21ff. “Paul was in fact using typology, not allegory.”[4]

This issue—typology or allegory in Galatians 4:21–31—was also argued in the hermeneutical discussions of the early church. In support of their extensive use of allegorical interpretation, the Alexandrians appealed to Paul and particularly to this passage. The Antiochenes, violently opposed to Alexandrian allegory, argued that Galatians 4:21–31 was not allegorical but typological. The Antiochenes were not prepared to argue that Paul’s exegesis was not normative for the church.[5] Rather, they attempted to argue that Paul had been misunderstood. An examination of these Antiochene arguments may contribute to our understanding today of Paul’s exegesis in Galatians 4:21–31.

The commentaries on Galatians by three major exegetes of the Antiochene school have survived: those of Theodore of Mopsuestia (c.350–428), John Chrysostom (c.347–407), and Theodoret of Cyrrhus (c.393-c.466). Below, each of these commentaries, examined on Galatians 4:24–26 with regard to three questions of particular significance in understanding Paul’s exegesis. First, what do these men believe Paul means in verse 24 when he uses the term ἀλληγορούμενα? Does the word necessarily mean that Paul is utilizing allegorical interpretation? Second, what connection do these men believe that Paul is attempting to make between the events of the Old Testament and his current situation? Third, what link do the three exegetes believe that Paul is making between Hagar, Sinai, and the earthly Jerusalem in verse 25a? This last question is important in “clearing” Paul of allegorical methodology since the connection drawn is complex and could easily be taken as allegorical.[6]

1. Theodore of Mopsuestia

Theodore has been called “the most typical representative of the Antiochene school of exegesis.”[7] His commentary on Galatians survives only in some Greek fragments and in a fifth century Latin translation which Swete evaluates as being of “substantial integrity.”[8] The quality of the commentary itself is rarely questioned; for example, Lightfoot terms it inferior only to Chrysostom and Jerome among extant patristic works.[9]

Theodore makes an extended comment on 4:24a (120 lines of text in Swete), laboring the point that the practices of the “allegorists” are quite different from those of Paul. He begins by strongly denouncing those who “have great enthusiasm for falsifying the sense of divine Scripture,” and who make up “some senseless fables [fabula] from their own understanding.” Such men, he argues, abuse this saying of Paul, taking it as authority for destroying all meaning from Scripture. When they attempt to follow the apostle’s example, “they do not perceive the difference in which the phrase is used by them and by Paul in this context.”[10] The difference between what “they” mean by “allegory” and what Paul means, he argues, is this: “The apostle did not do away with history, nor did he strip away actions which had occurred long ago.”[11] Rather, Paul used the account of past events to elucidate his own words.

Theodore then argues at length to demonstrate that Paul did not deny the historicity of the events, pointing out that Paul refers to real geographical areas (v. 25) and real time intervals (v. 29). They must be real, he argues, because “a comparison cannot be made if the matters compared do not exist.”[12] Further, “to deny the historical character of Ishmael’s persecution of Isaac and to say that its sole raison d’être was the allegorical meaning here given it by Paul would lead, he says, to the absurdity of believing that the story was given by the author of Genesis solely because at a much later date certain defenders of circumcision were going to cause trouble to the Christians in Galatia.”[13]

Concluding his discussion of 4:24a, Theodore briefly asserts what he thinks Paul means by ἀλληγορούμενα: “He terms ‘allegory’ the comparison, by juxtaposition, of events which have already occurred with present events.”[14] This is practically an Antiochene definition of typology,[15] and Theodore has clearly arrived at this conclusion by analysis of the passage itself—ἀλληγορέω is used in this specific sense neither by Antioch nor Alexandria.

The above statement also summarizes the connection which Theodore feels that Paul is drawing between the two sets of events. Paul, as Theodore sees it, “is striving to corroborate his assertion [made prior to 4:24] by basing it upon actual events. ... Namely, to reveal that the things of Christ are greater than those concerning the law.”[16] How does Paul do this? “The apostle therefore mentions Hagar and Sarah … so that from such a comparison he may make his point.”[17] He then explains how Hagar “stands for” justification by law, while Sarah “stands for” justification by grace. Theodore then goes to some length to justify and explain the appropriateness of the comparison which Paul is drawing.

It is in verse 25 that Theodore believes Paul is establishing the legitimacy of linking Hagar with the Old Covenant. Paul does this by pointing out that the place where the law was given belonged to the nation which descended from Hagar. Theodore makes this geographical connection by arguing that “in ancient times the area which is now called Arabia was not the only area to bear that name; the entire desert and the inhabited areas surrounding the desert were also called Arabia …. Thus the comparison of Hagar with the Old Testament is suitable, because in that place [Sinai] the law was given, and that place belonged to the nation from which Hagar came.”[18] Hagar can also be said to correspond to the present Jerusalem (Theodore is taking ῾Αγάρ as the subject of συστοιχεῖ) since the present Jerusalem also signifies the first covenant.[19]

In summary, Theodore is most concerned to see that the historicity of the Old Testament events is not denied. His emphasis is on the appropriateness of the comparison which Paul is drawing. While he does not explicitly term that comparison “typology,” that identification seems to underlie his analysis of the passage.

2. John Chrysostom

Chrysostom was well-known not only for his oratorical ability but also for his exegetical skill, especially when explaining Paul. Indeed, Isidore of Pelusium wrote of him: “If the divine Paul had interpreted himself, he would not have done it differently from that famous master of the Attic language.”[20]

In verse 24a, Chrysostom explains the Pauline usage of (ἀλληγορούμενα by asserting that Paul here “inexactly called the type an allegory.”[21] The adverb with which Chrysostom qualifies this statement (καταχρηστικῶς) has been variously translated with harsh or soft senses. Liddell and Scott understand it to mean “by a misuse of language,”[22] while Lampe understands it as meaning “inexactly, loosely.”[23] In either case, Chrysostom believes that Paul here could have spoken more exactly.

Chrysostom has made explicit what was implicit in Theodore—that Paul means “type” although he did not use that word. Further, Chrysostom has recognized the difficulty of understanding ἀλληγορούμενα in this fashion, labeling the use unusual if not incorrect.

From this statement of Chrysostom, it is also evident that he understands Paul to be drawing a typological connection between the old and the new events, and he uses the word “type” several more times in his discussion of this passage. Following the above statement, he explains what Paul is doing in this passage: “His meaning is as follows: this history not only declares that which appears on the face of it, but announces somewhat farther, whence it is called an allegory. And what has it announced? no less than all the things now present.”[24] Chrysostom seems to be arguing that this may loosely be termed allegory in the sense that the events of history mean more than their simple face value. But more correctly, it may be termed typology since it is past historical events which have reference to present events.[25] Chrysostom then goes on to explain how the present situation (for Paul) had been prefigured or “announce” in the Old Testament events. In short, Chrysostom sees Paul as confirming his analysis of the events in Galatia by reference to these Old Testament events which prefigured them.

This approach is somewhat different from that of Theodore. While they both see Paul as employing typology rather than allegory, their definitions of the “typology” at work in this passage are different. Theodore stresses the idea of the two sets of events being comparable, while Chrysostom concentrates more on demonstrating how Paul’s conclusions regarding the Old and New Covenants necessarily follow because they were “announced” in the Old Testament events.

Chrysostom also handles the connection between Hagar, Sinai, and the present Jerusalem in verse 25 differently. He sees Paul as concerned with demonstrating that Hagar is a suitable type for the present Jerusalem. This is accomplished in two steps.

First, the connection between Hagar and Sinai is lexical: “The bondwoman is called Hagar, and ‘Hagar’ is the word for Mount Sinai in the language of that country.”[26] Thus, “it is necessary that all who are born of the Old Covenant should be bondmen, for that mountain where the Old Covenant was delivered hath a name in common with the bondwoman.”[27] Second, the connection between Sinai and Jerusalem is geographical. “Συστοιχεῖ,” according to Chrysostom, means “borders on, is contiguous to”; and the subject of the verb is Sinai, not Hagar.[28] Thus, Sinai and Jerusalem are connected with the same event—the giving of the Old Covenant—by geographical proximity. Therefore, the mention of Sinai serves as an intermediate step to link Hagar with the present Jerusalem. “Thus the type of the Jerusalem below was Hagar, as is plain from the mountain being so called.”[29]

In summary, Chrysostoin believes that Paul really means “type” when he uses ἀλληγορούμενα in this passage. He presumes that the historical and literal meaning of the Old Testament events is true but sees Paul developing a further “typical meaning” as well—a meaning where the further things “announced” by the Old Testament events truly are those with which Paul wrestles. Paul’s typology is therefore more than just a comparison; it also serves as a proof of the doctrine about which he is writing to the Galatians.

3. Theodoret of Cyrrhus

Theodoret, writing somewhat later than the above men, is generally considered the last great theologian and exegete of Antioch. Of his exegetical works, Quasten comments that they liare among the finest specimens of the Antiochene school and remarkable for their combination of terseness and lucidity.”[30] However, despite his commitment to the Antiochene position, he moderated his exegetical procedure. Altaner notes that “despite its fundamental grammatical-historical attitude his exegesis is frequently typological and allegorical”;[31] and Quasten writes that “lie adopts a middle course, avoiding the radicalism of Theodore of Mopsuestia and his excessive literalness and allows an allegorical and typological explanation, whenever this appears preferable.”[32] But in the case of Galatians 4:24–26, Theodoret stands firmly in the tradition of Theodore and Chrysostom.

Theodoret joins Theodore and Chrysostom in defining Paul’s use of ἀλληγορούμενα in 4:24a. He writes: “‘Understanding allegorically,’ the holy Apostle said, rather than ‘spiritually apprehending a different meaning.’ For he does not destroy the history, but he teaches the things foreshadowed in the history.”[33] Thus, Theodoret along with Theodore and Chrysostom stresses that (1) the historicity of the events is not destroyed and (2) the “allegory” here is really typology. Theodoret expressly distinguishes Paul’s ἀλληγορούμενα” from “ἑτέρως νοούμενα,” the latter phrase reflecting exegetical terminology of the Alexandrian school. The express distinction which he makes between the two is the question of whether or not the historicity of the events is accepted or rejected.

Theodoret then continues to describe the essential connection which Paul is drawing between the old and the new events. After commenting on vv. 24–26, he adds: “These things [i.e., the events of the Old Testament story] are parallel to our own situation. For just as there was one father but two mothers and two children then, thus there is also one God but two covenants and two peoples now, But Hagar is the ‘picture’ of the first covenant, and Sarah of the second.”[34] Theodoret thus finds the idea of comparison of importance in this passage, but in the above comments he has expanded the comparison to elements only implicit in Paul—the one-father/one-God correspondence and the two-children/two-peoples concept. In the remainder of his comments on this passage, Theodoret continued to develop the idea of comparison and refers, at several points, to this passage as a “type” (τύπος).

In verse 25, Theodoret explains the connection between Hagar and Sinai as being that “alongside that mountain the race of Hagar has been dwelling.”[35] This he finds only fitting since the old law was given from that mountain. Theodoret does not make any more explicit the connection of the earthly Jerusalem with Hagar and Sinai; he simply repeats Paul’s words.

In summary, Theodoret also finds typology in this passage rather than allegory. Paul acknowledges the historical nature of the passage but also draws a further significance from the events. Theodoret is the clearest in expressing the comparison being made by Paul, drawing out the one-father/two-mothers/two-children versus one-God/two-covenants/two-peoples parallels.

Conclusion

What contribution these Antiochene exegetes can make to our understanding of Galatians 4:24–26 still remains to be evaluated. Were they correct in their analysis or did their anti-Alexandrian zeal predetermine their conclusions?

On the first question examined above, the Antiochene exegetes appear correct in emphasizing that the Pauline use of ἀλληγορούμενα does not necessarily mean that allegorical interpretation is employed in the passage. Rather, as particularly Chrysostom and Theodoret emphasize, the word may have a broader meaning.

A. T. Hanson notes at least five different possible translations and after lexical investigation concludes that “we are safe in giving the following as a provisional rendering of Paul’s phrase in Gal. 4.24: ‘these things are intended to convey a deeper meaning’.”[36] Certainly an English version of the New Testament should not prejudice the question with the “this is an allegory” translation which is so common.[37] Rather, a rendering such as that adopted by the NIV is preferable: “These things may be taken figuratively.’”[38]

On the second question, the value of the Antiochene answer is more difficult to judge. To them, the essence of allegorical interpretation is that it denies the historicity of the events being interpreted allegorically, but to modern exegetes (and probably to the Alexandrians) denial of historicity is not a necessary component of allegorical interpretation. To the extent that the Antiochene refutation of the allegorical interpretation depends on the issue of historicity, it is weak. However, it does not wholly depend on that point.

Another difficulty is the modern dispute as to the definitions of allegory and typology. Are they logically distinct or opposite ends of the same continuum? Should they even be termed exegetical methods?[39] Clearly the Antiochene arguments are a strong defense of the typological understanding of Paul’s exegesis here, but they must also be balanced by careful study of what appear to be allegorical elements.

On the third question, a large part of the interpretative problem for the Antiochenes may be an incorrect text in verse 25a. All three Antiochene exegetes are using a text which reads “τὸ γὰρ ῾Αγὰρ Σινᾶ,” which is almost certainly incorrect. The UBS and Nestle-Aland texts replace the γάρ with δέ, a change which usually will not substantially affect interpretation. Another variant which finds strong support is the omission of ῾Αγάρ, a reading that would significantly affect the understanding of the connection drawn by Paul.[40] The varying explanations of verse 25a proposed by the three exegetes point to the difficulty of their text. If the explanation of Chrysostom is excluded because of his incorrect understanding of συστοιχεῖ, the explanation of Theodore remains and merits consideration.

In conclusion, the Antiochene interpretation of Galatians 4:24–26 is valuable for exegetes today. Their remarks, while made for a tendentious purpose, point to an understanding of Paul’s hermeneutic which is accepted by some today and may well be correct.[41]

Notes

1. For the purposes of this paper, the distinction between typology and allegory as methods of exegesis expressed by Woollcombe and quoted by many is used. Typology is “the search for linkages between events, persons, or things within the historical framework of revelation, whereas allegorism is the search for secondary and hidden meanings underlying the primary and obvious meaning of a narrative.” (K. J. Woollcombe, “Biblical Origins and Patristic Development of Typology,” in Essays on Typology, ed. G. W. H. Lampe and K. J. Woollcombe, [London: S.C.M. Press, 19571, p. 40). The problem of the definition of these two terms complicates the discussion of this passage as is indicated in the conclusion of this paper.
2. Richard Longenecker, Biblical Exegesis in the Apostolic Period (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975), p. 126; Anthony T. Hanson, Studies in Paul’s Technique and Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974), pp. 160-61.
3. Longenecker, Biblical Exegesis, p. 127. This, he believes, is the case because Paul. “definitely goes beyond the literal and primary sense of the narrative to insist upon hidden and symbolic meanings in the words.”
4. A. T. Hanson, Studies in Paul, p. 161. He goes on to add that here Paul’s “typology becomes so complicated and uncontrolled that it is beginning to verge into allegory.” See also p. 203.
5. As Longenecker is prepared to do. See Longenecker, Biblical Exegesis, pp. 214–20. If, however, it is argued that the Pauline exegetical method is the norm for the church today, this issue would take on even greater importance.
6. For example, the alleged use of gematria and onomatology. See the summary and evaluation of this by E. Earle Ellis, Paul’s Use of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1957, pp. 52-53; and other works cited there).
7. Johannes Quasten, Patrology, vol. 3: The Golden Age of Greek Patristic Literature (Westminster, Md.: Newman Press, 1960), p. 402.
8. Henry B. Swete, Theodori Episcopi Mopsuesteni in epistolas b. Pauli connnentarii: The Latin Version with the Greek Fragments, with an Introduction, Notes, and Indices, 2 vols. (Cambridge: The University Press, 1880), 1:xxxv. The translator, however, does poor work at points. See J. B. Lightfoot (St. Pauls Epistle to the Galatians, 19th edn. [London: Macmillan, 1896; reprint edn., Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1957], p. 230). He terms it “marred by an indifferent translator.
9. Lightfoot, Galatians, p. 230.
10. Swete, Theodori 1: 73
11. Ibid. 1: 73–74.
12. Ibid. 1:74
13. M. F. Wiles, “Theodore of Mopsuestia as Representative of the Antiochene School,” in The Cambridge History of the Bible, vol. 1: From the Beginnings to Jerome, ed. P. R. Ackroyd and C. F. Evans (Cambridge: The University Press, 1970), pp. 507-8.
14. wete, Theodori 1: 79. A Greek fragment (also in Swete) reads: “ἀλληγορίαν ἐκάλεσεν τὴν ἐκ παραθέσεως τῶν ἤδη γεγονότων πρὸς τὰ παραόντα σύγκρισιν.”
15. Greer cites this passage as Theodore’s definition of typology, although he argues that “one may question the legitimacy of including the Hagar allegory under this definition.” Rowan A. Greer, Theodore of Mopsuestia: Exegete and Theologian (Westminster, Md.: Faith Press, 1961), p. 108.
16. Swete, Theodori 1:76.
17. Ibid. 1:78,
18. Ibid. 1:80-81.
19. While it appears from the Latin translation that Theodore understands the συστοιχεῖ to mean “is contiguous to,” this is probably incorrect. As Lightfoot (Galatians, p. 230) notes, both the context and the Greek fragment (which has “ἰσοδυναμεῖ”— “is equivalent to”) show that the translator has erred.
20. Ep. 5, 32.
21. “Καταχρηστικῶς τὸν τύπον ἀλληγορίαν ἐκάλεσεν.” Frederick Field, ed., ᾿Ιωαννου τὸν Χρυσοστομου ῾Ερμηνεια εἰς πασας τας του ἁγιου Παυλου ἐπιστολας, vol. 4: ῾Υπμομνηματα εἰς πας προς Γαλατας και ᾿Επφεσιους (Oxford: [T. Combe], 1846), p. 73.
22. H. G. Liddell and R. Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, 9th ed., rev. and augmented by H. S. Jones and R. McKenzie (Oxford: The University Press, 1940), p. 921. The NPNF series translator understands the term similarly, translating it “contrary to usage.” NPNF, series L 13:34.
23. G. W. H. Lampe, A Patristic Greek Lexicon (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1961), p. 729. So also Woollcombe (“Biblical Origins,” p. 56) who understands Chrysostom to mean that Paul uses the word “in an unusual sense.”
24. NPNF, series 1, 13:34. “Ο δὲ λέγει, τοῦτό ἐστιν· ἡ μὲν ἱστορία αὕτη· οὐ τοῦτο δὲ μὸνον παραδηλοῖ, ἁπερ φαίνεται, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἄλλα τινὰ ἀναγορεύει· διὸ καὶ ἀλληγορία κέκληται. Τί δὲ ἀνηγόρευσεν; Οὐδὲν ἕτερον ἢ τὰ παρόντα πάντα Field, ᾿Ιωαννου 4:73–74.
25. Stoderl makes a similar analysis: “Nach der Wortbedeutung versteht man unter Allegorie eine Redeform, die neben dem unmittelbaren Sinne einen mittelbaren und eigentlich beabsichtigten besitzt. In dieser weiteren Bedeutung passt das Wort Allegorie auch auf den Typus, das Vorbild.” Wenzel Stoderl, trans., Bibliothek der Kirchenväter, 2nd series, vol. 15: Johannes Chrysostomus: Kommentar cu den Briefen des hl. Paidus an die Galater und Epheser (Munich: Josef Kösel & Friedrich Pustet, 1936), P. 115.
26. NPNF, series 1, 13:34; Field, ᾿Ιωαννου 4:74.
27. Ibid
28. Field, ‘Roavvou 4:74. Chrysostom uses the verbs “γειτναίζει” and “ἅπτεται” to explain “συστοιχεῖ”
29. NPNF, series 1, 13:34; Field, ᾿Ιωαννου 4:74.
30. Quasten, Patrology 3:539.
31. Berthod Altaner, Patrology, trans. H. C. Graef (New York: Herder & Herder, 1961), p. 398.
32. Quasten, Patrology 3:539.
33. “‘᾿Αλληγορούμενα’ εἴπεν ὁ θείος ᾿Απόστολος, ἀντί τοῦ, Καὶ ἑτέρως νοούμενα. Οὐ γὰρ τὴν ἱστσρίαν ἀνεῖλεν, ἀλλὰ τὰ ἐν τῇ ἱστορίᾳ προτυπωθέντα διδάσκει MPG 82:489.
34. MPG.82:492.
35. Ibid.
36. A. T. Hanson, Studies in Paul, pp. 91-94.
37. So NEB and RSV. Many other translations use similar wording: AV, NASB, ASV, Jerusalem Bible, Berkeley, Williams, Goodspeed, Moffatt, et al.
38. The TEV translates similarly: “This can be taken as a figure.”
39. See, in contrast to Woollcombe (cited above), the discussions of James D. Smart (The Interpretation of Scripture [Philadelphia: Westminster, 1961], pp. 93-133) and Paul K. Jewett (“Concerning the Allegorical Interpretation of Scripture,” Westminster Theological Journal 17 [1954-551: 1-20.
40. Certainly the inclusion or exclusion of ῾Αγάρ in v. 25a must be carefully considered before asserting that Paul uses allegorical and/or rabbinical techniques to connect ῾Αγάρ and 2tvd. While space does not permit extensive discussion, it seems more probable that the original text did not include ῾Αγάρ. The omission is supported by p46, א, C, G, 1739, itmss, copsa, the earliest patristic witnesses, and other significant external evidence (see Westcott & Hort and Tischendorf for full information). The balance of transcriptional probability also appears to favor the omission(see Lightfoot, Galatians, pp. 192–93; and John Eadie, Commentary on The Epistle of Paul to the Galatians [Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 18941, p. 365), as does the intrinsic probability (see Lightfoot, Galatians, pp. 192-93; Herman N. Ridderbos, The Epistle of Paul to the Churches of Galatia, NICNT [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1953], pp. 176-77; and Franz Mussner, “Hagar, Sinai, Jerusalem: Zurn Text von Gal 4, 25a, ” Theologische Quartalschrift 135 [1955]: 56-60).
41. Besides those already cited above, see Ellis (Paul’s Use, pp. 52–53, 130), and O. Michel (Paidus und seine Bibel [Giitersloh: C. Bertelsmann, 1929], p. 110). Both men argue that Paul’s technique is typological, not allegorical. This view also has a respectable following in the commentaries on Galatians.