Was Hagar a believer?

[Henoch]

According to Galatians, Hagar engendereth bondage allegorically speaking
The one is from Mount Sinai, which engendereth bondage; this is Hagar.

In Genesis we see her meeting the Angel of YHWH(Jesus) and being conforted by Him, seems to call Him El-Roi in faith
And seemed to receive blessings from God

Was she still completely opposed to the seed of faith?
I think her descendants would go on to serve idols and oppress the Israelites?

"Woe is me, for I sojourn in Meshech,
For I dwell among the tents of Kedar!"

Do y'all think Hagar was still saved? Did she believe in Christ for her salvation?
Or was she the opposite of freedom in Christ(slavery to sin)?

 

[Contra_Mundum]

I think we should be hopeful about the historic Hagar, given the faith she shows and the grace God showed her.

The NT typological appropriation of the saga in which she found herself, is more about the person of Abraham and the ways in which he acted either according to a "works principle" or a "faith principle." Hagar vs. Sarah in Galatians is shorthand description for two contrasting methods attempting to gain blessing from God, which was Abraham's responsibility.

Historically, when Abraham followed Sarah's counsel and took Hagar to bed, he was seeking to fulfill by his flesh through his "assistance" of God-who-promised; rather than seeing that path as contrary to the path of patience God had set him to follow. The son of promise was given to him and Sarah when both of them were quite past any hope of earthly prowess, thus demonstrating the sole power of God bringing about his promised result miraculously through apparently useless instruments. Hence, the barren marriage was overturned because of faith alone. Paul follows an interpretive path that was already blazed by Isaiah (Is.54:1), taking the historical events as signs pointing beyond themselves.

It is the case that often those in the OT who present the reader with faithless acts or lives should not be regarded hopefully. But we must remember that some who are known to be saints (such as Moses or David) are yet used as negative signs, proof they were not the true object of hope for the people of God. Hebrews 11 contains definitive assertions concerning men like Samson, that they were believers in spite of their failures. This is helpful, for it directs us to make the most of even small demonstrations of faith from others we find in the OT narratives. Nevertheless, the more of a figure's character that is revealed in the text, the more we have to judge of that person's faith. King Ahab shows a flicker of humility near the end of his life, acknowledging God's justice, but this recognition should not undo the verdict against him by the prophets: that he was a paradigm of wickedness.

 

[Andres]

Galatians 4:21 Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law?
22 For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman.
23 But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise.
24 Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.
25 For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children.
26 But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.

My understanding of the above passage is that Hagar represents the covenant of works, contrasted with the covenant of promise (grace) represented by Sarah. Abraham was to trust God by faith for the promised seed, Isaac, but Abraham and Sarah grew impatient and strove to bring God's promise to pass through their own efforts (having Ishmael via Hagar). I would think the analogy would be weakened if Hagar and Ishmael ended up being redeemed of the Lord but ultimately I know that whatever God decrees is right.

 

[CasualWestminsterEnjoyer]

Paul explicitly says that his interpretation in Galatians 4 is an "allegory."

"Which things are an allegory" (v. 24)

That is, it's meant to be an illustration of the relationship between the Covenant of Works and the Covenant of Grace, not a historical assertion regarding Hagar and her character. Just like how we wouldn't take Christ's parables as historical accounts, Paul's allegory is a parable borrowing from a historical account — not a historical interpretation.

Historically, there is no reason why Hagar couldn't have been saved. She was a member of Abraham's household, and would have received instruction in the true religion. Jehovah was her God, and Christ visited her in the desert (and she obeyed him).

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

These are what God's word says of or to Hagar in Genesis 16:

v. 7: "the Angel of the LORD found her"

vv. 8, 9, 10, 11: the Angel of the LORD spoke directly to her

v. 11: "the LORD has heard your affliction"

v 13: then she called the name of the LORD who spoke to her, "Thou God seest me": for she said, "have I also here seen Him who seeth me?"

v. 14: "Therefore the well was called Beer Lahai Roi (the Well of the One Who Lives and Sees Me)"
_____

Did Hagar not have a direct encounter with the LORD? Did He not have compassion and care for her, and seek her out?

The Angel of the LORD (whom we understand to be the pre-incarnate Christ) appeared to her, directing her, showing her great mercies. And she obeyed Him.

Hagar was not a throw-away insignificant-to-the-LORD disposable character to be dumped after she was no longer of use to Him! The God of mercies cared for her.

Yes, she believed in Him, in His gracious personal encounter with her.

 

[Henoch]

That is, it's meant to be an illustration of the relationship between the Covenant of Works and the Covenant of Grace, not a historical assertion regarding Hagar and her character. Just like how we wouldn't take Christ's parables as historical accounts, Paul's allegory is a parable borrowing from a historical account — not a historical interpretation.

Very helpful answer thanks brother!

Do you think it would be appropriate to Christologically allegorize most of the historical passages of the Old Testament(like the church fathers) because Paul did it or
Should we just accept the inspired allegories like those of Paul and not allegorize ourselves based on the analogy of faith?

 

[CasualWestminsterEnjoyer]

Very helpful answer thanks brother!

Do you think it would be appropriate to Christologically allegorize most of the historical passages of the Old Testament(like the church fathers) because Paul did it or
Should we just accept the inspired allegories like those of Paul and not allegorize ourselves based on the analogy of faith?

Allegorizing is fine in certain contexts, like sermon illustrations. We should avoid doing it so much though that it obscures the literal meaning of the Bible, or to support ideas that the Bible never teaches. We have to be sparing. Origen allegorizes far too much and claims every passage has an allegorical meaning. In reality no passage "has" an allegorical meaning, because allegory is when the preacher applies a passage metaphorically to something that is entirely distinct from its meaning.

 

[paranymph]

Galatians 4:21 Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law?
22 For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman.
23 But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise.
24 Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.
25 For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children.
26 But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.

My understanding of the above passage is that Hagar represents the covenant of works, contrasted with the covenant of promise (grace) represented by Sarah. Abraham was to trust God by faith for the promised seed, Isaac, but Abraham and Sarah grew impatient and strove to bring God's promise to pass through their own efforts (having Ishmael via Hagar). I would think the analogy would be weakened if Hagar and Ishmael ended up being redeemed of the Lord but ultimately I know that whatever God decrees is right.

The allegory is more about Abraham's lack of faith. Hagar is a part of the event, but it is Abraham who seeks to fulfill the covenant by his works. God gave Abraham a promise (Isaac), but instead he sought the works of the flesh (Ishmael).

 

[Contra_Mundum]

I would argue that Paul's reference to "allegory" is not what allegory has come to mean--fanciful and essentially unbounded speculations and connections made according to an interpretive whimsy. Rather, the Spirit's intention points to type/antitype relations, where the internal logic of Scripture bounds and controls the inferences.

Allegory is often just word-association and spiritual gymnastics, and which has mainly the Christian in view and his thoughts and behavior. Typology is concerned with Christ and redemption, with the unfolding of God's self-revelation, with how that one subject is reinforced, elaborated, and amplified in the context of the covenant of grace.

 

[CasualWestminsterEnjoyer]

I would argue that Paul's reference to "allegory" is not what allegory has come to mean--fanciful and essentially unbounded speculations and connections made according to an interpretive whimsy. Rather, the Spirit's intention points to type/antitype relations, where the internal logic of Scripture bounds and controls the inferences.

Allegory is often just word-association and spiritual gymnastics, and which has mainly the Christian in view and his thoughts and behavior. Typology is concerned with Christ and redemption, with the unfolding of God's self-revelation, with how that one subject is reinforced, elaborated, and amplified in the context of the covenant of grace.

I see a few problems with that view.

1) Paul used the word "type" often, and if he meant "type," there is no reason why he shouldn't have called it that.

2) In the 1st century, "allegory" already meant what it does today. Philo (20 B.C.-50 A.D.) wrote about the Essenes, "The entire interval between early morning and evening is devoted to [spiritual] exercise. They read the Holy Scriptures and apply themselves to their ancestral philosophy by means of allegory, since they believe that the words of the literal text are symbols of a hidden nature, revealed through its underlying meanings." Many other examples are cited by Lewis and Short and by the Diccionario Griego Español.

3) Nothing mentioned in Galatians 4 has the meaning, typologically speaking, which Paul assigns to it in his allegory. Neither Mt. Sinai nor Jerusalem signified "bondage" to the ancient Jews. They only came to signify that in Paul's day in relation to the New Covenant. Jerusalem, throughout the Old Testament, is taken as a symbol of the city of God, God's people, the church, the Kingdom of Christ's power, the place of God's worship... (Ps. 122; Ps. 51:18; Ps. 79:1; Ps. 102:21; Ps. 116:19; Ps. 125:2). Sinai, for the Jews, signified God's covenant of grace with his people and his revelation of his will. If they did signify that originally, then that would strongly imply that the Old Covenant was no part of the covenant of grace, which would be contrary to our Confession of Faith and to the OPC report on republication.

4) Most commentators, or at least those I've read, consider that Paul, in Gal. 4, is investing these symbols with a new meaning.

 

[MW]

3) Nothing mentioned in Galatians 4 has the meaning, typologically speaking, which Paul assigns to it in his allegory. Neither Mt. Sinai nor Jerusalem signified "bondage" to the ancient Jews. They only came to signify that in Paul's day in relation to the New Covenant. Jerusalem, throughout the Old Testament, is taken as a symbol of the city of God, God's people, the church, the Kingdom of Christ's power, the place of God's worship... (Ps. 122; Ps. 51:18; Ps. 79:1; Ps. 102:21; Ps. 116:19; Ps. 125:2). Sinai, for the Jews, signified God's covenant of grace with his people and his revelation of his will. If they did signify that originally, then that would strongly imply that the Old Covenant was no part of the covenant of grace, which would be contrary to our Confession of Faith and to the OPC report on republication.

I am not sure Rev. Buchanan intended to say it has the strict meaning of typology. It seemed to me he was suggesting that there is something in the broader covenantal sweep of Scripture and its "internal logic" that required allegorisation. You are correct to point out the allegorical meaning is not inherent in the original narrative. Paul acknowledges that this is not the original meaning, and yet he literally says these things are to be allegorised. That is, he uses the narrative to reveal a broader covenantal pattern that has becomes evident in light of Christ and the present division that has been created. Moreover, one already sees a "double" referent in the prophets in relation to the judgment oracles on Jerusalem, so Paul was not introducing this element for the first time.

 

[Sam Jer]

Nothing mentioned in Galatians 4 has the meaning, typologically speaking, which Paul assigns to it in his allegory. Neither Mt. Sinai nor Jerusalem signified "bondage" to the ancient Jews. They only came to signify that in Paul's day in relation to the New Covenant. Jerusalem, throughout the Old Testament, is taken as a symbol of the city of God, God's people, the church, the Kingdom of Christ's power, the place of God's worship... (Ps. 122; Ps. 51:18; Ps. 79:1; Ps. 102:21; Ps. 116:19; Ps. 125:2). Sinai, for the Jews, signified God's covenant of grace with his people and his revelation of his will. If they did signify that originally, then that would strongly imply that the Old Covenant was no part of the covenant of grace, which would be contrary to our Confession of Faith and to the OPC report on republication.

Can something be a type of more than one thing?

We are used to making Joseph a type of Christ. But can he be a type of the church to? Is Zechariah doing typology or allegory here (or am I seeing something that isn't there)?

As for thee also, by the blood of thy covenant I have sent forth thy prisoners out of the pit wherein is no water.
Turn you to the strong hold, ye prisoners of hope: even to day do I declare that I will render double unto thee;
(Zechariah 9:11-12)

And it came to pass, when Joseph was come unto his brethren, that they stript Joseph out of his coat, his coat of many colours that was on him;
And they took him, and cast him into a pit: and the pit was empty, there was no water in it...
And they took Joseph's coat, and killed a kid of the goats, and dipped the coat in the blood;
(Ge. 37:23-24, 31)

I am not sure Rev. Buchanan intended to say it has the strict meaning of typology. It seemed to me he was suggesting that there is something in the broader covenantal sweep of Scripture and its "internal logic" that required allegorisation. You are correct to point out the allegorical meaning is not inherent in the original narrative. Paul acknowledges that this is not the original meaning, and yet he literally says these things are to be allegorised. That is, he uses the narrative to reveal a broader covenantal pattern that has becomes evident in light of Christ and the present division that has been created. Moreover, one already sees a "double" referent in the prophets in relation to the judgment oracles on Jerusalem, so Paul was not introducing this element for the first time.

Is there a hard distinction between allegory and typology?

 

[MW]

Is there a hard distinction between allegory and typology?

Yes. Allegory is not necessarily historical, or it might take the historical in an unhistorical direction. Typology is grounded in the historical. "These things happened as ensamples," 1 Cor. 10:11. The happening is essential to the typology.

When Paul uses "allegory" in Gal. 4 he is signalling that he was drawing an ahistorical meaning from the events. At the same time, however, the ahistorical meaning is ALSO grounded in biblical typology, because he is picking up on a development that happens within the Old Testament itself, especially the prophets. And that is Sarah's rejoicing as the barren woman. In other words, there is an actual historical progression behind this particular allegory that Paul uses. It is not made up from thin air.

 

[Sam Jer]

Yes. Allegory is not necessarily historical, or it might take the historical in an unhistorical direction. Typology is grounded in the historical. "These things happened as ensamples," 1 Cor. 10:11. The happening is essential to the typology.

When Paul uses "allegory" in Gal. 4 he is signalling that he was drawing an ahistorical meaning from the events. At the same time, however, the ahistorical meaning is ALSO grounded in biblical typology, because he is picking up on a development that happens within the Old Testament itself, especially the prophets. And that is Sarah's rejoicing as the barren woman. In other words, there is an actual historical progression behind this particular allegory that Paul uses. It is not made up from thin air.

Which prophets? And how can we judge a non-canonical allegory to know if it is legit or not?

 

[MW]

Which prophets? And how can we judge a non-canonical allegory to know if it is legit or not?

He directly quotes from Isaiah. Throughout Isaiah and Jeremiah the city of Jerusalem splits in two. On the one hand she is judged and made desolate. On the other hand she is promised restoration. The "below" and "above" is already part of the prophetic movement. In Hosea you have the key statements, "not my people" and "are my people," which is taken up by First Peter as part of his "restoration" theme, and which he applies to believers in Christ. These are historical developments.

I don't understand the second question or its frame of reference.

 

[Sam Jer]

I don't understand the second question or its frame of reference.

Suppose someone - a dear brother, a godly Presbyterian minister, a wide-eyed heretic, Origen, Augustine, Luther - presents some allegory to me. How do I know if I should accept it or reject it? How do I test the claim?

 

[MW]

Suppose someone - a dear brother, a godly Presbyterian minister, a wide-eyed heretic, Origen, Augustine, Luther - presents some allegory to me. How do I know if I should accept it or reject it? How do I test the claim?

I figured that was the idea, but I don't know what the "claim" is. Are they taking a passage of Scripture and saying this is its actual meaning, or are they using it as an illustration of something else? The first would undermine the "literal" sense and must be rejected. The second falls within legitimate application to practical and pastoral circumstances.

 

[Sam Jer]

At the same time, however, the ahistorical meaning is ALSO grounded in biblical typology, because he is picking up on a development that happens within the Old Testament itself, especially the prophets.

I figured that was the idea, but I don't know what the "claim" is. Are they taking a passage of Scripture and saying this is its actual meaning, or are they using it as an illustration of something else? The first would undermine the "literal" sense and must be rejected. The second falls within legitimate application to practical and pastoral circumstances.

So is what Paul did here something we can apply to other texts?

 

[MW]

So is what Paul did here something we can apply to other texts?

He is saying you have to allegorise it to understand the present situation. This is not a "nice illustration." It is the historical reality. But it is not to be applied to the "texts." It is to the understanding of what has developed as to the physical descendants of Abraham. Paul is picking up on historical tensions in the Genesis history and showing how they have progressed in a somewhat ironical way, so that the people who prided themselves on descent from Abraham but have rejected the faith of Abraham are to be identified with the children of Hagar. It is ironical because they would have looked down on the children of Hagar.