Perplexing is the description some have for this passage; Paul’s method of interpreting the Old Testament is curious. The question is posed whether he legitimized an uncontrolled and fanciful use of the allegorical method of interpretation. In other words, can we Christians today, based on Paul’s example, give symbolic meanings to biblical events without any evidence from Scripture that such interpretation is reasonable? For example, can we proclaim that the Tabernacle tent pegs refer to the Christian’s security in Christ, when Scriptures does not even hint at such an interpretation? Why would it not refer to the need for Christians to be anchored in the Word? Did Paul make an arbitrary connection in our passage? Are there no constraints to fanciful interpretations?

In our passage today, the Old Testament narrative of Hagar and Sarah gives no sense of the meaning that Paul gave it. Some use this to justify their wild interpretations of Scripture, claiming authority as a prophet or having a special word of knowledge. Conservative interpreters, though, have traditionally used what is called a “Grammatical-Historical” method of interpretation. This means a passage must be understood in its normal grammatical sense that would have been understood in the time it was written. Further, a passage should be understood in the context of the cultural and geographical setting. What did it mean to the original author and to his original audience? Paul’s interpreting of the story of Hagar and Sarah seems to disregard all this.

However, Paul was using the story for illustration purposes. He was not giving a definitive interpretation of the event and reading that meaning back into it. Rather he was using the story to bring his readers to a conclusion he had already written about. But in using this story, Paul brings in an emotive element as well as a certain irony. Emotive because the story leads to Hagar’s children being cast out, and therefore the Judaizers being cast out by the Galatians. Irony because Paul is using “The Law” (which term the Jews used to refer to the five books of Moses, namely, Genesis through Exodus) to argue against living by the Law. In other words, he turned the legalizers’ arguments back on them, using their own methods against them. As it were, he is fighting them on their turf.