150 WORD STUDIES IN THE NEW TESTAMENT. [Cu. IV.
were the basis of the Talmud. As Jowett justly says: “Strange as it may at first appear that Paul’s mode of interpreting the Old Testament Scriptures should not con- form to our laws of logic or language, it would be far stranger if it had not conformed with the natural modes of thought and association in his own day.” His familiarity with this style of exposition gave him a real advantage in dealing with Jews.
It is a much-mooted question whether, in this passage, Paul is employing an argument or an illustration. The former would seem to be the case. On its face, it seems improbable that, as Dr. Bruce puts it: “it is poetry rather than logic, meant not so much to convince the reason as to captivate the imagination.” * Comp. the argument in ch. iii. 16, and see note. It appears plain that Paul believed that his interpreta- tion actually lay hidden in the O. T. narrative, and that he adduced it as having argumentative force. Whether he re- garded the correspondence as designed to extend to all the details of his exposition may be questioned ; but he appears to have discerned in the O. T. narrative a genuine type, which he expanded into his allegory. For other illustrations of this mode of treatment, see Rom. ii. 24; ix. 33; 1 Cor. ii. 9; ix. 9,10; x. 1-4.
For these are. Hagar and Sarah are, allegorically. Sig- nify. Comp. Matt. xiii. 20, 88; xxvi. 26, 28; 1 Cor. x. 4, 16.
The one. Covenant.
From Mount Sinai (a7r6 dpovs Zwd). The covenant eman- ating from Sinai: made on that mountain. The old coven- ant. See 2 Cor. iii. 14.
* Paul’s Conception of Christianity, p. 68.
{ On allegorical interpretation in general see F. W. Farrar, History of Interpretation, Bampton, 1855. On the early training of Paul, Derenbourg, Histoire de la Palestine @aprés les Thalmuds, chs. xxi, xxii.
Cx. IV.] THE EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 151
Which gendereth to bondage (els SovAelvav yervaca). That is, the Sinaitic covenant places its children in a condition of bondage; note the personification and the allegorical blend- ing of fact and figure.
Which is Hagar (7715 éotiv"Ayap). The Sinaitic covenant is that which, in Abraham’s history, is Hagar: which is alle- gorically identified with Hagar the bondmaid.
25. For this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia (76 6¢”’Ayap wa dpos éotiv év tn ApaBig). The sentence is not paren- thetical. This covenant is the Hagar of that allegorical history which is explained by the resemblance of her name to the Arabic name of Sinai. The Greek order is not dpos wa, as ver. 24, but Zwa dpos, in order to bring into juxta- position the two names which are declared to coincide. The evidence, however, for the actual identity of the names is deficient. The proper name Hagar signifies wanderer or Fugitive (Arab. hadschar, comp. Hegira, the term for the flight of Mahomet). It has probably been confounded with the Arabic echadschar a stone or rock, which cannot be shown to be an Arabic designation of Sinai. The similarity of the first two gutturals might easily lead to the mistake.*
Answereth to (cuvotoyei). N.T.°. The subject of the verb is Hagar, not Mount Sinai. Lit. stands in the same row or file with. Hence, belongs to the same category. See on elements, ch. iii. 3.
Jerusalem which now is. As contrasted with “the Jeru- salem above,” ver. 26. The city is taken to represent the whole Jewish race.
* See Lightfoot’s excursus in Commentary on Galatians, p. 190 ff.
+ Lipsius explains the verb from the usage of grammarians, as having letters of equal value, and says that it is an example of the Gematria of the rabbini- cal schools, one of the methods of esoteric interpretation by which a numerical value was given to the letters of a word, and the word was connected with any other word the letters of which had the same numerical value, as Mashiach Messiah, and nachash serpent.