Did Paul Allegorize Sarah & Hagar? | David deSilva on Galatians 4:21–31

5 days ago 34

The question, Did Paul Allegorize Sarah & Hagar in large bold font with the show's name, What in the Word? on the upper right-hand corner.

In Galatians 4:21–31, the Apostle Paul refers to the story of Sarah and Hagar as an allegory: Hagar corresponds to Mount Sinai and the present Jerusalem, while Sarah corresponds to the Jerusalem above. Is Paul twisting the Old Testament? Is he reading ideas into Genesis that aren’t really there?

Join host Kirk E. Miller and New Testament scholar David deSilva in this episode of What in the Word? as they explore Paul’s use of the Old Testament and how it serves as a sophisticated defense of receiving God’s promises by faith.

Follow the show on YouTube, Spotify, Apple Podcasts, and more.

What you’ll find

Don't Skip the Puzzling Passages. Watch What in the Word? + get a free course with a Logos trial. Get a free course.

Connect with us

Ready to increase biblical literacy? Like and share. To go the extra mile, leave us a review on your preferred platform.

See all of our episodes.

Subscribe to get future episodes. (Bonus: We’ll send you a discount to use on your first purchase.)

Thanks for subscribing to Word by Word!

Use code WORDBYWORD to save 10% on your first order.

WORDBYWORD Copy code

Episode guest: David deSilva

David deSilva is Trustees’ Distinguished Professor of New Testament and Greek at Ashland Theological Seminary in Ashland, OH, where he has taught since 1995. He has held visiting professorships at the École Biblique et Archéologique Française de Jérusalem, Regent College in Vancouver, and Colombo Theological Seminary in Sri Lanka. He holds degrees from Princeton University, Princeton Theological Seminary, and Emory University.

He is the author of forty books, including:

Honor, Patronage, Kinship, and Purity: Unlocking New Testament Culture (InterVarsity Academic, 2022)
An Introduction to the New Testament: Contexts, Methods, and Ministry Formation (InterVarsity Academic, 2018)
Introducing the Apocrypha (Baker Academic, 2018)
A Week in the Life of Ephesus (InterVarsity Academic, 2020)
Archaeology and the Ministry of Paul: A Visual Guide (Baker Academic, 2025)
Archaeology and the World of Jesus: A Visual Guide (Baker Academic, 2025)
Archaeology and the Book of Revelation: A Visual Guide (Baker Academic, 2026)

He also has commentaries on:

Galatians (Eerdmans, 2018)
Ephesians (Cambridge, 2022)
Hebrews (Eerdmans, 2000)
Jude (Baker Academic, 2012)

He has also served as director of traditional music and organist at local churches since 1984. David is married to Donna Jean Heitman deSilva, with whom he shares three adult sons.

Episode synopsis

The pastoral crisis behind Galatians 4:21–31

The churches in Galatia, which Paul and Barnabas had planted, were being influenced by rival teachers who claimed that Paul had not told them the full story. According to these teachers, faith in Christ was not enough by itself. Gentile believers also needed to take up a Torah-observant life and receive circumcision if they wanted to belong fully to the people of God.

The rival teachers’ argument seemingly had some weight. God’s promises were given to Abraham and his descendants via the Abrahamic covenant, and circumcision functioned as the entry rite into that covenant (Gen 17). Surely then, so the rival teachers reasoned, if gentiles were to receive the blessings of the covenant, they had to receive its sign: circumcision. They had to become Jewish.

Paul, however, interprets this as a direct assault on the true gospel.

Contrary to these rival teachers who claim Paul’s gospel is insufficient, Paul maintains that his gospel is exactly what he received, first from Christ himself and secondly as approved by the Jerusalem apostles (Gal 1–2).
To require circumcision and Torah observance does not complete the gospel. It distorts it. It implies that Christ’s work is insufficient and that the gift of the Spirit is not enough to make gentiles full members of God’s covenant people (Gal 3–6).

That is why the tone of Paul’s letter is so urgent. He is not engaged in an abstract theological debate. He is fighting for the freedom of his converts and for the truth of the gospel which he had delivered to them.

Why this passage perplexes and proves difficult

In Galatians 4:21–31, Paul interprets Hagar and Sarah figuratively, claiming these two women represent things not specifically mentioned in the text of Genesis 16 and 21. Paul describes his interpretation using a word many English translations translate “allegorically” (ἀλληγορέω). For many, allegory suggests an interpretive approach detached from Scripture’s actual meaning, injecting it instead with hidden symbolism. For instance, ancient interpreters like Philo of Alexandria used the Bible’s narratives, like Genesis 16, in ways that moved far from the historical and literary concerns of the text. Hijacking the text in this way strikes many as irresponsible, especially those who want to affirm the authority and clarity of Scripture.

24 with the different renderings highlighted.

Not only this, but Paul defends the gospel by this interpretation. If Paul’s use of the Old Testament is arbitrary—simply making it say what he wants—then it calls into question whether the gospel is exegetically defensible or if it’s only propped up by illegitimate appeals.

What Paul means by “allegorically”

David deSilva clarifies: We shouldn’t load the Greek word ἀλληγορέω with everything we might associate with the word “allegory” based now on two millennia of allegorical readings of Scripture. At its most basic level, the word means that Paul takes the Genesis account as communicating something beyond a strict recounting of the events themselves. Paul reads the Genesis account figuratively, where Sarah and Hagar are understood to represent other things (e.g., the Mosaic covenant, which did not even exist in Hagar’s time). But to make this move, Paul goes beyond a “literal,” surface-level description of the account.

Importantly, Paul’s reading does not abandon the interests of the Genesis narrative though. Paul’s reading remains concerned with themes like covenant promises, offspring, and inheritance.

How Galatians earlier prepares for Paul’s allegory

Paul’s figurative application of Genesis 16 and 21 comes as the culmination of an argument he had already begun developing earlier in the letter.

The Abrahamic covenant and the Mosaic covenant must be distinguished. The law, which came 430 years after the promise, cannot nullify that earlier promise. Thus, inheritance of God’s blessing has always depended on God’s promise, not on what could be acquired by the flesh. The law was never intended to be the basis for receiving the inheritance (Gal 3:15–18).

Rather, the law had an intentionally temporary function: God gave it as a pedagogue leading up to Christ’s arrival (Gal 3:19–24; 4:1–7).

In fact, those who rely on Torah observance, far from receiving the inheritance, receive God’s curse. Those who fail to keep God’s law are cursed, and no one is able to keep it (Gal 3:10–14).

Thus, Abraham’s true children, the heirs of the promises made to him, are identified not by circumcision—not by flesh—but by faith. Those who share Abraham’s trust are his true offspring (Gal 3:7–9, 25–29).

So by the time Paul reaches Galatians 4:21–31, he has already laid the theological groundwork for this figurative application of Genesis 16 and 21. Paul’s “allegory” is not the basis of his argument so much as a climactic, homiletical expression of it.

Ishmael and Isaac represent two ways of pursuing the promise

Paul reads Sarah and Hagar and their production of offspring in Genesis 16 and 21 as representing two different covenantal ways of relating to God.

God’s redemptive promise to Abraham included the promise that God would multiply Abraham greatly and bless the world through Abraham’s offspring (Gen 12:1–3; 15:1–6). Thus, Abraham and Sarah’s childlessness was not merely a matter of an elderly couple’s infertility but a direct challenge to the fulfillment of God’s promise.

Paul appeals to Genesis 16 and 21 to contrast the means of Ishmael’s and Isaac’s births.

Abraham and Sarah, faced with God’s not-yet-fulfilled promise, tried to secure the promised offspring by their own efforts. Hagar would step in as Sarah’s surrogate. In that sense, Ishmael was born “according to the flesh.” His birth represents a human attempt to bring about God’s purposes through fleshly means.
Isaac’s birth, by contrast, came through God’s supernatural intervention. Sarah was barren, and she and Abraham were well beyond any natural age for childbearing. Isaac’s existence depended entirely on divine power and promise, not human ability. In that sense, Isaac was born “according to promise.” His birth represents receiving God’s promise through trust.

As Paul reads Genesis 16 and 21, then, he makes his case from this principle genuinely present in the narrative of Genesis itself. He identifies two ways of attempting to secure God’s promise blessing:

through fleshly efforts, or
through trust in God’s promise.

So too, Paul observes, the offspring of the slave woman (Hagar) are born into slavery, and thus not heirs of the promise, whereas the offspring of the free woman (Sarah) are full children and heirs of the inheritance (children of the promise).

The figural correspondences: covenants and their children

Paul then extrapolates these exegetically derived principles from Genesis and maps them onto other corresponding realities.

Literal person	Hagar	Sarah
Literal status	Slave woman (Gal 4:22, 30)	Free woman (Gal 4:22, 30)
Literal birth	According to the flesh, i.e., what humans could produce (Gal 4:23, 29)	According to the promise/Spirit, i.e., what only God could produce (Gal 4:23, 29)
Corresponding covenant	Sinai covenant (Gal 4:24, 25)	[Abrahamic covenant]
Corresponding children	Slaves (Gal 4:24, 25, 31)	Children, thus heirs (Gal 4:26–28, 30–31)
Corresponding Jerusalem	The present Jerusalem (Gal 4:25)	The Jerusalem above (Gal 4:26)

Paul compares the birth of Ishmael (“according to the flesh”) to those who rely on Sinai’s law-covenant as a means of attaining the promises. This stands in contrast to the principle behind Isaac’s birth, and with it the Abrahamic covenant, of receiving God’s promises purely by faith.

Paul then makes a shocking move: While the rival teachers certainly would have seen themselves as descendants of Sarah, the matriarch of the Jewish people, Paul maintains that those who rely on Torah observance and circumcision are actually (spiritually speaking) children of Hagar! Hagar corresponds to that covenant that bears children for slavery: Sinai. The path which these rival teachers assumed led to inheritance corresponds, it turns out, to slavery!

Therefore, Paul concludes, to submit to the law as the basis of covenant identity is not a step forward into fuller obedience. It is a step backward into slavery. As Paul has argued earlier, the law supervised God’s people for a time, but that time has ended with the coming of Christ. Those who cling to the Mosaic covenant now that Christ has come are not living in the freedom of God’s final redemptive act.

The Jerusalem above and Paul’s use of Isaiah 54:1

So too the Jerusalem in Paul’s day, as the center of Torah-based religion, corresponds to Hagar and her slavery. In contrast, Sarah’s offspring make up the citizenry of “the Jerusalem above.”

Paul reinforces this point by quoting Isaiah 54:1, a prophecy addressed to Jerusalem depicting a barren woman who will one day have many children. According to Paul, as the gospel goes to the nations, the eschatological Jerusalem receives countless new children. The desolate one is becoming abundantly fruitful.

David deSilva also observes how Isaiah 54:1 immediately follows the famous passage about the suffering servant in Isaiah 53. This likely links the expansion of God’s people among the nations to the saving work of YHWH’s servant. The new family of God is created through the death and resurrection of Christ.

Use the Important Passages section in Logos’s Guides to locate related texts to the one you’re studying. Start a free trial of Logos today.

The practical application of Paul’s allegory

Paul instructs the Galatians to take the words that Sarah spoke to Abraham, “Cast out the slave woman and her son, for the son of the slave woman shall not inherit with the son of the free woman” (Gal 4:30), and apply them to these false teachers. They must reject the rival teachers’ message because it threatens to undermine their inheritance in Christ.

Paul wants believers to experience the freedom they have in the Spirit, refusing to adopt a rule-based approach to following Christ. At the same time, Paul insists that this freedom ought not lead to unrighteousness, but to a holiness that arises from the Spirit’s work within us (see Gal 5:13–26).

Advice for teaching and preaching this passage

Kirk E. Miller urges preachers not to rush straight to Paul’s conclusions without helping hearers understand the exegetical logic behind them. If people only hear that Hagar equals Sinai and Sarah equals the Jerusalem above, but fail to understand how Paul arrives there, then the passage’s message will prove less compelling. Instead, teachers should explain the Genesis narrative and show how Paul is drawing his conclusions from it.

David adds that teachers don’t need to use the word “allegory” when preaching this passage. What matters most is helping people see the two contrasting ways of relating to God.

David also recommends teaching the passage in connection with the larger flow of Galatians (lectio continua). Paul’s argument in 4:21–31 carries much more force when readers have already absorbed Paul’s earlier claims about Abraham, promise, law, and inheritance. Approached in context, Galatians 4:21–31 functions less like an isolated proof text and more like a powerful flourish at the climax of Paul’s case.

Logos values thoughtful and engaging discussions on important biblical topics. However, the views and interpretations presented in this episode are those of the individuals speaking and do not necessarily reflect the official position of Logos. We recognize that Christians may hold different perspectives on this passage, and we welcome diverse engagement and respectful dialogue.