Paul now starts to explain what he means by the Old Testament facts he has just cited. These things can be understood as a figure is literally “which things are being allegorized.” To speak allegorically is to take a historical event or a statement and draw from it a meaning quite different from its original significance. In this case, the two women represent two covenants, that is they “stand for” (literally “are”) two covenants. For “covenant” see the notes on 3.15 and 17.

It may be necessary to restructure rather radically the statement these things can be understood as a figure. In the first place, these things must refer to the conception and birth of the two sons, and figure must be understood as a comparison which is designed to teach a particular truth. In some languages the closest equivalent may be “What happened in the case of Abraham’s two sons may be understood as referring to something important which is true,” “… may be compared to something else,” or “… may be understood as referring to something else.” The statements which follow must then normally be treated as similes or comparisons, for example, “the two women may be compared to the two covenants,” or “the two women are like, as it were, two covenants.”

Here again Paul finds it unnecessary to add a word of explanation about the term “covenant,” assuming common knowledge among his readers. The two covenants referred to are the covenant with Abraham (3.16-18), which has already been mentioned, and the covenant with Moses, enacted at Mount Sinai. Paul finds it more convenient and rewarding to mention the Sinai covenant first and to identify it specifically with Hagar, since no Jew would ever make the connection. Hagar was a slave, and her children would have the same status, unless the father was a free man and cared to adopt the children as his own. Paul concentrates on the status of the children as slaves and applies this to the covenant at Mount Sinai. Hagar represents this covenant, and those who are children of it (that is, share in it) are also born in slavery, since they are in bondage to the Law.

The arguments and the grammatical relations involved in verses 24 and 25 are unusually complex, and therefore it may be important to have some supplementary note indicating the basis for these allegorical comparisons. Such data can be given simply in terms of the historical facts in question. One of the difficulties involved in the second part of this verse is that the one may refer, as far as the Greek text is concerned, either to one of the women or to one of the covenants, because grammatically both terms are feminine in gender. One may therefore say “one of these covenants comes from Mount Sinai,” or “one of these women, that is, Hagar, comes from Mount Sinai.” In either case, of course, the covenant is made equivalent to Hagar, and Hagar is identified with it. The clause whose children are born in slavery may be made a separate sentence in a number of languages, for example, “Hagar’s children became slaves when they were born,” or “… were born as slaves.”

Quoted with permission from Arichea, Daniel C. and Nida, Eugene A. A Handbook on Paul’s Letter to the Galatians. (UBS Handbook Series). New York: UBS, 1976. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .