Types and shadows.

[postroad]

Paul indicated that what had been understood as having literal fulfillment was in fact figurative for something else.

Why should a skeptic accept his self proclaimed authority to declare such?

Colossians 2:16-17 New International Version (NIV)

Freedom From Human Rules
16 Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. 17 These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ.

New International Version (NIV)

Hagar and Sarah
21 Tell me, you who want to be under the law, are you not aware of what the law says? 22 For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by the slave woman and the other by the free woman. 23 His son by the slave woman was born according to the flesh, but his son by the free woman was born as the result of a divine promise.

24 These things are being taken figuratively: The women represent two covenants. One covenant is from Mount Sinai and bears children who are to be slaves: This is Hagar. 25 Now Hagar stands for Mount Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to the present city of Jerusalem, because she is in slavery with her children. 26 But the Jerusalem that is above is free, and she is our mother. 27 For it is written:

“Be glad, barren woman,
you who never bore a child;
shout for joy and cry aloud,
you who were never in labor;
because more are the children of the desolate woman
than of her who has a husband.�[a]
28 Now you, brothers and sisters, like Isaac, are children of promise. 29 At that time the son born according to the flesh persecuted the son born by the power of the Spirit. It is the same now. 30 But what does Scripture say? “Get rid of the slave woman and her son, for the slave woman’s son will never share in the inheritance with the free woman’s son.�

[historia]

Paul indicated that what had been understood as having literal fulfillment was in fact figurative for something else.

Right, ancient people generally believed that texts could have multiple levels of meaning. Paul sees an allegorical meaning in this text in addition to its literal meaning.

This tends to run contrary to our modern way of approaching texts. But that's what happens when we consider the works of an author like Paul who wrote in a time and culture very different from our own.

Why should a skeptic accept his self proclaimed authority to declare such?

Paul's words are only authoritative for Christians. Why would a non-Christian skeptic be concerned with Paul's authority in the first place?

[postroad]

Paul indicated that what had been understood as having literal fulfillment was in fact figurative for something else.

Right, ancient people generally believed that texts could have multiple levels of meaning. Paul sees an allegorical meaning in this text in addition to its literal meaning.

This tends to run contrary to our modern way of approaching texts. But that's what happens when we consider the works of an author like Paul who wrote in a time and culture very different from our own.

Why should a skeptic accept his self proclaimed authority to declare such?

Paul's words are only authoritative for Christians. Why would a non-Christian skeptic be concerned with Paul's authority in the first place?

I'm fairly certain that a secondary interpretation would not be allowed to destroy the literal one as does much of the New Testament.

His followers make it their business to make me obedient to that authority.

2 Corinthians 10:4-6 New International Version (NIV)

4 The weapons we fight with are not the weapons of the world. On the contrary, they have divine power to demolish strongholds. 5 We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ. 6 And we will be ready to punish every act of disobedience, once your obedience is complete.

[historia]

Paul indicated that what had been understood as having literal fulfillment was in fact figurative for something else.

Right, ancient people generally believed that texts could have multiple levels of meaning. Paul sees an allegorical meaning in this text in addition to its literal meaning.

This tends to run contrary to our modern way of approaching texts. But that's what happens when we consider the works of an author like Paul who wrote in a time and culture very different from our own.

I don't think the ancients would have allow for the secondary interpretation to destroy the literal interpretation as does Christian theology?

How does Christian theology "destroy the literal interpretation" of this passage?

Paul's words are only authoritative for Christians. Why would a non-Christian skeptic be concerned with Paul's authority in the first place?

His followers make it their business to make me obedient to that authority.

How do Paul's followers "make" you obedient to his authority?

[postroad]

[Replying to post 4 by historia]

Christianity claims to have taken the place of the covenant people. That position has softened in recent history but is still represented in the NT.

Philippians 3:1-3 New International Version (NIV)

No Confidence in the Flesh
3 Further, my brothers and sisters, rejoice in the Lord! It is no trouble for me to write the same things to you again, and it is a safeguard for you. 2 Watch out for those dogs, those evildoers, those mutilators of the flesh. 3 For it is we who are the circumcision, we who serve God by his Spirit, who boast in Christ Jesus, and who put no confidence in the flesh—

Matthew 27:24-26 New International Version (NIV)

24 When Pilate saw that he was getting nowhere, but that instead an uproar was starting, he took water and washed his hands in front of the crowd. “I am innocent of this man’s blood,� he said. “It is your responsibility!�

25 All the people answered, “His blood is on us and on our children!�

26 Then he released Barabbas to them. But he had Jesus flogged, and handed him over to be crucified.

Are we to pretend that Christianity isn't an aggressive proselytizing movement which has dominated and attempts to dominate societies? That it's end game doesn't include an absolute theocracy?

1 Corinthians 15:20-26 New International Version (NIV)

20 But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. 21 For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. 22 For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. 23 But each in turn: Christ, the firstfruits; then, when he comes, those who belong to him. 24 Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power. 25 For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. 26 The last enemy to be destroyed is death.

[Sojournerofthearth]

[Replying to post 1 by postroad]

PostPosted: Fri Feb 15, 2019 5:47 pm Post subject: Types and shadows.
Paul indicated that what had been understood as having literal fulfillment was in fact figurative for something else.

Why should a skeptic accept his self proclaimed authority to declare such?

All through the bible, there is dualism... It has a literal fulfillment as well as a figurative one. I'm not sure why a skeptic who felt like Paul had a self proclaimed authority would accept any part of the Bible.

Wow, that NIV is really the worst translation. It says,

Colossians 2:16-17  Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:  (17)  Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body [strike]is[/strike](word is added in) of Christ.

IOW, Don't let men Judge you in your observance of the Holy Days, or the New Moons or the Sabbath Days, they are a shadow of things yet to come, but the body of Christ, or Don't let men judge you but only the Church, i.e. the body of Christ.

Notice Conybeare and Howson's The Life and Epistles of St. Paul, page 346: "The festivals observed by the apostolic church were at the first the same with those of the Jews; and the observation of these was continued, especially by the Christians of Jewish birth, for a considerable time."

On page 574, they write: "Nay, more. He himself [Paul] observed the Jewish festivals."

Conybeare and Howson's concludes that, that despite the common misunderstanding of these verses, the apostolic church kept God's holy days.

James Cardinal Gibbons, The Faith of our Fathers, 88th ed., pp. 89.
"But you may read the Bible from Genesis to Revelation, and you will not find a single line authorizing the sanctification of Sunday. The Scriptures enforce the religious observance of Saturday, a day which we never sanctify."

Catholic Virginian Oct. 3, 1947, p. 9, art. "To Tell You the Truth."
"For example, nowhere in the Bible do we find that Christ or the Apostles ordered that the Sabbath be changed from Saturday to Sunday. We have the commandment of God given to Moses to keep holy the Sabbath day, that is the 7th day of the week, Saturday. Today most Christians keep Sunday because it has been revealed to us by the[Roman Catholic] church outside the Bible."

The observance of Sunday was fostered upon the apostolic church under threat of death... but not under the threat of Paul.

Act_17:2  And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures,

Act_18:4  And he reasoned in the synagogue every sabbath, and persuaded the Jews and the Greeks.

[Overcomer]

postroad wrote:

Christianity claims to have taken the place of the covenant people.

There might be some people who have made that suggestion, but to state that it is the position of "Christianity" is a gross generalization and, quite frankly, wrong. Scripture states that God isn't finished with the nation of Israel. Read Romans 11. And see here for an explanation of why replacement theology is incorrect:

https://www.gotquestions.org/replacement-theology.html

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 1 by postroad]

As to the conversation with Historia: As I read it, Historia wonders why anyone but a Christian should care about what Paul says about anything at all. This is, after all, Theology and Doctrine, not Apologetics. Perhaps the OP should be moved to Apologetics?

One does not accept the teachings of Paul on its own merit; that would be ridiculous. Paul himself would repudiate this. One accepts Paul ONLY after one accepts the resurrection of Jesus.

And one accepts THAT based on what what everyone accepts any historical claim: the evidence.

Till then, all debates about Paul's authority is premature.

[Sojournerofthearth]

[Replying to post 1 by postroad]

Hagar and Sarah
21 Tell me, you who want to be under the law, are you not aware of what the law says? 22 For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by the slave woman and the other by the free woman. 23 His son by the slave woman was born according to the flesh, but his son by the free woman was born as the result of a divine promise.

24 These things are being taken figuratively: The women represent two covenants. One covenant is from Mount Sinai and bears children who are to be slaves: This is Hagar. 25 Now Hagar stands for Mount Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to the present city of Jerusalem, because she is in slavery with her children. 26 But the Jerusalem that is above is free, and she is our mother. 27 For it is written:

“Be glad, barren woman,
you who never bore a child;
shout for joy and cry aloud,
you who were never in labor;
because more are the children of the desolate woman
than of her who has a husband.�[a]
28 Now you, brothers and sisters, like Isaac, are children of promise. 29 At that time the son born according to the flesh persecuted the son born by the power of the Spirit. It is the same now. 30 But what does Scripture say? “Get rid of the slave woman and her son, for the slave woman’s son will never share in the inheritance with the free woman’s son.�

People who try and interpret what they read in the NT without having studied the OT, are bound to get things all out of sorts. Because they are intrinsically linked.

So trying to grasp Paul’s concern with the Galatians, you’d have to grasp what he is speaking about.

First of all, the covenant God ratified with the Children of Israel included 1 sacrifice, the Passover. It included the 10 Commandments and the Statutes. It did NOT include the daily sacrifices, the washings, the rituals that were imposed on them AFTER the Receipt of the Covenant… because of their sin.

Those, “works of the law,� were put in place as a substitute for the Holy Spirit that would be offered to those called of God after Christ’s sacrifice. They were there to remind Israel about the cost of sin. At that point, the vail that cut mankind off from access to God, was torn, guarding entrance to the Holy of Holies. For the first time since the Garden of Eden, mankind had access to enter into God’s presence without the washings, sacrifices and various “works of the law.�

But it did not do away with the 10 Commandments or the Statutes of God. In fact, Christ actually magnified the Law of God… Suddenly, getting in bed with a woman who was not your wife was not the only way to commit adultery. All you had to do to break the spirit of the law was just to sit around and contemplate it… even if you never actually acted on it. The law became not only a matter of what you did, but it was even what you thought about. You didn’t have to kill someone. Wishing they were dead was still murder.

So when Paul says no one is justified before God BY THE LAW, that the LAW KILLS, that the Law is a SCHOOL TEACHER, He’s not saying you don’t have to keep the Law… He’s saying if you are trying to be saved BY KEEPING THE LAW, you’re in some serious trouble, because it’s a pretty tall order to keep your thoughts under control at all times. And the penalty of sin is death. So, without that sacrifice of Christ (because the blood of bulls and goats cannot take away sin), you’re cursed… to suffer the penalty of death for every single sin you ever committed. By the law is the knowledge of sin… we don’t sin. But unless you can show God where you have never sinned, then your righteousness is as filthy rags. (see the book of Job)

When Paul speaks of freedom from the Law, he’s not saying you’re free to sin all you want, he’s saying you have an advocate who will offer up his own blood for your past sins upon your repentance, thereby “freeing you� from the penalty of death incurred. Breaking God’s Law, kills. Bondage is referring to verses like

Joh 8:34 Jesus answered them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin.

1Ki 21:25 But there was none like unto Ahab, which did sell himself to work wickedness in the sight of the LORD, whom Jezebel his wife stirred up.
Proverbs 5:21-23 For the ways of man are before the eyes of the LORD, and he pondereth all his goings. (22) His own iniquities shall take the wicked himself, and he shall be holden with the cords of his sins. (23) He shall die without instruction; and in the greatness of his folly he shall go astray.

Romans 6:15-16 What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid. (16) Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?

So, in his allegory regarding Hagar and Sarah, he begins by reminding them, they were sinning outside the law when they were called… idolatry… outside of the Grace of God. And now, they want to entangle themselves with more rituals… by people who are looking for a following.

You who desire to be under the law, do you know the law? Do you understand that you can’t, as you are being persuaded, go back and get circumcised in accordance with the law? You already didn’t do it?

He is telling them that they have been given the opportunity to be grafted into the tribe of Israel.

Genesis 17:18-19 And Abraham said unto God, O that Ishmael might live before thee! (19) And God said, Sarah thy wife shall bear thee a son indeed; and thou shalt call his name Isaac: and I will establish my covenant with him for an everlasting covenant, and with his seed after him.

The only way to enter into the Kingdom of God is through that line. That’s what he is telling them.

The bondage is the penalty of death, of being entangled with sin. Any sin. Whether misapplying God’s law or idolatry, it is still bondage. Jerusalem was under bondage. It was governed by the Roman Government. It is a play on words. But Jerusalem from above, (Rev_21:2 And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.) is free. They have a heart turned to God, to God’s way and are not in bondage to any MAN.

You have to know the whole book to put it together… its line upon line, precept upon precept… here a little, there a little.

Isaiah 28:9-10 Whom shall he teach knowledge? and whom shall he make to understand doctrine? them that are weaned from the milk, and drawn from the breasts. (10) For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little:

According to the Bible, if one is so inclined.

Soj