Click here to read today's passage on Bible Gateway.
Redeeming the Time Today's passage focusing on what the life of an "imitator of God" looks like. When you walk in love, Paul writes, this is what it looks like. There are a number of important thoughts along those lines in this passage: stay away from sexual immorality, covetousness, filthy/foolish talk and joking. Don't be who you once were! You are changed and now walk in the light, not the darkness! This section really comes to a head in vv. 15-20, which calls us to walk not as unwise people, but as wise - "making the best use of the time" (ESV). I want to take a minute on that phrase there. The ESV translates it that way here to make the idea a little easier to understand, but the word behind it is used in two other places in the NT (Galatians 3:13 and 4:5) and is translated as "redeem" there. The ESV chose here to use a different phrase I think because "redeem" isn't a common word in our English vocabulary. Let's explore that word "redeem". Somewhat ironically I think, the best preservation and use of this word that we have in modern English is in arcades/carnivals. You know what I'm talking about: you've spent $20 at Chuck e Cheese and gotten hundreds of little prize tickets. You run to the prize area, salivating at the thought of all the goodness that will be yours with your hundreds of tickets. We say in English that you're going to "redeem" your prize. You "buy" your prize with your tickets. This is the definition of redeem, which has it's roots in the marketplace. Suitable translations consist of " buy up, buy off, redeem, liberate, deliver". I think the most suitable way of thinking of it here is the sense of "buy up". Making the most of your time is actually a really good translation of the purpose of the statement, but "buying up" gives us a more vivid word picture. Let's all imagine for a moment that time actually IS money. That rather than a seemingly unlimited amount of time that costs nothing, every hour and minute of our lives costs money. Would you live the same way that you do now? I doubt it. What God is telling us here is that this is how we should view our time: that it is expensive and fleeting. Buy up all the time you can. Purchase it and treat it like it's worth something. Make the most of it because it is valuable. How do you do that? By living the way that chapter 5 has told us already. If time is valuable, why waste it coveting what your neighbor has and telling dirty jokes? It seems ridiculous to spend your time that way if you're living like time is valuable. Don't be foolish - seek the will of God (v.18). Don't be controlled by alcohol, be controlled by the Holy Spirit. When you get drunk, you surrender control of your mind to something other than yourself, which is incredibly dangerous possibly in physical ways but definitely in spiritual ones. Surrender control to the Holy Spirit, giving thanks in all things and loving in the name of Jesus. All in all, a lot of very practical ways to "redeem the time". We don't have time to cover the last part here - it IS incredibly important as a picture of what marriage is designed to be, but as the majority of you readers aren't married, we'll skip it for now. If you have any questions, be sure to let me know! We'll cover some of it in the "household codes" of Colossians when we get there. Click here to read today's passage on Bible Gateway. Be Angry Today's passage has an interesting little verse. Here's what verse 26 (and 27) says in the ESV: "Be angry and do not sin; do not let the sun go down on your anger, and give no opportunity to the devil." What's going on with this verse? Is it telling us to be angry? How can we be angry and not sin? Isn't anger a sin? It's a pretty short thought, but leaves a lot of questions in my mind. Luckily, the very wise and pastoral Biblical Greek scholar Bill Mounce has done a few posts on this topic. It can get technical at some points, so I'll summarize his thoughts for you. First, his introduction: "I have been thinking about anger lately. I was raised in a traditional Christian home and church, and like many people believed that anger was wrong. Period. Anger was the response of people who who weren’t mature in their faith and had not experienced the sanctifying work of the Holy Spirit. I don’t remember being taught this explicitly, but I suspect it was part of our cultural environment. This is why Eph 4:26-27 always bothered me. In the NIV it says, “‘In your anger do not sin’: Do not let the sun go down while you are still angry, and do not give the devil a foothold.” ...Forget the fact that it is impossible to release all anger and forgive all offenses (completely) within a 24 hour period. If someone says they able to do this, I suspect they are a very legalistic, religious person. Deep offenses, even for the highly mature, take time to forgive and for anger to dissipate. Only one person I know was able to forgive all offenses immediately, and he was hanging on a cross the last time he had to do so." [1] He goes on to struggle with the Greek verb for "anger" and whether or not in this passage it is an indicative (saying "If you happen to get angry", simply making a statement about it) or an imperative (a command, "Be angry"). Different translations really struggle with how best to understand this phrase. He goes on to write: "The other thing that bothered me was when a counselor friend of mine said that anger was an emotion and as such was not intrinsically evil. “Emotions,” he said, “are not good or bad, right or wrong. It is an issue of what you do with them.” I didn’t believe him at first (since I was such a “good Christian”; see my earlier comment), but I did know that anger is the just and right reaction of God to evil, but of course we just called that the “wrath of God” (cf. Heb 3:10, 17) and didn’t make any application to human life. But to make it even more complicated, James writes, “Everyone should be quick to listen, slow to speak and slow to become angry” (1:19). Wait a minute. Are we called to become angry, and then be sure it dissipates by nightfall, or are we to become angry slowly?" [2] So what conclusion does he come to? "ὀργίζεσθε is, I think, clearly an imperative...We are told to get angry. The other side of the coin, and a necessary side — have you ever seen a coin with only one side? — is that anger is to be balanced with not sinning. How do you not sin? “Do not let the sun go down while you are still angry, and do not give the devil a foothold” (v 27, NIV). We don’t allow the anger to move to sin by not giving it a sustained presence in our life; we deal with the situation that has caused us anger, by sunset. And when we do this, we are not letting Satan have a toehold in our life. To continue to live in anger is, in fact, giving Satan a toehold in our life, and he will most certainly use that position to launch a full offensive into our heart." [3] Mounce continues on, analyzing what the NT has to say on this issue of anger. I won't post it all here - you can read all of it if you click the links at the bottom - but make sure you read this next part, because it is a very important explanation: "There are some situations in which anger is the right and only response, but the limitations the context places on the imperative is what keeps the response measured and appropriate. I have often wondered if Jesus was angry. We think of the cleaning of the temple, but the text never says he was angry. In fact, the only time that [anger] is used of Jesus is in Mark 3:5 where it describes his response to the Pharisees’ desire to catch him healing on the sabbath. “He looked around at them in anger and, deeply distressed at their stubborn hearts, said to the man, “Stretch out your hand” (NIV). Now interestingly, [deeply distressed] means, “be grieved with, feel sympathy”. Interesting; Jesus holds anger and sympathy hand-in-hand. Maybe there is a clue here to our theology of anger... ...Yet another clue is the admonition in the New Testament that believers not to be given to anger (Eph. 4:31; Col. 3:8; 1 Tim. 2:8). So another helpful verse supporting the imperative of Eph 4:26 is Jam 1:19; “Understand this, my dear brothers: everyone must be quick to listen, slow to speak, and slow to become angry” (ESV). We are to become angry slowly, and relinquish it quickly. There is much more that could be said, but this is enough to convince me that the imperative in Eph 4:26 means what is says. Hoehner has this to say, and it is helpful. “When God is angry, he is always in control of his anger. Unlike God, however, people have a tendency to allow anger to control them…. A believer who is controlled by the Spirit is angry at the right time and never angry at the wrong time. For example, when someone in the body of believers has been wronged, it is correct for one to be angry but not to be consumed by that anger” (page 621)... ...The fact of the matter is that when faced with evil, it should illicit anger. It did for Jesus. It does for God. We will see it in all its fury at judgment. But as Hoehner says, it must be at the right time in the right way, with anger never controlling us." [4] (emphasis mine) Very, very important thoughts for today. Questions or comments on any of it? Click here to read today's passage on Bible Gateway. Descending, Ascending, and the Purpose of Leaders in the Church Today's reading is a little more confusing and complex than normal. First, let's take a look at how it's structured to help us understand the flow of thought: "This section falls into two major sections: 4:1–6 and 4:7–16. The logic of this passage unfolds as follows: A. Live your call focused on unity (4:1–6) 1. Live worthy of your call by keeping the unity of the Spirit (4:1–3) 2. Unity is motivated by theological oneness (4:4–6) B. Each person has received grace to build up Christ’s body (4:7–16) 1. Grace has been given to each one (4:7) 2. Psalm 68:18 is proof (4:8) 3. Parenthetical comment on the ascension (4:9–10) 4. People are given as gifts to serve and build up (4:11–16) a. Servants build toward maturity, unity, and knowledge of Christ (4:11–13) b. A mature and growing faith is evidenced by truth and love (4:14–16)" [1] The most confusing part is definitely the quote from Psalm 68 and the following parenthesis and comments about. What exactly is Paul saying here and why is it important? The main force of the quote is that God gives gifts to people. The main idea of the passage has to do with the gifts that God has provided for the building up of His church. Another quick note to summarize the parenthetical statement helps to clear it up a lot: "Paul reasoned that Christ’s ascent implies a previous descent. The phrase “lower, earthly regions” represents the farthest extreme from the heights of heaven...these “lower regions” refer to the earth, the place where the Son came in his incarnation. The same Christ who descended is the very one who ascended. As a result of his descent and ascent, nothing is hidden from him. All things are subject to him; no realm in heaven or earth is beyond his control. That he “ascended” means not that he left the earth and involvement in it but rather that he completely fills all things. That Christ will fill the whole universe refers to his power and control over all of his creation. Christ is Lord of the whole universe—past, present, and future. He fills all things with himself as their sovereign Head, yet he fills the church, his body, with the blessings of his Spirit, grace, and gifts (see also 1:10, 23)." [2] That's the most confusing part. Once we can get past the confusing-ness of what Paul is saying here, we enter a very rich and important passage. It's very important because it answers a huge question. To paraphrase verse 11 into the form of a question: "Why does God give leaders to the church?" Here's how I break down the answer to that question:
So, why does God give leaders to the church? To equip the members of the church to go out and do ministry in the world, in order that we may be unified and mature in faith and strong in doctrine. When we work together toward single purpose, the backbiting and arguing turns into truth and love, and when the body functions correctly and each part works properly, the church builds itself up in love. In short, as Pastor Hau mentioned at the church membership meeting on Sunday, the purpose of leaders in the church is to work themselves out of a job. Leaders exist in the church not to be the center of everything, but to train others to grow up in the faith, serve, and lead as well. When all this works the way it should, the church no longer needs to be spoon-fed, but people know how to study the Bible on their own, how to serve, and how to love and lead. In short, that's why I do this blog. I'm not trying to anything revolutionary here. I believe that any of you could do this if you had the time and put the effort in. This blog isn't as much about giving you information as showing you how to understand how to study the Bible. It's my pleasure and calling to teach you, but it is not my goal. My ultimate goal is that eventually YOU will all be the teachers. I realize that is not how most people think of pastors and leaders in the church. It involves making a big change in we think about church itself and the purpose of sermons and Sunday School classes. It is an important and Biblical change. So next time you go to church and receive teaching, don't think of it so much as information, but as tools. It's more than just a transfer of facts, but a gift of tools to equip YOU for God's kingdom work. God delights to give us the gifts we need to equip us for His work. Questions? Comments? [1] Klyne Snodgrass, Ephesians, The NIV Application Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1996), 195.
[2] Bruce B. Barton and Philip Wesley Comfort, Ephesians, Life Application Bible Commentary (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, 1996), 81-82. Click here to read today's passage on Bible Gateway. Paul the Prisoner and Mysteries Today is an awesome passage with some very memorable verses, but nothing too difficult I think. Paul makes use of the word "mystery" which I don't think we've covered on the blog yet, but which I spent some time explaining in our Colossians sermons series. We'll probably cover it more in depth when we get to Colossians, but the basics are pretty obvious in this passage: we aren't talking about how we in modern times think of the word. This isn't some crime to be solved or anything like that. This is how the word is being used by Paul: "The Greek mystērion...describes any divine or heavenly reality which is regarded as hidden or secret and can be known only when revealed by the gods... Mystērion appears twenty-one times in Paul’s letters out of a total of twenty-seven NT occurrences. Usually it points not to some future event hidden in God’s plan, but to his decisive action in Christ here and now. Paul normally employs the term with reference to its disclosure or its being revealed (Rom 16:25–26; 1 Cor 2:10; Col 1:26–27; Eph 1:9; 3:3, 5)." [1] This passage is relatively clear about this: the mystery is something in God's plan that no one saw coming - in this case the joining of the into the plan of God. This is a good word to pay attention to, because as you can see in the quote above, it occurs several times in important places. Also I just wanted to provide you today with a little bit of visual "historical background". Paul mentions again in verse 1 of today's passage that he is a prisoner. Here's an infographic to help us to visualize and understand what that meant for him: Questions? Comments? [1] Gerald F. Hawthorne, Ralph P. Martin and Daniel G. Reid, Dictionary of Paul and His Letters (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1993), 621-622.
Click here to read today's passage on Bible Gateway. One Big Idea "The Apostle Paul often uses complex constructions to convey important ideas that are difficult to maintain in translation. In the original Greek text, Eph 2:1–5 is essentially one long sentence that contains only one big idea. The rest of the text introduces a state of affairs in which the one main thought occurs. Ephesians 2:1–2 describes the situation in which the Ephesian believers found themselves: dead in trespasses and walking according to the course of the world and its ruler.The discourse switches to Paul and those with him in Eph 2:3, indicating that they were in the same spiritual predicament: indulging fleshly lusts and desires. Consequently, they were children of wrath—just like all other sinners. In Ephesians 2:4, Paul shifts to God’s state of affairs. He is rich in mercy because of His great love, even though we were dead in our transgressions. Paul links back to being “dead in your trespasses” by repeating the same words just before the one main thought of Eph 2:1–5. This repetition bookends the human and divine states of affairs. The one main idea in this section becomes clear at the end of Eph 2:5: we were made alive, together with Christ. So why does Paul use such a complex construction? The significance of being made alive with Christ is only fully understandable when we recognize just how lost we were in our sin. We weren’t just dead; we were under Satan’s power and the world’s influence. God’s love is amazing, but it becomes even more awesome as we consider the context in which He gave us new life. He loved us even when we were children of wrath—seemingly unlovable. This complex state of affairs makes clear why Paul says “it is by grace we were saved” (Eph 2:8). Our deadness in sin left God no other alternative but to pour out His rich mercy on us." [1] [1] John D. Barry, Michael R. Grigoni, Michael S. Heiser et al., Faithlife Study Bible (Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 2012).
Click here to read today's passage on Bible Gateway. Introduction to Ephesians New book today! Look below for some introductory material, but first just a quick comment on the beginning of Ephesians. After the initial greeting comes a monster of a sentence. The NET Bible has a good note explaining it: "Ephesians 1:3–14 comprises one long sentence in Greek, with three major sections. Each section ends with a note of praise for God (vv. 6, 12, 14), focusing on a different member of the Trinity. After an opening summary of all the saints’ spiritual blessings (v. 3), the first section (vv. 4–6) offers up praise that the Father has chosen us in eternity past; the second section (vv. 7–12) offers up praise that the Son has redeemed us in the historical past (i.e., at the cross); the third section (vv. 13–14) offers up praise that the Holy Spirit has sealed us in our personal past, at the point of conversion." [1] That's right - ONE SENTENCE. Greek New Testaments usually put periods at the three main divisions, but grammatically and conceptually this huge chunk of verses is really one big overarching thought. Take some time to read it again and try to break down how the thought flows - check for modifiers and other things to show you how the thoughts relate to each other. It'll take some work, but you'll be glad you took the time to do it. Now, introductory material: "PURPOSE A. The theme of the book is found in 1:10 and 4:1–10, which emphasizes the unity of all things in Christ. Christ restores the image of God in man and in the world (kosmos). B. Ephesians is one of Paul’s four prison letters. The outlines of Ephesians and Colossians are very similar. Colossians was written to combat the heresy of incipient Gnosticism in the Lycus River Valley of Asia Minor. Ephesians was written as a circular letter to the same area to prepare the other churches for the coming heresy. Colossians is a terse, hard-hitting letter, while Ephesians is an extended logical presentation of the same truths using very long sentences: (1:3–14, 15–23; 2:1–9; 3:1–7, etc.). THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN COLOSSIANS AND EPHESIANS A. The historical relationship between Colossians and Ephesians 1. Epaphras (Col. 1:7; 4:12; Philemon 23) was converted during Paul’s Ephesian campaign (Acts 19) a. He took his newly found faith back to his home area, the Lycus River Valley. b. He started three churches—in Hierapolis, Laodicea and Colossae. c. Epaphras sought Paul for advice on how to combat this merging of world views by the heretics. Paul was in prison at Rome (early 60’s). 2. False teachers came and began to merge the gospel with Greek ontology a. spirit and matter were co-eternal b. spirit (God) was good c. matter (creation) was evil d. a series of eons (angelic levels) existed between the good high God and a lesser god who formed matter e. salvation was based on knowledge of secret passwords which helped people progress through the eons (angelic levels) B. The literary relationship between Paul’s two letters 1. Paul heard of the heresy in these churches which he had never visited personally. 2. Paul wrote a hard-hitting letter in short, emotional sentences, directed at the false teachers. The central theme was the cosmic lordship of Jesus. This is known as Paul’s letter to the Colossians. 3. Apparently, soon after writing Colossians, with time on his hands in prison, he developed these same themes. Ephesians is characterized by long sentences and developed theological concepts (1:3–14, 15–23; 2:1–10, 14–18, 19–22; 3:1–12, 14–19; 4:11–16; 6:13–20). It takes Colossians as a starting point and draws out its theological implications. Its central theme is the unity of all things in Christ, which was a contrast to the incipient gnostic concept." [1] [1] Biblical Studies Press, The NET Bible First Edition Notes (Biblical Studies Press, 2006), Eph 1:3.
[2] Robert James Utley, vol. Volume 8, Paul Bound, the Gospel Unbound: Letters from Prison (Colossians, Ephesians and Philemon, Then Later, Philippians), Study Guide Commentary Series (Marshall, TX: Bible Lessons International, 1997), 62-65. Click here to read today's passage on Bible Gateway. Paul's Conclusion Don't just skip over the last few verses of today's passage! This is more than just "Sincerely" or "Cordially Yours" from Paul. His conclusion in this letter is very important because he repeats his main points from the letter to drive home what the Galatians should be taking away from it. Take some time to read the last few verses and make sure that you understand them and have been tracking with the rest of the letter. Other than that, just a quick issue to address on verse 11. What is Paul talking about? Since we read printed copies, not the original letter, it can be a little confusing. The answer is relatively simple if you understand some historical background: "Up to this point, Paul had probably dictated the letter to a scribe. Then he took the pen into his own hand to write his final, personal greetings. Paul did this in other letters as well, to add emphasis to his words and to validate that the letter was genuine (see 1 Corinthians 16:21; Colossians 4:18; 2 Thessalonians 3:17). Paul pointed this out, perhaps because the contrast in the original letter was obvious. Paul’s scribe, if trained in writing, would have written in well-formed Greek characters. Paul, a preacher and not a scribe, had a less precise writing style. Another theory is that Paul wrote in large letters due to poor eyesight (see 4:13–15). Most likely, however, Paul wrote in large letters for emphasis, as these last verses reiterate the main points of this epistle. They were his signature. If these “large letters” were printed in our Bibles in all capital or boldface letters, we would understand the effect of Paul’s style and why he mentioned it." [1] There you go - pretty simple answer! I personally hold to the "poor eyesight" theory myself, as I think it explains some comments scattered throughout Paul's letters, but it's impossible to know for sure and it's definitely not a vital issue of the faith. Questions? Comments? [1] Bruce B. Barton, Galatians, Life Application Bible Commentary (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House, 1994), 213.
Click here to read today's passage on Bible Gateway. The Fruit of the Spirit Paul makes a relatively big transition near the end of today's passage: he has spent the bulk of Galatians on the Law and the Gospel, but now he shifts his focus: "By his extended argument during much of this letter, Paul had refuted those who insisted on a law-centered life. But in 5:13, following his pattern of reserving the final parts of his letters for practical application, Paul turned to the personal, spiritual lives of the Galatians. He had warned them not to follow the teaching of the Judaizers. Here he warned them about following their own wishes and desires. Slavery was a threat from the outside influence of the false teachers, but it was an equal threat from the inside desires of the flesh. Paul began with the warning in 5:13, “Do not use your freedom to indulge the sinful nature” (NIV), and he immediately contrasted it with the second part of Christ’s summary of the law, “Serve one another in love” (NIV). Paul wanted them to replace self-indulgence with loving service to others. In this section, Paul explained that the secret to loving our neighbor as ourselves is by living in the Spirit and not giving in to our sinful human desires. He contrasted the characteristics of a life motivated by the sinful nature and a life motivated by the Spirit." [1] That big transition explained, I want to take a minute to focus on a very well-known passage, "The Fruit of the Spirit". Actually, I really just want to say one thing, but it's an important one: fruit here is singular. It's easy to miss in English because of the way our language works, but we are not talking here about "fruits" (plural) but "fruit" (singular). This is in contrast to the many "works" of the flesh right before this. Is this significant? I think so - both the term and the fact that it is singular are very significant. First the singular: these qualities come as a whole. The force behind this verse is that these things all come at once through the word of the Spirit. You can't say, "I have peace and patience, but I'm just really terrible at that love stuff." It doesn't work that way. The Spirit brings all of these things into existence and they collectively are the result of the Spirit's work. This isn't a checklist. These aren't life goals. Which brings me to the second thought on the term fruit: notice that Paul specifically DOESN'T use "works" again - this is the fruit of the Spirit, not the "works of one in the Spirit" as you might expect to complete the parallelism with the previous list. Why? "Paul’s introduction of the word fruit is filled with meaning. While we might have expected him to say, “The works of the Spirit are,” Paul needed to use a fresh term. He had used “works” enough throughout this letter. Besides, “works” indicates lots of activities that people must do. “Fruit,” however, is singular, indicating that all the fruits exist as a unit (like a bunch of grapes rather than many different pieces of fruit) and that all are important to all believers (unlike “gifts” that are dispensed differently to different people). So Paul conveyed the meaning of a full harvest of virtues. Also, “fruit” is a by-product; it takes time to grow and requires care and cultivation. The Spirit produces the fruit; our job is to get in tune with the Spirit. Believers exhibit the fruit of the Spirit, not because they work at it, but simply because they are filled with the Holy Spirit. The fruit of the Spirit separates Christians from a godless, evil world, reveals a power within them, and helps them become more Christlike in their daily lives. In contrast to the list it follows, Paul did not describe these characteristics as obvious. The previous ones reside in us; the following ones come as a result of the Spirit’s presence." [2] (emphasis mine) Amen!!!! [1] Bruce B. Barton, Galatians, Life Application Bible Commentary (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House, 1994), 177.
[2] Ibid, 187. Click here to read today's passage on Bible Gateway. An Allegory (?) In today's passage Paul goes into more explanation and uses some links to the past in order explain. In the ESV, 4:24 reads "Now this may be interepreted allegorically..." Other translations read "figuratively" (NIV) and "as an illustration" (NLT). The ESV opts for the the closest translation, as the Greek word here is "allegoreo" - clearly the source of our English word "allegory". But what does word actually mean? We attach a certain specific meaning to the word "allegory" - here's the definition from Miriam-Webster: "the expression by means of symbolic fictional figures and actions of truths or generalizations about human existence" We think of allegory usually as being symbolic of something else. For example, someone might take the creation account of Genesis to be allegorical, meaning that it didn't actually happen that way, but that the days of creation are merely symbolic of a "greater truth" that we are supposed to understand. Some would also take the account of Adam and Eve's sin that way as well. If we believe that the Bible is true, believing these types of things puts us in a very difficult situation in consistently understanding and interpreting the Bible. Why do I bring up this question? There's an important issue to deal with here: "Before we expound this text, it might be good for us to examine whether this is an allegorical interpretation or a piece of typological interpretation. Definitions are critical here and, I suppose, the final difference is not that great for determining meaning. But it is worth our while to see if Paul is seeking hidden meaning (allegory) or simple correspondences that occur according to God’s plan of redemption (typology)... ...Allegory: “allegory takes concrete matters mentioned in Scripture and tradition (mythology) to be surface appearance or vestiges of underlying deeper truths which the method claims to bring to light.” Typology: “Persons, events, and institutions of Scripture and tradition are taken as prototypes of present persons, events, and institutions, which are explained as their fulfillment, repetition, or completion within a framework of salvation history.”...While Paul clearly emphasizes correspondences (typology), he may hint that such is the deeper meaning of the Old Testament narratives (allegory)...the emphasis ought to be given to the typological." [1] We talked about typology back in Mark (that post was on our previous website, so unfortunately I can't link back to it). The question is: why does it matter? Why are we even talking about this? This passage is the go-to passage for support of "allegorical" interpretation of the Bible. This was a common approach early on in the church, but as you might imagine, it leads to problems. This approach basically says that beneath the "literal", obvious meaning of the text is a "spiritual" meaning for those that are godly enough to see it. The problem with this is that it is INCREDIBLY subjective. Even if nearly everyone comes away with the same "literal" meaning of the text, you can find 50 different allegorical meanings from 50 people. It's looking reading into the text things that aren't there. So the question in front of us is what exactly Paul means by "allegorically". I would argue even more strongly than the quote above that what Paul is demonstrating here is not allegory as we think of it and attach meaning to that word in our culture, but rather typology. His approach is grounded in history and doesn't seek to change the meaning of the original passage, but serve to show how it illustrates the Old and New Covenants. It's a complex topic - it's not easy to understand the difference at a glance, but it is very important. Most of us probably don't have a lot of experience with "allegorical interpretation", but it has run amok in the church in centuries past and caused a lot confusion and misunderstanding about what and how God speaks through His word. Here's a longer quote showing the typology of the passage: "Philo and the early church’s use of allegory and Paul’s use of the same technique differed significantly. The former totally ignored the historical setting, developing teachings entirely foreign to the original author’s intent. Paul’s approach is better characterized as typology. Paul assumed the historical setting of Genesis and the unity of the Old and New Covenants, thus he was able to build on the similarities between them because they have one author—God. In this particular context, Paul compared the Abrahamic Covenant and the Mosaic Covenant and draws application to the New Covenant of Jer. 31:31–34 and the NT. Four connections in 4:21–31 may be drawn: (1) the two mothers stand for two families; one formed by natural means, the other by supernatural promise; (2) there was tension between these two mothers and their children as there was tension between the Judaizer’s message and Paul’s gospel; (3) both groups claimed to be descendants of Abraham, but one was in bondage to the Mosaic Law and the other was free in Christ’s finished work; (4) two mountains were connected to these different covenants, Mt. Sinai with Moses and Mt. Zion with Abraham. Mt. Zion or Mt. Moriah was where Abraham offered Isaac as a sacrifice (cf. Gen. 22), which later became Jerusalem. Abraham was looking for a heavenly city (Heb. 11:10; 12:22; 13:14, New Jerusalem, Isa. 40–66) not an earthly Jerusalem. Paul may have used this typology because: (1) the false teachers had used this same approach to their advantage claiming to be the true seed of Abraham; (2) the false teachers may have used an allegory from Moses’ writings to push their Jewish covenant theology so Paul uses the father of the Jewish faith, Abraham; (3) Paul may have used it because of Gen. 21:9–10, which is quoted in verse 30 and says, “drive off” the natural son; in Paul’s analogy this would refer to the Judaizers; (4) Paul may have used it because of the exclusivism of the Jewish false teachers, particularly in their contempt for the Gentiles; in Paul’s typology the Gentiles are accepted and the racially confident ones are rejected by God (cf. Matt. 8:11–12); or (5) Paul may have used this typology because he has been emphasizing “sonship” and “heirship” in chapters 3 & 4. This was the heart of his argument: our adoption into the family of God by faith through Christ alone, not natural descent." [2] Here's a small chart illustrating:
Like I said, a complex topic that can be somewhat confusing, but it's important to understand what Paul is doing her so we don't misinterpret both this passage and the rest of the Bible. Questions? Comments? [1] Scot McKnight, Galatians, The NIV Application Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1995), 229-30.
[2] Robert James Utley, vol. Volume 11, Paul's First Letters: Galatians and I & II Thessalonians, Study Guide Commentary Series (Marshall, TX: Bible Lessons International, 1997), 50. |