Long Island Abundant Life Church 長島豐盛生命教會
  • Home
  • About Us 關於教會
    • Mission Statement - 使命宣言
    • Statement of Faith - 信仰立場
    • Biblical Marriage - 合乎聖經的婚姻
    • Church Leadership - 教會同工
    • Directions - 路線圖
    • Documents - 表格與文件下載
    • Contact Us - 聯絡我們
    • Ministry openings
  • Chinese Ministry 華語事工
    • 崇拜
    • 講道集 >
      • 主日信息
      • 特會 / 講座
    • 主日學
    • 門訓小組 >
      • 門訓小組介紹
    • 團契
    • 讀經
  • English Ministry 英文事工
  • Youth 少年事工
    • Worship
    • Sunday School
    • Youth Fellowship
    • Events
    • Our Vision
    • Connect with Us
    • Parent Resources
    • Youth Prayer Requests
  • Children's Ministry 兒童事工
    • Children's Worship - 兒童崇拜 >
      • Children's Songs - 歌曲
      • Junior Worship, Archive - 學習內容
      • Junior Worship, Current - 學習內容
      • Preschool Worship, Archive - 幼兒崇拜
    • Sunday School - 主日學 >
      • Preschool - 低年級
      • Middlers, Current - 高年級
      • Elementary, Archive - 高年級
    • VBS-特别暑期聖經班 >
      • EVENTS- 特別活動
    • Nursery - 幼兒照顧
    • Resources - 資源
  • Missions/Evangelism 宣教/佈道
    • Global Mission 全球宣教
    • Missions Ministry 宣教事工
  • Chinese School 中文學校
  • Church Activities / News / Calendar 教會活動 / 消息 / 行事曆
    • Special/urgent 特別/緊急
    • Calendar 教會行事曆
    • Bulletin 週報
    • Archive 檔案 >
      • Pray for Hindus 2018 為印度人禱告
      • Seek God 2019 尋求神
      • Misc. 其他
  • Chinese Student Ministry 学生事工
    • Campus Ministry 校园事工
    • CSF 衣
    • CSF 食
    • CSF 住
    • CSF 行
  • Links 资源鏈接
  Long Island Abundant Life Church 長島豐盛生命教會

Galatians 4:8–31

10/3/2012

 
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:
LAW

Hagar Covenant
Ishmael (”flesh”)
Persecutor
Children-Slaves
Mount Sinai
Earthly Jerusalem in slavery
Judaizers
Old Covenant
CHRIST

Sarah Covenant
Isaac (”promise”)
Persecuted
Children-Free ones
(Heaven?)
Heavenly Jerusalem in freedom
Paul
New Covenant
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.
Andrei
10/3/2012 05:33:49 pm

Interesting to learn about this and trying to familiarize myself with the terminology... I'm getting more used to the 'one interpretation, many applications' concept that you mentioned in the past. Part of the fun with examining other literary works is that they are generally open to interpretation in ways that can be relevant to the human experience. But obviously the Bible shouldn't be something that you can interpret however you want to, as you mentioned with the allegory thing. Oh, I also find it nice to learn about the Bible through this blog format as opposed to being forced to learn about it in a class or something.

Greg
10/4/2012 03:22:50 am

Good observation.

The way that literature is thought of is relatively new - the way you speak of is post-modern literary philosophy/communication theory, also sometimes known as "reader-response" interpretation in some areas. It basically says that "communication" doesn't occur with just the speaker/writer - there needs to be someone who receives it. So far that's not too bad, but the theory goes further to say that an author or speaker cannot convey an objective meaning: meaning is determined by how the reader or listener receives it.

This means that in literature we can read a work and find all kinds of symbolism (allegory!?) there that the author never intended but that doesn't matter. It is still true because we received it. This puts the power of meaning from the author/speaker onto the reader/listener.

As Christians, this has a lot of problems. Even as a non-Christian it does. Nothing else works that way: math and science for example are very objective. No one would accept it if you just really felt that 2 +2 = 5. How we "receive" math doesn't matter - it is objective. Yes for some reason our culture for the most part thinks one way about hard sciences and another about literature and humanities. We lack as a culture a consistent definition of what constitutes truth.

Anyway, the problem for Christians is even great. If communication depends upon the hearer/reader, it puts God in an impossible place: He can't be or communicate anything without us to receive it. That is absolutely blasphemous: God is the self-existent one and does not need us. On a more specific level, Paul and Peter and Moses all sought to communicate a point in their writing: it is our job and goal to figure out what that is. We may struggle to find the correct interpretation at times, but that doesn't mean there isn't a correct one! If there is no objective communication from God in the Bible, then there is really no communication at all. We would only be reading what is already inside of our own hearts, not communication from God.

I know this has been pretty philosophical, but it's important: there are very good reasons that we approach the Bible the way we do that have implications for how we understand a lot of other things as well. The fact that the Bible has meaning has a lot of application for how we look at other things. It might be fun to come up with ridiculous (or credible) thoughts about other literary works, but the fact is that (usually) the author had a meaning in mind when they wrote it and we should be seeking that. If we're not? Why read at all? If we're only looking for our own ideas, why don't we just write them down ourselves? This is not a popular view right now in literary circles, but I think it's the only tenable one a Christian can hold and be philosophically consistent. If there is no objective meaning there can be not existence of an objective God as a source of meaning. Our belief in a God that is self-existent and communicates and relates to us demands that we have a basis for understanding that communication or everything falls apart.

Thoughts?

Micky Mouse
10/3/2012 05:37:07 pm

Hi everyone! I ran into Andrei earlier today at Burger King; what a coincidence. I just wanted to say greetings from myself and Jennifer! The kids are doing well! Hope everyone is well at Long Island Abundant Life Church!

I haven't had any gourmet cheese as of late, and I'm chirping for some good cheese that isn't serving as bait on a mouse trap. If you have any fantastic cheese, please throw it my way! Thanks.

- Micky Mouse


Comments are closed.

    RSS Feed

    Archives

    December 2012
    November 2012
    October 2012
    September 2012
    August 2012
    July 2012
    June 2012
    May 2012
    April 2012
    March 2012

Powered by Create your own unique website with customizable templates.