Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I challenge anyone to find the words or context in Genesis by which Paul interpreted this allegory.
Galatians 4:21 Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law? 22 For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman. 23 But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise. 24 Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar. 25 For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children. 26 But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.
Also note that Paul expected the legalistic Jews to already "hear the law" before Paul explained the allegory behind it.
Paul "heard the law" not by context, but by the Spirit of God in him as he compared spiritual with spiritual rather than spiritual with physical.
Nothing wrong with reading the context and doing our very best to study and rightly divide, but I think more important that we trust Christ to open our understanding to the scriptures (kind of like seeking by faith rather than trusting our own works).
Forgive me but are you implying that Paul didn't think Abraham was a 'real' person but rather that the story of Abraham was symbolic and allegoric in nature?
Or was he simply drawing typical similarities between the life of Abraham and the Truth of our covenants with God?
The "...line upon line..." means like laying one line on top of another...layering them as they fit properly together...
It's interesting that the NT quoting the OT often violates the rules of "good hermeneutics"
For example...
Matthew 2:15 And was there until the death of Herod: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt have I called my son.
Hosea 11:1 When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and called my son out of Egypt. 2 As they called them, so they went from them: they sacrificed unto Baalim, and burned incense to graven images.
My understanding is that Matthew rightly divided, splicing a piece of verse 1 fulfilled by Christ. But Matthew certainly did not take this Hosea verse "in context". One could argue that this is not the verse being quoted in Matthew, but I don't think any other mathcing OT verse exists.
There are plently of other examples like this in the NT.
Last edited by Thy Kingdom Come; 10-09-2009 at 01:59 PM..
Forgive me but are you implying that Paul didn't think Abraham was a 'real' person but rather that the story of Abraham was symbolic and allegoric in nature?
No, I'm not implying that at all. Paul knew the story was literally true. But I'm saying that Paul took the meaning of those literal events as an allegory which taught a spiritual truth about legalism. One would be hard-pressed to find that allegory and message based soley on the context of the Genesis scriptures by applying "good hermeneutics". There is nothing in the literal words in Genesis to indicate this is an alleogory, let alone what allegory. But somehow (Spriit of God) Paul knew the meaning and expected others to hear the same meaning.
Quote:
Or was he simply drawing typical similarities between the life of Abraham and the Truth of our covenants with God?
No, he was not just observing similarities. Paul was saying that these scriptures in the law TAUGHT what Paul was teaching in Galations, and the reader of the law (the legalistic Jews) SHOULD somehow have seen this (as Paul said to them "do ye not hear the law")
Pretty good read there and complete with several scriptural references (as requested).
I thought of 'rightly dividing God's word' and there's scripture in one of the Corinthian letters too...but I had read that article above and think it's a pretty good read for anyone interested enough to read it.
No, I'm not implying that at all. Paul knew the story was literally true. But I'm saying that Paul took the meaning of those literal events as an allegory which taught a spiritual truth about legalism. One would be hard-pressed to find that allegory and message based soley on the context of the Genesis scriptures by applying "good hermeneutics". There is nothing in the literal words in Genesis to indicate this is an alleogory, let alone what allegory. But somehow (Spriit of God) Paul knew the meaning and expected others to hear the same meaning.
No, he was not just observing similarities. Paul was saying that these scriptures in the law TAUGHT what Paul was teaching in Galations, and the reader of the law (the legalistic Jews) SHOULD somehow have seen this (as Paul said to them "do ye not hear the law")
OK, just wanted to be sure.
What Paul did there is done by men of God at nearly every service. You take a biblical passage and use it to teach both a literal and spiritual truth.
What Paul did there is done by men of God at nearly every service. You take a biblical passage and use it to teach both a literal and spiritual truth.
Yes, but my main point was that Paul did so apart from context and what would be normally be called "good hermeneutics" from Genesis because there are no words whatsoever in Genesis to indicate that Paul's explanation was correct.
This is what is meant when Scripture explains to us how we should find truth...:
Isaiah 28:10 For precept must be upon precept, line upon line, line upon line, here a little, there a little.
Note that Isaiah repeats; "...line upon line..." so as to let the reader know how important this is to understand what is the truth of God's Word. If this is done, the truth will always be revealed to the sincere reader who is truly seeking truth.
Well, just to put that Isaiah passage in, ahem, context:
Is 28:7 And these also stagger from wine and reel from beer: Priests and prophets stagger from beer and are befuddled with wine; they reel from beer, they stagger when seeing visions, they stumble when rendering decisions. 8 All the tables are covered with vomit and there is not a spot without filth. 9 "Who is it he is trying to teach? To whom is he explaining his message? To children weaned from their milk, to those just taken from the breast? 10 For it is: Do and do, do and do, rule on rule, rule on rule; a little here, a little there." 11 Very well then, with foreign lips and strange tongues God will speak to this people, 12 to whom he said, "This is the resting place, let the weary rest"; and, "This is the place of repose"-- but they would not listen. 13 So then, the word of the Lord to them will become: Do and do, do and do, rule on rule, rule on rule; a little here, a little there-- so that they will go and fall backward, be injured and snared and captured.
Doesn't really sound like that whole "precept upon precept" thing was meant as a good thing here, does it?
does not the term "Context" simply7 mean the "setting"?
Like, when I wash my car.
you have to understand the "setting/Context" that is that I ran into a mud hole and need to wash the car before my wife gets home and sees the mess i made of her new car...
Washing the car is just the thing that you see.
The fuller setting that is going on, the "background" colors my actions.
The "context/ setting" fills in the needed information to truly understand something...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
