Soul Invictus

There are several discussions that are in the Christian circle that focus on reconciliation. Notable ones are reconciling the OT to the NT, reconciling the Synoptic gospels, reconciling the Synoptic gospels to Paulinian gospels, and reconciling Paulinian gospels to the OT.

Does anyone know the apologetic for viewing Gal 4:20-25?

It states:

Now it's my contention this is one example of Paul criticizing or diminishing Jewish, OT law and/or values. I think that his case for the Abrahamic story and characters being allegory is the focal point of his argument. In the process, it's my view that this invalidates many characters of the Bible, and also the asserted lineages of Jesus. Is there an apologetic for this verse that I'm unaware of? I can't imagine how cherry picking would work with Paul's doctrine in that so much of Christianity yields credence to Paul's doctrine.

Thoughts?

pharoah

I doubt that Paul was saying that Abraham was not a real person - too much of this theology depended on his existence. In Romans 11:1 and 2 Corinthians 11:22 he said that he was from the seed of Abraham. I think that he was trying to say that Hagar and Sarah were types of the old and new covenants. Allegory was a poor choice of words on his part.

Julian

It doesn't invalidate the historicity of the OT characters in Paul's mind. Paul spent much of his career fighting against Jewish-Christian influence in his congregations with the their, the Jewish-Christians, emphasis on the law (cf. James for anti-Pauline polemic) and he wrote many things against them. Galatians, in particular, is filled with anti-law, pro-faith polemic, just look at how he treats the pillars, poor Peter in particular.

Julian

Soul Invictus

I agree that much of his theology depended on an actual Abraham. While allegory may have been a poor choice of words, what would be the right word? I have no clue what point he was trying to get across. Figurative expression is necessary only for symbolism of non extant things.

Soul Invictus

I must be missing what message he intended to make then. I'm not sure how he expected to devalue Jewish themes by separating them and making them different from Christian perspectives (faith v works issue)

yalla

23 But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise.

I find this verse more interesting from the ambiguity it suggests re JC being "born of woman/after the flesh"
Here we have one real live physical person being born, "of the flesh" and contrasted with one who is not.
The former being the lesser of the two in that he is born of slavery. That he is born in sin? Of a lesser grace? Not of god's promise?
And all this is allegory.
Can we not apply this to the case of JC being born of woman, after the flesh, so as to be able to deliver the people from sin into grace?
Thus the description of JC, by Paul, as born of woman etc , may NOT necessarily relate to a physical HJ but instead be only an allegory relating to his divine mission etc..
Born of woman etc may not equal a real live physical HJ but be a concept of Paul's that he is utilising for a different sense....as indicated above.

mikem

How about "TYPE"? A thing or person in the Old Testament that foreshadows something in the New Testament.

Helpmabob

Paul doesn’t deny that these people existed; he was merely using them, whom the people understood, as examples to make a point. He was at this point becoming increasingly exasperated by the behaviour of those in Galatia, because their faith was growing cold, and they were returning to their old ways:

Formerly, when you did not know God, you were slaves to those who by nature are not gods. But now that you know God—or rather are known by God—how is it that you are turning back to those weak and miserable principles? Do you wish to be enslaved by them all over again? You are observing special days and months and seasons and years! [Galatians 4:8-10]

Julian

Well, basically the Pauline brand of christianity was not the only kind out there. The Pauline congregations were continually being visited by people who preached different brands of christianity. One of these types were the Jewish christians (possibly Ebionites) who still believed in the laws of the OT and wanted christians to observe them. That is mostly what is meant by works, i.e. physical deeds that observe the Jewish tradcitions, such as dietary laws and holiday observations. Paul writes letters to his congregations to counteract the opposing influences, such as the letter to the Galatians where he speaks out against the opposing apostles and Jewish christianity in general, by putting down the 'pillars' who represented that particular streak of belief. Notice how he shows especially Peter to be a hypocrite. Also, note Helpmabob's quote in the post above where Paul talks about the laws and implies that adhering to them is bad, or more accurately, unnecessary since faith is all.

Julian

guy_683930

This is one of those verses that makes me think that Marcion understood Paul better than the 2nd century orthodoxy. This, along with Galatians 3.12:

"Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us--for it is written, "CURSED IS EVERYONE WHO HANGS ON A TREE"