Types & shadows needing NT support?

[Edward]

And that's the problem. If there are no hard and fast rules for the plain words of John 3:16 (ESV), then you have postmodern reader-response Gnosticism in action. It leads to hermeneutical shipwrecks. If there were not hard, fast and plain meanings to words of the Bible (and to any other writing), what you and I write on CFnet would not be understood. I think you are whistling in the wind of subjective vagueness.



It is a good argument to make because personal interpretation, subjective interpretation, is a bummer when it comes to understanding the meaning of your electricity bill. You must read it literally to obtain its plain, literal meaning. There is no orevelation
of interpretation of your electricity bill and it is a fixed interpretation.



As I've stated a few times in this thread, an OT person or incident is not a type or shadow unless it is confirmed in the NT as such. Some see the OT story of Joseph (Gen 37-45) as a type of Christ because of Joseph's humiliation and glorification that could be compared with Jesus' passion and resurrection. However, the NT does NOT confirm that the OT Joseph is a type of Christ. Joseph's story is an illustration with a parallel with Jesus - but it is NOT a type or shadow because the NT does not confirm it as such.



That might be what you see, but in this thread I've seen too many personal interpretations that were subjective impositions on the biblical data. So you say that a rule of personal spiritual revelation (not revealed in the Bible) must not contradict the Bible. That's your own personal opinion and it is open to contradiction by another personal interpretation. You are building your interpretation on the slippery sands of personal revelation.



That's subjective Gnosticism in action and it is what the church apologists had to battle in the first few centuries of the church's existence. Seems like it is alive and well in your posts.

Oz

You could've been a lawyer.

Is there any revelation, interpretation, or enlightenment possible for a Christian, taken on faith or spiritual discernment only...? Or would it have to be plainly spelled out in scripture?

 

[Edward]

What most believers end up finding out in the long run is that God is Objective Truth beyond their entire grasp. That's called respect for The Divine.

And they also find out that everyone who engages the Word is very much subjective in how they handle it because we are by our nature, subjective. This inherent subjective nature can not be avoided as it's a built in condition of all created things.

As to shadows and typology? A lot of people try to make differences between allegories, similitudes, parables, metaphors, types and shadows. But they are all similar in nature, that being that they transition from hard literal fact to associations. Paul practiced spiritual comparisions for employment as did Jesus as thee "methodology" for dissections. Those MARKS they left are the guidelines for uses in dissections and understandings. 1 Cor. 2:13. Paul employs this kind of methodology throughout his H.S. inspired writings because that is the language of God Himself to us.

The reality of the O.T. is that God, through the prophets, spoke by similitude. The entirety of the O.T. bears literal, but the meanings of alllll the things written are alllll similitude. Every last stroke of the pen. Hosea 12:10, Psalm 78:1-2, Luke 8:11, Romans 7:14, etc etc

There are rules in the scriptures to engage these matters. Unless a person is devoted to Gods Word, they will know none of it. They will instead bask in their own subjective traps. Dry holes.

God has quite purposefully locked away what is contained in His Word on the types, shadows, allegory, parable, metaphor side of the ledgers and no mere mortal can find it out. It can't be done.

His Things are only found out in "submission." In "defeat." In "weakness."

(Like)

Amen, Brother. We have a dynamic God. He's bigger than the scriptures.

That in no way detracts from the scriptures or their significance. It adds to them. Spiritually.

 

[Edward]

Who said?

Scripture please.

 

[OzSpen]

Wondering and I already shared it:
"we do speak wisdom among those who are mature; a wisdom, however, not of this age nor of the rulers of this age, who are passing away; 7but we speak God’s wisdom in a mystery, the hidden wisdom which God predestined before the ages to our glory; 8the wisdom which none of the rulers of this age has understood..." (1 Corinthians 2:6-8 NASB)

You seem to have missed the meaning of the Greek musterion (mystery) used in 1 Cor 2:7. Paul confronts his Corinthian opponents with the message of the cross (1 Cor 1:26ff) as he is dealing with 'the mystery cults and gnosticism [that] are directly dealt with'. Wherever musterion appears in the NT, and it is not a frequently used word, it is found in association with verbs that denote revelation or proclamation. 'It is a present-day secret, not some isolated fact from the past which merely needs to be noted, but something dynamic and compelling. This is vividly expressed in Col. By his office the apostle "fulfills" (Col. 1:26) "the mystery of Christ" (4:3), i.e. by bearing in his own body that which is still lacking in the afflictions of Christ (1:24), he gives practical expression to the "mystery" and carries it on towards its final consummation' (NIDNNT 3.503, 504).[1]

It is not esoteric knowledge (you need to note the difference in meaning between knowledge and wisdom). It is wisdom that was previously hidden that God has revealed - in 1 Corinthians what is revealed is 'the message/word of the cross' (1 Cor 1:18).

Leading evangelical Greek scholar, Dr Gordon D Fee, does not agree with you in his exegesis of 1 Cor 2:6-8 (he uses the NIV). In his exegetical commentary on 1 Corinthians 2:6-8 (partially available online pp 102-106). He states this about the wisdom of God in 1 Cor 2:7-8:

7-8 In these verses Paul elaborates the two sides of v. 6. V. 7 explains the nature of God's wisdom that made it impossible for the wise of this age to grasp it; v. 8 repeats the failure of the "rulers" in terms of their responsibility for the crucifixion.

He begins with a sharp contrast to the negative side of v. 6. "No," he says, "we speak God's wisdom," which he immediately qualifies in four ways. The first three describe its nature, so as to distinguish it from the wisdom of this age. First, it is wisdom "in mystery" (NIV, "secret wisdom").[2] One cannot be certain whether this phrase modifies "wisdom" as an adjective (hence the NIV's "secret wisdom") or the verb "we speak" as an adverb. The former seems preferable. God's wisdom is not some inaccessible teaching, spoken in secret. As Paul will develop more fully in Colossians and Ephesians [see Col. 1:26-27; 2:2: 4:3; Eph. 1:9; 3:3, 4, 9: 6:19], in the singular the term "mystery" ordinarily refers to something formerly hidden in God from all human eyes but how revealed in history through Christ and made understandable to his people through the Spirit. The seeds of this idea are sown here for the first time in Paul; in particular it embraces the paradox of the crucifixion of "the Lord of glory" (v. 8).

Second, and to clarify the phrase "in mystery," God's wisdom - salvation through a crucified Messiah - "has been hidden." The perfect tense, plus the phrase that follows ("before time began"), indicates that such wisdom has been hidden in God from eternity until such a time ("now") as he was ready to reveal it. What follows in v. 8 suggests further that God's "secret"remains hidden from the "rulers, " the representatives of the "wise" of this age.

Third, God's secret wisdom, long hidden - and still hidden to some - was "destined" by God himself "for our glory before time began." This is the clause that begins to clarify both the content of "wisdom" and the identity of the "mature" in v. 6. The verb "destined" is an intensified form of the ordinary verb for "determining." The emphasis lies on "deciding upon beforehand" (BAGD) [3]; therefore, to "predestine." As in [1 Cor] 1:1, God's call is the expression of his prior will, which in this case is further intensified by the phrase "before time began" (lit. "before the ages"). What God determined "before the ages" has been worked out in the present age, which is being brought to its conclusion as the final glorious age has dawned and is awaiting its consummation - "for our glory." What has been predestined technically is God's wisdom; the larger context indicates that Paul has in view God's gracious activity in Christ, whereby through the crucifixion he determined eternal salvation for his people - including especially the Corinthian believers. Just as God chose the foolish and weak for salvation and thereby "shamed" the wise and powerful, who are being brought to nothing (1:26-28), so now Paul repeats that God "destined" his people for glory (not shame), and has done so in contrast to the rulers of this age who are "coming to nothing." "For our glory" is eschatological language, referring to the final goal of salvation, namely that God's people should share in his own glory. Hence the crucified one is in this context also called "the Lord of glory" (v. 8).

Fourth (v. 8a), God's wisdom is something that "none of the rulers of this age understood." With this clause Paul elaborates the negative side of v. 6, but now in light of the preceding description of God's wisdom. The reason for their failure is that it was "hidden in God" and could only be grasped by revelation of the Spirit (v. 10). The reason for repeating the idea seems twofold: first, to reestablish the contrast between "us" and "them" that is crucial to his argument; and second, to confirm their part in the historical event itself, which both demonstrated their "ignorance" of God's ways and implicated them in the carrying out of his plan. What they did not understand was the nature of true wisdom - God's wisdom, as spelled out in 1:18-2:5 - which stands in contradiction to human understanding; and because they were thus "ignorant" they did what human "wisdom" demanded - they crucified the one who for them was one more messianic pretender. Thus the divine irony: The very ones who were trying to do away with Jesus by crucifying him were in fact carrying out God's prior will - "destined for our glory before time began." Instead of crucifying a messianic pretender, they killed "the Lord of glory" himself, the one who, as Lord of all the ages, is therefore Lord of the final glory that is both his and his people's ultimate destiny. The Pauline irony, of course, is that the Corinthians in pursuing sophia [i.e. wisdom] are pursuing what belongs to this age, which is passing away and whose rulers were implicated in the divine irony (Fee 1987:104-107, underlined emphasis in original; bold emphasis added)

I have taken the time to type this lengthy quote from Gordon Fee as it provides the exegesis of 1 Cor 2:7-8 that does not support this passage as referring to 'esoteric knowledge'. Fee has obtained his material from the Greek text and the above is based on the exegesis of the Greek text.

However, perhaps that is of no importance when the esoteric experience of the Holy Spirit in the present is presumed to be superior to exegesis of the Greek text.

Oz

Notes

[1] NIDNNT = Brown, C (gen ed), The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology.

[2] Fee's footnote is, 'This is another phrase that has caused some to see Paul as reflecting the mystery cults or Gnosticism. But again that not only misses Paul's own Jewish background, but the whole point of the argument as well' (Fee 1987:104, n. 27).

[3] BAGD = Bauer, Arndt, Gingrich & Danker Greek lexicon (dictionary).

Works consulted

Brown, C (gen ed) 1979. The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, vol 3. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House.

Fee, G D 1987. The First Epistle to the Corinthians (The New International Commentary on the New Testament, F F Bruce gen ed). Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

 

[OzSpen]

You could've been a lawyer.

Is there any revelation, interpretation, or enlightenment possible for a Christian, taken on faith or spiritual discernment only...? Or would it have to be plainly spelled out in scripture?

This is a red herring fallacy. You avoided dealing with the CONTENT of my post and gave your spin to the argument, making it seem like on topic, but it isn't.

 

[JLB]

Who said?

This is a red herring fallacy. You avoided dealing with the CONTENT of my post and gave your spin to the argument, making it seem like on topic, but it isn't.


JLB

 

[OzSpen]

Scripture please.

What do you mean?

This is what I asked:

A [true] shadow or type of Christ is from the Holy Spirit, and may not have been revealed in the new testament.

Oz

 

[Edward]

This is a red herring fallacy. You avoided dealing with the CONTENT of my post and gave your spin to the argument, making it seem like on topic, but it isn't.

Well the lawyer comment was light hearted. I didn't really intend to address your content because you and a couple others had pretty good conversation going that I didn't want to derail, but I did have the question for you that I posed.

Are you willing to answer my questions?

 

[OzSpen]

This is a red herring fallacy. You avoided dealing with the CONTENT of my post and gave your spin to the argument, making it seem like on topic, but it isn't.

JLB

This demonstrates that you don't understand what a red herring fallacy is, with your smarty pants reply.

This is the comment to which I replied:

A [true] shadow or type of Christ is from the Holy Spirit, and may not have been revealed in the new testament.

I asked, 'Who said?' which is a legitimate question related to the post - so it was NOT a red herring fallacy. If a person is to state that about the shadow/type and informing us that it may not be revealed in the NT, it is legitimate for me to ask for clarification. That's exactly what I did with the question, 'Who said (it)?'

I suggest you become better informed about the nature of red herring fallacies.

Oz

 

[JLB]

This demonstrates that you don't understand what a red herring fallacy is, with your smarty pants reply.

This is the comment to which I replied:


I asked, 'Who said?' which is a legitimate question related to the post - so it was NOT a red herring fallacy. If a person is to state that about the shadow/type and informing us that it may not be revealed in the NT, it is legitimate for me to ask for clarification. That's exactly what I did with the question, 'Who said (it)?'


Oz

It looks like you are the one who determines what is legitimate, and what is a Red Herring Fallacy.

I suggest you become better informed about the nature of red herring fallacies.

This is an example of a smarty pants comment.

Who said


Here's a question for you.

Is prophecy in the Church a New Testament function?


JLB

 

[OzSpen]

Scripture please.

Well the lawyer comment was light hearted. I didn't really intend to address your content because you and a couple others had pretty good conversation going that I didn't want to derail, but I did have the question for you that I posed.

Are you willing to answer my questions?

Of course I'm prepared to answer your questions, as time permits. But I will not answer them if you continue to perpetrate logical fallacies. We cannot have a logical conversation when you do this.

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

This is a red herring fallacy. You avoided dealing with the CONTENT of my post and gave your spin to the argument, making it seem like on topic, but it isn't.

JLB

Why are you plagiarising what I wrote?

 

[OzSpen]

Scripture please.

These Scriptures say so:

• John 5:45-46 (NIV), 'But do not think I will accuse you before the Father. Your accuser is Moses, on whom your hopes are set. If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me'.
• Rom 5:14 (NIV), 'Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who is a pattern [tupos = type] of the one to come'.
• In I Corinthians 10:11 (NIV) Paul spoke of the OT patriarchs, 'These things happened to them as examples [tupikos = typically] and were written down as warnings for us, on whom the culmination of the ages has come'.
• Colossians 2:17 (NIV), 'These [laws] are a shadow [skia] of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ'.
  
• Heb 10:1 (NIV), 'The law is only a shadow [skia] of the good things that are coming—not the realities themselves. For this reason it can never, by the same sacrifices repeated endlessly year after year, make perfect those who draw near to worship'.

Oz

 

[Edward]

A [true] shadow or type of Christ is from the Holy Spirit, and may not have been revealed in the new testament.

Who said?

So you quoted the scriptures to me that I posted for you when you had said if there's types & shadows then there'd be scriptures about it. (Something like that, forgive me if I wasn't exact)

So I guess your point is that for every type or shadow that there really is, that there will be a corresponding NT scripture, or its not a type? I think that's what you mean.

And to that I ask you, what about the Holy Spirit? Giving revelation, bearing witness to our spirit, teaching us, etc.,?

You know those scriptures are there.

 

[JLB]

These Scriptures say so:

• John 5:45-46 (NIV), 'But do not think I will accuse you before the Father. Your accuser is Moses, on whom your hopes are set. If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me'.
• Rom 5:14 (NIV), 'Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who is a pattern [tupos = type] of the one to come'.
• In I Corinthians 10:11 (NIV) Paul spoke of the OT patriarchs, 'These things happened to them as examples [tupikos = typically] and were written down as warnings for us, on whom the culmination of the ages has come'.
• Colossians 2:17 (NIV), 'These [laws] are a shadow [skia] of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ'.
  
• Heb 10:1 (NIV), 'The law is only a shadow [skia] of the good things that are coming—not the realities themselves. For this reason it can never, by the same sacrifices repeated endlessly year after year, make perfect those who draw near to worship'.

Oz

So are you saying these are the only examples of types and shadows from the old testament that reveal Christ?


JLB

 

[OzSpen]

So you quoted the scriptures to me that I posted for you when you had said if there's types & shadows then there'd be scriptures about it. (Something like that, forgive me if I wasn't exact)

So I guess your point is that for every type or shadow that there really is, that there will be a corresponding NT scripture, or its not a type? I think that's what you mean.

And to that I ask you, what about the Holy Spirit? Giving revelation, bearing witness to our spirit, teaching us, etc.,?

You know those scriptures are there.

I didn't quote any Scriptures that I gleaned from you. The ones I posted I checked out for myself. Where did I quote the exact quotes from you. Please refer me to the post # to which you refer.

I do my best not to not engage in plagiarism.

Why don't you give me the Scriptures that you want to refer to about the Holy Spirit giving revelation. Sounds like you are a continuationist about continuing revelation. I hope you realise that there is another view - cessationism.

However, I will not pursue this in this thread as it is off topic. You should know that you are to keep to the topic and the issue you have raised is not in harmony with the topic. If you want to discuss continuation of revelation, please start another thread.

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

So are you saying these are the only examples of types and shadows from the old testament that reveal Christ?

JLB

That is NOT what I said. Please be accurate to what I wrote. I'll not respond if you carry on like this.

Oz

 

[JLB]

That is NOT what I said. Please be accurate to what I wrote. I'll not respond if you carry on like this.

Oz

I asked you a question.

How can it be "not what you said", when I asked a question?


JLB

 

[smaller]

smaller,
Try telling that to English teachers who know their material.

There's always agendas. Most have their own agendas. Even more have hand me down agendas from some sectarian push. Some are under direction, Divine. I prefer the latter and am fairly good at sniffing out phonies, which are the majority, particularly in the schools of higher learning where their paycheck comes from upholding their systems, regardless. That I generally detest. Matt. 15:9

IF you want to discuss the subject matter then it's beneficial to know the rules that are laid forth in the scriptures to "get there." There are quite a few rules, but they are not that complex.

HOWEVER most can not submit to those rules.

One massive clue was written by Paul in 1 Cor. 9 where Paul takes an obscure written law out of the O.T. and comes up with an entirely different meaning that isn't even in the text and claims that meaning "IS WRITTEN." Good luck trying to get there. If believers are not led they will NEVER EVER understand and that leading can't come from MAN. And, fwiw, what Paul said is true, even though it's not "written" in plain sight to see.

Paul also allegorized the lives of Abraham, Sarah, Isaac, Hagar, Ishmael and THE LAW in Gal. 4. There hasn't been a person on these boards in the 12 years I've posted here that can understand even a part of it. It's all just lip service understanding that quickly breaks down into argument and condemnation bombs, just as this thread has gone to. That's what happens when people pick up the Word and have NO RESPECT for the reality of Mark 4:15, personally applied, which again, not a person I've posted with here has "believed" including you. So go figure. In my sight it's "imposed" unbelief, so no harm to any believer.

I've seen plenty of doctors of theology train wrecks on these subjects in my short (3+) decades of allegory studies. Edited for "condemnation bomb"

I wouldn't worry about it though. God in Christ has it all handled in HIS PERFECTION.

 

[Edward]

I didn't quote any Scriptures that I gleaned from you. The ones I posted I checked out for myself. Where did I quote the exact quotes from you. Please refer me to the post # to which you refer.

I do my best not to not engage in plagiarism.

Why don't you give me the Scriptures that you want to refer to about the Holy Spirit giving revelation. Sounds like you are a continuationist about continuing revelation. I hope you realise that there is another view - cessationism.

However, I will not pursue this in this thread as it is off topic. You should know that you are to keep to the topic and the issue you have raised is not in harmony with the topic. If you want to discuss continuation of revelation, please start another thread.

Oz

Oh yeah it was in the other thread I posted scriptures for you.

I'm a what? Never mind. Idk Brother, I just asked a question or two, why try to label me this or that when we was just talking.

You sound a little frustrated with it and I don't want to rile you up or anything, so perhaps I'll back off your thread, and we'll agree to disagree on this.

It's good to have confidence in the Bible, but I am either misunderstanding you completely, or you hold a pretty narrow view of scripture vs spiritual discernment that I can't agree with.

Blessings be upon you.