Galatians Four + Some Thoughts On Allegory & Exegesis from St. Gregory of Nyssa

 A common topic in debates is why did Christ come when He did? My whole life I've been ready to explain this, but I haven't quite had the passage at the tip of my tongue to base it correctly in theology.

Here it is: 

Galatians 4:3 Even so we, when we were children, were in bondage under the elements of the world: 4 But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, 5 To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons. 6 And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father. 7 Wherefore thou art no more a servant, but a son; and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ.

Galatians 4 also provides us with another very important observation:

 8 Howbeit then, when ye knew not God, ye did service unto them which by nature are no gods.

Which is a great reference back to the Old Testament.

Deuteronomy 32:16 They provoked him to jealousy with strange gods, with abominations provoked they him to anger.

17 They sacrificed unto devils, not to God; to gods whom they knew not, to new gods that came newly up, whom your fathers feared not.

And even more succinctly here: 

Psalm 95:5: “For all the gods of the Gentiles are demons, but the Lord made the heavens.”

1 Corinthians 10:20: “No, but the sacrifices of pagans are offered to demons, not to God. And I do not want you to be participants with demons.” 

Again, the pagan practices of foreign people are often directed towards that which is not just "not God," but that which is actually outright antagonistic to God. Reason being, those which are spiritual and have powers that are properly ordered will direct everything to God and not seek worship from others. 

The third and perhaps most important thing that Galatians Four gives to us is found in the last section of the chapter. 

I will post liberally from it and allow it space to breathe: 

19 My little children, of whom I travail in birth again until Christ be formed in you,

20 I desire to be present with you now, and to change my voice; for I stand in doubt of you.

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.

27 For it is written, Rejoice, thou barren that bearest not; break forth and cry, thou that travailest not: for the desolate hath many more children than she which hath an husband.

28 Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise.

29 But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now.

30 Nevertheless what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman.

31 So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free.

This really jumped out at me as it was being employed by St. Gregory of Nyssa in his Homilie on the Song of Songs. 

St. Gregory was writing about how allegory is a proper method for interpreting the scriptures, and he points to none other than St. Paul himself as referring back to a lesson from the Old Testament and ascribing it meaning that is exclusively within the context of the New Testament. 

 Let's hand it over to St. Gregory of Nyssa and his Preface to the Homilies on the Song of Solomon: 

    

    For the grand apostle, when he says that the law is spiritual ( Rom 7:14), is including the historical narratives too under the heading “law,” because the whole of the divinely inspired Scripture is law for those who read it. Not only through its explicit commands, but also through its historical narratives, Scripture affords a teaching that guides those who pay careful heed to it toward knowledge of the mysteries and toward a pure life. The apostle, moreover, does the work of interpretation in accordance with what gives him satisfaction in his search for what edifies, though he does not concern himself with the label that is to be assigned to a type of exegesis. Rather the contrary. At one point, when he is about to transpose the biblical narrative so as to unfold the economy of the covenants, he says that he is changing his manner of speech (Gal 4:20),3 | but then, aft er he has mentioned the two sons of Abraham, born to him of the maidservant and the free woman, Paul designates his way of understanding them an “allegory” (Gal 4:24). And again, when he has been recounting certain events of the biblical history, he says: “They happened to those people as types” but “were written for our admonition” (1 Cor 10:11). Or again, when he has said that the threshing ox should not be muzzled, he adds: “God’s concern is not for oxen,” but “these things were surely written for our sakes” (1 Cor 9:9–10). Also there is a place where he calls dimmer understanding and partial knowledge a “mirror” and an “enigma” (1 Cor 13:12), and again he says that the movement from corporeal to intelligible realities is a turning toward the Lord and the removal of a veil (2 Cor 3:16).

        By all these diff erent modes of speech and names for intellectual discernment, the apostle is pointing us to a single form of instruction: one ought not in every instance to remain with the letter (since the obvious sense of the words often does us harm when it comes to the virtuous life), but one ought to shift to an understanding that concerns the immaterial and intelligible, so that corporeal ideas may be transposed into intellect and thought when the fleshly sense of the | words has been shaken off like dust (cf. Matt 10:14).    

     

This moreover is why he says, “The letter kills, but the spirit gives life” (2 Cor 3:6), for frequently the narrative, if we stop short at the mere events, does not furnish us with models of the good life. How does it profit the cause of a virtuous life to hear that the prophet Hosea got himself a child by sexual malfeasance (Hos 1:2) and that Isaiah went in to the prophetess (Isa 8:3), if one stops short at the literal sense? Or what do the stories about David, in which adultery and murder have agreed together in a single crime (cf. 2 Kingdoms 11), contribute to the virtuous life? But if an account is found that gives an incontestable indication of how these events fi t into the history of salvation, then the word of the apostle will be shown to be true: “Th e letter kills” (for it contains examples of evildoing), “but the Spirit gives life” (for it transposes a meaning that is incongruous and discordant into a more divine sense).

 Truly, profound words for us when we consider the interpretation of the Bible. 

There is plenty more that St. Gregory of Nyssa wrote concerning this topic, but I advise you to read it for yourself in this free PDF. 

Old Testament Interpretation & the Midianites

Understanding how to interpret the most controversial section of the Old Testament can be a challenge, but I think that once we get a good grip on how Orthodox Saints really look at the Old Testament, the issue of the Midianites can change a bit in our mind. 

This is actually another opportunity for us to observe that Orthodoxy has a great advantage over Protestantism who always insists on the Bible alone as a source for wisdom, and stands completely committed to interpreting things in their original OT context without expounding on it from the perspective of the Saints. 

The Saints are the key to interpreting anything, for men who live such holy lives and have an intense connection to God are the ones with insights on how to approach the totality of the Bible, not those who think they are qualified to do the whole thing by themselves. 

Art depicting the Midianites, taken from Free Bible Images dot org - this is actually in reference to Gideon pursuing the Midianite Army with his 300 men which would happen later, and not reference to the army of Phinehas. 

Let us go back to the 7th century theologian St. Maximos the Confessor:

Interpretation of the outward form of Scripture according to the norms of: sense-perception must be superseded, for it clearly promotes the passions as well as proclivity towards what is temporal and transient. That is to say, we must destroy the impassioned activity of the senses with regard to sensible objects, as if destroying the children and grandchildren of Saul (cf 2 Sam. 21:1-9); and we must do this by ascending to the heights of natural contemplation through a mystical interpretation of divine utterances, if in any way we desire to be filled with divine grace.

'The letter kills." says Scripture, 'but the Spirit gives life' (2 Cor. 3:6). Consequently, the letter whose nature it is to kill must be killed by the life-giving Spirit. For what is material in the Law and what is divine - namely, the letter and the Spirit - cannot coexist, nor can what destroys life be reconciled with that which by nature bestows life.

The Spirit bestows life, the letter destroys it. Thus the letter cannot function at the same time as the Spirit, just as what gives life cannot coexist with what destroys life and the prejudice from which he suffers as a result. This is to show

Uncircumcision is natural. Everything that is natural is the work of divine creation and is excellent: 'And God saw everything that He had made, and, behold, it was very good" (Gen. 1:31). But the Law, by demanding on the grounds of uncleanness that the foreskin should be cutaway by circumcision (cf. Gen. 17:10-14), presents God as amending His own work through human skill. This is a most blasphemous way of looking at things. He, then, who interprets the symbols whereby the Law is expressed in the light of knowledge attained through natural contemplation, knows that God does not set nature aright by means of human skill, but bids us circumcise the passible aspect of the soul so as to make it obedient to the intelligence. This is indicated figuratively in terms of the body, and means that we are to excise the flaws from our will by means of spiritual knowledge acquired through the courageous practice of the virtues. The circumcising priest signifies spiritual knowledge, and the knife he uses is the courageous practice of the virtues, which cuts away the passions. When the Spirit triumphs over the letter, the tradition of the Law is abolished.

from Various Texts on Theology, the Divine Economy, and Virtue & Vice, sections 40-42

Which shows us essentially that the surface interpretations of even basic commands concerning circumcision are wrong, and that the Old Testament must be read completely in the illumination of the coming of Christ.

This is also backed up by St. Ireneous:

If anyone, therefore, reads the scriptures this way, he will find in them the Word concerning Christ, and a foreshadowing of the new calling. For Christ is the “treasure which was hidden in the field” [Mat. 13:44] [a treasure] hidden in the scriptures, for he was indicated by means of types and parables, which could not be understood by human beings prior to the consummation of those things which had been predicted, that is, the advent of the Lord. And therefore it was said to Daniel the prophet, “Shut up the words and seal the book, until the time of the consummation, until many learn and knowledge abounds. For, when the dispersion shall be accomplished, they shall know all these things” [Dan. 12:4, 7]. And Jeremiah also says, “In the last days they shall understand these things ” [Jer. 23:20]. For every prophecy, before its fulfillment, is nothing but an enigma and amibiguity to human beings; but when the time has arrived, and the prediction has come to pass, then it has an exact exposition [exegesis]. And for this reason, when at this present time the Law is read by the Jews, it is like a myth, for they do not possess the explanation [exegesis] of all things which pertain to the human advent of the Son of God: but when it is read by Christians, it is a treasure, hid in a field, but brought to light by the Cross of Christ, and explained, both enriching the understanding of humans, and showing forth the wisdom of God, and making known his dispensations with regard to human beings, and prefiguring the kingdom of Christ, and preaching in anticipation the good news of the inheritance of the holy Jerusalem, and proclaiming beforehand that the one who loves God shall advance so far as even to see God, and hear his Word, and be glorified, from hearing his speech, to such an extent, that others will not be able to behold his glorious countenance [cf. 2 Cor. 3:7], as was said by Daniel, “Those who understand shall shine as the brightness of the firmament, and many of the righteous as the stars for ever and ever” [Dan. 12:3]. In this manner, then, I have show it to be, if anyone read the scriptures.

St. Irenaeus, The Treasure Hid in the Scriptures is Christ

So, we are left with the concept of circumcision itself being interpreted radically different, in light of Christ, by St. Maximos the Confessor, which completely changes the way we view the traditions and culture of the Hebrews. Christ has unlocked the meaning.

St. Maximos is constantly referring to Old Testament passages in this way. And so do other saints...

Another example people who criticize the Bible like to bring up is the famous Psalm that talks about bashing in the heads of children (137:9 - happy is the one who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks!).

4th century monastic St. John Cassian has a completely different way of interpreting this:

The way to keep guard over our heart is immediately to expel from the mind every demon-inspired recollection of women - even of mother or sister or any other devout woman - lest by dwelling on it for too long the mind is thrown headlong by the deceiver into debased and pernicious thoughts. The commandment given by God to the first man, Adam, told him to keep watch over the head of the serpent (cf. Gen. 3:15. LXX), that is, over the first inklings of the pernicious thoughts by means of which the serpent tries to creep into our souls. If we do not admit the serpent's head, which is the provocation of the thought, we will not admit the rest of its body - that is, the assent to the sensual pleasure which the thought suggests - and so debase the mind towards the illicit act itself. As it is written, we should 'early in the morning destroy all the wicked of the earth' (Ps. 101:8), distinguishing in the light of divine knowledge' our sinful thoughts and then eradicating them completely from the earth - our hearts - in accordance with the teaching of the Lord. While the children of Babylon - by which I mean our wicked thoughts - are still young, we should dash them to the ground and crush them against the rock, which is Christ (cf Ps. 137:9; 1 Cor. 16:4). If these thoughts grow stronger because we assent to them, we will not be able to overcome them without much pain and labour. On the Eight Vices

So the tradition of Christians is to actually look at the Old Testament in the light of Christ, and to offer radical interpretations of what had occurred.

We can go back to these moments and instead of interpreting them with total literalism, see them as true stories but with extra layers in them for us to interpret in our own time in the light of Christ. The destruction of all but the virgins is then a different kind of symbol...

Just as how the Midianites were interpreted by St. Neilos the Ascetic:

The Midiamtes symbolize the passions of unchastity, because it was they who introduced this vice into Israel and deceived a great number of the young people (cf. Num. 31 :9). Scripture aptly says that the Midianites had tents while Jerusalem had a wall; for all the things that contain virtue are well-founded and firm, whereas those that contain vice are an external appearance - a tent - and are no different from fantasy. Ascetic Discourse

(All of the above texts with the exception of St. Irenaeus can be found in the Philokalia)

In this we have the real means of interpreting these difficult passages in the context of Christ. Once upon a time, political realities made it so that these sorts of actions were inevitabilities for survival, and were absolute norms, but it is in the retrospective of Christ we see the real purpose for these things having occurred, and the actual symbolism behind them. We can refer to the typical answers you read at places like Got Questions for understanding them in the original context. 

Let us also keep in mind: the Midianites appear again in Joshua 6-8, implying that not all Midianite men were put to the sword. Some survived to come back, at which point Gideon would go to battle with them again. At this point, there is no such command to kill all, or any instructions concerning virgins at all. Critics would say that this is God's will changing again... But this is not pointed out because it shows a fundamental shift towards what moderns would think is a more enlightened position. 

On the Son Not Knowing (Mt. 24:36)

On Reddit, a user had asked about the proper interpretation of Matthew 24:26, stating that Christ actually that "Christ didn't understand the Trinity." While the question itself is a bit absurd, I was inspired to look into the matter myself and came up with a response that has been modified for consumption on the blog...

Naturally, there will be a Protestant interpretation, and I will use the interpretation of Charles J.  Ellicott, a Bishop in the Church of England. interpretation of this is that Christ had put on self-imposed limits to His Divinity while on Earth:

Neither the Son.—The addition to St. Matthew’s report is every way remarkable. It indicates the self-imposed limitation of the divine attributes which had belonged to our Lord as the eternal Son, and the acquiescence in a power and knowledge which, like that of the human nature which He assumed, were derived and therefore finite. Such a limitation is implied by St. Paul, when he says that our Lord “being in the form of God . . . made Himself of no reputation” (or better, emptied Himself), “and took upon Him the form of a servant.” (See Note on Philippians 2:6-7.) It is clear that we cannot consistently take the word “knoweth” as having a different meaning in this clause from that which it bears in the others; and we must therefore reject all interpretations which explain away the force of the words as meaning only that the Son did not declare His knowledge of the time of the far-off event.

Note that this is actually Ellicott's interpretation of the passage of Mark 13:32, which corresponds directly to the Matthew 24:36 passage.

Charles J. Ellicott

I was a bit surprised to see him cutting off the possibility that this was something that he actually knew. It was like he wanted to truly break away from the older interpretations, which he would have been aware of, and it was a vital part to the Anglican understanding of the Trinity at this time to speak of Christ as self-limiting on Earth. 

Admittedly, this is, to some degree, more elegant because it simplifies the problem more, and this may even be the sort of argument which has more direct appeal with non-Christians and atheists. It's also something that you can argue easily without becoming tripped up or having to stretch the argument out to someone who is already unconvinced of the Trinity. I might even find myself tempted to use this argument if I felt it was more appropriate, but, ultimately, you have to actually go with the right argument that backs up our strong interpretation of Christianity that does not seek to diminish the power of Christ. 

... And whenever I want to see what a proper theologian has to say about this, someone who can really set the standard for Church theology, St. John Chrysostom is my first stop. He did not disappoint as he wrote quite at length on it, and his interpretation would be more classical and what you would find from the Orthodox and likely from many Catholics... It also affirms a stronger and more robust understanding of the Trinity. 

St. John Chrysostom

It's all also written in a very classic style that can be a bit abstruse and flowery. It's a hard style to read but it is also one of my favorite styles because in what it lacks in clarity it makes up for in one-liners buried in paragraphs and its extensive treatment of the topic, but I understand why the modern mind ended up moving away from the style: we want information clear, concise, and immediately presented to us. 

Allow me to summarize his arguments as best as I can. 

I. Christ was very immediately closing the line of inquiry and making it a grave matter, very distant from those who spoke to, by saying God alone knows it -- remember the particular reverence for God which Jews have -- doing ablutions when they were even going to write his name in the Torah. To talk about God the Father, in this context, is indeed an "awful" thing:

Therefore He refers it to His Father, both to make the thing awful, and to exclude that of which He had spoken from their inquiry. 

The mere mentioning of the Father should be enough for religious Jews to be stopped in their tracks, and that this is something that is said prior to the Crucifixion and resurrection.

IIa. Christ then proceeds to tell them a sign for when the end times are coming, clearly showing that He does actually have knowledge of it. It is merely that what is given to us is extremely limited.

... that the silence is not a mark of ignorance on His part, see, together with what we have mentioned, how He sets forth another sign also.

He is referring to how Christ in passages 37- 41 literally gives us some important ideas about these end times that were inquired about. 

Moreover, before St. John Chrysostom says these signs, He has even given us this passage to show that Christ and the Holy Spirit certainly are not ignorant of it:

And the Father He knoweth clearly, even as clearly as He knoweth the Son; and of the day is He ignorant? Moreover, "the Spirit indeed searcheth even the deep things of God," [2819] and doth not He know so much as the time of the judgment? But how He ought to judge He knoweth, and of the secrets of each He hath a full perception; and what is far more common than that, of this could He be ignorant? And how, if "all things were made by Him, and without Him was not even one thing made," [2820] was He ignorant of the day? For He who made the worlds, [2821] it is quite plain that He made the times also; and if the times, even that day. How then is He ignorant of that which He made?

IIb. He mentions that Christ also further closes off this line telling them that it is their duty to watch for it, as a thief may come in the night. This was his means for encouraging all Christians to look for the end times and the day of Judgment in order to always be working in preparation for it, for their own demise as well even, so that "they may always be ready;" " His meaning is like this: if the common sort of men knew when they were to die, they would surely strive earnestly at that hour. "

Christ tells them to keep watch in passages 42-44.

IIc. "After this, He openly calls Himself Lord, having nowhere spoken so distinctly. "

He is referring to verse 42 in which Christ says "“Therefore keep watch, because you do not know on what day your Lord will come." Previously, He is simply referring to Himself as the Son. 

III. St. John Chrysostom also argues that His claims to ignorance of the final days were not even meant to be interpreted this way, but rather are rhetorical statements, which is really the heart of the argument. The Golden Mouthed gives us these beautiful words: 

Wherefore He first saith this, "Who then is the faithful and wise servant, whom his Lord shall set over [2832] His household to give them their meat in their [2833] due season? Blessed is that servant, whom his Lord when He cometh shall find so doing. Verily I say unto you, that He shall make him ruler over all His goods." [2834]

Tell me, is this too the language of one who is in ignorance? For if because He said, "neither doth the Son know," thou sayest He is ignorant of it; as He saith, "who then?" what wilt thou say? Wilt thou say He is ignorant of this too? Away with the thought. For not even one of them that are frantic would say this. And yet in the former case one might assign a cause; but here not even this. And what when He said, "Peter, lovest thou me?" [2835] asking it, knew He not so much as this? nor when He said, "Where have ye laid him?" [2836]

And the Father too will be found to be saying such things. For He Himself likewise saith, "Adam, where art thou?" [2837] and, "The cry of Sodom and Gomorrah is waxed great before me. I will go down therefore, and see whether their doings be according to their cry which cometh unto me, and if not, I will know." [2838] And elsewhere He saith, "Whether they will hear, whether they will understand." [2839] And in the gospel too, "It may be they will reverence my Son:" [2840] all which are expressions of ignorance. But not in ignorance did He say these things, but as compassing objects such as became Him: in the case of Adam, that He might drive him to make an excuse for his sin: in that of the Sodomites, that He might teach us never to be positive, till we are present at the very deeds; in that of the prophet, that the prediction might not appear in the judgment of the foolish a kind of compulsion to disobedience; and in the parable in the gospel, that He might show that they ought to have done this, and to have reverenced the Son: but here, as well that they may not be curious, nor over busy again, as that He might indicate that this was a rare and precious thing. And see of what great ignorance this saying is indicative, if at least He know not even him that is set over. For He blesses him indeed, "For blessed," saith He, "is that servant;" but He saith not who this is. "For who is he," He saith, "whom His Lord shall set over?" and, "Blessed is he whom He shall find so doing."

So, the singular passage raises this question of whether or not the Son knows, but it was only a rhetorical device to (I) deter future inquiry, (II) in other passages immediately following it He proceeds to call Himself Lord and speak clearly of the signs, and (III) these rhetorical devices are used elsewhere in the Bible which show that Christ referring to the Son as not knowing is also a sort of device. 

And please remember that I am no theologian at all but only attempt to field questions here and there that may not be being addressed.