THE ARGUMENT THAT ONCE A SHADOW'S "REALITY" or “substance” has “arrived” then the “shadow” should be unceremoniously moved to the Museum of Ancient Artifacts has wrought havoc on many a sincere believer's beliefs. By this popular idea, the Sabbath and holy days — observed by the early church and by our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ — have lost all point in the walk of faith. The implication of these statements — that no laws have been done away — will come as a shock to many readers. Some will read no further. But why would anybody who believes in the God of the Bible feel burdened by any law given by God? I put it to you that if a temple were built in the near future, its existence would add no burden whatsoever to the life of a believer even though Old Testament ceremonial laws would necessarily be activated for the regulation of its rites. Quite the contrary; temple service could bring considerable benefits to those who believe in the all-encompassing power of the blood of Jesus Christ.

Those depictions of temple ritual as a burden designed to “teach the habit of obedience” or show the “burden of sin” are wrong (Mal. 1:13). When a temple stands, God dwells in it (Matt. 23:21). What a blessing for all mankind! God gave ritual to enable sinful men to approach the infinitely holy One who dwells there. Scripture does not teach that any shadow has been done away. Let's try to understand.

The essence of shadow theory

“Shadow theory”, as used in this article, refers to a subtle but specious piece of reasoning that asserts this: when the substance, or reality, or body, that casts a shadow “arrives” the shadow loses all its previous force. If the shadow, or type, comes in the form of a ceremonial law, then that law no longer holds. Three passages mention shadows:

Colossians 2:16-17: So let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or sabbaths, which are a shadow of things to come, but the substance is of Christ.

Hebrews 8:4-5: For if He were on earth, He would not be a priest, since there are priests who offer the gifts according to the law; who serve the copy and shadow of the heavenly things, as Moses was divinely instructed when he was about to make the tabernacle. For He said, “See that you make all things according to the pattern shown you on the mountain.”

Hebrews 10:1: For the law, having a shadow of the good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with these same sacrifices, which they offer continually year by year, make those who approach perfect.

On these three passages an exhaustive theological system has been constructed which demeans any Old Testament law that comes within a shadow's breadth of being classed as a shadow law. Now that the shadow-caster, Jesus Christ, has come, shadows are represented as a vestige of an outmoded past order. But such ideas are just plain wrong.

Note carefully that the Sabbath and holy days are dubbed shadows; if shadow theory pulls the teeth from Old Testament ritual, it does just the same for them. Scripture gives no justification, and offers no yardstick, for dividing shadows into two distinct categories.

	Scripture gives no justification, and offers no yardstick, for dividing shadows into two distinct categories.

Shadows and types

The shadow concept expands considerably when we recognize that it is of a piece with the well-known concept of “types”. The Old Testament contains more than meets the eye. Sometimes a “deeper” meaning, a precious gem, lies buried under the surface of the literal meaning. Such buried gems can picture one of two possible things:

• A later person or event. Isaac as the sacrificial lamb represents Jesus Christ. These are “horizontal” (historical) types.
• A reality in the spiritual realm. The temple and its accoutrements symbolize God's heavenly temple. These are “vertical” (spiritual) types.

The later event or spiritual reality that corresponds to, or is symbolized by, an Old Testament event, person, institution, law, or object is inevitably of greater significance in the scheme of things than the symbol; writers speak of the “escalation” or “intensification” that occurs when the New Testament digs up the buried gem and polishes it to a brilliant luster. Animal sacrifices depict Christ's sacrifice — the latter overwhelms the former in glory.

The study of such correspondence, or similarity, between an Old Testament occurrence and its counterpart — either heavenly reality or later occurrence — goes by the name of “typology”, based on the Greek word “tupos” as used in Romans 5:14 and Hebrews 8:5.

Hebrews 8:5, quoted above, speaks of “copy” (upodeigma), “shadow” (skia) and “pattern”, or type (tupos), as if they are virtually synonymous. We could legitimately call typology “shadowology”, but who would want to?

Most discussions of typology use the term “type” in referring to the original Old Testament occurrence and either the term “antitype” or “fulfillment” when speaking of the later or heavenly counterparts. Because of the use of the term “shadow” in Hebrews, other expositors speak of the original type in terms of a shadow, and the later manifestation or spiritual reality as the “substance”, “body” or “reality”.

Shadow theory turns the hidden truth symbolized by the shadow into the truth.

Shadow theory turns the hidden truth symbolized by the shadow into the truth.

The dangers of this approach should be obvious — once you start reinterpreting the Old Testament through the lens of typological or allegorical exegesis, you are only one small step from abandoning any literal meaning of the Old Testament. John Bright, after acknowledging the New Testament's typological use of the Old warns against “making typology into an exegetical method” (1975, p. 92). Few, it would seem, listen.

Shadow theory fails to recognize that shadows were not given to enhance understanding of the Old Testament itself but to foster understanding of either, a. the later “New Testament” event, or b. the spiritual reality. That Noah's ark foreshadows baptism helps us understand the saving nature of baptism, not the reason for the flood! What folly would it be to say, “Ah, I see baptism prefigured in the ark; now I can ignore the plain lessons of the flood”.

True, shadows are not as valuable as their casters. That does not make them useless. A black and white television is not as good as color, but it's still valuable and useful. And besides, as just noted, shadows have a life of their own separate from their function as shadow casters.

Jesus ordained a new shadow to remind believers of a greater reality. Shadows are to be respected, not despised.

Weaknesses of shadow theory

In the spirit of treating shadows with contempt, many arbitrarily insert the word “only” alongside “shadow” in Scripture, producing something like, “These things are only shadows”. The implication is that they are of temporary and minimal significance; once the shadow-caster “comes”, the shadow vanishes like the genie back into its bottle. However, with one exception (Heb. 9:9-10), monon (only) is not used in conjunction with the shadow/type concept.

Scripture never treats shadows with contempt; God commands reverence towards them (Lev. 19:30). Most people assume Paul was speaking negatively in Colossians 2:16-17 when he said that Sabbath and holy days are a shadow of good things to come. Where does this idea come from? Certainly not from Colossians itself. Paul in fact was casting shadows in a very positive light. Christians should rejoice in observing shadows for the wonderful things they remind them of.

Shadow theory would have you believe the shadow loses its relevance once the substance appears. Shadow theory says that the real focus of the Old Testament account of the Flood is its hidden symbolism of baptism or Christ's resurrection. In shadow theory, the body replaces the shadow. These ideas are all wrong. Consider the following evidence that the “revealing” of the shadow caster does not do away with the shadow:

•  Shadow theory argues against nature by ignoring the obvious shadow analogy. When a body approaching from around a corner finally comes into view, strange thing — the shadow that preceded its coming does not go away. The idea that in some mysterious way the “shadow [is] absorbed into the reality” (Saucy 1993, p. 32) simply makes no sense at all of the analogy. In nature, the closer the shadow-casting object approaches, the clearer the shadow, the crisper its outlines. It may be true that a shadow whose body is invisible is in some way “incomplete” but, in sunlight, a body without a shadow is impossible!

	In nature, the closer the shadow-casting object approaches, the clearer the shadow, the crisper its outlines.

•  Many shadows still await the reality's appearance. Replacement theory, which argues that shadows are rendered pointless when the reality arrives, creates a ludicrous situation for its proponents, lumbering them with the onerous task of sifting realized shadows from unrealized so that they can “keep” the ones still awaiting their caster to come. If one does not have to observe Pentecost because the foreshadowed Holy Spirit has come (Acts 2), one should observe those other days that await realization.

•  Paul speaks in Colossians 2:16-17 of shadow regulations in the present tense, indicating that they are still relevant.

•  Hebrews 8:4 speaks of the shadow laws pertaining to the Levitical priesthood as still in force.

•  The temple is a shadow of the heavenly reality. The reality has always existed; it has not “come” and thereby done away with its shadow.

•  Similarly, God gave the Sabbath as a shadow memorial of a reality that had already occurred — the creation (Ex. 20:8-11) (It has a future significance as well.) This fact is utterly incompatible with replacement ideas.

•  Prophecy shows shadowy holy days will be observed during Jesus' millennial reign (Ezek. 45:21, 25; Zech. 14:16) when their typical significance will unquestionably have been realized.

•  Replacement theory says that you have either the shadow or the reality, but not both. David prayed that his prayers (the reality) would be like the shadow (the incense) (Ps. 141:2). Revelation 8:3-5 says explicitly that God symbolically, even now, mingles believers' prayers with the incense from the golden altar! So much for either-or theory.

•  If shadow theory were correct, the New Testament would never commend shadow observance. Indeed, if so much as one plain case can be found of the New Testament requiring observance of a shadow, shadow theory comes crashing down like the proverbial. But 1 Corinthians 5:8 commands observance of unleavened bread — a shadow, according to Colossians 2.

Are ceremonial laws passé?

Has ritual law passed its use-by date? To argue that, since shadow theory does not do away with either Sabbath or ceremony that therefore both are still valid would be illogical. The possibility remains that other arguments might show either, or both, to be outmoded. So consider evidence that God has not abandoned ritual shadow laws:

•  Just days before his crucifixion, Jesus upheld the sanctity of the ultimate shadow — the temple. He drove out those who violated its holiness, and declared that this house is, not was, a house of prayer for all peoples. To suggest that Jesus would do this just days before the temple's purpose came to an end in God's scheme of things just doesn't make sense.

•  Jesus' teaching on reconciliation with one's brother (Matt. 5:21-26) amounts to nothing less than a reiteration, with explanation, of Leviticus 6:1-7, which deals with trespass offerings. To approve such a course of action for believers in the future belies the notion that sacrifice was about to lose its force.

•  Even Paul, the “apostle of the heart set free”, voluntarily participated in sacrificial acts (Acts 24:17). He voluntarily took upon himself a Nazirite vow (Acts 18:18). Such action would be preposterous if ritual law had been done away; to suggest that Paul did such things for “cultural reasons”, or to impress his countrymen, when he knew that the law had lost all force is to insult his integrity, 1 Corinthians 9:22 notwithstanding.

•  Scripture testifies that God Himself treated ceremony with the utmost gravity. Leaving aside the captivities, His harshest punishments in ancient Israel were meted out on those who despised ritual law. Just as death was the penalty for high-handed violation of the Sabbath, so too it was the lot of those who treated the tabernacle with levity (Num. 1:51). When Israelites committed mass fornication, a “mere” 24,000 perished (Num. 25:9).

Just as death was the penalty for high-handed violation of the Sabbath, so too it was the lot of those who treated the tabernacle with levity (Num. 1:51).

•  Scripture suggests the existence of an end-time temple in God's plan. Would God want a temple built if He had quashed all the laws that regulate its activity?

•  Likewise, the prophet Ezekiel foretold the construction of a magnificent temple and the continuation of temple ceremony during the Millennium — though apparently with minor modifications appropriate to the new age.

Shadow ritual law, though “weak and unprofitable” (Heb. 7:18) with respect to atoning cleansing of the heart and mind, is far from useless. It's no more useless than prayer, which could also be called “weak and unprofitable” with respect to salvation; in fact, animal sacrifice is the ultimate form of prayerful worship. Perhaps none of us will ever have the opportunity in this life to visit the end-time temple; if we did, the beneficial impact on us would be immeasurable. But stop and think. You would never get through the gate if you were ritually unclean (2 Chron. 23:19). You would have to concern yourself with ritual purity laws.

We customarily send sympathy cards to friends who have lost a loved one, and flowers to a couple on their fiftieth wedding anniversary. We launch numberless, polluting, hydrogen-filled balloons into the atmosphere on festive occasions. Australians choke with emotion at the bugling of the last post on Anzac Day, Americans reverently observe annual Thanksgiving day, and everybody get teary-eyed while singing auld lang syne. We cherish these ceremonies, not for the sake of the symbolic acts themselves, but for what they portray. Nevertheless, they are nothing more than rituals.

Why we should cherish man-made customs, tolerate the unfamiliar traditions of other people, yet reject the God-given variety, defies rational explanation. No conceptual difference separates offering an animal up in worship to God and placing flowers on a coffin. Both are rituals. God's are far superior.

	No conceptual difference separates offering an animal up in worship to God and placing flowers on a coffin. Both are rituals.

We have seen that many things constitute shadows of greater realities, and that their function as shadow caster does not of itself render those things pointless once the substance has supposedly “come”. So shadow theory should not be used to decide which laws of God have been done away. The shadow nature of temple ritual, therefore, should not be used as evidence for the end of ritual any more than the shadow nature of the Sabbath or holy days herald their demise.

But wasn't temple ritual added temporarily to the eternal law of God as a stop-gap means of dealing with Israel's transgressions during the wandering? The Dawn to Dusk book “Shechem to Calvary: the Story of the Covenants” deals at length with that question.

Book of Hebrews

The book of Hebrews might appear to contradict this essay. However, though space prohibits dealing with it here, that book can (and should) be read in an entirely different way from that taught by the Reformers, which way we have followed too. Note just one verse from Hebrews that proves the author believed in the ongoing validity of temple ritual: “For if He were on earth, He would not be a priest, since there are priests who offer the gifts according to the law” (8:4). Please keep reading it till the penny drops.

The well-known “imposed on them till the time of reformation” passage (9:10) does not refer to the alleged temporary nature of the fleshly ordinances themselves but to the temporary historical situation in which these ordinances were all that Israel had. Before the “reformation” the best most Israelites could hope for was “sanctification of the flesh” (Heb. 9:13) through temple ritual. The reformation heralded the end of Israel's alienation from “saving grace”. It did not nullify the value of the rituals.

The Sabbath and holy day shadows were given to us to teach us vital lessons. The temple and its rituals also are a great gift from God. In fact, the temple is itself an integral part of the promise made to Abraham's seed that He would be their God, and would be “with them” (Gen. 26:3). Don't let the significance of its construction on the very site where God confirmed the promises to Abraham escape you. The Romans destroyed the temple; God did not revoke His promises or His law.