The point Richard raises when he talks about how much we should try and read into what Old Testament writers are written particulary when they are allegorising is an interesting one.
(Richard didn't explicitly restrict his comments to OT writers but I'm doing it deliberately!)
I think it is valid to see OT passages as introducing an idea which reaches its fulfilment later (most typically this is one the person or work of Jesus Christ). So I think I'm fairly relaxed regarding the suggestions Richard makes about Abraham & Isaac - I hadn't heard the 3-days parallel before!
Its an interesting question as to how the individual knew that what they were saying / the writer knew what he was writing had two meanings. For example was Abraham simply talking about God providing a lamb as a substition for Isaac or was he prophetically referring to Christ? Whichever it was, I think we are fine to look back into the Old Testament and see how it enriches our understanding of Jesus.
However we should probably try to ensure that the parallels are valid. In the Sodom case people were blinded, in the passage in Exodus the sky was made dark. The result in each case was that people were unable to see but the causes were different so it - in my mind - is less easy to make the link.
Does this help clarify anything?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment