Your link is doing strange things - it's pointing somewhere weird that doesn't exist!
Seriously, though, I see what you're saying about the blindness thing. I think I just made up the 3-day thing. I might have heard it somewhere and had it lurking. I guess that by itself it wouldn't be enough to make a case and if there are stronger pointers it doesn't matter too much whether it is making a parallel itself. So in some ways it doesn't matter too much.
Exactly what Abraham thought he was saying is an interesting question. I was surprised to see him referred to as a prophet, so he must have prophesied something... It's possible to prophesy without knowing it, though (John 11:49-52). Maybe a chat for another night...
Showing posts with label Genesis. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Genesis. Show all posts
Tuesday, 23 January 2007
Genesis Revisited!
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?
(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?
Sunday, 21 January 2007
How far is too far?
This is completely off topic, so do tell me if I've wondered too far from the pack, but as well as reading Systematic Theology on what the Bible teaches about the Bible I've been reading, well, the Bible which is great, but also confusing at times. So I know I'd find it helpful every now and then to throw out questions and thrash them around a little to try and clear things up in my mind. How does that sound? I don't know what the best way of doing it is, but for now I've labeled this Genesis (because the question is from Genesis) and I trust you'll think of something clever!
Genesis 22 - where Abraham almost sacrifices Isaac - is generally considered to be pretty amazing, which it is. There are extra details, though, which take a little more rooting out to discover. In v5, Abraham seems to think that Isaac will be coming back from the mountain with him - and we now know that he "considered that God was able even to raise him from the dead" - so his trust in God's ability to keep his promises was amazingly strong. Moreover, his prophetic (20:7) statement in v8, "God will provide for himself the lamb" reaches far beyond finding a ram caught in a thicket to Jesus who was sacrificed in our place. And there are other details that could be made into points. For example, Isaac could be made into a foreshadowing of Jesus in that he had to carry his own wood up the mountain (v6) as Jesus carried his cross-piece and the three day journey could be the three days in the tomb - figuratively Isaac 'died' when God told Abraham to sacrifice him, and 'undied' when God told Abraham not to.
But now I think I'm just getting silly. And this, really, is the question: how far is too far when it comes to making points from details? How much allegory is too much? How do you know when you've gone beyond what the author intended and are making your own extrapolations?
What say you?
PS. for another example, I started thinking about this slightly earlier in Genesis at chapter 19 (the destruction of Sodom). Where the only reference in Genesis to unleavened bread comes up (v3) and the angels make everyone blind (the last plauge on Egypt before the passover). Was Moses dropping these hints to tie together this story with the rescue from Egypt, or am I going crazy?
PPS. I realise this may be an impossible question to answer, so sorry for being quite random. It's just been bugging me for a few days, and any insight would be great!
Genesis 22 - where Abraham almost sacrifices Isaac - is generally considered to be pretty amazing, which it is. There are extra details, though, which take a little more rooting out to discover. In v5, Abraham seems to think that Isaac will be coming back from the mountain with him - and we now know that he "considered that God was able even to raise him from the dead" - so his trust in God's ability to keep his promises was amazingly strong. Moreover, his prophetic (20:7) statement in v8, "God will provide for himself the lamb" reaches far beyond finding a ram caught in a thicket to Jesus who was sacrificed in our place. And there are other details that could be made into points. For example, Isaac could be made into a foreshadowing of Jesus in that he had to carry his own wood up the mountain (v6) as Jesus carried his cross-piece and the three day journey could be the three days in the tomb - figuratively Isaac 'died' when God told Abraham to sacrifice him, and 'undied' when God told Abraham not to.
But now I think I'm just getting silly. And this, really, is the question: how far is too far when it comes to making points from details? How much allegory is too much? How do you know when you've gone beyond what the author intended and are making your own extrapolations?
What say you?
PS. for another example, I started thinking about this slightly earlier in Genesis at chapter 19 (the destruction of Sodom). Where the only reference in Genesis to unleavened bread comes up (v3) and the angels make everyone blind (the last plauge on Egypt before the passover). Was Moses dropping these hints to tie together this story with the rescue from Egypt, or am I going crazy?
PPS. I realise this may be an impossible question to answer, so sorry for being quite random. It's just been bugging me for a few days, and any insight would be great!
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
