Holy Moses!

[RenHoek]

I know many, if not all, of the TE’s view the book of Genesis as allegorical. With this in mind, I have a few questions:

Why was Moses denied entry to the Promised Land?

I see it as he did not follow the exact words of God, striking the rock rather than speaking to it. Point being, every word (jots/tittles) of God was crucial, holy and true.

Where else in scripture is allegory used where it is not identified as such?

I have seen people cite parables as a response to the former issue, but these are identified as parables, dreams are identified as dreams, and visions as visions. I am curious if there are other examples that exist that you like to support your opinion.

Regardless of communication method, seems to me that we should be fearful of God to the point of precision in this matter. This is me, rebut.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

You need to begin with by making some distinctions.
First, distinguish the 1st from the 2-5, then 6-11th, then the rest of Genesis. they are distinctly different and most people will handle them very differently.

Second, asking a question about the historicity of Moses and the promised land does nothing to help you figure out how to interpret Gen 1, or Gen 2-5, or Gen 6-11. At the very best it will cast some light on how to approach Gen 11-50.

Thirdly, the question is deeply biased from the start if you believe that there are two fundamental ways to read Scripture: allegorically and literally. There are hundreds of genres, and dozens of hermeneutical principles to be applied to a number of fundamentally different ways of reading Scripture.

Lastly, there is no such thing as a consistent TE position on anything except that science tells us details about the Creation that Scripture is silent on, in particular, TE's will see the continuity of human life with the rest of the animal kingdom. How this is done, how Scripture speaks to the issue etc etc, will vary enormously. There is literally no TE party line except human beings are involved in common descent with the rest of the living creatures on earth. This is one of the only differences between conservative TE's and OEC's and PC's, they posit a unique creation of Adam that is not in line with the scientific theory of common descent.

 

[busterdog]

Indeed, the question is "deeply biased." The question is about an inherent division in how one views scripture. That there is a division is admitted in the OP. The observation of bias really begs the question, which the OP stated pretty clearly.

The OP also seems to ask why the various sections of Gen./Exod. are to be regarded differently. Where in the text is the key to deciding on which sections get interpreted a certain way and other sections in a different way. Is the only difference that we can observe the evidence of Gen. 1, while we have little direct evidence of God's judgment regarding the striking of the rock.

Here, you can assume all you want about the story of Moses being more literal than the story of Genesis. The story of the splitting of the rock does not have so-called evidence by which a protest may be lodged against the charge of literalism. A literal Genesis allegedly is contradicted because the very rocks cry out against it, in the view of some. By why should they be considered differently? Where is the evidence that God wants anyone to care about what is observed?

God's primary use of observation of the natural world has to do with the distress created by drought and earthquakes, eg, as evidence of judgment for sin. Otherwise, information is primarily communicated by God speaking, not by cross-checking scripture against observation of the natural world.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Where is the evidence that God wants anyone to care about what is observed?

The earth is the LORD'S, and the fulness thereof; the world, and they that dwell therein.
Psalm 24.1

Rom 1:19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed [it] unto them.

Rom 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, [even] his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

Otherwise, information is primarily communicated by God speaking, not by cross-checking scripture against observation of the natural world.

most of the Scripture is natural observations. there is precious little direct communication from God. Even a book as polemic and systematic as Romans is, where is the direct communication with God by Paul? almost all of it is a commentary on the things around him by Paul. In an historical book like Acts, how many paragraphs about dreams and visions and God's directly speaking are there? compared to historical dialogue, they are very few. This is one of the unique things about the Scripture when compared to other contemporary religious writings, it is surprisingly connected to the real world, it is not a dialogue taking place in a spiritual world but here and now.

 

[RenHoek]

Where is the evidence that God wants anyone to care about what is observed?

God's primary use of observation of the natural world has to do with the distress created by drought and earthquakes, eg, as evidence of judgment for sin. Otherwise, information is primarily communicated by God speaking, not by cross-checking scripture against observation of the natural world.

Agreed.

 

[Melethiel]

I have seen people cite parables as a response to the former issue, but these are identified as parables, dreams are identified as dreams, and visions as visions.

Parables are NOT always identified as such.

 

[busterdog]

Where is the evidence that God wants anyone to care about what is observed?

The earth is the LORD'S, and the fulness thereof; the world, and they that dwell therein.
Psalm 24.1

Rom 1:19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed [it] unto them.

Rom 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, [even] his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

Nothing in these passages suggest any seperation from a literal Gen. 1. Nothing in these passages suggest that the observation has anything to do with how God acts. The Romans passages simply don't convey any information whatsoever on the timing of creation. That God could make such a creation out of nothing is testament to who he is. What more is said here? That the rocks are very old? No way.

 

[RenHoek]

You need to begin with by making some distinctions.
First, distinguish the 1st from the 2-5, then 6-11th, then the rest of Genesis. they are distinctly different and most people will handle them very differently.

I find that God is the same through all time. I believe the Bible is to be taken as a whole, in interpretation and in theme. God has not shown in scripture that any special knowledge is necessary to discern His ways. Child-like faith is what is rewarded throughout scripture.

Second, asking a question about the historicity of Moses and the promised land does nothing to help you figure out how to interpret Gen 1, or Gen 2-5, or Gen 6-11. At the very best it will cast some light on how to approach Gen 11-50.

I was not interested in the historicity of Moses. I was trying to communicate what I saw of God’s ways from that example. My point was that God was quite “hung up” on taking His word literally and with no deviation.

Thirdly, the question is deeply biased from the start if you believe that there are two fundamental ways to read Scripture: allegorically and literally. There are hundreds of genres, and dozens of hermeneutical principles to be applied to a number of fundamentally different ways of reading Scripture.

My bias was not hidden. This is more a theological issue to me than scientific. I place little trust in what science/man’s wisdom devises. I trust God that the plane will not crash, not the aerodynamics/physics expert who made it.

Do you really think God wanted His word to be viewed as so complex that only the scholars could figure it out? Jesus came to give us life to the full. He did not give us hermeneutical principles. How could all people have a full life without knowing these hermeneutical principles to truly understand God’s word? This sounds too Gnostic to me.

Lastly, there is no such thing as a consistent TE position on anything except that science tells us details about the Creation that Scripture is silent on, in particular, TE's will see the continuity of human life with the rest of the animal kingdom. How this is done, how Scripture speaks to the issue etc etc, will vary enormously. There is literally no TE party line except human beings are involved in common descent with the rest of the living creatures on earth. This is one of the only differences between conservative TE's and OEC's and PC's, they posit a unique creation of Adam that is not in line with the scientific theory of common descent.

This is why I asked for explanation. If I have oversimplified, please correct me.

 

[RenHoek]

Parables are NOT always identified as such.

Please elaborate.

 

[RenHoek]

Nothing in these passages suggest any seperation from a literal Gen. 1. Nothing in these passages suggest that the observation has anything to do with how God acts. The Romans passages simply don't convey any information whatsoever on the timing of creation. That God could make such a creation out of nothing is testament to who he is. What more is said here? That the rocks are very old? No way.

This is, however, an example of observation.
On the flip side, it is observation of God’s power. Creation was meant to demonstrate the majesty of an all-powerful, intricate God, not the beauty of happenstance or mutation in my opinion.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Nothing in these passages suggest any seperation from a literal Gen. 1. Nothing in these passages suggest that the observation has anything to do with how God acts. The Romans passages simply don't convey any information whatsoever on the timing of creation. That God could make such a creation out of nothing is testament to who he is. What more is said here? That the rocks are very old? No way.

why should there be? i was answering the question:
Where is the evidence that God wants anyone to care about what is observed?

not a question about how to exegete Gen 1.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Parables are NOT always identified as such.

Please elaborate.

the obvious one is Lazarus and Dives of Luke 16. There has been a continuing discussion about whether this is a parable or not since the early church. It is unlike other parables in that the person has a personal name. but it follows the other conventions for a story.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Do you really think God wanted His word to be viewed as so complex that only the scholars could figure it out? Jesus came to give us life to the full. He did not give us hermeneutical principles. How could all people have a full life without knowing these hermeneutical principles to truly understand God’s word? This sounds too Gnostic to me.

the best answer i have is from the confession of my church

VII. All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all:[15] yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed for salvation are so clearly propounded, and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them.[16]

the necessary things are perspicuous, but that means, like Peter said, that there are difficult things as well that do take an expert teacher, hence why all Pastors ought to have seminary degrees and competent in both Hebrew and Greek.

 

[RenHoek]

Do you really think God wanted His word to be viewed as so complex that only the scholars could figure it out? Jesus came to give us life to the full. He did not give us hermeneutical principles. How could all people have a full life without knowing these hermeneutical principles to truly understand God’s word? This sounds too Gnostic to me.

the best answer i have is from the confession of my church

VII. All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all:[15] yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed for salvation are so clearly propounded, and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them.[16]

the necessary things are perspicuous, but that means, like Peter said, that there are difficult things as well that do take an expert teacher, hence why all Pastors ought to have seminary degrees and competent in both Hebrew and Greek.

Agreed, to a point. I think many people make complex what was meant to be simple.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Agreed, to a point. I think many people make complex what was meant to be simple.

and i think that the major problem is taking what is complex and oversimplifying it to the point that the take home message now misses all the points of the text.

my example is Gen 1 and YECism:
it has nothing to do with the age of the earth, nor with the historical order of creative activities nor with scientific accuracy but everything to do with God's providential care, orderliness, polemics against the neighbors gods, the creation and filling of kingdoms with the provision of rulers, the vicegerency of mankind under God and above all the Sabbath.

in straining at gnats, the YECist interpretation manages with great simplification to miss all the points that the first readers would have naturally seen and substitute the cares and concerns of 19thC man.

this bothers me far more than the few places people over-complexify Scripture.

 

[busterdog]

and i think that the major problem is taking what is complex and oversimplifying it to the point that the take home message now misses all the points of the text.

my example is Gen 1 and YECism:
it has nothing to do with the age of the earth, nor with the historical order of creative activities nor with scientific accuracy but everything to do with God's providential care, orderliness, polemics against the neighbors gods, the creation and filling of kingdoms with the provision of rulers, the vicegerency of mankind under God and above all the Sabbath.

in straining at gnats, the YECist interpretation manages with great simplification to miss all the points that the first readers would have naturally seen and substitute the cares and concerns of 19thC man.

this bothers me far more than the few places people over-complexify Scripture.

Is it oversimplifying to say that God identifies Himself by what He does for us? That is how he came to Moses and Israel in Egypt, since a fallen mentality offered Him little else.

This is what the OP is about. THe point was indeed quite simple: I am the God who parted the sea and lead you out of Egypt. The analogous reading of Gen. 1 is simple, but simplicity is not a sufficient basis to dismiss YES when the same form of reason is essential to God's identity and our knowledge of who He is.

As for your use of Romans, yes, I see your point. It is a reasonable point. But, I just don't see enough of the particulars in that verse to suggest that the stones are to speak for themselves. The claim that old rock and old light are SUFFICIENT proof on these points just doesn't square with other patterns for revelation that I see in Scripture. That being said, I have yet to see the point addressed directly, if we omit that surface text of Gen. 1 and 2. and Exod. 20.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Is it oversimplifying to say that God identifies Himself by what He does for us? That is how he came to Moses and Israel in Egypt, since a fallen mentality offered Him little else.

This is what the OP is about. THe point was indeed quite simple: I am the God who parted the sea and lead you out of Egypt. The analogous reading of Gen. 1 is simple, but simplicity is not a sufficient basis to dismiss YES when the same form of reason is essential to God's identity and our knowledge of who He is.

As for your use of Romans, yes, I see your point. It is a reasonable point. But, I just don't see enough of the particulars in that verse to suggest that the stones are to speak for themselves. The claim that old rock and old light are SUFFICIENT proof on these points just doesn't square with other patterns for revelation that I see in Scripture. That being said, I have yet to see the point addressed directly, if we omit that surface text of Gen. 1 and 2. and Exod. 20.

I see it as he did not follow the exact words of God, striking the rock rather than speaking to it. Point being, every word (jots/tittles) of God was crucial, holy and true.

Where else in scripture is allegory used where it is not identified as such? ]

look at the relevant texts:

Exd 17:5 And the LORD said unto Moses, Go on before the people, and take with thee of the elders of Israel; and thy rod, wherewith thou smotest the river, take in thine hand, and go.

Exd 17:6 Behold, I will stand before thee there upon the rock in Horeb; and thou shalt smite the rock, and there shall come water out of it, that the people may drink. And Moses did so in the sight of the elders of Israel.

6 Moses and Aaron went from the assembly to the entrance to the Tent of Meeting and fell facedown, and the glory of the Lord appeared to them. 7 The Lord said to Moses, 8 “Take the staff, and you and your brother Aaron gather the assembly together. Speak to that rock before their eyes and it will pour out its water. You will bring water out of the rock for the community so they and their livestock can drink.”
9 So Moses took the staff from the Lord's presence, just as he commanded him. 10 He and Aaron gathered the assembly together in front of the rock and Moses said to them, “Listen, you rebels, must we bring you water out of this rock?” 11 Then Moses raised his arm and struck the rock twice with his staff. Water gushed out, and the community and their livestock drank.
12 But the Lord said to Moses and Aaron, “Because you did not trust in me enough to honor me as holy in the sight of the Israelites, you will not bring this community into the land I give them.”
13 These were the waters of Meribah,* where the Israelites quarreled with the Lord and where he showed himself holy among them.


Where in this story is the fact that the rock is an allegory?

it took:
1Cr 10:4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.

to tell us that the rock was Christ and that the offence was grevious for that reason.



but the big question, for this thread, remains.
where in Exodus or Numbers where the story of striking the rock is told is it even hinting at being an allegory?
the rock is Christ is a metaphor, an allegory, a not- literal meaning. And it is the greater and more important meaning as well.

 

[RenHoek]

and i think that the major problem is taking what is complex and oversimplifying it to the point that the take home message now misses all the points of the text.
my example is Gen 1 and YECism:
it has nothing to do with the age of the earth, nor with the historical order of creative activities nor with scientific accuracy but everything to do with God's providential care, orderliness, polemics against the neighbors gods, the creation and filling of kingdoms with the provision of rulers, the vicegerency of mankind under God and above all the Sabbath.

I do agree that Scripture has deeper meanings, some we may never know while on this plane of existence. I believe it is true at face value as well as in any deeper layers that may be uncovered. I don’t feel we can ignore the plain/simple truths in favor of a more complex reading. This is me and I do reserve the freedom in Christ to be wrong. I see no reason that God would provide the genealogies and “days” of creation if they were not so. This is the face value that I cannot ignore, especially when it is man's findings that may or may not contradict it. Man, in my opinion, will never be able to “prove”, short of a time machine, different that what is said simply and perfectly by God.

in straining at gnats, the YECist interpretation manages with great simplification to miss all the points that the first readers would have naturally seen and substitute the cares and concerns of 19thC man.
this bothers me far more than the few places people over-complexify Scripture.

I suppose I do not see this as straining gnats. I am taking the simplest meaning and relying on God to be true to His Word. I see no reason He would invite confusion by mixing signals.
As far as overcomplexification (take that English language), I think there is far more danger in reaching too deep and bypassing the most important truth that is right on the surface. Too much danger in letting personal bias skew proper interpretation for me. God only knows for sure.

 

[RenHoek]

but the big question, for this thread, remains.
where in Exodus or Numbers where the story of striking the rock is told is it even hinting at being an allegory?
the rock is Christ is a metaphor, an allegory, a not- literal meaning. And it is the greater and more important meaning as well.

My original point with the Moses story was that every word God used was of great value. Failure to pay attention to every minor detail, as revealed by God, was cause for great punishment.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

My original point with the Moses story was that every word God used was of great value. Failure to pay attention to every minor detail, as revealed by God, was cause for great punishment.

that's nice, but the rock is an allegory. and it is not marked as such, nor is the allegory available to anyone until the NT points it out.

you could pay as much attention to detail as you want to these passages in Deu and Num and never understand that the rock was Christ.

It is not inattention to detail that got Moses into trouble. it was striking Christ.
and the fact is that he probably never understood it as anything more than disobedience, but we, with the NT in hand understand the issue better than anyone with just the OT ever could.