[OPEN] Torah and NT Parallels

[Pats]

I believe that Shernren challanged me back in March '06 to make this comparison between Genesis and John and I am just now getting to it. Although I can find many rich comparisons to make between the Torah, the OT, and the New Testament for the purpose of this forum lets try in as much as it is possible to stick to an OT discussion.

Here is the original post made by Shernren in the Creationist subforum:

http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=22377504&postcount=6


And here is my initial response:

As Christians, many here would agree that humans are fashioned with a Trinitarian nature after our Creator. From what we read in the Scriptures, the gospels and epistles and/or sacred writings that came after the time of Christ’s earthly birth, resurrection, and ascension have served to aide us in our search for finding that nature within ourselves. However, as written in ancient texts, there is nothing new under the sun. Or is there? Perhaps a keener hind sight through the view of keener sciences and sharper theological standpoints. For these issues, we must accept the pros with the cons and try to find the path our Father in Heaven has prepared for us.

If Genesis is then but a picture of what God the Creator has done for His people Israel and also for us the Greeks, perhaps the gospel of John is the seasoning to answer our questions as to why He has done past events and explained them to us in the manner that they were told to us and written for us. It would follow then that epistles such as Acts and Romans, including all of the letters from the Apostle Paul, serve to show us how to implement this knowledge and teaching into our personal walk with God the Father, His Son Jesus Christ the Messiah, and His Holy Spirit, from the Christian perspective.

 

[Pats]

This one's had 21 views and no responses. Was it that off the wall???

 

[Assyrian]

 

[Willtor]

In response to Shernren's post:

Augustine considers the possibility that the light mentioned in Genesis is a spiritual light, which seems to me to indicate the possibility that this was the beginning of God's work of ordering the chaos by virtue of the light coming into the world. It may be the same as the light that enlightens every man (John 1:9), the Word. The Light, then, would not be created in Genesis, but could be the first manifestation of God within His own creation.

This is all sticking to Shernren's discussion of the Word and Light.

 

[Pats]

Genesis 1:1-2

1) In the begining, when God (the Father) created the heavens and the earth, 2) the earth was a formless wasteland,

The introduction of the Torah, or the Pentatuch if you will, serves to show how God the Creator or Father brought an orderly universe out of chaos.

John 1:1-2

1) In the begining was The Word,
And the Word was with God (the Father)
And the Word was God, (the Father)

If Genesis is highly literary and more symbolic than literal, certainly the same can be said for the gospel of John.

I have heard it taught that the "Word" spoken of here is Jesus. I am not certain if it is God, the Son, or the Son and Spirit both being with God the Father. However, certainly the picture of John the Baptist baptising God the Son, Jesus, with the Holy Spirit descending down onto his shoulder in the form of a dove is one of the most beautiful literary pictures we have of the trinitarian nature of God.

In some respects if you ascribe to the theology that we have our physical bodies, our souls, and our spirits that is one easy answer to our trinitarian nature implanted into us by God.

However, was the picture of Adam and Eve uniting as one flesh and the conceiving and bearing children together and forming a family unit any less beautiful or less meaningful? Is God's trinity not also completed in us in our family units?

As individuals, we must have personal walks with God, the Son, and fullfillment in the Spirit, certainly. However, as part of the body of Christ, must we not also have fellowship and serve in the corporate body in the form of local churches and fellowships, even such as these?

It's food for thought, anyway. I've really been studying and praying over Genesis and John and I'd enjoy discussing it more with anyone interested.

Pats--- probably thinking too hard this week

 

[Willtor]

In the John quote, I wouldn't assign "(the Father)" to the third line. This is one of the complexities of the Trinity, and it makes it very difficult to talk about, but even if the following diagram doesn't say very much, they may at least help in not making imprecise statements:

The Son is also the Word. It's a bit confusing, but it keeps us from saying that Jesus was talking to himself when he prayed.

 

[Pats]

It is dang near impossible to interpret the Revelation properly without the OT. I am begining to wonder if it is the same with Genesis and John.

Kind of like Daniel and Revelation.

I also am becoming convinced that it requires a firm knowledge of history before one can begin to understand the prophecies. Does this make sense, or am I just getting all greeked out on this?

 

[stumpjumper]

I don't know if this helps or not but I think it is helpful to look at the word Logos which is translated as Word.'

What is the Logos/Word/Son of God?

It is God, yes.

The Word became Incarnate and dwelt among us...

But, what does Logos mean?

It is best translated as the reason of God or the Wisdom of God and has parallels to the Jewish word for Wisdom (Hokma) as can be seen in Sirach...

The Word is Jesus Christ but it is not just Jesus Christ!

The Logos of God is God's creative and revelatory aspect and, according the Karl Rahner, is the only aspect of God that could Incarnate within creation as the Creator assumed the creation...

That may have been more rambling than you wanted...

 

[busterdog]

It is dang near impossible to interpret the Revelation properly without the OT. I am begining to wonder if it is the same with Genesis and John.

Kind of like Daniel and Revelation.

I also am becoming convinced that it requires a firm knowledge of history before one can begin to understand the prophecies. Does this make sense, or am I just getting all greeked out on this?

I think that the NT is a lot of fluff without Gen 1-3. The entrance of death, the nature of the fall, the idea of a tree of life, the curse of our worldy existence and the promise that God will free us some day and return us to what we were made to be. Man hides from God and tries to clothe himself and hid the image of God in which he was made!

If that stuff is all metaphorical, then what is the Good News of the Gospel? Just right thinking and good feelings about things? I am telling the god of the world, as in Blade Runner, I want more life [sir], in Jesus's name.

Yes, it absolutely requires a firm knowledge to understand it.

So who is going to fix this world? The apotheosis of resurrection aspirations or some other such concept? Or a King who is going to kill a bloodly lot of earth dwellers and then rule in Jerusalem?

The light of JOhn and the Word incarnate is entirely too cerebral, if it is not an answer to curse, shadow and wilfull ignorance explained in Genesis 3.

 

[Mallon]

If that stuff is all metaphorical, then what is the Good News of the Gospel? Just right thinking and good feelings about things? I am telling the god of the world, as in Blade Runner, I want more life [sir], in Jesus's name.

Do we need to be told about the Fall in order to know that we are sinful? Can we not look at our own shameful actions and know what wretched people we are? I think what is most important to know is that we are sinful, not necessarily how we got to be this way. The recognition of sin is what's important to our salvation, not necessarily pinpointing its origin.

 

[Assyrian]

I think that the NT is a lot of fluff without Gen 1-3. The entrance of death, the nature of the fall, the idea of a tree of life, the curse of our worldy existence and the promise that God will free us some day and return us to what we were made to be. Man hides from God and tries to clothe himself and hid the image of God in which he was made!

If that stuff is all metaphorical, then what is the Good News of the Gospel? Just right thinking and good feelings about things? I am telling the god of the world, as in Blade Runner, I want more life [sir], in Jesus's name.

The YEC literalist interpretation of Genesis certainly provides a nice and simple framework in which to interpret the NT. Unfortunately most of the things you see as key to understanding the Gospel are either unsupported in scripture, even in Genesis itself, or cause all sorts of theological problem if taken literally.

The entrance of death Adam was told he would die on the day he ate of the tree. He ate the fruit and lived to the ripe old age of 930. Either God wasn't being literal about 'day' or death was not literal and did not mean physical death. There is the YEC view that there was no death human or animal before the fall, but the bible says nothing about where animal death came from.

the nature of the fall The YEC interpretation is that all of nature is fallen and under a curse, but that is not supported in scripture and the curse in Genesis is quite specific, involving the snake, Adam, Eve and the ground Adam worked.

the idea of a tree of life This is a very strange idea for Fundamentalists to take literally. I believe salvation and eternal life are found only in Jesus Christ. Yet according to YEC there is also the tree of life, a literal fruit tree and all I have to do is get my hands on it and I will live forever. With or without Jesus.

the curse of our worldy existence This probably fits as an extension of the curse on the ground Adam worked, not quite literal but close enough.

the promise that God will free us some day and return us to what we were made to be Again very problematic if we take it literally. Genesis tells us the Messiah was going to step on the snake's head. Never happened in any of the Gospel accounts. It was fulfilled on Calvary, but the promise of a redeemer in Genesis was completely figurative.

 

[busterdog]

The YEC literalist interpretation of Genesis certainly provides a nice and simple framework in which to interpret the NT. Unfortunately most of the things you see as key to understanding the Gospel are either unsupported in scripture, even in Genesis itself, or cause all sorts of theological problem if taken literally.

The entrance of death Adam was told he would die on the day he ate of the tree. He ate the fruit and lived to the ripe old age of 930. Either God wasn't being literal about 'day' or death was not literal and did not mean physical death. There is the YEC view that there was no death human or animal before the fall, but the bible says nothing about where animal death came from.

the nature of the fall The YEC interpretation is that all of nature is fallen and under a curse, but that is not supported in scripture and the curse in Genesis is quite specific, involving the snake, Adam, Eve and the ground Adam worked.

the idea of a tree of life This is a very strange idea for Fundamentalists to take literally. I believe salvation and eternal life are found only in Jesus Christ. Yet according to YEC there is also the tree of life, a literal fruit tree and all I have to do is get my hands on it and I will live forever. With or without Jesus.

the curse of our worldy existence This probably fits as an extension of the curse on the ground Adam worked, not quite literal but close enough.

the promise that God will free us some day and return us to what we were made to be Again very problematic if we take it literally. Genesis tells us the Messiah was going to step on the snake's head. Never happened in any of the Gospel accounts. It was fulfilled on Calvary, but the promise of a redeemer in Genesis was completely figurative.

Entrance of death. Yes a problem indeed. Very interesting. However, it does not follow that spiritulizing the problem solves the problem.

Nature of the Fall. Who is the god of this world, according to Jesus? What does Paul say about the groaning of creation? I think Scripture is very clear on this point.

Tree of Life. Indeed there is a mystery there. And, a lacuna in our YEC understanding.

But, Truth can appear in different ways is true for prophecy and true for the person of God Himself. I see huge no logical problem with the Tree, but there are unanswered questions. I just don't see it as true inconcistency. The Tree of Life appears again as a literal Tree. Since the only way to the tree is through the Word (ie, the angel of the Lord with the flaming sword) and we know who the Word is, no logical model requires a contradiction in reading Jesus out of the equation. But, admittedly, it is not like there is this great theology that really explains the function and nature of that Tree (it is guarded to this day, after all, from people with fallen knowledge).

But, once again, spiritualizing the problem does not solve the problem. And again, that pattern of reason has demonstrated limitations in theology -- (ie, the physical resurrection_. Thus, I inherently mistrust it as the sole solution here.

Rev 2:7 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the midst of the paradise of God.


Rev 22:2 In the midst of the street of it, and on either side of the river, [was there] the tree of life, which bare twelve [manner of] fruits, [and] yielded her fruit every month: and the leaves of the tree [were] for the healing of the nations.


Rev 22:14 Blessed [are] they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.

Promise of God's return. Nothing appears to me very clearly to explain why the prophecy of the woman's seed/serpent should be distinct as metaphor. On one hand, there is evidence that crucifixion literally involved nailing the heels. The crushing of the head is another matter. I still hold to the view that the text itself will provide a key to distinguish metaphor and literal truth (Ie, if your hand offends you ....) I don't have a clear picture here. And I continue to argue that we need to remain consistent in hermeneutics, I just can't make that demonstration at the moment.

As for God's future return, obviously I can't prove how that will be, because it is prophetic. But, it is impossible to imagine any solution that looks anything like human evolution or the progressive development of human knowledge or spirituality. An intervention on every level is practically demanded by our nature and the circumstance we have have. The enemies of God (Islam) have also clarified the stakes, since their opposition to the physical return of Jesus as King of Israel and Son of God is their essential point of contention. You geologists argue from your observations (rocks) and I am arguing from my observations (politics and my corrupt body).

 

[Pats]

Do we need to be told about the Fall in order to know that we are sinful?

Well, I don't, . However, I can read Paul's writing about how my righteousness is compared to a filthy rag. Did Abraham's children who came before our Savior have that benefit?

For me, the literary work of the Scriptures is like a giant jigsaw puzzle God has left us his adopted son's and daughters to put together and gain both his literal and literary/figurative meanings from reading and peicing together. History and prophecy can work together in this way with the Scriptures.

Can we not look at our own shameful actions and know what wretched people we are? I think what is most important to know is that we are sinful, not necessarily how we got to be this way. The recognition of sin is what's important to our salvation, not necessarily pinpointing its origin.

Don't take this the wrong way, Mallon, but I think you're splitting hairs here. I agree that the literary symbolism should not be taken too literally, but the gospel message is rooted in the fact that we, as a people, need a Savior. I think it's only fitting that the Torah begins by demonstrating that need, and the Revelation sums things up by depicting that Christ will return again.

The YEC literalist interpretation of Genesis certainly provides a nice and simple framework in which to interpret the NT. Unfortunately most of the things you see as key to understanding the Gospel are either unsupported in scripture, even in Genesis itself, or cause all sorts of theological problem if taken literally.

The entrance of death Adam was told he would die on the day he ate of the tree. He ate the fruit and lived to the ripe old age of 930. Either God wasn't being literal about 'day' or death was not literal and did not mean physical death. There is the YEC view that there was no death human or animal before the fall, but the bible says nothing about where animal death came from.

This is why it makes more sense that God was refering to Adam's spiritual death and not his physical death.

the nature of the fall The YEC interpretation is that all of nature is fallen and under a curse, but that is not supported in scripture and the curse in Genesis is quite specific, involving the snake, Adam, Eve and the ground Adam worked.

The spiritual nature of the fall is that man, Adam, was given the world to reign as king. However, we as a species gave some of our rights as Kings of the Earth over to the "snake," Satan, making him the Prince of this present world.

the idea of a tree of life This is a very strange idea for Fundamentalists to take literally. I believe salvation and eternal life are found only in Jesus Christ. Yet according to YEC there is also the tree of life, a literal fruit tree and all I have to do is get my hands on it and I will live forever. With or without Jesus.

I agree it is strange to take it literally. However, in literary terms, I can see comparing it to the fact that Messiah was sacrificed on a tree. Jesus Christ is the well of water that never ends. He died on a figurative tree so that we can live forever in a spiritual sense.

the curse of our worldy existence This probably fits as an extension of the curse on the ground Adam worked, not quite literal but close enough.

Agreed.

the promise that God will free us some day and return us to what we were made to be Again very problematic if we take it literally. Genesis tells us the Messiah was going to step on the snake's head. Never happened in any of the Gospel accounts. It was fulfilled on Calvary, but the promise of a redeemer in Genesis was completely figurative.

My internet connection is acting up. I have a response to this, but I can't find the referance, so, I'll post it later.

 

[Mallon]

Don't take this the wrong way, Mallon, but I think you're splitting hairs here. I agree that the literary symbolism should not be taken too literally, but the gospel message is rooted in the fact that we, as a people, need a Savior. I think it's only fitting that the Torah begins by demonstrating that need, and the Revelation sums things up by depicting that Christ will return again.

I agree completely, Pats. I didn't mean to imply that the story of the Fall is useless or meaningless to us. It's not. It's an excellent story that introduces the idea of inherited sin. It is this inheritance of sin that we ought to heed. But the snakey/appley/figy details are superfluous to the underlying message, methinks. Sin has been passed down through the generations since man first chose to disobey God. I have no issue with that as a TE.

 

[busterdog]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mallon
Do we need to be told about the Fall in order to know that we are sinful?

Are there any really good descriptions of what the fall is? Can we know the extent of sin (a somewhat different question) without knowing what the fall was. I don't think anyone has ever really demonstrated a satisfactorily complete understanding of the what the fall really was. So, there must be a lot more for us to know..

 

[Assyrian]

Entrance of death. Yes a problem indeed. Very interesting. However, it does not follow that spiritulizing the problem solves the problem.

Of course not, though spiritual death is certainly a key concept in the NT's exposition of the gospel.
Rom 7:9 I was once alive apart from the law, but when the commandment came, sin came alive and I died.
Eph 2:1 And you were dead in the trespasses and sins

The early church explained the contradiction over Adam's death using Psalm 90:4. The 'day' Adam died was really a thousand years long.

But whether spiritual death is an answer or not, the problem still remains for those who take a literalist approach. If Genesis is to give explanation for the entrance of death into the world, you are left with a rather fluffy one.

Nature of the Fall. Who is the god of this world, according to Jesus? What does Paul say about the groaning of creation? I think Scripture is very clear on this point.

Rom 6:16 Do you not know that if you present yourselves to anyone as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin, which leads to death, or of obedience, which leads to righteousness?
The nations would be slaves to sin and god of this world, regardless of whether one particular ancestor scrumped a fruit tree. We all sin and that is what enslaves us and our children.

Paul say that we and the whole of nature have been subjected to futility and the bondage to decay by God. He doesn't say when it was subjected, or that it was a result of the fall.

I don't know of one bible verse that actually teaches that.

Tree of Life. Indeed there is a mystery there. And, a lacuna in our YEC understanding.

But, Truth can appear in different ways is true for prophecy and true for the person of God Himself. I see huge no logical problem with the Tree, but there are unanswered questions. I just don't see it as true inconcistency. The Tree of Life appears again as a literal Tree. Since the only way to the tree is through the Word (ie, the angel of the Lord with the flaming sword) and we know who the Word is, no logical model requires a contradiction in reading Jesus out of the equation. But, admittedly, it is not like there is this great theology that really explains the function and nature of that Tree (it is guarded to this day, after all, from people with fallen knowledge).

But, once again, spiritualizing the problem does not solve the problem. And again, that pattern of reason has demonstrated limitations in theology -- (ie, the physical resurrection_. Thus, I inherently mistrust it as the sole solution here.

Rev 2:7 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the midst of the paradise of God.


Rev 22:2 In the midst of the street of it, and on either side of the river, [was there] the tree of life, which bare twelve [manner of] fruits, [and] yielded her fruit every month: and the leaves of the tree [were] for the healing of the nations.

Rev 22:14 Blessed [are] they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.

It is interesting that you try to explain a literal tree of life by making the cherubim and the flaming sword metaphorical.

The verse you quote are also very interesting. The tree of life surfaces again in the highly figurative book of Revelation. It is quite at home there with other Genesis images like the garden of paradise, the dragon, flaming sword, a wedding.

Clearly in the story, the tree of life presented a problem to God. Adam and Eve could have reach out and eaten the fruit and would have lived for ever, against God's will. That was why the cherubim and sword were posted there. It sounds like there was a source of eternal life outside God, and raises the possibility of 'another gospel', if we take it literally.

Of course, if the tree of life is not literal, it raises a question over the the tree of knowledge as a literal tree too, and if it was not a literal tree then the actual sin depicted as the source of the fall will not be literal either.

Promise of God's return. Nothing appears to me very clearly to explain why the prophecy of the woman's seed/serpent should be distinct as metaphor. On one hand, there is evidence that crucifixion literally involved nailing the heels. The crushing of the head is another matter.

Jesus certainly didn't step on any snakes, and the wounds in his feet were not caused by snake bite.

I still hold to the view that the text itself will provide a key to distinguish metaphor and literal truth (Ie, if your hand offends you ....) I don't have a clear picture here. And I continue to argue that we need to remain consistent in hermeneutics, I just can't make that demonstration at the moment.

There is a very popular YEC argument that Genesis cannot be metaphorical, because anytime scripture uses metaphors like that it tells us clearly in the text. It is actually a circular 'no true Scotsman' argument. The only way you can say the text always provides the key to identify metaphors is by only recognising metaphors that are clearly labelled by the text.

Genesis is a very good example. Nowhere in the story is there any suggestion that the snake is anything other than a very clever talking snake, wisest of all the wild animals. Yet elsewhere in the bible, Ezekiel, John, Revelation, the snake is identified as actually being a fallen angel. Jesus victory on Calvary is clearly a fulfilment of the promise in Gen 3, yet it only works if the promise was metaphorical. If it was literal, then Jesus did not fulfill the very first messianic prophecy. He did not crush the literal snake that tempted Eve.

As for God's future return, obviously I can't prove how that will be, because it is prophetic. But, it is impossible to imagine any solution that looks anything like human evolution or the progressive development of human knowledge or spirituality. An intervention on every level is practically demanded by our nature and the circumstance we have have. The enemies of God (Islam) have also clarified the stakes, since their opposition to the physical return of Jesus as King of Israel and Son of God is their essential point of contention. You geologists argue from your observations (rocks) and I am arguing from my observations (politics and my corrupt body).

While TE's tend to be more Amil. in their eschatology, I don't think it is a subject that comes up in a literal reading of Genesis. Though there is a traditional YEC figurative interpretation of the creation days which read the seven days of creation as seven millennia

 

[Assyrian]

I agree it is strange to take it literally. However, in literary terms, I can see comparing it to the fact that Messiah was sacrificed on a tree. Jesus Christ is the well of water that never ends. He died on a figurative tree so that we can live forever in a spiritual sense.

I usually talk of the promise of a seed who will crush the serpent's head as the first messianic prophecy. It is certainly the first explicit promise of a redeemer. But the tree of life is also a picture of the eternal life we could have had, but lost, and is there for us in the gospel.

The idea of the tree of life as a picture of the cross sends shivers down my spine. Thanks Pats, it is beautiful.