Ge 3 c
Revisiting Genesis -Paul's comments on women Submitted by hesed28 on Mon, 2015-04-20 17:50.
I would love to revisit my paper again at some time and also share it in its entirety.
But can I make a quick detour for one minute and ask you something as it relates to the woman man from the rib of Adam.
I was thinking about Jesus in John's gospel where it says, "But when they came to Jesus, and saw that he was dead already, they brake not his legs" (John 19:33).
Psalm 34:20 He keepeth all his bones: not one of them is broken. Eph 5:30 For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.
However, the first Adam unlike the second Adam did have his bones broken. I say that because if Eve was made from a rib of Adam the bone had to be broken/detached from the rib cage?
Gen 2:21-23 And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man. And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man
I see the contrast between the bones of the first and second Adam and I sense there is a deeper message in all this. Why is that so significant that none of Jesus' bones where broken and the Bible goes into such great detail about how Eve was taken from Adam's rib?
I was wondering if it has anything to do with the special relationship between a husband and the wife versus the mystery between "Christ and the Church"?
Any insights?
\
broken rib Submitted by PigSP on Mon, 2015-04-20 18:23.
Nothing in the words used in Ge 2:21 say that any bones were broken.
The word for 'took' also means 'married'. The word for 'rib' also means 'side' and 'limping'. So there is no implication that anything was broken.
The main direction is that when Paul is speaking of marriage, he clearly says he is not speaking of marriage. What then is he speaking of. And since he is using OT sources, don't they speak of the same thing?
Here is a stoopid example to make the point in a stoopid way.
If I write a paper on the Biblical principle of buying a used car, and I come up with all kinds of scriptures to support my point, can it legitimately be said that the doctrine is Biblical, since no one would ever claim that any writer, human or divine, intended to speak of buying cars?
Since Jesus said the intention of all the scriptures was to speak of him, and since Paul clearly says he was not speaking of marriage, why do we apply the passages to marriage?
It is also a riddle in 1 Co 11:24 when Jesus is quoted by Paul as saying "this is my body which is broken for you." These apparent contradictions are riddles, and evidence the apostles used riddles. They are only contradictions when someone insists they be read NOT as riddles.
Bones The word for bone also means essence, power and might.
עץם bone is also tree עץ of the Son fulfilling the covenant ם. The bone would also be said to be a picture of the cross. Eve was made from the cross of Adam. The church was made from the cross of Christ.
Augustine's free for all allegory Submitted by PigSP on Mon, 2015-04-20 18:26.
I am unable to observe any consistency with Augustine's allegory. Clement is the one who comes closest, but he also falls into free-for-all.
The metric I use is that the metaphor must be the same everywhere. Neither Clement nor Augustine were able to practice that.
letters Submitted by PigSP on Mon, 2015-04-20 18:57.
Tom, thanks for asking.
1. We have two centuries of Jews assigning metaphor to the alphabet. No one forges $3 bills because there are no real $3 bills. So we surmise there must be a memory that letters have metaphor.
2. Various rabbis have different assignments suggesting that one or more lists are corrupt.
3. Then you look for consistency, such that the same metaphor is used to build words which have definitions with which we are familiar, either in the literal or plausible metaphor for the word.
You arrive at a proposed adjusted listing of alphabetic metaphor.
4. You check to see if there is evidence of its usage in the Old or New Testament. We find it used in both.
5. Then you check outside source (extrabiblical) to see if they corroborate the observations in the Bible. We find them in the Gospel of Thomas.
6. The presumption is that God created the letters in order to form words in order to create by speaking. The alphabet is in a set order because the letters are also numbers. We observe that the proposed set in order has a message of Christ.
7. When the metaphor of Ge 1.1 is read letter by letter it tells the story of creation, and the formation of words from metaphor.
8. The strokes use to build the metaphor of the letters are metaphors, and the meaning of the letters derives from the strokes. Again the rabbis have a proposed set, and they are validated in a similar fashion as the letters with words.
That is a bit NOT arbitrary.
Adam's rib and Christ's bones Submitted by tomgroeneman on Mon, 2015-04-20 18:49.
The reason I believe the Gospel records Christ's bones not being broken is because it is in fulfillment of the Passover lamb being sacrificed whole without any of its bones being broken. As far as this correlating with Adam's rib the only way I think that could be is when Christ's side was pierced at the cross blood and water flowed from His side symbolizing how like Eve the Church was birthed out of the side of the second Adam.
Gen. 2:21-25
So the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and he slept; then He took one of his ribs and closed up the flesh at that place. The LORD God fashioned into a woman the rib which He had taken from the man, and brought her to the man. The man said, “This is now bone of my bones, And flesh of my flesh; She shall be called Woman, Because she was taken out of Man.” For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh. And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed.
This deep sleep that God caused to fall on Adam is very much like the deep sleep that Abraham fell into when he cut the covenant with God in chapter 15. The Hebrews were a covenant people and the book of Genesis is full of covenant language. Here in Eden God and man both enter into an agreement to govern the Creation and all the elements of a standard covenant are there: historical prologue, terms and conditions, oath, blood sacrifice and seal or sign. In the Edenic covenant the blood is from Adam's side and the sign is marriage. The bone and flesh statements are indications of the strength and weakness of the human couple in their relationship; bones are strong and flesh is weak.
The Lord made woman from the man but that does not mean that the former is dependent or inferior to the latter. In Eden, the man and woman are equals and God brings the woman to the man. Adam is a very passive participant in these events. He is asleep for the operation and God brings him the woman showing us that we need not search for a mate if it is God's will for us but He will present the right person to us in His perfect timing.
In typology, the man and woman are types of Christ and the Church. This teaching is clearly attested by the Early Church Fathers. The Church was birthed from the side of the second Adam, Christ and this was taught by Augustine, Jerome and Tertullian.
For at the beginning of the human race the woman was made of a rib taken from the side of the man while he slept; for it seemed fit that even then Christ and His Church should be foreshadowed in this event. For that sleep of the man was the death of Christ, whose side, as He hung lifeless upon the cross, was pierced with a spear, and there flowed from it blood and water, and these we know to be the sacraments by which the Church is “built up.” For Scripture used this very word, not saying “He formed” or “framed,” but “built her up into a woman;” whence also the apostle speaks of the edification of the body of Christ, which is the Church. [Augustine, City of God, Book 22, Chapter 17.]
Following is a breakdown of the specifics of the marriage covenant gleaned from this passage. It is not meant to be complete or exhaustive but to cover the essentials.
(1) Marriage is an unbreakable bond. Unlike a legal contract which is the model for most contemporary marriages, the union of man and woman is a covenant that is sworn by an oath and therefore permanent and irrevocable. Jesus taught much the same thing in Mark 10:2-12. (2) Marriage is instituted by God. Here we see from the very beginning God's hand upon the marriage covenant. Because it is ordained by God marriage is blessed and spiritual and holy in His sight. (3) Marriage is a type of Christ and the Church. There are many Scripture references that support this teaching but the most obvious one is Ephesians 5:32. (4) Marriage is a mystical union that has an organic quality to it. The two are one flesh and in that there is life and wholeness. (5) Marriage is the building block of society. The family is the center of civilization and healthy families make for a healthy society. We leave our parents and become parents ourselves passing on the legacy to future generations. (6) Marriage is the means for procreation. Mankind could not fulfill the command to be fruitful and multiply without reproduction. Only a man and a woman working together can biologically produce offspring. (7) Marriage involves communication. The words Adam speaks are spiritual in nature and any good relationship depends on clear and meaningful communication. Conflict is a result of the Fall and only the Holy Spirit can enable man and woman to communicate well.
In paradise man and woman experienced the freedom and joy of living without shame or remorse or guilt. We have no idea of what this must be like because from an early age our consciences tell us when we have done wrong. Adam and Eve had a completely free conscience not bothered by any shame whatsoever.
Your brother in Christ, TOM G.
"For I am not ashamed of the gospel for it is the power of God unto salvation to all the believing; to the Jew first and also the Gentile." Romans 1:16
Key words Submitted by PigSP on Mon, 2015-04-20 18:49.
>>Below is a list of key words in Genesis that I compiled. If you do not mind taking the time, could you apply the hermeneutic you are using to them?
You're asking me to just jump through Genesis. Several of the words I have already tackled. The word family does not occur in Genesis, so I do not really know what you are asking me to do. Are you just asking for word studies?
Is there some particular doctrine you are looking for? I am very open about answering doctrinal questions.
Would you prefer I work from an outline of Genesis and then dig into details and show the fractal nature?
Is this akin to asking to bypass algebra and just get to calculus?
I have made lots of crazy claims, and just shown the results of applying the methods. Is there a particular crazy claim you would like to investigate? I am happy to have people verify my observations and correct them if necessary. Working through the touch may answer a bunch of the methods questions.
Gen. 12:3 Submitted by tomgroeneman on Mon, 2015-04-20 19:27.
Forgive me for not including the Hebrew forms when I cited the list of words. I think I understand your system but I am not sure how much weight I should give it as a tool of overall hermeneutics. It seems you have concluded that this method derived from rabbinic sources is the be all and end all of Biblical interpretation. But how can that be when almost all exegetes over the centuries have not used it? Maybe I am too orthodox in my position regarding these questions as I remain somewhat skeptical of the whole assigning numerical and symbolic values to letters. I see language as very malleable without fitting into rigid systems of classification. It sounds too much like gematria and kabbalah to me.
The Hebrew word translated in most English versions of the Bible for "family" in Gen. 12:3 is:מִשְׁפְּחֹ֥ת, mishpuha. The Tav at the end makes it plural. Perhaps you can demonstrate how this word symbolizes the Church or family of God.
Your brother in Christ, TOM G.
"For I am not ashamed of the gospel for it is the power of God unto salvation to all the believing; to the Jew first and also the Gentile." Romans 1:16
Guidelines Submitted by PigSP on Mon, 2015-04-20 20:08.
I answer that, The author of Holy Writ is God, in whose power it is to signify His meaning, not by words only (asman also can do), but also by things themselves. So, whereas in every other science things are signified by words, this science has the property, that the things signified by the words have themselves also a signification. Therefore that first signification whereby words signify things belongs to the first sense, the historical or literal I use voice of the King to refer to this sense. That signification whereby things signified by words have themselves also a signification is called the spiritual sense, which is based on the literal, and presupposes it.
---Amen---
Now this spiritual sense has a threefold division. For as the Apostle says (Hebrews 10:1) the Old Law is a figure of the New Law, and Dionysius says (Coel. Hier. i) "theNew Law itself is a figure of future glory." Again, in the New Law, whatever our Head has done is a type of what we ought to do. Therefore, so far as the things of the Old Law signify the things of the New Law, there is the allegorical sense
I refer to this as the voice of the prophet. It always speaks of Christ;
so far as the things done in Christ, or so far as the things which signify Christ, are types of what we ought to do, there is the moral sense
But so far as they signify what relates to eternal glory, there is the anagogical sense
I refer to this as the voice of the priest who speaks of eternal things.
Since the literal sense is that which the author intends, and since the author of Holy Writis God
historical-grammatical and historical-critical schools insist the human is the author ,
Who by one act comprehends all things by His intellect, it is not unfitting, as Augustine says (Confess. xii), if, even according to the literal sense, one word in Holy Writ should have several senses.
Choose one of Augustine's allegorical interpretations and I will do the Hebrew to see the difference.
