We may not always agree. But we are a kindred spirit. This is a journey,
one that is via bits and bytes. You challenge me; I learn... and maybe vise
versa. We're still headed together to bask in the glow of the Son.
Read Beale before you read Vos. Vos may make more sense.
And as per your questions... the simplest answer I have is my own
presupposition, one I think is justified as it rises from the text: you must
*believe* in Genesis 3:15. When you do, Christ will jump off every page you
care to meander. The OT writers were keying off that promise in everything
they wrote. It doesn't mean they understood it all; but there is a
Messianic consciousness embedded in the narrative, poetry, prophecy, wisdom,
song, etc.
btw... 24 hours from now, my family and I will be in Homosassa Springs, the
beginning of a 2-week hiatus in hurricane country. I hope the thermostat is
UP. :-)
Chad
----- Original Message -----
From: "H Dorrington" <hjdinfl@...>
To: <soundofgrace@...>
Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2004 9:50 PM
Subject: Re: [soundofgrace] inferred deeper meanings
> Hi Chad,
> First of all I want to thank you for your time and all the information you
have shared. I sincerely appreciate it.
>
> I am going to take some time and reread this but I am having trouble
accepting that they all understood the types, prophecies, shadows of
everything to come when they wrote the words. I have it all before me and I
don't yet understand it all!
>
> I am sure this has happened to you as well, but you teach a class or
preach a sermon and someone comes up to you later and tells you how that
talk was exactly what they needed and they share how God spoke to them
through it and they thank you. You smile but inside you are scratching your
head because nothing you said even is close to the application they arrived
at! Still God uses it for His purpose in the lives of those who heard what
you said.
>
> So did all the OT writers fully understand the prophetic statements they
penned and how everything would be shown to be a shadow of their coming
Savior? I don't know.
>
> Harry
>
> Chad Richard Bresson <breusswane@...> wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "H Dorrington"
> > Are you saying that when they told of Jonah being in the belly of the
> > great fish for three days that they knew our Savior >would be in the
tomb
> > for three days as well?
>
> Exactly. And we know that because that's how Christ himself exegeted the
> passage. And we know from Luke 24, Christ expected his disciples to
> understand the suffering nature of that Messiah.
>
> From the very beginning of the canon, we have a death/resurrection theme
in
> the redemptive story pointing forward to the seed of the woman. Not only
is
> this running theme through the Old Testament narrative tied to the
Messiah's
> death/resurrection in the New Testament, it is tied to our understanding
of
> the New Birth, Regeneration, The Exodus, New Heart, New Creation, and in
> some cases, Reconciliation. The language Eve uses in naming Seth is our
> first hint that Eve recognizes Seth is a living substitute for Abel who
> died. The most vivid death/resurrection type in the Old Testament is Isaac
> being laid on the wood (for all practical purposes he was dead) and then
> rising again... even Jewish theologians of Christ's day saw this in the
> Moriah narrative. Joseph rises from the pit/imprisonment to be exalted
> king. The Israelites are given new life in rising from Egypt to Canaan.
> Solomon is the risen son of David (the first one for Bathsheba died).
> Ezekiel's dry bones that are resurrected also touch on this (the bones of
> ch. 37 are in the context of the new heart 36).
>
> In three of these death/resurrection narratives, a vessel is used in the
> resurrecting of the life from within. Noah's ark, Moses' ark-cradle, and
> Jonah's fish. Jonah's fish, to the jewish reader/hearer would have brought
> to mind the Noah and Moses narratives. And we have to keep in mind the
> progression of revelation. The seed of Genesis is unfolding toward the
> flower of full bloom in Christ. The dark room of faint shadows in Genesis
> is slowly increasing in candlepower as more details come to light. To
> Christ, who obviously understood the death/resurrection theme through the
OT
> better than anyone, Jonah's fish gives him a detail that the other
> narratives don't: three days in His vessel.
>
> > Are you saying that because they spoke so plainly about God entering
into
> > covenants with Noah, Abraham, etc that we >would understand that there
> > were also covenants of works, grace, creation, and redemption even
though
> > they never >mentioned them?
>
> The question is whether or not "they never mentioned them". Again, I go
> back to the imposition of our Greek mindset on a Jewish text. The Jews
were
> more interested in theology through the narrative than we are. We want
> things explicitly laid out for us, usually in systematic fashion (which is
> why we tend to create systematic theology in order to understand the Bible
> better). We aren't satisified trying to understand the theology of the
> narrative because we Greeks prefer ontological communication. The Jewish
> mind and therefore literature didn't function that way. Ideas and
realities
> are presented in the narrative by explication AND implication.
>
> Would it have been a big deal for the Jew "not" to see the word covenant
in
> a passage yet understand covenant is in the passage? No, because the
> narrative is conveying the understanding of covenant without using the
word
> (anytime we read God saying "I will" we can be virtually certain that some
> kind of covenant is in play... which btw, is why it is interesting that
the
> king of tyre is using "I will" against God. This obviously doesn't answer
> all of the questions... it's just an example of what Jews would have
"heard"
> in a narrative).
>
> > Most of the time the Apostle who walked with Christ had no understanding
> > of what He was saying, do you really believe >that all the OT writers
> > fully understood all the pictures, types,and prophecies their writings
> > inferred?
>
> Fully understood? Of course not. They didn't know the specifics because
> they were in shadow. But they did know a lot more than we give them credit
> for. And they certainly understood inherent to all special revelation is
> the Messiah. These were writers in the line of the seed of the woman
> projecting forward in the historical narrative the seed of the woman.
Which
> is *why* we're not imposing anything to the text that isn't already there.
> Redemption is the reason for the revelation.. and the Messiah is the
object
> of that revelation. Always. Without the Messiah, there's no purpose for
> the revelation.
>
> >Or was it more of a matter of progressive revelation with each one adding
> >another part? Even Paul stated we know in >part...
>
> Correct. Again, think of the dark room that is slowly gaining more light.
> Nothing in the room has changed. It's just we see things a little more
> clearly as the light enters the room. And that room is still gaining
> light... hence Paul's statement.
>
> > I have been told repeatedly that baptism replaces circumsion as the sign
> > of the covenant and this is found by inference in >Colossians. Are you
> > saying that this is what God is telling us since inferece affirms it?
>
> Well, no... not necessarily. I still haven't come to place where I could
> affirm baptism as THE sign... I tend to think of the inner circumcision as
> the sign (since it is using the same word as the sign of the OC)... if
> anything, baptism might be a sign of the sign of the reality (union in
> Christ is the reality). But the problem with paedobaptists isn't the use
of
> inference, it's the use of inference rightly. I know it gets complicated
at
> this point and I'm running short on time for now. The Westminster
> Confession speaks of good and necessary consequence. The irony is that
> their understanding of infant baptism is neither a good or necessary
> inference/consequence. They have a ton of assumptions being place on top
of
> other assumptions. We saw this in a recent discussion on the rtdisc list.
> Peal one layer off and there's another layer of assumptions. While we both
> bring assumptions to the table, IMHO, our assumptions are stronger and are
> more justified by better rightly dividing.
>
> anyhow... now i'm rambling. hope this helps.
>
> Chad
>
> --
> Read the Sound of Grace pages at
> http://www.soundofgrace.com
>
> To unsubscribe, send ANY message to:
soundofgrace-unsubscribe@...
>
> To view our online archive go to our web page at
> http://www.associate.com/groups/soundofgrace
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses.
> --
> Read the Sound of Grace pages at
> http://www.soundofgrace.com
>
> To unsubscribe, send ANY message to:
soundofgrace-unsubscribe@...
>
> To view our online archive go to our web page at
> http://www.associate.com/groups/soundofgrace
>
>
>