Thomas Aquinas and hermeneutics

[rcjones]

Recently I stumbled across a comment about Thomas Aquinas saying that he identified four layers of meaning in the scripture:

1. the literal or historical level, which is simply the event itself.
2. the allegorical level, which relates the literal event to events in the New Testament.
3. the moral level, which explains the abstract moral lesson to be drawn from the literal event.
4. the anagogical level, which relates the literal event to heavenly things.

The allegorical layer is properly criticized for being an exegetical free-for-all since a set of constraining rules apparently have not been identified.

The moral level, although apparently not having constraining rules, does not fall under the same condemnation even though the evidence of many of the discussion here show the need for them.

The anagogical level has been called Sensus Plenior by Brown and others which has at least four different approaches for saying we have no right to seek the same methods of interpretation that the Apostles and first century fathers used. The reason given is that there are apparently no rules to constrain the interpretations.

Is there anyone here comfortably conversant with these topics? In my own studies I have been finding that one scripture may speak in four voices: prophet, priest, king and judge. These seem to be very closely related to those of Aquinas and I would like to submit some ideas for critical comment. I have found a set of rules which I believe strictly constrain the meaning and address the criticism mentioned above.

I would like to show how I exegete Gen 1 in the voice of the priest to obtain a hidden table of contents for the rest of the Bible.

 

[COPLAND_3]

I totally live by those guidelines that the great St. Thomas Aquinas has there in his Summa Theologica that you just referred to.

You have brought up some important points, especially with the allegorical and anagogical interpretations, because some interpreters like Origen could get down right rediculous with some of his homilies, that I find are basically useless in my opinion. I prefer to not look for the allegorical or anagogical meaning on my own, I leave that up to the spiritual heavy weights who use some sense of balance. St. Augustine is one who had that unique gift of balance. St. Thomas Aquinas had the same knack though he would usually give you what the Fathers had to say but he did the hard work of sifting out what was good.

The moral sense is good but it is usually applied in sermons and homilies because those are given to a group of listeners for instruction on how to apply a Scripture passage to your life.

Theodoret of Cyrus is one of my favorite commentators because he is usually concise and literal which makes his commentaries valuable to me because I can quickly find the point that is straight to the point.

I would be very interested to see how you handle Gen 1. In fact I just finished up on it myself giving the literal meaning litteralchristianlibrary.wetpaint.com/page/Commentary+on+Genesis+by+John+Litteral

 

[Benadam]

I am very interested in dialogue regarding Genesis’ peculiar characteristic of revealing the sublime layers of scripture. Jesus pointed our minds to the ‘beginning’ as a place to look for deeper truth. I’m not the scholarly sort as I know Copeland and yourself are but I appreciate the opportunity to be able to contribute to the thread as the current of dialogue is bound to flow my way at various points.
.

 

[rcjones]

Additional meaning for the three additional layers comes from riddle, so it is fair to ask if God says He speaks in riddles:

Dark sayings = riddles

Nu 12:8 With him will I speak mouth to mouth, even apparently, and not in dark speeches <02420>; and the similitude of the LORD shall he behold: wherefore then were ye not afraid to speak against my servant Moses? 
Ps 49:4 I will incline mine ear to a parable: I will open my dark saying <02420> upon the harp. 
Ps 78:2 I will open my mouth in a parable: I will utter dark sayings <02420> of old: 
Pr 1:6 To understand a proverb, and the interpretation; the words of the wise, and their dark sayings <02420>. 
Eze 17:2 Son of man, put forth a riddle <02420>, and speak a parable unto the house of Israel; 
Da 8:23 And in the latter time of their kingdom, when the transgressors are come to the full, a king of fierce countenance, and understanding dark sentences <02420>, shall stand up. 
Pr 1:22 How long, ye simple ones, will ye love simplicity? and the scorners delight in their scorning, and fools hate knowledge?

Since the criticism on constraints is valid, these are the rules that are discerned from the scripture, that I play by:

1. Since God has said that not a jot or tittle will pass away, until one knows why each jot and tittle is there, a complete understanding has not been derived. (This keeps us humble)
2. Since man shall live “…by every word”, a doctrine is not sound until it sums up and includes all that God has said about it. (This keeps us searching)
3. Since every word must be established by two or three witnesses, every shadow must have at least two supporting scripture witnesses. (This keeps us rigorous in methodology)
4. Since God’s word is established forever, a shadow means the same thing everywhere is it used. So, since a donkey is a shadow of a prophet, everywhere there is a donkey, it is a shadow of a prophet. This rule alone makes the shadows humanly impossible to fabricate. (This keeps us an awe)
5. The riddle of Samson tells us Christ is the answer to all the riddles. If the shadow doesn’t look like Christ, it isn’t a good shadow. (This keeps us focussed)
6. And since we are to “let everyman be a liar and God be true”, outside references are not required to solve the riddles and see the shadows. (This keeps us devoted)

I will assume that simple reference to a Biblical teaching is often sufficient rather than rigorously giving two or three witness scriptures. If ever the teaching is not clear from the reference, asking for the witnesses is always fair game. For instance, I would assume that most Christians are familiar with Jesus teaching about jots and tittles of the law not passing away, and so I would not document it fully.

On the other hand, a donkey being a shadow of a prophet would not be familiar, and were we addressing a scripture with a donkey in it, I would usually give two or three witness scriptures as well as examples of its use. Here it is is used as an illustration rather than a doctrine so I let it pass.

Now please consider these rules carefully. If rule 4 holds up under examination, the shadows cannot be human invention. Rule 5 insists that no shadow can contradict the literal. Rule 3 eliminates invention.

If an interpretation can follow all of these rules, I believe it is reproducible and verifiable.

 

[rcjones]

Gen 1.1

**In the beginning **
Since Christ is the alpha and the omega this becomes ‘In Christ’. What does it mean to be ‘in Christ’? In one sense it means to be in his will. It is not important that I give all the answers, but that we see the riddles that inspire us to meditate upon Christ

Elohim
One of the tools of riddle is the pun. Understanding this to mean anything other that God is not required to get the meaning of the scripture, but the pun, once again places the focus upon Christ.

03808 allo means ‘not’
02345 khoom means ‘dark’
01949 hoom means ‘disquiet’, ‘stirred’

So the pun of Elohim means ‘not dark’ or ‘not stirred or troubled’.

Who is ‘the not dark’ if not Christ who is the Light?

heaven and earth
We are playing with word play as we look at riddles.

The phrase ‘in him’ suggests that ‘heaven and earth’ is Christ:

• In him*
  
  Eph 1:9 Having made known unto us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure which he hath purposed in himself: 10 That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him:

Everything in heaven and on earth will be ‘in Christ’

his image
The phrase ‘his image’ suggests that ‘heaven and earth’ is Christ:

Gen 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. 
1Co 15:49 And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly.

Lets substitute ‘Christ’ for ‘heaven and earth’ in some other passages and see if they still make sense:

Mt 24:35 Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.

Christ will die on the cross, but my words shall not pass away.

Lu 16:17 And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail.

It is easier for Christ to die on the cross, than for one tittle of the law to fail.

Mt 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

Till Christ dies on the cross, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, until all be fulfilled.

If this last one is still scripture after the substitution, it goes a long way to discredit those who would pit Jesus against Paul saying that Jesus said he came to fulfill the law, and Paul said it has been done away with. It is perfectly consistent that Jesus should fulfill it on the cross and that after the cross it would be of no affect to those who had received grace.

None of these turn to gibberish with the substitution nor do they contradict known doctrine, so we will tentatively say that ‘heaven and earth’ = Christ in our word play. This does not say that Jesus is literally the heaven and the earth. This is word play – riddle.

Now we have a theological problem because Gen 1.1 seems to say “In Christ, the not dark (Christ) created Christ”. Our rules say that the riddles cannot contradict known doctrine. Since we know that Christ is not created we do not have a complete picture yet.

As we examine the word ‘create’ more closely, we find that it also means ‘cut down’. Now that is an odd word that can mean both ‘created’ and ‘cut down’. I didn’t invent it.

When we substitute it, Gen 1.1 now says "In Christ, Christ cut down Christ.

Without getting into the details at the moment, “heaven and earth” will eventually be shown to be a more precise “dual-natured Christ”.

Gen 1.1 is now a perfect summary of the whole Bible almost as if it were the title to the book.

In Christ’s own will, Christ, the Holy and perfect Light, cut off Jesus, the dual-natured Christ upon the cross. Now I’m preaching.

I know the method is foreign because we are not accustomed to working in riddle. I didn’t invent it. I was taught it by a rabbi who refused to look at the New Testament, so he could never see Christ.

Riddles are annoying child’s play because the solution cannot be discerned from the information contained in the statement of the riddle. The answer must be known first and then be plugged back into the riddle to see that it makes sense.

God hid the pictures of Christ in the riddles of the Old Testament only to be revealed by Christ himself. He is the answer and the focus of all the riddles. I believe on the road to Emmaus, he showed the disciples how to see him in the riddles. The images of him in the scriptures were hidden until then.

 

[diggerdomer]

Recently I stumbled across a comment about Thomas Aquinas saying that he identified four layers of meaning in the scripture:

1. the literal or historical level, which is simply the event itself.
2. the allegorical level, which relates the literal event to events in the New Testament.
3. the moral level, which explains the abstract moral lesson to be drawn from the literal event.
4. the anagogical level, which relates the literal event to heavenly things.

The allegorical layer is properly criticized for being an exegetical free-for-all since a set of constraining rules apparently have not been identified.

The moral level, although apparently not having constraining rules, does not fall under the same condemnation even though the evidence of many of the discussion here show the need for them.

The anagogical level has been called Sensus Plenior by Brown and others which has at least four different approaches for saying we have no right to seek the same methods of interpretation that the Apostles and first century fathers used. The reason given is that there are apparently no rules to constrain the interpretations.

Is there anyone here comfortably conversant with these topics? In my own studies I have been finding that one scripture may speak in four voices: prophet, priest, king and judge. These seem to be very closely related to those of Aquinas and I would like to submit some ideas for critical comment. I have found a set of rules which I believe strictly constrain the meaning and address the criticism mentioned above.

I would like to show how I exegete Gen 1 in the voice of the priest to obtain a hidden table of contents for the rest of the Bible.

Maybe tangential, but just a note, it’s not only Aquinas. The Church acknowledges these four senses (what you call layers of meaning) of Scripture, in the Catechism (see para 115ff.): usccb.org/catechism/text/pt1sect1chpt2.shtml

I’ve never heard anything directly relating to your four proposed voices, but it might have merit and it would be interesting to see what you come up with.

Similarly, you may be able to offer something compelling and inspirational that shows how Genesis 1 is a hidden table of contents for the Bible, but in the end I tend to think this would be pretty speculative, useful for academics but maybe not for those “in the pews.”

 

[Benadam]

Interesting hints at the hypostatic union. Christ as heaven and earth The hypostatic union is compete in time and history when God’s will is done on earth as it is in heaven.

I’m also reminded of God’s call to the prophet Jeremiah to "tear down and build up’ in reference to ‘in Christ Christ cut down Christ’

The not dark Christ created Christ to me points to the Christ hidden in OT prophecy becomes visible ( Incarnation )and creates Christ ( church and or second coming)

Any time I read of darkness I think of the conscious awareness of man in his Original state that became submerged and remains throughout history man’s subconscious. True for the entire race and individuals. Our state of consciousness as infants becomes our subconscious as we reach the age of reason. This didn’t happen to Jesus.
The not dark Christ could be the Christ that is revealed as a conscious reality to man.

Just a side note, it is in this submerged consciousness that the hidden religion of anti-christ is at work and remains there untill the worship of images of good consciously is abandoned by most in the world.

What is subconscious to us remained conscious for Jesus since it is original sin and the sting of death that submerges the conscious state we percieved reality with as infants

 

[rcjones]

Maybe tangential, but just a note, it’s not only Aquinas. The Church acknowledges these four senses (what you call layers of meaning) of Scripture, in the Catechism (see para 115ff.): usccb.org/catechism/text/pt1sect1chpt2.shtml

Thanks. I’ll take a look.

To exegete the shadows, as I call them, you must be able to identify puns and word play in Hebrew, and then know the scriptures sufficiently to correlate them to solve the riddles. The average pew sitter has little interest in doing so. However, the table of contents that will emerge from Gen 1 will provide an outline or theme that will be repeated throughout the rest of scriptures like a watermark behind the literal.

When they become familiar with it, even children are able to pick it out.

In popular typology ‘dark’ means something sinister. But we can’t mix popular typology with the shadows.

Shadows are simply word-play and riddle. Jesus’ life is the light, and the light coming into the world is the condemnation (John 3). Christ’s perfect life then is what condemns us. Since we hide our sin in the darkness, we wicked men receive grace there.

Popular typology or metaphor may still be correct for the literal or kingly voice.

We speak of a dark heart full of sin. But in shadows, sin is scarlet and red…“Though your sins be as scarlet…” This eliminates invention and makes shadows reproducible since there must always be scriptural ‘witnesses’ to the meaning.

Alternate meanings, such as benadam has presented are valuable as a backstop to test the methods. Are there scriptural ‘witnesses’ to support a popular or alternate meaning?

In solving the riddles there is no hermeneutic that is more demanding that the scriptures interpret scripture. So when there is a difference, the ‘witnesses’ are brought for and the rules applied to them.

If there is ever a dispute about the meaning, it is resolved by the scriptures. An example is ‘water’. One person would read about water and find that it is destructive. Another might focus on the scriptures that show it is life-giving. Since there can only be one shadow, it is resolved by taking a step back and seeing that water is the “word” and the word contains law and grace. The storms and floods are the law which brings judgment, the spring and well are the grace in the word that brings life.

The rules demand that it be only one thing, so rather than argue if it is law or grace or violate the rule by saying the context determines it, it simply becomes the word which encompasses both.

The voice of the king will use literal meanings, the voice of the priest will use the hidden riddles. AND… this is very important… the literal never loses it’s meaning. They exist simultaneously.

 

[Contarini]

The allegorical layer is properly criticized for being an exegetical free-for-all since a set of constraining rules apparently have not been identified.

That’s propaganda (I don’t mean it’s yours–I mean that you have heard it and believed it). There are plenty such rules. For instance, you can’t prove doctrine from allegory. Anyone who says that medieval allegory was an exegetical free-for-all hasn’t bothered trying to understand it.

There are problems with the medieval concept, though. The big one is in defining the literal sense. Is the “literal sense” the sense originally meant by the human authors, as discerned by historical scholarship? If so, then what becomes of prophetic meanings which may not have been intended by the human authors? To take a specific example, does the literal sense of Isaiah 7:14 refer to Christ or not?

From the early Church through the Reformation, the definition of the “literal sense” became broader and broader to accommodate those concerns (by and large: Erasmus is a counter-example, but he was looking at things from a literary perspective and was heavily influenced by Origen). Aquinas defines metaphors and parables as part of the “literal sense” (in other words, the literal sense of Luke 10:30-35 is “show mercy to those in need,” not “an unfortunate thing happened the other day on the road to Jericho”). In the next century, Nicholas of Lyra distinguished between the “literal-historical” and “literal-prophetic” senses, so as to accommodate prophecy within the literal sense. The Protestant Reformers generally denounced allegory in colorful terms (helping create the mischaracterization that you repeat in your post) while quietly acknowledging the need for a “sober” spiritual sense (and employing non-literal methods of interpretation frequently).

The moral level, although apparently not having constraining rules, does not fall under the same condemnation even though the evidence of many of the discussion here show the need for them.

I’m not sure you understand what the “moral level” was. The medievals aren’t talking about explicit moral teaching in Scripture, which would come under the “literal” sense. The “moral” (sometimes called “tropological”) level of interpretation applied Scripture to the personal lives of Christians in non-literal ways (for instance, the drowning of the Egyptians in the Red Sea would refer to the drowning of our sins in the waters of baptism, and the promise “you will never see these Egyptians again” would be a promise of divine grace to overcome our sinfulness). But you’re right that this is generally less controversial than the others, because it is more about devotional application and is less likely to stray across the boundary into doctrinal formulation (as allegory, for all the safeguards one may create, tends to do).

The anagogical level has been called Sensus Plenior by Brown and others

Does Brown really identify the anagogical level as the “sensus plenior”? I think this term would be better used for either the more strictly typological aspect of allegory or the tropological sense, or both.

If you are seriously interested in this, you cannot do better than Henri de Lubac’s four-volume Exegese Medievale. The first two volumes at least have been translated into English (maybe more by now–I haven’t checked recently).

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Gen 1.1

**In the beginning **
Since Christ is the alpha and the omega this becomes ‘In Christ’. What does it mean to be ‘in Christ’? In one sense it means to be in his will. It is not important that I give all the answers, but that we see the riddles that inspire us to meditate upon Christ

Elohim
One of the tools of riddle is the pun. Understanding this to mean anything other that God is not required to get the meaning of the scripture, but the pun, once again places the focus upon Christ.

03808 allo means ‘not’
02345 khoom means ‘dark’
01949 hoom means ‘disquiet’, ‘stirred’

So the pun of Elohim means ‘not dark’ or ‘not stirred or troubled’.

Do you find this pun in rabbinic commentary? Jewish exegetes have pushed this kind of method about as far as it can go. Have you consulted them? If not, why not? Why are you trying to reinvent the wheel?

Edwin

 

[rcjones]

I was taught the method by a rabbi. When I started seeing Christ, he refused to look. For the Jew the riddles do not have answers because they refuse to see Christ. This is why midrash has confusing and contradictory interpretations.

As mentioned above, you must know the answer to a riddle to ‘get it’. If you don’t know Christ you will not ‘get it’.

The techniques used to discern pun, word play, and context sharing is compliant with the 32 rules of Rabbi Eliezer, so I am not inventing or reinventing anything.

Jewish exegetes have pushed this kind of method about as far as it can go.

They have pushed it as far as it can go without approaching Christ. You cannot solve the riddles without the New Testament. Where but in John 1 will you find that Christ is the ‘not Dark’ or the Light?

You will find that once you are able to practice it, it explains many of the ‘odd’ ways that New Testament authors used the Old Testament as well. I believe they were familiar with it.

 

[rcjones]

That’s propaganda (I don’t mean it’s yours–I mean that you have heard it and believed it). There are plenty such rules. For instance, you can’t prove doctrine from allegory. Anyone who says that medieval allegory was an exegetical free-for-all hasn’t bothered trying to understand it.

I appreciate your insights. Benadam is mistaken when he identifies me as a scholarly type. I am uneducated and have been a street evangelist for 27 years. If you include Protestant, Charismatic and Pentecostal allegory in the mix, the free-for-all criticism become much more applicable than perhaps a medieval context.

There are problems with the medieval concept, though. The big one is in defining the literal sense. Is the “literal sense” the sense originally meant by the human authors, as discerned by historical scholarship? If so, then what becomes of prophetic meanings which may not have been intended by the human authors? To take a specific example, does the literal sense of Isaiah 7:14 refer to Christ or not?

In this hermeneutic, the literal never loses it’s meaning and we have 2, 3 or 4 entendre. IF a scripture has four meanings, 1,2,3 and 4 where 4 is the final fulfillment in Christ and 1,2,and three are shadows of it. Then it appears that 1 and 2 prophecy, 3. and that 1, prophecies 2 and 3. The prophets lived dinner theater to teach the Hebrews what the history of the Hebrews, as dinner theater was to teach mankind. Once you see them as the same theme or motif, you just lump them together in the big idea.

From the early Church through the Reformation, the definition of the “literal sense” became broader and broader to accommodate those concerns (by and large: Erasmus is a counter-example, but he was looking at things from a literary perspective and was heavily influenced by Origen). Aquinas defines metaphors and parables as part of the “literal sense” (in other words, the literal sense of Luke 10:30-35 is “show mercy to those in need,” not “an unfortunate thing happened the other day on the road to Jericho”). In the next century, Nicholas of Lyra distinguished between the “literal-historical” and “literal-prophetic” senses, so as to accommodate prophecy within the literal sense. The Protestant Reformers generally denounced allegory in colorful terms (helping create the mischaracterization that you repeat in your post) while quietly acknowledging the need for a “sober” spiritual sense (and employing non-literal methods of interpretation frequently).

I have talked mostly with Reformed types and have been heavily condemned to the point that even Calvinists have told me that my salvation is in jeopardy. (non-sequitor). I have had fruitful conversations with Eastern Orthodox who have said that these methods and the results are consistent with Orthodoxy. The shadows even tell why the Orthodox cross has the angle foot piece.

I’m not sure you understand what the “moral level” was. The medievals aren’t talking about explicit moral teaching in Scripture, which would come under the “literal” sense. The “moral” (sometimes called “tropological”) level of interpretation applied Scripture to the personal lives of Christians in non-literal ways (for instance, the drowning of the Egyptians in the Red Sea would refer to the drowning of our sins in the waters of baptism, and the promise “you will never see these Egyptians again” would be a promise of divine grace to overcome our sinfulness). But you’re right that this is generally less controversial than the others, because it is more about devotional application and is less likely to stray across the boundary into doctrinal formulation (as allegory, for all the safeguards one may create, tends to do).

I am sure that I don’t know medieval intentions and meanings. I have only stumbled across brief notes about them, and they have had enough correlation to encourage me to continue. I have found the the voice of the judge often makes a moral pronouncement upon the literal narrative, where often it would have been left to a guess. For instance, In Exodus, the voice of the judge condemns Moses for killing the Egyptian in the narrative of the burning bush when he cast the rod on the ground. But I need others to review my work, and it should all be considered tentative until it is validated by others.

Does Brown really identify the anagogical level as the “sensus plenior”? I think this term would be better used for either the more strictly typological aspect of allegory or the tropological sense, or both.

I think the context of Brown is the New Testament authors’ use of the Old. In this they come up with some ‘odd’ or creative interpretations that are attributed to Apostolic authority or inspiration. I believe they can be explained using this hermeneutic.

If you are seriously interested in this, you cannot do better than Henri de Lubac’s four-volume Exegese Medievale. The first two volumes at least have been translated into English (maybe more by now–I haven’t checked recently).

Edwin

I did not set out to find hidden meanings. After studying with the rabbi, they started popping out everywhere. It took me a while to figure out what was happening and put it in the context of the midrash techniques I was taught. I was, at first, applying them automatically. I was first accused of being a Gnostic, so I had to figure out what a Gnostic was to know that I wasn’t one.

Each time I was accused of something else, I had to research it to see if it was true. Then I started finding early church fathers had a memory of the shadows though they did not always demonstrate a knowledge of the rules. I have been stumbling across others’ writings that encourage me. I will look for the book you mention.

I have heard harsh criticism of Origen, but have not found his writings containing the ‘bizarre’ typology people describe, so I have not been able to evaluate the shadows against him.

I have been finding the shadows for nearly seven years now. I have unpacked whole books which have word-for-word second narratives. Because the nature of them is in riddle, imagine trying to draw pictures of riddles for those who “don’t get it”. It get tedious at times to try to explain them I hope you will have patience with my insufficiencies.

The children in our fellowship now see may of them on their own. We were reading Daniel literally and the children immediately identified the statue in the dream as Christ. One ten year old identified the real agony of the cross being that the Father was split from the son by the images of the parted water, split veil, split rock, etc. and that Jesus wasn’t literally split on the cross.

 

[rcjones]

In order to not get bogged down in details too soon, let me give the overview and then start into explaining it.

Day 1 speaks of the fall
Day 2 speaks of the flood
Day 3 speaks of the patriarchs
Day 4 speaks of Israel in the wilderness
Day 5 speaks of Israel in the promised land
Day 6 speaks of the life of Christ

Then in each section of the Bible which is referred to, there is a more detailed shadow of Christ in complete hidden narratives.

The phrase which separates the sections is “and there was evening and morning…”. Quite the opposite of popular typology, light and dark do not represent good and evil in the shadows. We must let the scriptures speak for themselves.

John 1.4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.
John 3.19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.

Lets do the simple substitution of words: If Jesus’ life was the light and the light coming into the world was the condemnation, then the life of Christ is the condemnation. That is the riddle: In what way is the life of Christ the condemnation?

Consider Hebrews 4 and Phillipeans 2 together::

Heb 4:15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.

Phil 2:6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: 7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: 8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.

Paul expresses the doctrine of ‘kenosis’ or ‘emptying’. Jesus was God from the beginning, but when he chose to become incarnate, to take on the flesh and become a man, he did not become a superman. Rather than be omnipresent, existing everywhere simultaneously, he chose to limit his presence to the body of a baby grown in the womb of a virgin. Rather than being omnipotent, or all powerful, he chose to limit himself to the strength of a child which grew into a man. And rather than be omniscient, and know everything, he chose to limit himself to the knowledge of a human baby which would learn from his parents, his culture, his rabbis and the word of God as contained in the Jewish scriptures. This is ‘kenosis’. He did not cease to be God, but he chose to limit himself to experience being a man.

In this experience as a man, he was tempted in every way as we are. People don’t like this, because it is his Holy life that puts us to shame. Had he used one ounce of his deity to resist sin, he would not have been tempted in every way as we are. In fact, the shadows tell us that when he was 12 and in the temple, he did not yet know that he was God incarnate. He saw the shadows and connected the stones in the scriptures as a single picture of the Messiah, he knew that he was the Messiah to come from his parents. But he would not realize he was God incarnate until his return to Jerusalem. (I am spitting out stuff here in the shadows that you will want to verify.)

This realization provided the opportunity for a greater temptation than we or Adam has ever faced. Adam, who was just a man, attempted to be ‘like God’ when he ate the fruit from the tree. Jesus, when he realized he was truly God incarnate, thought equality with God was not something to pursue. He continually did what He saw his father do rather than claim his own deity.

What a temptation! Did he read he scriptures correctly? Was he really God in the flesh? Couldn’t he feed the people or perform miracles as a superman to gain the love of his people? He certainly could! It was a real option for him, which is why it was a real temptation. But it was his father’s will that he die on a cross. It was not his own will! “Father, remove this cup…” was his unheard plea.

As God, didn’t the whole universe belong to him? Yet he recognized his established order in property ownership and did not steal from his neighbors nor even take their riches when they desired to follow him.

Weren’t all men his own creatures and products of his own hand? Yet he did not act capriciously or selfishly with them, but even denied himself legitimate familial relationships.

In all of these things he was tempted in every way as we are, to think of himself first. But in all of these things, he thought of us first. He did not sin, nor did he use one ounce of his deity to resist the temptation. He did it fully as man.

It is this perfect life that is the light. It is this light that reveals our sinfulness and condemns us. He put us all to shame, then bore our shame out of love for us.

While in the shadows the light is the condemnation… darkness is grace.

forum has length restrictions

 

[Benadam]

Lets do the simple substitution of words: If Jesus’ life was the light and the light coming into the world was the condemnation, then the life of Christ is the condemnation. That is the riddle: In what way is the life of Christ the condemnation?

 

[Benadam]

Lets do the simple substitution of words: If Jesus’ life was the light and the light coming into the world was the condemnation, then the life of Christ is the condemnation. That is the riddle: In what way is the life of Christ the condemnation?

8 Which when Simon Peter saw, he fell down at Jesus’ knees, saying: Depart from me, for I am a sinful man, O Lord

3 And God said: Be light made. And light was made. 4 And God saw the light that it was good; and he divided the light from the darkness.

 

[rcjones]

Benadam… good context linking.

Since the Light is condemnation, the darkness is grace.

I already hear the objection: How can darkness be grace when sin is black? Well, sin isn’t black. Sin is scarlet and red.

Isa 1:18 Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool.

So lets listen to the scriptures about the darkness:

John 3:19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. 20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.

If you come to the light, your deeds are reproved. As an evil doer I certainly don’t want condemnation, so I love the darkness and grace where my sins are covered. We don’t read it this way because generally we refuse to admit that we are evil doers. But once you have met Christ and been condemned by his Holiness, you run for the grace where your sins are covered.

But the darkness has also been described as horrible:

Ge 15:12 And when the sun was going down, a deep sleep fell upon Abram; and, lo, an horror of great darkness fell upon him.

and so we have another riddle: How can grace be horrible? One only need think of the cross. It was a wonderful cross and a horrible cross. It was so horrible that God himself was torn as the Father could not bear to look upon his Son whom had been made to be sin. The horror is captured in the images of the split rock, torn veil, parted water, split altar, divided nations, broken bread, and every other image of things divided.

So in the shadows, darkness is grace.

I will share a rough ‘translation’ for those who wish to meditate upon them in close to a raw state.

Verse 1 unpacks to “In Christ, the not dark cut off the dual-natured Christ”
Verse 2 “And Jesus was a mediator with God and empty; and the cross was upon the countenance of the Son. And the Spirit of God reconciled the countenance of Christ”
Verse 3 "And God said, Let there be condemnation: and there was condemnation.
Verse 4 "And God saw the condemnation, that is was good: and God separated the condemnation from grace.
Verse 5 "And God called the condemnation “The Day” and grace he called Night. And the dual-natured mediator was the first ‘shadow’ of Christ.

These all can be tediously derived as verse 1 was. If you are interested in the puns, word-play and shadow details of the above, let me know which specifics you are interested in.

We know that even though Adam sinned, God still uses everything for good. So it can legitimately be said that the condemnation was good. Normally the story of the fall ends with man being expelled from the garden. But the pattern defined by the day outline above is repeated within the story of the fall if we take it to the genealogy which follows.

These first verses of Gen 1 are just the summary of the narrative of Adam and the fall up to Gen 5 where the work of making man in the likeness of God is finally complete and the genealogy showing that he was fruitful.

Before going on to day two, I should probably outline Gen 1-5 showing that Although God said he would make man in his image AND likeness he only created man in his image in Gen 1 and finished with the likeness in Gen 5.

 

[rcjones]

In the shadows, the first day narrative says that the story of the fall is the first image of Christ.

I will outline the story of the fall so that we see the hints that it is indeed a picture of Christ.

The riddle is presented by the words of verses Gen 1.26 & 27

26 ¶ And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

Notice that although he says he will make man in his ‘image and likeness’ verse 27 only says he was created in his ‘image’. Not only is the absence of the word ‘likeness’ significant, but also the different words used ‘make’ and ‘create’.

"Make’ has the concept of work being involved. So once man was created in the image of God, work was required to make him in his likeness. We are told this was completed in Gen 5.1

1 ¶ This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him;

This verse not only tells us that God finished making man in his likeness at this point, but also that it was a single ‘day’ in which all this occurred. We must now be careful not to mix the literal and shadow. I cannot say that it was a single literal day between Gen 1 28 and Gen 5.1. But since God “called the Light Day” and since “the Life was the Light of the World” and since it is the life of Christ which John refers to, we can say that it is a single picture of Christ from Gen 1.26 to Gen 5.1 which tells how God “made man in His likeness”.

We should point out that there are many theologians who speculate what the “image and Likeness” is that man is made in. You will find such speculations that include physical images, references to the ability to love, create, be self-determined, etc. Each of these is a speculation.

This drawing servers as an overview of how Christ is the only one who is the “image” of God, and how we are “made like him”.

http://idontknownuthin.com/wiki/images/f/f3/Image_and_likeness_-_work_of_Christ_in_Abel.jpg

The genealogy that follows Gen 1.5 shows how Christ (the image) and his bride (the likeness) and fruitful and multiply.

You can see that the same outline of the gospel is contained in the narrative of the fall.
I am hoping the picture is self-explanatory, but if not please ask for details.

 

[rcjones]

I have only really outlined the last half of the fall narrative since it includes the gospel which I am unable to find documented elsewhere.

In the complete narrative we have:

1. the literal fall, which is a separation,
2. the promise of redemption through the seed of the woman,
3. after the death of Abel it was many years before Seth was born, this is the barren woman theme and waiting long for redemption
4. The birth of Seth as the resurrected Christ.
5. His family listing showing he was fruitful and multiplying

Although this first picture of Christ is a topic unto itself, and could easily distract from the Gen 1 topic, let me point out an interesting detail:

Gen 2:21 ¶ 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;

When you do the riddle and pun substitutions we get:

And God caused Christ to die and he died, and he married a certain limping side, and redeemed mankind.