The Book Of | ||
Nota Bene Dr. Peter Leithart Fr. Wayne McNamara Joshua Gibbs Jeremy Huggins Ben Downey J. Thomas Stevenson Abby Stevenson Jenny Sullivan Joy Sullivan Kristin Sullivan Seth Powers Jon Paul Pope Dan Sack Matt "Guido" Yonke Nate & Hannah Wolff Mark Caldwell Erin Caldwell Jared Owens Eric Dau Laura Blakey Katy Cummings Mary Wolff Amy Kress Stephanie Westfall Kristy Roberts Kristen Perry Evan Wilson Christ the King Trinity Reformed New St. Andrews
|
posted by Jeremy at 6:41 PM
I guess my take on Genesis 1 is not as far from the Framework Perspective as I had imagined (although I think it avoids the pitfalls of that view--perhaps I should call my version the Historicist Framework Perspective). I don't agree with everything here, I wish Irons were more Jordanesque in places, and I find the terms "literal" and "figurative" unhelpful in this discussion (I consider my own interpretation of the Genesis 1 creation days to be both literal and figurative), but this lecture shows that one can be an orthodox Calvinist and disagree with the twenty-four-hour-days interpretation for purely historical-grammatical reasons.
posted by Jeremy at 6:11 PM
I've recently had some additional thoughts about all of this, especially about the typology of the serpent. Ancient Israel was oft troubled by idolatry in the form of various fertility cults, worship of Baal (the male fertility god) and Ashtoreth (the mother-goddess). These complimentary deities, symbols of the masculine and feminine principles (yang and yin, respectively), are very often associated with serpents as cultic symbols; and in fact early forms of these deities often combine both principles into a single deity: the serpent-god. There are even highly suggestive Sumerian pictograms portraying the serpent-god coiled around a tree, and two figures, male and female, seated on either side of him (as it were, in the posture of students or disciples). Why did the principles of masculinity and femininity become so overwhelmingly associated with the serpent in pagan mythology? I think it has to do with the fact that when the serpent deceived Adam and Eve, he robbed them of their integrity, their glory, and, in a sense, their true identity. The serpent took these properties for himself, fulfilling for a time his prideful envy of man. That is, until Christ appeared. Christ came as the True Adam, the true humanity, to win back for mankind the office that the first Adam had, by his disobedience, lost to the serpent. Additionally, it is interesting to note that Christ came not only as the True Man, but also as the True Serpent. The original serpent was meant to be man's instructor in the divine Wisdom prerequisite to partaking of the gnosis-tree; instead, he caused man's relationship to gnosis to become deeply twisted and corrupt, devoid of Wisdom. Christ came and gave us another Tree, the Cross, the sublime mystery of which far surpasses the tepid pseudo-gnosis of the Gnostics, more Zen-like in its paradox than any Buddhist koan. And he did so by becoming a different kind of Serpent: one like that which Moses lifted up in the wilderness, a healing Serpent who mediated the tree-gnosis by eating of the "fruit" of that tree himself, undergoing the death it entailed (a death fallen man could no longer safely endure), being resurrected as a Spiritual Man, and enabling all mankind to reap the benefits.
posted by Jeremy at 3:03 PM
posted by Jeremy at 1:37 PM
I said consummate arts secrets...CONSUMMATE!!! Geez, guy wouldn't know majesty if it bit him in the face...
posted by Jeremy at 8:29 PM |
Ex Libro Of Self-indulgent Personality Tests Of Strange Happenings in Moscow Of a Sudden, Strange Thought Of Denying Natural Revelation Of a Non-Evolutionist Old-Earth Calvinist Of Jesus the True Serpent Of Books Redux Of Books Of Jordan on Genesis Of the Trouble With Teilhard
Index
* |