For Christians the greatest religious figure is Jesus of Nazareth. For Muslims it is Muhammad. For Jews it is Abraham or, arguably, Moses. And if you were to ask a Christian who he thinks is the most important figure in the O.T. you would get the same answer a Jew would give; Abraham or, arguably, Moses. This answer would cause Paul to roll over in his grave. In two of his instructive epistles he tried to make it clear that the most important O.T. character was Isaac:
Romans 9:6 - "...they are not all Israel, which are of Israel: neither, because they are the seed of Abraham are they all children [of Israel], but in Isaac shall thy seed be called. That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted for the seed."
Heb. 11:17 - By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that received the promises offered up his only begotten son, of whom it was said, That in Isaac shall thy seed be called: accounting that God was able to raise him up, even from the dead; from whence also he received him in a figure.
What was Paul trying to tell his followers in these passages? It would not be possible for a modern Christian to understand what he meant because his Christianity is not at all the same as Paul's Christianity. In fact Paul was not even a Christian in the first place. He was a Jew who was leading a fulfilled Jewish Covenant. It is only in the light of this perspective that we can understand what Paul had in mind when he wrote these passages.
What the Romans' passages say is that the Jews who are receiving Paul's instruction do not inherit the promises of the Covenant because they are the descendants of Abraham. They inherit the promises because they are descendants of Isaac. Why? Because Abraham was mere flesh and blood. But if Abraham was 'mere flesh and blood' what was Isaac? In other words Abraham does not qualify to pass on the promise because he is human. So what qualifies Isaac to pass it on? Isaac must not have been flesh and blood.
How was Isaac not flesh and blood? Paul was not very specific on that point. He makes a vague allusion to Isaac's divine conception in a following verse but does not extrapolate further to espouse Isaac's spiritual nature on that basis. It is only when we go to the Hebrews passages that we can see Paul's intentions more clearly. After Abraham slays his son God restores him in "a figure". This word 'figure' is translated from the Hebrew word, semel. In other places in the KJV it is translated as 'idol' and other similar words. It is difficult to capture its full meaning in English but one thing ought to stand out for you. 'Semel' contains the word 'el'.
However Paul may have visualized Isaac in his restored form it was not as a flesh and blood human being. Isaac's new form was spiritual and therefore his descendants, i.e. the Jews, inherited a promise that was spiritual in nature. They are, as Paul specifically states in Romans 9, children of God.
But this is only a clue....
10 comments on Another Clue
Add a comment
To add comments without entering your email and image verification, you must be logged in. Login or Join Blogster
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistle_to_the_Hebrews
But the point is moot, since the points you make do not depend on the identity of the author. So long as the author was generally of the same belief as Paul -- and a Pharisee -- the identification of Isaac as an analogy of the risen Christ remains valid. But the analogy may have been more than that. It could very well be that the author of Hebrews belonged to a subset of the Jewish religion that actually believed Isaac to be a more essential character than Moses, but that idea has certainly not persisted in the mainstream. Do you have any knowledge of such a subset that may have existed in the First century, BC and AD? Certainly, those who generated the Pharisaic belief in resurrection must have had more going for them than mere disappointment with the working out of the usual covenants. Interesting topic.
As for a Jewish subset that revered Isaac over Abraham and Moses, the historical evidence suggests that it was a doctrine developed by the followers of John the Baptist and adopted by the followers of Jesus.
I was not planning on getting into John for a couple more posts but you're obviously ready to hear it so I'll do it next.
So whence the "divine conception"?
He is important no doubt, and because his conception was the result of Sarah's prayers and because she conceived him at a very old age, there are some supernatural aspects to his birth.
But isn't what you are saying here, sacreligious to Christianity... implying that God gave a "Sneak preview" of His son?
Abraham was the one who, as a child, rebelled against his parents' animistic religion, and followed one God. This puts him in a special position for Jews, since without Abraham, Isaac might not ever have been born... Isaac is a sign of God's love and covenant.
I'm not saying you're wrong; you could be right. However, I don't see where the basis in scriptures proves this, or how it couldn't be so revolutionary as to desecrate the foundations of Christianity?
As for me, I don't really care which figure is the most important. The role of the patriarchs and matriarchs in Judaism isn't paralell at all, to the role of Christ, so it doesn't really matter who someone thinks is the most important. They each were a different station in our collective spiritual growth. Chances are, we (Jews) would just argue about it anyway... so why pick favorites. [LOL]
I don't even really necessarily "disagree" with you here, I am just interested in your alternate perspective and haven't heard it before. I think you make an interesting point. I do think however that the Christian and Jewish perspectives on the roles of Old Testament figures may differ, although I enjoy hearing other POV's on the subject.
The beauty to me of the OT is that the matriarchs and patriarchs' are complex archetypes that still inform us today, and their actions also contain a lot of subtle meaning about the human race, God's relationship to us, different ways that different cultures or individuals at different stages of development approach God, etc. Within the OT I see a multifaceted path, and it is kind of fascinating to me. The OT figures are not just idols to be worshipped, but they are humans like we were, even if they often were wiser and more directly in communication with God. They made mistakes (even the really wise and good souls), they learned, they struggled with their understanding of God and even their faith at times.
I will enjoy reading your other posts on the subject, I always like to hear radical or unusual but carefully considered POV's on the Bible or any religion. [SMILE]