What, all of them? Mankind enjoys some pretty freaky activities. Plenty of people take pleasure in torture, murder and rape. Do these pleasures reflect God?
The situation with man is not that simple.
Man fell from a great height of perfection. So on one hand he is made in the image of God and there is something still
"very good" about his created being. On the other hand he has been damaged by sin and attached to the opposition party against God.
As much as we would like things to be as simple as possible, the situation with mankind today is a little complicated. I do not mean that the perverted desires of fallen sinners reflect God's character. They reflect the Satanic spirit.
This is my main bone of contention with you.
There may well be similarities between Joseph and Christ, but that does not mean that the story of Joseph foreshadows Christ.
Of the twelve blessings that Jacob pronounced upon his sons the most extensive was upon Joseph. So Joseph is special in the Old Testament.
Every positive trait in all of the patriarchs point to Christ. And Paul says that all the promises of God have their Yea and Amen in Christ.
And the book of Hebrews potrays Christ as the climax of God's speaking through many prophets to the fathers.
"God, having spoken of old in many portions and in many ways to the fathers in the prophets has at the last of these days spoken to us in the Son, whom He appoined Heir of all things ..." (Heb. 1:1)
Many of us therefore have no problem seeing such a positive example of godliness as Joseph also as a precusor to Christ. It is not necessary that we be explicitely told so. Our appreciation for Christ informs us.
And it stands to reason that if Jesus taught that He was the greater Temple, the greater Solomon, the greater Jonah that He is also the greater Joseph.
" ... behold something more than Jonah is here." (Matt. 12:41)
"... behold, something more than Solomon is here." (12:42)
" But I say to you that something greater than the temple is here." (12:6)
We believe that He well could have added that something greater than
Joseph was here also. As with the temple, Jonah, Solomon so also we regard Joseph as a positive Old Testament matter pointing to Christ to come.
We can draw parallels between the story of Odin sacrificing himself on the branches of the world ash and Christ,
That is not in the Bible. So the comparison between Christ and Odin does not match that between Christ and Joseph, the temple, Jonah, Solomon, Aaron, Moses, etc.
What similarities you might muse on would not cause me to say that Odin (a mythological character ) was a foreshadow of Christ in that same sense.
or we can draw parallels between Prometheus sacrificing himself to give humankind fire and the Christ story.
I would have the same attitude towards the mythological Premetheus.
I don't lump Odin, Prometheus, and Joseph all in the same catagory.
Does this mean that the Prometheus story is intended to foreshadow Christ?
Of course not. It simply means that many myths and stories share common themes.
I think the story of Joseph is history under the sovereignty of God and part of His progressive revelaton which has a climax in the incarnation.
Prometheus and Odin are something entirely different whatever similarities one might want to imagine.
Hebrews 1:2 doesn't include Premetheus and Odin in either the prophets or the fathers.
Just because we can draw parallels between two stories does not mean that those parallels were an intentional part of the text, even if one accepts those texts as being divinely inspired.
The question here is not parellels between any two stories. The question concerns stories specifically involving men used by God in the Scriptures.
Had any of them done totally perfect job then there would have been no need for Jesus Christ to finally come. These positive people were therefore precursors of Christ.
You should remember how when Elijah and Moses appeared on the Mount of Transfiguration with Jesus. Peter foolishly wanted to build three taberbnacles for each of them somewhat placing them on the same level.
The voice of divinity said
"This is My beloved Som with Whom I am well pleased. Hear Him." They looked up and saw Jesus only.
Elijah and Moses were now to take a back seat to the Son of God. The same is true for Joseph. The foreshadowed the Son of God.
Odin and Prometheus are altogether pagan mythology and have nothing to do with the incarnation of the Son of God.
3.) Jesus said that something greater than Solomon was there when He was there. This indicates that what Solomon was is a shadow of the substance of a greater one.
Or it may simply mean that Jesus is more a important figure than Solomon. You taking the explanation that best fits your theory and running with it, too eagerly in my opinion.
Maybe. But that's still how I feel.
We needed quite an education to lead us up to the incarnation of the Son of God. The incarnation is so profound we needed many types, shadows, precursors, and symbols to prepare us for this Person - Christ.
4.) The whole Bible ends with a romantic scene of a marriage between the redeeming God and His people formed into a Bride and Wife.
If the book of Revalations strikes you as romantic, I'm glad I'm not in a relationship with you.
Portions of it a romantic. You have the universal bright woman in chapter 12 with her manchild. You have a Wife and her nemesis a Harlot.
And the New Jerusalem is a consummate Bride and Wife extending the metaphor of Paul in Ephesians 5 that the church is the wife of Christ. And also you have the Bride preparing herself for Christ in chapter 19.
But to the apostles and prophets and teachers who are responsible to teach the depths of God's eternal plan it is necessary to dive below the surface.
How is one to know then, if one's conjectures are correct? This type of reading of the texts is highly speculative and the authors are no longer with us to confirm or deny your theories.
It all depends upon how much revelation you see.
It is not wrong to see less. But Paul prayed that the eyes of our heart would be enlightened that we would know what is the hope of His calling and what are the glory of the riches of His inheritance in the saints.
Perhaps you should just be a little open that there are more riches of wisdom and revelation concerning God's eternal purpose.
This is not a request to receive without discernment all manner of teachings. But there is more to see than perhaps you previously imagined.
My point is that for some of us there is the need to be led deeper into its significance.
That strikes me as reasonable, but how do you know that the Song has any deeper significance? Maybe it is simply what it appears to be; a celebration of the erotic.
Maybe. I think we're on solid footing though.
When I stand before Christ at His examination from His judgement seat, I will take the responsibility.
I will say, Lord Jesus this is what I received in form of the teaching on Song of Songs. And this is how it effected my life. This is how I applied these teachings. And this is how I passed these teachings on to others.
I trust that He will be the wise Judge to evaluate whether or not I handled the truth or pursued vanities.
I will bear the responsibility for what I taught you. I think you should prove all things and hold fast to that which is good. If none of it seems good to you ignore it. Then again I see no reason for you to FIGHT against it.
All that I have said I think glorifies Christ.
All the specific analogies that draw from the text seem rather thin to me. You seem willing to draw conclusions that bear absolutely no relation to the passages you cite, except through your rose-tinted spectacles. If we accept that the Bible says one thing but means something completely different, then what limit is there on its meaning? It could mean anything.
I gave brief samples of rather extensive expositions. And my warning was that such concise examples would of course invite easily made objections.
Now you are coming on with such expected easily made objections. But I stand with the examples. Too bad you seem not open to read more or go to the source and read the comments in their entirety.
You're just stretching this too far, to breaking point in fact. The Song of Solomon stands out as one of the good bits in the Old Testament. Why spoil it by trying to make it say something that it clearly does not?
That's your opinion. I don't agree with it. However I can appreciate that you may not be at all ready for teaching like this.
"When men wish to construct or support a theory, how they torture facts into their service!"
Here's another
"And above it cherubim of glory overshadowing the expiation cover, concerning which it is not now the time to speak in detail" (Heb 9:5)
Apparently the writer of the book of Hebrews had some further spiritual lessons to pass on to his audience. But for one reason or another it was not the time to do so.
This proves that the Holy Spirit did have further significances which could have been helpful to the Hebrew Christians. We do not know exactly what the writer would have said. But we do know that in principle there was more light to be obtained from Scripture on these details.
The old hymn says
"The Lord has yet more light and truth to break forth from His word."
I believe I have given some possibly open minded ones a sample from the Song of Songs. If you think there is nothing there that is OK. Perhaps some of the Hebrews recipients of that letter thought that nothing else needed to be said about the ark of the covenant.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
™ Version 4.2
