Chapter 5
From idontknownuthin
Your roots are showing
Sometimes we use the roots of words to play riddle games. Some intelligent and educated people (Carson and Silva) have made a case in their book that we shouldn't do that when trying to interpret the literal-historical meaning of a text.
I am told that one of their examples is the word 'butterfly': " Now, if you have a rule that tells you that the meaning of the word butterfly is made up of the meaning of 'butter' and the meaning of 'fly,' then you should probably discard that rule. "
However, we are not trying to understand the literal-historical meaning of the text. We are playing riddles.
- Why did the lazy caterpillar jump in the churn? To make the butter fly.
For those who need a drawing... he used the churn as a cocoon to make the butterfly or he jumped in the churn to make the butter fly.
Carson and Silva have provided us with an excellent example as to why we CAN use the roots of words and fractions of words to obtain meaning.
The difference between the forced and silly meaning placed in the riddle and the shadows is that the meaning obtained in the shadows is theologically significant, plausible meaning, and consistent theology with all of scripture. This alone should cause amazement if not belief.
Many a preacher has mentioned that the fig leaf aprons (garments) of Adam and Eve (Ge 3:7)represent man's own works-righteousness. But they haven't noticed that the fig tree often represents Israel, and the word for 'leaf', by tracing the roots, also means 'tribe'. In this case, you follow the homograph. So their allegorical interpretation is not allegory, it is shadow.
It shows in detail that the works of Israel (the temple works and keeping the law) were insufficient to cover their sin. This is exactly the message of Hebrews:
- Heb 10:4 For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.
By missing this point, the preacher often mistakenly claims that Adam and Eve needed the blood of an animal to cover their sin as evidenced by the skin clothing that God provided. But this is a doctrinal error. The blood of the animal was insufficient just as all of Israel's sacrifices were insufficient. No one's blood, but Christ's, could provide for the atonement of sin.
The sacrifice was just a promise of grace through the shed blood of Jesus. The animals were just shadows of Christ.
By the way, I am building a dictionary for your convenience. You may use the Synonyms and Homonyms link here or in the menus to the left. It also contains root tracings such as: Dict:Years::Again
