From idontknownuthin

I don't know nuthin...but Christ and Him crucified

Seeing shadows of him in scripture

Contents 1 I don't know nuthin...but Christ and Him crucified 1.1 The problem 1.2 The practice 1.3 The REAL questions 1.4 Navigation 1.5 Requests 1.6 Disclaimers 1.7 Participation

This is a personal wiki used as a scratch pad. I am happy to share my thoughts with you. Explaining shadows is much more difficult than showing them. Use the Page index in the Navigation bar to the left to see what's here.

The blog explains what I am working on.

The problem

David Niblack says:

The fact is plain: the Apostle Peter would get an “F” if he preached his Acts 2 sermon in Moody’s class, “Communication of Biblical Truth”. The professor, vigilant to eliminate any interpretation that went beyond the “original authorial intent,” would give the classic critique to the apostle: “this text used out of its context!” Of course, because Peter is an inspired author—in this case a preacher—such an imaginative scenario reveals the despairing gulf between the methods of exegesis of the modern conservative bible student, and the exegetical methods of the NT writers. How do evangelical scholars reconcile this? One on hand, how can they honor the inspired exegesis of the NT writers, and then hypocritically reject the same methodology for themselves? Conversely; how could evangelicals allow an open door for exegesis to turn into a literary or “Spirit lead” Picasso-painting of meaning, significance and application of the Word of God? The tension is real, and in attempting to resolve it there are four major schools that give clear responses to the issue[1].

Elsewhere:

The crucial weakness of the single intent school is not so much the complexity of its methodology theoretically, but the difficulty it has practically in solving the sophistication of the New Testament citations. Several New Testaments texts offer an extremely difficult challenge for the single intent view. 1 Peter 1:10-12, Peter writes “unto whom it was revealed, that not unto themselves, but unto us they did minister the things, which are now reported unto you by them that have preached the gospel unto you with the Holy Spirit sent down from heaven.” This verse seems to be almost a direct contradiction to the idea that the OT authors understood completely the things that were prophesying[4]. Douglas Moo writes, “…he [Kaiser] does not allow sufficiently for the intention of the divine author of Scripture for the “added” meaning that a text takes on as a result of the ongoing canonical process.”[5] The plethora of OT citations in the NT gives a strong impression that the single-intent school may be jeopardizing a legitimate meaning that the NT is referencing. [emphasis mine]

David Niblack, “The Use of the Old Testament in the New”]

The practice

I see shadows of Christ in the OT. Those from the "Single Human Intent" school have called me a heretic. They have pleaded with me to stop seeing shadows, suggested I not share shadows when I do see them, and have said that my soul is in jeopardy by simply seeing the shadows.

I'm not an academic, just a street preacher. So I don't know nuthin... but Christ, and Him crucified.

I am not a mystic. Seeing shadows is simply an activity of correlation of information within the canon of scripture. Although I treasure the ability to see them as a gift, it is not revelation and it can be taught. It is not invention. There is not room for very much deviation in a shadow. The only invented part is the explanation that attempts to allow others to "see" the shadow.

Rules discerned from the scriptures using the same hermeneutic:

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)

If your hermeneutic is not this stringent, please don't write to me about how shadows have no controls.

Just a side note: A programmer told me that programming languages aren't considered real languages unless you can write it's own compiler in it. Well, I don't know about that, but I don't think you will find another set of rules defined by the scriptures themselves using the proposed hermeneutic itself. If the rules expand, they will only do so if the hermeneutic reveals more.

The REAL questions

1. Are the shadows real or imagined?
2. If real, do they have the same authority as the literal-historical interpretation?
3. Am I interpreting them correctly?
4. How do they affect our various systematic theologies?

Navigation

Please observe the Navigation bar to the left.

I will use the blog to let you know what I am working on. If you are new to the site, reading the blog from the bottom will make more sense than starting at the top.

As this develops, the dictionaries and reference sections should become useful.

Requests

If you are studying a particular part of the scriptures and would like me to peek in and see if there are shadows relating to your study, just send me a note and I will be happy to jump in.

Disclaimers

I know of no one who is consistently seeing shadows in this way. Since I first wrote this I have found people in forums who use this hermeneutic occasionally by instinct and think that what they discover is a novelty. My own practice is that of a novice. My initial view of a shadow is like seeing animals or people other shapes in the clouds. As I study it in more detail, the picture becomes more clear. So my explanation of a shadow should not be taken as though it were an attempt at a "translation". It is more like an explanation of a pun, or double entendre when someone "doesn't get it".

The writings of C.H. Macintosh hint at the shadows. Ralph recently told me that M.R. DeHaan has a book on the shadows in Genesis that appears to come to the same meaning as we have (M.R. DeHaan, M.D., Portraits of Christ in Genesis, Zondervan, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1966).

Note to self: Self, you should collect examples of others' discoveries so that people can see you are not alone.

Participation

This wiki is really a private scribble space to share what I am doing. But if you are interested in learning to see shadows for yourself, or already are seeing them and would like to share them here, just set up an account and e-mail me with an introduction about yourself. I'll get the webmaster to give you edit permissions.

rcjones --[[[[[at]]]]]-- xmission.com