Christian Conversations

Updates from September, 2009

• 

  Is Isaac a Type of Christ?

  deut64 1:12 pm on September 11, 2009 | 2 Permalink | Reply
  

  Is Isaac a “type” of Christ?

  The word “type” comes from the Greek work typos which can mean “mark, form, pattern, model, or example.” The word designates some sort of correspondence between a person, event, or thing to another. For example, “the nail marks [typos] in [Jesus'] hands” (John 20:25) correspond to the nails themselves. Scholars use the word “type” in a technical sense to refer to a person, event, or thing in the Old Testament that is an intentional foreshadowing of a person, thing, or event in the New Testament.

  Bible interpreters offer varying definitions of what actually constitutes a “type” (in the technical sense) in the Bible. Some see many types throughout the Old Testament; others suggest that no typology is to be seen at all.  It really depends upon one’s definition with regard to the degree of correspondence required. Where do we draw the line? For example, is the budding of Aaron’s rod a type of Christ’s resurrection (as a number of writers suggest)? How much correspondence is necessary for the label to be appropriate?

  What about Isaac? Is he a type of Christ? To be sure, there is a high degree of correspondence between the two persons. In both cases, the births are a fulfillment of God’s promise of hope for Abraham and the nations (Gen 16:1-6; Luke 2:28-32). In addition, the births are both miraculous — Isaac is born to a barren woman (Gen 17:15-18; 18:12-14) and Jesus to a virgin (Matt 1:18-25). Like Isaac, Christ is the “only son” (Gen 22:2, 16; John 3:16) and the “beloved” son (Gen 22:2; Matt 3:17). Furthermore, Isaac carries his own wood for the altar up the mount (Gen 22:6) and Christ carries his own wooden cross (John 19:17).

  Yet, even with all of this correspondence, there remains a significant difference between the two which threatens the appropriateness of the “type” label. The similarities between Isaac and Christ are indeed dramatic, but the difference is even more startling: in the end, Isaac wasn’t really sacrificed. God stopped Isaac’s father from carrying out the sacrifice of his only and beloved son (Gen 22:10-12). By contrast, however, God “did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all” (Rom 8:32). In this way, then, Christ is more like the  lamb which God provided instead of Isaac (Gen 22:8, 13).

  Thus, is Isaac a “type” of Christ? The startling and drastic difference goes against any definition. Perhaps, that, in itself, is the real point after all.

   

  Reply Click here to cancel reply.

  Name (required)

  Email (required)

  Web Site

   
• 

  Abraham's Covenant with Abimelech

  deut64 1:16 pm on September 4, 2009 | 4 Permalink | Reply
  

  Genesis 21:22-34, the story of Abraham’s covenant with King Abimelech, is one of those passages in the Bible that is often ignored in commentaries and sermon series.  While the lack of attention cannot justified, it is understandable. After all, the story is sandwiched between two monumental events in the Abraham narrative — the birth of Isaac and the call to sacrifice Isaac. Given the import of these two occasions, the account of the treaty between Abimelech and Abraham may not appear to be “newsworthy.” Why does the narrator feel compelled to include it? Does it only provide  transitional space between the birth and the call to sacrifice or is it something more? I suggest that it is something more.  I believe it serves a critical function within the Abraham narrative and is instructive for all descendants of Abraham (including believers today).

  It is helpful to compare and contrast this account with the other recorded encounters with foreign kings. In both of his previous encounters (12:10-20; 20:1-18),  Abraham instructed Sarah to lie about her relationship to him (12:13). However, this time Abraham “swears” that he will “not deal falsely” with the king (21:23-24). Earlier, Abraham feared death (12:13; 20:11), but now, he displays a lack of fear as he stands before a powerful king and the commander of his army (21:22). In both of the previous accounts, Abraham is rebuked by the foreign king (12:18-19; 20:9-10). In this account, it is Abraham who rebukes the foreign king (21:25). In the first two encounters, the foreign kings gave Abraham sheep and oxen (12:16; 20:14-16). Now, Abraham gives the ruler sheep and oxen (21:27).

  What caused the changes in Abraham? What occurred in his life that caused him to go from fear to faith and from deception to sworn integrity? I believe the primary reason for his newfound courage and honesty was the birth of the long-awaited offspring (Gen 21:1-7), the fulfillment of God’s promise to Abraham. This event radically strengthened Abraham’s faith in God. He realized what Abimelech had also observed: “God is with you in all that you do” (21:22). The miraculous birth of Isaac to an old man and a barren woman was a profound demonstration of the powerful presence of the “Everlasting God” (21:33). What did Abraham have to fear?

  The book of Matthew records a similar event which radically changes the descendants of Abraham. The miraculous birth of Jesus Christ to no man (Matt 1:18) and a virgin woman (1:23) is the greatest demonstration of God’s powerful presence to his people. In fact, he is called, “‘Immanuel’ (which means, God with us)” (1:23) and he is with his people “always, to the end of the age” (28:19). What, then, do we have to fear?

  • see slides Genesis 21:22-34_Abraham’s Covenant with Abimelech

  Discussion Questions:

  The narrator ends this account by stating that “Abraham sojourned many days in the land of the Philistines.”

  • Why is the fact that he mentions the Philistines in connection with Abraham surprising?
  • The Philistines are mentioned more often in the book of Samuel than any other book. Do you see any connection between Abraham’s living in the land of the Philistines and the Israelites’ battles with the Philistines? How does this connection relate to my post above?
  • Abraham named the place where the covenant was made, “Beersheba.” Would this be significant to later Israelites?
  • There is one other account of Abraham encountering a foreign king that I didn’t mention in my post above — Gen 14. In that account, the narrator surprisingly mentions “Dan” (14:14). Would this be significant to later Israelites?
   
• 

  deut64 3:33 pm on September 2, 2009 | 3 Permalink | Reply
  

  My hope for this blog is that it will help, in a small way, to bring two worlds together within biblical studies for those who participate. The two worlds I am referring to are the “popular” and the “academic.” By popular, I mean the kind of Bible study that is typically found in many churches today and by academic, I mean the kind of Bible study that is typically found in colleges and seminaries. Do you realize that many publishers of Christian books have two different catalogs which market their books? One catalog targets the popular crowd; the other catalog targets the academic crowd. Books that are in the former rarely appear in the latter and vice versa.

  Popular Bible study tends to be characterized by a heavy emphasis on application of biblical truth to contemporary perceived needs. Such an emphasis is essential to the Christian life. James reminds us that we are to be “doers of the word, and not hearers only” (James 1:22). The downside of some popular Bible study, however, is a superficial understanding of the Bible and God, often leading to misapplication and erroneous doctrine. Academic Bible study, on the other hand, tends to be characterized by a heavy emphasis on acquiring knowledge of the Bible. This emphasis accords with the biblical mandate to “be diligent to present yourself approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, accurately handling the word of truth” (2 Tim 2:15). Nevertheless, while it may avoid superficial understanding, it often tends toward the “hearing” while neglecting the “doing.”

  Ideally, I would like for this blog to be a place where people from both of these worlds interact. The popular crowd could perhaps benefit from the idealism and diligent study ethic of the academic crowd. Likewise, the academic crowd could benefit from the popular crowd’s real-life love of the Lord. Are you willing to participate? I think it could be mutually beneficial.