|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: The Fall in Isaiah 43.27
|
venbede
Shipmate
# 16669
|
Posted
http://bible.oremus.org/?ql=340178132
This passage came up at Evensong in the C of E last Sunday.
I understood that in Jewish thought Adam, Eve and the fall did not have the crucial part they do in Christianity.
Is this passage referring to Adam and Eve, the first ancestors who sinned, or to others?
--------------------
Man was made for joy and woe;
And when this we rightly know,
Thro' the world we safely go.
Posts: 3201 | From: An historic market town nestling in the folds of Surrey's rolling North Downs, | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
Can't be sure. God could mean Adam, or he could be referring to "your first eponymous ancestor and founder," Israel/Jacob. Who certainly did sin, as Genesis makes clear.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by W Hyatt:
FWIW, the Jewish Study BIble identifies the "earliest ancestor" as Jacob.
I wonder what their thinking is. The earliest ancestor of Israel (the people) would seem to be Abraham.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
W Hyatt
Shipmate
# 14250
|
Posted
Yes, I wonder the same thing. Isaiah 51:2 refers to "Abraham your father", but the only comment they give for this reference is:
quote:
Your earliest ancestor, Jacob, who is depicted in very ambiguous terms in Gen.
--------------------
A new church and a new earth, with Spiritual Insights for Everyday Life.
Posts: 1565 | From: U.S.A. | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
Well, Jacob = Israel. This passage is addressed to the nation, and goes back and forth between Jacob and Israel. The Israelites were the "children of Israel." Yes, they were also children of Abraham, but they weren't the only children of Abraham—there were also the Ishmaelites. So, Jacob being the "earliest ancestor" makes sense in context.
[ 08. September 2016, 11:43: Message edited by: Nick Tamen ]
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by W Hyatt:
FWIW, the Jewish Study BIble identifies the "earliest ancestor" as Jacob.
I wonder what their thinking is. The earliest ancestor of Israel (the people) would seem to be Abraham.
Abraham was a wandering Aramean. Jacob was the source of the 12 tribes.
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
The earliest ancestor of anybody, biblically speaking, is going to be Adam. If we're not being so literal as all that, then the next best thing is to pick out the ancestor usually considered to be the founder of a particular people group--in this case, Jacob for the Hebrews. Abraham won't do because he is the father of many nations, not theirs alone, and the Hebrews are the group whose behavior God is dissecting at the moment in this discussion. If it had been Edom, God doubtless would have referred to Esau.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by W Hyatt:
FWIW, the Jewish Study BIble identifies the "earliest ancestor" as Jacob.
I wonder what their thinking is. The earliest ancestor of Israel (the people) would seem to be Abraham.
Abraham was a wandering Aramean. Jacob was the source of the 12 tribes.
Sorry, wrong Deut 26:5 Jacob was wandering Aramean who went to Egypt. In Egypt family becomes nation perhaps a way to look at it.
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
fausto
Shipmate
# 13737
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
The earliest ancestor of anybody, biblically speaking, is going to be Adam. If we're not being so literal as all that, then the next best thing is to pick out the ancestor usually considered to be the founder of a particular people group--in this case, Jacob for the Hebrews. Abraham won't do because he is the father of many nations, not theirs alone, and the Hebrews are the group whose behavior God is dissecting at the moment in this discussion. If it had been Edom, God doubtless would have referred to Esau.
Agreed. The human race had earlier ancestors, but Isaiah is addressing specifically only the people who were descended from Jacob. Their own "earliest ancestor", in the sense that they alone were descended from him, was Jacob.
--------------------
"Truth did not come into the world naked, but it came in types and images. The world will not receive truth in any other way." Gospel of Philip, Logion 72
Posts: 407 | From: Boston, Mass. | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
fausto
Shipmate
# 13737
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
I understood that in Jewish thought Adam, Eve and the fall did not have the crucial part they do in Christianity.
Yes, Jews tend to understand the Garden of Eve story as illustrating not the dawn of human moral depravity, but of human moral awareness and moral responsibility.
[ 18. September 2016, 12:10: Message edited by: fausto ]
--------------------
"Truth did not come into the world naked, but it came in types and images. The world will not receive truth in any other way." Gospel of Philip, Logion 72
Posts: 407 | From: Boston, Mass. | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
Amos, a shippie who was raised Jewish, once described the most common Jewish idea about the impact of Adam and Eve's failure* on their descendants. She said it is as if your grandparents had squandered the family fortune, and you are poor as a result.
*Of course, I don't believe this literally.
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274
|
Posted
An important question has been raised as to the greater importance of Adam to Christianity than to Judaism. In that context it is instructive to pursue the question in relation to the biblical record.
From the death of Adam (Genesis 5:5) his only subsequent mention in the OT is as part of a genealogy (1 Chronicles 1:1). In the Gospels Adam is only mentioned in Luke’s genealogy of Jesus, where he is intriguingly described as “the son of God”(Luke 3:38). Matthew, by contrast, in tracing Jesus’ ancestry, only feels the necessity of going back as far as Abraham. Adam is not alluded to in the teaching of Jesus, nor mentioned in Acts by the apostles on their missionary journeys. It is, therefore, out of the blue that Adam makes a sudden reappearance in Romans 5, where the apostle presents Jesus as the New Adam in contrast to the Old Adam.
Why does Paul present Jesus as the New Adam, rather than as Messiah: a designation found 49 times in the gospels, and 12 times in Acts? (Paul, instructively, only refers to Jesus as Messiah once in all his letters : Roman 9:5, in a short passage relating to the status of the Jews). The reason, I believe, is that whereas the gospels are concerned with the status and provenance of Jesus in terms of Jewish religious culture, Paul is trying to develop an understanding of Christ that is universal in its significance. For Paul’s purposes, the descent of Jesus from Abraham, or the endorsement on the Mount of Transfiguration, where Jesus is seen with Moses and Elijah, is insufficient: too narrow in its claims. Even Christ’s descent from Adam in Luke is limited to a single (Jewish) line. Adam is important for Paul as the progenitor of humanity in its totality, and Adam’s disobedience being of universal continuing significance, because he wants to arrive at the Christian hope summarised in 1 Corinthians 15: “For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.” Paul wants to present Jesus as addressing a universal human problem that transcends the local particular- in this case the Jewish religious tradition.
Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
fausto
Shipmate
# 13737
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
An important question has been raised as to the greater importance of Adam to Christianity than to Judaism. In that context it is instructive to pursue the question in relation to the biblical record.
From the death of Adam (Genesis 5:5) his only subsequent mention in the OT is as part of a genealogy (1 Chronicles 1:1). In the Gospels Adam is only mentioned in Luke’s genealogy of Jesus, where he is intriguingly described as “the son of God”(Luke 3:38). Matthew, by contrast, in tracing Jesus’ ancestry, only feels the necessity of going back as far as Abraham. Adam is not alluded to in the teaching of Jesus, nor mentioned in Acts by the apostles on their missionary journeys. It is, therefore, out of the blue that Adam makes a sudden reappearance in Romans 5, where the apostle presents Jesus as the New Adam in contrast to the Old Adam.
Why does Paul present Jesus as the New Adam, rather than as Messiah: a designation found 49 times in the gospels, and 12 times in Acts? (Paul, instructively, only refers to Jesus as Messiah once in all his letters : Roman 9:5, in a short passage relating to the status of the Jews). The reason, I believe, is that whereas the gospels are concerned with the status and provenance of Jesus in terms of Jewish religious culture, Paul is trying to develop an understanding of Christ that is universal in its significance. For Paul’s purposes, the descent of Jesus from Abraham, or the endorsement on the Mount of Transfiguration, where Jesus is seen with Moses and Elijah, is insufficient: too narrow in its claims. Even Christ’s descent from Adam in Luke is limited to a single (Jewish) line. Adam is important for Paul as the progenitor of humanity in its totality, and Adam’s disobedience being of universal continuing significance, because he wants to arrive at the Christian hope summarised in 1 Corinthians 15: “For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.” Paul wants to present Jesus as addressing a universal human problem that transcends the local particular- in this case the Jewish religious tradition.
"Adam" literally means "man" Hebrew, and a common interpretation if Genesis 3 is as a "just-so story" identifying some of our characteristically human traits and explaining how we came to possess them. Thus Adam is not only a common ancestor on a literal level but also an archetypal human being representing all of us on a figurative level. Paul proposes that Jesus has supplanted Adam as a new, improved figure of the archetypal, ideal human being -- in today's vernacular, Ideal Man 2.0 -- with whom all nations (not only Jews) should identify and to whom we should compare ourselves.
Paul's use of Adam and Jesus as universal archetypes contrasts, I think, with the more specific "your first ancestor" of Isaiah 43:27 -- further supporting the premise that Isaiah probably refers to Jacob, not Adam.
--------------------
"Truth did not come into the world naked, but it came in types and images. The world will not receive truth in any other way." Gospel of Philip, Logion 72
Posts: 407 | From: Boston, Mass. | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274
|
Posted
Fausto quote:
"Adam" literally means "man" Hebrew, and a common interpretation if Genesis 3 is as a "just-so story" identifying some of our characteristically human traits and explaining how we came to possess them. Thus Adam is not only a common ancestor on a literal level but also an archetypal human being representing all of us on a figurative level. Paul proposes that Jesus has supplanted Adam as a new, improved figure of the archetypal, ideal human being -- in today's vernacular, Ideal Man 2.0 -- with whom all nations (not only Jews) should identify and to whom we should compare ourselves.
I see you get my point.
I am, however, intrigued as to how Paul came to pick on Adam, given his absence over the centuries, at least in terms of the biblical account. How did Adam feature in Paul's intellectual development? I guess we cannot know.
Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mamacita
Lakefront liberal
# 3659
|
Posted
Creation - the beginning of all things - figures in Paul's writings from time to time. For example, Jesus as the "firstborn of all creation" in Colossians 1:15-18:
quote:
He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation; for in him all things in heaven and on earth were created, things visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or powers—all things have been created through him and for him. He himself is before all things, and in him all things hold together. He is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, so that he might come to have first place in everything.
... everyone in Christ being a new creation (2 Cor. 5:17), making all things new, etc.
So perhaps -- and this may be a stretch -- Paul hearkens back to Adam in order to invoke the very beginning of all things and linking Jesus to that very beginning. A cosmic sort of thing.
--------------------
Do not be daunted by the enormity of the world’s grief. Do justly, now. Love mercy, now. Walk humbly, now. You are not obligated to complete the work, but neither are you free to abandon it.
Posts: 20761 | From: where the purple line ends | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
fausto
Shipmate
# 13737
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mamacita:
Creation - the beginning of all things - figures in Paul's writings from time to time. For example, Jesus as the "firstborn of all creation" in Colossians 1:15-18:
quote:
He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation; for in him all things in heaven and on earth were created, things visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or powers—all things have been created through him and for him. He himself is before all things, and in him all things hold together. He is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, so that he might come to have first place in everything.
... everyone in Christ being a new creation (2 Cor. 5:17), making all things new, etc.
So perhaps -- and this may be a stretch -- Paul hearkens back to Adam in order to invoke the very beginning of all things and linking Jesus to that very beginning. A cosmic sort of thing.
I don't think Paul ever explicitly suggests that. However, as an interpretation it corresponds in some respects to John, who does explicitly link Jesus to the eternal, pre-existent Logos. You can't push the correspondence too far without running afoul of orthodox Nicene christology, though, because Adam is of course a created being.
I do see differences between Paul's christology and John's, but that's a heterodox view.
[ 23. September 2016, 16:33: Message edited by: fausto ]
--------------------
"Truth did not come into the world naked, but it came in types and images. The world will not receive truth in any other way." Gospel of Philip, Logion 72
Posts: 407 | From: Boston, Mass. | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256
|
Posted
The more recent interpretations of Paul, the ones drawing heavily on contemporary Jewish literature of the time (notice how I avoided using “New Perspective” there?) make the point that ‘Adam’ was not just read as a stand-in for the human race, but more from a Jewish perspective (Genesis was a Jewish text, after all) as a stand-in for Israel. The argument goes: Paul picked up on the Jewish readings of Adam that drew a historical line from Adam through Abraham and along to Israel as the people of God, a people that failed to act properly as God’s image in the world. Disloyalty marred that people’s efforts, just as it had Adam’s. It was possible to read back Israel into Adam; the rest of the human race was a by-product of that read-back. There was one (Israelite) man, though – a new Adam – who remained loyal to the end and was vindicated.
So Paul wasn’t exactly starting up a new train of thought, but was rounding it off with an answer to the problem raised by Jewish writers, including biblical writers.
This was just one strand of Judaism that Paul picked up on; the messiah figure was another. He must have felt it important enough to align Jesus with 'Adam' at the time he wrote. Actually, as Romans is such a good book for understanding the content of Paul’s gospel message, he may well have used the Adam link quite often in his peregrinations across Asia.
Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tobias
Shipmate
# 18613
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
Why does Paul present Jesus as the New Adam, rather than as Messiah: a designation found 49 times in the gospels, and 12 times in Acts? (Paul, instructively, only refers to Jesus as Messiah once in all his letters : Roman 9:5, in a short passage relating to the status of the Jews).
As I understand it, 'Messiah' is translated into Greek as 'Christos' - which would mean that Paul is in effect saying "Jesus, the Messiah" whenever he says "Jesus Christ" (which of course he does quite often).
I think that a distinct or unique reference to 'the Messiah' in Romans 9:5 may be a peculiarity of certain translations. The Greek simply has 'Christos' here, as elsewhere in Paul's epistles; it is rendered variously as 'Christ' or 'Messiah' depending on translation.
--------------------
Vocatus atque non vocatus, Deus aderit.
Posts: 269 | From: Terra Australis Incognita | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274
|
Posted
Fausto quote:
"Adam" literally means "man" Hebrew, and a common interpretation if Genesis 3 is as a "just-so story" identifying some of our characteristically human traits and explaining how we came to possess them. Thus Adam is not only a common ancestor on a literal level but also an archetypal human being representing all of us on a figurative level. Paul proposes that Jesus has supplanted Adam as a new, improved figure of the archetypal, ideal human being -- in today's vernacular, Ideal Man 2.0 -- with whom all nations (not only Jews) should identify and to whom we should compare ourselves.
I see you get my point.
I am, however, intrigued as to how Paul came to pick on Adam, given his absence over the centuries, at least in terms of the biblical account. How did Adam feature in Paul's intellectual development? I guess we cannot know.
Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
churchgeek
Have candles, will pray
# 5557
|
Posted
Reading through this thread, the thought also crossed my mind - not one you'd base an argument, but a tiny little buttress, perhaps: Abraham's not really depicted as sinful in the Bible. In fact his righteousness is touted over and over. Possibly the worst he does is call Sarah his sister when they're in Egypt. Although if that was who Isaiah meant, than it would have the effect of silencing anyone who wanted to claim, "Well, I'm not as bad as all that!" So who knows. I find the above arguments that it's Jacob (Israel) to be much more compelling.
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
Fausto quote:
"Adam" literally means "man" Hebrew, and a common interpretation if is as a "just-so story" identifying some of our characteristically human traits and explaining how we came to possess them. Thus Adam is not only a common ancestor on a literal level but also an archetypal human being representing all of us on a figurative level. Paul proposes that Jesus has supplanted Adam as a new, improved figure of the archetypal, ideal human being -- in today's vernacular, Ideal Man 2.0 -- with whom all nations (not only Jews) should identify and to whom we should compare ourselves.
I see you get my point.
I am, however, intrigued as to how Paul came to pick on Adam, given his absence over the centuries, at least in terms of the biblical account. How did Adam feature in Paul's intellectual development? I guess we cannot know.
Who else would be a contender for an archetypal human? If that's the point he's trying to make, Adam would come readily to mind, I would think.
And as Adam's the mythological first human, it has the dual function of going way back to the origin of all humanity, and Paul was primarily preaching to Gentiles (and trying to convince Jewish Christians to accept said Gentiles). So emphasizing the common ancestry of all humans might help with that.
But mostly I suspect it's that archetype thing.
--------------------
I reserve the right to change my mind.
My article on the Virgin of Vladimir
Posts: 7773 | From: Detroit | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by W Hyatt:
FWIW, the Jewish Study BIble identifies the "earliest ancestor" as Jacob.
I wonder what their thinking is. The earliest ancestor of Israel (the people) would seem to be Abraham.
Abraham was a wandering Aramean. Jacob was the source of the 12 tribes.
Sorry, wrong Deut 26:5 Jacob was wandering Aramean who went to Egypt. In Egypt family becomes nation perhaps a way to look at it.
No - only the New Living trans. has Jacob, with no justification whastsoever. Jacob isn't in the Hebrew of this verse.
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by W Hyatt:
FWIW, the Jewish Study BIble identifies the "earliest ancestor" as Jacob.
I wonder what their thinking is. The earliest ancestor of Israel (the people) would seem to be Abraham.
Abraham was a wandering Aramean. Jacob was the source of the 12 tribes.
Sorry, wrong Deut 26:5 Jacob was wandering Aramean who went to Egypt. In Egypt family becomes nation perhaps a way to look at it.
No - only the New Living trans. has Jacob, with no justification whastsoever. Jacob isn't in the Hebrew of this verse.
Hold on, context is conclusive here.
.."my father was a wandering Aramean,and he went down to Egypt and sojourned there, few in number, but there he became a great,mighrty, and populous nation."
No one else fits those descriptors but Jacob.
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by W Hyatt:
FWIW, the Jewish Study BIble identifies the "earliest ancestor" as Jacob.
I wonder what their thinking is. The earliest ancestor of Israel (the people) would seem to be Abraham.
Abraham was a wandering Aramean. Jacob was the source of the 12 tribes.
Sorry, wrong Deut 26:5 Jacob was wandering Aramean who went to Egypt. In Egypt family becomes nation perhaps a way to look at it.
No - only the New Living trans. has Jacob, with no justification whastsoever. Jacob isn't in the Hebrew of this verse.
Hold on, context is conclusive here.
.."my father was a wandering Aramean,and he went down to Egypt and sojourned there, few in number, but there he became a great,mighty, and populous nation."
No one else fits those descriptors but Jacob.
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Hold on, context is conclusive here.
.."my father was a wandering Aramean,and he went down to Egypt and sojourned there, few in number, but there he became a great,mighrty, and populous nation."
No one else fits those descriptors but Jacob.
My understanding is that the traditional Jewish understanding is that it might refer either to Abraham or to Jacob. Except . . .
When it is quoted in the Passover Seder, it is understood to refer to Laban.
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Hold on, context is conclusive here.
.."my father was a wandering Aramean,and he went down to Egypt and sojourned there, few in number, but there he became a great,mighrty, and populous nation."
No one else fits those descriptors but Jacob.
My understanding is that the traditional Jewish understanding is that it might refer either to Abraham or to Jacob. Except . . .
When it is quoted in the Passover Seder, it is understood to refer to Laban.
Well that would be a bit insane. Did Laban ever go to Egypt? Did Abraham become a great and populous people in Egypt?
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Well that would be a bit insane. Did Laban ever go to Egypt?
Not that we're told, but as the Wiki article to which I linked explains, the Passover Haggadah interprets the phrase as "A wandering Aramean destroyed my father." quote:
Did Abraham become a great and populous people in Egypt?
Through his descendants, yes. Then again, Abraham can probably be more accurately described as "a wandering Aramean" than can Jacob.
Consider it insane if you like, but there are rabbinical sources for understanding the phrase to refer to Abraham or Laban as well as or instead of Jacob.
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
Yo. A "wandering Aramean" might easily fit Abraham when we keep in mind that the Bible regularly talks of the man-and-his-descendants using the man's name only (look--in this very verse!). Forget the bit about "went down into Egypt"--the last bit, "Became a mighty nation" only makes sense if you keep this concept in mind. If on the other hand you insist on making the wandering Aramean refer to a single solitary individual and what was fulfilled in his own lifetime, you will have nonsense in the rest of the verse, whoever you nominate.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
peter damian
Shipmate
# 18584
|
Posted
There are surprisingly few references to the sin of Adam in the Hebrew Bible, although the concept of collective guilt and punishment are everywhere. (Isaiah 14:21 –prepare ‘a place to slaughter his children for the sins of their ancestors’). John 1:29 refers to ‘the sin of the world’, but does not identify whose sin it is, and I can’t find any other relevant reference to Adam in the gospels. Romans 5 clearly identifies the culprit as Adam (‘one man’s trespass led to condemnation for all’).
--------------------
http://trinities.org/blog
Posts: 73 | From: london | Registered: Apr 2016
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
