Seraphim Hamilton was one of the persons that strengthen my faith before I was baptized. The way he explain the narrative of the Bible is amazing and beautiful.
This is a great discussion. Too many Evangelicals have been robbed of the power and beauty that lies within utilizing typology because they’ve been wrongly informed that the historical-grammatical method is the only authentic method of interpretation. Thankfully, it’s not. They’re literally taught that they are not supposed to interpret the Bible in the same way that Jesus and Paul did, that is, by finding Jesus in the text. It’s bizarre, and sad.
You are such a good interviewer. You always listen carefully and ask questions that are completely on topic. You really know how to get your guest to talk about what they know best, without putting yourself in the spotlight.
Recently a group at our parish have started a bible study series using the lecture series from the Augustine Institute presented by Dr. Tim Gray. Dr Gray shows the deep, clear, and concise reality of Christ in the Old Testament, and it's connection with the New testament. This has given me a great appreciation for what St. Augustine said " The new is hidden in the old, and the Old is revealed in the New". This has really opened my eyes to things in scripture I have never seen before. Amazing and beautiful!!!
Protestant here: The discussion around the nature of reality and the structure of Scripture around 45:00 is so enlightening. Seraphim’s insistence that recurrent patterns, themes, plots, numbers, dates etc. reflect not just literary devices added in to buttress small context truths but a broader, deeper involvement on the part of God in the very fabric of reality. To the careful observer many these patterns can easily be seen even outside of Scripure.
Amazing conversation. I can honestly say that since I've become Catholic, I love the Scripture more and more. And I'm just an ordinary joe with nowhere near the knowledge or expertise of either of these two Brothers. So appreciated learning from you!
Ok, I mean this in the most complimentary way, but I need to slow down the playback speed. This is concentrated info coming at me faster than I can digest
Hey, Gospel Simplicity. As a religious Jew, I come to questions of faith and reading Scripture from a very different place than you and Seraphim, but I do appreciate your thoughtful and intellectually-informed approach to exploring a topic like this. A few ever-so-brief reflections, if I may: With respect, the kind of analysis that Seraphim does here is not enacted with any literary controls or standards. For the sake of time, let me just point out a few things to illustrate what I mean. Let's take Genesis 3:15, which figured prominently in his explication. The verse says, "I will set hostility between you and the woman, and between your seed/offspring and her seed/offspring. He [referring back to the Hebrew singular, masculine word "seed"] will strike at your head, and you will strike at his heel." The first thing S didn't mention was that זרע, "seed" is very often a collective noun (like the word "fish" in the hopeful, but often less-than-comforting expression, "there are plenty of fish in the sea." "Offspring" is a better translation for the word here, as illustrated in Gen 15:5, when God shows Abraham the stars and says, "Thus shall be your seed." The whole point there is that the "seed" will be a countless number of descendants. There's no reason to read Gen 3:15 as referencing a single, special individual. Besides, the verse really doesn't appear to be messianic in the Christian sense because even assuming that the snake is "Satan" (itself highly questionable), it doesn't describe the defeat of the snake, it describes the ongoing, mutual antagonism between those born of woman and those born of snake. Now let's take a quick glance at another of S's sources, Genesis 49:10. This is also viewed as a messianic text, but its clearest connection is simply to the House of David. Kingship was to come from the tribe of Judah and the descendants thereof. It's not pointing to one and only one individual. But even if it were, there's nothing to support that the figure is Jesus (or that this messiah has already come). It requires much post hoc invention to make it apply to him. Did Jesus wash his clothing in wine? More importantly, Jesus didn't assume the throne of Israel or reinstate the kingship. I know Christians will interpret all this figuratively, but that's the point: Creative, non-literal reading can take you almost anywhere you want to go-especially when you are *starting* from the prior conclusion that it's all about Jesus. We'll have to leave a thorough treatment of Joseph for another day, but the way S used him was very selective. Yes, of course, Joseph did good things. But he was also a self-centered adolescent who, as viceroy, transferred all ownership of land in Egypt (and the people, really) to Pharaoh, thus allowing the latter to enslave the Israelite population much more easily. (The "law of unintended consequences.") This kind of thing is conveniently left out of the literary portrait and typological assertions.
Hi there! Here's my thoughts on what you said here: Of course "seed" is often used as a collective singular. Romans 16 uses the same language from Genesis 3 to refer to the church, for example. The heir of the world is the totus Christus, the whole Christ, head and body. This is a classic feature of Scriptural exegesis- Isaiah 32 tells us of the messianic age that a king shall reign in righteousness *and* install princes in justice. The messianic age is not simply a matter of putting a king on the throne- the king puts new judges in the world as well. The New Testament frequently describes this- Jesus describes how those who are joined to Him will "reign with" Him. So Christians absolutely see a collective dimension to Genesis 3. We see the same thing going on in Isaiah 55. Observe how Isaiah 55 describes the Davidic covenant being fulfilled in the whole nation- the king is the head of the body-politic and represents his people in the entirety. Clearly the covenant with David is made to a specific person. Yet Isaiah sees it fulfilled in the whole nation. That logic cuts in both directions. Israel is God's son (Exodus 4), yet God promises to be the Father of the son of David (2 Samuel 7), and the king is referred to as the son of God in Psalm 2. The question is whether Genesis 3:15 has any singular dimension or whether it is merely a way of referring to a generic collective. There are good reasons to think that it refers to a body whose head is a specific individual, the messianic king. I pointed to some of these in the video. I went through these texts more systematically in a brief video here: th-cam.com/video/Gw-XOZwZqW8/w-d-xo.html In short, the Christian reading is not merely asserted, it is argued from a wealth of intertextual evidence wherein biblical authors intentionally echo earlier passages. Here's a more systematic treatment: etsjets.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/files_JETS-PDFs_64_64-2_JETS_64.2_215-236_Cheek.pdf There is also evidence from the Second Temple period that a messianic interpretation of Genesis 3 was current, some of which is summarized in the above article. As to Joseph, I found this argument confusing. Typology does not mean that the type is mirrored in a perfect replica in the antitype. For example, Jacob's flight from Laban is written in such a way as to prefigure the exodus of Israel from Egypt. But Laban turns around and goes home after cutting a deal with Jacob, while Pharaoh's army is destroyed in the Red Sea. Or just look at how the division of the kingdoms is described: Solomon "sought to kill" Jeroboam who flees to a gentile king and becomes a royal servant in his house, just as Pharaoh "sought to kill" Moses who fled to Midian and married the daughter of Jethro. Then Rehoboam gathers his armies and pursues Jeroboam when the division of the kingdoms is actuated, but a prophet warns Rehoboam such that he returns home instead of being destroyed as Pharaoh and his army was. There are a complex tapestry of similarities and differences which hold true in Biblical typology. But the point about Joseph was more specific. It is not merely that Christians choose to read him as a type of the messiah. It is that the Scriptural text itself tells us, by linking Genesis 37 with Genesis 49:8-12 (on the messianic reading of this passage see below), that Joseph is a type of the messiah. Saying that Jesus did not literally wash His garments in wine is a weak argument. Yes, it's figurative interpretation, but figurative interpretation is not an invention of Christians. It's in the Bible. When Isaiah 63 refers to the language of Genesis 49, do you think that the rider on the horse is really being said to physically march through a winepress, getting his clothes all messy? When God says that He will "plant" Israel on His mountain, does Israel become a literal plant? Figurative language is woven into the warp and woof of Scripture. Even "seed" is *figurative.* We don't have seed, we have children. Nebuchadnezzar's Empire in Daniel 4 is not a literal tree, it is a political entity. Saying that Jesus did not reinstate the kingship is circular, as this is what Christians contest. We hold that Jesus did reinstate the kingship and reigns in God's heavenly court, which is linked to earth. But this isn't ad hoc. It's rooted in the scriptural imagery of the parallel between the royal palace and the palace-temple of God. The throne of God is in the Inner Sanctuary, which is veiled from human sight. The Inner Sanctuary is where God is enthroned as King, and it symbolically corresponds to the tripartite structure of the cosmos as Earth-Heaven-High Heaven. That's why the coronation and enthronement of Jesus takes place in His ascension to the heavenly sanctuary. But the impact of His reign is *visible.* It's not just a blind assertion. We see this in the number of gentiles who worship the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in His name. This is a visible expression of the reign of the Messianic king, which is marked by an increasing recognition of the true God by the nations of the world. As to Genesis 49, it is certainly a messianic text. You can see that in the links between Genesis 49 and Zechariah 9, which utilizes the language to prophetically point towards the Messiah. Saying that it is simply about David's line is confusing. For example, Numbers 24 refers back to the language of Genesis 49. Balaam prophesies of the king who arises from Jacob but who is "not near." Moreover, his references to defeat of Amalek (in Saul's day), the rise of Asshur to exile nations (the Neo-Assyrians of the Divided Monarchy), and the arrival of "ships from Kittim" (which Daniel 11:31 quotes in his prophetic pre-telling of Israel's postexilic history- referring to the Roman intervention in the Maccabean War) establishes a time horizon for when the "not near" of the 15th century BC becomes "near." Observe that Numbers 24, like Genesis 49 identifies its time horizon as the "latter days." And in Daniel 10 (which introduces the pretelling of history which echoes Numbers 24), we are also told that the history of the "latter days" is what is being described. Daniel 2 refers to the latter days as the days when the kingdom of God descends to rule the kingdoms of the world. Isaiah 2:1-4 and other texts identify the latter days as the days of the messianic age. It is the era when the nations stream to the God of Israel. Ezekiel 34 refers to the Messiah as "David." Surely even you would agree that David is a figure of the Messiah. The promise that the obedience of the nations will belong to the descendant of Judah is clearly not fulfilled until the Messianic era. We disagree on the interpretation of these texts, but I strongly contest the idea that the Christian reading is simply being read into the text on the basis of preexisting commitments. Our preexisting commitments can frame our posture towards the text, but the arguments here are based on the verbal links among different texts and the symbolic grammar that can be established from *within* the logic of the text itself. It is not merely asserted.
As to whether the serpent is just a snake, I think there is a wealth of evidence that it refers to a heavenly being. For example, serpentine language is elsewhere used in the Bible to refer to heavenly beings. In Isaiah 6, we read of the seraphim in God's council praising God. Yet the word "seraph" in Numbers 21:8 refers to a "fiery serpent." The word "nachash" is elsewhere used in the Bible to refer the bright gleam of certain metals. This language- which evokes both the bright luminosity of a heavenly being as well as serpentine appearance- shows up in Genesis 3 and other innerbiblical references to Genesis 3. There are a whole complex of interconnected arguments that are related to this points. I have a couple of podcasts on this subject: th-cam.com/video/5_E8rd_cWWg/w-d-xo.htmlsi=Tm6L2nPE0_eFusVD th-cam.com/video/DeGFbbgCLg4/w-d-xo.htmlsi=oGNcj9bR2tELmIQw Thanks for your thoughts! I hope you find at least something worth chewing on here.
@@Seraphim-Hamilton It was very generous of you to respond and in such detail. If you're willing to continue, I'll try to write a relatively short response about these important questions. You touched on a lot of Scriptural particulars, and it's not possible to address each one in this forum. So I will try to speak more to the big picture. I agree that Scripture uses recurring patterns, rhetorical key phrases, figures of speech, and so forth. In fact, one of my points here is that Israelite Scripture is so rich, complex, and varied that it's possible to read it in many, many different and even opposing ways-irrespective of the historical or contextual legitimacy of the readings. For who or what is in charge of validating the right Scriptural interpretation? It is possible to be wonderfully creative and insightful with Scripture and also quite wrong from a disciplined, literary-historical perspective. (I'm sure you would say as much about many of the powerfully insightful Rabbinic midrashim.) I believe Roman Catholicism, as an example, is well-aware of this problem, which is why they've always claimed that the Church, as *they* define it, controls Scriptural interpretation via its tradition and authority structure. Now, to be clear, I'm not saying that Christians, ancient or modern, are the only ones to do the type of decontextualized, goal-oriented, eisegetical reading which-I believe-you are employing. I've already noted that the Talmudic-Midrashic Rabbis (and their scholarly heirs like Rashi or Nachmanides) have their own ways of reading Scripture that are very sensitive to both the fine linguistic nuances and the overarching thematic patterns of the Jewish Bible. But you're not going to accept them, despite their learned sophistication, in large part because of the specific monotheistic premises they hold and the messianic conclusions they arrive at. We must be honest: it's not simply because of the pure "Text itself" that Rabbinic Jews and Jesus-followers disagree. It is manifestly clear to Jews that the world has not yet been redeemed according to the promises of the prophets of Israel. And it is impossible for us to accept trinitarianism or literal incarnation as valid understandings of God's oneness, in light of Israelite/Jewish belief through the ages. You have parallel but largely opposite convictions which inform and direct how you comprehend and connect the words of Tanakh. The lack of *objective* literary or intellectual controls comes into play sharply in your discussion of typology. I find this particularly hard to reconcile. You seem to be implying that the typologist can pick and choose exactly which elements of any "type" they want to make use of, and simply disregard whatever else-in the very same narrative-seems to conflict with their application. If true, that would indeed be a very useful and versatile technique for proving whatever religious point one wished to prove. Calling it a "complex tapestry," I submit, doesn't eliminate the potential for making arbitrary or tendentious connections and readings. And in the same vein, I would challenge your use of the term intertextual "evidence." Of course there are countless connections between texts of Scripture, some conscious, some probably (κατὰ ἄνθρωπον) coincidental due to the nature of language and extensive writing on related topics. But in any event, even taking Scripture as the fully inspired word of God, the "evidentiary" force of most of these literary linkages-and what they prove precisely-are in the eyes of the beholder. All the connections in the world *within* the confines of accepted Hebrew Scripture do not prove anything about a man who lived hundreds of years later, and who was written about in non-Scriptural texts entirely by other men who had that Holy Scripture already firmly in hand as a guide, a basis, and a resource, if you see what I mean.
@@Seraphim-Hamilton I see that you posted an addendum during the time I was working on my response. It constitutes a good illustration of some of the points I was making. Briefly: On your account, why isn't the creature in Genesis 3, which is literally described (twice) as one of the beasts of the field, called a "seraph"? Why was it necessary to snake around from nachash to saraph to bright metals to heavenly beings-none of the latter of which is mentioned in Genesis 3? You agree that the nechashim in Numbers 21 are literal *poisonous* snakes (hence probably the added meaning of "haseraphim" in the verse), and not demons or some such, don't you? Devils and demons are not really a thing in the Israelite Bible, especially its earlier parts. More fundamentally, why does Genesis 3 disguise the identity of the belly-crawling, dust-eating, capable-of-having-offspring animal, which sure sounds like a plain, old (but clever) snake? Why not let us know distinctly, as in the book of Job, that it is the Satan, God's assistant AG? I'm speaking on the contextual-historical level. Of course, later types of Jewish or Christian midrash took this passage in unprecedented directions. (Some Rabbis say the snake refers to the personified, human "evil inclination.") These innovations can be religiously valid for the community which shares a set of beliefs and commitments. But as scholars we should recognize the layers of interpretive development, and not claim it as the original meaning of the Text.
while he was talking about the sons of israel i had some thoughts: i don't think it's controversial to say the apostles correlate to the sons of israel Benjamin is beloved by israel and so too John was beloved, israel was protective if benjamin and did not want him to die so too John was given long life rather than martyrdom joseph received the double blessing, so too the church in rome was founded on the double foundation of the blessed apostles peter and paul i would bet there is more here too this is just off hand thoughts
Does using a more dynamic translation of the Bible obscure some or a lot of these connections? I’ll sometimes read the CSB or the 1966 Jerusalem Bible.
A bit random, but noticed that Isaiah containing quite a lot of knowledge in the Old Testament has 66 chapters, and there are 66 Protestant Church approved books in the King James Bible.
The problem with this idea is that the books of the bible don't have verses and chapters. The chapters were artificially created in the 13th century to make it easier to both make copies and locate verses. Chapters (and verses) weren't widely used until the 16th century when the printing press was invented.
I find it interesting how you kicked the convo off, with the Pilate-esque questìon of "what is truth?" Particularly in the light of your most recent videos claiming truth not being self evident when seeking for it for conversion purposes. You don't have to convert, brother, no one is forcing you to. I just hope you are not trying to reason yourself out of it with subjectivity and a forced ambiguity, I can't see that doing your epistemology, anything but a disservice.
Thanks for the feedback! Questions of epistemology have certainly been on my mind, but I thought locating the meaning of a text was important for this conversation, because if you say meaning is solely in the author's intent (which many today do) then it becomes very difficult to get this conversation off the ground, seeing as most would say that it's hard for the author's to be thinking about Jesus before he was incarnate.
Austin, buddy, this isn't a matter of the faith or anything, I just want to let you know about something that makes me click away from your videos sometimes. And I don't know if it's something you can even change, but if you can, it'll serve you well. Your speaking voice isn't well supported with breath, and it sometimes has a distracting weakness to it. And look, man, I realize that this is, in fact, a _me_ problem. Like when I get irritated at noisy eaters; they're just living their best lives, and here I am getting worked up about it 😅 Anyway, please don't be offended, and maybe consider yelling all the time like a Puerto Rican 🙏
Genesis 1 is ELOHIM (Lucifer and the fallen angels). They made man in their image. Man is an idol, a trap to hunt angels. One Gospel: Gospel (GOOD ANGEL) of Reconciliation. Jesus Christ came into THEIR kingdom to reconcile fallen angels unto Himself. We are the fallen angels (ELOHIM) kept in DNA chains of darkness. If you do not confess being a fallen angel in Lucifer's kingdom, then you are an unbeliever. Unbeliever = those that claim to be made in the image of ELOHIM(gods). REPENT FALLEN ANGELS.
What he is doing isn't very cutting edge. If you have read any of Brevard Childs, Sailhammer, Bruegemann, Bible Project,literary criticism, and seeing repeating themes in Scripture, isn't new, nor does it lead to Eastern Orthodoxy
I've no doubt that, under divine inspiration, the authors of the Old Testament, knowingly or not, included several presages and prefigurations of Jesus as the Messiah, the Christ. Genesis 2, however, was written by a different set of authors and centuries after Genesis 1, which already contains (a much superior) account of the creation of human beings, of humanity. We also know that what we call the Old Testament had been edited and re-edited by different sets of people over a period of centuries *before* 1st century AD. It speaks poorly of their resoect for truth that our theologians continue to approach the Bible as though the historical scholarship of the past 200 years did not take place and did not exist.
We don’t “know” these things you mention as definitive facts like we know other empirical facts that can be tested. They are plausible speculations /explanations. The science of biblical criticism is a rather soft science. Let’s not be “spell bound “ as Wittgenstein might say, by a certain era’s academic consensus.
Seraphim is a brilliant Orthodox theologian. I am looking forward to this! ☦️🔥🔥
I'm praying for this guy with the cap. He is still protesting.
😂ok
I'm praying for Both, they are both protesting. Great interview though
What a waste. Who cares if his theology doesn't exactly yours. Do you think Jesus, a Jew, would judge him over what you think he should be
What do you mean" Jesus, a jew"@@remshot1998
I will go ahead and pray for everybody else. Your welcome.
Seraphim Hamilton was one of the persons that strengthen my faith before I was baptized. The way he explain the narrative of the Bible is amazing and beautiful.
This is a great discussion. Too many Evangelicals have been robbed of the power and beauty that lies within utilizing typology because they’ve been wrongly informed that the historical-grammatical method is the only authentic method of interpretation. Thankfully, it’s not. They’re literally taught that they are not supposed to interpret the Bible in the same way that Jesus and Paul did, that is, by finding Jesus in the text. It’s bizarre, and sad.
Great to see Seraphim coming on!
It was great having him back on. Came across your channel the other day by the way. Great stuff!
@@GospelSimplicity Oh thanks Austin. I've enjoyed your channel for many years now and your ministry is in my prayers
You are such a good interviewer. You always listen carefully and ask questions that are completely on topic. You really know how to get your guest to talk about what they know best, without putting yourself in the spotlight.
Thank you so much! That's my goal
Recently a group at our parish have started a bible study series using the lecture series from the Augustine Institute presented by Dr. Tim Gray. Dr Gray shows the deep, clear, and concise reality of Christ in the Old Testament, and it's connection with the New testament. This has given me a great appreciation for what St. Augustine said " The new is hidden in the old, and the Old is revealed in the New". This has really opened my eyes to things in scripture I have never seen before. Amazing and beautiful!!!
Glad that seeing Christ in the OT has been impactful for you!
Protestant here: The discussion around the nature of reality and the structure of Scripture around 45:00 is so enlightening. Seraphim’s insistence that recurrent patterns, themes, plots, numbers, dates etc. reflect not just literary devices added in to buttress small context truths but a broader, deeper involvement on the part of God in the very fabric of reality. To the careful observer many these patterns can easily be seen even outside of Scripure.
Definitely a fascinating part!
Very excited to see Seraphim here, he's a true pride and joy of the Orthodox faithful. Keep up the awesome work both of you!
+ICXC NIKA+
Was meant to go to sleep 30 min ago but stayed up for this excited
I know I will like this talk because of Austin's gentleness of heart, thought and speech. Jesus works in perfect harmony with minds like Austin's.
Very kind! Thank you
Wow... Seraphim, you are a BOSS!! Huge respect from your Byzantine Catholic older brother.
Seraphim Hamilton. A chosen man by Jesus Christ
Wonderful! Was just wondering if you would have Seraphim Hamilton on again before too long
Amazing conversation. I can honestly say that since I've become Catholic, I love the Scripture more and more. And I'm just an ordinary joe with nowhere near the knowledge or expertise of either of these two Brothers. So appreciated learning from you!
You to make a great team
Really excellent
Ok, I mean this in the most complimentary way, but I need to slow down the playback speed. This is concentrated info coming at me faster than I can digest
Excited for this.
Can’t wait to watch this full video
Outstanding contribution, thanks guys, awe inspiring motivation to see the Christ world
This was very good. Seraphim is a great explainer!
He really is!
Hey, Gospel Simplicity. As a religious Jew, I come to questions of faith and reading Scripture from a very different place than you and Seraphim, but I do appreciate your thoughtful and intellectually-informed approach to exploring a topic like this. A few ever-so-brief reflections, if I may:
With respect, the kind of analysis that Seraphim does here is not enacted with any literary controls or standards. For the sake of time, let me just point out a few things to illustrate what I mean. Let's take Genesis 3:15, which figured prominently in his explication. The verse says, "I will set hostility between you and the woman, and between your seed/offspring and her seed/offspring. He [referring back to the Hebrew singular, masculine word "seed"] will strike at your head, and you will strike at his heel."
The first thing S didn't mention was that זרע, "seed" is very often a collective noun (like the word "fish" in the hopeful, but often less-than-comforting expression, "there are plenty of fish in the sea." "Offspring" is a better translation for the word here, as illustrated in Gen 15:5, when God shows Abraham the stars and says, "Thus shall be your seed." The whole point there is that the "seed" will be a countless number of descendants. There's no reason to read Gen 3:15 as referencing a single, special individual. Besides, the verse really doesn't appear to be messianic in the Christian sense because even assuming that the snake is "Satan" (itself highly questionable), it doesn't describe the defeat of the snake, it describes the ongoing, mutual antagonism between those born of woman and those born of snake.
Now let's take a quick glance at another of S's sources, Genesis 49:10. This is also viewed as a messianic text, but its clearest connection is simply to the House of David. Kingship was to come from the tribe of Judah and the descendants thereof. It's not pointing to one and only one individual. But even if it were, there's nothing to support that the figure is Jesus (or that this messiah has already come). It requires much post hoc invention to make it apply to him. Did Jesus wash his clothing in wine? More importantly, Jesus didn't assume the throne of Israel or reinstate the kingship. I know Christians will interpret all this figuratively, but that's the point: Creative, non-literal reading can take you almost anywhere you want to go-especially when you are *starting* from the prior conclusion that it's all about Jesus.
We'll have to leave a thorough treatment of Joseph for another day, but the way S used him was very selective. Yes, of course, Joseph did good things. But he was also a self-centered adolescent who, as viceroy, transferred all ownership of land in Egypt (and the people, really) to Pharaoh, thus allowing the latter to enslave the Israelite population much more easily. (The "law of unintended consequences.") This kind of thing is conveniently left out of the literary portrait and typological assertions.
Hi there! Here's my thoughts on what you said here:
Of course "seed" is often used as a collective singular. Romans 16 uses the same language from Genesis 3 to refer to the church, for example. The heir of the world is the totus Christus, the whole Christ, head and body. This is a classic feature of Scriptural exegesis- Isaiah 32 tells us of the messianic age that a king shall reign in righteousness *and* install princes in justice. The messianic age is not simply a matter of putting a king on the throne- the king puts new judges in the world as well. The New Testament frequently describes this- Jesus describes how those who are joined to Him will "reign with" Him. So Christians absolutely see a collective dimension to Genesis 3. We see the same thing going on in Isaiah 55. Observe how Isaiah 55 describes the Davidic covenant being fulfilled in the whole nation- the king is the head of the body-politic and represents his people in the entirety. Clearly the covenant with David is made to a specific person. Yet Isaiah sees it fulfilled in the whole nation. That logic cuts in both directions. Israel is God's son (Exodus 4), yet God promises to be the Father of the son of David (2 Samuel 7), and the king is referred to as the son of God in Psalm 2. The question is whether Genesis 3:15 has any singular dimension or whether it is merely a way of referring to a generic collective. There are good reasons to think that it refers to a body whose head is a specific individual, the messianic king. I pointed to some of these in the video. I went through these texts more systematically in a brief video here: th-cam.com/video/Gw-XOZwZqW8/w-d-xo.html
In short, the Christian reading is not merely asserted, it is argued from a wealth of intertextual evidence wherein biblical authors intentionally echo earlier passages. Here's a more systematic treatment: etsjets.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/files_JETS-PDFs_64_64-2_JETS_64.2_215-236_Cheek.pdf
There is also evidence from the Second Temple period that a messianic interpretation of Genesis 3 was current, some of which is summarized in the above article.
As to Joseph, I found this argument confusing. Typology does not mean that the type is mirrored in a perfect replica in the antitype. For example, Jacob's flight from Laban is written in such a way as to prefigure the exodus of Israel from Egypt. But Laban turns around and goes home after cutting a deal with Jacob, while Pharaoh's army is destroyed in the Red Sea. Or just look at how the division of the kingdoms is described: Solomon "sought to kill" Jeroboam who flees to a gentile king and becomes a royal servant in his house, just as Pharaoh "sought to kill" Moses who fled to Midian and married the daughter of Jethro. Then Rehoboam gathers his armies and pursues Jeroboam when the division of the kingdoms is actuated, but a prophet warns Rehoboam such that he returns home instead of being destroyed as Pharaoh and his army was. There are a complex tapestry of similarities and differences which hold true in Biblical typology. But the point about Joseph was more specific. It is not merely that Christians choose to read him as a type of the messiah. It is that the Scriptural text itself tells us, by linking Genesis 37 with Genesis 49:8-12 (on the messianic reading of this passage see below), that Joseph is a type of the messiah.
Saying that Jesus did not literally wash His garments in wine is a weak argument. Yes, it's figurative interpretation, but figurative interpretation is not an invention of Christians. It's in the Bible. When Isaiah 63 refers to the language of Genesis 49, do you think that the rider on the horse is really being said to physically march through a winepress, getting his clothes all messy? When God says that He will "plant" Israel on His mountain, does Israel become a literal plant? Figurative language is woven into the warp and woof of Scripture. Even "seed" is *figurative.* We don't have seed, we have children. Nebuchadnezzar's Empire in Daniel 4 is not a literal tree, it is a political entity. Saying that Jesus did not reinstate the kingship is circular, as this is what Christians contest. We hold that Jesus did reinstate the kingship and reigns in God's heavenly court, which is linked to earth. But this isn't ad hoc. It's rooted in the scriptural imagery of the parallel between the royal palace and the palace-temple of God. The throne of God is in the Inner Sanctuary, which is veiled from human sight. The Inner Sanctuary is where God is enthroned as King, and it symbolically corresponds to the tripartite structure of the cosmos as Earth-Heaven-High Heaven. That's why the coronation and enthronement of Jesus takes place in His ascension to the heavenly sanctuary. But the impact of His reign is *visible.* It's not just a blind assertion. We see this in the number of gentiles who worship the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in His name. This is a visible expression of the reign of the Messianic king, which is marked by an increasing recognition of the true God by the nations of the world.
As to Genesis 49, it is certainly a messianic text. You can see that in the links between Genesis 49 and Zechariah 9, which utilizes the language to prophetically point towards the Messiah. Saying that it is simply about David's line is confusing. For example, Numbers 24 refers back to the language of Genesis 49. Balaam prophesies of the king who arises from Jacob but who is "not near." Moreover, his references to defeat of Amalek (in Saul's day), the rise of Asshur to exile nations (the Neo-Assyrians of the Divided Monarchy), and the arrival of "ships from Kittim" (which Daniel 11:31 quotes in his prophetic pre-telling of Israel's postexilic history- referring to the Roman intervention in the Maccabean War) establishes a time horizon for when the "not near" of the 15th century BC becomes "near." Observe that Numbers 24, like Genesis 49 identifies its time horizon as the "latter days." And in Daniel 10 (which introduces the pretelling of history which echoes Numbers 24), we are also told that the history of the "latter days" is what is being described. Daniel 2 refers to the latter days as the days when the kingdom of God descends to rule the kingdoms of the world. Isaiah 2:1-4 and other texts identify the latter days as the days of the messianic age. It is the era when the nations stream to the God of Israel. Ezekiel 34 refers to the Messiah as "David." Surely even you would agree that David is a figure of the Messiah. The promise that the obedience of the nations will belong to the descendant of Judah is clearly not fulfilled until the Messianic era.
We disagree on the interpretation of these texts, but I strongly contest the idea that the Christian reading is simply being read into the text on the basis of preexisting commitments. Our preexisting commitments can frame our posture towards the text, but the arguments here are based on the verbal links among different texts and the symbolic grammar that can be established from *within* the logic of the text itself. It is not merely asserted.
As to whether the serpent is just a snake, I think there is a wealth of evidence that it refers to a heavenly being. For example, serpentine language is elsewhere used in the Bible to refer to heavenly beings. In Isaiah 6, we read of the seraphim in God's council praising God. Yet the word "seraph" in Numbers 21:8 refers to a "fiery serpent." The word "nachash" is elsewhere used in the Bible to refer the bright gleam of certain metals. This language- which evokes both the bright luminosity of a heavenly being as well as serpentine appearance- shows up in Genesis 3 and other innerbiblical references to Genesis 3. There are a whole complex of interconnected arguments that are related to this points. I have a couple of podcasts on this subject:
th-cam.com/video/5_E8rd_cWWg/w-d-xo.htmlsi=Tm6L2nPE0_eFusVD
th-cam.com/video/DeGFbbgCLg4/w-d-xo.htmlsi=oGNcj9bR2tELmIQw
Thanks for your thoughts! I hope you find at least something worth chewing on here.
@@Seraphim-Hamilton It was very generous of you to respond and in such detail. If you're willing to continue, I'll try to write a relatively short response about these important questions. You touched on a lot of Scriptural particulars, and it's not possible to address each one in this forum. So I will try to speak more to the big picture.
I agree that Scripture uses recurring patterns, rhetorical key phrases, figures of speech, and so forth. In fact, one of my points here is that Israelite Scripture is so rich, complex, and varied that it's possible to read it in many, many different and even opposing ways-irrespective of the historical or contextual legitimacy of the readings. For who or what is in charge of validating the right Scriptural interpretation? It is possible to be wonderfully creative and insightful with Scripture and also quite wrong from a disciplined, literary-historical perspective. (I'm sure you would say as much about many of the powerfully insightful Rabbinic midrashim.) I believe Roman Catholicism, as an example, is well-aware of this problem, which is why they've always claimed that the Church, as *they* define it, controls Scriptural interpretation via its tradition and authority structure.
Now, to be clear, I'm not saying that Christians, ancient or modern, are the only ones to do the type of decontextualized, goal-oriented, eisegetical reading which-I believe-you are employing. I've already noted that the Talmudic-Midrashic Rabbis (and their scholarly heirs like Rashi or Nachmanides) have their own ways of reading Scripture that are very sensitive to both the fine linguistic nuances and the overarching thematic patterns of the Jewish Bible. But you're not going to accept them, despite their learned sophistication, in large part because of the specific monotheistic premises they hold and the messianic conclusions they arrive at. We must be honest: it's not simply because of the pure "Text itself" that Rabbinic Jews and Jesus-followers disagree. It is manifestly clear to Jews that the world has not yet been redeemed according to the promises of the prophets of Israel. And it is impossible for us to accept trinitarianism or literal incarnation as valid understandings of God's oneness, in light of Israelite/Jewish belief through the ages. You have parallel but largely opposite convictions which inform and direct how you comprehend and connect the words of Tanakh.
The lack of *objective* literary or intellectual controls comes into play sharply in your discussion of typology. I find this particularly hard to reconcile. You seem to be implying that the typologist can pick and choose exactly which elements of any "type" they want to make use of, and simply disregard whatever else-in the very same narrative-seems to conflict with their application. If true, that would indeed be a very useful and versatile technique for proving whatever religious point one wished to prove. Calling it a "complex tapestry," I submit, doesn't eliminate the potential for making arbitrary or tendentious connections and readings.
And in the same vein, I would challenge your use of the term intertextual "evidence." Of course there are countless connections between texts of Scripture, some conscious, some probably (κατὰ ἄνθρωπον) coincidental due to the nature of language and extensive writing on related topics. But in any event, even taking Scripture as the fully inspired word of God, the "evidentiary" force of most of these literary linkages-and what they prove precisely-are in the eyes of the beholder. All the connections in the world *within* the confines of accepted Hebrew Scripture do not prove anything about a man who lived hundreds of years later, and who was written about in non-Scriptural texts entirely by other men who had that Holy Scripture already firmly in hand as a guide, a basis, and a resource, if you see what I mean.
@@Seraphim-Hamilton I see that you posted an addendum during the time I was working on my response. It constitutes a good illustration of some of the points I was making. Briefly: On your account, why isn't the creature in Genesis 3, which is literally described (twice) as one of the beasts of the field, called a "seraph"? Why was it necessary to snake around from nachash to saraph to bright metals to heavenly beings-none of the latter of which is mentioned in Genesis 3? You agree that the nechashim in Numbers 21 are literal *poisonous* snakes (hence probably the added meaning of "haseraphim" in the verse), and not demons or some such, don't you? Devils and demons are not really a thing in the Israelite Bible, especially its earlier parts. More fundamentally, why does Genesis 3 disguise the identity of the belly-crawling, dust-eating, capable-of-having-offspring animal, which sure sounds like a plain, old (but clever) snake? Why not let us know distinctly, as in the book of Job, that it is the Satan, God's assistant AG? I'm speaking on the contextual-historical level. Of course, later types of Jewish or Christian midrash took this passage in unprecedented directions. (Some Rabbis say the snake refers to the personified, human "evil inclination.") These innovations can be religiously valid for the community which shares a set of beliefs and commitments. But as scholars we should recognize the layers of interpretive development, and not claim it as the original meaning of the Text.
Abraham knew and loved the Triune God. The Orthodox Church is Christ's church!
Love it, thanks
while he was talking about the sons of israel i had some thoughts:
i don't think it's controversial to say the apostles correlate to the sons of israel
Benjamin is beloved by israel and so too John was beloved, israel was protective if benjamin and did not want him to die so too John was given long life rather than martyrdom
joseph received the double blessing, so too the church in rome was founded on the double foundation of the blessed apostles peter and paul
i would bet there is more here too this is just off hand thoughts
Hit that subscribe button so it doesn't sit in 666. Haha God bless. Great video.
Does using a more dynamic translation of the Bible obscure some or a lot of these connections? I’ll sometimes read the CSB or the 1966 Jerusalem Bible.
Get an Orthodox study Bible! And visit an Orthodox church, the Liturgy is sufficient education in itself.
The St Ignatius Catholic Study Bible is a great resource (RSV 2CE).
@@jdub3999 we’re talking Old Testament though?
@@bobjenkins3rd the Ignatius Study Bible has a New Testament only Bible and just recently released the complete OT/NT study Bible
A bit random, but noticed that Isaiah containing quite a lot of knowledge in the Old Testament has 66 chapters, and there are 66 Protestant Church approved books in the King James Bible.
The Bible has 73 books.
The problem with this idea is that the books of the bible don't have verses and chapters. The chapters were artificially created in the 13th century to make it easier to both make copies and locate verses. Chapters (and verses) weren't widely used until the 16th century when the printing press was invented.
@@ierofei The Counsel of Rome in 382 established the 73 book scriptural cannon. This was reaffirmed in 397 at the Council of Carthage.
@@jdub3999 That has nothing to do with my comment.
@@jdub3999 .. I'm not sure what you're trying to prove. You just restated what I said in my comment and no one ever said anything about Bart Ehrman.
I find it interesting how you kicked the convo off, with the Pilate-esque questìon of "what is truth?" Particularly in the light of your most recent videos claiming truth not being self evident when seeking for it for conversion purposes.
You don't have to convert, brother, no one is forcing you to. I just hope you are not trying to reason yourself out of it with subjectivity and a forced ambiguity, I can't see that doing your epistemology, anything but a disservice.
Thanks for the feedback! Questions of epistemology have certainly been on my mind, but I thought locating the meaning of a text was important for this conversation, because if you say meaning is solely in the author's intent (which many today do) then it becomes very difficult to get this conversation off the ground, seeing as most would say that it's hard for the author's to be thinking about Jesus before he was incarnate.
Austin, buddy, this isn't a matter of the faith or anything, I just want to let you know about something that makes me click away from your videos sometimes. And I don't know if it's something you can even change, but if you can, it'll serve you well.
Your speaking voice isn't well supported with breath, and it sometimes has a distracting weakness to it. And look, man, I realize that this is, in fact, a _me_ problem. Like when I get irritated at noisy eaters; they're just living their best lives, and here I am getting worked up about it 😅
Anyway, please don't be offended, and maybe consider yelling all the time like a Puerto Rican 🙏
Not my experience of his voice at all.
@@toddvoss52 I'm glad to hear that 🙏
LOL - I can't imagine Austin yelling like a Puerto Rican. He doesn't have the accent or the attitude to carry it off
When you read the Bible with exegesis you will soon come to the conclusion that Catholicism or Orthodox are your only choices,
Genesis 1 is ELOHIM (Lucifer and the fallen angels).
They made man in their image.
Man is an idol, a trap to hunt angels.
One Gospel:
Gospel (GOOD ANGEL) of Reconciliation.
Jesus Christ came into THEIR kingdom
to reconcile fallen angels unto Himself.
We are the fallen angels (ELOHIM) kept in DNA chains of darkness.
If you do not confess being a fallen angel in Lucifer's kingdom, then you are an unbeliever.
Unbeliever = those that claim to be made in the image of ELOHIM(gods).
REPENT FALLEN ANGELS.
What he is doing isn't very cutting edge. If you have read any of Brevard Childs, Sailhammer, Bruegemann, Bible Project,literary criticism, and seeing repeating themes in Scripture, isn't new, nor does it lead to Eastern Orthodoxy
I've no doubt that, under divine inspiration, the authors of the Old Testament, knowingly or not, included several presages and prefigurations of Jesus as the Messiah, the Christ. Genesis 2, however, was written by a different set of authors and centuries after Genesis 1, which already contains (a much superior) account of the creation of human beings, of humanity. We also know that what we call the Old Testament had been edited and re-edited by different sets of people over a period of centuries *before* 1st century AD. It speaks poorly of their resoect for truth that our theologians continue to approach the Bible as though the historical scholarship of the past 200 years did not take place and did not exist.
We don’t “know” these things you mention as definitive facts like we know other empirical facts that can be tested. They are plausible speculations /explanations. The science of biblical criticism is a rather soft science. Let’s not be “spell bound “ as Wittgenstein might say, by a certain era’s academic consensus.