Broken Bow


Recommended Posts

10 hours ago, Carborendum said:

You know, I never really pondered that myself and don't have time now.  I'm taking the time to appreciate this interpretation for the moement.

What do you think it coud be?  You seem to have spent more time thinking about it than I have.  I hope you at least have some scriptures and/or solid reasoning to back it up.

I don't believe there is any special meaning in the recorded event.  But I appreciate
the time and thought you put towards your explanation.  It was very deep.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/10/2020 at 2:06 PM, CV75 said:

Where the bow is also a symbol of power and strength (priesthood) and fertility (continuation of the seeds -- see D&C 132), we see in its symbolism the fulfilment the blessings of exaltation.

What is symbolized by the steel bow breaking and that no wooden bow was mentioned
to have broken?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Traveler said:

This does not make sense to me - the wickedness of Nephi's brothers did not change - nor did the dynamics of the group - it was preciously the same group before and after the bow and arrow incident.   It appears to me that what you say is necessary for your symbolism did not happen when the bow and arrow was replaced.  That seems to me to contradict your premise.

The Traveler

On one hand we have a literal account, and on the other hand we have some symbolism within the account.

Literally, "the wickedness of Nephi's brothers did not change - nor did the dynamics of the group - it was preciously [sic] the same group before and after the bow and arrow incident."

The symbolism of the bow teaches the principle ("premise"--your word) within literal aspect of the account. We see two things happening at the same time: Nephi's righteousness and his brothers' wickedness, and the brothers' wickedness negatively affecting the well-being, and even survival, of the group despite the righteousness of Nephi and presumably unnamed others. Considering their character in general, Laman's and Lemuel's lack of care probably led to their bows loosing their springs, stressing Nephi's bow to the point of breaking through overcompensation (a similar concern is expressed in the allegory of the olive trees in Jacob 5, where wild branches overrun the good roots), requiring Nephi to make a new bow. The brothers' bows symbolize their apostasy which affected the whole, and Nephi's righteousness preserved / restored the covenant among the group as symbolized by his making a new bow. If he hadn't, the group would have perished physically and spiritually. If he had given up and become wicked, the group would have died spiritually and soon after, without food, perished physically.

So, as I've said but which for some reason you did not acknowledge, I do NOT think Nephi broke his covenant with G-d and then made up his own.

Edited by CV75
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Jonah said:

What is symbolized by the steel bow breaking and that no wooden bow was mentioned
to have broken?

Symbols and allegories typically don't get into that level of granularity, but what I have put together from the account is this: Posted just now

"Considering their character in general, Laman's and Lemuel's lack of care probably led to their bows loosing their springs, stressing Nephi's bow to the point of breaking through overcompensation (a similar concern is expressed in the allegory of the olive trees in Jacob 5, where wild branches overrun the good roots) ..."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

On one hand we have a literal account, and on the other hand we have some symbolism within the account.

Literally, "the wickedness of Nephi's brothers did not change - nor did the dynamics of the group - it was preciously [sic] the same group before and after the bow and arrow incident."

The symbolism of the bow teaches the principle ("premise"--your word) within literal aspect of the account. We see two things happening at the same time: Nephi's righteousness and his brothers' wickedness, and the brothers' wickedness negatively affecting the well-being, and even survival, of the group despite the righteousness of Nephi and presumably unnamed others. Considering their character in general, Laman's and Lemuel's lack of care probably led to their bows loosing their springs, stressing Nephi's bow to the point of breaking through overcompensation (a similar concern is expressed in the allegory of the olive trees in Jacob 5, where wild branches overrun the good roots), requiring Nephi to make a new bow. The brothers' bows symbolize their apostasy which affected the whole, and Nephi's righteousness preserved / restored the covenant among the group as symbolized by his making a new bow. If he hadn't, the group would have perished physically and spiritually. If he had given up and become wicked, the group would have died spiritually and soon after, without food, perished physically.

So, as I've said but which for some reason you did not acknowledge, I do NOT think Nephi broke his covenant with G-d and then made up his own.

I understand that many that make the scriptures mean all kinds of things to them and include all kinds of speculation.  I am not saying you are wrong - just that I have a hard time following your logic.  Nephi is obviously telling us something - applying all the logic and symbolism of the bow and arrow - It appears to me to be a simple easy to follow lesson in faith and acting on faith.  Not just to replace the bow and arrow but an another choice of faith that brought Nephi closer to G-d and his brothers not so close.  It is interesting to me that Nephi's act of faith strengthened his father in a time of weakness.  Which I see as another lesson in the covenant of the priesthood where now the epoch of bow and arrow plus the acts of Nephi become symbols of Nephi's sustaining his father as the presiding authority of the priesthood and the proctor of Nephi's trial of faith.

I just have difficulty accepting the steel bow as symbolism of a broken covenant.

 

The Traveler

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Traveler said:

I understand that many that make the scriptures mean all kinds of things to them and include all kinds of speculation.  I am not saying you are wrong - just that I have a hard time following your logic.  Nephi is obviously telling us something - applying all the logic and symbolism of the bow and arrow - It appears to me to be a simple easy to follow lesson in faith and acting on faith.  Not just to replace the bow and arrow but an another choice of faith that brought Nephi closer to G-d and his brothers not so close.  It is interesting to me that Nephi's act of faith strengthened his father in a time of weakness.  Which I see as another lesson in the covenant of the priesthood where now the epoch of bow and arrow plus the acts of Nephi become symbols of Nephi's sustaining his father as the presiding authority of the priesthood and the proctor of Nephi's trial of faith.

I just have difficulty accepting the steel bow as symbolism of a broken covenant.

The Traveler

Yes, there are many valid takeaways from the text and the symbolism, both simple and deep. Knock yourself out!

I wasn’t concerned about your saying I am wrong or not understanding me – that’s perfectly fine to do in good faith – but you are basing that on something I did not say! And I do take exception to your saying I was saying something I wasn’t.

For example, I never said the steel bow symbolized a broken covenant! The bows (both wooden and steel) represent God’s covenant, and I explained how. Laman and Lemuel abused it to the detriment of the family. And just as the community was threatened by the resulting overuse and breaking of Nephi bow, the threat of apostasy loomed, but righteous Nephi kept the covenant as an individual and in behalf of the group as symbolized by the replacement bow.

Whenever I mentioned the broken steel bow, I mentioned the replacement bow. The covenant was thus preserved by Nephi and complete apostasy averted. A degree of covenant-keeping was restored among the apostate brothers (see 1 Nephi 16:32, 39: “And it came to pass that they did humble themselves before the Lord, and did give thanks unto him,” and “they did turn away their anger, and did repent of their sins, insomuch that the Lord did bless us again with food, that we did not perish.”). Thus, a covenant people preserved the covenant though there were some inconsistent and backsliding members among them. Had there been an apostasy, the Lord would have needed to raise up a prophet to restore the covenant.

Of course, Christ Himself is the central covenant between God and man, and virtually every account in the Book or Mormon is designed to testify of Him, literally and/or symbolically.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Jonah said:

I don't believe there is any special meaning in the recorded event.  But I appreciate
the time and thought you put towards your explanation.  It was very deep.

Then why bother asking?  Just to get me to spin my wheels?  Gee, that's so endearing.  We all love you for that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, CV75 said:

Yes, there are many valid takeaways from the text and the symbolism, both simple and deep. Knock yourself out!

 

I wasn’t concerned about your saying I am wrong or not understanding me – that’s perfectly fine to do in good faith – but you are basing that on something I did not say! And I do take exception to your saying I was saying something I wasn’t.

 

For example, I never said the steel bow symbolized a broken covenant! The bows (both wooden and steel) represent God’s covenant, and I explained how. Laman and Lemuel abused it to the detriment of the family. And just as the community was threatened by the resulting overuse and breaking of Nephi bow, the threat of apostasy loomed, but righteous Nephi kept the covenant as an individual and in behalf of the group as symbolized by the replacement bow.

 

Whenever I mentioned the broken steel bow, I mentioned the replacement bow. The covenant was thus preserved by Nephi and complete apostasy averted. A degree of covenant-keeping was restored among the apostate brothers (see 1 Nephi 16:32, 39: “And it came to pass that they did humble themselves before the Lord, and did give thanks unto him,” and “they did turn away their anger, and did repent of their sins, insomuch that the Lord did bless us again with food, that we did not perish.”). Thus, a covenant people preserved the covenant though there were some inconsistent and backsliding members among them. Had there been an apostasy, the Lord would have needed to raise up a prophet to restore the covenant.

 

Of course, Christ Himself is the central covenant between God and man, and virtually every account in the Book or Mormon is designed to testify of Him, literally and/or symbolically.

 

I will apologize for not understanding - but you did say that bows and arrows symbolize power and from there to priesthood power and from there to covenant.  The symbolism in the scripture was that the bow was broken - you many not have said it but the scripture does and you have never responded in why the bow was broken in the first place and what that is symbolizing.  Also, Nephi makes a new bow and arrow from wood - which is inferior to steel.  The narrative that Nephi is using for this epoch story is one of ruin and renewal which is a most common and often used symbolic theme in scripture - I am just having a hard time applying the ruin and renewal to priesthood and covenant.  But there is something else from your quote that is interesting to this epoch that indirectly touches on divine covenant. 

We know that there is a connection between the Book of Mormon and ancient Egypt because the Book of Mormon was written in refined Egyptian - whatever that is.  In ancient Egypt there was an interesting G-d named Khepri that is represented by a scarab or dung beetle.  Khepri is shown in hieroglyphs with the head of a scarab - thus a scarab is an important symbol.  Khepri was the Egyptian g-d of creation or divine change.  The Egyptians believed that creation is divine change.  Khepri was a Celestial g-d that brought each the morning change from night to day.  It is important to understand that Khepri brought good change - so any change from good to evil or a change that was not beneficial would not be the same and not under the direction of Khepri.

One way to translate when the Egyptian g-d Khepri brought a good change was to say "And it came to pass".  This is an often used phrase used in the Book of Mormon - which BTW - was not know when Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon.  In essence this phrase could be understood to say that - "Under the direction of G-d it was caused that there was a significant  change that took place.  What was that change?

At this point I think that the focus needs to change - That this is not about the bow and arrow but the mantel that fell upon Nephi from this point on - That mantel was that of divine proctor.  Thus Nephi becomes both the provider of good things, the protector and divinely authorized leader.  This is the mantel that was held by Lehi that now become the calling of Nephi.

There is so much symbolism going on here.  I can see some elements of covenant but I am not sure that should be the primary focus.  Something else is interesting in Nephi assuming heir to his father Lehi; rather than his older brother Laman taking the role of heir.  In all cases of scripture when two brothers have claim to be the heir of their father - the mantel has fallen to the younger brother.  Have you pondered why this is?  Why does Nephi and others become the "first born" when there was a older brother that was born before them?  And there are not exceptions in scripture to this symbolism?

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Traveler said:

I will apologize for not understanding - but you did say that bows and arrows symbolize power and from there to priesthood power and from there to covenant.  The symbolism in the scripture was that the bow was broken - you many not have said it but the scripture does and you have never responded in why the bow was broken in the first place and what that is symbolizing.  Also, Nephi makes a new bow and arrow from wood - which is inferior to steel.  The narrative that Nephi is using for this epoch story is one of ruin and renewal which is a most common and often used symbolic theme in scripture - I am just having a hard time applying the ruin and renewal to priesthood and covenant.  But there is something else from your quote that is interesting to this epoch that indirectly touches on divine covenant. 

We know that there is a connection between the Book of Mormon and ancient Egypt because the Book of Mormon was written in refined Egyptian - whatever that is.  In ancient Egypt there was an interesting G-d named Khepri that is represented by a scarab or dung beetle.  Khepri is shown in hieroglyphs with the head of a scarab - thus a scarab is an important symbol.  Khepri was the Egyptian g-d of creation or divine change.  The Egyptians believed that creation is divine change.  Khepri was a Celestial g-d that brought each the morning change from night to day.  It is important to understand that Khepri brought good change - so any change from good to evil or a change that was not beneficial would not be the same and not under the direction of Khepri.

One way to translate when the Egyptian g-d Khepri brought a good change was to say "And it came to pass".  This is an often used phrase used in the Book of Mormon - which BTW - was not know when Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon.  In essence this phrase could be understood to say that - "Under the direction of G-d it was caused that there was a significant  change that took place.  What was that change?

At this point I think that the focus needs to change - That this is not about the bow and arrow but the mantel that fell upon Nephi from this point on - That mantel was that of divine proctor.  Thus Nephi becomes both the provider of good things, the protector and divinely authorized leader.  This is the mantel that was held by Lehi that now become the calling of Nephi.

There is so much symbolism going on here.  I can see some elements of covenant but I am not sure that should be the primary focus.  Something else is interesting in Nephi assuming heir to his father Lehi; rather than his older brother Laman taking the role of heir.  In all cases of scripture when two brothers have claim to be the heir of their father - the mantel has fallen to the younger brother.  Have you pondered why this is?  Why does Nephi and others become the "first born" when there was a older brother that was born before them?  And there are not exceptions in scripture to this symbolism?

 

The Traveler

Thank you. There is a difference between the symbol and the story. The symbol does not drive the story, but its presence within the story teaches a particular lesson in addition to perhaps more literal interpretations and practical applications of the story. We see this in the dish in Ether 2 which is similarly emphasized in the account.

I explained why Neph'is bow was broken in my very first post! I invite you to review that if interested: "Nephi's bow stopped functioning not due to his abuse and neglect of the covenant, but to show that a covenant people are required to preserve the covenant in the earth. With only one bow in use, it could not keep up with demand." Subsequent posts flesh that out by mentioning overuse and other factors.

Using the symbolism of the bow in 1 Nephi 16 has to be prudent: We can see that the wicked inactivated the covenant in their lives. We can see when members of the covenant people so not pull their weight, it can drag down the ability of righteous to preserve the covenant for the whole no matter how well the righteous honor it as individuals. Nephi's broken bow was such a horror to him because of what it meant practically (no food) and symbolically (life without the covenant). He was anxious for the welfare of his family -- both the wicked and the righteous -- on both counts. It doesn't matter that Nephi used a steel then a wooden bow, the Lord will make do with what He has to work with (that is a form of grace); the covenant is the same.

Where there "is so much symbolism going on here" there are so many valid points of focus, and yes, I've pondered your questions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, CV75 said:

"Nephi's bow stopped functioning not due to his abuse and neglect of the covenant, but to show that a covenant people are required to preserve the covenant in the earth. With only one bow in use, it could not keep up with demand." Subsequent posts flesh that out by mentioning overuse and other factors.

What do you believe is the symbolism of Nephi never making another steel bow or that subsequent
wooden bows are never mentioned as breaking?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If y’all will forgive the threadjack:

I just stumbled on a passage in Isaiah that might be read as tying the promise of a redeemer, the Prince of Peace, with the Noachian covenant; and thought I’d share:

Isaiah 54:9-10:

9 For this is as the waters of Noah unto me: for as I have sworn that the waters of Noah should no more go over the earth; so have I sworn that I would not be wroth with thee, nor rebuke thee.
10 For the mountains shall depart, and the hills be removed; but my kindness shall not depart from thee, neither shall the covenant of my peace be removed, saith the Lord that hath mercy on thee.

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Jonah said:

What do you believe is the symbolism of Nephi never making another steel bow or that subsequent
wooden bows are never mentioned as breaking?

I don't think the symbolism stretches that far. Just because a bow symbolizes the covenant part of the strength and power of God given to man does not mean it drives teh meaning of every particular in the account.

For example (for me) Nephi's, bow breaking does not mean he apostatized, or that the priesthood was revoked from the group, but offers a warning that dire consequences follow those who do break their covenants.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

If y’all will forgive the threadjack:

I just stumbled on a passage in Isaiah that might be read as tying the promise of a redeemer, the Prince of Peace, with the Noachian covenant; and thought I’d share:

Isaiah 54:9-10:

9 For this is as the waters of Noah unto me: for as I have sworn that the waters of Noah should no more go over the earth; so have I sworn that I would not be wroth with thee, nor rebuke thee.
10 For the mountains shall depart, and the hills be removed; but my kindness shall not depart from thee, neither shall the covenant of my peace be removed, saith the Lord that hath mercy on thee.

This is interesting in that is connects the rainbow with the bow. Anciently, in times of peace, warriors would hang their bows by the riser, string-down. Or, as a sign of peace, turn the bow so the riser faces toward them. The rainbow is of course in this position, with the riser facing God, a sign of His covenant of peace with mankind.

Where the rainbow borrows from the bow in symbolism, so does the bow borrow from rainbow. The covenant of peace, of the covenant of Christ, is the oath and covenant of the priesthood, which is expressed in its fulness in the sealing power, connecting (as does the string) what is in heaven (top limb tip) and what is in earth (bottom limb tip).

We see this in D&C 84 as we see how the oath and covenant of the priesthood is received:

35 And also all they who receive this priesthood areceive me, saith the Lord;

36 For he that receiveth my servants [those on Earth] areceiveth me [our Intermediary or High Priest between Heaven and Earth];

37 And he that areceiveth me receiveth my Father [God the Father in Heaven];

38 And he that receiveth my Father receiveth my Father’s akingdom; therefore ball that my Father hath shall be given unto him.

39 And this is according to the aoath and covenant which belongeth to the priesthood.

40 Therefore, all those who receive the apriesthood, receive this boath and covenant of my Father, which he cannot break, neither can it be moved.

 

 

Edited by CV75
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@CV75

I wanted to point out that there are times in scripture that a obvious symbol is used to symbolize something entirely different.   In other words that a bow and arrow can be used to symbolize something different than how the symbol is traditionally used - everywhere else.

The example I provide is the symbolism at the time of Jesus; that a Samaritan symbolized the corruption of truth and apostasy from G-d and his sacred covenants.  This symbolism was so structured that allowing a Samaritan to cross one's path (like a black cat as some fear in our day) required repentance and a cleansing ordinance to be reinstated or to overcome a curse.  Despite all the tradition of the Samaritan symbol - Jesus obviously used the symbol of a Samaritan to mean something different specifically targeting those that understood and upheld the traditional symbolism.

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Traveler said:

@CV75

I wanted to point out that there are times in scripture that a obvious symbol is used to symbolize something entirely different.   In other words that a bow and arrow can be used to symbolize something different than how the symbol is traditionally used - everywhere else.

The example I provide is the symbolism at the time of Jesus; that a Samaritan symbolized the corruption of truth and apostasy from G-d and his sacred covenants.  This symbolism was so structured that allowing a Samaritan to cross one's path (like a black cat as some fear in our day) required repentance and a cleansing ordinance to be reinstated or to overcome a curse.  Despite all the tradition of the Samaritan symbol - Jesus obviously used the symbol of a Samaritan to mean something different specifically targeting those that understood and upheld the traditional symbolism.

 

The Traveler

Absolutely. The bow, in tradition as well as the scriptures, sometimes symbolizes "war" and not "peace," so context is very important. Elder Gong's last General Conference talk points out how opposing yet complimentary principles come together in the Lord, and describe Him, so it makes sense that they also come together in symbols used in Gospel settings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/14/2020 at 9:15 PM, Just_A_Guy said:

If y’all will forgive the threadjack:

I just stumbled on a passage in Isaiah that might be read as tying the promise of a redeemer, the Prince of Peace, with the Noachian covenant; and thought I’d share:

Isaiah 54:9-10:

9 For this is as the waters of Noah unto me: for as I have sworn that the waters of Noah should no more go over the earth; so have I sworn that I would not be wroth with thee, nor rebuke thee.
10 For the mountains shall depart, and the hills be removed; but my kindness shall not depart from thee, neither shall the covenant of my peace be removed, saith the Lord that hath mercy on thee.

This passage is likening one covenant to another covenant.  But I don't see any mention of the promise of a Redeemer.

The first covenant (with Noah) is likened to the covenant the Lord is making with Zion, that her stakes shall be expanded (v.2).  This is a dual image of Ancient Israel and the Latter-days.  This covenant essentially says that even if He chastens us, we will not be left desolate forever.  We will still be His covenant people forever.  As a dual image, this is true of the Ancient Covenant People as well as the Latter-day Covenant People (or Latter-day Saints).

To each covenant people, he gave power that mountains would depart, hills would be removed, and desolate places shall be inhabited, so that we can spread the gospel abroad.  Even though He may chasten us to bring us back under His wings, we will not be left desolate forever.  The covenant will remain with both the ancient and latter-day saints.

The reason Noah is mentioned is that Israel was actually concerned about the coming "flood" of Babylonian rule (so say some sectarian Biblical scholars).  So, people being chastened by a flood will also be given a covenant of protection and a promise of expanding her stakes.  And like the Deluge, most of Israel was consumed by the flood of Babylon. But some were taken by a boat to the promised land, safe from the flood of Babylon (worldliness).

If the mention of the word "peace" is to invoke the Prince of Peace, then why does it say:

Quote

but my kindness shall not depart from thee,
neither shall the covenant of my peace be removed

Now, if you really want to get technical about it, there is always a parallel about how the Lord deals with nations and groups of people as he does with individuals as a type and shadow of the story of man as well as mankind.  But such an overarching parallel is evident in almost any passage of scripture.  It isn't any different here.

But you seemed to indicate there was something more solid and unique than that in this passage.

Edited by Carborendum
Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

This passage is likening one covenant to another covenant.  But I don't see any mention of the promise of a Redeemer.

The first covenant (with Noah) is likened to the covenant the Lord is making with Zion, that her stakes shall be expanded (v.2).  This is a dual image of Ancient Israel and the Latter-days.  This covenant essentially says that even if He chastens us, we will not be left desolate forever.  We will still be His covenant people forever.  As a dual image, this is true of the Ancient Covenant People as well as the Latter-day Covenant People (or Latter-day Saints).

To each covenant people, he gave power that mountains would depart, hills would be removed, and desolate places shall be inhabited, so that we can spread the gospel abroad.  Even though He may chasten us to bring us back under His wings, we will not be left desolate forever.  The covenant will remain with both the ancient and latter-day saints.

The reason Noah is mentioned is that Israel was actually concerned about the coming "flood" of Babylonian rule (so say some sectarian Biblical scholars).  So, people being chastened by a flood will also be given a covenant of protection and a promise of expanding her stakes.  And like the Deluge, most of Israel was consumed by the flood of Babylon. But some were taken by a boat to the promised land, safe from the flood of Babylon (worldliness).

If the mention of the word "peace" is to invoke the Prince of Peace, then why does it say:

Now, if you really want to get technical about it, there is always a parallel about how the Lord deals with nations and groups of people as he does with individuals as a type and shadow of the story of man as well as mankind.  But such an overarching parallel is evident in almost any passage of scripture.  It isn't any different here.

But you seemed to indicate there was something more solid and unique than that in this passage.

I think my post mostly speaks for itself, and I tried to be pretty tentative about it rather than asserting it as an absolute undeniable fact.  :) 

That said, I think that the Messianic covenant—the idea of a Redeemer who brings reconciliation between God and His wayward people—is an enormous subtext of Isaiah 54, particularly in light of the preceding two chapters.

Also—and I’m not posing this as proof of anything, but merely as a “thing that makes you go ‘huh!’”—ancient Israel associated water with chaos.  After creating light, the next two significant acts God does in the Genesis 1 creation account are to contain the waters.  First He creates the “firmament”—Hebrews perceived the world as a flat “snow globe”, with a big dome of “firmament” in the sky separating the air/sky below from the waters above (rain represented an opening in the firmament) (quaint by our standards, but a lot less gross than how Baal worshippers explained rain!).  And then God gathers the terrestrial waters into one place, causing dry land to appear.

The Noachian flood account thus has tremendous symbolic import for an ancient Hebrew—God is basically undoing all of His creative work, unleashing the chaotic waters and reverting the earth in more or less the chaotic disorganized state it was in before He entered the picture.  The receding of the waters represents a new creation, a new covenant, a reconciliation between God and man—concepts that are hard to separate from the promise of a Redeemer.

(Please note that I am *not* suggesting that the flood account is merely figurative and not literal.  But I am suggesting that the Israelites who told and retold these stories would have had to be very stiff-necked indeed, not to have seen messianic implications for the flood account.)

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

I think my post mostly speaks for itself, and I tried to be pretty tentative about it rather than asserting it as an absolute undeniable fact.  :) 

I saw that and appreciated it.  I was not trying to beat you down.  I merely tried to give it a scholarly critique.  And I thought I mentioned that it could be considered true from a certain point of view. (Thank you Obi-wan).

11 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

That said, I think that the Messianic covenant—the idea of a Redeemer who brings reconciliation between God and His wayward people—is an enormous subtext of Isaiah 54, particularly in light of the preceding two chapters.

Also—and I’m not posing this as proof of anything, but merely as a “thing that makes you go ‘huh!’”—ancient Israel associated water with chaos.  After creating light, the next two significant acts God does in the Genesis 1 creation account are to contain the waters.  First He creates the “firmament”—Hebrews perceived the world as a flat “snow globe”, with a big dome of “firmament” in the sky separating the air/sky below from the waters above (rain represented an opening in the firmament) (quaint by our standards, but a lot less gross than how Baal worshippers explained rain!).  And then God gathers the terrestrial waters into one place, causing dry land to appear.

The Noachian flood account thus has tremendous symbolic import for an ancient Hebrew—God is basically undoing all of His creative work, unleashing the chaotic waters and reverting the earth in more or less the chaotic disorganized state it was in before He entered the picture.  The receding of the waters represents a new creation, a new covenant, a reconciliation between God and man—concepts that are hard to separate from the promise of a Redeemer.

In your favor, we know that the flood was a representation of the "baptism" of the earth.  And we know that baptism denotes a covenant.  And we know a covenant was made about the earth right after the earth "came up again out of the water."  So, that much we can clearly see.  We also know that the covenant at baptism also calls upon the Atonement of Christ.  So, that much makes sense.

The "God undoing all of His creative work" is likened unto us as we are born again (of the water and of the Spirit).  And we know that the earth has yet to be born again of the Spirit.

11 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

(Please note that I am *not* suggesting that the flood account is merely figurative and not literal.  

Never thought you were implying it.  TBH, I still don't know how much of it is literal or figurative.

11 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

But I am suggesting that the Israelites who told and retold these stories would have had to be very stiff-necked indeed, not to have seen messianic implications for the flood account.)

Or Korean Engineers in Texas...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share