Another Try at a Sequential Reading of Genesis

[deuteroKJ (Kenneth Turner)]

@anon46279830

As I suppose you know, Galatians 3:16 throws that collective noun thing out the window and says that because it says “seed” instead of “seeds” in Genesis 22 that it is referring to Christ and not all the physical offspring of Abraham.

That’s a cheeky thing Paul does there He took advantage of the difference between Hebrew and Greek grammar to make his theological point (since Greek sperma can take a plural form). His point about Christ as the ultimate seed is a good Christological reading (already nestled in the ambiguity of the Hebrew text). This does not discount the original meaning, which also includes a plural referent.

@anon46279830

So we do see a pattern here in Genesis where the ambiguity in nouns being collective or singular are later discovered to point to Christ and Christ is both singular as the man and collective as in the believers which comprise His body. This is of course like the idea of the person of a king standing in to represent his nation. So really 1:26-27 fits into the same pattern.

This helps me see better how you’re arriving at your position on 1:26-27. I’m OK with a sound Christological reading (especially when a NT author employs it!), but I myself am a bit cautious to start finding things in a text without warrant, nor do I want a Christological reading to dismiss/discount earlier layers. Perhaps we have different hermeneutical grids at play here. I prefer Christotelic to Christological, though I’ve shifted in the past couple of years to think more Christologically.

@anon46279830

My own work in Deuteronomy shows the tension in the alternation of the singular “you” vs. the plural “y’all”

Have you a link?

The purpose in Deuteronomy is to show corporate solidarity across generations of “Israel.” It’s part of the argument in my book: The Death of Deaths in the Death of Israel: Deuteronomy's Theology of Exile - Kenneth Turner - Google Books

@anon46279830

Isn’t the real traditional reading the way that the Jewish rabbis would see it over thousands of years?

Reference? That’d be interesting to study.

@anon46279830

The “traditional” reading from 1611 to today may be different but I suspect if one goes before that it would not be.

Are you suggesting the Christian reading of Gen 1:26-27 changed in 1611?

@anon46279830

in the book .

Ah, one day I’ll get to it