80 replies to this topic

[Fortigurn]

Mark Taunton, on 19 November 2010 - 08:08 AM, said:

Evangelion, on 19 November 2010 - 12:19 AM, said:

Mark, while I found your exposition interesting, I don't see a connection with resurrection. The manna did not corrupt and then revive; it simply did not corrupt in the first place. This does not speak to me of resurrection.

In what I wrote I alluded to Peter's inspired words, concerning the prophecy of David:

Ac 2:31 He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption.

which prove that exact point.

This verse has the word 'corruption' in it. How does it prove that the manna was a symbol of resurrection?

[nsr]

And yet another thread demonstrates everything that is currently wrong with BTDF .

Brethren, getting the "right" answer is not as important as treating people in the right way!

[Mark Taunton]

Evangelion, on 19 November 2010 - 08:44 AM, said:

Mark Taunton, on 19 November 2010 - 08:08 AM, said:

Evangelion, on 19 November 2010 - 12:19 AM, said:

Mark, while I found your exposition interesting, I don't see a connection with resurrection. The manna did not corrupt and then revive; it simply did not corrupt in the first place. This does not speak to me of resurrection.

In what I wrote I alluded to Peter's inspired words, concerning the prophecy of David:

Ac 2:31 He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption.

which prove that exact point.

How does it prove that point? Where's the connection? You've simply pointed to the word "corruption" in an entirely different context. I don't see the relevance.

I've pointed out the scriptural usage of the concept of "not corrupting" in relation to the death and resurrection of Christ. You yourself used the phrase "did not corrupt", quite appropriately, in regard to what happened to the manna. Yes it's a different context, but it's not "entirely different" and unconnected: the point is that the same detail, "not corrupting", is true of both the extra manna of the 6th day and of the flesh of Christ.

Moreover the word "flesh" which David used and Peter cites with respect to Christ, as being what did not corrupt, is what connects them in a further way. In John 6 (which I both alluded to repeatedly, and referenced for one detail specifically), Jesus identified his flesh as the bread he would give for the life of the world. He speaks there of the true bread God provides, of which a man can eat and live forever, in contrast with the manna which the fathers ate of but died. In the same context he calls himself the living bread, the bread which came down from heaven. In this he is showing directly that the manna was a figure for himself.

Quote

The Israelites' clothes and shoes did not see corruption while they were wandering in the wilderness. Is this also symbolic of resurrection?

Scripture doesn't actually say that about the Israelite's clothes and shoes; Moses rather says their clothes did not get old (Deu 8:4,29:5). So no, I don't see that as symbolic of resurrection.

Edited by Mark Taunton, 19 November 2010 - 09:22 AM.

[Jeremy]

Fortigurn, on 19 November 2010 - 08:54 AM, said:

This verse has the word 'corruption' in it. How does it prove that the manna was a symbol of resurrection?

That the manna is a symbol of our future reward is indicated by Rev. 2 v 17:

"To him who overcomes, to him I will give some of the hidden manna..."

Fort, I'll try and reply to your overnight response later in the day.

[Fortigurn]

nsr, on 19 November 2010 - 09:08 AM, said:

And yet another thread demonstrates everything that is currently wrong with BTDF .

Brethren, getting the "right" answer is not as important as treating people in the right way!

Who is not treating people in the right way? Mark invited critique of his commentary, and it's being given politely.

Jeremy, on 19 November 2010 - 09:37 AM, said:

That the manna is a symbol of our future reward is indicated by Rev. 2 v 17:

"To him who overcomes, to him I will give some of the hidden manna..."

Yes, it's used here as a symbol of incorruptibility, not resurrection.

Mark Taunton, on 19 November 2010 - 09:13 AM, said:

I've pointed out the scriptural usage of the concept of "not corrupting" in relation to the death and resurrection of Christ.

You've pointed out that Peter used the concept of 'not corrupting' of the body of Christ, not of resurrection. Peter's point was that Christ's body didn't decay to dust in the tomb, because Christ was raised. But he uses 'not corrupting' here to mean 'not corrupting', not 'resurrection'.

Quote

You yourself used the phrase "did not corrupt", quite appropriately, in regard to what happened to the manna. Yes it's a different context, but it's not "entirely different" and unconnected: the point is that the same detail, "not corrupting", is true of both the extra manna of the 6th day and of the flesh of Christ.

You're reinforcing Evangelion's point; the manna is spoken of as not corrupting, it is not spoken of as having been resurrected.

Quote

Moreover the word "flesh" which David used and Peter cites with respect to Christ, as being what did not corrupt, is what connects them in a further way. In John 6 (which I both alluded to repeatedly, and referenced for one detail specifically), Jesus identified his flesh as the bread he would give for the life of the world. He speaks there of the true bread God provides, of which a man can eat and live forever, in contrast with the manna which the fathers ate of but died. In the same context he calls himself the living bread, the bread which came down from heaven. In this he is showing directly that the manna was a figure for himself.

So again we have manna used as a symbol of eternal life and incorruption. We don't have it used as a symbol of resurrection.

Edit: Actually I agree with Ev, the literal manna is being contrasted with Christ. Christ is saying 'I'm bread from heaven just like the manna given to your fathers, only in my case partaking of me will result in eternal life'. So no, the manna here isn't even being used as a symbol of incorruption.

Edited by Fortigurn, 19 November 2010 - 10:38 AM.

[Evangelion]

Mark Taunton, on 19 November 2010 - 09:13 AM, said:

I've pointed out the scriptural usage of the concept of "not corrupting" in relation to the death and resurrection of Christ. You yourself used the phrase "did not corrupt", quite appropriately, in regard to what happened to the manna. Yes it's a different context, but it's not "entirely different" and unconnected: the point is that the same detail, "not corrupting", is true of both the extra manna of the 6th day and of the flesh of Christ.

Mark, you've found a similarity. It's not a correlation. Jesus was dead; the manna was never alive. Jesus was raised from the dead; the manna did not experience anything similar. Jesus did not see corruption because he was resurrected before this could happen; the manna did not corrupt because God preserved it.

If the manna had corrupted on the 6th day and been miraculously restored on the 7th day, you could argue that this correlates to Christ's death and resurrection. But that is not what happened.

Quote

Moreover the word "flesh" which David used and Peter cites with respect to Christ, as being what did not corrupt, is what connects them in a further way. In John 6 (which I both alluded to repeatedly, and referenced for one detail specifically), Jesus identified his flesh as the bread he would give for the life of the world. He speaks there of the true bread God provides, of which a man can eat and live forever, in contrast with the manna which the fathers ate of but died. In the same context he calls himself the living bread, the bread which came down from heaven. In this he is showing directly that the manna was a figure for himself.

Jesus never says that the manna was a figure for himself. He never claims this at all. Instead, he contrasts himself against the manna.

Quote

Scripture doesn't actually say that about the Israelite's clothes and shoes; Moses rather says their clothes did not get old (Deu 8:4,29:5). So no, I don't see that as symbolic of resurrection.

If clothes and shoes don't grow old, they'll never corrupt. I hope you're not going to tell me they corrupted without growing old.

[Fortigurn]

Mark Taunton, on 19 November 2010 - 09:13 AM, said:

Scripture doesn't actually say that about the Israelite's clothes and shoes; Moses rather says their clothes did not get old (Deu 8:4,29:5).

Deuteronomy 8:
4 Your clothing did not wear out nor did your feet swell all these forty years.

Deuteronomy 29:
5 I have led you through the desert for forty years. Your clothing has not worn out nor have your sandals deteriorated.

Quote

בלה MHb., Arm. → BArm., Arb. baliya, OSArb. blwt grave (ZAW 75:307), Ug. *bly (UTGl. 471), Eth. balya, to be consumed; Akk. balû, to fade, pass away.
qal: pf. בָּֽלְתָה, בָּלוּ, impf. יִבְלֶה, יִבְלוּ, inf. sf. בְּלֹתִי: to be used up, to be worn out: clothes Jos 913 Neh 921, with מֵעַל on Dt 84 294, like a garment Is 509 516 Ps 10227 Sir 1417, skin Jb 1328 (rd. רֹקֶב), an old woman Gn 1812, the sky (rd. בְּלֹת) Jb 1412; bones become brittle Ps 323, body cj. Ps 4915 (rd. לִבְלוֹת). †
pi: pf. בִּלָּה, impf. יְבַלּוּ, inf. בַּלּוֹת, בַּלֹּתוֹ; —1. to consume the body La 34, to annihilate people 1C 179 (|| לְעַנֹּתוֹ 2S 710, Sept. ταπεινοῦν); —2. to enjoy fully Is 6522 Jb 2113;—Ps 4915 rd. לִבְלוֹת. †
Der. בַּל, *בָּלֶה, *בְּלוֹי, בְּלִי, בְּלִימָה, בְּלִיַּעַל (?), בִּלְתִּי, תַּבְלִית.

Koehler, L., Baumgartner, W., Richardson, M., & Stamm, J. J. (1999). The Hebrew and Aramaic lexicon of the Old Testament (electronic ed.) (132). Leiden; New York: E.J. Brill.

[Richie]

The problem is, Fortigurn, that your points lose credibility because you're quoting commentaries - they have less power. You could have easily said "Jesus quoted from the law to prove the resurrection in Luke 20" and that would have been excellent.

And your comments about poor Bible study are irrelevant.

[Mark Taunton]

Peter by the holy spirit says explicitly and unambiguously that David's prophecy, in which he described God's holy one not seeing corruption, was speaking of Christ's flesh in relation to his resurrection. I really don't need to add anything to that to prove the point.

The Israelites' shoes did not get old or worn out, during the forty years. But the word used of that ('balah') is not concerned with the rotting of a corpse; Sarah uses it of herself because of her age, at 89, though she was definitely alive and went on to bear Isaac (Gen 18:12). It is an entirely different word from the word for corruption in the grave ('shachath') that David by the spirit uses in Psalm 16:10, speaking of what would not happen to Christ.

As a further strengthening of my case, consider Job 17:14. Job here uses the same word 'shachath' ("corruption"), in speaking of his own impending entry to the grave. He says that he will call worms (Hebrew 'rimmah') his mother and sister - they were certainly going to get very close to him! In this he shows that they are agents of corruption. This aligns with the detail in Exo 16:24 - only after the sixth night was the manna found to have no worm ('rimmah') in it.

Edited by Mark Taunton, 19 November 2010 - 01:03 PM.

[nsr]

Richie, on 19 November 2010 - 12:45 PM, said:

The problem is, Fortigurn, that your points lose credibility because you're quoting commentaries - they have less power. You could have easily said "Jesus quoted from the law to prove the resurrection in Luke 20" and that would have been excellent.

Agreed. It's incomparably better when brethren give their own views in their own words while quoting the relevant Scriptures. That's what discussion requires. Quoting reams of scholarly literature doesn't constitute discussion but rather lecturing.

[Fortigurn]

Richie, on 19 November 2010 - 12:45 PM, said:

The problem is, Fortigurn, that your points lose credibility because you're quoting commentaries - they have less power.

I am not quoting commentaries to explain what the passage means. I am quoting them for historical background. Why does this mean that my point that Jesus explained how the Pentateuch teaches resurrection, loses power?

Quote

You could have easily said "Jesus quoted from the law to prove the resurrection in Luke 20" and that would have been excellent.

You mean you wouldn't have turned off.

Quote

And your comments about poor Bible study are irrelevant.

Why?

Mark Taunton, on 19 November 2010 - 01:00 PM, said:

Peter by the holy spirit says explicitly and unambiguously that David's prophecy, in which he described God's holy one not seeing corruption, was speaking of Christ's flesh in relation to his resurrection. I really don't need to add anything to that to prove the point.

Peter by the Holy Spirit says that Christ's body was not left to corrupt because it was raised. He says nothing about manna being a symbol of resurrection.

Quote

The Israelites' shoes did not get old or worn out, during the forty years. But the word used of that ('balah') is not concerned with the rotting of a corpse; Sarah uses it of herself because of her age, at 89, though she was definitely alive and went on to bear Isaac (Gen 18:12). It is an entirely different word from the word for corruption in the grave ('shachath') that David by the spirit uses in Psalm 16:10, speaking of what would not happen to Christ.

You are confusing several issues. No one was saying it was used of the rotting of a corpse. I was addressing your claim that the Scriptures only say that the shoes of the Israelites did not get old, as opposed to 'did not wear out', or 'did not corrupt'. Your claim was not true. The fact that it's an entirely different word to the word used by David in Psalm 16:10 is irrelevant. No one was claiming it is the same word. I was addressing your claim with regard to the word's meaning. It used of Sarah being old, but it is used of the shoes of the Israelites wearing out, corrupting, disintegrating, whatever you want to call it. Not 'getting old'.

Quote

As a further strengthening of my case, consider Job 17:14. Job here uses the same word 'shachath' ("corruption"), in speaking of his own impending entry to the grave. He says that he will call worms (Hebrew 'rimmah') his mother and sister - they were certainly going to get very close to him! In this he shows that they are agents of corruption. This aligns with the detail in Exo 16:24 - only after the sixth night was the manna found to have no worm ('rimmah') in it.

Yes, after the sixth night the manna was found to be still uncorrupted. It was not found to have been resurrected. How does this prove your point?

nsr, on 19 November 2010 - 01:04 PM, said:

Agreed. It's incomparably better when brethren give their own views in their own words while quoting the relevant Scriptures. That's what discussion requires. Quoting reams of scholarly literature doesn't constitute discussion but rather lecturing.

I gave my own view in my own words. But even better than that, I first gave Christ's view in his own words. I was the only person who actually went to Scripture to appeal to Christ's own answer to the original question.

Edited by Fortigurn, 19 November 2010 - 01:15 PM.

[Mark Taunton]

Evangelion, on 19 November 2010 - 10:20 AM, said:

Mark Taunton, on 19 November 2010 - 09:13 AM, said:

I've pointed out the scriptural usage of the concept of "not corrupting" in relation to the death and resurrection of Christ. You yourself used the phrase "did not corrupt", quite appropriately, in regard to what happened to the manna. Yes it's a different context, but it's not "entirely different" and unconnected: the point is that the same detail, "not corrupting", is true of both the extra manna of the 6th day and of the flesh of Christ.

Mark, you've found a similarity. It's not a correlation. Jesus was dead; the manna was never alive. Jesus was raised from the dead; the manna did not experience anything similar. Jesus did not see corruption because he was resurrected before this could happen; the manna did not corrupt because God preserved it.

If the manna had corrupted on the 6th day and been miraculously restored on the 7th day, you could argue that this correlates to Christ's death and resurrection. But that is not what happened.

I don't follow that at all. The manna did not corrupt overnight on the 6th night, in exactly the same way that Christ's flesh did not experience corruption in the grave. In both cases, because God preserved them. That is a precise match, not a difference. The alternative you suggest would imply that Christ's' flesh was corrupted in the grave, the very thing that David prophesies, and Peter confirms, did not happen to him!

Quote

Quote

Moreover the word "flesh" which David used and Peter cites with respect to Christ, as being what did not corrupt, is what connects them in a further way. In John 6 (which I both alluded to repeatedly, and referenced for one detail specifically), Jesus identified his flesh as the bread he would give for the life of the world. He speaks there of the true bread God provides, of which a man can eat and live forever, in contrast with the manna which the fathers ate of but died. In the same context he calls himself the living bread, the bread which came down from heaven. In this he is showing directly that the manna was a figure for himself.

Jesus never says that the manna was a figure for himself. He never claims this at all. Instead, he contrasts himself against the manna.

Of course Jesus is showing the manna was a figure for himself, as "the bread that came down from heaven". The contrast he makes occurs precisely because the manna was a figure, not the true (see Heb 9:24 for another example of this). The manna was indeed bread from heaven, but it was not the true bread from heaven. In scripture, a figure is a figure because it does match in some ways, and does not match in other ways, the later thing, the "true" thing, which it is a figure of. If it matched in no way at all, we could see no relationship - there would be no correspondence and it would not be a figure. But if it matched in all ways, it would not be the figure, it would just be the true thing.

Quote

Quote

Scripture doesn't actually say that about the Israelite's clothes and shoes; Moses rather says their clothes did not get old (Deu 8:4,29:5). So no, I don't see that as symbolic of resurrection.

If clothes and shoes don't grow old, they'll never corrupt. I hope you're not going to tell me they corrupted without growing old.

See my previous comment. The language used of the shoes and clothes is speaking of (not) wearing out/growing old. It is not the language of rotting corpses. So your suggestion is not relevant to the issue in question.

Edited by Mark Taunton, 19 November 2010 - 01:22 PM.

[Fortigurn]

Mark Taunton, on 19 November 2010 - 01:19 PM, said:

I don't follow that at all. The manna did not corrupt overnight on the 6th night, in exactly the same way that Christ's flesh did not experience corruption in the grave. In both cases, because God preserved them. That is a precise match, not a difference. The alternative you suggest would imply that Christ's' flesh was corrupted in the grave, the very thing that David prophesies, and Peter confirms, did not happen to him!

No it's not a precise match. The reason why Christ did not see corruption was not because God made Jesus' body supernaturally incorruptible (like the manna), but because God raised him. That is precisely what Peter says.

Quote

Of course Jesus is showing the manna was a figure for himself, as "the bread that came down from heaven". The contrast he makes occurs precisely because the manna was a figure, not the true (see Heb 9:24 for another example of this). The manna was indeed bread from heaven, but it was not the true bread from heaven. In scripture, a figure is a figure because it does match in some ways, and does not match in other ways, the later thing, the "true" thing, which it is a figure of. If it matched in no way at all, we could see no relationship - there would be no correspondence and it would not be a figure. But if it matched in all ways, it would not be the figure, it would just be the true thing.

The problem is that the manna in this passage isn't used as a figure for resurrection. Figures don't match in every ways, certainly, but in this case the figure does not match in the way your claim needs it to match.

Quote

See my previous comment. The language used of the shoes and clothes is speaking of (not) wearing out/growing old. It is not the language of rotting corpses. So your suggestion is not relevant to the issue in question.

This is splitting hairs. The language in both cases is the language of wearing out, disintegrating, falling apart. The fact that in one case it refers to shoes and in another it refers to a body doesn't change the fact that the same concept is found in both cases.

[Richie]

Fortigurn, on 19 November 2010 - 01:14 PM, said:

Richie, on 19 November 2010 - 12:45 PM, said:

The problem is, Fortigurn, that your points lose credibility because you're quoting commentaries - they have less power.

I am not quoting commentaries to explain what the passage means. I am quoting them for historical background. Why does this mean that my point that Jesus explained how the Pentateuch teaches resurrection, loses power?

Because historical background has nothing to do with it.

Quote

Quote

You could have easily said "Jesus quoted from the law to prove the resurrection in Luke 20" and that would have been excellent.

You mean you wouldn't have turned off.

Of course not.

Quote

Quote

And your comments about poor Bible study are irrelevant.

Why?

Because we weren't talking about it.

[Evangelion]

Mark Taunton, on 19 November 2010 - 01:19 PM, said:

I don't follow that at all.

How can you not follow it? What was unclear?

Quote

The manna did not corrupt overnight on the 6th night, in exactly the same way that Christ's flesh did not experience corruption in the grave. In both cases, because God preserved them. That is a precise match, not a difference.

No, you've completely missed my point. Christ's flesh was not preserved. It was raised to life again. This is not even vaguely similar to the manna. It is certainly not a "precise match"!

Quote

The alternative you suggest would imply that Christ's' flesh was corrupted in the grave, the very thing that David prophesies, and Peter confirms, did not happen to him!

Wrong again. The alternative I've suggested would provide a closer correspondence because under my hypothetical the manna spoils/corrupts/becomes inedible/whatever you want to call it, which is symbolic of death. Then the manna is restored; a figure of resurrection.

My point is that the manna never did this. It was never in a state which corresponds to death. That's the biggest missing link in your chain of argument. Yet you ignore it.

Quote

Of course Jesus is showing the manna was a figure for himself, as "the bread that came down from heaven". The contrast he makes occurs precisely because the manna was a figure, not the true (see Heb 9:24 for another example of this). The manna was indeed bread from heaven, but it was not the true bread from heaven. In scripture, a figure is a figure because it does match in some ways, and does not match in other ways, the later thing, the "true" thing, which it is a figure of. If it matched in no way at all, we could see no relationship - there would be no correspondence and it would not be a figure. But if it matched in all ways, it would not be the figure, it would just be the true thing.

Jesus himself tells us what the contrast is: the contrast is that the people who ate the manna died, while the people who symbolically eat Jesus' flesh will live forever. He actually says this explicitly:

[indent]John 6:49-51
Your ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died.
This is the bread that has come down from heaven, so that a person may eat from it and not die.
I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats from this bread he will live forever. The bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh."[/indent]

He does not say that the manna was a figure for himself, and he does not say this is where the contrast lies.

Quote

See my previous comment. The language used of the shoes and clothes is speaking of (not) wearing out/growing old. It is not the language of rotting corpses. So your suggestion is not relevant to the issue in question.

Pure semantics, Mark. You've agreed that their shoes and clothes did not corrupt. By your own logic, this means we can see the shoes and clothes as symbolic of resurrection.

[Mark Taunton]

Quote

You've agreed that their shoes and clothes did not corrupt.

I have not. On the contrary, I said that that is not the way the scripture speaks of it. I have been quite clear about the different words for the different cases.

[Fortigurn]

Richie, on 19 November 2010 - 02:06 PM, said:

Because historical background has nothing to do with it.

Why do you say that the historical background has nothing to do with what Christ said? Of course it does. We're even told this in the gospel which explains to us that the Sadducees didn't believe in the resurrection. And how does identifying the historical background mean that my point that Jesus answered Pete's question lose force?

Quote

Of course not.

Exactly. You only turned off because you saw 'commentaries'. Ironically this meant you also completely missed the words of Christ.

Quote

Because we weren't talking about it.

Yes we were talking about Bible study. I was told I wasn't doing any.

[Fortigurn]

Mark Taunton, on 19 November 2010 - 02:20 PM, said:

Quote

You've agreed that their shoes and clothes did not corrupt.

I have not. On the contrary, I said that that is not the way the scripture speaks of it. I have been quite clear about the different words for the different cases.

I've already pointed out this is splitting hairs. The fact that two different words are used doesn't change the fact that the same concept is being spoken of, the wearing out and disintegration of the materials due to the natural processes of age and decay.

[Kakashi]

As others have said, Jesus would have seen corruption if he'd been in the tomb longer. He had died. He was given new life by the direct action of God.

The manna came down on the 6th day and was still good the 7th. We are given no information about whether God had to 'revitalise' it for consumption, or whether God had simply added preservatives when He did the baking.

There isn't enough information here to say that the manna was 'resurrected' like Christ. My personal opinion is that the manna shows God's care for those who are dependant on him, simple as that. The manna was to sustain Israel when they needed it. Jesus is to sustain everyone when we need it. Does that make sense? Does it fit with your understanding?

If so, we should go looking for real pointers to resurrection in the Law. We are familiar with Jesus' statement that because Moses called the Lord 'the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob', he must have known God would raise them. But that story happened a little before the Law was given Maimonides thought that there would be a physical, bodily resurrection of the dead, but he based his belief on Dan 12:2,13 and other things the prophets did and said. In fact, his explanation for why the Law didn't make resurrection explicit was that the Israelites of Moses' time couldn't have understood resurrection, and that it had to be gradually made clear by the prophets later on. What do you make of that?

[Evangelion]

Mark Taunton, on 19 November 2010 - 02:20 PM, said:

Quote

You've agreed that their shoes and clothes did not corrupt.

I have not. On the contrary, I said that that is not the way the scripture speaks of it.

Mark, please give me a straight answer. Did the Israelites' shoes and clothes corrupt? Yes or no.

Quote

I have been quite clear about the different words for the different cases.

As I've already explained, the semantics are irrelevant. We know that their shoes and clothes did not corrupt. This is incontrovertible. They did not grow old; they did not wear out; they did not corrupt.

[Mark Taunton]

Evangelion, on 20 November 2010 - 02:08 AM, said:

Mark Taunton, on 19 November 2010 - 02:20 PM, said:

Quote

You've agreed that their shoes and clothes did not corrupt.

I have not. On the contrary, I said that that is not the way the scripture speaks of it.

Mark, please give me a straight answer. Did the Israelites' shoes and clothes corrupt? Yes or no.

No.

The Israelites' shoes and clothes did not corrupt, in any of the range of meanings of that English word. But that doesn't help your case. I am equally prepared to say that they didn't explode, either, nor did they turn bright blue and fly off into the sky, nor do any one of myriads of other conceivable things!

In any case, what is important is how scripture describes what did happen and what did not happen, not how we describe it. Scripture does not say that they did not corrupt, by using the Hebrew word for corruption that applies to a corpse; rather, it says they did not get old/wear out, using a different word. Despite your and Fort's claims otherwise, those are quite distinct processes. The first is a normal consequence, after the death of a living thing. The other is a normal process during the lifetime of a person or article. They are not the same.

Quote

Quote

I have been quite clear about the different words for the different cases.

As I've already explained, the semantics are irrelevant. We know that their shoes and clothes did not corrupt. This is incontrovertible. They did not grow old; they did not wear out; they did not corrupt.

You've asserted that the semantics are irrelevant; but you've not explained why. And they're not irrelevant, here or anywhere else. Indeed, in at least other thread, I have seen Fort insisting on a difference in meaning between instances of the same word in different contexts, even before we get to differences of meaning between different words! Yet now, you're making an equivocation between different Hebrew words, and want me to agree to it, without justification. You want to equate the meaning of the word 'balah' (wear out/get old) with that of the word 'shachath' (corrupt in death). Unless you can show scriptural reason to equate or directly relate those words, I see no reason to accept the equivocation.

Edited by Mark Taunton, 20 November 2010 - 12:55 PM.

[Mark Taunton]

Fortigurn, on 19 November 2010 - 01:52 PM, said:

Mark Taunton, on 19 November 2010 - 01:19 PM, said:

I don't follow that at all. The manna did not corrupt overnight on the 6th night, in exactly the same way that Christ's flesh did not experience corruption in the grave. In both cases, because God preserved them. That is a precise match, not a difference. The alternative you suggest would imply that Christ's' flesh was corrupted in the grave, the very thing that David prophesies, and Peter confirms, did not happen to him!

No it's not a precise match. The reason why Christ did not see corruption was not because God made Jesus' body supernaturally incorruptible (like the manna), but because God raised him. That is precisely what Peter says.

Peter says that Christ's flesh did not see corruption. I believe him when he says that. Do you think that actually his flesh was corrupting in the grave, as any corpse normally would?

Quote

Quote

Of course Jesus is showing the manna was a figure for himself, as "the bread that came down from heaven". The contrast he makes occurs precisely because the manna was a figure, not the true (see Heb 9:24 for another example of this). The manna was indeed bread from heaven, but it was not the true bread from heaven. In scripture, a figure is a figure because it does match in some ways, and does not match in other ways, the later thing, the "true" thing, which it is a figure of. If it matched in no way at all, we could see no relationship - there would be no correspondence and it would not be a figure. But if it matched in all ways, it would not be the figure, it would just be the true thing.

The problem is that the manna in this passage isn't used as a figure for resurrection. Figures don't match in every ways, certainly, but in this case the figure does not match in the way your claim needs it to match.

I didn't say that in John 6, manna is used as a figure for resurrection. I said that here Jesus is showing the manna was a figure for himself, and indeed he is. He says that he is the true bread, the bread from heaven which fulfilled - but went far beyond - the pattern of the manna in the wilderness. He said that the bread, eating of which can bring eternal life, was his flesh. The connection with resurrection comes then in Acts 2 where Peter says of Christ that his flesh did not see corruption. It is in this respect that the figure of the preservation of the 6th day's manna, which was, unnaturally, found uncorrupted (without worms, and not stinking) on the morning of the sabbath, is a figure for Jesus' resurrection, when he was raised from the death, not having experienced corruption.

Edited by Mark Taunton, 20 November 2010 - 01:14 PM.

[Fortigurn]

Mark Taunton, on 20 November 2010 - 01:12 PM, said:

Peter says that Christ's flesh did not see corruption. I believe him when he says that.

Let's use all of Peter's words. Peter says that Christ's body was not left to decay because it was raised. I believe him when he says that.

Quote

Do you think that actually his flesh was corrupting in the grave, as any corpse normally would?

Of course it was. His body wasn't magic, his body was corrupting from the time that he died on the cross.

Quote

I didn't say that in John 6, manna is used as a figure for resurrection.

I didn't say you did. I just pointed out that there's nothing in John 6 which substantiates your point that the manna in the Pentateuch represents resurrection.

Quote

I said that here Jesus is showing the manna was a figure for himself, and indeed he is. He says that he is the true bread, the bread from heaven which fulfilled - but went far beyond - the pattern of the manna in the wilderness. He said that the bread, eating of which can bring eternal life, was his flesh. The connection with resurrection comes then in Acts 2 where Peter says of Christ that his flesh did not see corruption. It is in this respect that the figure of the preservation of the 6th day's manna, which was, unnaturally, found uncorrupted (without worms, and not stinking) on the morning of the sabbath, is a figure for Jesus' resurrection, when he was raised from the death, not having experienced corruption.

Your reasoning is:

1. The manna is a figure of Christ.
2. Christ said that eating his flesh brings eternal life.
3. Christ's flesh did not see corruption.
4. Christ was raised.
5. Therefore the manna being uncorrupted on the 6th day is a figure for Christ's resurrection.

There is no logical chain of reasoning here which results in the manna being a symbol of Christ's resurrection. As has been pointed out again and again, the manna was never in a state analogous to death, let alone 'corruption'. Furthermore, examining each point we find:

1. Christ did not use the manna as a figure of himself. He contrasted himself with the manna saying he is the true bread from heaven, which if a man eat he will receive eternal life.
2. Christ was not speaking of his literal flesh, so the chain of reasoning "manna = Jesus' flesh = uncorrupted flesh = uncorrupted flesh which was raised" is simply a non-sequitur; the conclusion does not proceed logically from the premise.
3-4. Christ's body was not left to decay because he was raised.

Edited by Fortigurn, 21 November 2010 - 12:33 AM.

[Fortigurn]

Mark Taunton, on 20 November 2010 - 12:01 PM, said:

The Israelites' shoes and clothes did not corrupt, in any of the range of meanings of that English word. But that doesn't help your case. I am equally prepared to say that they didn't explode, either, nor did they turn bright blue and fly off into the sky, nor do any one of myriads of other conceivable things!

In any case, what is important is how scripture describes what did happen and what did not happen, not how we describe it. Scripture does not say that they did not corrupt, by using the Hebrew word for corruption that applies to a corpse; rather, it says they did not get old/wear out, using a different word. Despite your and Fort's claims otherwise, those are quite distinct processes. The first is a normal consequence, after the death of a living thing. The other is a normal process during the lifetime of a person or article. They are not the same. Indeed, in at least other thread, I have seen Fort insisting on a difference in meaning between instances of the same word in different contexts, even before we get to differences of meaning between different words! Yet now, you're making an equivocation between different Hebrew words, and want me to agree to it, without justification.

No, Ev is not doing any such thing. He is not trying to equate the two words, he is simply pointing out that they are both speaking of the same concept. When X disintegrates through the natural process of breaking down, and Y disintegrates through the natural process of breaking down, it doesn't matter what you call it or when it happens; the same thing is happening in both cases. It doesn't matter if one is a tissue and one is a steak, the same thing is happening to them both; over time they are gradually wearing out, falling apart, disintegrating. As it happens, the verb for 'wear out' in Deuteronomy 8:4; 29:5 is also used of bodies decaying in the grave (Psalm 49:14), just by the by.

Quote

You want to equate the meaning of the word 'balah' (wear out/get old) with that of the word 'shachath' (corrupt in death). Unless you can show scriptural reason to equate or directly relate those words, I see no reason to accept the equivocation.

The word shachath is not a verb which means 'corrupt in death'. It is a noun which means 'the pit'.

Quote

שַׁחַת: probably a primary noun, cf. Bauer-Leander Heb. 456k; MHeb. DSS pit, grave (Kuhn Konkordanz 220), as also in JArm. שַׁחֲתָא; Moabite האשוח cistern (Mesha 9 and perhaps also 23; see Donner-Röllig Inschriften text 181; Jean-Hoftijzer Dictionnaire 27; Hoftijzer-Jongeling Dictionary 122: ʾšwḥ probably water reservoir; Gibson Textbook 1: 75-76); cf. אשיח Sir 503; also perhaps the word ʾšḥt in the Ammonite inscription from Tell Siran (line 5) is to be identified with אשיח/אשוח, as suggested in PEQ 110 (1978) 107, and Baldacci VT 31 (1981) 363-368, especially 367 :: Loretz UF 9 (1977) 169-171, especially 171, who takes it as שׁחת nif.; Akk. ḫaštu, ḫaltu hole, grave (von Soden AHw. 334b; CAD Ḫ 143; also cf. von Soden UF 13 (1981) 164 (= BZAW 162 (1985) 204); Ug. ḫšt (Dietrich-Loretz-Sanmartin Texte 1, 16:i:3 parallel with ii:39) may also perhaps be associated with the Akk. sbst., but there is also the possibility of a link with the Hittite sbst. ḫešta (a ḫešta-house), on which see Dietrich-Loretz UF 12 (1980) 190: שָֽׁחַת, sf. שַׁחְתָּם.
—
1. pit, trap Dalman Arbeit 6: 334: a) occurrences: Ezk 194.8 Ps 716 916 357 9413 Pr 2627; b) expressions: with טבע (בְּשַׁ׳) Ps 916; with טָמַן Ps 357; with כָּרָה Ps 9413 Pr 2627; with נָפַל (בְּשַׁ׳) Ps 716; with תפשׂ pt. nif. (בְּשַׁחְתָּם) Ezk 194.8; c) cj. Hos 52 pr. שָׁחֲטָה שֵׂטִים prop. שַׁחַת הַשְּׂטִּים or שַׁ׳ בַּשְּׂ׳ → *שֵׂט; Pr 2818 pr. בְּאֶחָת prop. בְּשָֽׁחַת with נָפַל (BHS); Lam 420 pr. בִּשְׁחִיתוֹתָם prop. בְּשַׁחְתָּם with לכד nif. → *שְׁחִית.
—2. pit, grave, see Tromp “Primitive Conceptions of Death and the Netherworld in the Old Testament” in BiblOr. 21 (1961) 69-71; cf. Beyerlin Werden und Wesen des 107 Psalms (BZAW 153 (1978/1979) 48).
—a) occurrences Is 3817 5114 Ezk 288 Jon 27 Ps 1610 3010 4910 5524 1034 Jb 1714 3318.22.24.28.30 Sir 99 512.

—b) expressions: with גָּאַל (מִשַּׁ׳) Ps 1034; with חָשַׂךְ (מִשַּׁ׳) Is 3817 (textual emendation), Jb 3318 Sir 512; with יָרַד (with acc. שָֽׁחַת) Jb 3324, (לַשַּׁ׳) Ezk 288, cf. hif. Ps 5524, (אֶל־שָֽׁחַת) Ps 3010; with מוּת (לַשַּׁ׳) Is 5114; with נָטָה (אל שחת) Sir 99; with עָבַר (בַּשַּׁ׳) Jb 3328; with עלה hif. (מִשַּׁ׳) Jon 27; with קָרָא (לַשַּׁ׳) Jb 1714; with קָרַב (לַשַּׁ׳) Jb 3322; with רָאָה (שַׁחַת, הַשָּֽׁ׳) Ps 1610 4910; with שׁוב hif. (מִנִּי־שָֽׁ׳) Jb 3330; cj. Ps 10720 pr. מִשְּׁחִיתוֹתָם prop. מִשַּׁחַת חַיָּתָם, → *שְׁחִית; Jb 931 pr. בַּשַּׁחַת prop. בַּשֻּׂחוֹת = בַּסֻּחוֹת → סוּחָה :: MT Pope Job 75 שַׁ׳ meaning “filth, rubbish”; Pope JBL 83 (1964) 269ff: בַּשַּׁחַת “swampy, stinking place”, which is close to Akk. šiḫḫatu flaking away, peeling off, describing flaked and peeling skin associated with certain diseases (AHw. 1231b; CAD Š/2, 414), but the link with the Akk. sbst. appears to be rather questionable; TOB takes שַׁחַת to mean sludge, filth.

Koehler, L., Baumgartner, W., Richardson, M., & Stamm, J. J. (1999). The Hebrew and Aramaic lexicon of the Old Testament (electronic ed.) (1472–1473). Leiden; New York: E.J. Brill.

Edited by Fortigurn, 20 November 2010 - 04:52 PM.

[pete]

..thought I would get more allegorical events from strictly the Law of Moses

[jon]

The live goat on the day of atonement; it was part of the same sin offering where one goat died and the other was released alive to depart, and represented the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

[Mark Taunton]

Good one, Jon - I agree with that.

[Fortigurn]

pete, on 20 November 2010 - 09:21 PM, said:

..thought I would get more allegorical events from strictly the Law of Moses

The sacrifice of the red heifer, the only sacrifice which removed the uncleanness resulting from contact with the dead. It was unique because it was the only sacrifice which:

* Was accepted even though it was made outside the camp, kept outside the camp, and no part of it was placed on the altar
* Involved contact with death which did not result in uncleanness (you were cleansed by contact with the ashes, not made unclean)
* Required you to go outside the camp in order to be saved (the ashes were kept outside the camp)

It was explicitly a sacrifice which removed the uncleanness of death despite being made outside the usual requirements of the Law. I also agree with Jon's point about the day of atonement.

Edited by Fortigurn, 21 November 2010 - 12:47 AM.

[jon]

Every 7th year when Hebrew servants were released from bondage, and especially the year of Jublilee when the land was released. Note that year of Jublilee was pronounced on the day of atonement.

Isa 61:1 The Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon me, because the LORD has anointed me to bring good news to the poor; he has sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to those who are bound;
Isa 61:2 to proclaim the year of the LORD's favor, and the day of vengeance of our God; to comfort all who mourn;
Isa 61:3 to grant to those who mourn in Zion-- to give them a beautiful headdress instead of ashes, the oil of gladness instead of mourning, the garment of praise instead of a faint spirit; that they may be called oaks of righteousness, the planting of the LORD, that he may be glorified.
Isa 61:4 They shall build up the ancient ruins; they shall raise up the former devastations; they shall repair the ruined cities, the devastations of many generations.
Isa 61:5 Strangers shall stand and tend your flocks; foreigners shall be your plowmen and vinedressers;
Isa 61:6 but you shall be called the priests of the LORD; they shall speak of you as the ministers of our God; you shall eat the wealth of the nations, and in their glory you shall boast.
Isa 61:7 Instead of your shame there shall be a double portion; instead of dishonor they shall rejoice in their lot; therefore in their land they shall possess a double portion; they shall have everlasting joy.

[Evangelion]

Mark Taunton, on 20 November 2010 - 12:01 PM, said:

Evangelion, on 20 November 2010 - 02:08 AM, said:

Mark, please give me a straight answer. Did the Israelites' shoes and clothes corrupt? Yes or no.

No.

Thanks, that's all I needed to hear. Fort has dealt with the rest.

Look mate, I appreciate that you're not totally dogmatic about your interpretation, and I think it's perfectly healthy to derive spiritual lessons from perceived typological symbolism (as opposed to demonstrably inspired typological symbolism). I do it myself; I'm sure most of us do. But we need to arrive at these conclusions by means of a logical, consistent, systematic methodology.

If you had presented your interpretation in an exhortation and I was in the congregation, I would have approached you afterwards to discuss its merits. I would want to know how you arrived at it, why you find it compelling, and how it fits into the standard resurrection typology that we find throughout Scripture. I do this whenever I hear something from the platform which jars a bit, or doesn't quite gel.

Recently I heard an exhort about legalism. The exhorting brother's material was generally good, but ultimately flawed because he never explained what he understands legalism to be, he did not define legalism at any point, he did not provide any Biblical examples of legalism, and he did not offer any practical, real-world advice about how to deal with it. I suspected that he'd simply assumed we all know what legalism is, and we all share a common view of the issue. When I spoke to him later, he admitted this was the case.

I mention this to demonstrate just how easily we can overlook the logical gaps in our own Bible study.