I posted this earlier, but deleted it as I wasn’t happy with it going up. I wanted to repost it, though in a slightly modified form, as I still think the point is worth making, and it is this:
Supposing you were the evangelist Philip in Acts 8, going up to the Ethiopian Eunuch’s chariot, and supposing you asked him, “Do you understand what you are reading?” and supposing he still said, “How can I, unless someone explains it to me.”
So far, so good. I reckon most readers of this blog could cope with applying Isaiah 53 to Jesus. But suppose the scroll he was reading from was not Isaiah but Genesis — specifically Genesis 1 onwards. Would you still be able to do (or even try to do) what Philip did in Acts 8:35:
Then Philip began with that very passage of Scripture and told him the good news about Jesus.
Now you might object that Genesis 1 is not about Jesus in the same way Isaiah 53 is about Jesus, but isn’t all the Old Testament ultimately ‘about Jesus’? Doesn’t Luke tell us of the disciples who met Jesus on the road to Emmaus that,
... beginning with Moses ... he explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself.
And isn’t ‘Moses’ here a reference to the Pentateuch, and doesn’t that begin with Genesis 1, and doesn’t that begin with the same words as John’s gospel: “In the beginning ...”?
My suspicion, however, is that very few of us would think, if we were approached by someone with questions about Genesis, that we should start solving them by explaining about Jesus. So is Genesis exempt (at least until you get to 3:15)? Or is there something useful we can say?Anonymous users wishing to paste in the comments box need first to select 'preview', then close the preview box. When posting your comments please give a full name and location. Comments without this information may be deleted.