February 20th: Genesis 50 and Matthew 8:1-17

3 thoughts on “February 20th: Genesis 50 and Matthew 8:1-17

  1. Bones,
    Just a thought, an idea not fully developed.
    Isn’t there a sense here of a continuation of Adam’s delight ” bone of my bone, flesh of my flesh” being carried on into a new land, extended, spread out from Eden, to new people’s: a heritage and inheritance of a completed humanity in a oneness, being preserved metaphorically, buried deep into a culture. Bones that are raised in remembrance, and grounding new lives, new families in an identity that is not their own, in an alien culture, world. Just as the oneness of the raised bones and flesh of last Adam and new humanity in him are given life and new identity in the world and world to come, our return to our true home.


      1. Thanks Alastair,
        I can also see how it links with your teasing out the different, but similar, dual fatherhoods of both Joseph and Moses, their biological and effectual adoption and their choice or reversion to family line, genealogy, to family likeness, image, of Fatherhood of God, and his promise as in contrast to the adoptive fatherhood of the deity of the Pharaohs and their lineage and their preservation into their beliefs about the next life or life to come and place in it.
        It contrasts with true adoption as sons (Galatians), and Abba Fatherhood and gloryfication and joint heirs with Christ,
        There is so much noise, rive and tare, on many sites hosted by Christians with some proliferation of multiple of points of view (each carrying the same weight!) that I find wearying, (including mine) that your cornucopia thankfully avoids.
        Oddly, however, I find some discomfort in following some of my above thought process, particularly as they are outliers from the some/most of the mainstream biblical reading exegetical categories, where even the idea that the whole of scripture is to be considered, studied, is, in effect, anathema and where Christianity, in reality, is inhabited and dominated by some NT scholars, who push back against, for example, the idea that to know Christ as he is, for who he is, the whole of scripture is to be taken into account, not the NT alone, where it seems that there is barely submerged neo Marcionism. Maybe, I’m just jaundiced with a biblical illiteracy,and that isn’t comfortable or handsome either.
        This is an oversimplifcation, and poorly expressed,I know. And, I’m not placed anywhere in church circles where anything I may learn would have an outlet. or influence. It has been well said that a pool without an outlet becomes stagnant. But I’ll hold my thoughts now and stop.
        A rhetorical question: as you seem to be gravitating to USA Anglicanism and liturgy, would you not consider ordination? Indeed, what is your view about the concept of “ordination”?


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s