Christ's bones not broken?

[unred typo]

Ok, I've got another question for you. Why wouldn't God state in Genesis that the hands of the Seed of the Woman would be bruised as well? If that one passage in Psalms (referring to 'pierced my hands and feet') is prophetic, should the two passages (although differing by centuries) resemble each other a little better? After all, it is God who is prophesying through the prophets.

Well, if you’re going to insist they are literally physical, no, the hands won’t be bruised, since the blood is going to drain to the feet, leaving the upper extremities pale. If you want to slow bleeding, hold the wound above your heart level. I don’t think the one about bruising is meant to be taken as actually a physical description.
If I predict that the ‘Colts’ are going to kick some ‘Bear’ hiney, and later I say the ‘Colts’ are going to stuff the Bears, or the ‘Colts’ are going to kick the trophy right out of the Bear’s paws, shouldn’t my expressions be more congruous? Why should they be? They are just metaphors.
8-)

Sorry, JayT. : Thanks for the correction, Vic. :-D

 

[Vic C.]

Unred, fix your quote please. Jay didn't say that. It was packrat. ;-)

 

[Packrat]

Well, if you’re going to insist they are literally physical, no, the hands won’t be bruised, since the blood is going to drain to the feet, leaving the upper extremities pale. If you want to slow bleeding, hold the wound above your heart level. I don’t think the one about bruising is meant to be taken as actually a physical description.

Lol. Thanks, typo. Good point again. :-D I tend to believe some prophecies are more literal than others and that some are both literal and figurative. That's mainly why I was concerned about the passages in Genesis and Psalms.

 

[unred typo]

I tend to believe some prophecies are more literal than others and that some are both literal and figurative. That's mainly why I was concerned about the passages in Genesis and Psalms.

I agree. Well said. :smt023

 

[stovebolts]

What about that passage in Genesis that talks about bruising the heel of the Seed of the Woman? Why is the word 'bruised' used and not 'pierced' if this was supposed to be a prophecy of Christ? Perhaps it was improperly translated or is misunderstood. Maybe it really meant 'injured' by 'bruised' or maybe it was supposed to be translated as 'injured' instead of 'bruised'. Any thoughts?

I just stumbled across this and thought it applied.

1) Already the Greek translation of the Old Testament, the Septuagint, which goes back to about the 2nd century B.C., interprets Genesis 3:15 in the Messianic sense, applying the masculine pronoun autos in reference to the Greek neuter noun sperma (semen in the Vulgate). The Judaic tradition continues this interpretation.
Christian exegesis, beginning with St. Irenaeus (Adv. Haer. III, 23, 7), sees this text as "proto-gospel," which announces the victory won by Jesus Christ over Satan. In the last few centuries scripture scholars have interpreted this pericope differently, and some of them challenge the Messianic interpretation in recent times. However, there has been a return to it under a rather different aspect. The Yahwist author unites prehistory with the history of Israel, which reaches its peak in the Messianic dynasty of David, which will fulfill the promises of Genesis 3:15 (cf. 2 Sam 7:12).
The New Testament illustrated the fulfillment of the promise in the same Messianic perspective: Jesus is the Messiah, descendant of David (cf. Rom 1:3; 2 Tim 2:8), born of woman (cf. Gal 4:4), a new Adam-David (cf. 1 Cor 15), who must reign "until he has put all his enemies under his feet" (1 Cor 15:25). Finally Revelation 12:1-10 presents the final fulfillment of the prophecy of Genesis 3:15. While not being a clear and direct announcement of Jesus as Messiah of Israel, it leads to him, however, through the royal and Messianic tradition that unites the Old and the New Testament.