A Map of a Hermeneutical Landscape
Our latest issue of Adventist Today magazine has gone out, to much praise and appreciation from our readers. The topic of the latest issue is hermeneutics: the methodologies by which we interpret the Bible. Some in the church today are saying that we must read the Bible literally, without interpretation—what they call “the plain reading”. Yet human understanding is such that it is impossible to read without interpreting, and even with the best of intentions we will differ in our interpretations. We’ve asked Dr. Herold Weiss, one of our denomination’s leading Biblical scholars, to introduce the topic of hermeneutics to AT website readers. I hope his introduction will inspire you to subscribe to Adventist Today magazine, and support us with your contributions.
By Dr. Herold Weiss
Reading the above title literally requires some sophistication, because reading literally means recognizing that words may function differently when used metaphorically (to expand the intellectual horizon), ironically (to expose an inconvenient truth), exaggeratingly (to provide emphasis), or technically (to facilitate specialized communication), etc. A literal reading would mean being aware of the type of writing that you’re reading. A title, a poem, an autobiography, a novel must be read with awareness of the literary genre to which it belongs.
In other words, to read literally is not an innocent activity.
The title above seems quite simple and clear. If it is to provide a message, however, the reader must do some work. The words “map” and “landscape” are used metaphorically, and “hermeneutical” is a technical word. Reading literally means taking into account how words are used.
No communication of meaning is accomplished by just the setting out of words. That is why we have hermeneutics. The word come from the name of the Greek god charged with transmitting the messages of the gods to human beings. Hermes was the agent of meaning. Hermeneutics is the way to convert the words of a text into a meaningful message.
Clear and Simple?
There are those who think that all written texts are simple and clear, and that there is no need to interpret them. A text says what it says, they say, and any effort to extract its meaning is to put a “spin” on it.
When I leave a note in my office door stating that I will be back at 3 PM, the words are being used in a straightforward sense. Anyone reading them today would know exactly when I plan to be back at my office. On the other hand, if the person reading them were living in a different timezone I should have written 3 PM EST in order to be clear. If I left the sign up until tomorrow, that would also lead to confusion.
The Gospel According to John records that Jesus said that he had “overcome the world.” Different readers may well give to the words “overcome” and “world” quite different meanings because, obviously, they are not being used in their simple sense.
Barriers to Understanding
Those reading the Bible today find themselves separated from the written text in three important ways: they have a language barrier, a cultural barrier and a time barrier. The Bible does not provide extra clarifications to help those coming to it from a different time, culture and language zone. This means that the biblical text is not always immediately clear to those reading it. Everyone reading the Bible today finds passages that do not make immediate sense. For a message to come out of a text it is not only necessary to have a text: it is also necessary to have intelligent readers. That is why two people reading the same text may assign to it two different meanings. Readers come to a text from the perspective of their own life experiences, and a person’s experiences in life bring different questions, different needs and different agendas.
Even if all the words of the Bible had been meant to be understood in their simplest sense, its readers would not agree as to what its message is. Different Bible readers get different messages from the same words. And not only different readers, but also the same readers at different times may interpret the same text differently because of the situation in which they find themselves.This has been true throughout the history of Christianity. The identity of the reader cannot be bypassed when one claims to be proclaiming the message of the Bible.
Already at the time of Christ it was recognized that the text of the Old Testament could be read plainly, typologically and allegorically. The apostle Paul, for example, read plainly the story of the conversation between God and Abraham in which God made him a three-prong promise. Its outcome, “Abraham believed God and it was counted to him as righteousness,” became Paul’s core idea. However, Paul used the story of Adam as typological of Christ, and he interpreted the story of the two women who gave sons to Abraham as an allegory of two covenants. This shows that as a reader Paul understood that by using different methods texts could convey more than one meaning.
By reading a text typologically or allegorically Paul was not negating its plain meaning. Surely, he was quite aware of what he was doing. His selection of a method depended on what he intended to do with a text.
Presuppositions
It is impossible to read a text without presuppositions. Those claiming not to have presuppositions may be unaware of them, but they have them. There was a time not too long ago when it was thought that each text of the Bible had only one correct interpretation and the task of the reader was to arrive at the one “true” meaning of the text. That was the case when I was a seminary student. Today it is recognized that no one has a tabula rasa on which to place the text.
This does not mean that the different meanings people get from a text are equally “true.” That would be a crass relativism, and would render the Bible meaningless. Interpretations can be evaluated as to their validity according to the appropriateness of the method used and the faithfulness to it by which conclusions are drawn.
What is required from readers is to be aware of their presuppositions. The Bible is open to interpretation by anyone, but if those reading it are going to have a fruitful conversation about its message they must put on the table their presuppositions. Presuppositions are unavoidable in terms of the nature of the text to be read and the best method with which to interpret it.
Of course, presuppositions about the “true” meaning of the text, that is, going to it to find the results one has already decided you will find, render any hermeneutical exercise superfluous.
Dictated from Heaven?
Even those who say they read the Bible literally may have contrasting presuppositions. Some may presuppose that the Bible was dictated from heaven, and the men writing it were mere amanuenses. Read from this perspective, every word of the Bible is of divine origin and human beings must just take them as divine information that supersedes all human knowledge. As such, the text is not subject to human reason. Those who hold this view claim that verbal inspiration is beyond empirical disproof.
On the opposite end of the spectrum are those who read the Bible as a human document because they see that it has points of view that are no longer held to be factual, and that there are repetitions and contradictions that need to be explained intelligently. Consequently, they deny that it is a divinely-inspired text and study it as literature that has had an important role in Western culture. State universities offer courses in “The Bible as Literature” in order to provide students with valuable knowledge that any educated person must possess to interpret the cultural heritage of the West.
Among those who believe that the Bible’s authors were merely taking dictation are some who insist that because of its divine origin, the Bible does not contain any error of any kind. Everything found in it is factually true. This, of course, is not a claim made anywhere in the Bible, but a presupposition that some readers hold. Some of them restrict their claim of inerrancy to the original manuscripts written in Hebrew and Greek. Since we do not possess a single original manuscript of a Biblical book, this is an admission of the weakness of the assertion that verbal inspiration and inerrancy are beyond empirical disproof.
If the Bible is dictated from heaven, that means that the Bible has only one author. Consequently some interpret it by placing texts side-by-side from any of its many books without taking into account the time or the circumstances in which individual texts were written. This is usually described as the “proof-text method.” It operates with presuppositions as to results: that is, the coupling of texts is done to arrive at already-accepted doctrines, and so provides support for the dogmatic edifice of the church.
Inspired Authors
There are readers of the Bible who believe that the Bible is inspired by the Holy Spirit, but do not presuppose that means the human writers were secretaries taking dictation. Rather, they say, inspiration works at the level of the authors who wrote the books of the Bible. Under inspiration each author employed his own words, wrote them according to his personal style of expression and within the symbolic universe that framed his understanding of reality. These readers are interested in exploring the richness of the language an author uses, the levels of meaning in which words functioned within her or his culture, the historical events that characterized the time when a text was written. For the reconstruction of the historical past, literary documents and archaeological artifacts provide the necessary source materials.
Such readers may be divided between those who limit the literary exploration of the culture to a better understanding of the grammar of the biblical text, and those who place the biblical texts within the broad cultural setting within which it made sense to its original audience. Each method yields different results. For example, the second would consider the similarities and differences of the creation stories in Genesis with other ancient creation stories in order to determine their meaning, rather than limiting itself to establishing definitions and syntactical connections within the biblical stories. A hermeneutic that recognizes that it is working with the text of inspired authors who were communicating the divine will while fully involved in the human drama of their own times brings out from the text a message different from one which considers that inspiration works at the level of words.
Canonical Reading and Its Correctives
Those working within the notion that inspired authors were free to be conduits of the will of God for their contemporaries may still have presuppositions. Some Bible students read the the Bible canonically. This means that it is read within the context of the history of its interpretation within the church that established the biblical canon. While still admitting the importance of exploring the ancient context of the biblical books, a canonical hermeneutic emphasizes what previous Christian interpreters understood the Bible to say to the church.
Canonical interpretation has taken place within the confines of Western Culture, where Platonic, Aristotelian and Stoic philosophical presuppositions have been dominant. Recognizing this has led to new hermeneutical methods that adjust for these historical perspectives, and put on the table corrective agendas vis-à-vis the traditional hermeneutics. Deconstructive, feminist, postcolonial and other methods aim to expose the structures of power that have informed traditional interpretations, interpretations that disenfranchised people on biblical grounds. These methods want to bring out what the Bible has to say about the “other”: ethnic minorities, women, the indigenous populations of Africa, America and the Far East who were Christianized by European colonial rulers much to their loss, etc.
Meeting Needs
Finally, there are those who read the text without taking into account what the authors may have been saying to their contemporaries, or what different theories of inspiration do to the hermeneutical task. These only want to know what the text says to them in reference to their current physical, emotional or spiritual needs. Their hermeneutic presupposes that the text was written for them. For these, the Bible’s ability to satisfy their immediate need gives it auctoritas. This method enriches the hermeneutical rainbow; it suffers, however, from its inability to be applied consistently to the whole Bible.
This brief overview of the biblical hermeneutical landscape opens up a window that reveals the many roles the Bible continues to play in our times. The wise reader is the one who can evaluate the various interpretations and attend to what they contribute to one’s understanding of the Bible. The variety of hermeneutical approaches is a testimony to the riches the Bible prodigally provides from the multiple levels of meaning it stores.
Dr. Herold Weiss is a scholar and author, most lately of Meditations on the Letters of Paul. He writes from Michigan.
I want to interpret the bible the way Jesus Christ interpreted it: Everybody who believes Jesus of Nazareth is Messiah ought to use Jesus’ hermeneutic. And let’s get something straight all post-modern hermeneutics is a huge distraction to the task at hand.
Deconstructive, feminist, postcolonial and other methods aim to expose the structures of power that have informed traditional interpretations, interpretations that disenfranchised people on biblical grounds. These methods want to bring out what the Bible has to say about the “other”: ethnic minorities, women, the indigenous populations of Africa, America and the Far East who were Christianized by European colonial rulers much to their loss, etc.
None of that has much of anything to do with the Jew, Jesus. If you want a sound hermeneutic, you need to understand Judaism. Jesus Christ does. He is the King of Israel.
Ah yes, William A, but which kind of Jew was He? Not Pharisaic, definitely not Sadducee, Essene maybe? This much we can be sure of, He appeared after several hundred years of Hellenisation. Philo of Alexandria is one example of how the Greek philosophers, Plato above them all, were so well-received by Jewish thinkers. And the other NT writers give a lot of evidence of this Hellenisation also.
Eg, Jesus’ understanding of human nature, and the nature of the soul in particular, shows considerable divergence away from the material/monist OT understanding and towards the Platonic, which some incorrectly see as dualist.
And thus, the hermeneutic map grows ever larger, to accommodate greater divergence than most of us allow, fastened as we are in our own preferred understanding, and permitting no other. This is a great article as it calls us to widen our horizons. Thrice great Hermes, and Dr Weiss, we thank you.
William, did not Jesus put much emphasis on the other? He begins his ministry in Luke 4 announcing that “I have come to bring good news to the poor …. etc.” He answers the question, Who is my neighbor with a story about the hated Samaritan demonstrating that the compassion displayed by the Samaritan was more divine than the holiness of the priest and Levite. He reaches out to a Samaritan woman who is getting water a mile out of town to avoid the comments of people about her multiple marriages and non-marital relationship. Are not these various approaches precisely the way Jesus approached things? Why would these methods and Christ’s method be at odds with each other? Unless you are focusing entirely on the human Jesus to the exclusion of the divine?
Monte,
What do you mean exactly by the other? He had almost no intercourse with gentiles – the Centurion and the Syro-Phonecian woman in the borderlands. And those gentiles that crucified Him. The Samaritans were not technically Gentiles. In all three instances the stories highlight the Jewishness of Jesus. The Centurion will not ask Jesus to enter His house (the house of a gentile) and Jesus contrasts the faith of the Centurion to the faith that He finds in Israel and says: “That many shall come from the east and west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven.”
We know what he told the Syro-Phonecian woman: “I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel… …But he answered and said, It is not meet to take the children’s bread, and to cast it to dogs.” His actions support His words. Jesus did not go to the gentiles, He ministered only unto the lost sheep of Israel.
The Samaritans, that remnant of Israel, that Jesus did minister to, to that Samaritan woman He said: “Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews.”
Jesus affirmed with His actions what Pilate asked and what Pilate wrote: Jesus of Nazareth – King of the Jews.
I wouldn’t agree that the story of Jesus addressing the synagogue in Nazareth in the power of the Holy Spirit is the beginning or inauguration of His ministry. It is early in His ministry and the point of the story is He is proclaiming He is Messiah. He is proclaiming He is the Prophet they are waiting for: And he began to say unto them, “This day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears.” It is Israel that always rejects the prophets. Israel is the poor; He is healing Israel’s broken heart, He is preaching deliverance to captive Israel, He is recovering of sight to the blind in Israel, to set at liberty at last those slaves of Egypt that God has chosen to be His peculiar people. And it is Israel that is in foreshadow, rejecting their King at Nazareth.
If I have a portion in Jesus, if He is my king, then I also have a portion in His Kingdom, the Kingdom of Heaven. To divide and separate Jesus Christ from the Israel He died to save, from His Kingship, is an insensible hermeneutic. Jesus Christ is not the prince of this world.
Praise the Lord HE said, read His word with a heart turned to Him, and filled with a desire to know His will.
GOD’S only “hermeneutic”? Isaiah 28: 9, 10:
“Whom shall he teach knowledge? And whom shall he make to understand doctrine? them that are weaned from the milk and drawn from the breast.
For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little.”
This is Bible study 101 and onward: Compare scripture with scripture, law with law, testimony with testimony, prophecy with prophecy and all bathed in prayer. You cannot go wrong. Not continuing to do this is how we got here with leaders trying to discourage us, by making Bible study the purview of the highly educated and the average person having to swallow what they masticate.
Serge,
Jesus was a Torah scholar, not taught by man. Just read what He said and you will know what type of Jew He was. He spoke always in the context of Law and scripture. His understanding of the human soul does not diverge from scripture, quite the contrary, it emerges from scripture like a butterfly from a cocoon. Jesus is not channeling Plato, you know better than that.
Nobody but Messiah could understand the nature of the soul in Torah and say: Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.
I’ll tell you what type of Jew Jesus was, He was the King of the Jews. He was the Son of David Jew.
I take it that Mr. Abbott is not an orthodox Christian. He apparently does not accept the decision of the Christian Church early in its history when it declared that Jesus is fully God and — remember the “and” — fully human. If Mr. Abbott does not believe that doctrine, then we can understand why he says that the historical Jesus of Nazareth, the Jesus of history, was a “Torah scholar, not taught by man.” That certainly is not true Now if Mr. Abbott believes in the Christ of Faith, the one that Paul talked about, then fine, Mr. Abbott can believe all sorts of things about the Christ of Faith and he can ignore the historical evidence.
Dr. Taylor,
“I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds; God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God; begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father, by whom all things were made. “
Now that I have recited the appropriate portion of the creed and established my orthodox bona fides, what is not true about Jesus being a Torah Scholar?
John 7:15 The Jews therefore marvelled, saying, How knoweth this man letters, having never learned?
John 7:16 Jesus therefore answered them and said, My teaching is not mine, but him that sent me.
John 10:20 And many of them said, He hath a devil, and is mad; why hear ye him? 21 Others said, These are not the words of him that hath a devil.
Compared to Paul who said about himself;
Act 22:3 I am a Jew, born in Tarsus of Cilicia, but brought up in this city, at the feet of Gamaliel, instructed according to the strict manner of the law of our fathers, being zealous for God, even as ye all are this day:
“And in one Lord Jesus”–that is who I believe in. You can deconstruct Jesus of Nazareth, whom we read about in the bible, into two Christs, the historical Jesus and the Christ of faith, but you will have a erected a false dichotomy and you will be worshiping a false god.
The so-called Athanacian Creed makes the most clear ancient statement of the Christian Church concerning Jesus as 100% human and 100% God. The medieval attribution of the Creed to Athanasius of Alexandria (c. AD 297-AD 373) was apparently because he was known as the chief defender of Trinitarianism against Arianism. Modern scholarship has questioned that attribution. The earliest text of this creed is contained in a manuscript dating to the late 8th century AD.
The relevant Latin phrase presenting that concept is “Aequalis Patri secundum divinitatem: minor Patre secundum humanitatem.” English translation : “Equal to the Father, as touching his Godhead; and inferior to the Father as touching his Manhood.”
1 Corinthians 15:
24 Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.
25 For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet.
26 The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.
27 For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him.
28 And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.
The concept is restricted within the bounds and range of time. HE is not. The decision was HIS though, because the FATHER gave it to HIM. I’m just glad HE Loved us enough to make it, for our sake.
John 10:18 No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father.
I would add, that for me personally,my focus and priority has been theological: I read the Bible because it has to do with God. Such a statement must be made in the face of scholarly traditions in which God is neither object nor subject. I study the Bible because I am convinced that God was at work in ancient settings, creating and sustaining communities of faith. Scripture witnesses to this generative work of God and is itself a product of that generative work of God. God has continued to create, renew, and sustain communities of faith. These communities have consistently testified that the study of Scripture has been a means for the Spirit of God to generate their own existence, renewal, and sustenance. Their own writings were understood to be commentary on Scripture, not a replacement; for, in their experience, Scripture had an effect on them which could only be described as the work of the living God.
Sam,
I’ve been through several distinct stages of Biblical interpretation in my life. I started out with proof-texting because that is how I was taught doctrines from my earliest days. Then I moved to theological and even earned a degree in theology. Then encounters with life that theology was powerless to deal with forced experience into the picture and I came to view some of the Bible as allegorical. For a bit more than the past decade my experience has been heavily dependent on the Holy Spirit for insight to understand both meaning and application. As a result I have come to realize that most of the Bible is the testimony of our forefathers about their experience with God, so it is easier to draw principles from their stories and that has released me from the old bonds on behavior that literalism imposed. Instead of telling someone “you shouldn’t be doing that!” I can point them to my own experience with God and the example of someone in the Bible facing their same challenge and thus connect them with the source of power to overcome sin.
People run to the obscure to deny the obvious. And it has been well stated that in order to understand any section of the bible or the writer, you must asked who the writer is, who is he writing to, and what is he writing about. So we must ask why the writer is making any given point.
We also need to understand that no bible writer is writing in a vacuum. Every writer will assume that the reader already knows something about the subject he is dealing with. Paul is classic, as much or most of his writing is to Jews and Jewish believers who already know much of the bible, and so Paul does not restate some things that are already known.
And then we must understand that Paul has one singular major theme in all his letters. Namely, the ceremonial law has no function since Jesus has come and made the atonement that the ceremonial law typified. Also, the priesthood is no longer valid and no Christian considers the temple in Jerusalem as a center of worship. The center of worship is Jesus and His ministry in heaven.
The simplicity of this format by Paul is over looked by modern scholars and many think Paul is comparing the moral law to Christ. This is bogus. Every Jew knows the function of the moral law that functions as a “schoolmaster” that points to the ceremonial law for pardon. Paul says that this ceremonial law, that was added because of sin, is now subtracted in lieu of the coming of Jesus.
Nothing more and nothing less is intended by Paul. That the moral law functions as a “schoolmaster” to point to Christ is so obvious to the readers of Paul’s letters, he doesn’t need to state this fact. It is an objective given. He one singular point to make, a law was added, and now that law is subtracted. And this is so plain and clear in Galatians that “wayfaring men, though fools, need not err therein.”
Yet modern scholars beat their brains out trying to explain how the “moral law was added” but is not “subtracted” in the book of Galatians. It is because the book of Galatians is not about the moral law. If it is truly about the moral law, then we must yield to those antinomian spirits that tell us the moral law was done away at the cross. And there is no valid argument to deny it.
And this is only one critical subject, but perhaps the most important because of the implications of the various positions taken. Especially in the SDA community where we fall all over ourselves trying to explain to each other about the law in Galatians and the gospel. Paul is not talking about moral law in Galatians, period.
It is an objective given that needs no explanation to those who will read his letter. And we need to understand like they did what Paul meant and why he wrote what he did.
Bill,
Agreed, the moral law acts as a “schoolmaster” to us. You learn in school that one plus one equals two. You don’t forget that. As you progress, you increasingly discuss how to apply your lessons to life. Then, one day you graduate. You’re no longer under the restrictions that school imposes on you because you’re supposed to have learned the lessons you were taught. Now you’re expected to go out into the world and use what you learned in practical ways that represent God to a fallen world. Our challenge as Christians is to actually graduate, to stop thinking we have to keep studying our basic lessons all the time instead of figuring-out how to apply spiritual principles in practical and effective ways. This is where the indwelling teacher, the Holy Spirit, becomes so essential and because He teaches us how to apply scripture instead of getting lost in endless discussions about how to interpret it. It is time for us to start actually applying scripture and seeing the Kingdom of God grown instead of just clicking our keyboards about it.
“Agreed, the moral law acts as a “schoolmaster” to us. You learn in school that one plus one equals two. You don’t forget that. As you progress, you increasingly discuss how to apply your lessons to life. Then, one day you graduate. You’re no longer under the restrictions that school imposes on you because you’re supposed to have learned the lessons you were taught.”
Yes, you learn the “wages of sin is death” but sinful man will soon forget the principle unless he is reminded again and again, and he never “graduates” beyond the “schoolmaster” nor does he ever leave this function of the law behind. Sinful man must be reminded incessantly of his sinful condition and continue to examine his life by way of the moral law. So, Paul says, “Examine yourselves, to see if you are in the faith…..or not.”
The only way you can do that is continually compare your life by the moral law as James states, “That some look in the mirror and then leave.” And soon forget what they looked like as sinful wicked people.
So, William, your theory is bogus and not scriptural. No one “graduates” past the moral law and gets beyond its continual warnings and exhortations. Not the mention the continual need to learn “new” things you did not know before. Like a Sunday keeper who learns about the 7th day Sabbath. And the principle is in the Sabbath command “Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.” Sinners easily forget.
Bill,
You miss the obvious. The difference in the covenants is that in the new one, God writes His law in our hearts. That is internalizing God’s law. You no longer focus on the letter of the law and you allow the Holy Spirit to show you how to apply the principles of God’s law. You’re no longer concerned about things like what is or is not “work” that can be done on the Sabbath because you are focused on doing what brings the attention of others to Him so they will glorify Him. That’s the “graduation” I’m talking about. But if you’re determined to not graduate, I can understand why you would see things as you do. As for me, I’ve graduated and discovered new dimensions of Holy Spirit-empowered ministry that I used to think were just someone’s dream about what might happen.
“You miss the obvious. The difference in the covenants is that in the new one, God writes His law in our hearts.”
Wrong again, William. God began to re-write His law on the heart of Adam and Eve when he promised to “put enmity” between them and Satan.
The new covenant is simply the final work of re-writing the law on the hearts of those who accept Christ and the final over throw of Satan by God proving His point. There is nothing “new” about the new covenant except the time element as it follows the Christ event. Just as there is nothing “new” about love.
Like so many, you are totally confused about the old and new covenant and it will destroy the Christian experience eventually, if the false understanding is not abandon.
Bill,
Have you considered the possibility that the law of Moses remains binding on the physical descendants of Israel? I reproduce text from Acts 21 below:
Thou seest, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are which believe; and they are all zealous of the law: And they are informed of thee, that thou teachest all the Jews which are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children, neither to walk after the customs. What is it therefore? the multitude must needs come together: for they will hear that thou art come. Do therefore this that we say to thee: We have four men which have a vow on them; Them take, and purify thyself with them, and be at charges with them, that they may shave their heads: and all may know that those things, whereof they were informed concerning thee, are nothing; but that thou thyself also walkest orderly, and keepest the law.
Evidently there were many thousands of Jewish believers who were zealous for the Law. Read further:
As touching the Gentiles which believe, we have written and concluded that they observe no such thing, save only that they keep themselves from things offered to idols, and from blood, and from strangled, and from fornication. Then Paul took the men, and the next day purifying himself with them entered into the temple, to signify the accomplishment of the days of purification, until that an offering should be offered for every one of them.
Bill,
It very much reads like two standards of obedience One for Gentiles, one for Jews. This would help explain why Paul circumcised Timothy (who was a Jew) with his own hand, but resisted vigorously the circumcision of Titus. The gist of the text is Paul was not teaching the Jews to break the laws of Moses, and he was following the law himself, like a Jew should.
Nay, William A, it reads like a tactic to avoid being set upon by the multitude. A subterfuge, if you will (which I suspect you won’t.) Nothing wrong in doing this. Just a sensible method of avoiding trouble. But this much is clear, Paul had indeed abandoned Moses. All of him.
Serge,
For a guy who regularly got the tar beat out of him standing up for principles. I doubt Paul was interested in doing subterfuge just to avoid conflict. Paul went to Jerusalem knowing there might be trouble. There is nothing at all in the text that points to subterfuge and Paul was not one to do things discordant to his beliefs.
And Acts 21 doesn’t explain the circumcision of Timothy. Paul’s very public resistance of Titus’ circumcision begs for an explanation. Subterfuge? Nonsense. Paul thought Timothy ought to be circumcised because Timothy was Jew. It was the Gentiles that ought not get circumcised.
Let us not forget that while the writers were men, the Holy Spirit was the author and authority. We tend to make the Word of God an academic exercise, devoid of God Himself. Therefore, no passion, no life, no delight. frankly, Bible scholars for the most part are hired by the devil and paid handsomely to turn the stomach against God’s Word. Thank God I was raised in a time when there were no restrictions, tacit or otherwise against reading the Word FOR MYSELF.
Patricia Harvey
You may be correct about some bible scholars but you may also be surprised how much your own interpretation of Scipture is shaped by pre-conceived ideas; often the early work of learned men, quite often Catholic. Translators and commentators.etc. Even the formation of the Canon of Scripture, the formation of Trinitarianism, Substitutionary Atonement beliefs etc, all things you may take as ‘gospel’.
We all stand on one another’s shoulders.
We know the obvious in alternate:
1 Corinthians 4:
4 For I know nothing by myself; yet am I not hereby justified: but he that judgeth me is the Lord.
5 Therefore judge nothing before the time, until the Lord come, who both will bring to light the hidden things of darkness, and will make manifest the counsels of the hearts: and then shall every man have praise of God.
6 And these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and to Apollos for your sakes; that ye might learn in us not to think of men above that which is written, that no one of you be puffed up for one against another.
7 For who maketh thee to differ from another? and what hast thou that thou didst not receive? now if thou didst receive it, why dost thou glory, as if thou hadst not received it?
GOD Loves and guides us. We have testimony and Love in such. But no man is above that which is written. If comes from HIM there is only glory in HIM. If it comes from someone else and outside scripture, we know who creates that chaos. As Bill states, HIS Spirit is our schoolmaster and will bring us into remembrance. There is nothing new on earth here, but we do have a test:
1 Corinthians 14:
36 What? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only?
37 If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.
State verse 34 and 35, then we can talk hermeneutics; on the same page.
Paul understands the necessity of allowing people to transition from old to new covenant and that is the only reason he allowed for circumcision, or any other ceremonial law for the Jews.
The final statement by Paul is this, “There is neither Jew nor Greek, bond nor free, male of female……” Gal. 3:28 when he affirms how we come to God the Father by way of Jesus Christ and His ministry in heaven.
The ceremonial law has no value for a true believer who is mature in the Christian faith. And Paul repeats this thought in Heb. 8:13, “Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.”
Paul has one theme, the ceremonial law ministry vs. the ministry of Christ in heaven. He has no other basic theme. And the moral law in the old covenant pointed to the ceremonial law, the moral law in the new points to Christ. The only law “added” was the ceremonial law. And that law is now “subtracted”.
The moral law was never “added ” nor is it “subtracted”. Had the moral law not been violated by Adam and Eve, there never would have been a ceremonial law, nor would there have been a need for Jesus to die and plead His merits before the Father for sinful man.
The law in Galatians is the ceremonial law. Period. There are obvious moral law implications, but this is not Paul’s point in his letter.
Bill,
Just as you and I want to pull our hair out when someone starts insisting that Paul means there is to be no distinction between male and female, because he said there is no male of female when we are one in Christ. Differences remain between the Circumcision and the Uncircumcision also.
What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision? Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God… …Is he the God of the Jews only? is he not also of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also: Seeing it is one God, which shall justify the circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision through faith. Romans 3
Paul’s behavior concerning the circumcision of Timothy and the Jewish believers (all zealous for the law) that were in Jerusalem reveal a great deal about Paul’s thinking. Unless you agree with Serge and think it was all subterfuge and connivance to deceive the Jewish believers in Jerusalem. If not, then you can see the Paul’s actions speaking quite as loudly as his writing about what he believed about the Circumcision and the law.
“What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision? Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God… ”
That’s right, William. They had the bible and the Gentiles did not. And that was the only “advantage” in being a Jew.
Paul is affirming that everyone is born a sinner. And being born a Jew didn’t make any difference. But there was an advantage. Namely, they had the bible.
Just like a person in the USA has an advantage being born in a “Christian” country, or a Christian home, or even in the SDA church. But they are still born sinners, and this is the only point Paul is making. He then shows all are saved by faith and grace if they will accept Jesus as the Messiah.
People try to make Paul say more than he is saying. And then end up with some far out conclusion that has no affinity to the truth or what Paul is affirming.
In Romans 14 he is showing how some Gentiles have a more mature faith than the converted Jew. But says all must let the Jews mature until they can see all their ceremonial laws have no value for a Christian believer.
So he implores the Gentiles to have patience and not deliberately offend a Jew on some ceremonial law issues, like food offered to idols or feast days.
People twist Paul every which way and end up with some far out theology that has no affinity to what Paul is saying or any kinship to the Christian faith.
Bill,
If the only advantage to the Jew was having the scripture, why does Paul say, ‘much in every way’ regarding the circumcision, “chiefly the oracles of God.” ‘Chiefly’ is transformed into ‘solely’ in your interpretation. I gather from your answer you do think Paul was being duplicitous in circumcising Timothy and offering vows and sacrifices in the temple.
Paul’s actions are important statements about what he believed, are they not?
I have a political question. Is it wise to join voices talking about the need for a reasonable or improved hermeneutic at this time? Is it possible that the current General Conference leadership could use the process to condemn some approaches to Biblical interpretation which are reasonable and currently in use by some Adventist scholars or to to use the process as a vehicle for promoting an unacceptable approach? In light of how it ignored TASC scholarship and chose to follow the scholarship of its in-house theologians during the process of settling the ordination issue, what is an effective way to proceed? (Tied to the hermeneutic issue is how the current administration would use it in its development of standards for evaluating the suitability of religion teachers.)
“I have a political question. Is it wise to join voices talking about the need for a reasonable or improved hermeneutic at this time?”
The fact is, Michael, the bible speaks for itself and the Holy Spirit will guide any honest seeker to know and understand what the bible says and teaches.
It is not wrong to suggest some principles and ideas to help someone follow the simple format of the bible, but to think anyone can lay down a precise system of just how to read and understand the bible is bogus.
If people draw a false conclusion, then you can use the bible itself to show a faulty meaning or application that some may believe is true, but is not. And any honest seeker will respond by saying they see the point and there is no need for confusion.
Error comes when people think they know something is true when it is not, and then won’t adjust to the obvious truth even when it is pointed out. And most error about the bible comes about by the fact that someone may see some specific point, and then proceed to place their own ideas and interpretations of just what it means and how it should be applied.
Dr. Ford is classic, but not the only one who has done this again and again. The bible not only gives us some point of truth, but the bible then tells us exactly what it means, and how it is to be applied. When this is ignored, man makes up his own religion and may still claim it is biblical when it is not.
Mr. Sorensen says that “the bible speaks for itself and the Holy Spirit will guide any honest seeker to know and understand what the bible says and teaches.” Interesting statement. Let me see if I understand this simple suggestion. If the bible “speaks for itself and the Holy Spirit will guide any honest seeker to know and understand what the bible says and teaches” I wonder if Mr. Sorensen would explain how two “honest seekers” can read the same text and come away with different understanding of the text.” There are several explanations, but I’m sure that Mr. Sorensen has his own unique explanation.
” I wonder if Mr. Sorensen would explain how two “honest seekers” can read the same text and come away with different understanding of the text.”
Two honest seekers will never come away in the end, with a different understanding, Dr. Taylor. There is “one Lord, one faith and one baptism”. And when “He the spirit of truth is come, He will guide you into all truth.”
This is the promise of Jesus to all who come with an open mind and willing heart to know truth. And this is one major reason why the final community of believers will be small indeed. They all understand and accept the same thing. There is no confusion. Confusion comes with a perverse heart and unwilling mind, coupled with many preconceived opinions.
But all who come “as a little child” will also “listen and learn” as the final community see and know and understand the simplicity of the plan of salvation revealed in the bible. All the rest will eventually reject the bible and opt for the same spirituality of the RC church.
The spirituality of Rome is a “spirit ethic” that claims the leading of the “spirit” transcends the written word. So when the written word articulates some clear objective teaching, Rome can claim the Spirit has revealed to them otherwise. And their authority transcends the bible.
The final conflict is the bible vs. human speculation by humans who think they know more than scripture and twist the obvious to suit their false doctrine.
Mr. Sorenson says: “Two honest seekers will never come away in the end, with a different understanding . . . They all understand and accept the same thing. There is no confusion. Confusion comes with a perverse heart and unwilling mind, coupled with many preconceived opinions.”
I thank him for his forthright statement. It seems to me that it requires two follow-up questions: Can we thus assume that the opinions that you hold on theological topics are all correct because you neither have a perverse heart nor unwilling mind and do not have many preconceived opinions? And, can we also assume that if someone disagrees with your theological views, the reason is that they do have a perverse heart and unwilling mind and hold many preconceived opinions?
“I thank him for his forthright statement. It seems to me that it requires two follow-up questions: ”
I set forth a non-negotiable principle, Dr. Taylor. You ask for a specific application involving myself. That is a different issue. But regardless of my personal spirituality, it will not alter the principle I stated.
Mr. Sorenson responds with “I set forth a non-negotiable principle, Dr. Taylor. You ask for a specific application involving myself. That is a different issue.” Now I am confused. So you have a “non-negotiable principle” that is impossible to follow? What then is the point?
Hermeneutics sets an approach of proof as you describe. But the authority is inverted.
The ultimate authority is the BIBLE, nothing added or removed; then to author, book and verse within subject. Remember HE is the Subject of this discussion and the subject of discussion is always important; especially if it is HIM. It seems that everyone wants to include and exclude as they wish. Where did such concept come from?
First you state:
“People don’t recognize that the passage doesn’t define”commandments” as the Decalogue and that the context defines “commandments”as the teachings/sayings of Christ.”
All I did was point out that teaching/sayings of CHRIST included the Decalogue, making such argument mute.
You last comment says it all:
“It’s quite plain in John that the teaching’s of Christ are the Fathers “commandment”.”
We are on the same page brother. Just two different methods to get there. I was only pointing out the application of hermeneutics to a mute point is fallacy; while you used hermeneutics to disprove such fallacy. Only trying to note there is also intent, motive and many other failures in using such a tool.
” Now I am confused. So you have a “non-negotiable principle” that is impossible to follow? What then is the point?”
I never said it was impossible to follow, that is your conclusion. I did say this, “Whether I follow it or not is not the issue.” And this is where you diverted the conversation to ask if I followed it.
Erv, One way an honest seeker can misunderstand Scripture is stupidity. Nothing to do with honesty. Among SDA, there are two common problems. One is basic illiteracy i.e., the person in question lacks reading comprehension skills. If you give them a reading sample, they simply don’t know what it is saying. One contributing factor is omission of context–the reader’s focus is too narrow and he/she doesn’t consider the contribution of the words surrounding the passage in question.
This is actually quite common because of the proof texting method which has permeated the denomination. “If you love me keep my commandments” settles the issue of Decalogue obedience? People don’t recognize that the passage doesn’t define”commandments” as the Decalogue and that the context defines “commandments”as the teachings/sayings of Christ.
The second issue is the influence of EGW. Sr. White is a lot trickier to understand than the Bible. People often read into her their own views and then, convinced that she said something she didn’t actually say, impose that meaning on Scripture. The problem is not EGW. It’s our own preconceived opinions read into her writings and then imposed on Scripture.
True that she at times appears to say some strange things and she definitely had a unique perspective; nevertheless, we need to consider our own issues before blaming her for misconstruing Scripture.
Hansen, then are you then not as guilty as Erv with your own ideologies?
Matthew 5:
17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
“People don’t recognize that the passage doesn’t define”commandments” as the Decalogue and that the context defines “commandments”as the teachings/sayings of Christ.”
You statement is then mute. The teaching/sayings of CHRIST included the Commandments, whether the intent is the Decalogue or not.
We Love you and others enough to say that sin is for the evil and not good. Pretty simple.
Nice illustration, Conviction makes my point for me. When you read about “commandments” in John, you refer your text in Matthew to prove that the Decalogue are the commandments to which Jesus refers, Totally wrong approach. First look at the immediate context. It’s very clear that the “commandments” are the words/sayings/ teachings of Christ. Then look at the larger context, the entire book of John. There’s more than one example where Jesus refers to his teachings as commandments. Then look at all John’s writings. He doesn’t define “commandments” as the Decalogue.
I John 2:7 defines “commandment” as the word you have heard from the beginning i.e., the teachings of Christ
No Hansen, I only posted scripture to prove your approach incorrect and point mute. Whether the referenced scripture contended the Decalogue or the words of CHRIST; CHRIST’S words included the Commandments and the Decalogue are the Commandments.
Not one jot or one tittle will change until Heaven and earth pass away. All of the law and profits hang on the two Commandments HE gave as the most important. There is no confusion.
Conviction, Since this thread is about hermeneutics, I’d like you to explain how my “approach is wrong.” It’s only wrong because it doesn’t fit your Decalogue focused paradigm. I’ll make it easy for you to point out my mistake by enumerating my approach.
1.Determine the meaning of a term by its immediate context. In this case,the term is “commandments.”
2 If the immediate context does not explain the term, look at the larger context of the entire book.
3. If the entire book or letter does not explain the term, look at other books.letters by the same author to see if he explains the term.
4. If nothing in either context or the writer’s oeuvre explains the term, then, look at other authors
The immediate context Does explain the term “commandments.” They are the teachings of Christ:
Joh 14:15 “If you love Me, you will keep My commandments.
Joh 14:24 “He who does not love Me does not keep My words; and the word which you hear is not Mine, but the Father’s who sent Me.
It’s quite plain in John that the teaching’s of Christ are the Fathers “commandment”:
47 “If anyone hears My sayings and does not keep them, I do not judge him; for I did not come to judge the world, but to save the world.
48 “He who rejects Me and does not receive My sayings, has one who judges him; the word I spoke is what will judge him at the last day.
49 “For I did not speak on My own initiative, but the Father Himself who sent Me has given Me a commandment as to what to say and what to speak.
50 “I know that His commandment is eternal life; therefore the things I speak, I speak just as the Father has told Me.”
The fudged consensus of Seventh-day Adventist theologians, none of whom understand linguistics, is that even though God does not dictate words but inspires the thoughts of biblical writers, He still provides “apt” words. This consensus is based upon Ellen White’s witness that she on occasion prayed for insight about what word to use and God provided that word. If we assume her witness is true, then why is the consensus wrong? Why are we correct in reiterating that none of the words of the Bible are apt?
The answer is that there is no such thing as an apt word. Here’s a linguistic tutorial about the word God might provide: Is the meaning of that word of divine origin? No, the meaning of words is determined by convention. Is the meaning of that word natural? No, except for the rare instance of onomatopoeia, the meaning of words is arbitrary. Does that word have a fixed and stable meaning? No, the meaning of words arises from their syntagmatic and paradigmatic relations with other words, which themselves do not have fixed and stable meanings. Is that word the only possible signifier of a signified? No, there are many signifiers of a signified. Does that word declare its own meaning? No, words do not declare their own meanings. Does that word affect the meaning of what is written? No, meaning is based not on words but authorial will. Could a hobo, if asked, provide an “apt” word? Sure. In sum, words are per se incapable of being apt or divinely…
A lot of double talk, Phillip, so you can have an excuse to reject clear bible mandates. The scriptures have a clear flowing continuity that “wayfaring men, though fools, need not err therein.” Isa.
God has preserved a clear revelation of Himself and mankind in the bible, and no one needs to err about what the bible teaches if they will ask God for an understanding of His word and will.
God will give us His Holy Spirit to see and know the scripture in a perfect flowing continuity that anyone can understand if they ask God for wisdom. “Seek and ye shall find, knock and it shall be opened unto you.” This is the promise of God. Man can not in and of himself know truth or discern it. But man can test every revelation and conclusion by the bible and if the conclusion fits the whole word of God, we can have the assurance we have the right conclusion.
None the less, we must still be seeking to affirm and reaffirm by scripture “whether these things are so.” Always willing to adjust our thinking if and when the truth is more clearly discerned by study, prayer and careful consideration to “prove all things, hold fast that which is good.”
The bible is not ambiguous. But a clear revelation of truth.
Every one is in error, mixing in with a bit of truth, personal bias. You guys don’t seriously
believe you have the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, but some think you do. The Bible, i believe, has some truth of Man and his condition, but on every issue we see through a blurry dark glass. Bill is correct in that as Jesus promised the Comforter, the Holy Spirit
to guide into all knowledge, understanding, wisdom and Truth, the Christian has an open
window to see the important issues of origins and life clearly. Those of you with never a moment with the Holy Spirit will only be speculating the certainty of your wisdom.
Egos on parade! Those who assert there is a singular meaning to an interpretation of Scripture usually imply they know what it is via special help, often their buddy, the Holy Spirit. They are purposely and foolishly blind to the reality nothing but opinion is the basis to any conclusion about meaning. Hermanutics is nothing more than a discussion and evaluation of opinions, acknowledgment of the tentative nature of religious conclusions. Purity of meaning is utopian, there isn’t any. Being “in the know,” is self-agrandizement, a display of oneself on a self made hill as the king of it.
Bugs,
The Jesus we read about in the gospels is constantly relating scripture to His audience. He is relating the bible to Himself and His listeners in a very specific way. Isn’t it a consistent methodology to imitate this Jesus and try to understand the scriptures in the same way He did? The record is not a hodge-podge. Jesus has a very specific hermeneutic which a 1500 character post cannot do justice to. But we will sum it up in Zane Yi’s words: Jesus interpreted the scripture prophetically.
To reduce all discussion about the topic to, “Egos on parade” is awfully dismissive of the one central teaching of Christ. That is: The Ego on parade – He has sentenced to death. Don’t you suppose His followers are vaguely familiar with this temptation? this flaw in their human nature?
The whole business of believing in Jesus Christ comes down to believing I am exactly as you describe me, “an ego on parade.” The whole business of believing in Jesus Christ is believing our part in His drama is our only hope of escaping our egomania.
“He is relating the bible to Himself and His listeners in a very specific way. Isn’t it a consistent methodology to imitate this Jesus and try to understand the scriptures in the same way He did? The record is not a hodge-podge.”
Christ expected the end of the world during his life, the destruction of evil and rewards for the good. He expected a Son of Man to come and accomplish this, but not himself. The “Son of Man” in Jewish tradition was the king of Israel. The Jewish view of the apocalypse was the re-coming of Elijah or Moses in a great display of power and glory. He expected to be alive along with some of his followers.
So his “specific way” was in that context. No hodgepodge, but a lens through which he viewed the world. So you need to adopt his failed apocalyptic view, a view popping up constantly, like popcorn in history, and always a failure.
While scripture rarely speaks to hermeneutics, when it does, it speaks like Dr. Weiss.
Paul writes to Timothy that all scripture is inspired and therefor useful in the normal course of his work as a proclaimer of doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness.
And Paul also, out of the depths of personal exhaustion in proclaiming doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness 12 chapters into his letter to a Corinthian congregation that has totally jumped the rails of religious constraints, pauses and collectively throws in the inspired towel by simply writing, “and yet shew I unto you a more excellent way.”
And with that introduction, Paul lyrically dismisses biblical knowledge, spiritual practice, and divine prophecy as temporal at best, as he affirms faith, hope, and love as the only enduring response to the everlasting gospel.
And just three chapters later closes his letter with this stirring words, “Watch ye, stand fast in the faith, quite you like men, be strong. Let all your things be done with charity.”
And then in his own hand, “The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you. My love be with you all in Christ Jesus. Amen.”
But who am I to make this point other than for myself? We all make what we make, whether of scripture or faith. To which Dr. Weiss attests and this comment thread confirms.
So how do we quit ourselves in charity with strength while swaddled in the crazy quilt of inspiration?
John 5:39
“You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; it is these that testify about Me”
my2cents,
That scripture roughly sums up Christian hermeneutics.
The point is that we all have the mental capability of a rock and the moral ethics below the rock. and at some point we will all wish we had that rock to climb under. But luckily Someone with non-negotiable principle and absolute Love had pity upon us; because we surly have nothing to offer.
Working today in the clean up of the 1000 year flood. I seen many there running around; but mostly children and old souls actually helping. I really think that those are the only ones capable of helping anymore; but I did see many thankful and happy to be alive. There was much talk about the BIBLE; but nothing about hermeneutics.
Maybe we always need to remember that in a twinkling of an eye we could pass; or all of this could pass. Maybe we need to stop being children and start being the adults here; adults that worry about others and praise HIM, instead of ourselves. Actually I see nothing in/of or for us to have praise in. Do you think HE sees something to praise within us, within what we have become?
HE said deny yourself, take up your cross and follow ME. Within HIS authority HE placed very few commands for us to follow. Pretty simple. If you think you have something to offer to those commanded to Love as CHRIST and do so within conviction; think again. If you are jealous because you are unable to do so or make others feel Loved; then stop being jealous and fix the problem. It all starts with you. Deny yourself, otherwise you will never have anything to offer anyone.
It is a lot faster, allowing you to save frustration and time.
Take some extra time and dress a little more professionally.
Many communities have a limited number of vacancies.
In responding to the biblical literalists making comments on this thread, I neglected to express appreciation to Dr. Weiss for his excellent article and the helpful approach that he has taken in explaining a basic point, namely that it is impossible–repeat impossible– for us humans to read the bible without interpreting texts and, even with the best of intentions, we will differ in our interpretations. I regret that if one does not accept the simple truth that we all interpret and that there is no such thing as a “plain reading,” it is rather useless to carry on a meaning dialogue with anyone who thinks him or herself some type of “special” human being and thinks that he/she is able to tell the rest of us what God would say what some text means. Sad.
” I regret that if one does not accept the simple truth that we all interpret and that there is no such thing as a “plain reading,” it is rather useless to carry on a meaning dialogue with anyone who thinks him or herself some type of “special” human being and thinks that he/she is able to tell the rest of us what God would say what some text means. Sad.”
Dr. Taylor, no one is expected to accept someone else’s ideas or opinions of what the bible teaches without a careful examination for themselves to see “whether these things are so.” (Paul).
But this in no way negates the fact that the bible is plain and all will come to a clear agreement of just what the bible teaches. What is “sad” is many refuse to admit this truth so they can “bicker” on and on claiming there is no given truth to challenge and judge mankind on just what the will of God is.
So they opt for a “gospel” of undefinable truth and ignorance is a virtue. All will be saved at last. God is solely responsible for the salvation of mankind.
Mr. Sorenson has finally got it right: “All will be saved at last. God is solely responsible for the salvation of mankind.” Right on! The Truth will be revealed in the end. Jolly good.
“Mr. Sorenson has finally got it right: “All will be saved at last. God is solely responsible for the salvation of mankind.” Right on! The Truth will be revealed in the end. Jolly good.”
“Ignorance is bliss” until we are confronted by God, Dr. Taylor. And then “Be not deceived, God is not mocked” will come into full force as many who now claim ignorance will be confronted with the reality of their “self deception”.
Even Cain and Judas didn’t play that game. They both knew they were lost because of wilful and blatant rebellion against God and His system of government where moral beings play a defining part in their own salvation.
Do you really demand the right to interpret or interpret the right to demand; of HIM?
Do you really need to feel “special”? Are you unable to deny yourself, take up your cross and follow HIM? How can you be the strong beacon to others if you are floundering around yourself? Are you a stumbling block to others as you flounder?
The Spirit will bring you into remembrance (as HIS child) and teach you all things. It is the great comforter given to those that keep HIS Commandments; but we need to always remember we are commanded to also try those spirits.
1 Corinthians 14:
34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.
35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.
36 What? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only?
37 If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.
Can you say the words and mean them? How can we be a servant and help others if we can’t take care of our own? Are we ready to start getting involved? Are we ready to take command of our households like Abraham? Are we ready to gain HIS blessings and Wisdom in doing so? Otherwise, who will watch out for and protect those such deserving and cherished; if it is not those commanded to do so? Who will make them feel Loved? Do they not deserve that? Is this not the intent within the big picture to start with?
How can we ever be and take part in HIS Household if we can’t take care of our own? Do we always sit on our behinds and take the easy way out, Loving no one; as always? Is condoning evil and dolessness the intent of the interpretation to start with?
All we know for a fact is this. The “bible butchers” are a dime a dozen and more than a few post on this forum and especially this thread.
Conviction says:”Do you really need to feel “special”? Are you unable to deny yourself, take up your cross and follow HIM? How can you be the strong beacon to others if you are floundering around yourself? Are you a stumbling block to others as you flounder?”
May I object that Conviction does not exercise Christian charity when he/she says that Mr. Sorensen is “floundering around” and “a stumbling block to others.” That is not nice.
The comment was not directed to Bill.
No, it is definitely not nice to flounder around or create stumbling blocks to others. Why such constant demand and continuation in do so?
1 Corinthians 8:9 “But take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumblingblock to them that are weak.”
Luke 11:52 “Woe unto you, lawyers! for ye have taken away the key of knowledge: ye entered not in yourselves, and them that were entering in ye hindered.”
Revelations 2:14 “But I have a few things against thee, because thou hast there them that hold the doctrine of Balaam, who taught Balac to cast a stumblingblock before the children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed unto idols, and to commit fornication.”
Romans 14:13 “Let us not therefore judge one another any more: but judge this rather, that no man put a stumblingblock or an occasion to fall in his brother’s way.”
Our only obligation is to ensure that stumbling blocks are not placed before others; HE takes care of the rest. HE is much better at that than any of us could ever imagine.
We have the right to promote and build our religion in the United States. Just as others have the similar right to promote whatever denomination they wish.
Does this build, offer or promote anything for or within the Church? There is absolutely no existing right to tear it down. Should we not object to such construction in ideology of charity and church; along with the fact that such actions lead us here to this point?
I am sorry; do we need permission to protect and promote the Body, the Church, the doctrine, the weak, the Religious Freedom and works of others, and the multitude of other issues surrounding this arena? Then may we pretty, pretty please have permission to do what HE commands of us?
Hmm. “Stumbling blocks” One person’s stumbling block may be someone else’s obvious fact. We do have a problem here, don’t we?
I am sorry, we don’t worry about others facts; only HIS Truths.
“One person’s stumbling block may be someone else’s obvious fact”. A stated Truth. Someone within self-assumed obvious fact, can be a stumbling block to others. Remember the old adage, assume makes an &#^@% out of you and me. If you have obvious facts then state them. If you are floundering and have not yet found your what then admit it to yourself and fix it. Move on; grow up.
2 Peter 1:
19 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:
20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.
The Body of the Church will interpret, not individuals or pools such as you. We can discuss, but HIS Spirit leads to unity and understanding. The problem is that you promote or discuss nothing, do and provide nothing; then promote disunity. I think I would start worrying about how this all looks to HIM? Have you really listened to yourself? Are you really that “special”. Just some things pointed out in Love.
Sorry to continue to respond to “Conviction,” since IMHO he/she represents a significant part of what is one of the most problematic attitudes expressed by those who view themselves as “defending” their own personal list of Eternal Truths.
For example, “Conviction” states that he/she don’t “worry about others facts; only HIS [i.e., God’s] Truths.” The arrogance of assuming that one absolutely knows “God’s truth” has been at the root of many bloody episodes in the history of the Christian Church. Fortunately, these kinds of individuals in modern Western democracies are typically prevented from carrying out the types of actions their spiritual forbearers were able to do since in previous centuries these individuals possessed the political power. Regretfully, such attitudes continue to be expressed in some Islamic countries who have not had the benefit of going through an Enlightenment period and secularization as did the West several centuries ago.
PS. We might notice that these types of individuals often hide behind some pious title such as “Conviction.” Why are they not willing to use their real names?
Are your contentions and intentions not reversed? That the Doctrine of the Body does not meet your individual ideologies? That you wish to justify any tool or devise to make HIM (and everyone else) conform to you? Is it not the same problem with Enlightenment, secularization and radicalism? Anything can be used for good or bad. Are the results not the proof? Is our enlightened, secularized world better now? Are secular attempts to justify the unjustifiable not radical? Are radical attempts to justify the unjustifiable Enlightenment?
What are your contentions and intentions? What are your list of personal truths that we may discuss and prove within Scripture? What are your prophecies?
Since you seem to think I personally am the appitamey of the blood, guts and gore throughout the ages; maybe you could use your concept of hermeneutics and then help me please? I am always grateful for those looking out for and setting me on the straight and narrow.
Is using a name in representation not pious? Does it not take from HIM?
We dug this hole, have strength and conviction enough to take responsibility for it. If you think things are better; you only deceive yourself. Are we not all the problem; in a world of hurt and sin? Does your self search help with that hurt? Should it really not be a search of self? Did we stand for or fail HIM?
But then are your contentions and ideologies not set higher; actually within guidance of the Body? Should such not be held at a higher standard within Doctrine; HIS Doctrine? We had all better stand for something soon, for we are but a vapor; without HIM in HIS Time.
Would “Conviction” please explain what he/she means by “The Body.” Is he/she referring to the “Body of the Church” or perhaps something else? Help me be enlightened.
The Body of the Church are all that belong to HIM. Those Chosen that HE cleaves to.
Remember many are called, but few are chosen. Remember luke warm is not good. Remember the messages to the Churches and the promises to those that overcome; especially the few HE held things against. Remember that you have nothing to offer, except through HIS Love.
Are your intentions really to learn? Did you wish to separate that which is inseparable? Do you wish to be a part of that which is inseparable and the absolute Peace of HIM? There are only two bodies that you can belong to; one offering you nothing. You can only serve one master. The choice is yours. HE knocks, open the door.
In response to the article, it is common sense that could have been said in fewer less complicated words. But it is still true in essence. It doesn’t take into consideration the more personal interpretation for individuals looking to it for direction and inspiration. I am of the opinion that a true follower of Christ who abides in Him can find personal at-the-moment inspiration when needed to comfort, direct, and commune.
Jesus was Jewish in every sense of the word in His human body. He learned from the rabbis in the temple. It is possible Jesus didn’t even know how to read as he wasn’t of the social level that had access to education. He also learned from His parents, His mother in particular. It’s possible he accepted some of the myths not knowing better until later in His maturity and His experiences with revelation (the temptations, the mountaintop, the garden, prayer). Did the devil try to deceive Him in the temptation scene as he did in Eden? As our example why would He have any special knowledge than other humans did then? When Jesus said the OT was about Him, we call Him a liar when we try to take it literally in every small aspect. The Bible is taken as a whole and not to be divided up into words and forced to say different things at different times.
EM,
You write: He learned from the rabbis in the temple. The text says, And all that heard him were astonished at his understanding and answers. Now lets ask, who was teaching whom?
Now about the midst of the feast Jesus went up into the temple, and taught. And the Jews marvelled, saying, How knoweth this man letters, having never learned? Jesus answered them, and said, My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me. If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself. He that speaketh of himself seeketh his own glory: but he that seeketh his glory that sent him, the same is true, and no unrighteousness is in him. Did not Moses give you the law, and yet none of you keepeth the law? Why go ye about to kill me?
Jesus did have access to education. His doctrine was of God. What is fascinating is that His doctrine is entirely scriptural. It derives from scripture and it appeals to scripture. The Jews marvelled because Jesus was not seeking His own glory in His constant teachings about Himself, but the glory of the One who sent Him. Jesus Christ was teaching Torah with authority.
Conviction wrote: “Did you wish to separate that which is inseparable? Do you wish to be a part of that which is inseparable and the absolute Peace of HIM?”
Am I the only here that has no idea of what Conviction is talking about?. The words are there in Roman type and the vocabulary, grammar and syntax is certainly modern English. But beyond that I have not a clue what he/she means. Can anyone besides Conviction help me?
Relief. I have felt like asking the same question. No Dr Taylor, you are not alone. Yes, it is in English words, but the unusual grammar and syntax, to me, make it impossible to understand. I think he/she is transliterating from another language directly into English words. Pity. There have been hints, at times, that Conviction is quite erudite, but we miss the benefit of her/his thoughts and contributions to the discussion. Same problem applies with the process of understanding the original Bible writer’s thoughts, but at least there the translations have been worked over for many centuries.
Kind of simple, you asked what was “the Body”. Everything that HE does not cast off or prune.
I assume we can all agree that anything HE claims, holds, cleaves or latches on to would be HIS. You probably should talk to HIM if you think otherwise? That is about as inseparable and Peace assuring as one can get. Of course you always have the choice not to be part of the Body.
1 Corinthians 6:
18 Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body.
19 What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?
20 For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God’s.
Quote from Article
“Some in the church today are saying that we must read the Bible literally, without interpretation—what they call “the plain reading”.”
—–
The above is part of the reasoning for publishing this article. Where did they get this from? Is it actually true? If not, why would AToday seek to publish an article that is based on something untrue? Read the Bible literally, without interpretation? Let’s see some proof that “some in the church are saying” this.