Deity of Christ from Romans 5

[Vladimir]

Rom. 5:6 For while we were still helpless, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly. 5:7 (For rarely will anyone die for a righteous person, though for a good person perhaps someone might possibly dare to die.) 5:8 But God demonstrates his own love for us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.(NET Bible)

Now, here is my question for anyone here who does not believe in the Deity of Christ, yet, holds that the Bible is inerrant Word of God. What is the force of Paul's argument?

I mean, if Christ is a created being, then how is God demonstrating His OWN love in Christ dying for us?

Thanks,
Vladimir

[Robyn Banks]

Vladimir:
I mean, if Christ is a created being, then how is God demonstrating His OWN love in Christ dying for us?
Surely the answer would be: because God sent him in order to provide us with access to his righteousness? That's loving on behalf of God, whether or not Christ is God or not.

Robyn Banks

[Vladimir]

Hi Robyn,

Thanks for your response. However, would you not agree that a human being who gives their life for the life of another person sacrifices much more than God does? Because a man gives up their life while God simply tells another creature to give up their life.

If Christ is not YHWH, then what did God do that is much more than another human person giving their life for another.

[Dee Dee Warren]

Remember Vladimir that Robyn denies the deity of Christ as it is understood in the evangelical faith.

[Robyn Banks]

Vladimir:
would you not agree that a human being who gives their life for the life of another person sacrifices much more than God does?
I wouldn't agree. God is infinitely greater than anything man may sacrifice, and therefore infinitely more able to give himself.




Vladimir:
If Christ is not YHWH, then what did God do that is much more than another human person giving their life for another.
Again, the answer would be: God sent someone in order to provide us with access to his righteousness.

Robyn Banks

[Robyn Banks]

Vladimir:
here is my question for anyone here who does not believe in the Deity of Christ,


Dee Dee Warren:
Remember Vladimir that Robyn denies the deity of Christ as it is understood in the evangelical faith.

Ah - isn't this what Vladimir asked for, Dee Dee? :whack:

Thanks for stating the patently obvious, though.

:Robyn Banks: :ddw: :whip:

[Dee Dee Warren]

Yes I was just making sure he knew. Plus you know I am not satisifed until I make my Vacuous Comment of the Day.

[Robyn Banks]

Dee Dee Warren:
Yes I was just making sure he knew. Plus you know I am not satisifed until I make my Vacuous Comment of the Day.
The continuity of your vacuity is guaranteed into perpetuity.





:shocked:

[Vladimir]

Today @ 12:41 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=334074#post334074)
Robyn Banks:


I wouldn't agree. God is infinitely greater than anything man may sacrifice, and therefore infinitely more able to give himself.




Again, the answer would be: God sent someone in order to provide us with access to his righteousness.

Robyn Banks

Robyn, but God does NOT give Himself, He only provides for a sacrifice, while a man is giving his own life for another. To whom much is given, more is expected, right? Poor widow was considered to be more giving then the rich donors, because she gave to God all she had, even though otherw were giving more than just two coins.

Using the same logic Jesus used, I would say that Paul's verse I quoted does not make sense, unless Jesus is God, and Paul is saying that human love could be great, because one man may give his life for another good man, but God's love is greater, becase He gave HIS life for sinners, for whom even other human's would not even consider dying for.

[Robyn Banks]

Vladimir:
Robyn, but God does NOT give Himself, He only provides for a sacrifice,
In giving (the grace of) righteousness to people, God does in fact give of himself.



Vladimir:
while a man is giving his own life for another.
A human life is nothing compare to what God gives.

In any case, God is demonstrating his love for us in making this (re)new(ed) covenant through Jesus.




Vladimir:
To whom much is given, more is expected, right? Poor widow was considered to be more giving then the rich donors, because she gave to God all she had, even though otherw were giving more than just two coins.

Using the same logic Jesus used, I would say that Paul's verse I quoted does not make sense, unless Jesus is God, and Paul is saying that human love could be great, because one man may give his life for another good man, but God's love is greater, becase He gave HIS life for sinners, for whom even other human's would not even consider dying for.
God sent Jesus to fulfill his plan of righteousness. This was the demonstration of his love. If God had chosen not to send Jesus, we would have been without this demonstration of his love.


Robyn Banks

[Vladimir]

Robyn,

If Jesus Christ is not YHWH, then how come He is not given any credit for showing His love? He did not have to die, but choose to. so ultimatelly, it was Jesus' decision to die. And since this is the case, then why should God deserve credit for the work Jesus did?

Without Jesus' choice to die, God would have been powerless to show His love, correct?

In other words, if Jesus is not YHWH, then God trusted in Jesus so that Jesus could demonstrate God's love to us.

Forgive me for going into the details, but I am trying to understand how those who don't belive in deity of Christ can make sense of Romans 5.

Thanks,
Vladimir

[Robyn Banks]

Vladimir:
If Jesus Christ is not YHWH, then how come He is not given any credit for showing His love?
At first you were arguing that God could not demonstrate his love in what Jesus did. I showed that God indeed could show his love in what Jesus did.

Now you ask why Jesus also is not given credit. But why Paul should also talk about the love of Jesus where he talks about the love of God in what Jesus did is beyond me. And what the significance of Paul failing to mention Christ's love is also beyond me. It proves nothing.

Paul does sometimes mention the love of Jesus, and also the love of God in sending Jesus:
"Who will separate us from the love of Christ? Will hardship, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword? As it is written, "For your sake we are being killed all day long; we are accounted as sheep to be slaughtered." No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us. For I am convinced that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor rulers, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, nor height, nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord."
- Rom 8.35-39





Vladimir:
He did not have to die, but choose to. so ultimatelly, it was Jesus' decision to die. And since this is the case, then why should God deserve credit for the work Jesus did?
Because God sent him.





Vladimir:
Without Jesus' choice to die, God would have been powerless to show His love, correct?
Incorrect. God does not depend on humans.




Vladimir:
In other words, if Jesus is not YHWH, then God trusted in Jesus so that Jesus could demonstrate God's love to us.
God trusts in many humans to effect his divine purpose. See: the Bible.




Vladimir:
Forgive me for going into the details, but I am trying to understand how those who don't belive in deity of Christ can make sense of Romans 5.
Romans 5 does not speak of the deity of Christ. You have made an invalid argument from Romans 5, with a false conclusion that Romans 5 can only be interpreted as presenting Christ as divine. It does not. Although, other passages in the New Testament probably do.

Hope that helps.

Robyn Banks

[Reader]

Robyn Banks:





Romans 5 does not speak of the deity of Christ.

It certainly does . . .

He is called "Lord," gr. "kurios." (vss 1, 11, 21)

He is called God's "Son." (vs 10)

He is called the "one" (singular and only) "Christ"; the Messiah promised. (vss 1, 8, 11, 12, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 21)



You have made an invalid argument from Romans 5, with a false conclusion that Romans 5 can only be interpreted as presenting Christ as divine. It does not.

How could this Messiah not be Divine? He was "obedient." He was "righteous." He brought Godly "grace." (vss 15, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21)

He worked "justification" for many which provides souls with "eternal life." (vss 9, 16,17, 18, 21)

No mere mortal could ever be attributed with all these qualities and accomplishment. No sinful and human sacrifice could have "reconciled" other sinners to God. (vss 10, 11) Rather, the Divine died for the "ungodly." (vss 6-8, 11) The offering of His life is the salvation of men. (vss 10, 17)







Although, other passages in the New Testament probably do.


Of course they do. Romans Chapter Five is understood and interpreted by the Scriptures as a whole. The entire Bible teaches the truths of Romans 5, for Romans 5 is the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

" . . .The Lord from heaven . . .the heavenly Man . . .a life-giving Spirit." I Cor. 15:45-49

[Robyn Banks]

Robyn Banks:
Romans 5 does not speak of the deity of Christ.


Reader:
It certainly does . . .

He is called "Lord," gr. "kurios." (vss 1, 11, 21)
'Lord' is also a term used of men. Sometimes, though, is it used to translate YHWH and may apply to Jesus.




Reader:
He is called God's "Son." (vs 10)
As are all Christians. Jesus is uniquely the firstborn son, the first to 'attain' to resurrection.




Reader:
He is called the "one" (singular and only) "Christ"; the Messiah promised. (vss 1, 8, 11, 12, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 21)
The Messiah/Christ is not always a divine being in contemporaneous Jewish writings. Primarily, Messiah refers to the eschatological descendent of David - a man.





Robyn Banks:
“ You have made an invalid argument from Romans 5, with a false conclusion that Romans 5 can only be interpreted as presenting Christ as divine. It does not. ”

Reader:
How could this Messiah not be Divine?
This is a different argument from the argument Vladimir was making. Vladimir was arguing that if God showed his love in Christ dying, Christ must be God - an invalid argument, as I pointed out by the exception that God could still show his love though Christ's death by merely sending him.

But your argument rests on the terms used and roles of the Messiah: a better argument if you accept it is merely inductive, but obviously only offering inductive proof, not (conclusive) deductive proof. However, the 'Messiah' is primarily the descendent of David: a man.




Reader:
He was "obedient." He was "righteous." He brought Godly "grace." (vss 15, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21)

He worked "justification" for many which provides souls with "eternal life." (vss 9, 16,17, 18, 21)
All these things bring the righteousness of God to man, through Christ's faithfulness to God. They are all, arguably, things able to be accomplished by God working through a mere man.




Reader:
No mere mortal could ever be attributed with all these qualities and accomplishment.
Yes they could.



Reader:
No sinful and human sacrifice could have "reconciled" other sinners to God. (vss 10, 11)
The Son of David was without sin. This does not necessitate that he was divine.

Perhaps he was a divine intermediary? One of the host of heaven sent to become a man, in order to save mankind?




Robyn Banks:
“ Although, other passages in the New Testament probably do. ”


Reader:
Romans Chapter Five is understood and interpreted by the Scriptures as a whole.
It can be. But the intended meaning of the author (Paul) is best ascertained by the immediate context of the letter to the Romans, then (with less help) by the genuine Pauline corpus, then (with even less help) by all other Biblical and Jewish writings.




Reader:
The entire Bible teaches the truths of Romans 5, for Romans 5 is the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
The Old Testament writers did not know the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and did not "teach" it.


Robyn Banks

[Reader]

Robyn Banks:





All these things bring the righteousness of God to man, through Christ's faithfulness to God. They are all, arguably, things able to be accomplished by God working through a mere man.

The righteousness of God is only brought to mankind, through the removal of sins and payment of the universal sentence of death. No ordinary (sinful, mortal) human could withstand vicarious suffering of the wrath of God against sins, pay the death penalty, and then overcome everlasting judgment to rise from the dead. No mere man can resurrect Himself, which was the evidence Jesus Christ gave that His Person and all His works and offering were Divine.



The Old Testament writers did not know the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and did not "teach" it.

This is inaccurate.

Noah found grace in the eyes of God and "preached" righteousness. (Genesis 6:8, II Peter 2:5).

The Gospel was preached to Eve (Genesis 3:15), to Abel, Seth, etc. prior to Noah. And Jesus said ". .Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it and was glad." (John 8:56)

The author of Hebrews relates that the entire nation of Israel had the Gospel message, "For indeed the gospel was preached to us as well as to them, but the word which they heard did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in those who heard it." Hebrews 4:2

Then there is the record of many souls regenerated by God and gifted with faith to believe in the Savior, in Hebrews Chapter Eleven.

Jesus says the teachings of the entire O.T. Scriptures were about Him:

" . .These are the words (Gospel) which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things must be fulfilled which were written in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms concerning Me." Luke 24:44

Here, Jesus Christ is declaring that all the covenant promises and prophecies regarding Messiah to come from God to remit the sins of His people were fulfilled in His Person.

And Paul declares that Christ's Person, was the "Lord from heaven." I Cor. 15:447.

He is the "Seed" promised to Eve; the "King" promised to David, as His human lineage proves. Fully Man and fully God, the only begotten Son of the Father, born of a virgin to fulfill the prophecy of Isaiah 9:6; named within that context as "Mighty God; Everlasting Father."

[Robyn Banks]

Reader:
No ordinary (sinful, mortal) human could withstand vicarious suffering of the wrath of God against sins...
Yes - which leaves open the option of Jesus being no ordinary man.




Reader:
This is inaccurate.

Noah found grace in the eyes of God and "preached" righteousness. (Genesis 6:8, II Peter 2:5).
No 'Gospel'.




Reader:
The Gospel was preached to Eve (Genesis 3:15), to Abel, Seth, etc. prior to Noah.
No it wasn't. 'Seed' is given new meaning only in the NT.




Reader:
And Jesus said ". .Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it and was glad." (John 8:56)
Where in the OT did Abraham see the Gospel of Jesus? Please give specifics, rather than the assertion of John the Evangelist, who interprets the OT according to a Non-Literal Hermeneutic.




Reader:
The author of Hebrews relates that the entire nation of Israel had the Gospel message, "For indeed the gospel was preached to us as well as to them, but the word which they heard did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in those who heard it." Hebrews 4:2
Where in the testimony of Israel before Jesus was the Gospel message heard? This anonymous letter may assert it, but it doesn't make it so.




Reader:
Jesus says the teachings of the entire O.T. Scriptures were about Him:

" . .These are the words (Gospel) which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things must be fulfilled which were written in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms concerning Me." Luke 24:44

Here, Jesus Christ is declaring that all the covenant promises and prophecies regarding Messiah to come from God to remit the sins of His people were fulfilled in His Person.
The NT records the OT being 'fulfilled' in non-literal terms - allegoric, midrashic, etc etc. The OT itself does not, on its own terms, contain the Gospel of Jesus.

You are incorrect. The Gospel is in the NT only. That the NT reinterprets the OT in light of its Christological understanding in order to read Gospel into the Old Testament does not alter this.

Hope that helps.

Robyn Banks

[Reader]

Robyn Banks:

No 'Gospel'.

If you do not see "righteousness" to be synonymous with the "good reports" of Jesus Christ, then you have a spiritual problem.



'Seed' is given new meaning only in the NT.

That is only what you humanly conclude, but Scripture says a LOT about the promised "Seed" of Jesus Christ. The entire O.T. history of mankind reveals the preservation of the promised "Seed" through God's sanctification (coventantal) of the human lineage of God's promised Savior, Jesus Christ.

Can you provide, from the Word of God, proof that the Seed promised to Eve is different from the seed taught in I John 3:9? I doubt it.





Where in the OT did Abraham see the Gospel of Jesus?

Please, friend . . .this is elementary.

Abraham, by faith, KNEW the Person of Jesus Christ.

The Person of Jesus Christ ~is~ the good news (Gospel) of God!


Where in the testimony of Israel before Jesus was the Gospel message heard?

Gospel = the good news of God . . .the testimony of God the nation of Israel handled was the very Word of God (Gospel) given and written on tablets of stone.

Seems you do not equate Gospel with Scripture. They are synonymous. Both are the Word of God. The commands of God. The Law of God spoken by God.

And the Word of God (the Law) is synonymous with God Himself. (John 1:1)




You are incorrect.

When I declared you to be incorrect, I gave Scripture references to validate my opposition to your erroneous views.

You now say I am incorrect.

Where is your Scriptural basis for saying I am in error?

Or do you only expect to intimidate me and insult my Christian faith without basis?

I give notice.

I am not easily intimidated or knocked off subject.

[Robyn Banks]

Reader:
If you do not see "righteousness" to be synonymous with the "good reports" of Jesus Christ, then you have a spiritual problem.
Don't give me your simplistic etymology of 'Gospel' and confuse it with the specific meaning of Gospel (the Gospel of Jesus Christ) that is at issue here. What you are doing is just too silly for words. Anyone can point to broad concepts that are in the New Testament and show that they are in the Old Testament, too. But what does that show? Nothing.

The Old Testament writers did not know the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and did not "teach" it.




Reader:
That is only what you humanly conclude, but Scripture says a LOT about the promised "Seed" of Jesus Christ.
That is what you humanly conclude. But this is still a reinterpretation of seed, quite different from its original generic context in Genesis, an imposition on the text rather than a reading of it.




Reader:
The entire O.T. history of mankind reveals the preservation of the promised "Seed" through God's sanctification (coventantal) of the human lineage of God's promised Savior, Jesus Christ.
Nonsense. This is a reinterpretation of the Old Testament.




Reader:
Can you provide, from the Word of God, proof that the Seed promised to Eve is different from the seed taught in I John 3:9? I doubt it.
That 'seed' in Genesis 3.15 means simply 'offspring' is more obvious than the nose on your face.

Genesis 3.15 has God saying that he will put enmity between the 'seed' of the snake and the 'seed' of the woman. The woman is Eve - the mother of all humans. Just as the 'seed' of the snake refers to its descendents, so does the 'seed' of the mother of all humans refer to her descendents.

And thus it is translated by, for example, the NRSV:"I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will strike your head, and you will strike his heel."If you are going to assert that Genesis 3.15 refers to a single man, and that this man was Jesus, then you have an insurmountable task in front of you. The text certainly does not provide you with any help. Unless you admit you are reading into the text statements which aren't there, you can't deny that the plain meaning of Gen 3.15 is that it refers to the offspring or descendents generally of snakes and humans. But I would be amused if you tried to prove that Gen 3.15 can only refer to Jesus...







Reader:
Please, friend . . .this is elementary.

Abraham, by faith, KNEW the Person of Jesus Christ.
No, this is elementary: what you are saying is nonsense, without any foundation, your invented Fantasy, your imposition onto the text.

Please produce just one verse that demonstrates Abraham "knew the Person of Jesus Christ".




Reader:
The Person of Jesus Christ ~is~ the good news (Gospel) of God!
So says the New Testament. But you still haven't shown that the OT - anywhere - says that Jesus is the good news of God. And you can't. Because it doesn't.





Reader:
Gospel = the good news of God . . .the testimony of God the nation of Israel handled was the very Word of God (Gospel) given and written on tablets of stone.
Don't give me your elementary etymology of 'Gospel' again. If you falsely imagine that proves a single thing, then you must have your head in the sand. Please just point to a single verse in the Old Testament where Jesus is even mentioned.

There is none.





Reader:
Seems you do not equate Gospel with Scripture. They are synonymous. Both are the Word of God. The commands of God. The Law of God spoken by God.
Seems like you have a penchant for stating basic concepts, and an inability to state anything remotely relevant.

I ask: where, if anywhere, is the Gospel of Jesus Christ found in the Old Testament? I'm not asking you to read the New Testament into the Old Testament. I'm asking you to actually read the Old Testament for what it says and try to find even the remotest mention of Jesus. There is none.




Reader:
When I declared you to be incorrect, I gave Scripture references to validate my opposition to your erroneous views.
You are yet to state a single relevant scripture (i.e. you are yet to find a single Old Testament verse while refers to Jesus).




Reader:
You now say I am incorrect.
You are. You are quite incorrect.




Reader:
Where is your Scriptural basis for saying I am in error?
The entire Old Testament. No verse refers to Jesus.




Reader:
Or do you only expect to intimidate me and insult my Christian faith without basis?
I expect you to be able to argue from the Bible, rather than from your reading things into the Bible.

'Intimidation' is your false projection. I am asking you to defend your fanciful claim that Gen 3.15 must refer to Jesus.

Robyn Banks

[Reader]

Robyn Banks:


I expect you to be able to argue from the Bible,


I have already presented Scripture to you as my basis for argument, but you simply tossed it aside.



I am asking you to defend your fanciful claim that Gen 3.15 must refer to Jesus.

Robyn Banks

I will do so, but more than likely, it will be a futile exercise, for you will discount the Word of God as already demonstrated.

I post for the sake of other readers:

The "Seed" referred to in Genesis 3:15 refers to the promised Messiah; the Christ of God, who would crush the "head" of the devil. That is the first Gospel message recorded in the Bible.

God cursed Satan and promised Eve:

"I will put enmity between you (Satan) and the woman (Eve), and between your seed and her Seed; He (Messiah) shall bruise your (Satan's) head, and you shall bruise His heel."

Letting Scripture interpret Scripture, we know that the serpent was indeed Satan:

". . That serpent of old, called the Devil and Satan, who deceives the whole world. . ." Revelation 12:9a

Satan will suffer fatal wounds by the hand of the "Seed," who Scripture says is Lord Himself:

"He deceives those who dwell on the earth by those signs which he was granted to do in the sight of the beast, telling those who dwell on the earth to make an image to the beast who was wounded by the sword and lived." Rev. 13:14

"By His Spirit He adorned the heavens; His hand pierced the fleeing serpent." Job 26:13

"In that day the Lord with His severe sword great and strong, will punish Leviathan the fleeing serpent, Leviathan that twisted serpent; and He will slay the reptile that is in the sea." Isaiah 27:1

"Awake, awake, put on strength, O arm of the Lord! Awake as in the ancient days, in the generations of old. Are You not the arm that cut Rahab apart, and wounded the serpent?" Isaiah 51:9

"You went forth for the salvation of Your people. For salvation with Your Anointed. You struck the head from the house of the wicked, by laying bare from the foundation to neck. Selah." Habakkuk 3:13

"Inasmuch then as the children have partaken of flesh and blood, He Himself likewise shared in the same, that through death He might destroy him who had the power of death, that is, the devil." Hebrews 2:14

"And the God of peace will crush Satan under your feet shortly . . ." Romans 16:20a

This promised "Seed," who would crush Satan, is therefore, Divine. The Divine Seed is the promised Messiah, who was promised to Eve, "the mother of all living." The Seed would produce "all living," compared to the dead offspring of Adam enslaved to sin, death, and the devil.

It is through this Seed that God's Covenant promises are made to ~His~ offspring. The Covenantal "seed" are men made alive through faith in God and His promises. Eve understood that her seed would produce the "Seed" promised to her by God, for Scripture reveals her expectations when giving birth to her first male children:

"And Adam knew his wife again, and she bore him a son and named him Seth. 'For God has appointed another seed for me instead of Abel, whom Cain killed.'" Genesis 4:25

Throughout the Scriptures we are given evidence of the two seeds. The offspring of those enslaved to the devil, at enmity with the lineage of the promised "Seed" produced by the woman. These offspring were children of God, saved by grace through the gift of faith from God. Covenantal children, who alone received the Gospel promises of the ultimate "Seed," Jesus Christ.

The promise of faithful seed was made to Abraham under Covenant:

"As for Me, behold, I establish My covenant with you and with your seed forever." Genesis 9:9

". . Sarah, your wife whall bear you a son, and you shall call his name Isaac; I will establish My covenant with him for an everlasting covenant, and with his seed after him." Genesis 17:19

The Covenant promises were passed to Isaac:

"Dwell in this land and I will be with you and bless you; for to you and your seed I give all these lands, and I will perform the oath which I swore to Abraham your father. And I will make your descendants multiply as the stars of heaven; I will give to yhour descendants all these lands; and in your seed all the nations of the earth shall be blessed." Genesis 26:3&4

And repeated to Jacob:

". . And in you and in your seed all the families of the earth shall be blessed." Genesis 28:14b

God verified this Covenant made to Abraham and his seed with Moses:

". . I am the God of your father . . the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob." Exodus 3:6

The Scriptures recorded by Paul, explain who the Covenant "seed" are:

"For the promise that he would be the heir of the world was not to Abraham or to his seed throught the law, but through the righteousness of faith . . .therefore it is of faith that it might be according to grace, so that the promise might be sure to all the seed, not only to those who are of the law, but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all (as it is written, 'I have made you a father of many nations') in the presence of Him whom he believed . . God, who gives life to the dead. . " Romans 4:13, 16, 17

This same Covenant to the faithful seed, was made by God to David:

"I have made a covenant with My chosen, I have sworn to My servant David; 'Your seed I will establish forever, and build up your throne to all generations.'" Psalm 89:3

Fulfilled by God at the conception of the promised "Seed" given to Mary:

"And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bring forth a Son, and shall call His name Jesus. He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Highest; and the Lord God will give Him the throne of His father, David. And He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of His kingdom there will be no end.'" Luke 1:31-33

"His (David's) seed shall endure forever and His throne as the sun before Me." Psalm 89:36

"Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise Him; He has put Him to grief. When You make His soul an offering for sin, He shall see His seed, He shall prolong His days, and the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in His hand. He shall see the labor of His soul, and be satisfied. By His knowledge My righteous Servant shall justify many, for He shall bear their iniquities." Isaiah 53:10&11

"Inasmuch as the children have partaken of flesh and blood, He Himself likewise shared in the same, that through death He might destroy him who had the power of death, that is, the devil." Hebrews 2:14

"'O Death, where is your sting? O Hades, where is your victory?' The sting of death is sin, and the strength of sin is the law. But thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ." I Corinthians 15:55-57

Through the "Seed," Jesus Christ, the faithful receive all the Covenant promises:

"You are sons of the prophets, and of the covenant which God made wiht our fathers, saying to Abraham, 'And in your seed all the families of the earth shall be blessed.' To you first, God, having raised up His Servant Jesus, sent Him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from your iniquities." Acts 3:25&26

And lest anyone surmise that all these promises have to do with nationality only, the Scriptures clearly make distinction as to whom the Seed and His offspring are:

". . For they are not all 'Israel' who are of Israel, nor are they all children because they are the seed of Abraham; but, 'In Isaac your seed shall be called.' That is, those who are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God; but the children of the promise are counted as the seed." Romans 9:6b-8

"Now to Abraham and his Seed were the promises made. He does not say, 'And to seeds,' as of many, but as of one, 'And to your Seed,' who is Christ." Galatians 3:16

"And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise." Galatians 3:29

"Having been born again, not of corruptible seed, but incorruptible, through the Word of God which lives and abides forever." I Peter 1:23

"Whoever has been born of God does not sin, for His seed remains in him; and he cannot sin, because he has been born of God." I John 3:9

"Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are children of promise. But, as he who was born according to the flesh then persecuted him who was born according to the Spirit, even so it is now." Galatians 4:28&29

"And the dragon was enraged with the woman, and he went to make war with the rest of her seed, who keep the commandments of God and have the testimony of Jesus Christ." Revelation 12:17

So your response to my post is not surprising to me. I testify that the Seed is Jesus Christ, and it angered you. You reveal whose offspring you are.

Repent and believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, or perish.

"Kiss the Son, lest He be angry, and you perish in the way, when His wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all those who put their trust in Him." Psalm 2:12

[themuzicman]

So, Robyn's position is that God says, "I love you SOOOO much, that I'm going to get someone else to die for you!"

Great. He'll give the shirt right off my back... :ahem:

[Non-Trinitarian]

I know many parents who would much rather give their own life than have their child die. For God to offer His only-begotten Son is a huge example of His love for us. Romans 5 is a perfect example of God showing His love by offering His Son, not Himself. In fact, that's what Romans 5 says, God offered his "Son".

[Robyn Banks]

Reader:
I have already presented Scripture to you as my basis for argument, but you simply tossed it aside.
To the contrary, I am only interested in what Scripture says.




Reader:
The "Seed" referred to in Genesis 3:15 refers to the promised Messiah; the Christ of God, who would crush the "head" of the devil. That is the first Gospel message recorded in the Bible.

God cursed Satan and promised Eve:

"I will put enmity between you (Satan) and the woman (Eve), and between your seed and her Seed; He (Messiah) shall bruise your (Satan's) head, and you shall bruise His heel."
Any analysis of this text (before you rush to the Book of Revelations reinterpretation of the serpent as Satan)? As much as I read it, I fail to see any reference to either Satan or to Jesus. But, I agree that, using the highly figurative hermeneutic found in the New Testament it is possible to interpret Genesis 3.15 as applying to Jesus and Satan. Or even to Saddam and George W Bush, for that matter.



Reader:
Letting Scripture interpret Scripture...
Right! Only by utilising the figurative, non-literal reinterpretation of the Old Testament, as found in the New Testament, can we even come close to finding Jesus in an Old Testament text.




Reader:
"By His Spirit He adorned the heavens; His hand pierced the fleeing serpent." Job 26:13
Presumably you don't consider that the Son of Man in Job applies to Jesus?Job 25.6:
"...how much less man, who is but a maggot - the son of man, who is only a worm!"To read the Old Testament for what it says, you must read within context. If you use New Testament methods of reading things into the text, that is all very well. But you cannot both assert that the Old Testament in context refers to Jesus, and use a hermeneutic which is highly non-literal. It is an either-or.




Reader:
"In that day the Lord with His severe sword great and strong, will punish Leviathan the fleeing serpent, Leviathan that twisted serpent; and He will slay the reptile that is in the sea." Isaiah 27:1

"Awake, awake, put on strength, O arm of the Lord! Awake as in the ancient days, in the generations of old. Are You not the arm that cut Rahab apart, and wounded the serpent?" Isaiah 51:9

"You went forth for the salvation of Your people. For salvation with Your Anointed. You struck the head from the house of the wicked, by laying bare from the foundation to neck. Selah." Habakkuk 3:13

"Inasmuch then as the children have partaken of flesh and blood, He Himself likewise shared in the same, that through death He might destroy him who had the power of death, that is, the devil." Hebrews 2:14

"And the God of peace will crush Satan under your feet shortly . . ." Romans 16:20a
Nice list. Relevance?




Reader:
The Divine Seed is the promised Messiah,
According to the New Testament, yes.




Reader:
who was promised to Eve, "the mother of all living."
According to the New Testament, yes.




Reader:
Throughout the Scriptures we are given evidence of the two seeds.
The Old Testament is part of "scripture". It speaks nothing about Jesus.




Reader:
The promise of faithful seed was made to Abraham under Covenant:

"As for Me, behold, I establish My covenant with you and with your seed forever." Genesis 9:9
Abraham ("the father of many nations") is promised many descendents ("seed"). The New Testament interpretation is not a reading of the text. It is a non-literal reinterpretation.




Reader:
The Scriptures recorded by Paul, explain who the Covenant "seed" are
Paul is honest enough to admit he is using non-literal figurative "allegory" (as he calls it). Do you admit this? Do you realise this? Do you acknowledge this fact?




Reader:
And lest anyone surmise that all these promises have to do with nationality only, the Scriptures clearly make distinction as to whom the Seed and His offspring are:

". . For they are not all 'Israel' who are of Israel, nor are they all children because they are the seed of Abraham; but, 'In Isaac your seed shall be called.' That is, those who are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God; but the children of the promise are counted as the seed." Romans 9:6b-8
So you admit that the "seed" is (plural) the spiritual descendents of Abraham, and not the (singular) Christ?





Reader:
So your response to my post is not surprising to me.
My response is: admit that Paul uses allegory when he says so. Read the Bible as it is intended to be understood.





Reader:
I testify that the Seed is Jesus Christ, and it angered you.
"Anger" is your projection. I calmly admit that the New Testament claims Jesus Christ is the "seed" (using figurative, non-literal, tropes, including allegory).





Reader:
You reveal whose offspring you are.
Fallacy of Ad Hominem.




Reader:
Repent and believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, or perish.
Fallacy of Non Sequitur.


Hope that helps.

Robyn Banks

[Reader]

Robyn Banks:


The Old Testament is part of "scripture". It speaks nothing about Jesus.

I have already presented to you the words of Jesus regarding the O.T. Scriptures, where Jesus plainly declared that all of Moses, the Psalms, and the Prophets were "concerning Me."

Read Luke 24:44.

Then there is the very clear teaching of Paul from the O.T. about Jesus Christ:

"Now when they had fulfilled all that was written concerning Him, they took Him down from the tree and laid Him in a tomb. But God raised Him from the dead. He was seen for many days by those who came up with Him from Galilee to Jerusalem, who are His witnesses to the people.

And we declare to you glad tidings . . that promise which was made to the fathers. God has fulfilled this for us their children, in that He raised up Jesus. As it is also written in the second Psalm:

'You are My Son, today I have begotten You.' [Psalm 2:7]

And that He raised Him from the dead, no more to return to corruption, He has spoken thus:

'I will give You the sure mercies of David.' [Isaiah 55:3]

Therefore, He also says in another Psalm:

'You will not allow Your Holy One to see corruption.' [Psalm 16:10]

. . .Therefore let it be known to you, brethren, that through this Man is preached to you the forgiveness of sins; and by Him everyone who believes is justified from all things from which you could not be justified by the law of Moses.

Beware, therefore, lest what has been spoken in the prophets come upon you: 'Behold, you despisers, marvel and perish! For I work a work in your days, a work which you will by no means believe, though one were to declare it to you.' [Habakkuk 1:5]" Acts 13:29-35, 38-41





Abraham ("the father of many nations") is promised many descendents ("seed"). The New Testament interpretation is not a reading of the text. It is a non-literal reinterpretation.

Apparently you are still blinded to the things of God. I gave you ample Scripture that explains that the Seed is singular. The Seed is Jesus Christ. All believers are the spiritual and faithful offspring of that Seed.


Not all offspring of Abraham are of the Seed "Israel." (Romans 9:6)

Abraham had two sons; which symbolized two covenants. Ishmael was born to a bondwoman, and his descendents live under the covenant of Sinai (Law). Isaac was born to a freewoman, and typifies the faithful (Spiritual) descendents of Abraham; the sons of God that are born of the Seed of Abraham, Jesus Christ, by the grace of God.

Read Galatians 4:21-31.



Paul is honest enough to admit he is using non-literal figurative "allegory" (as he calls it). Do you admit this? Do you realise this? Do you acknowledge this fact?

I am not a strict literalist. I am able to see the truths of God contained in allegory and symbology by comparing Scripture with all of Scripture.

The word "Seed" used in reference to the Christ denotes the human lineage of the promised Messiah. Of course the Lord Jesus Christ is not a literal "seed" any more than He is a literal "lamb." But that is beside the point.

The point is, a human being was promised by God to come from Eve, that would destroy Satan. The genealogies of Jesus Christ trace carefully back through David, Abraham, to Eve; thereby fulfilling all prophecy and promise of the Savior provided by God to mankind. Moreover, this same Son of Man is also named the Son of God; thus, we know Jesus Christ was fully a Man and fully God.

You can persistently deny this, but you cannot make it go away. It is the subject and core message of the entire Bible. You say you are ~only~ interested in Scripture, but I suspect only to deny them or denigrate their purpose.


So you admit that the "seed" is (plural) the spiritual descendents of Abraham, and not the (singular) Christ?

Most certainly not. There would be NO "spiritual descendents" from Abraham, apart from Abraham being chosen and found in Christ Jesus by faith. You unfortunately make unfounded distinction between O.T. and N.T. teaching which is incorrect.

Abraham was saved under Covenant promise exactly the same way any N.T. believer is saved under Covenant promise. By the grace of God through the gift of faith.

There is only one Gospel. Salvation comes to all men (whether O.T. saints or N.T. saints) only by the grace and workings of God. (Ephesians 2:8&9)

The Scripture clearly teaches that the "Seed" (singular) refers to Jesus Christ and all the souls He represents in His Being. (Eph. 1:3-6) This "Seed" is the last Adam, and all His Covenant children; where "seeds" in the plural speak of the offspring of the first Adam, which is the rest of ungodly mankind.


I calmly admit that the New Testament claims Jesus Christ is the "seed" (using figurative, non-literal, tropes, including allegory).

Well, I can see you are consistent only in your denials.

[Uriyah]

Rom. 5:6 For while we were still helpless, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly. 5:7 (For rarely will anyone die for a righteous person, though for a good person perhaps someone might possibly dare to die.) 5:8 But God demonstrates his own love for us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.(NET Bible)

Now, here is my question for anyone here who does not believe in the Deity of Christ, yet, holds that the Bible is inerrant Word of God. What is the force of Paul's argument?

I mean, if Christ is a created being, then how is God demonstrating His OWN love in Christ dying for us?

I don't believe the Bible is inerrant, but I will provide an answer.

Acts 5:31 God exalted him at his right hand as Leader and savior that he might give repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins.

Acts 13:23 Of this man’s posterity God has brought to Israel a savior, Yehoshua, as he promised;

1st John 4:14 And we have seen and do testify that the Father has sent his Son as the savior of the world.

John 3:16-17 ‘For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him may not perish but may have eternal life. ‘Indeed, God did not send the Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.

God loved us enough to send his Representation (Yehoshua Ha'Moshiach ben David) to be a savior, God made Yehoshua to be a savior, and thus God is the true Savior while Yehoshua is a savior like Yehoahaz except for the fact that the whole world is saved through Yehoshua.

This is how God demonstrated his own love for his creation.

[Robyn Banks]

Reader:
I have already presented to you the words of Jesus regarding the O.T. Scriptures, where Jesus plainly declared that all of Moses, the Psalms, and the Prophets were "concerning Me."
The Old Testament scriptures are all "concerning Jesus" - but only by applying the New Testament hermeneutic which interprets the Old Testament in a highly non-literal, figurative manner.

Understand that, and your eyes will be opened.

Robyn Banks

[Reader]

Robyn Banks:

The Old Testament scriptures are all "concerning Jesus"



Robyn Banks:
The Old Testament is part of "scripture". It speaks nothing about Jesus.


Would you like to make up your mind on this?

Does the entire Bible teach about Jesus Christ, or not?

[Ron Macy]

Robyn and Reader,

I find myself in a difficult spot in reading this thread.

Robyn, I agree with you when you assert the the deity of Jesus is not taught in Romans 5.

You wrote,



God sent Jesus to fulfill his plan of righteousness. This was the demonstration of his love. If God had chosen not to send Jesus, we would have been without this demonstration of his love.


I would compare Romans 5:8 with John 3:16.
16 "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.

I think it supports your thought fairly well.


Reader, I agree with you when you assert the “gospel” of Jesus (more accurately, the Messiah) is taught in the Old Testament.

Robyn, maybe what you were saying is Jesus is not specifically named in the OT as the focus of the prophecies. That much is true. What is also true is the OT is full of teaching about the ministry and responsibility of the Messiah. Specifics about the Messiah are taught; specifically naming Jesus is not. Luke supports the idea of the OT teaching about Jesus in the words he writes in Luke 24:27.

I think of Genesis 15:6 where it is said of Abraham, “he believed in the LORD; and He reckoned it to him as righteousness.” This is the essence of the gospel message. Believe in God and God will make you righteous. Certainly, God had Jesus in mind as the method or means for applying righteousness to believers. I picture it as Abraham looking forward in faith to the “lamb” God would provide and our looking backward in faith to the “lamb” God provided.

Reader, I try to be cautious in telling someone else they are “incorrect” in what they believe. There may be a 1000 interpretations of a scripture. Only one can be right, but they can all be wrong. It is possible one might be right. That would leave 999 as wrong. I may “disagree” with another’s interpretation, but I must recognize my interpretation may be wrong.

Ron

[Reader]

Ron Macy:

Reader, I try to be cautious in telling someone else they are “incorrect” in what they believe. There may be a 1000 interpretations of a scripture. Only one can be right, but they can all be wrong. It is possible one might be right. That would leave 999 as wrong. I may “disagree” with another’s interpretation, but I must recognize my interpretation may be wrong.

Ron

Hokay!

When I agree with someone they are right, then we will have to test ~two~ out of a thousand whether we are right or not, right? And we will do so according to God's Word, which alone is right, right?

Seems that may be a little unpleasant for some, because telling the other 999 people who are wrong, they are wrong, does not gain me or my other singular "correct" friend, popularity or "pearls."

The odds are greater that I will be more successful in revealing to a majority that they are incorrect, than actually discovering and meeting up with the tiny majority who are correct (whom I desire to find), according to God's Word.

But, hey, that will not stop me from looking.

LOL :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[Robyn Banks]

Robyn Banks:
The Old Testament scriptures are all "concerning Jesus"...

Robyn Banks:
The Old Testament is part of "scripture". It speaks nothing about Jesus.



Reader:
Would you like to make up your mind on this?
I already have made up my mind.

Why do you feel it is necessary to misquote me, by chopping off half of my sentence? Can't you deal honestly with what I wrote, or do you simply fail to understand my meaning?

This is what I in fact wrote:The Old Testament scriptures are all "concerning Jesus" - but only by applying the New Testament hermeneutic which interprets the Old Testament in a highly non-literal, figurative manner.Although you may not be able to understand this, let me repeat it. The Old Testament does not, according to a contextual, literal reading, speak anything about Jesus. By this I don't merely mean the obvious fact that his name is not used in respect of Jesus of Nazareth. I mean that the Old Testament does not refer to Jesus of Nazareth at all.

Yet, the New Testament writers employed a method of interpretation which interpreted the Old Testament in a highly non-literal, figurative manner. And by using such a non-literal, non-contextual, figurative hermeneutic, they read Jesus into the text most everywhere in the Old Testament.

Understand that, and your eyes will be opened.





Reader:
Does the entire Bible teach about Jesus Christ, or not?
The entire New Testament is based on the salvific act of Jesus Christ.

The Old Testament, in context, using a literal hermeneutic, teaches nothing about Jesus Christ.

Hope that helps.

Robyn Banks

[Glenn P]

Robyn, I feel your frustration on this thread!

I want to ask another question though - if Christianity is true, and if the New Testament reveals the God of the Old Testament, and if the Old and New Testament have an essential unity in rveealing one seamless salvation history, then it is not entirely fair to talk about Christians imposing a New Testament hermeneutic onto the Old.

Paul is attempting to lay out the one salvation history. When he talks about the promises made to Abraham beinf fulfiled finally through Christ, he does so from the belief that Christ is the promised messiah.

I would also question your frequent reference to a highly "non literal" hermeneutic. Take for example Genesis 22:18 - "through your offspring all nations on earth will be blessed, because you have obeyed me." Now, do Christians say ths is fulfilled in christ literally or non-literally? Literally, of course, since Christ is a descendant of Abraham. You might say that during the Old Testament era itself, people would/could not have understood this promise to refer to the man Jesus Christ. And you are right. But that doesn;t make the interpretation offered by Paul non-literal. It is literal, it just claims the benefit of more knowledge than Abraham had at the time. Now I'm not saying there is NOTHING non-literal in the OT about Christ. but it has to be stressed that IF the whole Bible is really one unfolding salvation history, then there is certainly no problem in seeing later authors say things about earlier revelation that people living in those earlier times would not have known.

Theonomy

[Robyn Banks]

Theonomy:
Robyn, I feel your frustration on this thread!

I want to ask another question though - if Christianity is true, and if the New Testament reveals the God of the Old Testament, and if the Old and New Testament have an essential unity in rveealing one seamless salvation history, then it is not entirely fair to talk about Christians imposing a New Testament hermeneutic onto the Old.
:smile: What was the question?

Why don't you consider it 'fair' to state that New Testament writers used a non-literal hermeneutic in interpreting the Old Testament? When Paul describes his hermeneutic he uses the word 'allegory'. Was Paul not 'fair' in calling his own hermeneutic 'allegory'?

The 'unity' of the salvation history only 'exists' when you appreciate the New Testament non-literal hermeneutic. It does not exist utilising a literal hermeneutic.




Theonomy:
Paul is attempting to lay out the one salvation history. When he talks about the promises made to Abraham beinf fulfiled finally through Christ, he does so from the belief that Christ is the promised messiah.
And when Paul talks about Abraham in Galatians he admits to using allegory. And when Paul talks about Abraham in Romans 4 he uproots the literal interpretation of the Abraham story in Genesis from its Jewish roots.




Theonomy:
I would also question your frequent reference to a highly "non literal" hermeneutic. Take for example Genesis 22:18 - "through your offspring all nations on earth will be blessed, because you have obeyed me." Now, do Christians say ths is fulfilled in christ literally or non-literally?
The New Testament Christians interpreted Genesis non-literally.

You are being equivocal about the word 'literal' here, which has led you to this confusion. I am not using your sense of the word 'literal'. The difference between the two words is the difference between the contextual, intended (my 'literal') meaning in Genesis as referring to the children of Israel, and the non-contextual and non-intended meaning of reading Jesus into the text as one such 'descendent'. Like any other Jew, Jesus of Nazarath was (your 'literally') a 'seed' of Abraham. But that is not the meaning I was intending by using 'literal'.

If you have doubts about Paul's non-contextual interpretations of the Old Testament contrary to intended meaning, then consider this. In Gal 3.16, Paul argued that the "seed" of Gen 12.7, 13.15 & 24.7 is Christ, not the people of Israel. Paul argues speciously that the “seed” is singular, so cannot refer to many people (i.e. physical Israel). In Hebrew, as in Greek and English, seed can be either plural or singular, and in the context of the promise to Abraham is clearly plural. Yet in Gal 3.16, Paul argues as though 'seed' can only be singular! Not only that, but in Rom 9.6-8 Paul argues completely oppositely: that the Seed of Gen 21.12 means the spiritual descendants of Abraham through Isaac (plural!!): “For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel. Nor because they are his descendants are they all Abraham's children. On the contrary, "It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned." In other words, it is not the natural children who are God's children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham's offspring.”




Theonomy:
You might say that during the Old Testament era itself, people would/could not have understood this promise to refer to the man Jesus Christ. And you are right. But that doesn;t make the interpretation offered by Paul non-literal.
It does make the interpretation offered by Paul 'non-literal' in the sense I mean it. The literal meaning is "the 'verbal meaning' of a work - ie the meaning which "someone has willed to convey by a particular sequence of linguistic signs and which can be conveyed (shared) by means of those linguistic signs" (ED Hirsch "Validity in Interpretation" 1967).

Genesis (literally) means descendents generally. Genesis does not (literally) mean Jesus of Nazareth.





Theonomy:
IF the whole Bible is really one unfolding salvation history, then there is certainly no problem in seeing later authors say things about earlier revelation that people living in those earlier times would not have known.
The New Testament achieves an understanding of a single history of salvation through use of a non-literal hermeneutic.

Robyn Banks

[Glenn P]

Yesterday @ 11:37 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=342962#post342962)
Robyn Banks:

Why don't you consider it 'fair' to state that New Testament writers used a non-literal hermeneutic in interpreting the Old Testament? When Paul describes his hermeneutic he uses the word 'allegory'. Was Paul not 'fair' in calling his own hermeneutic 'allegory'?

He does not call his reference to Abraham's seed an allegory at all. He calls his figurative use of Sarah and Hagar an allegory, which it clearly is. But nobody has disputed this, we're talking about his reference Abraham and his seed. And my reference to fairness had to do witht he unity of Scripture. If the Bible presents one unified salvation history (i.e. if Christianity is true), then we can't talk fairly about a "New Testament" non-literal understanding bein imposd upon the "Old Testament,' as though it is a case of one religion mishandling the texts of another religion.


The 'unity' of the salvation history only 'exists' when you appreciate the New Testament non-literal hermeneutic. It does not exist utilising a literal hermeneutic.
That's incorrect. Your use on "literal" and "non-literal" is unusual.


And when Paul talks about Abraham in Galatians he admits to using allegory.
Can you quote where he makes that admission?


And when Paul talks about Abraham in Romans 4 he uproots the literal interpretation of the Abraham story in Genesis from its Jewish roots.
Well that makes some troubling assumptions. Firstly, it assumes that the OT belongs to non-christian Jewish history, when if Christianity is true, in fact it is Christian history.

I also find your talkof "Jewish roots" somewhat naive (no rudeness intended). Jewish interpreters of Scripture take liberties far greater than what you are attributing to Paul. Ever heard of midrash, for example?


The New Testament Christians interpreted Genesis non-literally.
So you say. Yet there is nothing at all "non-literal" in claiming that God was looking ahead to Christ when he said that all nations would be blessed through the "seed" of Abaraham. Again, you're using a non-standard meaning of "literal." Once more, I grant that the Abraham may not have known that this was a personal reference to Christ, but that does not make it non-literal.


You are being equivocal about the word 'literal' here, which has led you to this confusion. I am not using your sense of the word 'literal'.

I know you are not. What I am saying is that the way you are using it is questionable.


If you have doubts about Paul's non-contextual interpretations of the Old Testament contrary to intended meaning, then consider this. In Gal 3.16, Paul argued that the "seed" of Gen 12.7, 13.15 & 24.7 is Christ, not the people of Israel. Paul argues speciously that the “seed” is singular, so cannot refer to many people (i.e. physical Israel). In Hebrew, as in Greek and English, seed can be either plural or singular, and in the context of the promise to Abraham is clearly plural.
Now I think you're begging the question. paul is arguing that there is something in this that prior generations were not able to see. You can't just assert that the meaning he assigns to it is false.


Yet in Gal 3.16, Paul argues as though 'seed' can only be singular! Not only that, but in Rom 9.6-8 Paul argues completely oppositely: that the Seed of Gen 21.12 means the spiritual descendants of Abraham through Isaac (plural!!): “For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel. Nor because they are his descendants are they all Abraham's children. On the contrary, "It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned." In other words, it is not the natural children who are God's children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham's offspring.”

That is too hasty on your part. Paul comes to a similar conclusion in Galatians itself. Galatians 3:29 reads, "And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to the promise." And this is the same book that says the seed is singular. Pauls point in Galatians is that Christ is the promised seed, and if you are "IN Christ," then you are reckoned as the seed and heirs with Christ. There is nothing inconsistent here.



The New Testament achieves an understanding of a single history of salvation through use of a non-literal hermeneutic.
So you say. I say nay.

[Robyn Banks]

Theonomy:
If the Bible presents one unified salvation history (i.e. if Christianity is true), then we can't talk fairly about a "New Testament" non-literal understanding bein imposd upon the "Old Testament,'
The hermeneutic was not an 'imposition' to the New Testament writers. A spiritual interpretation was quite probably considered to be a 'higher' or 'better' interpretation.





Theonomy:
Can you quote where he makes that admission?
"hatina estin allegoroumena"




Theonomy:
it assumes that the OT belongs to non-christian Jewish history, when if Christianity is true, in fact it is Christian history.
I assume only that the New Testament writers use a non-literal hermeneutic in applying the Old Testament to Jesus of Nazareth. This is not an adverse criticism. One must apply at least one hermeneutic when interpreting the Old Testament. Who is to say that the New Testament figurative approach is right or wrong, or that my 'intended meaning' approach is right or wrong? The New Testament writers applied the method of interpretation which they considered to be the better one to assert a continuity from the Old Testament to the New. This 'works' with their hermeneutic, but not with mine.




Theonomy:
I also find your talkof "Jewish roots" somewhat naive (no rudeness intended). Jewish interpreters of Scripture take liberties far greater than what you are attributing to Paul. Ever heard of midrash, for example?
By Jewish roots I was referring to the widespread Jewish interpretation of the promise to Abraham as upholding the Law, which is largely consistent with the original intended meaning of the passage. As I have considered a list of Jewish interpretations of the Promise, I doubt that I may be properly considered 'naive'.

Paul's method was also a Jewish interpretation, of course, but a radical departure.




Theonomy:
I grant that the Abraham may not have known that this was a personal reference to Christ, but that does not make it non-literal.
If it is terminology you are uncomfortable with, then I have no problem with using "authorially intended" and "non-authorially intended" meanings as one alternative.





Theonomy:
Now I think you're begging the question. paul is arguing that there is something in this that prior generations were not able to see. You can't just assert that the meaning he assigns to it is false.
Nowhere do I claim that what Paul asserts is false. Rather, I claim that he only gets there by applying a highly non-literal hermeneutic. There is nothing 'false' about this. It is only a question of choice of method.





Theonomy:
That is too hasty on your part. Paul comes to a similar conclusion in Galatians itself.
Correct! And what does this tell you about his 'argument' that 'seed' is necessarily singular? :smile:


Robyn Banks

[Glenn P]

Today @ 11:21 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=344395#post344395)
Robyn Banks:
"hatina estin allegoroumena"

Robyn, that was not honest. Tiresome though it be, let's recap our discussion. I argued that the reference to all nations being blessed through Abraham's seed was being used literally by paul, and not non literally or figuratively. You replied:


Why don't you consider it 'fair' to state that New Testament writers used a non-literal hermeneutic in interpreting the Old Testament? When Paul describes his hermeneutic he uses the word 'allegory'. Was Paul not 'fair' in calling his own hermeneutic 'allegory'?
You added:

And when Paul talks about Abraham in Galatians he admits to using allegory.
And I replied

He does not call his reference to Abraham's seed an allegory at all. He calls his figurative use of Sarah and Hagar an allegory, which it clearly is. But nobody has disputed this, we're talking about his reference Abraham and his seed.
See that? I said that he calls his use of Sarah and Hagar an allegory, and nobody disputes this. That's in Galatians 4:24. But i stated that he does not call his reference to Abraham's seed an allegory, and I maintained that it is literal, and not an allegory.

You repeated the claim:

And when Paul talks about Abraham in Galatians he admits to using allegory.
So I challenged you:

Can you quote where he makes that admission?

I think you knew what you were doing when you replied to that challenge, and it was craftly and dishonest. WITHOUT giving a reference, you quoted "hatina estin allegoroumena"

Now Robyn - You know that this quote is from Galatians 4:24, the allegory of Sarah and Hagar, the very one I acknowledged!

So I want to ask you again. Be honest and direct with me. in the context of my comments about Abraham's seed in Galatians you stated that Paul calls his reference to Abraham an "allegory." I ask one more time - can you quote where Paul makes this admission?


I assume only that the New Testament writers use a non-literal hermeneutic in applying the Old Testament to Jesus of Nazareth.
Well at least you admit that it is an assumption. But it is still before us in black and white that the issue I raised with you - the seed of Abraham does not employ a non-literal hermeneutic, but a literal one.


If it is terminology you are uncomfortable with, then I have no problem with using "authorially intended" and "non-authorially intended" meanings as one alternative.

Well, that's qualitatively different from "literal" and "non literal." Also to be noted is that if the call of Abraham and the promises to him are actual historical events, then the author of the words spoken to Abraham are authored by God. The hman author may not have known the full implication of them, but that's because he lived much earlier in salvation history than Paul.


Nowhere do I claim that what Paul asserts is false. Rather, I claim that he only gets there by applying a highly non-literal hermeneutic.
Well, not when it comes to the seed of Abraham he doesn't.


Correct! And what does this tell you about his 'argument' that 'seed' is necessarily singular?

It tells me that Paul argues that Christ is the seed (singular), and although we are not naturally the seed, if we are in Christ we will be recipients of the blessings. It certainly suggests nothing harmful to Paul's argument about the singularity of the seed, unless you think paul so manifestly contradicated a major piece of his theology in a very short space in the same letter?

[Robyn Banks]

Theonomy:
See that? I said that he calls his use of Sarah and Hagar an allegory, and nobody disputes this. That's in Galatians 4:24. But i stated that he does not call his reference to Abraham's seed an allegory, and I maintained that it is literal, and not an allegory.
But I never claimed that 'seed' is part of the allegory. I claim that Paul interprets the Old Testament figuratively and non-literally, according to a non authorially-intended meaning. Paul's use of allegory is but one example of this, and an example in which he explicitly admits his hermeneutic. For the most part the hermeneutic employed in the New Testament must be ascertained by the reader.




Theonomy:
I think you knew what you were doing when you replied to that challenge, and it was craftly and dishonest. WITHOUT giving a reference, you quoted "hatina estin allegoroumena"
There is no 'dishonesty'. You are simply yet to understand me.

You would do better to ask 'what do you mean' than to accuse me of 'dishonesty'. I am happy to clarify my answer.




Theonomy:
in the context of my comments about Abraham's seed in Galatians you stated that Paul calls his reference to Abraham an "allegory." I ask one more time - can you quote where Paul makes this admission?
Paul's use of Abraham's 'seed' is a 'spiritual' interpretation of the original text. This is consistent with his spiritual and allegorizing use of Abraham in the same text, but it is not in itself a part of the 'allegory' he refers to. You misunderstood my introduction of Paul's use of allegory - which was merely to show that Paul employed a hermeneutic that was not primarily interested in ascertaining original contextual authorial meaning. That this was also used of Abraham in the same chapter shows only Paul's hermeneutical proclivities.




Theonomy:
Well at least you admit that it is an assumption. But it is still before us in black and white that the issue I raised with you - the seed of Abraham does not employ a non-literal hermeneutic, but a literal one.
This is an equivocation of the word 'literal', which has already been explained. I am not using 'Literal' in the same sense as James Barr. This is an established usage of the word. See http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?action=showthread&postid=150253#post150253





Theonomy:
Well, that's qualitatively different from "literal" and "non literal."
Nope. It is a different sense of the word. See http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?action=showthread&postid=150253#post150253




Theonomy:
Also to be noted is that if the call of Abraham and the promises to him are actual historical events, then the author of the words spoken to Abraham are authored by God. The hman author may not have known the full implication of them, but that's because he lived much earlier in salvation history than Paul.
This device can be a two-edged sword. If the words can only be made to refer to a second event by using sensus plenior, it demonstrates that the New Testament writer is using a non-literal hermeneutic. This is clearly the case with Matthew's quotation of Hosea as Jesus going to Egypt. But less clearly the case with 'seed' in Genesis (it is only by reading consistently with the other promises to Abraham that we understand that the promise is being made of many descendents).





It certainly suggests nothing harmful to Paul's argument about the singularity of the seed, unless you think paul so manifestly contradicated a major piece of his theology in a very short space in the same letter?
Paul's theology is intact because he employs a non-literal hermeneutic. If he was arguing literally, he would be in trouble. But that is hardly his usual method.

Robyn Banks

[Reader]

Robyn Banks:


Paul's theology is intact because he employs a non-literal hermeneutic. If he was arguing literally, he would be in trouble. But that is hardly his usual method.

Robyn Banks

Paul was not the only Apostle to teach about the promised Christ in the N.T.

Luke records the lineage of the Christ child all the way back to Adam, which validates and fulfills God's Word and promise of the "Seed" who would bruise the head of Satan in Genesis 3:15.

I don't see how you can consider Jesus' historical genealogy to be some kind of "non-literal hemeneutics."

[Glenn P]

Robyn,

I consider that you are being slippery to avoid the possibility of rebutttal. I consider that this constitutes a waste of my time, so I will not engage this further with you. I have noted that Paul's discussion about Abraham and his seed is quite literal in nature. You get around this by using a very non-standard definition of "literal" in hermeneutics, and you waver to and fro on whether Paul's comments on Abraham are an allegory or not. You said they are and Pauls says so, then when asked for a quote, you quoted another passage, in greek, without saying hwere it came from - and it did not refer to Abraham at all.

All these tactics demonstrate to me that any investment of time in this thread is not worthwhile, since the simple act of communicating is being made more difficult than the content of that communication itself, and this is being done, I believe, knowingly. I bid this thread a firm farewell and will not respond further, since I believe I have said enough for the fair minded reader to grasp the truth of what I said.

[Robyn Banks]

Theonomy:
I consider that you are being slippery
Not at all. I have used my terms consistently since the beginning, which has always been evident by the context in which they were used, and I have even explicitly defined my terms more than once. You worship words, which is the reason for your inability to consider the straight concepts. You would do better to say "I do not understand" than wrongly state that I am not making sense.

That the meaning of "literal" I used is widely-known in Christian interpretation is clear from the Catechism of the Catholic Church (which applies to the majority of Christians). My use of the term "literal" was precisely the same as the use in the Catechism:115 According to an ancient tradition, one can distinguish between two senses of Scripture: the literal and the spiritual, the latter being subdivided into the allegorical, moral, and anagogical senses. The profound concordance of the four senses guarantees all its richness to the living reading of Scripture in the Church.
116 The literal sense is the meaning conveyed by the words of Scripture and discovered by exegesis, following the rules of sound interpretation: "All other senses of Sacred Scripture are based on the literal." (83 St. Thomas Aquinas, STh I, 1, 10, ad 1)
117 The spiritual sense. Thanks to the unity of God's plan, not only the text of Scripture but also the realities and events about which it speaks can be signs.
1. The allegorical sense. We can acquire a more profound understanding of events by recognizing their significance in Christ; thus the crossing of the Red Sea is a sign or type of Christ's victory and also of Christian Baptism. (84 Cf. 1 Cor 10:2))
2. The moral sense. The events reported in Scripture ought to lead us to act justly. As St. Paul says, they were written "for our instruction." (85 1 Cor 10:11; cf. Heb 3-4:1)
3. The anagogical sense (Greek: anagoge, "leading"). We can view realities and events in terms of their eternal significance, leading us toward our true homeland: thus the Church on earth is a sign of the heavenly Jerusalem. (86 Cf. Rev 21:1-22:5)
118 A medieval couplet summarizes the significance of the four senses:
The Letter speaks of deeds; Allegory to faith;
The Moral how to act; Anagogy our destiny. (87 Littera gesta docet, quid credas allegoria, moralis quid agas, quo tendas anagogia. Augustine of Dacia, Rotulus pugillaris, I: ed. A. Waltz: Angelicum 6 (1929) 256.)
Hope that helps.

Robyn Banks