Announcement

Collapse

Christianity 201 Guidelines

orthodox Christians only.

Discussion on matters of general mainstream evangelical Christian theology that do not fit within Theology 201. Have some spiritual gifts ceased today? Is the KJV the only viable translation for the church today? In what sense are the books of the bible inspired and what are those books? Church government? Modern day prophets and apostles?

This forum is primarily for Christians to discuss matters of Christian doctrine, and is not the area for debate between atheists (or those opposing orthodox Christianity) and Christians. Inquiring atheists (or sincere seekers/doubters/unorthodox) seeking only Christian participation and having demonstrated a manner that does not seek to undermine the orthodox Christian faith of others are also welcome, but must seek Moderator permission first. When defining “Christian” or "orthodox" for purposes of this section, we mean persons holding to the core essentials of the historic Christian faith such as the Trinity, the Creatorship of God, the virgin birth, the bodily resurrection of Christ, the atonement, the future bodily return of Christ, the future bodily resurrection of the just and the unjust, and the final judgment. Persons not holding to these core doctrines are welcome to participate in the Comparative Religions section without restriction, in Theology 201 as regards to the nature of God and salvation with limited restrictions, and in Christology for issues surrounding the person of Christ and the Trinity. Atheists are welcome to discuss and debate these issues in the Apologetics 301 forum without such restrictions.

Additionally and rarely, there may be some topics or lines of discussion that within the Moderator's discretion fall so outside the bounds of mainstream orthodox doctrine (in general Christian circles or in the TheologyWeb community) or that deny certain core values that are the Christian convictions of forum leadership that may be more appropriately placed within Unorthodox Theology 201. NO personal offense should be taken by such discretionary decision for none is intended. While inerrancy is NOT considered a requirement for posting in this section, a general respect for the Bible text and a respect for the inerrantist position of others is requested.

The Tweb rules apply here like they do everywhere at Tweb, if you haven't read them, now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

The Coherence of Scripture

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • The Coherence of Scripture

    So I read an article by Derek Rishmawy, Ph.D. student at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, on the coherence of Scripture (http://derekzrishmawy.com/2015/11/10...-of-scripture/) and thought it was really good. One thing though that stood out as problematic to me was his appeal to Jesus quoting scripture to Satan and His other opponents to correct their "scripture twisting". However, examples abound of the NT author's, and even Jesus Himself quoting OT verses out of context to make their point/case and could therefore likewise be accused of twisting Scripture. Since I haven't spent any time researching the NT's use of the OT, the only response I can muster at this point is: Well, He was God and they were Apostle's so they have the unique right and authority to properly piece together Scripture even if it may seem contextually erroneous to us.

    A little help?

  • #2
    This was considered common Jewish exegesis of this time. More details: http://christianthinktank.com/baduseot.html
    "I am not angered that the Moral Majority boys campaign against abortion. I am angry when the same men who say, "Save OUR children" bellow "Build more and bigger bombers." That's right! Blast the children in other nations into eternity, or limbless misery as they lay crippled from "OUR" bombers! This does not jell." - Leonard Ravenhill

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by KingsGambit View Post
      This was considered common Jewish exegesis of this time. More details: http://christianthinktank.com/baduseot.html
      Thanks, I briefly skimmed the article and it looks helpful. I won't be able to get around to reading it until later on, however, I have heard that it was "common exegesis" of the time - but that seems to be the problem - common Jewish exegesis seems to be the problem. Jewish exegesis was perhaps worse than proof-texting - it strikes me as having been one big free-for-all.

      Midrash sounds fancy but isn't it just:

      Person 1: Scripture says..
      Person 2: Ah, yes, but Scripture also says..
      Person 1: Yes, yes, but this Scripture says..
      Person 2: I see that Scripture, but look at this Scripture..
      Person 1: But this Scripture can be interpreted this way..
      Person 2: Indeed, but it can also be interpreted this way..

      We see the above pretty much summed up in Jesus' dialogue with Satan:

      Satan: For it is written: "'He will command his angels concerning you, and they will lift you up in their hands, so that you will not strike your foot against a stone.'"
      Jesus: It is also written: 'Do not put the Lord your God to the test.'

      Notice how Jesus didn't accuse Satan of twisting Scripture or even taking it out of context, He just essentially said: Well yeah, but here's another Scripture..

      I'll read the article when I get a chance and get back to you.
      Last edited by Scrawly; 11-27-2015, 01:01 AM.

      Comment


      • #4
        OK, I didn't read the article. (Aside from my limited time to invest) This is because my very brief skimming revealed that this really all boils down to a fundamental point which essentially seems to be something along the lines of:

        "Well, yes, the biblical authors played fast-and-loose with their sacred text, but hey, all their contemporaries were doing it too. The Jewish believers/Christian's didn't radically depart from the exegetical methods utilized by the melting pot of other Jewish groups, and were in fact more "conservative" and less "creative" than their contemporaries in their handling of the OT".

        This is all well and good, but it seems to bring us full circle to my original issue - that Jewish exegesis was worse than proof-texting and was seemingly one big free-for-all as long as the interpretive methods stayed within certain parameters that, of course, were part-and-parcel with the times. The Jewish believers naturally saw Christ in the OT, but non-believing Jews naturally didn't see Christ in the OT, and the exegetical methods employed at the time certainly weren't going to suffice to decide the issue one way or the other.

        In fact, without the work of the Holy Spirit, you simply won't "get it", yes?

        "Now He said to them, "These are My words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things which are written about Me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled." Then He opened their minds to understand the Scriptures" (Luke 24:44-45).

        Comment


        • #5
          OK, for those interested, here are some remarks by Peter Enns and Craig Keener on this issue:

          Enns: Calling it “distortions” is exactly the problem, Scrawly. It already privileges a type of modern/inerrantist rationality that is foreign the Bible. It’s best if readers of the Bible not come to it with how it should work, but what how the Bible behaves and accept it. The NT/OT issue is one place where this sort of posture is vital.

          In I&I, some of the passages I look at are: Luke 20:27-40 (Exodus 3:6); Matthew 2:15 (Hos 11:1); 2 Cor 6:2 (Isa 49:8); Rom 11:26-27 (Isa 59:20).

          Keener: Some scholars have accused Matthew of quoting Hosea 11:1 (“Out of Egypt have I called my son”) out of context; they often present this as the one of the most blatant cases of the New Testament writers misunderstanding context. They make this claim because Hosea is talking about God delivering Israel from Egypt, whereas Matthew applies the text to Jesus. But Matthew knows the verse quite well: instead of depending on the standard Greek translation of Hosea here, he even makes his own more correct translation from the Hebrew. If we read Matthew’s context, we see that this is not the only place where he compares Jesus with Israel: as Israel was tested in the wilderness for forty years, Jesus was tested there forty days (Matt 4:1-2). Matthew also knows Hosea’s context: as God once called Israel from Egypt (Hosea 11:1), he would bring about a new exodus and salvation for his people (Hosea 11:10-11). Jesus is the harbinger, the pioneer, of this new era of salvation for his people.

          In the same context, Matthew applies Jeremiah 31:15 (where Rachel weeps over Israel’s exile) to the slaughter of infants in Bethlehem (Matt 2:17-18), near which Rachel was buried (Gen 35:19). But Matthew knows Jeremiah’s context: after announcing Israel’s tragedy, God promises restoration (Jer 31:16-17) and a new covenant (Jer 31:31-34). Matthew compares this tragedy in Jesus’ childhood to one in Israel’s history because he expects his first, biblically knowledgeable readers to recognize that such tragedy formed the prelude to messianic salvation. Matthew also knows very well the context of Isaiah 7:14, which he quotes in Matthew 1:23 (see discussion in chapter 2, below); the context remains fresh in Matthew’s mind when he quotes Isaiah 9:1-2 in Matthew 4:15-16. Matthew is not ignoring context: he is comparing Jesus’ ministry with Israel’s history and the promises those very contexts evoke. He read the context better than his critics have!"

          Enns:(In response to the above) That is a fairly standard view you only really find among conservatives/evangelicals. And it is not entirely wrong. Matthew is certainly doing theology, where Jesus embodies Israel’s mission.

          But that has absolutely nothing to do with what Hosea is about. That is the point Keener and others miss. Matthew, as a Jewish exegete, is practicing midrash—a creative appropriation of antecedent Scripture for alien purposes. Yes, certainly, Matthew understands context, as Keener twice says, but he is not interpreting those passages driven by context.

          Comments?

          Comment


          • #6
            He's not interpreting Hosea. He's using Hosea to show a pattern, a truth. If someone quoted a passage about David and applied it to a particular church today, would you automatically say it was error?

            There wasn't anything wrong with Jesus's interpretations of the scriptures. If they seem wrong to you, it is only because you haven't thought about the Bible nearly as much as Jesus did.

            And there wasn't anything wrong with Satan's scripture interpretation in Matthew 4, either. It was just incomplete.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Obsidian View Post
              He's not interpreting Hosea. He's using Hosea to show a pattern, a truth. If someone quoted a passage about David and applied it to a particular church today, would you automatically say it was error?
              He's not interpreting Hosea? He's using Hosea to show a pattern, a truth? Matthew 2:15 states that the events which were happening were a fulfillment of Scripture: "This was to fulfill what the Lord had spoken by the prophet, “Out of Egypt I called my son.” Yet the prophet Hosea stated in 11:1: "When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son." Matthew is interpreting Hosea in a way that reading Hosea alone would never reveal - yet Matthew still refers to the events surrounding Jesus (not Israel) as a fulfillment of a particular Scripture that referred to Israel in its original context.

              There wasn't anything wrong with Jesus's interpretations of the scriptures.
              Enns cautioned we ought not bring modern assumptions to the text or else we will wrongly conclude that the Scriptures are in error through deliberate and obvious distortion.

              If they seem wrong to you, it is only because you haven't thought about the Bible nearly as much as Jesus did.
              Well I find midrash ("a creative appropriation of antecedent Scripture for alien purposes") to be rather freewheeling, how about you?

              And there wasn't anything wrong with Satan's scripture interpretation in Matthew 4, either. It was just incomplete.
              Then how come Jesus didn't finish it? Jesus just pointed to another Scripture (that was likewise presumably "incomplete").
              Last edited by Scrawly; 12-06-2015, 07:18 AM.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Scrawly
                Matthew 2:15 states that the events which were happening were a fulfillment of Scripture
                You have a very limited understanding of the word "fulfill," and a very limited understanding of scripture it seems.

                Comment

                Related Threads

                Collapse

                Topics Statistics Last Post
                Started by Thoughtful Monk, 03-15-2024, 06:19 PM
                35 responses
                166 views
                0 likes
                Last Post Cow Poke  
                Started by KingsGambit, 03-15-2024, 02:12 PM
                4 responses
                49 views
                0 likes
                Last Post Thoughtful Monk  
                Started by Chaotic Void, 03-08-2024, 07:36 AM
                10 responses
                119 views
                1 like
                Last Post mikewhitney  
                Started by Cow Poke, 02-29-2024, 07:55 AM
                14 responses
                71 views
                3 likes
                Last Post Cow Poke  
                Started by Cow Poke, 02-28-2024, 11:56 AM
                13 responses
                58 views
                0 likes
                Last Post Cow Poke  
                Working...
                X