Scripture interpretation

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Esaias

But without that verse I just see God telling Adam what He is to do, not necessarily making a covenant with him. Although I don't think there's a problem with saying Adam was in covenant with God in a general sense of having a special relationship with Him. Yet creating a theological system with epochs like "The Adamic Covenant" strikes me as pushing things a bit much and getting outside the Scripture's presentation of doctrine.

At the end of the day, does it make a difference?

Perfect answer. Nothing else to add.

[Amanah]

Originally Posted by Esaias

But without that verse I just see God telling Adam what He is to do, not necessarily making a covenant with him. Although I don't think there's a problem with saying Adam was in covenant with God in a general sense of having a special relationship with Him. Yet creating a theological system with epochs like "The Adamic Covenant" strikes me as pushing things a bit much and getting outside the Scripture's presentation of doctrine.

At the end of the day, does it make a difference?

I originally bought it up (covenant theology) as a counter to dispensationalism which I thought may have been the origination of Don's ideas of people being saved by their conscience. Now I don't think that is the case.

Instead, I think understanding the Torah and interpretation of scripture from an historic viewpoint, and in context makes more sense. You can't understand the new covenant apart from the old.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Amanah

I originally bought it up (covenant theology) as a counter to dispensationalism which I thought may have been the origination of Don's ideas of people being saved by their conscience. Now I don't think that is the case.

Actually I think his worldview has been informed by a general dispensationalist bent, which partly resulted in his conclusions.

But I think historically, dispensationalism (created in the late 1700s) was a later attempt to rework Covenant Theology, which as far as I can tell dates from around the 1500s-1600s. So there are some similarities between the two systems.

[donfriesen1]

There is a clear line, an event, that marks the transition between what are called dispensations. If there is a change in the way things are done because of the event, then what harm is there in seeing these events and changes as dispensations? Another word other than dispensation could be used but this doesn't change the fact that an event occurred resulting in a line of demarcation and a change in the way of doing things.
1. Age of Innocence
line making event: eating the forbidden fruit, resulting in the...
2. Age of Conscience
line making event: giving of 10 Commandments, resulting in the...
3. Age of Old Testament
line making event: the giving of the Holy Ghost, resulting in the...
4. Age of New Testament
line making event: the return of Jesus, resulting in the...
5. Age of Millenium
line making event: Satan released from Abyss, resulting in the...
6. Age of ???

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

There is a clear line, an event, that marks the transition between what are called dispensations. If there is a change in the way things are done because of the event, then what harm is there in seeing these events and changes as dispensations? Another word other than dispensation could be used but this doesn't change the fact that an event occurred resulting in a line of demarcation and a change in the way of doing things.
1. Age of Innocence
line making event: eating the forbidden fruit, resulting in the...
2. Age of Conscience
line making event: giving of 10 Commandments, resulting in the...
3. Age of Old Testament
line making event: the giving of the Holy Ghost, resulting in the...
4. Age of New Testament
line making event: the return of Jesus, resulting in the...
5. Age of Millenium
line making event: Satan released from Abyss, resulting in the...
6. Age of ???

Age of Make it Up as We Go Along.

[donfriesen1]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

6. Age of ???
Age of Make it Up as We Go Along.

Dom: Well, not 'making it up' but searching for a name for what appears to be reality. Don't you agree, Dom, that the end of the millenium isn't the end of everything? Rev20 talks about Satan being released from prison after the end of the millenium, and then cast into the lake of fire. This event has the appearance of a line of demarcation and the start of a time (age) after the millenial age. What should it be called?

[votivesoul]

Originally Posted by Amanah

I invite the Elders to please comment on or correct the following

One problem with Scripture interpretation is the framework through which you view the relationship between God and mankind.

Covenant Approach:
(Biblical approach)

- Focuses on specific covenants that God established with mankind, such as:
- Adamic (creation)
- Noahic (after the flood)
- Abrahamic (with Abraham and his descendants)
- Mosaic (the Law given at Sinai)
- Davidic (God's promise to David)
- New Covenant (established through Jesus Christ)
- Emphasizes the progressive revelation of God's redemptive plan through these covenants.
- Sees God's dealings with mankind as both conditional and unconditional, with an emphasis on His sovereign grace and faithfulness.
- Highlights the unity and continuity of God's plan across different covenants.

Dispensationalism
(Fairly recent development)

- Views God's relationship with mankind as a series of dispensations or periods, each with its own unique rules and expectations.
- Emphasizes a literal, futuristic interpretation of biblical prophecy.
- Typically divides history into 7-8 dispensations, such as innocence, conscience, human government, promise, law, grace, and kingdom.
- Sees God's dealings with mankind as primarily conditional, based on human response to divine revelation.

Key differences:

- The covenant approach focuses on specific covenants, Dispensationalism focuses on periods of time.
- The covenant approach highlights continuity and progression
Dispensationalism tends to emphasize discontinuity between different periods.
- The covenant approach emphasizes God's sovereignty and grace, Dispensationalism often stresses human responsibility.

I don't think any of these schemas are correct.

There isn't anything within the pages of Holy Writ which prescribes, let alone suggests, let alone merely hints at interpreting the Scriptures in the ways detailed above.

There is only one given method of Scriptural interpretation in the Bible:

John 16:13-15 (ESV),

13 When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth, for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come. 14 He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declare it to you. 15 All that the Father has is mine; therefore I said that he will take what is mine and declare it to you.

The question then becomes, how does the Spirit of Truth guide us into all truth?

To answer, we need to understand the following:

What does it mean for the apostles and prophets to be the foundation of the Church, with Christ Himself being the Cornerstone (Ephesians 2:21)?

More specifically how did the Apostles and Prophets in the beginning of the New Covenant era interpret Scripture?

Christ's Apostles and Prophets inherited His method of teaching. Christ's method of teaching the Scriptures came mostly in public parables, followed by a private lesson on what the parables meant. Jesus also taught openly, took on challenges, asked questions, answered questions, called out the religious elite for their hypocrisies, etc. Christ did all this as a Rabbi among the Judeans of His time.

This Rabbinical approach was not invented by Christ, but was common to the time, and Jesus followed suit. Jesus did not reinvent the wheel. The main difference between Christ and the other rabbis of that era was that Christ made His pronouncements without citing the oral traditions of previous rabbis. He proclaimed and stated His teachings upon His own authority, as given to Him by His Father. This was unique.

But otherwise, Christ embodied the long-standing prophetic tradition of the Holy Scriptures, and so did His Apostles and Prophets, namely, employing a balance of concepts called peshat and midrash.

The peshat and midrash are the most commonly and easily cited example of Biblical interpretation available to any readers of the Scriptures.

What is peshat? What is midrash?

Peshat is an attempt at understanding the Scriptures in their literal sense.

Midrash is an attempt at understanding the Scriptures in their figurative or metaphorical sense.

An example:

Genesis 1:1 (ESV),

In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.

The peshat of this text is that God literally caused the heavens (skies) and the earth (land) to come into being, just as they are, just as humanity has perceived them, time immemorial, even scientifically speaking.

Isaiah 66:1 (ESV)

1 Thus says the Lord:
“Heaven is my throne,
and the earth is my footstool;
what is the house that you would build for me,
and what is the place of my rest?

The midrash of Genesis 1:1, found here in the words of a prophet, are that in the beginning, God created His throne and His footstool, so that Genesis 1:1 doesn't just simply relate to the skies and planet under which and upon which we live, but also to the idea of the celestial temple of God, from where He reigns over all of His creation.

Another example:

Deuteronomy 25:4 (ESV),

4 “You shall not muzzle an ox when it is treading out the grain.

The peshat of the text is, whenever you own a beast of burden, like an ox, and you yoke that ox to a grinding mill, by law and command of Jehovah, you shouldn't place a muzzle over the animal's mouth in order to physically restrain the animal's ability to stoop down and take occasional bites of the grain and flour it is helping you to mill.

1 Corinthians 9:9 (ESV),

9 For it is written in the Law of Moses, “You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain.” Is it for oxen that God is concerned?

Here we see Paul's use of midrash as an interpretive schema. Whatever the literal meaning of Deuteronomy 25:4, Paul sought to look beyond and through the text in order to discover a figurative or metaphorical meaning, and he did: that itinerant prophets and teachers, when visiting a local congregation have the right to eat at the members' tables, free of charge, simply for the spiritual ministry they provide to the church while there.

Another example:

Hosea 11:1 (ESV),

When Israel was a child, I loved him,
and out of Egypt I called my son.

The peshat: a literal reference to the Exodus account, detailing the time when Israel was a fledgling nation called by God out of their bondage in Egypt.

Matthew 2:13-15 (ESV),

13 Now when they had departed, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream and said, “Rise, take the child and his mother, and flee to Egypt, and remain there until I tell you, for Herod is about to search for the child, to destroy him.” 14 And he rose and took the child and his mother by night and departed to Egypt 15 and remained there until the death of Herod. This was to fulfill what the Lord had spoken by the prophet, “Out of Egypt I called my son.”

The midrash is that Hosea 11:1, not just as a literal text harkening back to the Exodus, is also a future looking prophetic text of the Messiah's flight to Egypt to avoid being murdered by Herod, then coming back to Judea from Egypt when the threat was over.

As such, Christ Jesus, midrashically speaking, is a type of "Israel", that is, a son who stands in for the whole nation of Israel, just as Caiaphas ignorantly prophesied (John 11:49-50).

Both the Old and New Covenant Scriptures are replete with this kind of interpretive schema. It's the only one clearly given to us by God in His Word, and it has His seal of approval, from the Prophets of Old, to His Son, to the Apostles and Prophets His Son called to establish the Kingdom of Heaven on Earth.

[Amanah]

Thank you votivesoul!

This also includes types, shadows, and patterns.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

I don't think any of these schemas are correct.

There isn't anything within the pages of Holy Writ which prescribes, let alone suggests, let alone merely hints at interpreting the Scriptures in the ways detailed above.

There is only one given method of Scriptural interpretation in the Bible:

John 16:13-15 (ESV),



The question then becomes, how does the Spirit of Truth guide us into all truth?

To answer, we need to understand the following:

What does it mean for the apostles and prophets to be the foundation of the Church, with Christ Himself being the Cornerstone (Ephesians 2:21)?

More specifically how did the Apostles and Prophets in the beginning of the New Covenant era interpret Scripture?

Christ's Apostles and Prophets inherited His method of teaching. Christ's method of teaching the Scriptures came mostly in public parables, followed by a private lesson on what the parables meant. Jesus also taught openly, took on challenges, asked questions, answered questions, called out the religious elite for their hypocrisies, etc. Christ did all this as a Rabbi among the Judeans of His time.

This Rabbinical approach was not invented by Christ, but was common to the time, and Jesus followed suit. Jesus did not reinvent the wheel. The main difference between Christ and the other rabbis of that era was that Christ made His pronouncements without citing the oral traditions of previous rabbis. He proclaimed and stated His teachings upon His own authority, as given to Him by His Father. This was unique.

But otherwise, Christ embodied the long-standing prophetic tradition of the Holy Scriptures, and so did His Apostles and Prophets, namely, employing a balance of concepts called peshat and midrash.

The peshat and midrash are the most commonly and easily cited example of Biblical interpretation available to any readers of the Scriptures.

What is peshat? What is midrash?

Peshat is an attempt at understanding the Scriptures in their literal sense.

Midrash is an attempt at understanding the Scriptures in their figurative or metaphorical sense.

An example:

Genesis 1:1 (ESV),



The peshat of this text is that God literally caused the heavens (skies) and the earth (land) to come into being, just as they are, just as humanity has perceived them, time immemorial, even scientifically speaking.

Isaiah 66:1 (ESV)



The midrash of Genesis 1:1, found here in the words of a prophet, are that in the beginning, God created His throne and His footstool, so that Genesis 1:1 doesn't just simply relate to the skies and planet under which and upon which we live, but also to the idea of the celestial temple of God, from where He reigns over all of His creation.

Another example:

Deuteronomy 25:4 (ESV),



The peshat of the text is, whenever you own a beast of burden, like an ox, and you yoke that ox to a grinding mill, by law and command of Jehovah, you shouldn't place a muzzle over the animals mouth in order to physically restrain the animal's ability to stoop down and take occasion bites of the grain and flour it is helping you to mill.

1 Corinthians 9:9 (ESV),



Here we see Paul's use of midrash as an interpretive schema. Whatever the literal meaning of Deuteronomy 25:4, Paul sought to look beyond and through the text in order to discover a figurative or metaphorical meaning, and he did: that itinerant prophets and teachers, when visiting a local congregation have the right to eat at the members' tables, free of charge, simply for the spiritual ministry they provide to the church while there.

Another example:

Hosea 11:1 (ESV),



The peshat: a literal reference to the Exodus account, detailing the time when Israel was a fledgling nation called by God out of their bondage in Egypt.

Matthew 2:13-15 (ESV),



The midrash is that Hosea 11:1, not just as a literal text harkening back to the Exodus, is also a future looking prophetic text of the Messiah's flight to Egypt to avoid being murdered by Herod, then coming back to Judea from Egypt when the threat was over.

As such, Christ Jesus, midrashically speaking, is a type of "Israel", that is, a son who stands in for the whole nation of Israel, just as Caiaphas ignorantly prophesied (John 11:49-50).

Both the Old and New Covenant Scriptures are replete with this kind of interpretive schema. It's the only one clearly given to us by God in His Word, and it has His seal of approval, from the Prophets of Old, to His Son, to the Apostles and Prophets His Son called to establish the Kingdom of Heaven on Earth.

Literal and figurative (ie "finding the applicable principle") is one thing, peshat and midrash (especially midrash) can be quite another thing. Once people start looking at "rabbinical methods of interpretation", they are usually restricted to a very particular source of information as to "how that works". There's a ton of midrash that is so clearly far out in left field they are batting home runs to gehenna.

I am reminded of Augustine's work on Christian Education and Rhetoric, for aspiring teachers and preachers. In a nutshell, his point was "you don't need the laws of oratory, or to study oratory, to be an effective teacher or minister. Just study Christ, the apostles, and prophets, they had all the rhetorical skill - and lessons to be drawn from their examples - that any Christian educator could ever need, even though they had no formal education in the principles of classical oratory." Which by the way is one of the first lessons in oratory - learning by imitation, something everybody does in every field anyway.

[votivesoul]

Originally Posted by Amanah

Thank you votivesoul!

This also includes types, shadows, and patterns.

Absolutely, and symbols and allegories, and poetic utterances, etc.