Scripture interpretation

[votivesoul]

Originally Posted by Esaias

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.

Judaic peshat and midrash isn't Christian peshat and midrash. If there are equivalent or better English terms, that's fine. We can say literal and figurative, for example, but I don't think those terms quite capture the essence.

In any case, Jesus grew up and ministered under a certain 1st century Judean milieu, which included certain rabbinical approaches which he inherited and made use of, which He passed onto His Apostles and Prophets, who then made use of them.

So, call the schema something else if the Hebrew terms are unpalatable for whatever reason. Me using them isn't suggesting that the overuse and misuse and abuse over the centuries is suggesting that anyone look to "rabbinical methods of interpretation".

Rather, I am suggesting that one should look at Christ as a Rabbi and view His methods of interpretation from that light. Then look at the methods of interpretation used by the Apostles and Prophets, all of whom used the same methods. Then realize, if Christ used such methods, and His Apostles and Prophets used such methods, so should we.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

Rather, I am suggesting that one should look at Christ as a Rabbi and view His methods of interpretation from that light. Then look at the methods of interpretation used by the Apostles and Prophets, all of whom used the same methods. Then realize, if Christ used such methods, and His Apostles and Prophets used such methods, so should we.

So my question would be, what are those methods, and can they be identified without recourse to studying how Jewish rabbis taught? In other words, can they be discerned strictly from the Bible?

[votivesoul]

Originally Posted by Esaias

So my question would be, what are those methods, and can they be identified without recourse to studying how Jewish rabbis taught? In other words, can they be discerned strictly from the Bible?

Jesus was a Jewish rabbi. His methods were both Jewish and rabbinical. So was and were Paul/'s. The methods they used were standard methods of the time, albeit, and this is key, with the Spirit of Truth leading them to rightly divide the Word.

Whatever came later among the remnants of the Pharisaic school at Yavneh or beyond is immaterial. It's the same method, regardless of if the person or people using it are led by the Spirit of Truth. The method is just that, a method.

But what it does mean is that those who aren't being led by the Spirit of Truth will come to the wrong interpretation. Those who are being led by the Spirit of Truth will come to the correct interpretation.

And as far as whether or not the method being discerned strictly from the Bible, the answer is yes.

There are numerous passages of Scripture, especially but not just, in the Torah, that have a plain, apparently literal interpretation upon first reading.

But then, along comes a prophet, or later Jesus Himself, or one of His Apostles or Prophets, and using that same passage of Scripture, will give a novel reinterpretation of that passage in a completely new or different way, that isn't literal, but rather figurative or metaphorical.

Is there a verse of the Bible that then reads, "All instances in which you see this method employed is called peshat and midrash". Of course not, as you know, and I know you know.

But it's there. Call it something else if better terms can be found. Share your concerns about how far afield such a method can take a person when they aren't being led by the Spirit of Truth, or when they give greater credence to Judaic Rabbinism over and against Christ and His Apostles and Prophets.

All good, too. Fine with me. But the method, whatever it should be named, still stands as the way Jesus, the Twelve, and Paul interpreted the Scriptures which came before them, not to mention the Holy Prophets of Old, as well, who interpreted Moses the same way.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

Jesus was a Jewish rabbi. His methods were both Jewish and rabbinical. So was and were Paul/'s. The methods they used were standard methods of the time, albeit, and this is key, with the Spirit of Truth leading them to rightly divide the Word.

Whatever came later among the remnants of the Pharisaic school at Yavneh or beyond is immaterial. It's the same method, regardless of if the person or people using it are led by the Spirit of Truth. The method is just that, a method.

But what it does mean is that those who aren't being led by the Spirit of Truth will come to the wrong interpretation. Those who are being led by the Spirit of Truth will come to the correct interpretation.

And as far as whether or not the method being discerned strictly from the Bible, the answer is yes.

There are numerous passages of Scripture, especially but not just, in the Torah, that have a plain, apparently literal interpretation upon first reading.

But then, along comes a prophet, or later Jesus Himself, or one of His Apostles or Prophets, and using that same passage of Scripture, will give a novel reinterpretation of that passage in a completely new or different way, that isn't literal, but rather figurative or metaphorical.

Is there a verse of the Bible that then reads, "All instances in which you see this method employed is called peshat and midrash". Of course not, as you know, and I know you know.

But it's there. Call it something else if better terms can be found. Share your concerns about how far afield such a method can take a person when they aren't being led by the Spirit of Truth, or when they give greater credence to Judaic Rabbinism over and against Christ and His Apostles and Prophets.

All good, too. Fine with me. But the method, whatever it should be named, still stands as the way Jesus, the Twelve, and Paul interpreted the Scriptures which came before them, not to mention the Holy Prophets of Old, as well, who interpreted Moses the same way.

My concern is that if the Bible itself shows us how to interpret the Bible, and does not itself reference "first century Jewish rabbinical hermeneutics called midrash" etc, then why even bother with stating "Jesus was a 1st century rabbi and used 1st century rabbinical methods of biblical interpretation" with the implication that we should too? Will not the reader of such a statement then be led to ask "What is the 1st century rabbinical method of interpretation?" and where will they find that answer? Talmud? Gemara? Halachah? Dead Sea scrolls? Hillel? Shammai?

Instead, if we simply say "The Bible teaches us how to interpret the Bible, by following the examples of the prophets and apostles and of Jesus Himself", then the rabbit trails are more likely to be ignored, amen?

The idea that there is both a literal and a figurative interpretation/application of Scripture or prophecy is not exclusive to "1st century Jewish rabbinical hermeneutics", it's been a standard feature of practically all Christian hermeneutics, whether catholic, orthodox, Greek, Latin, Protestant, Reformed, Anabaptist, Pentecostal, Campbellite, etc. So I am not seeing the point of referencing "1st century Jewish hermeneutics", honestly.

The reason it attracts my attention is because I have seen too many people use that approach as a means of getting folks caught up in talmudic studies and interpretations, and imbibing the leaven of the Pharisees to an unhealthy extent. Not saying that is what you are doing, or trying to do, just explaining why it's an issue to me: because it's an issue for a lot of people these days, and is leading a lot of people down the wrong paths.

[Esaias]

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.

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 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),



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.

To be perfectly honest, I do not see how the offering of a "1st century Rabbinical hermeneutic called midrash and peshat" is in any significant way an alternative to Reformed "Covenant Theology" or non-Reformed "Dispensationalism". Those two are entire frameworks for understanding the overall purport of the Scripture, "peshat and midrash" are vague and rather ill-defined Jewish methods of interpreting and applying specific texts to specific situations. I am not seeing how the two "camps" represent alternative or opposed camps at all, it seems to me like apples and mushrooms (at least apples and oranges are both fruits).

So far all I can see about this "peshat and midrash" is that it refers to "literal meaning" and "figurative application", something both Reformed and Dispensationalist interpreters are well aware of and use quite frequently, as does pretty much everyone else.

So maybe I am being dense here but I am not really seeing "the point"?

[Esaias]

Furthermore, there is the claim that Jesus was a 1st century Jewish rabbi and therefore used a common 1st century Jewish rabbinical methodology in interpreting and applying Scripture.

But,

1. What is the 1st century Jewish rabbinical methodology? Simply saying peshat and midrash does not answer the question. What is the actual methodology of arriving at for example a midrashic interpretation or application of a Scripture? The claim assumes that there is a known ie documented 1st century Jewish rabbinic methodology or hermeneutic. Where is that documentation? And what is that hermeneutic?

2. The claim assumes that Jesus and the apostles used a standard methodology to arrive at their applications and interpretations. Did they? Or did they speak as they were moved by the Holy Ghost? When Paul asks about the oxen treading out the corn commandment, asking "Does God care for animals? Or is this for our benefit?" whereby he then draws an application to the then current situation regarding taking care of teachers, was this the result of a particular rabbinic method of interpretation? Or was it the leading of the Spirit to apply Scripture to the current situation? Or was it basic common sense? A combination of both?

When Matthew asserts that Hosea's "out of Egypt have I called my son" was fulfilled by Jesus returning from Egypt, was this a rabbinic methodology at work? Or was it the result of Matthew having learned that Messiah is the archetypal Israel, the personification of Israel, the type of which Israel was the shadow? Which he would have learned by the teaching of Jesus and the leading of the Spirit? Or even by a careful reading of Isaiah, or even from God's words to Pharaoh "Israel is my firstborn, let my son go" coupled with the understanding that Jesus is the literal only begotten son of God as well as the kingly "son of God" (ie heir to the throne of David and the Anointed One of God)?

The more I think about it, the more I think there is no 1st century standard Jewish rabbinic hermeneutical methodology shared by both Jesus and the other rabbis. The 1st century rabbinic methodology is on display in the New Testament, and seems to have been repeatedly rejected by Jesus and the apostles because it seems to have consistently led to error.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Furthermore, there is the claim that Jesus was a 1st century Jewish rabbi and therefore used a common 1st century Jewish rabbinical methodology in interpreting and applying Scripture.

But,

1. What is the 1st century Jewish rabbinical methodology? Simply saying peshat and midrash does not answer the question. What is the actual methodology of arriving at for example a midrashic interpretation or application of a Scripture? The claim assumes that there is a known ie documented 1st century Jewish rabbinic methodology or hermeneutic. Where is that documentation? And what is that hermeneutic?

2. The claim assumes that Jesus and the apostles used a standard methodology to arrive at their applications and interpretations. Did they? Or did they speak as they were moved by the Holy Ghost? When Paul asks about the oxen treading out the corn commandment, asking "Does God care for animals? Or is this for our benefit?" whereby he then draws an application to the then current situation regarding taking care of teachers, was this the result of a particular rabbinic method of interpretation? Or was it the leading of the Spirit to apply Scripture to the current situation? Or was it basic common sense? A combination of both?

When Matthew asserts that Hosea's "out of Egypt have I called my son" was fulfilled by Jesus returning from Egypt, was this a rabbinic methodology at work? Or was it the result of Matthew having learned that Messiah is the archetypal Israel, the personification of Israel, the type of which Israel was the shadow? Which he would have learned by the teaching of Jesus and the leading of the Spirit? Or even by a careful reading of Isaiah, or even from God's words to Pharaoh "Israel is my firstborn, let my son go" coupled with the understanding that Jesus is the literal only begotten son of God as well as the kingly "son of God" (ie heir to the throne of David and the Anointed One of God)?

The more I think about it, the more I think there is no 1st century standard Jewish rabbinic hermeneutical methodology shared by both Jesus and the other rabbis. The 1st century rabbinic methodology is on display in the New Testament, and seems to have been repeatedly rejected by Jesus and the apostles because it seems to have consistently led to error.

Sweet! 🥰

[Evang.Benincasa]

I love the both of you brothers!

Great information and discussions.

We know the way the first century Rabbinical interpreted scriptures. They literalize everything. Jesus’ apostles had this interpretation and Jesus always corrected them. The Rabbinical of the first century literally interpreted Tobit to Jesus. 7 men marry one woman, who will be her original husband in the resurrection? Jesus responds by shooting down their literal interpretation.
Rabbinical methodologies which we know of today are from medieval era of Rabbinical Judaism. Mostly we find that RamBam the codifier of the Talmud, is the Rabbi who everyone would try to emulate. Rabbinical Judaism isn’t really 1st Century A.D. but comes to its golden age during the Middle Ages. Eastern and Western Catholicism opposed Judaism interpretation of scripture. But Protestantism, borrowed from Rabbinical Judaism for its teachings. Pentecostalism swallowed Rabbinical Judaism hook, line, sinker, and ultimately the bobber. They shalom their way all the way to oblivion. Losing, the wholeness of what the scripture is trying to tell us. Rabbinical interpretation place them in the forefront of the Biblical story, instead of Christ. Hence, Pentecostals see Israel the final goal of God. Instead of Christ in Glory and victory as the ultimate goal.

[coksiw]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Furthermore, there is the claim that Jesus was a 1st century Jewish rabbi and therefore used a common 1st century Jewish rabbinical methodology in interpreting and applying Scripture.

But,

1. What is the 1st century Jewish rabbinical methodology? Simply saying peshat and midrash does not answer the question. What is the actual methodology of arriving at for example a midrashic interpretation or application of a Scripture? The claim assumes that there is a known ie documented 1st century Jewish rabbinic methodology or hermeneutic. Where is that documentation? And what is that hermeneutic?

2. The claim assumes that Jesus and the apostles used a standard methodology to arrive at their applications and interpretations. Did they? Or did they speak as they were moved by the Holy Ghost? When Paul asks about the oxen treading out the corn commandment, asking "Does God care for animals? Or is this for our benefit?" whereby he then draws an application to the then current situation regarding taking care of teachers, was this the result of a particular rabbinic method of interpretation? Or was it the leading of the Spirit to apply Scripture to the current situation? Or was it basic common sense? A combination of both?

When Matthew asserts that Hosea's "out of Egypt have I called my son" was fulfilled by Jesus returning from Egypt, was this a rabbinic methodology at work? Or was it the result of Matthew having learned that Messiah is the archetypal Israel, the personification of Israel, the type of which Israel was the shadow? Which he would have learned by the teaching of Jesus and the leading of the Spirit? Or even by a careful reading of Isaiah, or even from God's words to Pharaoh "Israel is my firstborn, let my son go" coupled with the understanding that Jesus is the literal only begotten son of God as well as the kingly "son of God" (ie heir to the throne of David and the Anointed One of God)?

The more I think about it, the more I think there is no 1st century standard Jewish rabbinic hermeneutical methodology shared by both Jesus and the other rabbis. The 1st century rabbinic methodology is on display in the New Testament, and seems to have been repeatedly rejected by Jesus and the apostles because it seems to have consistently led to error.

Yes sir, there were some rules of hermeneutics during Jesus' time, historically documented.

Did Jesus' use them? Well, some of those rules just made sense, some not much. So I would say he probably did, but not because of their origin from Rabbi schools, but because some made sense.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by coksiw

Yes sir, there were some rules of hermeneutics during Jesus' time, historically documented.

Did Jesus' use them? Well, some of those rules just made sense, some not much. So I would say he probably did, but not because of their origin from Rabbi schools, but because some made sense.

I just researched 1st century Jewish hermeneutics. I found the 7 Rules of Hillel. Other than the 7th, I do not find any of them to be uniquely Jewish at all. And the 7th is clearly the source of much of the scribes' and lawyers "heavy burdens" which Jesus rejected repeatedly.

So I guess that resolves the issue of Jesus' supposed "rabbinical methods".