From: <malajaa@...> > Even Jesus and the Apostles used double meanings. Yes, but does that > give us the right to do so. I think their being inspired gives them a > special place. We are not so inspired are we? That sword cuts both ways, I think. We could also say that because the apostles interpreted the canon a certain way and God stamped that exegesis as inspired that we are compelled to follow their example. We would not expect the NT authors to have said all that can be said of Christ in the Old Testament. What we have from them is because they were doing their exegesis for specific reasons in their own context and that exegesis was inspired. Inspiration is as organic as the canon itself. In fact, we have record of the Bereans "examining the Scriptures (OT) daily to see if these things were so" (Acts 17:11). What things? Luke is pointing back to 17:2 where he writes that Paul was in the synogogue "explaining and proving that it was necessary for the Messiah to suffer and to rise from the dead", saying "This Jesus, whom I proclaim to you, is the Messiah". The Bereans were doing the same exegesis as Paul, who was doing the same exegesis as Christ (Luke 24:26, 27). If the text is inherently Messianically Eschatological, then we would have to say *any* exegesis of the OT must include the Messianic/Eschatological consideration. If the authors were intentionally pointing forward in the development of the seed of the woman, then to *not* consider *how* the author is pointing forward is faulty exegesis. >The examples could be > multiplied concerning how many different interpretations expositors have > arrived at using uninspired sensus plenoir. How can you control such > excesses? 1. Excesses are controlled by allowing the text, implications included, to speak for itself. You're right to be skeptical of "uninspired sensus plenior". I see a lot of contrived meaning that is imposed onto the text (our charismatic brethren and mystic liberals both tend to do this explicitly... the moralism of our own conservative theology also does this). 2. Inherent to the authors and their text is an eschatological Messianic consciousness. >IYHO, do you think you share such authority with the writers > of Scripture? No. But it does not necessarily follow that we are not compelled to read the OT the same way they were reading it. > I do not believe that Scripture and the truth therein can be altered that > significantly by cultural factors. Altered? Of course not. My argument doesn't require such. Contextualized? Every time. Inspiration was organic. These men used all of the natural tools at their disposal, including doing the hard work of exegetical theology, in dealing with or polemicizing against the various crises/problems they were confronting in their situations. Those "situations" were almost exclusively Jewish. We cannot claim our interpretation of the text is not influence by our own cultural baggage... and we must recognize it for what it is. Nor can we claim that the text is somehow suspended above and without the cultural context. Does this mean we need historical research? Absolutely not. I bring up the Jewish/Greek distinction because the text itself is Jewish. And what we claim we think we need from the text (primarily a literalist interpretation) is more influenced by our Greek (and dare I say Enlightenment) culture than it is by textual considerations. Does literal history matter? Absolutely it does. But was/is literal history the ultimate consideration of the narrative? The text is telling me it isn't (the Eschatologically Messianic is of highest import). > Furthermore it is very suspect that Paul's original hearers were > primarily Jewish. Was he not the Apostle of the Gentiles who wrote to > primarily Gentile cities. The early churches were primarily Jews living in Gentile cities or at the very least against Jewish antagonists in every city. How do we know this? Because the polemic/rhetoric in the text is Jewish. The arguments are so Jewish, even if the recipients were Gentile, the argument required the Gentiles to know their Old Testaments. We know this because every single NT passage is loaded with either Old Testament connotations, if not explicit denotations. Every quote of the OT in the NT carries with it an expectation that the recipient/hearer understand the context of the OT passage quoted. Why? Because the OT context is furthering along the NT polemic. The NT authors aren't aimlessly using the OT. The NT is a commentary on the OT. The OT is an explanation of what has happened in the Christ event. In fact, for the early years of the church, the church had no NT. The OT was the only Christ-event interpretation. It is in the OT that the Bereans immersed themselves to understand the Christ event. > But what was the purpose of him framing a > statement in antithetical terms, 'not this, but yes this', if he did not > mean them to be antithetical but overlapping. Because antithesis isn't necessarily a Greek category. We have antithesis in Genesis 1:4 and 3:15, etc. etc. We have to be careful to not make the mistake of the New Perspective where the historical research is the only consideration rather than allowing the text itself to have as much or more footing as the historical research. > Don't you accept the basic logical premise that the law of non > contradiction is necessary for any truth claims whatsoever to be made? > Otherwise the contrary of any truth claim could always be true. Correct. > You seem to use the Lord Jesus Christ as the fulfillment of the OT as > somewhat of a trump card or "Sacred Cow" in your argument. Luke 24:27 (*all*) Luke 24:44 (*everything*) BTW... where in the OT does it say that "the Christ should suffer and on the third day rise from the dead"? :-) Christ says "thus it is written..." (vs. 46). We should ask ourselves, "written where?" >They are > ethically similar Because they are organically connected. Nothing just "happens" in the NT without having some connection to the OT. It's not as if they drop from the sky with no relationship to revelation before Christ came. We need to remember that the law is first and foremost "revelation". We tend to treat the law as if it brute rules or ethics with little or no relationship to the flow of redemptive history in revelation. > and the OT Law is fulfilled in those who walk by the > Spirit (Rom 8, a proof text for you, :-), but that is as a byproduct to > the new code of grace/faith/Spirit/obedience that the Christian lives > under (see Moo and F. F. Bruce for this interpretation) None of this I disagree with... I can affirm such without negating the reality that Christ himself is the ethical standard toward which the law pointed. > I just read some of Calvin's statements re: this issue, and He > distinguished between a more narrow use of the word "law" and a broader > sense. Westerholm does the same in "Israel's law and the church's faith" > It seems to me that in this more narrow sense as a command needing to be > obeyed, with promises and curses for respective responses, that the Law > can be set up in opposition to the NT's grace. I agree. It's the law/gospel contrast. But we have to insert our previous thread on "obey and live" (a few weeks back) at this point. The antithesis is in our ability to keep the law, rather than the nature of the law itself. The law kills us because we cannot obey it, not because the law itself is evil (the law is called "good" and "glorious" throughout the canon). The antithesis between the law and Christ does not mean the law itself is antithetical to Christ himself. The law is in perfect alignment with God's will ("be ye holy... for I am holy", the summary of our relationship to the law, is a parallelism). The antithesis is in our relationship to the law. >I believe that this must > be the case. Otherwise you have to lessen the authority and meaning of > Paul's words when he sets them in opposition. I don't see how anything I've written lessen's Paul's authority and meaning. Being under the law of Christ is there in the text. Rather than reconfigure/redefine the word "law" to fit an overriding agenda via Romans 6, I prefer to allow the text to define law. > It seems clear to me that the Israelites could only remain on the Land as > long as they were obedient, and in contrast that we have been guaranteed > and in fact already given a place in Christ, in the heavenlies (Eph. 2), > which could only fade away to the extent that Christ can fade away, we > being joined to Him in an eternal oneness, based on unconditional > election. This is a great contrast, and may constitute a large part of > what it means to be "not under law but under grace". I agree. > Anyhow, I hope this does not overly distract you from your vacation if > you have a lap top or other access. May God give you rest and > refreshment. Have a great time with your family enjoying the warm > weather. After 10 years in CA, I still haven't gotten use to this PA > cold. Distraction? What distraction? :-) Today, I worship where my brother is the preaching & teaching elder. It doesn't get much better than that (unless of course, the weather warms up. :-) Chad Bresson Xenia, OH