Ge 3 h
Approaches Submitted by PigSP on Fri, 2015-04-24 07:22.
Your article presents the most complete listing of Greek methods of rhetorical invention applied to Bible study I have seen. Official Catholic sources are historically useful to a point.
Rhetorical invention: "Invention is tied to the rhetorical appeal of logos, being oriented to what an author would say rather than how this might be said. "
The real question is "How did Jesus and the NT authors read the OT scriptures?" I have suggested that they correlated what Jesus did and said with the OT scriptures in order to reveal "the mystery which was hidden from the beginning".
1Th 5:21 Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.
Should we employ the hermeneutics of the New Testament writers? by Dan G. McCartney
Dan McCartney Should we employ the hermeneutics of the New Testament writers? The answer to this question is usually framed in one of two ways. The approach of Longenecker is to acknowledge that the apostles, in accordance with their age, did things quite differently than our grammatical-historical approach would allow, and concludes, “Our commitment as Christians is to the reproduction of the apostolic faith and doctrine, and not necessarily to the specific apostolic exegetical practices.” 1
The other approach is that presented by Greg Beale in his article in The Right Doctrine from the Wrong Texts? (hereafter RDWT), 2 who argues that “In fact, of all the many Old Testament citations and allusions found in the New Testament, only a few plausible examples of non-contextual usage have been noted by critics ... [and] it is by no means certain that even these examples are non-contextual....”, 3 and concludes that the New Testament did (at least most of the time) follow what is effectively the grammatical-historical meaning, and we should follow their exegetical practice.
I want to suggest a third answer: The New Testament writers were not doing grammatical-historical exegesis nor did they consistently interpret according to original historical contextual meanings, but we should follow their exegetical lead anyway.
The problem of Sensus Plenior - Douglas Moo
"...how can we accord complete truthfulness to writings that appear to misunderstand and misapply those texts from which they claim to derive authority and rationale for their most basic claims and teaching?"
Moo does an excelent job of explaning the exegetical problem of the Augustinian methods, and give a minor tip of his hat to the Hebrew "Pesher" and "Midrash" methods.
It should be noted that none of the scholars involved in the debate are able to exegete the sensus plenior, but that does not keep them from having firm opinions about it.
David Niblack - RESEARCH PAPER “The Use of the Old Testament in the New”
Introduction The fact is plain: the Apostle Peter would get an “F” if he preached his Acts 2 sermon in Moody’s class, “Communication of Biblical Truth”. The professor, vigilant to eliminate any interpretation that went beyond the “original authorial intent,” would give the classic critique to the apostle: “this text used out of its context!” Of course, because Peter is an inspired author—in this case a preacher—such an imaginative scenario reveals the despairing gulf between the methods of exegesis of the modern conservative bible student, and the exegetical methods of the NT writers. How do evangelical scholars reconcile this? One on hand, how can they honor the inspired exegesis of the NT writers, and then hypocritically reject the same methodology for themselves?
The questions for our readers concerning this odd Hebrew method:
1. What exactly are the observations? Invention or correlation? One might say that the metaphor for letters is invention, however, the source is not as important as the observation that with it's consistent use, it appears to reveal the mystery of Christ everywhere in agreement with the New Testament, in which case it is correlation . The observation that often an alternate meaning of a word reveals a doctrinal truth from the New Testament, is difficult to dismiss as invention. And the observation that the use of these things produces full narratives speaking doctrinally important things about Christ and the cross cannot be ignored.
2. Does the method resolved the observed issues which were so thoroughly identified by Moo?
3. Does the method resolved apparent contradictions produced by applying the Greek hermeneutic to a Hebrew text? Though the Greek NT is obviously written in Greek, it is still largely a text produced by men who were Jews and who read and thought as Jews. It was produced to teach the Greek church about the Jewish prophecies of Messiah and how Jesus fulfilled them.
4. Is there evidence of use by NT authors?
missing from the discussion of interpretation Submitted by PigSP on Fri, 2015-04-24 07:32.
The Greek methods listed above hardly make mention of God in the process of revealing himself.
Adam could not eat of the Tree of Life, Jesus spoke in parables so that they would NOT be converted.
Pr 1:5 A wise [man] will hear, and will increase learning; and a man of understanding shall attain unto wise counsels: Pr 1:6 To understand a proverb, and the interpretation; the words of the wise, and their dark sayings [riddles].
Pr 25:2 ¶ [It is] the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings [is] to search out a matter.
The Hebrew method unpacks riddles [dark sayings] which always speak of Christ and the cross.
Approaches (cont.) Submitted by hesed28 on Fri, 2015-04-24 10:32.
I agree that we should interpret the NT in light of the OT. Paul based so much of his theology on OT as he was a student of scriptures. (That is why I think this forum believes Genesis is critical to understanding the entire Bible being foundational).
Compare Deu 30:11-14 with Romans 10:6-8 to note similarities (especially: the last verse of each passage)
Deu 30:11-14 For this commandment which I command thee this day, it is not hidden from thee, neither is it far off. It is not in heaven, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go up for us to heaven, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it? Neither is it beyond the sea, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go over the sea for us, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it? But the word is very nigh unto thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart, that thou mayest do it.
Romans 10:6-8 But the righteousness which is of faith speaketh on this wise, Say not in thine heart, Who shall ascend into heaven? (that is, to bring Christ down from above:) Or, Who shall descend into the deep? (that is, to bring up Christ again from the dead.) But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach;
Without faith Submitted by PigSP on Fri, 2015-04-24 15:57.
>>I agree that we should interpret the NT in light of the OT.
That's why you can correlate well:
Heb 11:6 But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.
If we believe that the OT speaks of Christ, and seek for him there, we will find him.
v. 24 sword of flame Submitted by PigSP on Sat, 2015-04-25 20:46.
Flame represents the Holy Ghost as seen and the tongues of flame at Pentecost. The holiness of God is the refining fire.
The sword of flame is the Sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God.
Eph 6:17 And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God:
The word of God prevents our return to God as it reveals his holiness, and it guides the way back as it reveals his grace.
The word for 'turned' also means 'overthrow'. The Word of God conquers all.
Cherubim which contains the word 'abundance' appear on the path returning to the garden, the veil in the tabernacle, and on the sides of the mercy seat.
