Pastor Larry
"The very nature of language demands that he, and you, are wrong. Language by nature has one meaning, the meaning the author intended."
"
You clearly never payed attention in High School when basic English literature was taught. Multiple layers of meaning in one text is done by human authors all the time.
As for that Latin poem.
To be honest I put it in because it is rather famous and I simply wanted to be the first to include it.
Laws of Interpretation
Discussion in '2005 Archive' started by Bartimaeus, Mar 11, 2005.
Page 2 of 7
-
"Recognize that some passages are allegorical and search for the deeper meaning. A case in point is Song of Solomon."
"
I'm still hoping to ever participate in a marriage ceremony where the bride and groom actually sing it to eachother.
Julie (looking forward to helping sing the bits intended for the female choir) -
what i think is extremely interesting is
folks who know all about how the early
Christians felt but know nothing about
detecting 21st Century (2001-2100) propaganda. -
Your mention of the Song of Solomon reminded me of something. Dispensationalists state that the church is not in Old Testament prophecy yet the original Scofield Reference bible states that the Song of Solomon is an allegory showing the love of Jesus Christ for His Bride, the Church.
An dispensationalists calim they don't believe in allegorical interpretation. -
-
But don't misrepresent what I say. -
Both Christ and Paul used PARABLES and ALLEGORIES. The method was used during the time of Christ and he used many parables, thus not disputing it’s proper use. To cite just one of the many PARABLES of Christ;
paroimia -
1) a saying out of the usual course or deviating from the usual manner of speaking
1a) a current or trite saying, a proverb
2) any dark saying which shadows forth some didactic truth
2a) especially a symbolic or figurative saying
2b) speech or discourse in which a thing is illustrated by the use of similes and comparisons
2c) an allegory
2c1) extended and elaborate metaphor
http://www.restorationquarterly.org/Volume_040/rq04002mclane.htm
"These things are intended to convey a deeper meaning." The verb itself means to "speak allegorically," which indicates that the word has had a history of development. The word is of late Greek origin and actually came to replace in usage the word did come into common use, it first referred to allegory as a mode of expression; i.e., it meant figurative language. Later on, it was used to denote allegory as a method of exegesis; i.e., it meant allegorical interpretation.
Following Philo and other Hellenistic allegorists, the noun came to describe the "figurative interpretation of an authoritative text." This meaning, coupled with the intention to convey a deeper meaning, becomes a crucial definition when seeking to understand Paul's use...Actually, the distinction is between Paul's use of a present passive (deponent) participle and a noun. It is the difference between his identification of the original narrative as an allegory and his actual practice of allegorizing the original event.
;) -
-
consider this conversation. We are not sitting around wondering what the deeper or multiple meanings are. We are taking the words of others at face value, assuming that they mean what they say. When you said I did not pay attention in high school English (something that is ... well, more true than I would like to admit), no one thinks that you are saying I went to play golf last Thursday. They understand that "high school" and "English" and "pay attention" have meaning that is only one in this given context. They don't even think that you are saying that I slept through High school math. Your words meant something, and every conversation you carry on with intelligibility is evidence that I am right. If I were wrong, you wouldn't have any idea what I am saying. I think in the haste to sound smart with the Bible, we overlook the most basic issues of human communication. Without my construct, communication is virtually impossible because we never know what someone else is saying. -
-
I think there are times in scripture when it is addressing the culture or history, something particular to those specific people.
A very good and praticle list Marcia. -
Joh 18:36 "Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, then My servants would fight so that I might not be delivered to the Jews. But now My kingdom is not from here."
P.S. Could you please cite a specific verse where it is clearly obvious that it is teaching an earthly literal kingdom, please?
;) -
Pastor Larry et al,
Alfred Edersheim in his 'Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah,' gave a worthy definition of the Kingdom of God starting with John 3. He says that in his analysis of the 119 passages in the New Testament where the expression 'Kingdom' occurs, it shows that it means;
1) the rule of God; ( 34 times)
</font>- Matt. 6:33; 12:28; 13:38; 19:31; Mark 1:14; 10:15, 23-25; 12:34; Luke 1:33; 4:43; 9:11; 11:20; 12:31; 17:17, 24-25, 29; John 3:3; Acts 1:3; 8:12; 20:25; 28:31; Rom. 14:17; 1 Cor. 4:20; Col. 4:11; 1 Thess 2:12; Rev.1:9</font>
</font>- Matt. 3:2; 4:17, 23; 5:3, 10; 9:35; 10:7; Mark 1:15; 11:10; Luke 8:1; 9:2; 16:16; 19:12, 15; Acts 1:3; 28:23; Rev. 1:9</font>
</font>- Matt. 11:11; 13:41; 16:19; 18:1; 21:43; 23:13; Luke 7:28; John 3:5; Acts 1:3; Col. 1:13; Rev. 1:9.</font>
</font>- Matt. 11:12; 13:11, 19, 24, 31, 33, 44-45, 47, 52; 18:23; 20:1; 22:2; 25:1, 14; Mark 4:11, 26, 30; Luke 8:10; 9:62; 13:18, 20; Acts 1:3; Rev. 1:9</font>
- Matt. 16:28; Mark 9:1; 15:43; Luke 9:27; 19:11; 21:31; 22:16, 18; Acts 1:3; 2 Tim. 4:1; Heb 11:28; Rev. 1:9</font>
</font>- Matt. 5:19-20; 7:21; 8:11;13:3; 25:34; 26:29; Mark 9:47; 10:14; 14:25; Luke 6:20; 12:32; 13:28-29; 14:15; 18:16; 22:29; Acts 1:3; 14:22; 1 Cor 6:9-10; 15:24, 50; Gal. 5:21; Eph. 5:5; 2 Thess. 1:5; James 2:5; 2 Peter 1:11; Rev. 1:9; 12:10</font>
However, nowhere does it say that Christ's Kingdom is an earthly kingdom!
-
John 18:36 is very easy. The word "of" is "ek" ... it means "out of." Christ was saying that his kingdom did not originate in the present world. He was not saying it wasn't an earthly kingdom. That would contradict the OT prophecies, which clearly prophesy that the Messiah will reign from Jerusalem. The promise to David was that his Son, the Messiah, would reign from his throne, and David's throne was never anywhere other than earth. There is no verse that says "It will be an earthly kingdom." However, the disciples clearly thought it would be a restoration (Acts 1:6) and they preached a restoration (Acts 3:19-21). How is a spiritual kingdom a restoration? The old kingdom wasn't a spiritual one. A restoration, by definition, is the restoring of something that previously existed. Therefore, it has to be an earthly kingdom. Even the NC itself references the fact that it will be earthly (Jer 31:36-40). There can be legitimate debate about the timing of teh rapture. But there can hardly be legitimate debate about the earthly nature of the kingdom. It is explicit in Scripture. There is no legitimate way to spiritualize it without twisting the text beyond recognition.
You really need to get a copy of McClain and read it. You are uneducated without that book, regardless of which position you hold. -
Technique of interpertation illustrated
Covenant: "However, nowhere does it say that Christ's Kingdom is an earthly kingdom!"
What does "it" refer to here?
I believe "the New Testament".
Others may get different milage??? -
'A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament' (Thayer);
II. of the Origin, Source, Cause;...with the suggested idea of a nature and disposition derived from one's origin; ouk esti ek ton kosmos toutou , is not of earthly origin nor of an earthly nature,
Jn 3:31..[greek deleted] is of an earthly nature -
So? Think about several things: 1) almost all words have multiple meanings; it only means one thing in context. 2) Meaning is determined by context, both near literary and wider theological context. In light of that, John 18:36 is not teaching a spiritual kingdom. There is too much evidence to the contrary, including the near context of why a king didn't have an army. It is because his kingdom was not to be set up at that time, adn would not be brought up in a worldly manner.
-
Larry,
"John 18:36 is not teaching a spiritual kingdom."
Are you above a Lexiconist? Thayer says that John 3:31 is of an earthly nature - not 18:36!
" John 18:36 is not teaching a spiritual a spiritual kingdom. There is too much evidence to the contrary, including the near context of why a king didn't have an army. It is because his kingdom was not to be set up at that time, adn would not be brought up in a worldly manner.
This is just dispensational Darbyism's interpretion - man made doctrine which isn't scripturally supported and is of 1800's. -
I am not above a lexicographist (the proper term). Thayer is interpreting a word based on his position, not based on its meaning. The word can mean what Thayer says. There is no question about that. But does it? Not in light of the rest of Scripture. Since I don't need to come to Thayer's conclusion, I don't have to accept his commentary on the word.
Secondly, that is not "just dispensational Darbyism's interpretation." It is what the text actually means. It is scripturally supported by many OT verses that clearly teach that Jesus' kingdom was earthly, but would not come as Pilate was asking about. That is not 1800s. It goes back about 2700 years earlier than that, to the time of the OT.
You have bought into a system of thought that isn't entirely biblical. Because of that, you are forced to find certain conclusions from passages and it hinders the way you read them. -
CONTEXT! CONTEXT! CONTEXT!
"my kingship is not of this world...my kingship is not from the world!"
Thayer's has been a well respected Lexicon since 1885.
Page 2 of 7