|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: "But I say to you...": the inspiration of interpretation
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
This is a spin-off from the Paris attacks thread, from about here, where we have been discussing the legitimacy (or otherwise) of reinterpretations of sacred writings that transform or restrict their original meaning; the particular topic at hand was divinely-ordained violence.
I would like to explore the concept of "inspired (re)interpretation" further.
To keep things simple, I'd like to consider first and foremost how it applies within Christianity, with which most of us here are the most familiar, and to our Scriptures, i.e. the Old and New Testaments.
We may not manage to avoid the Dead Horse of inerrancy; if we don't, well then we can carry on in Dead Horses, but I'm not convinced we have to go there.
So here are a few questions to get us going:
When did the practice of reinterpreting begin? Is it a Jesus thing? A NT thing? Or is there evidence of it within the OT itself?
What value is assigned to the original and new interpretations?
What legitimacy does ongoing reinterpretation have?
Does this tie in in any way with so-called contemporary prophecy?
What are the limits?
[ 16. May 2016, 08:11: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ramarius
Shipmate
# 16551
|
Posted
Just to throw in a couple of other angles - how do we try and distinguish between a reinterpretation that seems to change the meaning of the original idea, and a reapplication of the idea in a new context? The latter may still be true to the principles of the original idea, but be applied in a way that would, on te face of it, seem foreign to the original writer.
A common example of the latter is "Ladies - cover your heads when praying or prophesying in church please." Most Christians are relaxed about head coverings, taking the view that Paul had in mind a particular social context.
Tom Wright takes a similar view about Paul's views on women teaching men in the Pastoral epistles - there were cultural issues around the influence of Artemis in Ephesus which influenced his writing.
More anon as the conversation develops.
[And BTW - hope your keeping well will all that's going on close to home]
--------------------
'
Posts: 950 | From: Virtually anywhere | Registered: Jul 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
So here are a few questions to get us going:
When did the practice of reinterpreting begin? Is it a Jesus thing? A NT thing? Or is there evidence of it within the OT itself?
What value is assigned to the original and new interpretations?
What legitimacy does ongoing reinterpretation have?
Does this tie in in any way with so-called contemporary prophecy?
What are the limits?
Q: When did the practice of interpretating/re-interpreting begin?
A: Sooner than the ink was dry - if not before. The whole rabbinic way - rather like that found in other ancient religions - was to debate, discuss and attempt to find consensus - or otherwise - on sacred texts, oral sayings and teachings that had been handed down from prophets, preachers and the like ...
It's always been that way in oral cultures that then developed literacy and a set of agreed, sacred writings.
As soon as you have more than one person involved, you're into interpretation.
Q: What value is assigned to the original and new interpretations?
A: It depends but it seems to be a largely iterative thing with texts being examined and re-examined and teachings being discussed, tested, applied etc. As time goes on a recognised tradition emerges which becomes the de=facto or more standardised way of interpreting the texts. It happens in community.
Q: What value does ongoing reinterpretation have?
A: Plenty. It both sheds light on old interpretations and allows ideas to be tested and weighed. It's happening all the time - both consciously and unconsciously. In musical terms, its rather like the re-interpretation of old jazz standards say, or the Great American Song-Book - or ways of re-engaging with Vivaldi, say, or Bach.
Q: Does this tie in in any way with so-called contemporary prophecy?
A: Only insofar as so-called contemporary prophecy is a form of engaging and 're-presenting' particular themes or issues that those who engage in it believe to be important.
Personally, I wouldn't dignify so-called contemporary prophecy with the kind of status we are according to the ongoing, iterative interpretation and re-interpretation of particular teachings and texts - I think that contemporary 'prophecy' tends to operate at a much 'lower' level than that - and tends to revolve around individual concerns or issues pertinent at a macro level within congregations, groups and movements.
I certainly wouldn't regard so-called contemporary prophecy as having a role in the interpretation/re-interpretation of sacred texts, nor the proclamation/promulgation of tradition - either small t or Big T -- I'd see it largely as an inrelevance in those terms.
It's something that gives nice warm, fuzzy feelings to those who engage in it - and it may occasionally amount to a tad more than that - but on the whole - in my experience (and I speak as one who was described as carrying a 'prophetic annointing' - whatever that means - at one time) it doesn't amount to a great deal beyond strengthening the personal convictions of those involved that God is speaking to and through them ...
But that's a tangent.
My main point is that the process of interpretation/re-interpretation has been going on all along - it happens whenever people gather to engage with sacred texts - whether it be the OT, the NT or anything else.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I didn't attempt to answer the 'what are the limits?' question ...
It's a good question.
It seems to me that the limits are set by the particular group which sets the limits - which may sound extremely obvious but I think it's true.
Big T Tradition types - RCs and Orthodox - will say that the limits are set by the dynamic of the Tradition itself - infused by the Holy Spirit - and that these are best set/exemplified by the decisions of particular councils and sets of creedal formularies.
Protestant small t tradition types with some form of 'Sola Scriptura' bent will say that the limits are set within the text itself - by which they generally mean their particular group's understanding or hermeneutical approach when it comes to the text. At the extreme, 'Sola Scriptura' becomes, 'Sola My Interpretation of Scripture' ... me and Jesus, me and my Bible ...
There are plenty of gradations between those twin viewpoints - the Big T and the various small t ones ... and within each of them themselves, of course. There are plenty of variations within the Big T Traditions just as there are elsewhere.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
It's always been that way in oral cultures that then developed literacy and a set of agreed, sacred writings.
Can you point to a written record of that happening in the OT (I'm sure there must be one, but haven't idenitfied one yet)?
quote:
As soon as you have more than one person involved, you're into interpretation.
I can't remember who said it or exactly in what terms, but one of my favourite Ship quotes went along the following lines:
"the Bible is the record of an argument between different people about what God is like. This argument is still going on today: we call it the Church".
quote:
In musical terms, its rather like the re-interpretation of old jazz standards
That is a great idea which I propose to steal immediately.
(Especially so since I recently discovered that I am now so old that a piece I remember when it came out new, Birdland, has had the time to become a jazz standard. A bit like some of the 'set in stone' hermeneutics of my youth...)
quote:
Originally posted by Ramarius:
how do we try and distinguish between a reinterpretation that seems to change the meaning of the original idea, and a reapplication of the idea in a new context?
Which is this? Or this? Does it matter that one is by a "recognised" artist (although perhaps less so in his day) and the other by some unknown hand?
quote:
The latter may still be true to the principles of the original idea, but be applied in a way that would, on te face of it, seem foreign to the original writer.
I'm not sure about this. Whether it's violence or headscarves, "that was just for the culture of the time" is a widely-applied get-out clause*...
==
*(By the way, skirting DH territory again, one of the reasons I reversed my position on complementarianism is that Paul uses an almost identical appeal to the creational order in Corinthians for head coverings as he does in Timothy for preaching...)
[fixed link]
[ 20. November 2015, 10:57: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
Seems to me to be obvious that Christianity has contradictory texts (for example the contrast between a warring "holy state" in the OT and the "kingdom of heaven" in the NT), hence interpretation is totally unavoidable.
Nobody wants the dissonance of holding two opposite ideas at the same time, hence you can't help but come up with some explanation you can live with - which is, in and of itself, an interpretation of the text.
The only odd thing here is that some Christians seem to want to deny that they're doing it (and indeed want to insist that there is one simple "plain reading" of the scripture which inevitably leads to a certain understanding - so that anyone else who gets to any other point is obviously thick at best.)
It is quite instructive that Judaism has codified this process to some extent - via various well known long-established rabbinical interpretations which guide how particular groups of Jews understand the text.
[too much seeming to me]
[ 20. November 2015, 10:58: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Judaism has codified this process to some extent - via various well known long-established rabbinical interpretations which guide how particular groups of Jews understand the text.
Agreed. I'm wondering what the equivalent process within Christianity (for the minute) is, whether there is more than one, and how much we might agree (or differ) about it.
[ 20. November 2015, 11:00: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Agreed. I'm wondering what the equivalent process within Christianity (for the minute) is, whether there is more than one, and how much we might agree (or differ) about it.
As Gamaliel is often banging on about, that's the role of tradition (in whatever form you understand it). Which, in my view, is in constant flux anyway.
Within any faith group there is a range of "acceptable" beliefs and a range of "unacceptable" ones. The exact process by which these are determined, and by which the "correct" orthopraxy and orthodoxy is "enforced" varies.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ramarius
Shipmate
# 16551
|
Posted
An example of reinterpretation in the NT period is around the Gentile mission. Acts 10, 11, and 15 focus on the way the church thought about this. Acts 15:15-18 shows us James reinterpreting a passage from Amos from one referring to the Jews in particular, to one that speaks about all in Christ including the gentiles. The conclusion is that you can become a Christian, without first having to become a Jew.
It's hard, 2,000 odd years hence, to understand how significant a change in mind-set this was.
The passage also gives an example of text reinterpreted in the light of culture. The section at the end of Acts 15 on the application of OT food laws moves from one concerned about the purity of the people, to practical questions of how people from different cultures can co-exist without offending each other. The texts are still considered relevant, but only where Jews are involved in a Christian community.
--------------------
'
Posts: 950 | From: Virtually anywhere | Registered: Jul 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I am painfully aware that I'm always 'banging on' about the role of tradition - and I think that's one of the key things I've found/learned through my time aboard Ship, truth be told ...
So I can't help that.
I came on here as a GLE trying to put everyone else straight - to a certain extent - but I had broadened out considerably, looking back, by the time I started posting here all those years ago.
So, rather like Eutychus's 'argument' quote, the Ship formed part of the discussion/process for a trajectory I was already following ...
As for whether there is 'written' evidence for any re-interpretation within the OT itself, my question is - Do we need any?
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
The whole thing is a product of interpretation/reinterpretation and debate in the first place. What we have are the results of that debate in written form.
However, to directly address Eutychus's point, I suppose one could point to the Prophets - both the Major and the Minor Prophets - calling people 'back' to the core of the tradition ... which one might see as a radical re-evaluation rather an re-interpretation ... more a case of, 'Look, it's already there and we've been overlooking it ...' type of thing.
Or, if one wanted to be more radical, we could wonder about the account of the 'rediscovery' of the Book of the Law in 2 Kings 22.
Was it rediscovered ... found in a back-drawer as it were - or was it written around that time and a back-story invented/developed to account for it?
A lot of the written accounts we have and many (most?) of the Psalms date from the post-Exilic period anyway ...
Equally, there's the issue of various Assyrian and Egyptian proverbs finding their way - in complete or parallel form - into the OT book of Proverbs ... the Hebrews seemed to assimilate ready-made proverbs that came to hand within the wider milieu.
That's how these processes work.
How far do we take them?
A liberal vicar I had a few pints with earlier in the week said that the Gospels represent literary interpretations/reworkings that are 'at best' (his words) three or four times removed from the events they describe. I don't have an issue with that per se - just as I don't have an issue with that undermining any sense that the scriptures are inspired.
It seems to me that you can have a 'high view' of the inspiration of scripture at the same time as taking a literary/historical approach to the way these documents came into being in the first place.
If I 'bang on' ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif) about the role of tradition in these things, I also tend to bang on about things being 'both/and' rather than either/or.
I accept all that.
What I won't accept is the accusation that some have levelled that this makes me a 'nihilist' or so relativistic as to be no spiritual use ...
![[Biased]](wink.gif)
But then, that's for others to judge, not me ...
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
Here in the US the more right-wing Christians are tying themselves into pretzels, trying to argue that no, Jesus didn't really mean it in Matt. 25:35. You always wind up picking and choosing your texts; there's no way to stick 100% to the Bible even if we could agree on an interpretation or translation.
--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
It's always been that way in oral cultures that then developed literacy and a set of agreed, sacred writings.
Can you point to a written record of that happening in the OT (I'm sure there must be one, but haven't identified one yet)?
A couple of examples from within the First Testament come to mind. For example, there's the discussion between Samuel and Saul over the relative importance of obedience to divine will versus the sacrificial system. This seems to take place against the backdrop of a larger debate between the prophetic and priestly traditions.
Then there's the debate on religious pluralism between Elijah and Ahab, which seems to be resolved in favor of the "against" faction.
An interesting and somewhat "meta" example is the case of the daughters of Zelophehad, who argued before Moses that in the absence of male heirs women should have inheritance rights. The fact that they had to argue this position implies that this was not the case at the time. What makes this a "meta" example of scriptural interpretation is that it's contained in Numbers, one of the five books of Moses which are traditionally considered to be the oldest parts of the Bible. So what's being portrayed is a debate over scriptural interpretation that took place before there's even 'scripture'.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
As Gamaliel is often banging on about, that's the role of tradition
Accusing someone of "banging on" is a little more personal than is appropriate for Purgatory. No offence seems to have been taken, fortunately, but let's keep it that way.
Eliab
Purgatory host
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
Apols Gamaliel, I thought I was repeating a phrase you used about yourself. If that's not the case, I'm sorry, it was not intended to be a personal attack.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ramarius
Shipmate
# 16551
|
Posted
On the question of "When did reinterpretation begin" it begins at least at the point that the words of Jesus were translated from Aramaic, and the writings of his followers from Greek. At Pentecost the crown heard the great things of God proclaimed in their own languages, which by definition involved a measure of interpretation to take thoughts from one culture and make them accessible to another. Christianity, by definition, is a faith that demands reinterpretation as it encounters new cultures and contexts.
--------------------
'
Posts: 950 | From: Virtually anywhere | Registered: Jul 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
I think being careful about what's language is helpful when "reinterpreting". I think there's a huge difference between:
• prophesy: the original text was specifically anticipating this specific event
• foreshadowing: this earlier event/teaching has many parallels with this current event to the extent that the current one seems almost like a re-enactment, even tho the context of the original text precludes prophesy. Much of the use of the OT to point to Jesus in the gospels seems to me to fall into this category.
• application: we can take the general principle behind the original event and apply it to this current event, even though they are two separate events.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
No offence taken whatsoever, mr cheesy - as Eliab deduced, I hadn't taken it personally.
Peace be to all - and thanks to Eutychus for what's proving an interesting thread.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
• prophesy: the original text was specifically anticipating this specific event
In the case of at least some of the NT "fulfilments", it's hard not to get the impression that the text has been creatively reinterpreted to provide a "fulfilment of Scripture" rather than being designed that way in the first place. And in a lot more, that the text has multiple layers of interpretation.
[ETA Croesos, those are interesting references that deserve more mulling over than I have time for right now]
[ 20. November 2015, 19:14: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
An interesting and somewhat "meta" example is the case of the daughters of Zelophehad, who argued before Moses that in the absence of male heirs women should have inheritance rights. The fact that they had to argue this position implies that this was not the case at the time. What makes this a "meta" example of scriptural interpretation is that it's contained in Numbers, one of the five books of Moses which are traditionally considered to be the oldest parts of the Bible. So what's being portrayed is a debate over scriptural interpretation that took place before there's even 'scripture'.
Had some more time to think: that's a really interesting passage.
I'm not sure it's as much a reinterpretation of the Law as an accomodation of the Law by analogy to a situation it had not initially provided for (in this case, the absence of male descendants) - a precedent which of course has all kinds of possible applications today... but I expect you knew that anyway
[ 20. November 2015, 21:12: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
• prophesy: the original text was specifically anticipating this specific event
In the case of at least some of the NT "fulfilments", it's hard not to get the impression that the text has been creatively reinterpreted to provide a "fulfilment of Scripture" rather than being designed that way in the first place. And in a lot more, that the text has multiple layers of interpretation.
Yes. Which is pretty much what I said in my next bullet point:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
• foreshadowing: this earlier event/teaching has many parallels with this current event to the extent that the current one seems almost like a re-enactment, even tho the context of the original text precludes prophesy. Much of the use of the OT to point to Jesus in the gospels seems to me to fall into this category.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
No, what I was trying to highlight was that sometimes it seems to have been wrenched out of context altogether: such as Peter using Psalm 109:8 as a rationale for replacing Judas in Acts 1:20. I'm sure that bit of proof-texting would raise a few eyebrows if someone tried it in a church meeting today.
[ 20. November 2015, 21:37: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
I always wonder what the resurrected Jesus said to His companions on the road to Emmaus "beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself." in 44-353 references apparently. That the Jews can't see.
Not that He was wrong, especially in the Resurrection! Jesus took the coat of the TaNaKh by the scruff of the neck and clothed Himself in it, inhabited it like a Dune stillsuit, 'fulfilled' it regardless of whether it was actually prophetic or not. He submitted to His narrative of it in human ignorance, a.k.a. faith.
A narrative worn inside out. A narrative where non-violent redemption transcends redemptive violence.
He was the ultimate rhetorician before and after death.
[ 20. November 2015, 23:01: Message edited by: Martin60 ]
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
No, what I was trying to highlight was that sometimes it seems to have been wrenched out of context altogether: such as Peter using Psalm 109:8 as a rationale for replacing Judas in Acts 1:20. I'm sure that bit of proof-texting would raise a few eyebrows if someone tried it in a church meeting today.
Yeah, I'm not sure what you're objecting to cuz I think that's precisely what I'm saying...
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
To my mind, in some circumstances, the original text is neither an "obvious" prophecy, nor a parallel "foreshadowing", nor an earlier principle being applied in context, and I've given an example of that from Acts.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Absolutely. Their standards of argument, of rhetoric, were far less rigorous than ours. Including Jesus'. His standards were the standards of the day and were sufficient. The intellectual structures didn't exist to do otherwise. They can't work for us now but it doesn't matter. He was the incarnate Son anyway.
It means that there is NO authority. Postmodernism is correct. It means that the bizarre story that we make up based on, again, Peter's arcane story of Jesus visiting demons during the Flood (yet another story which never happened) are made up, upon made up, upon made up. And we legislate and bind and bind again (never loose) on such 'Tradition'.
Strip away the Chinese whispers and Jesus is still there.
And He was a pacifist.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
And He was a pacifist.
Or is that just your favourite narrative's take on the story?
![[Two face]](graemlins/scot_twoface.gif)
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Aye ... and worse. I'm living a lie. Pretending I have no doubts. The Son of Man believed in God the Killer, sans doute: 'else would my servants fight'. But even then, 'straightway', I doubt the doubt. As soon as I look that up in parallel as I write this, the Spirit of the Word speaks: "My kingdom is not of this world; if it were, My servants would fight to prevent My arrest by the Jews. But now, My kingdom is not of this realm.". That is SUCH a powerful affirmation, attestation of the Spirit for me, RIGHT HERE, right now. Answered hopeless prayer or what. That I will rationalize away soon enough. But for now the Holy Spirit has re-grasped those words for me in peace.
"My kingdom is not of this world; IF it were - the subjunctive, My servants would fight to prevent My arrest by the Jews. But now, My kingdom is not of this realm." Now and for ALL time. NOW, beyond and above the World with NO going back.
To see the world in a grain of [falling] sand, in heartbeats.
Thank you Eutychus and God the ineffable, present, quantum tunnelling, yearning Spirit.
(Yet Jesus still couldn't NOT believe in God the Killer, couldn't NOT have twisted in the wind of His culture. Amazing[ly existentially human] isn't it?).
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
But for now the Holy Spirit has re-grasped those words for me in peace.
I think that from a Christian perspective, this nails it, as summed up masterfully by Paul in 2 Corinthians 3:6, 15-17: quote:
for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life (...) when one turns to the Lord, the veil is removed. Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom.
The Scriptures (beautiful irony) contain within themselves the message that they are not enough: the illumination of the Holy Spirit of Christ (as of course attested to by them) is required to bring life (and not death) and freedom - something also spelled out in the promise of the New Covenant in Jeremiah 31:31-34: quote:
I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. No longer shall they teach one another, or say to each other, ‘Know the Lord’, for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, says the Lord
In this respect, for all my wanderings, I have always been a "charismatic" in the sense of believing in the need for the indwelling of the Spirit, and in this sense, I believe in the inspiration of interpretation.
That just leaves the small problem of how the mind of the Spirit is determined collectively...
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Whooo! With ... tears. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
That just leaves the small problem of how the mind of the Spirit is determined collectively...
We know that 'by their fruit you will know them', we know that love must be visible, we know that God affirms in extra-ordinary, unpredictable ways, usually through other people who we don't already know and least expect to give us words from God.
--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
That might work at an individual or possibly even local church level, but I think it's trickier at a broader collective level.
[ 21. November 2015, 12:13: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
That might work at an individual or possibly even local church level, but I think it's trickier at a broader collective level.
I don't think it easy at any level, it's one of the frustrations of service, but it's imperative that we do work at the collective level, as the body of Christ. If only we could get over ourselves!
--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
The point though, is that we are people and are all fallible - that's not a cop-out or an excuse for us not to 'get over ourselves' but it is an acknowledgement that we cannot put ourselves under undue pressure to get 'everything right' ...
Because we won't.
Like Eutychus, I would still consider myself to be 'charismatic' in the sense that I still believe in inspiration and indeed the 'inspiration of interpretation' - but these days am inclined to think that it comes with spade-work and hard shovelling rather than sudden flashes of inspiration and insight - still less of 'illuminism' and putative prophetic words and so on ...
To be honest, I really don't know what 'role' or value I even assign to that sort of thing these days - I certainly wouldn't presume to go around claiming prophetic inspiration for anything I might say.
I'm sure that in extremis and in certain circumstances there's some kind of role that that sort of thing - but I'm not sure I see any particular role for 'contemporary so-called prophecy' in the more muscular process of interpretation and discernment.
I'm struggling to think of any examples of how this might 'work' in practice. I mean, to use a somewhat parochial example, if the CofE synod were deliberating some issue or other I'd hardly expect someone to come along with some kind of illuministic insight that was going to settle some vexed question one way or another.
The same applies to any other church, denomination, stream, network or religious grouping that I can think of.
I'm not sure how that fits with the old Puritan thing about God having yet more truths to come from his most holy word ... I'm not sure it does and that doesn't particularly bother me. I suspect it's more a case of walking in the light of what has already been revealed than fresh revelation as it were - knowledge of revelation rather than 'revelation knowledge' as it were (to pinch a phrase/title that's already been used).
The thing is, we are none of us living up to those things we DO know so there's little point in pursuing those things we don't - as it were - it's not as if we're ever going to exhaust the need to do the basics - loving God, loving our neighbour as ourselves etc.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
The point though, is that we are people and are all fallible - that's not a cop-out or an excuse for us not to 'get over ourselves' but it is an acknowledgement that we cannot put ourselves under undue pressure to get 'everything right' ...
Because we won't.
I know we're fallible, but we surely have to keep trying to get it right, and we can't do that unless we get over ourselves. I'm not sure what 'undue pressure' is - an aim to be Christ-like means to me that complacency is not an option.
quote:
Like Eutychus, I would still consider myself to be 'charismatic' in the sense that I still believe in inspiration and indeed the 'inspiration of interpretation' - but these days am inclined to think that it comes with spade-work and hard shovelling rather than sudden flashes of inspiration and insight - still less of 'illuminism' and putative prophetic words and so on ...
To be honest, I really don't know what 'role' or value I even assign to that sort of thing these days - I certainly wouldn't presume to go around claiming prophetic inspiration for anything I might say.
I'm sure that in extremis and in certain circumstances there's some kind of role that that sort of thing - but I'm not sure I see any particular role for 'contemporary so-called prophecy' in the more muscular process of interpretation and discernment.
It's surely both/and, not either/or Gamaliel. If you see prophecy only in the charismatic 'I have a word from God!' sense, I'm with you in that its application is very limited - there will be exceptions that prove the rule, naturally.
Spade work and hard shovelling, reading and listening, praying and meditating, time in contemplation - all will contribute as God shows us the will and the way. That is prophecy, the knowledge of the will of God in any instance - not so much a flash of inspiration as a deep knowing, a peace, and words which are verified and affirmed from another direction.
quote:
I'm struggling to think of any examples of how this might 'work' in practice. I mean, to use a somewhat parochial example, if the CofE synod were deliberating some issue or other I'd hardly expect someone to come along with some kind of illuministic insight that was going to settle some vexed question one way or another.
The same applies to any other church, denomination, stream, network or religious grouping that I can think of.
If you replace the charismatic image with the prayerful, calm and sensible one, you might see that the way God works through us still applies, within all denominations, if we get over ourselves.
quote:
I'm not sure how that fits with the old Puritan thing about God having yet more truths to come from his most holy word ... I'm not sure it does and that doesn't particularly bother me. I suspect it's more a case of walking in the light of what has already been revealed than fresh revelation as it were - knowledge of revelation rather than 'revelation knowledge' as it were (to pinch a phrase/title that's already been used).
The thing is, we are none of us living up to those things we DO know so there's little point in pursuing those things we don't - as it were - it's not as if we're ever going to exhaust the need to do the basics - loving God, loving our neighbour as ourselves etc.
I wonder whether we fail future generations if we don't make every effort to proclaim the word afresh in our own generation. I do believe that a few generations have missed out on discovering the good news of Christ due to complacency.
--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Sure, there's a balance somewhere between being complacent to the point of indifference on the one hand or ratcheting things up to an unfeasibly pietistic perfectionist level on the other.
I can see what you're getting at but am not sure what 'getting over ourselves' means in practice nor how we would recognise it if we saw it.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Sure, there's a balance somewhere between being complacent to the point of indifference on the one hand or ratcheting things up to an unfeasibly pietistic perfectionist level on the other.
I can see what you're getting at but am not sure what 'getting over ourselves' means in practice nor how we would recognise it if we saw it.
'Getting over ourselves' means humility in practice, a consciousness of our tendencies to grasp onto any new idea as if it were from God, to puff ourselves up, to think we have intelligence from God that no-one else has, to insist on our own way, to elbow each other out of the way in the quest for power, to focus on how we feel, etc. We get in the way of God's voice. This often has repercussions on others who may have words from God that are dismissed.
If we all listen and pray more, and talk and jostle less, we may yet be inspired anew by the words of the scriptures, by the breath of the Holy Spirit.
--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
In which case, what are any of us doing spending time on here?
Of course if we all prayed more attentively, listened to one another more attentively, learned to live and act in more Christ-like ways then it'd certainly help - but I still don't see any magic bullet for collective discernment - and I suspect that in some mysteriously providential way our all too human foibles and weaknesses can even at times play a part in the divine economy.
That's not to undermine the point you're making - but it is to acknowledge that we none of us float above the ground.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
When did the practice of reinterpreting begin? Is it a Jesus thing? A NT thing? Or is there evidence of it within the OT itself?
Okay - to a certain extent this reply is going to dwell on Higher Criticism.
IMO re-interpreting in the way in which the NT does it would depend upon fairly widespread knowledge of the particular details of the text - as such, it depends on the relatively widespread dissemination of texts and their frequent reading. So in the OT context it is unlikely to happen much before the rise of the synagogue as an institution (and the associated hellenisation which spreads literacy to a broader number of people).
The OT rarely quotes itself; let alone as a springboard to re-interpretation of particular texts; because presumably in its day people tended to be more familiar with the overall shape of particular books rather than their details. So the dominant re-interpretative paradigm in the OT is likely to be the re-telling of things, with different details substituted/emphasised and drawn out. Which is indeed what we find.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
