Biblical Literacy and 2 Cor 3

[LifeHiscost]

Quote:

---

To Gerry---if you say obedience to 'the Law' in the form of the Law of Moses is in any way binding for any purpose upon the 'believer', about the Sabbath or any other subject, it is my opinion that you do not believe what 2Cor 3, Gal 3, Eph 2, Col 2, Romans and Hebrews---all of what those references say OR, OR, OR, you don't understand what they are saying. That summarizes why we can't seem to get together.

---

[:"red"] "But he answered, No, father Abraham, but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent (change their minds for the better and heartily amend their ways, with abhorrence of their past sins).

He said to him, If they do not hear and listen to Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be persuaded and convinced and believe [even] if someone should rise from the dead.

" [/] Luke 16:30-32 AMP

As I recall, Jesus rose from the dead. He raised Lazurus and that didn't make those who refused to believe change their mind. The more things change the more they remain the same.

Lift Jesus up!!

[Gerr]

Quote:

---

Please change the name of this thread to match its contents.

---

[:"blue"]In case you didn't notice Ed, I was trying to stay with the topic when I ask for your unequivocal opinion in your interpretation of 2 Cor 3 whether the 10c, the OT have been abolished. Ben's whole reason for bringing up this chapter every now and again is because he thinks it supports his position that the 10c & the OT are done away with. [/]

Gerry

[Gerr]

Quote:

---

Dear Dr. Gerry and Dr. Ben...

Please complete this sentence:

"Old doctors never die; they just lose their _ [:"red"] [/]

staff privileges

."

[bTW, I enjoy reading both of you.]

---

[Bravus]

I'm enjoying our Ben and Gerry's... <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

[Gerr]

You're not talking about the Ice Cream, are you?

Gerry

[Gerr]

I don't want to digress from this thread, but I'm going through Galatians for the third time in last two days.

Gerry

[there buster]

Quote:

---

In case you didn't notice Ed, I was trying to stay with the topic when I ask for your unequivocal opinion in your interpretation of 2 Cor 3 whether the 10c, the OT have been abolished.

---

My interpretation matters much less than Paul's exposition. What do you make of this:

Paul's ministry

has produced letters

not written with ink........but with the the Spirit

not on tablets of stone.. . .but on human hearts

Paul is a minister

of the new covenant

not of the letter............but of the Spirit

the ministry of the letter brought death.....but the ministry of the Spirit brings life

the other ministry brings death......but the new covenant ministry brings righteousness

The parallel construction gives these attributes to the "something else"

written with ink

written in stone

written with letters

brought death

condemns

no glory now

What do you think Paul's audience would have concluded was written with letters in stone, and what condemns them?

[benherndon]

Quote:

---

He said to him, If they do not hear and listen to Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be persuaded and convinced and believe [even] if someone should rise from the dead.

" Luke 16:30-32 AMP

---

>>>I don't know if I get your point as clearly as I should, LHC---but the last sentence refers to the 'fulfillment' of 'the Law and the Prophets' mentioned in Matt 5. Jesus said the OT spoke of Him. That is what He is referring to here it seems to me rather than anything about obedience to 'the Law'. Am I wrong, in your opinion?

Ben

[benherndon]

Well, it all seems pretty clear to me, Ed. I guess a lot of people posting here think I misinterpret it. But I'm pretty sure that the great mass of Christianity interprets it just like it reads. Once again, "done away" and "abolished" from the KJV and an alternate translation noted in the margin of the Jerusalem Bible----2Cor 3:14---"..nor is it revealed to them that this covenant has been abolished by Christ." Jer Bible P313.

These are not my words!! I don't know Greek at all---I depend upon the peer reviewed translations of which there are many---and they all seem to say the same thing to me.

But, please answer Gerry if you feel like it---no 'pressure'---and do so without regard to me or anything I've said. Feel completely free. I just have enjoyed your 'statistical display' approach. And Thank YOu!

And to Gerry---keep reading all those other texts and make 'your own'!!! conclusions without regard to anything I've concluded or said. Just your own independant conclusions and without any bias towards regular SDA teachings. That's been the way I've attempted to approach these texts. And..........its been a bit disturbing to me based on my strong and long-time SDA background in SDA education.

Ben

[LifeHiscost]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

He said to him, If they do not hear and listen to Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be persuaded and convinced and believe [even] if someone should rise from the dead.

" Luke 16:30-32 AMP

---

>>>I don't know if I get your point as clearly as I should, LHC---but the last sentence refers to the 'fulfillment' of 'the Law and the Prophets' mentioned in Matt 5. Jesus said the OT spoke of Him. That is what He is referring to here it seems to me rather than anything about obedience to 'the Law'. Am I wrong, in your opinion? Ben

---

Whether or not fulfillment of the Law was what it was referring to, it would appear to me that the words of Jesus

mean exactly what He said, that failing to listen to Moses and the Prophets, written or spoken words, would exclude one from believing the words of the Messiah, even if one (One) were to be raised from the dead, which proved to be true for those who crucified the Lord of glory. And what would be the reason for listening to Moses and the Prophets if their words were not meant to continue to modify the lives of believers according to what Moses and the Prophets wrote?

fulfill: to develop the full potentialities. Websters Ninth New collegiate Dictionary

[:"red"] "If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; >>even as I have kept my Father's commandments, and abide in his love.<<" [/] John 15:10 KJV

Lift Jesus up!!

[benherndon]

Quote:

---

"If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; >>even as I have kept my Father's commandments, and abide in his love.<<" John 15:10 KJV

---

>>>>After reading the NT through several times I believe Jesus is referring to His words quoted in the NT. I do not believe He is referring to the Law of Moses, Book of the Covenant, Book of the Law, or by whatever term. The approach you are taking is classical Sabbatarian approach. Why would the author of the Gospel of John say that "Moses brought Law; but Jesus brings Grace and Truth"

Why would Jesus say "If you hold to my teaching, you are my disciples. Then, you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free....Jesus replied, "I tell you the truth [which they weren't getting, it appears]everyone who sins is a slave to sin. Now a slave has no permanent place in the family, BUT A SON [as we believers are]BELONGS TO IT FOREVER [remember we are adopted, grafted in!] So if the Son [Christ Himself]sets you free, you will be free indeed."

Free from what? Please, LHC, not to be argumentative, but just what are we to be freed from?

You put >> and << around 'even as I have kept my Father's commands and abide in His love'----meaning I suppose that we Christians will keep the Ten Commandments and all the Torah, too??

Well, yes, I pondered that verse and that question. First of all I know that I cannot keep that law or any law perfectly literally, in action or in thought or even in intent. I'm human so if I belived that I would have to resign from the Christian race as unqualified. So, I kept reading ALL of the NT and I got some 'hope' back.

There is a big problem with using single texts to support our beliefs and discussion points. We must always, in the final analysis, use the context not only of the chapter but of the entire New Testament.

It is my opinion from my own experience and from the observation of alleged Christians around me that I am not much different from them. I cannot keep any law perfectly, ever. Note that even if I don't commit murder literally, I do in thought and intent IF I hate. Some people that I've met in my life have done things that at least tempted me to hate them at least temporarily! Sorry to say that---may the Lord forgive me.

Christ said if you believe in HIm as the Saviour and act like it (I assume---and I dislike assuming, but I have to assume sometimes) we have already come into judgment. HE also said, when asked, that our only 'work' was to believe!

John wrote ch. 3:16ff----I have to accept the fact that if I believe and act like it I have nothing to worry about, even if I do not keep the TenCs perfectly or Christ's Law perfectly. This must include the Sabbath.

Since all the discussion here about the law centers on the Sabbath, mentioned or not, I will be forced to observe that quite glaringly obviously none of us SDAs keep the Law about the Sabbth AS IT WAS ORDERED TO HAVE BEEN KEPT. Read the commmandment again. Also read Jer 17 about how to keep the Sabbath if you are trying to keep the Law.

NOthing wrong with 'keeping' the Sabbath as THE day we meet in church and THE day we choose, some of us, to not do our regular work. But, note that even at the best of our efforts, we do not keep the Sabbath Law AS IT WAS GIVEN TO HAVE BEEN KEPT BY ANYBODY. Jesus showed HIs attitude towards keeping "the Law" as it was ordered to be kept---He merely disregarded several of its precept, principles and rules. That is not to say He was a 'sinner'. He was the Saviour and it was Moses that brought Law and it was Chris who brought, contrastingly, Grace and Truth.

I hope you can see what I am trying to see. I think that if we would classify EGW as 'pastoral' rather than 'prophetic' our problems would be solved. We can still 'keep' the Sabbath---nothing wrong with that----but, we could welcome people who do have to work on Sabbath, as Christians and baptize them and have them attend with us WHEN they can!

2Cor 3, is in effect, telling us we are no longer under the 'authority' of the Law of Moses--but are under the authority of Christ's Law. The Law of Moses and Christ's Law are in conflict with each other in some respects.

Ben

[Robert]

Let's look at the context of John 15:

15:1 “I am the true vine, and my Father is the gardener. 2 He cuts off every branch in me that bears no fruit, while every branch that does bear fruit he prunes so that it will be even more fruitful. 3 You are already clean because of the word I have spoken to you.

There is the foundation of our salvation from under law. "In Christ" we are already clean, i.e., in Him we are perfect....

4 Now remain in me, and I will remain in you.

We remain in Christ by faith....In turn He has promised to remain in us....

No branch can bear fruit by itself; it must remain in the vine. Neither can you bear fruit unless you remain in me. 5 “I am the vine; you are the branches. If a man remains in me and I in him, he will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing.

Okay, if we remain in Christ by faith we will bear "much fruit". If we are not in Him by faith we can do nothing but produce self-righteous fruit - the fruit of unbelief.

6 If anyone does not remain in me, he is like a branch that is thrown away and withers; such branches are picked up, thrown into the fire and burned.

If we reject Christ we will fall away....We will end up taking the 2nd death on ourselves.

7 If you remain in me and my words remain in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be given you.

Keep James 4:3 in mind....As long as we do not ask with selfish motives He will answer us.....

8 This is to my Father’s glory, that you bear much fruit, showing yourselves to be my disciples.

Please note that good works are to glorify the Father; not to gain heaven by some works program.

9 “As the Father has loved me, so have I loved you. Now remain in my love. 10 If you obey my commands, you will remain in my love, just as I have obeyed my Father’s commands and remain in his love.

What "commands"? The Ten Commandments? No....What is the context?

Answer:

verse 4 -- "remain in me"

verse 7 -- "ask whatever you wish, and it will be given you."

11 I have told you this so that my joy may be in you and that your joy may be complete. 12 My command is this: Love each other as I have loved you.

Now you can argue that Love is the fulfillment of the law. You can also argue that as we remain in Him by faith the good works He does in us will be in harmony with the law. However, will they totally fulfill the law? Not according to the next hint:

13 Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends.

Did Christ love better than this?

Romans 5:7 ...For a good man [i.e., a friend] someone might possibly dare to die. 8 But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners [His enemies - see verse 10], Christ died for us.

So we will grow as we remain in Christ by faith...His commands are to 1] remain in Him and 2] ask whatever you wish, and it will be given you.

Nevertheless, we still fall short of God's love, expressed in Jesus Christ, who died not for His friends, but for His enemies....

[Jeannieb43]

I've heard it preached from the pulpit that the Mosaic law [the Ten Commandments as given on Sinai] was never intended to become a rigid set of rules by which judgment would be handed down on the people....

Rather, it was given as a basic Constitution for the new government being set up by the Israelites [after their many years' Egyptian captivity plus their 40 years' wandering in the wilderness], to guide them in establishing their system of government in the Promised Land. They were ignorant as to how to run a country. They were given the framework by God.

[there buster]

Quote:

---

"If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; >>even as I have kept my Father's commandments, and abide in his love.<<" John 15:10 KJV

---

An oldie but a goodie! Classic misrepresentation of the text.

What Jesus means is clearly explained within the passage:

Quote:

---

10If you obey

my commands,

you will remain in my love, just as I have obeyed my Father’s commands and remain in his love. 11I have told you this so that my joy may be in you and that your joy may be complete. 12

My command is this: Love each other as I have loved you.

13Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends. 14

You are my friends if you do what I command.

15I no longer call you servants, because a servant does not know his master’s business. Instead, I have called you friends, for everything that I learned from my Father I have made known to you. 16You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you to go and bear fruit—fruit that will last. Then the Father will give you whatever you ask in my name. 17

This is my command: Love each other.

---

John chapters 13-17 represent a single discourse by Jesus. In it, he mentions this command repeatedly.

Quote:

---

13:34“A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. 35By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.”

---

Quote:

---

15:12My command is this: Love each other as I have loved you.

---

Quote:

---

15:17This is my command: Love each other.

---

Simple logic would tells us he repeated it to emphasize it.

So, you have to choose. When Jesus says, "Keep my commands," is he talking about the ones given to Moses more than a thousand years earlier, or is he referring to the his repeated references in the same discourse: "This is my command"?

If you say the 10 commandments, then you might as well just cut up the Bible word-by-word, and paste them together however suits you, because that's what you're doing.

[Robert]

Quote:

---

An oldie but a goodie! Classic misrepresentation of the text.

---

You're puffing up, Ed....Slow down before you pop...

I'll stick with my interpretation. If one is to bear fruit he can only do it by remaining in Christ by faith! Remember Christ stating, "without me you can do nothing?

Quote:

---

You are My friends, if you do what I command you.

---

I noticed that you had the above highlighted....Hmmm? I bet I know where you are taking this one.

Jesus doesn't come to us and say, "I'll be your friend if you do what I command." That's conditional love. Did Jesus love us conditionally on the cross? Did He say, "I'll die for a friend...or I'll die for a good person?" NO! Jesus died so that His enemies (those who were murdering Him) could have heaven in His place....Nothing conditional about that.

What then does Jesus mean by, "You are My friends, if you do what I command you"? Well, what does Jesus ask us to do? "Abide in him"....As we do we will bare fruit that is harmony with the law. But again the issue is we need to abide in Christ by faith. If we reject Him we are by default His enemies. His is not our enemy...we are His.

Quote:

---

Greater love has no one than this, that one lay down his life for

his friends

.

---

You might give up your life to save a friend, but Jesus was willing to give His life up for eternity so that His enemies could take His place. That's love....That's the real thing, not this half-baked commandment keeping Adventists brags about doing.

[there buster]

I'm beginning to realize you're incapable of saying anything relevant to the passage at hand.

You just use it as a launching pad. Jesus defined his own term three times in the passage.

That's the ABC's of interpretation. Like I said, you might as well just cut the Bible apart and paste it back however you like. That's what you're actually doing.

Jesus said "keep my command," and then he said "this is my command." And you tell me it means something other than what he explicitly said.

I showed you what it means in this passage, by the authority of Christ himself. Your speculations have no authority.

Quote:

---

I'll stick with my interpretation.

---

That's fine, but recognize it is indeed your own private interpretation, and therefore invalid.

[LifeHiscost]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

"If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; >>even as I have kept my Father's commandments, and abide in his love.<<" John 15:10 KJV

---

An oldie but a goodie! Classic misrepresentation of the text.

---

The expressions of faith by some professed Christian's would lead me to believe the following, if accepted.

[:"red"] "You shall have no other gods before me. [/] Deut 5:7 = Placing God (Jehovah) first and only denies love of the replacement.

[:"red"] "You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. You shall not bow down to them or worship them..." [/] V 8,9 = bowing only to Him reveals a lack of love (see above).

[:"red"] "You shall not misuse the name of the LORD your God" [/] V 11 = using His name with respect and deference reveals a lack of love to the disrespectful.

[:"red"] " Remember that you were slaves...and that the LORD your God brought you out of there with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm. Therefore the LORD your God has commanded you to observe the Sabbath day. " [/] V 15 = Resting with Him on a day He specially set aside reveals a lack of love for those who wish to make more money on that particular day.

[:"red"] ""Honor your father and your mother, as the LORD your God has commanded you, so that you may live long and that it may go well with you in the land the LORD your God is " [/] V 16 = reflects a lack of love, especially when you wish to live just a short time.

[:"red"] "You shall not murder." [/] V 17 =

Definately reveals a lack of love, especially to the one's who may keep on living if you withold your first impulse.

[:"red"] "You shall not commit adultery. [/] V 18 = reveals a lack of love to the person who may get a fresh view on marriage by taking someone else's spouse.

[:"red"] V 19 "You shall not steal." [/] V 19 = lack of love, especially if insurance will cover it.

[:"red"] "You shall not give false testimony against your neighbor." [/] V 20 = lack of love for those whose reputation is destroyed when being lied about, especially when we know they're worse than the common knowledge reveals.

[:"red"] "You shall not covet your neighbor's wife. You shall not set your desire on your neighbor's house or land, his manservant or maidservant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor." [/] V 21 = a lack of love as it keeps individuals with a large amount of possessions from feeling arrogant.

Applies to both OC and NC believers.

Lift Jesus up!!

[Robert]

Quote:

---

Jesus said "keep my command," and then he said "this is my command." And you tell me it means something other than what he explicitly said.

---

No, Jesus said, "keep My commands" [verse 10]....You do this by "abiding in Him" and "ask whatever you wish, and it will be given you."

Later on He states, "this is my command (singular)...."Love each other"....But that can only happen if,

1] We are fully resting in Him for our ticket to heaven (see verse 3)

2] We abide in Him by faith (verse 4)

3] And we believe in His promise (verse 7)

That's the context of the passage and not your private, legalistic interpretation!

Now I have one for you, explain the following:

• Luke 10:25 On one occasion an expert in the law stood up to test Jesus. “Teacher,” he asked, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?”

  26 “What is written in the Law?” he replied. “How do you read it?”

  27 He answered: ”‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind’; and, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’”

  28 “You have answered correctly,” Jesus replied. “Do this and you will live.”

Explain this (especially the bold part).

Rob

[Robert]

That's only the letter of the law!

[LifeHiscost]

Quote:

---

That's only the letter of the law!

---

Just my point, Robert. Those who are disciplined enough to make effort to keep the Law in its Spirit are seconding God's wisdom in setting it up, by personally writing it in His own handwriting. If heeded it modifies both believer and unbeliever to a minimal performance that protects others from the natural desire to take advantage and exploit those around us for our own individual benefit. The fact that the natural man places no trust in them does not mean they are any less useful for their intended purpose. It just helps identify the believers who trust that God speaks only necessary instruction.

[:"red"] "Bear (endure, carry) one another's burdens and troublesome moral faults, and in this way fulfill and observe perfectly the law of Christ (the Messiah) and complete what is lacking [in your obedience to it]. " [/] Galatians 6:2 AMP

Lift Jesus up!!

[Ron Amnsn]

Quote:

---

An oldie but a goodie! Classic misrepresentation of the text.

---

Quote:

---

13:34“A new command I give you: Love one another.

As I have loved you

, so you must love one another. 35By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.”

15:12My command is this: Love each other

as I have loved you

.

---

I don't see that the passage was misinterpreted.

Exactly how did Jesus love his disciples? By disregarding the 10 commandments and the Torah? By doing whatever felt right at the moment? No. Jesus showed his love to his disciples always within the context of careful obedience to the whole Torah. Every single thing Jesus said or did to show his love for his disciples was done according to the Torah. If we disregard the 10 commadments or the Torah then we aren't loving in the same manner that Jesus loved his disciples.

[there buster]

When he says, "Keep my commandment," and then three times says "This is my commandment," maybe we should take him at his word, and not go wandering off elsewhere.

I take him at his word. You're free to imagine anything you please. But any other interpretation will lack the authority of the text, and must rely only on yours.

As to "how he had loved them," that also can be answered from the text, when one bothers to actually study the text, rather than just plug in the "I think" interpretation.

[Ron Amnsn]

Hi Ed,

You seem to be losing patience with those of us who keep distrubing your own "I thinks" with information about the larger context.

As you know, the passages discussed above (2Cor 3 and John 15) would have quite different meanings if they had been penned in our day by Pat Robertson or Yassar Arafat than the meaning they had almost 20 centuries ago when originally penned by Torah-observant Jewish followers of the Hebrew Messiah.

Your technique of diagramming a passage to show the relationships of the words within the passage is a good tool to help us understand the passage. However, that technique does not help one arrive at "Biblical Literacy" if one insists on assigning modern definitions and concepts to the words in the passage and ignoring the larger context of what is known about the historical setting, how the words and concepts were used elsewhere in scripture, and the life and other writings of the author.

When you started this topic as "Biblical Literacy and 2 Cor 3" you said in your first post,

Quote:

---

I haven't yet seen any references to 2 Cor 1 or 2 Cor 2. Am I the only one that thinks that's a little strange?

---

Yet when I provided some contextual material about Paul's ministry from Acts and quoted from 2 Cor 2:15-16, you responded by saying,

Quote:

---

we needn't go cavorting through the whole Bible

---

In the NIV, the passage that I quoted from 2 Cor 2 is grouped into the same passage as 2 Cor 3 under the heading Ministers of the New Covenant. Since the begining topic of the passage is Paul's ministry, is it not valid to refer to other NT passages that describe Paul's ministry so that we have a better picture of that ministry? Unless we have in mind a picture of Paul's ministry that is similar to the picture of Paul's ministry held by the belivers in Corinth among whom Paul lived and taught for 18 months, then we will not really understand the passage. No matter how impressive our techniques may appear on the surface, if we have a false notion in our head that Paul's ministry was that of a proto-protestant evangelist, when in fact Paul was a Jewish teacher (a rabbi) reaching out to the Gentiles with the good news of Messiah as written in the Old Testament and lived out by the life and death of the Hebrew Messiah, we will inevitably assign false meanings to Paul's written words.

If you use your systematic diagramming technique to help you arrive as close as possible to the original meaning of a passage (by which I mean the same meaning that was in the mind of the author when he penned the passage), then your technique is a useful tool. However, if you use it to try to legitimatize the process of wrenching a passage from it's complete context (which includes not just the immediate passage in your diagram, but also the scriptural and historical context along with the record of the author's life and other writings) then your tool becomes just another method to give your own beliefs (your own "I thinks") the appearance of being superior to the "I thinks" of those who differ from you.

[there buster]

You're quite mistaken, Ron.

I have outlined the criteria I use, and the order in which I use them. These were not devised by me, but by numerous scholars over the years.

When I'm speculating, I label it as such.

As it happens, I've raised this particular passage with a number of Seminary teachers who happen to be close friends. Rather than being any sort of private interpretation, what I've offered here is simply good practice, to wit: If the author (or in this case speaker) defines his own term in the passage, that's the definition. If he does not, then one can look into the larger work, in this case, the entire Gospel of John. In this case, it is not necessary, because the definition is clear, consistent, and repeated. That's not an "I think." That's the reality of the text.

As it happens, in the larger work (John's Gospel), Jesus only uses the word "command" seven times, and five of them are in the Last Supper discourse. Once again, those are facts that anyone can look up.

The other two uses, are where Jesus speaks of His Father's command to Him.

So in John, every time Jesus uses variants of the phrase "my command," it is in the context of these three identical definitions. I don't think that, I simply report it. If no direct conclusion can be drawn from such evidence, then no conclusions can be drawn from the vast majority of passages, and the Bible becomes useless. (Please, everybody, please note the "If...then" structure of the previous sentence, and don't make some ridiculous charge that I declared the Bible useless).

As far as defining 2 Cor from Acts, that's not strong evidence. My point regarding that excursion was that it was unnecessary ("we don't need to"), when the matter was defined in the passage itself.

In throwing light on 2 Cor, if we can't define a term within the passage, or within the epistle itself, the next step would be to look at 1 Cor. If still in need of evidence, we might expand to all of Paul's work. Going to the book of Acts would be only for quite general evidence in most cases. Acts was written by Luke, not Paul, and that does introduce a whole list of other problems.

Contrary to your implication, I do take the historical context into consideration. I have noted that first century practice (in the case of the NT) should be taken into account. But we cannot use historical context to turn meanings and syntax on their head!

You might have noticed, that I began my work with 2 Cor 3 talking about epistles being "occasional writings," and how that formed the context for the whole discussion. So far, I've been asked to deal with two passages from Paul's epistles. That's a fairly narrow sample, and doesn't require all the tools I have. It also means that the context is highly specific--to the particular congregation in those particular circumstances--and therefore it can only be generalized after it is, in Walter Kaiser's terminology, 'principleized."

This is based on the understanding that when a prophet speaks, he is either enunciating a principle, or applying a principle. The first step is thus to determine which is happening in a given passage--the enunciation or application. Next, we determine what the principle is, based upon the findings in the first step. Finally, we apply that meaning to our own situation.

I know that for generations, Christians in general, and SDA's in particular, have treated the Bible as a theological scrap book, where they could grab anything that appeared similar, and assemble that into a "proof." But such a method has a number of weaknesses. Not the least of which is that people can assemble such "scrap-book theology" to prove almost anything, and since they use precisely the same mistaken method, they have no way of resolving their disputes.

You see it on CA all the time. What we have is a courtroom with NO rules of evidence. So all that's left is arguing, and when people grow tired of arguing, the move on to personal attacks.

I'm offering an alternative. A set of procedures, of which the block diagram is only one, and in some ways the least important. These are essentially "rules of evidence," which at least allow us the chance to come to a real understanding of the text.

If you pay attention, I've repeatedly said, in the preliminary stages, "I don't know yet." That's because I don't start with a preconceived notion of the outcome.

Most of the arguments here, and in our churches, start with the conclusion, and then go on a scavenger hunt for texts and quotations to support their conclusion. Whatever you want to call that, it can't be called honest study.

As I said earlier, you'll see me label my own speculation as just such. You'll also often see tentative declarations, such as "It appears... it strikes me... it looks like," as I'm forming and stating conclusions.

But then there are passages like "If you love me, keep my commandments. . ." where the evidence is direct, clear, and overwhelming.

Or where Bob claimed that the Sabbath portion of the Creation narrative was proleptic, because it fits his pet theory, rather than from any textual evidence, even where evidence of proleptic insertions of other material appear in the same chapter. So no evidence for A being proleptic, yet in the same passage explicit evidence for B being proleptic. That's a contrast only willfulness can ignore. Or total incomperhension.

When I make a mistake, as when I forgot to check the Greek, which agreed with Dr. Ben's position, I admit it, and change my conclusion.

That's because I'm not 'making a case.' I'm not trying to impose a meaning on the text, or appear clever in my understanding. My work as a Bible student is like that of an archeologist. My task is to expose what is there. The great difficulty is not to disturb the find in the process.

That's what few around here understand. I'm trying to gradually remove the layers obscuring the text. Others want to come in and move the artifacts into a pattern. But in archeology, and in Bible study, that distorts the finding.

Now, I've spent more than enough time on this. I'm going to proceed without answering all the petty accusations, and just demonstrate and explain how it works. Concerning the process, I'm willing and eager to discuss. As I said, I didn't invent it, I'm just using it. Concerning the text, I'm happy to discuss. Concerning my motives, parentage, character, etc. -- No more.

Those who want to learn how this works, and what the Bible says, I'm eager to help. But get this straight. It's a method of study not propagandizing. I give the steps slowly and ask for comments so that it becomes everyone's process.

But it leads where it leads. I'm not interested in refuting you or proving someone else right. I just want to expose the passage.

I welcome substantive comments from all. The rest I will dismiss and/or ignore.

[Ron Amnsn]

Ed,

If you're thinking that when the rest of us say "I think" it means that we're speculating, I think that you're mistaken. Some of the rest of us also use valid methods of Bible study approved by scholars. As a result of our studies we reach conclusions and hold certain thoughts and beliefs about what we've studied. When we share the results of what we've found we may say, "I think" this or that. Even if we don't write out all the methods and evidence that led up to our conclusion, that doesn't necessarily mean that our methods or evidence is faulty, nor does it necessarily mean that we're speculating. If you happen to think that one of our conclusions is faulty or speculative, you could ask us for our evidence or methods. When you give us your interpretation or opinion about the facts, it's what you think, which is probably not speculation.

I don't doubt that many scholars share your view. But as you know, truth has never been determined by popularity, even among scholars.

I agree with you that the word "commandments" in John 15:10 is not speaking specifically of the 10 Commandments of the Mosaic law. However, the phrase "my commandments" would include all of the commands which Jesus had given his disciples, just as "my Father's commandments" includes all the things God told Jesus to do, not just the things mentioned in the discourse. Since Jesus commanded his followers, "Do not think that I have come to destroy the Law or the Prophets," and other similar teachings, we can deduce that honoring the 10 Commandments is included as a part of the "my commandments" that Jesus was refering to.

Quote:

---

Acts was written by Luke, not Paul, and that does introduce a whole list of other problems.

---

Paul wrote his letters to people who knew Paul and the nature of his ministry, so Paul didn't need to explain everything in detail in his letters. The teaching and example that Paul provided while he was living in person among the congregation in Corinth provided the background that allowed original recipients to "fill in the blanks" in Paul's letters correctly. On the other hand, Acts was written to people who were not directly acquainted with Paul so it provides essential contextual information about Paul's life and ministry to those of us who are not directly acquainted with Paul. I believe the evidence in Acts is foundational rather than optional because it gives us the big picture of Paul's life and teachings. Paul's letters give us a close up view of short snippets of Paul's teachings, but often without the context of the situation Paul was addressing. Although we can usually "fill in the blanks" in Paul's letters to gain an understanding of what Paul meant, we should always check our interpretations to make sure they agree with the big picture provided by Acts. If our interpretation of Paul's writings disagree with what Acts shows us about Paul's life and teachings, then we should realize that we've erred somewhere in developing our interpretations.

In the case of 2 Cor 3, your interpretation (the way I understand it) of the passage disagrees with what the Old Testament scriptures teach about the Mosaic covenant and the new covenant. Since Acts tells us that the noble Bereans could use the Old Testament Scriptures to ensure that what Paul was teaching was true, then we should be able to do the same with Paul's writings today. If any particular interpretation of Paul's writings disagrees with the OT, then we can be confident that it is not a correct interpretation of Paul's teachings because Acts 17 and the Bereans show that Paul's gospel agreed with the OT. Actually, if we respect the OT as God's word, we could use the OT to judge any interpretation of Paul's writings, even if Acts didn't contain the example of the Bereans doing so.

I agree with your observations about the tendency to start at the end of Bible study and do things backwards. That's how I was taught to "study" the Bible as a youth. Later I learned what a farce it was. When I finally got around to reading what Acts actually says, I realized that what the original followers of Jesus practiced was quite different from what I'd been taught in Bible class and Sabbath School.