Did The Apostles have "Special Interpretation" From the Holy Spirit?

[JesusFan]

That he allowed them to be able to view the OT texts as being fulfilled in Christ in a way that we do NOT have the right to today?

That the HS permitted them to view jesus as being the fulfillment of them in a way that we do not see in the :"plain and literal " meaning of the text, as
matthew could see jesus as being the one who the Bible was referring to in the verse"out of Egypt called My Son", but we would not be able to see the connection, as we do not have the inspiration they had!

 

[Tom Bryant]

Part of the OT prophecies were already viewed as Messianic prophecies even before the time of Christ and were taught that way by many rabbis.

Yes, the men who wrote the Bible were given insight by the Holy Spirit but that is part of the inspiration of the Bible. (2 Peter 1:19-21)

We don't have that now because the canon of Scripture is finished and God's not giving special revelation now.

 

[kyredneck]

That he allowed them to be able to view the OT texts as being fulfilled in Christ in a way that we do NOT have the right to today?

That the HS permitted them to view jesus as being the fulfillment of them in a way that we do not see in the :"plain and literal " meaning of the text, as
matthew could see jesus as being the one who the Bible was referring to in the verse"out of Egypt called My Son", but we would not be able to see the connection, as we do not have the inspiration they had!

Yeah JF; that's pretty good for a dispy. You're movin' rite along....

But the Spirit still teaches, the written word gives us the means to articulate that teaching.

 

[JesusFan]

Part of the OT prophecies were already viewed as Messianic prophecies even before the time of Christ and were taught that way by many rabbis.

Yes, the men who wrote the Bible were given insight by the Holy Spirit but that is part of the inspiration of the Bible. (2 Peter 1:19-21)

We don't have that now because the canon of Scripture is finished and God's not giving special revelation now.

Wouldn't that make the "plain and literal" meaning of the text what to follow/apply today, due to to us NOT having that "special revelation/inspiration" today!

 

[Greektim]

Wouldn't that make the "plain and literal" meaning of the text what to follow/apply today, due to to us NOT having that "special revelation/inspiration" today!

No because the early church did not rely on the "plain and literal" meaning of the OT. Acts demonstrates this. Their hermeneutic was a premodern, messianic, figural one. I think we would do well to approach the text in this light first.

 

[Greektim]

Part of the OT prophecies were already viewed as Messianic prophecies even before the time of Christ and were taught that way by many rabbis.

Yes, the men who wrote the Bible were given insight by the Holy Spirit but that is part of the inspiration of the Bible. (2 Peter 1:19-21)

We don't have that now because the canon of Scripture is finished and God's not giving special revelation now.

There is more about Jesus in the OT beyond mere prophecies. That Matthew would open w/ Jesus as the Son of David and Son of Abraham is pretty telling that the story of redemption is accomplished in him.

Speaking of interpretation, Luke records the hermeneutical practices of the early church in Acts. Their conferences and practice was not inspired. It was their practice. Luke's recording of those practices is recorded. So your argument falls flat in light of the early church's hermeneutic found in Acts.

 

[Tom Bryant]

There is more about Jesus in the OT beyond mere prophecies. That Matthew would open w/ Jesus as the Son of David and Son of Abraham is pretty telling that the story of redemption is accomplished in him.

Speaking of interpretation, Luke records the hermeneutical practices of the early church in Acts. Their conferences and practice was not inspired. It was their practice. Luke's recording of those practices is recorded. So your argument falls flat in light of the early church's hermeneutic found in Acts.

I agree that there is much more about Jesus than mere prophecies,

I am not certain who your 2nd paragraph is speaking to. If to me, I would disagree about their practices being inspired. It is the scripture that is inspired. It didn't stick with them in their actions.

 

[DHK]

Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come. (John 16:13)

This oft mis-interpreted verse is directed to the disciples only. It speaks of revelation--the revelation that later would become our Scriptures. It does not apply to us today.

Note that Jesus said that the Holy Spirit would lead them into ALL truth. He doesn't do that today. No man can claim to have all truth. But the apostles, the ones who wrote the Scriptures had all the truth that God gave them concerning Christ and his revelation to us.
Note that the Holy Spirit would show them things to come. The Holy Spirit does not show us things to come. But there is prophecy in the NT, especially in the Book of Revelation. What John saw and understood is far more than we will ever know and understand. He was in heaven; we were not. He was witness to things that we will never see in our own lifetimes. He had far greater understanding than we do. He wrote of the Christ that He could see with his own eyes, that we can only envision with the words that he wrote. Who has the better understanding?

When Paul was in Arabia the Lord taught him and gave him special revelation--revelation that we will never receive. Not all of the revelation that Paul received is recorded in the Word of God. He had a far greater understanding than we do. After all he was the author of the very epistles that even Peter said "were hard to understand." To make an arrogant claim and say that we can understand better than the authors of Scripture is foolishness.

 

[JesusFan]

Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come. (John 16:13)

This oft mis-interpreted verse is directed to the disciples only. It speaks of revelation--the revelation that later would become our Scriptures. It does not apply to us today.

Note that Jesus said that the Holy Spirit would lead them into ALL truth. He doesn't do that today. No man can claim to have all truth. But the apostles, the ones who wrote the Scriptures had all the truth that God gave them concerning Christ and his revelation to us.
Note that the Holy Spirit would show them things to come. The Holy Spirit does not show us things to come. But there is prophecy in the NT, especially in the Book of Revelation. What John saw and understood is far more than we will ever know and understand. He was in heaven; we were not. He was witness to things that we will never see in our own lifetimes. He had far greater understanding than we do. He wrote of the Christ that He could see with his own eyes, that we can only envision with the words that he wrote. Who has the better understanding?

When Paul was in Arabia the Lord taught him and gave him special revelation--revelation that we will never receive. Not all of the revelation that Paul received is recorded in the Word of God. He had a far greater understanding than we do. After all he was the author of the very epistles that even Peter said "were hard to understand." To make an arrogant claim and say that we can understand better than the authors of Scripture is foolishness.

So would you agrre that the Apostles did have a "special interpration" to the Bible that we do not have !

 

[DHK]

So would you agrre that the Apostles did have a "special interpration" to the Bible that we do not have !

Obviously. We have one hundred members and one hundred interpretations.
They were given special revelation and special insight by Christ himself.

Who among us had this privilege:
And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself. (Luke 24:27)
--It was a long walk.

 

[Greektim]

I agree that there is much more about Jesus than mere prophecies,

I am not certain who your 2nd paragraph is speaking to. If to me, I would disagree about their practices being inspired. It is the scripture that is inspired. It didn't stick with them in their actions.

That's my point... their practice was not inspired. It was the norm however for interpreting Scripture. Luke records in Acts the early church's understanding of the OT. And it was figural/messianic/fulfilled in Jesus.

 

[Greektim]

Forgive the way I respond here... it is just easier.

Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come. (John 16:13)

This oft mis-interpreted verse is directed to the disciples only. It speaks of revelation--the revelation that later would become our Scriptures. It does not apply to us today.

Then John was toying with us when he recorded it huh? J/k... but I think it is important to remember that what the evangelists recorded was recorded for our benefit not just our knowledge.

Note that Jesus said that the Holy Spirit would lead them into ALL truth. He doesn't do that today. No man can claim to have all truth. But the apostles, the ones who wrote the Scriptures had all the truth that God gave them concerning Christ and his revelation to us.

How do you know "all truth" doesn't mean "all kinds of truth" or "all categories of truth"? "All" is after all an adjective in the Greek.

Note that the Holy Spirit would show them things to come. The Holy Spirit does not show us things to come.

Doesn't he? What would you call it when you are taught by the HS?

But there is prophecy in the NT, especially in the Book of Revelation. What John saw and understood is far more than we will ever know and understand. He was in heaven; we were not. He was witness to things that we will never see in our own lifetimes. He had far greater understanding than we do. He wrote of the Christ that He could see with his own eyes, that we can only envision with the words that he wrote. Who has the better understanding?

Could you related this to the doctrine of the perspicuity of Scripture?

When Paul was in Arabia the Lord taught him and gave him special revelation--revelation that we will never receive. Not all of the revelation that Paul received is recorded in the Word of God. He had a far greater understanding than we do. After all he was the author of the very epistles that even Peter said "were hard to understand." To make an arrogant claim and say that we can understand better than the authors of Scripture is foolishness.

I'm not sure I read anywhere someone who claimed to know more than Paul. Nevertheless, Dt. 29:29 tells us that we can understand what is revealed in Scripture. My question is how do we understand it? As best I can tell, the Biblical hermeneutic is one that looks for Jesus as its fulfillment (not just prophecy). This was the practice of Matthew, the early church in Acts, and the early church in general after the apostles. I fear that modernity and the enlightenment has gotten us away from the more likely understanding of Scripture. My opinion anyways.

 

[JesusFan]

Forgive the way I respond here... it is just easier.

I'm not sure I read anywhere someone who claimed to know more than Paul. Nevertheless, Dt. 29:29 tells us that we can understand what is revealed in Scripture. My question is how do we understand it? As best I can tell, the Biblical hermeneutic is one that looks for Jesus as its fulfillment (not just prophecy). This was the practice of Matthew, the early church in Acts, and the early church in general after the apostles. I fear that modernity and the enlightenment has gotten us away from the more likely understanding of Scripture. My opinion anyways.

Think that we are agreeing here on just HOW the Apostles were allowed by God to interprete the OT in light of the NT to us in the Canon of scripture, just that we see that as being "special understanding/revelation" granted to them by the HS, and NOT the way to do such for today...

We have their doctrines given them by God, but today we have to apply sound study methods in order to have illumination by/from HS!

 

[mandym]

Wouldn't that make the "plain and literal" meaning of the text what to follow/apply today, due to to us NOT having that "special revelation/inspiration" today!

I am trying to follow your logic here. Why would we have to have "special revelation" in order that we be able to apply that today?

 

[JesusFan]

I am trying to follow your logic here. Why would we have to have "special revelation" in order that we be able to apply that today?

just was saying thatonly the Apostles have the "liceanse" from God to be able to read into the OT from the perspective of Christ coming in the NT...

example, the HS allowed matthew to read into the text that jesus was the fulfillment of God calling His son out of Egypt, and he applied that to being Christ...
Today, we would be reading that and applying sound principles to see that referred to isreal in the immediate contex and history, BUT the HS allowed matthew to see jesus there in addition to!

 

[mandym]

just was saying thatonly the Apostles have the "liceanse" from God to be able to read into the OT from the perspective of Christ coming in the NT...

example, the HS allowed matthew to read into the text that jesus was the fulfillment of God calling His son out of Egypt, and he applied that to being Christ...
Today, we would be reading that and applying sound principles to see that referred to isreal in the immediate contex and history, BUT the HS allowed matthew to see jesus there in addition to!

Being able to see into scripture, which we can do being led by the HS, is not the same as special revelation.

 

[Greektim]

just was saying thatonly the Apostles have the "liceanse" from God to be able to read into the OT from the perspective of Christ coming in the NT...

example, the HS allowed matthew to read into the text that jesus was the fulfillment of God calling His son out of Egypt, and he applied that to being Christ...
Today, we would be reading that and applying sound principles to see that referred to isreal in the immediate contex and history, BUT the HS allowed matthew to see jesus there in addition to!

And my argument from Acts 15 is that it was not just the apostles who were doing this. Luke records the early church reading the OT in this way. So it is not apostolic in the sense of miraculous. It is orthodox.

 

[Iconoclast]

Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come. (John 16:13)

This oft mis-interpreted verse is directed to the disciples only. It speaks of revelation--the revelation that later would become our Scriptures. It does not apply to us today.

Note that Jesus said that the Holy Spirit would lead them into ALL truth. He doesn't do that today. No man can claim to have all truth. But the apostles, the ones who wrote the Scriptures had all the truth that God gave them concerning Christ and his revelation to us.
Note that the Holy Spirit would show them things to come. The Holy Spirit does not show us things to come. But there is prophecy in the NT, especially in the Book of Revelation. What John saw and understood is far more than we will ever know and understand. He was in heaven; we were not. He was witness to things that we will never see in our own lifetimes. He had far greater understanding than we do. He wrote of the Christ that He could see with his own eyes, that we can only envision with the words that he wrote. Who has the better understanding?

When Paul was in Arabia the Lord taught him and gave him special revelation--revelation that we will never receive. Not all of the revelation that Paul received is recorded in the Word of God. He had a far greater understanding than we do. After all he was the author of the very epistles that even Peter said "were hard to understand." To make an arrogant claim and say that we can understand better than the authors of Scripture is foolishness.

:thumbsup::thumbsup:

 

[JesusFan]

[

QUOTE=Greektim;1730020]And my argument from Acts 15 is that it was not just the apostles who were doing this. Luke records the early church reading the OT in this way. So it is not apostolic in the sense of miraculous. It is orthodox.

[/QUOTE]

Regardless IF the early Church fathers saw it that way, we are just stating that due to their "unique" roles/positions, ONLY the Apostles were authorized by god to be able to do such!

Today, need to use and adopt a more literal method!

 

[Greektim]

Regardless IF the early Church fathers saw it that way, we are just stating that due to their "unique" roles/positions, ONLY the Apostles were authorized by god to be able to do such!

Today, need to use and adopt a more literal method!

Pause for a sec...

I am not talking about the church fathers. I am talking about the parishioners of Jerusalem Church circa AD45. And that is what Acts 15 demonstrates. Consider the situation... the issue was all about the CHristian Jews acknowledging the Christian Gentiles as part of the people of God. If anyone was going to object to the way in which Scripture was used (or "abused" in your case), it would have been in Acts 15. But you have total unanimity. All acknowledged the figural use of the OT b/c it was part of their practice. Luke records Jesus doing the same thing in Lk 24. In fact, Luke records a lot of people doing the same thing. He develops a pattern. Whether he did so prescriptionally or descriptively is beyond the point. He did so, not as an apostle, and had good authority to do so... because he was taught this method by the apostles.

Beyond that, I don't think you could provide a verse that says that apostles would have a special hermeneutic that we would not have. So that then is an extra-biblical, philosophical argument that holds no water.