Laws of Interpretation

Pastor Larry
"The very nature of language demands that he, and you, are wrong. Language by nature has one meaning, the meaning the author intended."
"
You clearly never payed attention in High School when basic English literature was taught. Multiple layers of meaning in one text is done by human authors all the time.

As for that Latin poem.
To be honest I put it in because it is rather famous and I simply wanted to be the first to include it.

 

"Recognize that some passages are allegorical and search for the deeper meaning. A case in point is Song of Solomon."
"
I'm still hoping to ever participate in a marriage ceremony where the bride and groom actually sing it to eachother.

Julie (looking forward to helping sing the bits intended for the female choir)

 

what i think is extremely interesting is
folks who know all about how the early
Christians felt but know nothing about
detecting 21st Century (2001-2100) propaganda.

 

Dave

Your mention of the Song of Solomon reminded me of something. Dispensationalists state that the church is not in Old Testament prophecy yet the original Scofield Reference bible states that the Song of Solomon is an allegory showing the love of Jesus Christ for His Bride, the Church.

An dispensationalists calim they don't believe in allegorical interpretation.

 

We have a prophet in our midst [2001-2100].

 

You misrepresented me. I said that we should try to understand what a text means. You tried to make it sound like I didn't. I am one of the biggest proponents of finding the meaning of the text on this board. It is why I reject so vehemently the amillennialism that some promote. It simply is not what the text means. The rapture is a doctrine I believe and believe is taught. I don't think it is crystal clear and I can allow someone to differ from me on that.

But don't misrepresent what I say.

 

Both Christ and Paul used PARABLES and ALLEGORIES. The method was used during the time of Christ and he used many parables, thus not disputing it’s proper use. To cite just one of the many PARABLES of Christ;

PARABLE - DICTIONARY: THAYER'S:

paroimia -
1) a saying out of the usual course or deviating from the usual manner of speaking
1a) a current or trite saying, a proverb
2) any dark saying which shadows forth some didactic truth
2a) especially a symbolic or figurative saying
2b) speech or discourse in which a thing is illustrated by the use of similes and comparisons
2c) an allegory
2c1) extended and elaborate metaphor

Origins of Paul's use of Allegrizing Galatians 4:24-27 as in the "Restoration Quarterly"

http://www.restorationquarterly.org/Volume_040/rq04002mclane.htm

"These things are intended to convey a deeper meaning." The verb itself means to "speak allegorically," which indicates that the word has had a history of development. The word is of late Greek origin and actually came to replace in usage the word did come into common use, it first referred to allegory as a mode of expression; i.e., it meant figurative language. Later on, it was used to denote allegory as a method of exegesis; i.e., it meant allegorical interpretation.
Following Philo and other Hellenistic allegorists, the noun came to describe the "figurative interpretation of an authoritative text." This meaning, coupled with the intention to convey a deeper meaning, becomes a crucial definition when seeking to understand Paul's use...Actually, the distinction is between Paul's use of a present passive (deponent) participle and a noun. It is the difference between his identification of the original narrative as an allegory and his actual practice of allegorizing the original event.

 

The doctrine of the Trinity is clear in texts where Christ is said to be God, and where the Holy Spirit is said to be God. That is not an issue of dual meanings.

The whole nature of the atonement is predicated on Christ's being God. A perfect God is the only one who can atone for man's sin. If you don't believe Christ was God, then you have no viable atonement. But that is an issue for another thread.

I am not sure what your point is. This verse has nothing to do with dual meanings. I believe it as it stands. Why do think there are multiple meanings in that?

 

Multiple layers of meaning, when they exist, are authorially intended. In other words, an author intends more than one meaning. That is clearly acceptable which is why biblical (and any other kind of hermeneutics) is based on single meaning based on authorial intent.

consider this conversation. We are not sitting around wondering what the deeper or multiple meanings are. We are taking the words of others at face value, assuming that they mean what they say. When you said I did not pay attention in high school English (something that is ... well, more true than I would like to admit), no one thinks that you are saying I went to play golf last Thursday. They understand that "high school" and "English" and "pay attention" have meaning that is only one in this given context. They don't even think that you are saying that I slept through High school math. Your words meant something, and every conversation you carry on with intelligibility is evidence that I am right. If I were wrong, you wouldn't have any idea what I am saying. I think in the haste to sound smart with the Bible, we overlook the most basic issues of human communication. Without my construct, communication is virtually impossible because we never know what someone else is saying.

 

Great illustration of my point. The parables and allegories were intended to mean something else. They were intended to carry teaching that may not have been the immediate focus of the words. But in those cases, they are declared to be such. It is not something added in afterwards. It is something that was inherent in teh original communication. The kind of "multiple meaning" that most talk about isn't this kind. It is the kind that says "We can't have an earthly kingdom because we don't believe that, therefore all those references to earthly kingdom actually mean spiritual kingdom." It is that kind of mistreatment of hte text that we should all stand firmly against.

 

Well, I'll answer your post. I think the men are ignoring the women in this discussion, many men think women can not understand.
I think there are times in scripture when it is addressing the culture or history, something particular to those specific people.
A very good and praticle list Marcia.

 

And?

Joh 18:36 "Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, then My servants would fight so that I might not be delivered to the Jews. But now My kingdom is not from here."

P.S. Could you please cite a specific verse where it is clearly obvious that it is teaching an earthly literal kingdom, please?

 

Pastor Larry et al,

Alfred Edersheim in his 'Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah,' gave a worthy definition of the Kingdom of God starting with John 3. He says that in his analysis of the 119 passages in the New Testament where the expression 'Kingdom' occurs, it shows that it means;

1) the rule of God; ( 34 times)
</font>

• Matt. 6:33; 12:28; 13:38; 19:31; Mark 1:14; 10:15, 23-25; 12:34; Luke 1:33; 4:43; 9:11; 11:20; 12:31; 17:17, 24-25, 29; John 3:3; Acts 1:3; 8:12; 20:25; 28:31; Rom. 14:17; 1 Cor. 4:20; Col. 4:11; 1 Thess 2:12; Rev.1:9</font>

2) which was manifested in and through Christ; ( 17 times )
</font>

• Matt. 3:2; 4:17, 23; 5:3, 10; 9:35; 10:7; Mark 1:15; 11:10; Luke 8:1; 9:2; 16:16; 19:12, 15; Acts 1:3; 28:23; Rev. 1:9</font>

3) is apparent in 'the Church'; ( 11 times )
</font>

• Matt. 11:11; 13:41; 16:19; 18:1; 21:43; 23:13; Luke 7:28; John 3:5; Acts 1:3; Col. 1:13; Rev. 1:9.</font>

4) gradually develops amidst hindrances; (24 times )
</font>

• Matt. 11:12; 13:11, 19, 24, 31, 33, 44-45, 47, 52; 18:23; 20:1; 22:2; 25:1, 14; Mark 4:11, 26, 30; Luke 8:10; 9:62; 13:18, 20; Acts 1:3; Rev. 1:9</font>

5) is triumphant at the second coming of Christ ('the end'); (12 times) </font>

• Matt. 16:28; Mark 9:1; 15:43; Luke 9:27; 19:11; 21:31; 22:16, 18; Acts 1:3; 2 Tim. 4:1; Heb 11:28; Rev. 1:9</font>

6) perfected in the world to come. (31 times )
</font>

• Matt. 5:19-20; 7:21; 8:11;13:3; 25:34; 26:29; Mark 9:47; 10:14; 14:25; Luke 6:20; 12:32; 13:28-29; 14:15; 18:16; 22:29; Acts 1:3; 14:22; 1 Cor 6:9-10; 15:24, 50; Gal. 5:21; Eph. 5:5; 2 Thess. 1:5; James 2:5; 2 Peter 1:11; Rev. 1:9; 12:10</font>

7) The term 'repentance' includes faith in Christ, as in Luke 24:47; acts 5:32

However, nowhere does it say that Christ's Kingdom is an earthly kingdom!

 

John 18:36 is very easy. The word "of" is "ek" ... it means "out of." Christ was saying that his kingdom did not originate in the present world. He was not saying it wasn't an earthly kingdom. That would contradict the OT prophecies, which clearly prophesy that the Messiah will reign from Jerusalem. The promise to David was that his Son, the Messiah, would reign from his throne, and David's throne was never anywhere other than earth. There is no verse that says "It will be an earthly kingdom." However, the disciples clearly thought it would be a restoration (Acts 1:6) and they preached a restoration (Acts 3:19-21). How is a spiritual kingdom a restoration? The old kingdom wasn't a spiritual one. A restoration, by definition, is the restoring of something that previously existed. Therefore, it has to be an earthly kingdom. Even the NC itself references the fact that it will be earthly (Jer 31:36-40). There can be legitimate debate about the timing of teh rapture. But there can hardly be legitimate debate about the earthly nature of the kingdom. It is explicit in Scripture. There is no legitimate way to spiritualize it without twisting the text beyond recognition.

You really need to get a copy of McClain and read it. You are uneducated without that book, regardless of which position you hold.

 

Technique of interpertation illustrated

Covenant: "However, nowhere does it say that Christ's Kingdom is an earthly kingdom!"

What does "it" refer to here?
I believe "the New Testament".
Others may get different milage???

 

John 18:36
'A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament' (Thayer);

II. of the Origin, Source, Cause;...with the suggested idea of a nature and disposition derived from one's origin; ouk esti ek ton kosmos toutou , is not of earthly origin nor of an earthly nature,

Jn 3:31..[greek deleted] is of an earthly nature

 

So? Think about several things: 1) almost all words have multiple meanings; it only means one thing in context. 2) Meaning is determined by context, both near literary and wider theological context. In light of that, John 18:36 is not teaching a spiritual kingdom. There is too much evidence to the contrary, including the near context of why a king didn't have an army. It is because his kingdom was not to be set up at that time, adn would not be brought up in a worldly manner.

 

Larry,

"John 18:36 is not teaching a spiritual kingdom."

Are you above a Lexiconist? Thayer says that John 3:31 is of an earthly nature - not 18:36!

" John 18:36 is not teaching a spiritual a spiritual kingdom. There is too much evidence to the contrary, including the near context of why a king didn't have an army. It is because his kingdom was not to be set up at that time, adn would not be brought up in a worldly manner.

This is just dispensational Darbyism's interpretion - man made doctrine which isn't scripturally supported and is of 1800's.

 

I am not above a lexicographist (the proper term). Thayer is interpreting a word based on his position, not based on its meaning. The word can mean what Thayer says. There is no question about that. But does it? Not in light of the rest of Scripture. Since I don't need to come to Thayer's conclusion, I don't have to accept his commentary on the word.

Secondly, that is not "just dispensational Darbyism's interpretation." It is what the text actually means. It is scripturally supported by many OT verses that clearly teach that Jesus' kingdom was earthly, but would not come as Pilate was asking about. That is not 1800s. It goes back about 2700 years earlier than that, to the time of the OT.

You have bought into a system of thought that isn't entirely biblical. Because of that, you are forced to find certain conclusions from passages and it hinders the way you read them.

 

CONTEXT! CONTEXT! CONTEXT!

"my kingship is not of this world...my kingship is not from the world!"

So you DO think you know more than a "lexicographist?" How do you know what Thayer's theological position is???? Sounds to me like Thayer is correct and it's he that doesn't agree with your erroneous biased interpretation. You can't come up with a single scripture for an "earthly kingdom" but think you know more than a lexicographer?

Thayer's has been a well respected Lexicon since 1885.