The observation and utilization of cross-references in the Bible is a valid and necessary principle of biblical interpretation. Some cross-references may be verbal, others conceptual, and still others because of extended parallel accounts. When used correctly, cross-references can properly inform one another.
There can be a danger, however, in turning the use of cross-references or parallel-passages into its own interpretive approach, or at least in exaggerating it.
Consider these possible dangers of turning this principle into an entire approach.
(1) It is often assumed that this is a biblical method even though the Bible itself never speaks of it.
(2) It can overlook other important interpretive principles that are more primary, such as observing context or grammar.
(3) There is a danger of reading into a text an interpretation drawn from another text. It may even tend to foist some preconceived interpretation from one passage upon another.
(4) It forgets that every passage makes its own contribution first, before it can be correlated with other passages.
(5) It falls prey to the fallacy that similarities must be parallels (Ocam's razor). Interpreters must not assume that because two or more things look similar that they are parallel, or identical.
(6) It wrongly presupposes that the natural reading of a passage is the one that fits best with other passages. It is more correct to conclude that the natural reading of a passage is what fits best with its own context.
(7) It seems to compel interpreters to force scriptural details to fit together rather than to allow each passage to make its own contribution. The systematizing of biblical truth must not be the imposition of a system over the Bible in order to make things fit. Systematic Theology must have large enough categories to allow passages to teach their own truth. This requires new categories to be considered in the compilation of Systematic Theology (for example, "Gentile-ology" and "Israelology" in addition to "Ecclesiology").
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
Wednesday, March 3, 2010
Daniel's People...Daniel 9:24
I want first to refer readers back to two previous articles. On December 11, 2009 I wrote about the dangers of "reinterpreting" Old Testament passages rather than "interpreting" them according to their own intention. In that article we clarified that New Testament writers do not deny, contradict, or change ("reinterpret") the intended meaning of Old Testament texts. On December 21, 2009 I used Isaiah 7:14 as an illustrative test case, showing that Matthew used this passage in the same way Isaiah intended it - Matthew did not "reinterpret" Isaiah.
Now, from Daniel 9:24, we observe the introduction to Daniel's record of the prophecy of the "70 Weeks". Daniel 9:24 records, "Seventy weeks have been decreed FOR YOUR PEOPLE AND FOR YOUR HOLY CITY". Daniel's "holy city" is Jerusalem. Attempts to make this a "heavenly" or "spiritual" Jerusalem do not work for the entire context through Daniel 9:27 specifies the city of Jerusalem. New Testament passages, such as Hebrews 12:22 do not change or reinterpret Daniel 9:24.
Daniel's "people" are in particular the people of the house of Judah, i.e. the Jewish people. Daniel was taken into Babylonian captivity as one of them. Daniel's prayer and resultant prophecy of chapter nine are in the context of praying according to the prophecy of Jeremiah concerning the end of the 70 years of captivity for the Jews (9:2). There is no shift in the identity of Daniel's people as we come to 9:24. The 70 Weeks of Daniel's prophecy are for the Jewish people, Daniel's people. Attempts to reinterpret "Daniel's people" to include the Church are improper attempts change the intent of Daniel's prophecy. New Testament passages like Romans 2:28-29, Romans 11:17ff., Second Corinthians 3:6 and others indicate that Church-age believers are grafted into (joined to and participate in) Israel's covenant promises. Such passages do not redefine Israel as the Church (nor does Galatians 6:16). Neither are such passages reinterpreting "Daniel's people" to include Church-age believers in the 70 weeks of Daniel's prophecy.
So, Daniel's people are the Jews and his prophecy centers on Jerusalem. The details of all 70 Weeks of Daniel's prophecy, including the 70th Week (9:27), pertain to Daniel's people - not to the Church.
Now, from Daniel 9:24, we observe the introduction to Daniel's record of the prophecy of the "70 Weeks". Daniel 9:24 records, "Seventy weeks have been decreed FOR YOUR PEOPLE AND FOR YOUR HOLY CITY". Daniel's "holy city" is Jerusalem. Attempts to make this a "heavenly" or "spiritual" Jerusalem do not work for the entire context through Daniel 9:27 specifies the city of Jerusalem. New Testament passages, such as Hebrews 12:22 do not change or reinterpret Daniel 9:24.
Daniel's "people" are in particular the people of the house of Judah, i.e. the Jewish people. Daniel was taken into Babylonian captivity as one of them. Daniel's prayer and resultant prophecy of chapter nine are in the context of praying according to the prophecy of Jeremiah concerning the end of the 70 years of captivity for the Jews (9:2). There is no shift in the identity of Daniel's people as we come to 9:24. The 70 Weeks of Daniel's prophecy are for the Jewish people, Daniel's people. Attempts to reinterpret "Daniel's people" to include the Church are improper attempts change the intent of Daniel's prophecy. New Testament passages like Romans 2:28-29, Romans 11:17ff., Second Corinthians 3:6 and others indicate that Church-age believers are grafted into (joined to and participate in) Israel's covenant promises. Such passages do not redefine Israel as the Church (nor does Galatians 6:16). Neither are such passages reinterpreting "Daniel's people" to include Church-age believers in the 70 weeks of Daniel's prophecy.
So, Daniel's people are the Jews and his prophecy centers on Jerusalem. The details of all 70 Weeks of Daniel's prophecy, including the 70th Week (9:27), pertain to Daniel's people - not to the Church.
Monday, February 1, 2010
Iranian "Harsh Blow" on February 11?
This just in today . . . "Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejead says the nation will deliver a harsh blow to 'global arrogance' on this year's anniversary of the Islamic Revolution." This would be February 11.
See http://flashtrafficblog.wordpress.com/
See http://flashtrafficblog.wordpress.com/
Friday, January 29, 2010
From London with Love??
These pictures are of Muslims marching through the STREETS OF LONDON during
their recent "Religion of PEACE Demonstration" !!
Monday, January 11, 2010
Date-Setting Example
In light of my previous post,you may want to look at this article http://www.americanvision.org/article/harold-camping-will-go-mad-on-may-11-2011.
Friday, January 1, 2010
Date-Setting?
The New Year often brings with it questions about whether or not this could be the year of Christ's appearing in the air to rapture His church. Well, of course it could!!
But, other questions get confused with this. The film "2012" and conversations about the Mayan calendar have caused some to ask the question this way - "Could this be the end of the world?". Let me give a guarantee - neither this year nor 2012 will be the end of the world. From today, there will at least be the seventieth week of Daniel (7 years) plus the millennial kingdom of Messiah (1,000 years) before the world will end. In addition to that 1007 years, there will be whatever time between now and when the 70th week begins, which is unknown, plus at least a 75 day interval between the 70th week and the millennial kingdom (compare Revelation 13:6 with Daniel 12:11-12). Revelation 20:11 and Second Peter 3:10 describe "the end of the world" as the supernatural judgment of God rather than man-made self-destruction.
Another confusion is demonstrated when the question is phrased, "Will Jesus return this year?". We should ask, "Could He?". But, "will He?" or "must He"? We do not know. Be suspicious of anyone who "sets" a date or says this "must" be the time - he/she may be guilty of the sin of presumption/false prophecy (Deuteronomy 18:22). Setting a date is very specific, measurable, and, if wrong, tends to put a "black eye" on the face of all believers in Christ. There is no biblical command against date-setting, but there are abundant warnings against foolishness and presumption.
Matthew 24:42-44 is not a prohibition of wondering, guessing, or even date-setting. It is a statement of the reality that no one knows the day of Christ's return ending the 70th week of Daniel (cp. Daniel 9:27 with Revelation 19:20). It is not a reference to the rapture of the church, although the principle of not knowing can be indirectly applied to the rapture of the church if one just tries to do the math from an unknown reference point.
First Thessalonians 5:2ff. is not a prohibition either. Nor are Matthew 24:42-44 and First Thessalonians 5:2ff. valid cross-references to one another. Jesus and Paul are talking about different, though not unrelated, issues. Paul is asserting that the Day of the Lord will come suddenly and unexpectedly on the unsaved world, but not on believers who should constantly be living in expectation of the rapture (cp. 4:16-18 with 5:4-11) and therefore are not surprised. This is further evidence that the "day" of Revelation 6:17 must already be taking place prior to the statement in 6:17, because the unsaved of the earth are hiding in caves expecting the wrath of Christ upon them, but when the Day of the Lord begins it comes upon the lost as a "thief" according to First Thessalonians 5:2ff., not while they are hiding in the mountains, but while they are saying "peace and safety".
Guesses or desires are not in themselves bad things. What can become a problem is one asserting too definitively what one does not in fact know. Rather than mocking guessers, believers would do well to take these conversations as Gospel opportunities.
May this New Year be one for each of us who knows Jesus Christ, of "fighting the good fight", "finishing the course", "keeping the faith", and "loving His appearing" (Second Timothy 4:7-8).
But, other questions get confused with this. The film "2012" and conversations about the Mayan calendar have caused some to ask the question this way - "Could this be the end of the world?". Let me give a guarantee - neither this year nor 2012 will be the end of the world. From today, there will at least be the seventieth week of Daniel (7 years) plus the millennial kingdom of Messiah (1,000 years) before the world will end. In addition to that 1007 years, there will be whatever time between now and when the 70th week begins, which is unknown, plus at least a 75 day interval between the 70th week and the millennial kingdom (compare Revelation 13:6 with Daniel 12:11-12). Revelation 20:11 and Second Peter 3:10 describe "the end of the world" as the supernatural judgment of God rather than man-made self-destruction.
Another confusion is demonstrated when the question is phrased, "Will Jesus return this year?". We should ask, "Could He?". But, "will He?" or "must He"? We do not know. Be suspicious of anyone who "sets" a date or says this "must" be the time - he/she may be guilty of the sin of presumption/false prophecy (Deuteronomy 18:22). Setting a date is very specific, measurable, and, if wrong, tends to put a "black eye" on the face of all believers in Christ. There is no biblical command against date-setting, but there are abundant warnings against foolishness and presumption.
Matthew 24:42-44 is not a prohibition of wondering, guessing, or even date-setting. It is a statement of the reality that no one knows the day of Christ's return ending the 70th week of Daniel (cp. Daniel 9:27 with Revelation 19:20). It is not a reference to the rapture of the church, although the principle of not knowing can be indirectly applied to the rapture of the church if one just tries to do the math from an unknown reference point.
First Thessalonians 5:2ff. is not a prohibition either. Nor are Matthew 24:42-44 and First Thessalonians 5:2ff. valid cross-references to one another. Jesus and Paul are talking about different, though not unrelated, issues. Paul is asserting that the Day of the Lord will come suddenly and unexpectedly on the unsaved world, but not on believers who should constantly be living in expectation of the rapture (cp. 4:16-18 with 5:4-11) and therefore are not surprised. This is further evidence that the "day" of Revelation 6:17 must already be taking place prior to the statement in 6:17, because the unsaved of the earth are hiding in caves expecting the wrath of Christ upon them, but when the Day of the Lord begins it comes upon the lost as a "thief" according to First Thessalonians 5:2ff., not while they are hiding in the mountains, but while they are saying "peace and safety".
Guesses or desires are not in themselves bad things. What can become a problem is one asserting too definitively what one does not in fact know. Rather than mocking guessers, believers would do well to take these conversations as Gospel opportunities.
May this New Year be one for each of us who knows Jesus Christ, of "fighting the good fight", "finishing the course", "keeping the faith", and "loving His appearing" (Second Timothy 4:7-8).
Monday, December 21, 2009
Isaiah 7:14...Christmas Hermeneutics
The "Jewish Study Bible" (Jewish Publication Society, Oxford University Press, 1999, p.798) makes this comment on Isaiah 7:14 : "Young woman (Heb "almah"). The Septuagint translates as 'virgin', leading ancient and medieval Christians to connect this verse with the New Testament figure of Mary. All modern scholars, however, agree that the Heb merely denotes a young woman of marriageable age, whether married or unmarried, whether a virgin or not."
This comment completely ignores the New Testament, as might be expected in a Jewish commentary. It overlooks the fact that not only did "ancient and medieval Christians" make this connection to the virgin birth of Jesus, but that the New Testament itself does so in Matthew 1:23, which is why Christians have followed the teaching. The implication of this statement from the Jewish commentators is that the New Testament is wrong in Matthew 1:23, because it makes an invalid connection between Isaiah 7:14 and the birth of Jesus the Messiah. In other words, Matthew "reinterpreted" Isaiah 7:14 to fit his "Christian" purposes.
There are at least three more things wrong with the "Jewish Study Bible" (JSB) comment. (1) The Hebrew word "almah" is used throughout the Old Testament to refer to an unmarried virgin (Genesis 24:23, Exodus 2:8, Psalm 68:25, Proverbs 30:19, Song of Solomon 1:3, 6:8), not merely "a young woman of marriageable age". (2) The comment implies that the Septuagint translation had to be wrong. (3) To state that "all modern scholars" agree on this is simply not true, in fact would not be true of "all modern scholars" on anything! It does allow the Jewish Study Bible commentators to call anyone who disagrees with them "ancient" or "medieval", that is, out of touch with current scholarship and reality.
But, the sadder issue is that there are Christian commentators who have done exactly what the JSB has accused them of doing. Trying to acknowledge the historic setting of this section of Isaiah, it is insisted that the virgin is Isaiah's wife (see 8:1-2), and the son is Isaiah's son Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz of his prophetess wife (see 8:3), and that Isaiah's son is called Immanuel (8:8,10). In doing this, as for example Herbert M. Wolf does in "Interpreting Isaiah" (Zondervan, 1985, p.91), it becomes necessary for such commentators to conclude that Matthew has used a "reinterpreting" kind of hermeneutic when referring to Isaiah 7:14 in Matthew 1:23. Wolf puts it this way, "In the New Testament, Isaiah 7:14 was used in a fuller sense and applied to Mary and Jesus. Mary, unlike the virgin in Isaiah's day, was still a virgin even after becoming pregnant." Did you hear it? Wolf is saying that Matthew is giving a "fuller" meaning to Isaiah 7:14 than what was actually present in the text. Thus, he is implying that New Testament writers can treat Old Testament texts in a different way than the Old Testament writers intended them, as long as the treatment is filtered through the grid of their Christian purposes (Jesus and the Gospel). If you take this approach, I suspect the JSB commentators have just had you for lunch.
It would be much better to recognize Isaiah's actual intent in Isaiah 7, and realize that Matthew is using Isaiah 7:14 in exactly the same way that Isaiah intended it to be used. When Ahaz rejected any sign from the Lord through Isaiah (7:11-12), the Lord by-passed Ahaz and gave the sign to the "House of David" (7:13). The prophesied son is not the son of Isaiah, but a royal son, in accordance with the theme of Yahweh's faithfulness to Zion and David, and fitting with the idiom "curds and honey" as royal food (7:15,22). While Isaiah's son in chapter 8 may be seen as typologically portraying to some extent the meaning of Immanuel in 7:14, the son of 7:14 is in fact the Messiah, Israel's King, not Isaiah's son. As Andrew H. Bartelt points out ("The Book Around Immanuel", Eisenbrauns, 1996, pp.115-117), "The consequences of this message, however, as they were to be played out in the subsequent history of Judah are perceived by Isaiah himself to be long-range rather than immediate." I would add for the sake of the JSB guys, that Bartelt represents some of the very latest scholarship, so "all modern scholars" are not on their side.
An excellent survey of various "evangelical" approaches to the New Testament use of the Old Testament can be seen at http://beginningwithmoses.org/articles/bockotnt1.htm, and http://beginningwithmoses.org/articles/bockotnt2.htm in an article by Darrell Bock. Elliot Johnson, S.Lewis Johnson, and Walt Kaiser all represent the authorial intent/single meaning hermeneutic. Though Bock distinguishes between the approach of the Johnsons and the approach of Kaiser, there is in fact little difference between them. Concerning Isaiah 7:14, they would all agree that Matthew is using the text exactly as Isaiah intended. It is edifying to read their articles, footnoted in Bock's article (Bock disagrees with them, by the way). Kaiser's article, "The Promise of Isaiah 7:14 and the Single-Meaning Hermeneutic" can also be found in an appendix of John Ankerberg's "The Case For Jesus The Messiah" (Harvest House, 1989).
What value is this discussion to us? Precisely this - the prophet Isaiah intentionally and accurately predicted the virgin birth of Jesus Christ more than seven hundred years in advance. Matthew 1:23 accurately records the fulfillment of Isaiah 7:14. This is not a mere Christian "reinterpretation", this is historical fact. This is truth. Our sovereign God, Who alone knows the end from the beginning, has worked out the details of His plan in His Word in such a way that the proof is documented. Let us worship Him in wonder at the miraculous birth of Jesus Christ, Who came to save His people from their sins (Matthew 1:21).
This comment completely ignores the New Testament, as might be expected in a Jewish commentary. It overlooks the fact that not only did "ancient and medieval Christians" make this connection to the virgin birth of Jesus, but that the New Testament itself does so in Matthew 1:23, which is why Christians have followed the teaching. The implication of this statement from the Jewish commentators is that the New Testament is wrong in Matthew 1:23, because it makes an invalid connection between Isaiah 7:14 and the birth of Jesus the Messiah. In other words, Matthew "reinterpreted" Isaiah 7:14 to fit his "Christian" purposes.
There are at least three more things wrong with the "Jewish Study Bible" (JSB) comment. (1) The Hebrew word "almah" is used throughout the Old Testament to refer to an unmarried virgin (Genesis 24:23, Exodus 2:8, Psalm 68:25, Proverbs 30:19, Song of Solomon 1:3, 6:8), not merely "a young woman of marriageable age". (2) The comment implies that the Septuagint translation had to be wrong. (3) To state that "all modern scholars" agree on this is simply not true, in fact would not be true of "all modern scholars" on anything! It does allow the Jewish Study Bible commentators to call anyone who disagrees with them "ancient" or "medieval", that is, out of touch with current scholarship and reality.
But, the sadder issue is that there are Christian commentators who have done exactly what the JSB has accused them of doing. Trying to acknowledge the historic setting of this section of Isaiah, it is insisted that the virgin is Isaiah's wife (see 8:1-2), and the son is Isaiah's son Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz of his prophetess wife (see 8:3), and that Isaiah's son is called Immanuel (8:8,10). In doing this, as for example Herbert M. Wolf does in "Interpreting Isaiah" (Zondervan, 1985, p.91), it becomes necessary for such commentators to conclude that Matthew has used a "reinterpreting" kind of hermeneutic when referring to Isaiah 7:14 in Matthew 1:23. Wolf puts it this way, "In the New Testament, Isaiah 7:14 was used in a fuller sense and applied to Mary and Jesus. Mary, unlike the virgin in Isaiah's day, was still a virgin even after becoming pregnant." Did you hear it? Wolf is saying that Matthew is giving a "fuller" meaning to Isaiah 7:14 than what was actually present in the text. Thus, he is implying that New Testament writers can treat Old Testament texts in a different way than the Old Testament writers intended them, as long as the treatment is filtered through the grid of their Christian purposes (Jesus and the Gospel). If you take this approach, I suspect the JSB commentators have just had you for lunch.
It would be much better to recognize Isaiah's actual intent in Isaiah 7, and realize that Matthew is using Isaiah 7:14 in exactly the same way that Isaiah intended it to be used. When Ahaz rejected any sign from the Lord through Isaiah (7:11-12), the Lord by-passed Ahaz and gave the sign to the "House of David" (7:13). The prophesied son is not the son of Isaiah, but a royal son, in accordance with the theme of Yahweh's faithfulness to Zion and David, and fitting with the idiom "curds and honey" as royal food (7:15,22). While Isaiah's son in chapter 8 may be seen as typologically portraying to some extent the meaning of Immanuel in 7:14, the son of 7:14 is in fact the Messiah, Israel's King, not Isaiah's son. As Andrew H. Bartelt points out ("The Book Around Immanuel", Eisenbrauns, 1996, pp.115-117), "The consequences of this message, however, as they were to be played out in the subsequent history of Judah are perceived by Isaiah himself to be long-range rather than immediate." I would add for the sake of the JSB guys, that Bartelt represents some of the very latest scholarship, so "all modern scholars" are not on their side.
An excellent survey of various "evangelical" approaches to the New Testament use of the Old Testament can be seen at http://beginningwithmoses.org/articles/bockotnt1.htm, and http://beginningwithmoses.org/articles/bockotnt2.htm in an article by Darrell Bock. Elliot Johnson, S.Lewis Johnson, and Walt Kaiser all represent the authorial intent/single meaning hermeneutic. Though Bock distinguishes between the approach of the Johnsons and the approach of Kaiser, there is in fact little difference between them. Concerning Isaiah 7:14, they would all agree that Matthew is using the text exactly as Isaiah intended. It is edifying to read their articles, footnoted in Bock's article (Bock disagrees with them, by the way). Kaiser's article, "The Promise of Isaiah 7:14 and the Single-Meaning Hermeneutic" can also be found in an appendix of John Ankerberg's "The Case For Jesus The Messiah" (Harvest House, 1989).
What value is this discussion to us? Precisely this - the prophet Isaiah intentionally and accurately predicted the virgin birth of Jesus Christ more than seven hundred years in advance. Matthew 1:23 accurately records the fulfillment of Isaiah 7:14. This is not a mere Christian "reinterpretation", this is historical fact. This is truth. Our sovereign God, Who alone knows the end from the beginning, has worked out the details of His plan in His Word in such a way that the proof is documented. Let us worship Him in wonder at the miraculous birth of Jesus Christ, Who came to save His people from their sins (Matthew 1:21).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
