|
|
Post by boraddict on Nov 12, 2017 0:43:06 GMT -6
boraddict , might I ask what hermeneutic you use when interpreting scripture? I don't use one. I feel that it might interfere with my analysis. After all, that is part of the thrill; the quest for truth. I can stay embroiled in research for days. There was a time that breaking for a meal while in research was a burden. My family tries to respect what I do. It is an obsession I guess. However, I make a lot of mistakes. If I find that there are no further leads to a given research subject then I conclude that I have found the end. Often I discover that the end that I found is only the beginning. The avenue of my discovery is based upon an overall map. The map begins with foundation truths first among which is that Jesus Christ is the God of this earth. He is our eternal life. There is nothing or no one else. He is the absolute foundation of truth. From there I follow other truths such as, in my opinion, Lord Jesus has servants. These servants are given in the Bible. Some of the most prominent of these servants are Enoch, Noah, Moses, Elijah, and the list goes on. In the New Testament one of the most prominent servants is John. I especially like his work. My goal as well as the goal of many others, in my opinion, is to serve. Thus, I study. |
|
|
|
Post by Natalie on Nov 12, 2017 12:41:19 GMT -6
thetimeoftheend may mean something like "What process do you use when interpreting Scripture?" Like -- do you interpret it literally or figuratively/spiritualize it? Do you consider the context of the passage, the book, the time period? Do you let other passages help you in interpreting the passage you are studying? How do you determine what a word or passage means?
I think you are missing something in your study / explanation of Hebrews. You might want to just sit down and read through it. Don't dig and study, just put the whole thing in context. He's writing to the Jews who may feel tempted to go back to the system of Judiasm. He's explaining to them that Jesus is better than angels, better than Moses, is the best High Priest, and the once and only Sacrifice. He lays out Scripture showing that the Father says certain things about the Son. (We had been studying Hebrews in Sunday School recently; it's a very deep, rich book.)
|
|
|
|
Post by boraddict on Nov 12, 2017 19:00:26 GMT -6
thetimeoftheend may mean something like "What process do you use when interpreting Scripture?" Like -- do you interpret it literally or figuratively/spiritualize it? Do you consider the context of the passage, the book, the time period? Do you let other passages help you in interpreting the passage you are studying? How do you determine what a word or passage means? I think you are missing something in your study / explanation of Hebrews. You might want to just sit down and read through it. Don't dig and study, just put the whole thing in context. He's writing to the Jews who may feel tempted to go back to the system of Judiasm. He's explaining to them that Jesus is better than angels, better than Moses, is the best High Priest, and the once and only Sacrifice. He lays out Scripture showing that the Father says certain things about the Son. (We had been studying Hebrews in Sunday School recently; it's a very deep, rich book.) To interpret scripture, I use the linguistic devices that I know and understand. Some of those linguistic devices are: 1. type and shadow relationships - The type is an event that occurred in the past and the shadow is the future event that the type represents. An example of this is the sign of the virgin birth in Isaiah 7:14 that represents the birth of the Savior. 2. simile - something representing something else that is similar such as a tree representing a man or a mountain representing a kingdom as in the case of Isaiah 2:2. 3. metaphor - that is the big one. "Light of the world" means? Those three are the core devices that I use. Naturally, context applies when reading scripture; however, in my opinion, there are times when context is secondary to the devices. A good example is Isaiah 2:2. "And it shall come to pass in the last days, that the mountain of the Lord's house shall be established in the tops of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills; and all nations shall flow unto it." By replacing the "mountain" metaphor with "kingdom," the verse reads: And it shall come to pass in the last days, that the kingdom of the Lord's house shall be established in the tops of the kingdoms, and shall be exalted above the hills; and all nations shall flow unto it. Now it is much easier to see the context of the verse; that in the last days the Lords kingdom shall be established above all other kingdoms and all nations (tribes of Israel) shall flow into it. Of course for this verse we already know the story. We already know the design or map if you will, and we can fill in the metaphors quite easily. However, in the case of the metaphor "serpent," in my opinion, context is everything. For example in Gen. 3:13, "the serpent beguiled me" thus we know that the "serpent" represents Satan whom beguiled Eve. Additionally, Num. 21:9 that states: "And the Lord said unto Moses, Make thee a fiery serpent, and set it upon a pole and it shall come to pass that everyone that is bitten when he looketh upon it shall live." The serpent metaphor represents Christ to whom all those bitten by sin can turn to and yet live. In the case of Lord Jesus and the order of Melchizedek, I do not see any metaphors or types & shadow relationships. All I see is a comparison in Hebrews to Genesis. My interpretation is quite literal. |
|
|
|
Post by Natalie on Nov 12, 2017 19:36:43 GMT -6
Thank you very much for your explanation; it helps me to know where you are coming from.
|
|
|
|
Post by yardstick on Nov 12, 2017 20:33:32 GMT -6
You'll have to forgive me, but I don't understand how you are making that connection at all, I think it requires some pretty hefty gymnastics, that are at odds with a plain reading of scripture, and widely accepted orthodoxy. I have a feeling we could go back and forth on this, but scripture is pretty clear the matter, so I will allow God to speak for Himself through the author of Hebrews. Thank you Thetimeoftheend. Can you show me this clear scripture to which you refer? I just have just a few comments and questions: At the end of verse 4 ("Just as Aaron was"), I see Aaron given as an example of a high priest for the discussion about the purpose and duties of a high priest. I see the first clause in verse 5 to say (paraphrasing "in the same way") " similar to Aaron..." and in the last half of verse 6, God is still talking (in the context previously noted) to Jesus Christ, his Son, and declaring Him to be "a priest forever, in the order of Melchizedek". This appears to point to Melchizedek as a Priest who performed all of the duties described from verse 1 to 4, yet long before the tabernacle and priesthood of the Hebrew Levites was established! As an aside, I might point out an interesting nuance: If Melchizedek was a Christophany, why ever would God in verse 5 specify "in the order of"? Why not just say "You are a priest forever, Melchizedek." That would be really obvious, wouldn't it? Cuz the other implies there were YHVH believers who practiced their belief (including the requirements of the law!) well before the establishment of Israel as a people and the giving of the law! Verses 7-9 appear to give examples of how Christ fit the model described in verse 1-4? And the conclusion drawn in verse 10 is to confirm that what God said in verses 1-6 as correctly applicable to Christ due to his activities in verses 7-9, right? BTW, one of the requirements of the priesthood is that you can't just arbitrarily (or deliberately) choose to become ('take on' the responsibilities for) a priest and start acting like it. That's why the first half of verse 4 says the title/duties/responsibilities must be assigned to you when you are designated (v10) by God to become one! Lastly, I have to add that I find the quote below very insightful if Christ was in fact, Melchizedek himself (my additions for clarification in square brackets): Am I missing something? |
|
|
|
Post by boraddict on Nov 13, 2017 7:12:47 GMT -6
Thank you Thetimeoftheend. Can you show me this clear scripture to which you refer? I just have just a few comments and questions: At the end of verse 4 ("Just as Aaron was"), I see Aaron given as an example of a high priest for the discussion about the purpose and duties of a high priest. I see the first clause in verse 5 to say (paraphrasing "in the same way") " similar to Aaron..." and in the last half of verse 6, God is still talking (in the context previously noted) to Jesus Christ, his Son, and declaring Him to be "a priest forever, in the order of Melchizedek". This appears to point to Melchizedek as a Priest who performed all of the duties described from verse 1 to 4, yet long before the tabernacle and priesthood of the Hebrew Levites was established! As an aside, I might point out an interesting nuance: If Melchizedek was a Christophany, why ever would God in verse 5 specify "in the order of"? Why not just say "You are a priest forever, Melchizedek." That would be really obvious, wouldn't it? Cuz the other implies there were YHVH believers who practiced their belief (including the requirements of the law!) well before the establishment of Israel as a people and the giving of the law! Verses 7-9 appear to give examples of how Christ fit the model described in verse 1-4? And the conclusion drawn in verse 10 is to confirm that what God said in verses 1-6 as correctly applicable to Christ due to his activities in verses 7-9, right? BTW, one of the requirements of the priesthood is that you can't just arbitrarily (or deliberately) choose to become ('take on' the responsibilities for) a priest and start acting like it. That's why the first half of verse 4 says the title/duties/responsibilities must be assigned to you when you are designated (v10) by God to become one! Lastly, I have to add that I find the quote below very insightful if Christ was in fact, Melchizedek himself (my additions for clarification in square brackets): Am I missing something? Thank you Yardstick for your comment, and you have quoted me precisely. Although your inclusions more completely states what I meant to say. Therefore, it is my opinion that Lord Jesus is not after the order of Melchisedec, but is the most high God referred to from which the order of Melchizedek came. For me this has always been a given (once I learned it that is); a foundation of truth if you will. Thus, it is my understanding that everything comes from Lord Jesus. For me, he was with the Father in the beginning, thus all things come from him; including the order of Melchizedek. That is not to say that Christ was Melchisedec because in my opinion he was not. I believe Melchisedec was a servant of Lord Jesus just as Moses, Elijah, and the others of the Old Testament were. I suppose the best thing for me to do is to build a chiasmus for Hebrews Chapter 5 to see if it provides clarification for what is being said. I will throw the verses out there like a role of the dice. 5:1
5:2
5:3
5:4
5:5
5:6
5:7
5:8
5:9
5:10
5:11
5:12
5:13-14
If Hebrews Chapter 5 can be expressed in chiasmus form then the center and emphasis of the chapter should be somewhere around Verse 5:7.
Upon close inspection, and in my opinion, there it is, "tears unto him that was able to save." Thus the chiasmus begins there.
5:1-6
5:7, tears unto him that was able to save
5:8-14
In my opinion the first parallel is: "he were a son" in Verse 5:8 that links to "thou art my son" in Verse 5:5.
5:1-4
5:5-6, thou art my son
5:7, tears unto him that was able to save
5:8, he were a son
5:9-14
In my opinion the second parallel is: "being made perfect" in Verse 5:9 that links to "offer for sins" in Verse 5:3
5:1-2
5:3-4, offer for sins
5:5-6, thou art my son
5:7, tears unto him that was able to save
5:8, he were a son
5:9, being made perfect
5:10-14
In my opinion the third parallel is: "dull of hearing" in verse 5:11 that links to "out of the way" in Verse 5:2.
5:1
5:2, out of the way
5:3-4, offer for sins
5:5-6, thou art my son
5:7, tears unto him that was able to save
5:8, he were a son
5:9, being made perfect
5:10-11, dull of hearing
5:12-14
So there it is in my opinion, the chiasmus for Hebrews Chapter 5. Now lets see if it can help us in clarification. In my opinion, the chapter centers around a central theme in Verse 5:7 that someone is offering "up in prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him from death." I guess a person could look at the death in two ways, the physical death and the spiritual death. I prefer to look at death as spiritual because ultimately, that is the real death. Thus, the one who is able to save is Lord Jesus, and the one who is crying in prayers and supplications is someone else.
Thus, in my opinion, Verse 5:7 reads: "Who in the days of his flesh, when he ( ) had offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him (Lord Jesus) that was able to save him ( ) from death, and was heard in that he ( ) feared."
I realize that this is not what is being taught in today's Christianity. There was a time that I could not see it; however, in my opinion Verse 5:7 states as I have shown.
The question then becomes who is this individual, and in my opinion he is the Moses that is referred to in Rev. 15:3. We can see in that verse, in my opinion, that not only are the people singing the song of the Lamb, but also the song of their Moses "the servant of God." Since Lord Jesus is not a servant of God, but God, then who is this individual? In my opinion, that is the real question.
|
|
|
|
Post by yardstick on Nov 13, 2017 9:24:40 GMT -6
I just have just a few comments and questions: ... Thank you Yardstick for your comment, and you have quoted me precisely. Although your inclusions more completely states what I meant to say. Therefore, it is my opinion that Lord Jesus is not after the order of Melchisedec, but is the most high God referred to from which the order of Melchizedek came. For me this has always been a given (once I learned it that is); a foundation of truth if you will. Thus, it is my understanding that everything comes from Lord Jesus. For me, he was with the Father in the beginning, thus all things come from him; including the order of Melchizedek. That is not to say that Christ was Melchisedec because in my opinion he was not. I believe Melchisedec was a servant of Lord Jesus just as Moses, Elijah, and the others of the Old Testament were. I suppose the best thing for me to do is to build a chiasmus for Hebrews Chapter 5 to see if it provides clarification for what is being said. I will throw the verses out there like a role of the dice. 5:1
5:2
5:3
5:4
5:5
5:6
5:7
5:8
5:9
5:10
5:11
5:12
5:13-14
If Hebrews Chapter 5 can be expressed in chiasmus form then the center and emphasis of the chapter should be somewhere around Verse 5:7.
Upon close inspection, and in my opinion, there it is, "tears unto him that was able to save." Thus the chiasmus begins there.
5:1-6
5:7, tears unto him that was able to save
5:8-14
In my opinion the first parallel is: "he were a son" in Verse 5:8 that links to "thou art my son" in Verse 5:5.
5:1-4
5:5-6, thou art my son
5:7, tears unto him that was able to save
5:8, he were a son
5:9-14
In my opinion the second parallel is: "being made perfect" in Verse 5:9 that links to "offer for sins" in Verse 5:3
5:1-2
5:3-4, offer for sins
5:5-6, thou art my son
5:7, tears unto him that was able to save
5:8, he were a son
5:9, being made perfect
5:10-14
In my opinion the third parallel is: "dull of hearing" in verse 5:11 that links to "out of the way" in Verse 5:2.
5:1
5:2, out of the way
5:3-4, offer for sins
5:5-6, thou art my son
5:7, tears unto him that was able to save
5:8, he were a son
5:9, being made perfect
5:10-11, dull of hearing
5:12-14
So there it is in my opinion, the chiasmus for Hebrews Chapter 5. Now lets see if it can help us in clarification. In my opinion, the chapter centers around a central theme in Verse 5:7 that someone is offering "up in prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him from death." I guess a person could look at the death in two ways, the physical death and the spiritual death. I prefer to look at death as spiritual because ultimately, that is the real death. Thus, the one who is able to save is Lord Jesus, and the one who is crying in prayers and supplications is someone else.
Thus, in my opinion, Verse 5:7 reads: "Who in the days of his flesh, when he ( ) had offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him (Lord Jesus) that was able to save him ( ) from death, and was heard in that he ( ) feared."
I realize that this is not what is being taught in today's Christianity. There was a time that I could not see it; however, in my opinion Verse 5:7 states as I have shown.
The question then becomes who is this individual, and in my opinion he is the Moses that is referred to in Rev. 15:3. We can see in that verse, in my opinion, that not only are the people singing the song of the Lamb, but also the song of their Moses "the servant of God." Since Lord Jesus is not a servant of God, but God, then who is this individual? In my opinion, that is the real question.
I have a few questions regarding your last post: 1. If I read your statement ( bolded) correctly, your opinion disagrees with a passage of scripture (Psalm 110:4) which is quoted by the author of Hebrews (Heb 5:6) explicitly stating that Christ's priesthood is 'after' the order of Melchizedek. Can you please explain this apparent deviation from what is given unambiguously? Can you explain what might have caused this disagreement? Are you making a distinction between Christ himself and his priesthood? 2. Is chiasmatic methodology appropriately used on any passage of scripture, or are there some passages which will not fit the model? If there are some that do not fit the model, how does one know when it is appropriate to apply the model (trial and error)? is the chiasmatic model only for potentially gaining additional insight into a given passage? If the numbers assigned to the chapters and verses were established well after the compiling of the scriptures, how does one know where to start the chiasmus - can the chiasmus overlap chapter beginnings or endings so that the model 'fits'? |
|
|
|
Post by yardstick on Nov 13, 2017 10:24:19 GMT -6
Please feel free to post any of your other chiastic work at: unsealed.boards.net/thread/1186/boraddicts-chiastic-workYou can copy the link and cross-link by reference to that work if you want to reference chiasmic stuff in other posts. Cross-linking helps cut down on clutter, keeping the post threads and thread lists simple and easy to locate and read. |
|
|
|
Post by boraddict on Nov 13, 2017 10:53:00 GMT -6
Thank you yardstick.
Pertaining to chiami, there are thousands of them. They overlap the chapters, verses, one another, etc. Some are difficult to identify and do not fit the traditional model. An example of one of these is Rev. 19:19 that in my opinion, it is as follows:
"And I saw the beast
and the kings of the earth
gathered together to make war
against him that sat on the horse
and against his army."
Notice that the beast is against his army. That is, in my opinion, his army is set array like that of the Midianites (Judges 7:22). Also, the beast is against him that sat on the horse. Therefore, in my opinion, the ones who are with Lord Jesus are the kings of the earth. The central theme of the verse is that both armies gathered to make war. Lord Jesus and the kings of the earth on one side, and the beast and his army on the other. This chiasmus does not follow the traditional linking model. I found it after I discovered that the "kings of the earth" is metaphor for the army of God.
With regard to the order of Melchizedek, in my opinion, God the Father gave that order of the priesthood to Lord Jesus in the beginning; then Lord Jesus gave it to Melchizedek. In my opinion, there is a distinction between Christ and the priesthood which is that God the Father gave Christ the priesthood to act in God the Father's behalf. Also, Lord Jesus gave the priesthood to mankind to act on Lord Jesus' behalf.
|
|
|
|
Post by Natalie on Nov 13, 2017 11:17:54 GMT -6
I guess my main question is, what is the purpose of dividing up Scripture this way? It seems like it messes with the plain reading of the text.
|
|
|
|
Post by barbiosheepgirl on Nov 13, 2017 12:15:16 GMT -6
I am wondering if there can be a thread called "Chiasms." What they are and why they are helpful. I have seen the one that Socal presented on Revelation. That one made lots of sense, but some of these others, I am just not gleaning them the same way...
|
|
|
|
Post by thetimeoftheend on Nov 13, 2017 21:02:05 GMT -6
I am wondering if there can be a thread called "Chiasms." What they are and why they are helpful. I have seen the one that Socal presented on Revelation. That one made lots of sense, but some of these others, I am just not gleaning them the same way... I agree. It's obvious that there are numerous chiastic structures within the Bible. They are used often to reinforce a larger point, and are useful in rhetoric as they essentially "paint the pictures through reverse parallelism", essentially completing the argument. It is an intentional rhetorical technique. However, there is no reason to believe, nor convincing evidence that the entire Bible is written in a chiastic structure or that any given section can be interpreted through a chiastic structure when it's not obvious that one exist. In fact, this can be quite dangerous and will lead to erroneous interpretation because you are then forced to make the scripture take on a meaning such that it fits a chiasmus when a plain line by line reading is what is called for. I believe this is the confusion Natalie had mentioned. I certainly believe it leads to the same. |
|
|
|
Post by thetimeoftheend on Nov 13, 2017 21:32:55 GMT -6
Thank you yardstick. Pertaining to chiami, there are thousands of them. They overlap the chapters, verses, one another, etc. Some are difficult to identify and do not fit the traditional model. An example of one of these is Rev. 19:19 that in my opinion, it is as follows: "And I saw the beast and the kings of the earth gathered together to make war against him that sat on the horse and against his army." Notice that the beast is against his army. That is, in my opinion, his army is set array like that of the Midianites (Judges 7:22). Also, the beast is against him that sat on the horse. Therefore, in my opinion, the ones who are with Lord Jesus are the kings of the earth. The central theme of the verse is that both armies gathered to make war. The Lord Jesus and the kings of the earth on one side, and the beast and his army on the other. I think this illustrates the problem of creating a chiasmus when one does not exist in the scripture. The plain, unambiguous reading in 19:4 states that the armies of heaven followed Christ, it is not necessary to replace them with the kings of the earth. The scripture also unambiguously states he saw "the beast AND the kings of the earth gathered together to make war against the rider on the horse." The plain reading of the scripture is once again clear in the matter, creating a chiasmus where one does not exist leads only to error. |
|
|
|
Post by boraddict on Nov 13, 2017 21:36:22 GMT -6
I guess my main question is, what is the purpose of dividing up Scripture this way? It seems like it messes with the plain reading of the text. In my opinion, researching chiasmi helps in discovering other truths. They are not an end all, but a tool for discovery. For instance, in my opinion, if the Pharisees had been researching chaismi, then perhaps they could have answered the riddle Lord Jesus posed on the day of debate. "What think ye of Christ? whose son is he? They say unto him, The Son of David. He saith unto them, How then doeth David in spirit call him Lord, saying, The Lord said unto my Lord Sit thou on my right hand til lI make thine enemies thy footstool? If David call him Lord, how is he his son?" This seems straight forward for us today; however, during that time they could not answer the question. In our time we have similar riddles to to contend with. For instance the riddle in Rev. 17:8 states: "The beast that thou sawest was and is not; and shall ascend out of the bottomless pit, and go into perdition: and they that dwell on the earth shall wonder, whose names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world, that was, and is not, and yet is." In my opinion, the chiasmus opens this riddle up for us. |
|
|
|
Post by boraddict on Nov 13, 2017 21:53:10 GMT -6
Thank you yardstick. Pertaining to chiami, there are thousands of them. They overlap the chapters, verses, one another, etc. Some are difficult to identify and do not fit the traditional model. An example of one of these is Rev. 19:19 that in my opinion, it is as follows: "And I saw the beast and the kings of the earth gathered together to make war against him that sat on the horse and against his army." Notice that the beast is against his army. That is, in my opinion, his army is set array like that of the Midianites (Judges 7:22). Also, the beast is against him that sat on the horse. Therefore, in my opinion, the ones who are with Lord Jesus are the kings of the earth. The central theme of the verse is that both armies gathered to make war. The Lord Jesus and the kings of the earth on one side, and the beast and his army on the other. I think this illustrates the problem of creating a chiasmus when one does not exist in the scripture. The plain, unambiguous reading in 19:4 states that the armies of heaven followed Christ, it is not necessary to replace them with the kings of the earth. The scripture also unambiguously states he saw "the beast AND the kings of the earth gathered together to make war against the rider on the horse." The plain reading of the scripture is once again clear in the matter, creating a chiasmus where one does not exist leads only to error. I use the King James. It does not state that the armies of heaven followed Christ. However, I do agree with the inference that you have made. The purpose of that chiasmus was to illustrate a linking system that was not traditional. The debate is not about Rev. 19:19, but about the order of Melchizedek in its overall application to Lord Jesus and the Son of David. |
|
