Growth Why The Butler Lived, While The Baker Died

[DWJL511]

When Joseph was in prison, he interpreted the dreams of two fellow inmates, who were Pharaoh’s officials. They were Pharaoh’s chief butler and chief baker. The dream of the chief butler was this:

“Behold, in my dream a vine was before me, and in the vine were three branches; it was as though it budded, its blossoms shot forth, and its clusters brought forth ripe grapes. Then Pharaoh’s cup was in my hand; and I took the grapes and pressed them into Pharaoh’s cup, and placed the cup in Pharaoh’s hand” (Genesis 40:9–11).​

Joseph interpreted his dream to mean this:

“The three branches are three days. Now within three days Pharaoh will lift up your head and restore you to your place, and you will put Pharaoh’s cup in his hand according to the former manner, when you were his butler” (Genesis 40:12–13).​

The dream of the chief baker was this:

“I also was in my dream, and there were three white baskets on my head. In the uppermost basket were all kinds of baked goods for Pharaoh, and the birds ate them out of the basket on my head” (Genesis 40:16–17).​

Joseph interpreted his dream to mean this:

“The three baskets are three days. Within three days Pharaoh will lift off your head from you and hang you on a tree; and the birds will eat your flesh from you” (Genesis 40:18–19).​

And it happened just as Joseph had told them. Pharaoh let the chief butler live but the chief baker he hanged. Why was this so?


Christ Unveiled

The chief butler’s dream speaks of the redemptive work of Christ. He saw a grape vine. That is a symbol of Christ. Jesus said, “I am the vine” (John 15:5). The vine produced grapes and in his dream, the chief butler took the grapes and squeezed them into Pharaoh’s cup. This is a picture of Christ suffering and shedding His blood for our sins. He was crushed for our iniquities (Isaiah 53:5). He willingly went to the cross for us, for He said, “I lay down My life for the sheep” (John 10:15). He died our death so that we could live. That the vine budded, blossomed and brought forth fruit speaks of Jesus’ growth from childhood to an amazing public ministry marked by signs and wonders.

On the other hand, the chief baker’s dream speaks of his efforts to be justified by his own works. The “all kinds of baked goods” symbolizes all types of dead works done by his arm of flesh to earn salvation. The Bible says that cursed is the man who trusts in man and makes flesh his strength (Jeremiah 17:5). His works were also a “bloodless sacrifice.” Without the shedding of blood, there can be no remission of sins (Hebrews 9:22). Worse, the baked goods were probably leavened. Leaven in the Bible speaks of sin and erroneous doctrines (Matthew 16:12). So even his works were tainted with sin and a faulty understanding of salvation. Finally, that the baskets were on his head speaks of his reliance on his intelligence, another indication that he was trusting in his smarts, his own strength.

So the chief butler lived because he was justified by the blood and work of Christ. The chief baker died because no man can be justified by his own works.

Galatians 2:16
knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law but by faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law; for by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified.​

The two dreams parallel grace and law, Spirit and flesh, faith and works—themes consistent throughout the Bible. They also parallel the offerings of Cain and Abel. Like the baker’s offering, Cain’s offering of the produce of the ground was not only bloodless, but it also spoke of his own works. On the other hand, like the butler’s offering, Abel’s offering of the firstborn of his flock was a blood sacrifice that spoke of the sacrifice of Jesus, the true Lamb of God—the only sacrifice that God accepts!

 

[By Grace]

<SNIP>
Christ Unveiled

The chief butler’s dream speaks of the redemptive work of Christ. He saw a grape vine. That is a symbol of Christ. Jesus said, “I am the vine” (John 15:5). The vine produced grapes and in his dream, the chief butler took the grapes and squeezed them into Pharaoh’s cup. This is a picture of Christ suffering and shedding His blood for our sins. He was crushed for our iniquities (Isaiah 53:5). He willingly went to the cross for us, for He said, “I lay down My life for the sheep” (John 10:15). He died our death so that we could live. That the vine budded, blossomed and brought forth fruit speaks of Jesus’ growth from childhood to an amazing public ministry marked by signs and wonders.

On the other hand, the chief baker’s dream speaks of his efforts to be justified by his own works. The “all kinds of baked goods” symbolizes all types of dead works done by his arm of flesh to earn salvation. The Bible says that cursed is the man who trusts in man and makes flesh his strength (Jeremiah 17:5). His works were also a “bloodless sacrifice.” Without the shedding of blood, there can be no remission of sins (Hebrews 9:22). Worse, the baked goods were probably leavened. Leaven in the Bible speaks of sin and erroneous doctrines (Matthew 16:12). So even his works were tainted with sin and a faulty understanding of salvation. Finally, that the baskets were on his head speaks of his reliance on his intelligence, another indication that he was trusting in his smarts, his own strength.

So the chief butler lived because he was justified by the blood and work of Christ. The chief baker died because no man can be justified by his own works.

Galatians 2:16
knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law but by faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law; for by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified.​

The two dreams parallel grace and law, Spirit and flesh, faith and works—themes consistent throughout the Bible. They also parallel the offerings of Cain and Abel. Like the baker’s offering, Cain’s offering of the produce of the ground was not only bloodless, but it also spoke of his own works. On the other hand, like the butler’s offering, Abel’s offering of the firstborn of his flock was a blood sacrifice that spoke of the sacrifice of Jesus, the true Lamb of God—the only sacrifice that God accepts!

I believe that you are allegorizing a historical event,

An allegory is simply a representation of an abstract or spiritual meaning through concrete or material forms; figurative treatment of one subject under the guise of another.And in doing that you seem to be trying to make a "hidden message" in a narrative that is not meant to be allegorized.

Now please do not get me wrong, what you quoted from Galatians and the offerings of Cain and Abel is good, and true, but to force some sort of meaning that is going way beyond what is intended is to make the Bible into a "spiritual pretzel". And that is not good, because that manner of looking at God's word is the same way that many cults look at the Bible: They find convoluted ways of twisting Scripture to justify their heretical theologies.

Here from the October 2003 edition of Christian History is an explanation of how Augustine of Hippo used allegories to interpret Scripture:

Few people today would doubt that Augustine of Hippo (354-430) was the greatest writer of the early Christian church. Certainly, he has left us more books than anyone else. For centuries, most of the Western Church took its understanding of Christian doctrine from him, and his influence lingers even today.

From the moment he heeded the voice in the garden to "Take and read," Augustine had a close relationship with the Bible. But he was never a biblical scholar as such. Even in his own time, he was outclassed by his great contemporary Jerome, who made the classic Latin translation of Scripture that we call the Vulgate.

Augustine knew that Jerome was doing this, but he did not altogether approve of his methods. Jerome took the trouble to learn Hebrew, which Augustine thought was unnecessary, since he believed that God had inspired the Greek translation known as the Septuagint. That made the Hebrew original obsolete, in Augustine's eyes, and most of the church at that time agreed with him.
from http://www.ctlibrary.com/ch/2003/issue80/14.42.html
​

So here in the transition from the fourth to fifth century there is a division between the manner of Jerome to determine what Scripture meant, and Augustine. The difference can be summarized thus: Jerome the scholar used exegesis of the original words of the texts in Hebrew and in Greek, and Augustine used his experiences and his ability to find "hidden meanings" in Scripture to preach. Compressed further we can say that "Jerome used his education, and Augustine used his experiences".

But if we have two different expositors who have two different experiences in life, and one person says that the "hidden message" on a certain OT narrative is THIS, and another expositor using Augustine's method says THAT is the "hidden message" in Scripture it is easy to see how many problems can come by people differing about the "proper allegory" to use in Scripture because there is no standard for Biblical interpretation. Which in practical terms means that anyone can make any silly sort of connections, and there is nothing "right or wrong" "true or false" about anything written in the Scripture. Therein lies the danger with the allegorical method.

No, I am not scolding you, nor am I "debating" you. I am simply attempting to give you another perspective, asking Holy Spirit to lead you in the way that God the Father wants you to go.

Have a great day!

 

[DWJL511]

No worries, by Grace.

What you call "allegorizing," we in our church call "unveiling Christ and His work." You know, "types and shadows." This is nothing new, considering how Paul said Hagar typified Mount Sinai and the old covenant of law, and Sarah typified Mt Zion and the new covenant of grace.

We like to call it the "Emmaus Road experience," because the Bible tells us that "beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he [Jesus] explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning HIMSELF" (Luke 24:27, NIV). He brought HIMSELF/the Christ and His finished work out of the Torah, explaining how the lamb without blemish in the sacrifices typify Him, etc.

We "draw the new out of the old," or "turn the water into wine"—that's how I believe we are to study the Old Testament.

 

[DWJL511]

No worries, by Grace.

What you call "allegorizing," we in our church call "unveiling Christ and His work." You know, "types and shadows." This is nothing new, considering how Paul said Hagar typified Mount Sinai and the old covenant of law, and Sarah typified Mt Zion and the new covenant of grace.

We like to call it the "Emmaus Road experience," because the Bible tells us that "beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he [Jesus] explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning HIMSELF" (Luke 24:27, NIV). He brought HIMSELF/the Christ and His finished work out of the Torah, explaining how the lamb without blemish in the sacrifices typified or spoke of Him, etc.

We "draw the new out of the old," or "turn the water into wine"—that's how I believe we are to study the Old Testament.

 

[By Grace]

Thank you for your kind clarification. It is clear in the Bible that there indeed types and shadows, Isaac on the altar as a sacrifice is one of the clearest examples.

So my next question to you is to what extent do you go to find "types and shadows" which to me is allegorizing? I am not saying that allegorizing is "bad" but I am wondering how far you and your church take that method of interpretation? Where do you guys draw the line?

As you may guess, I was trained in the literal methods, to analyze the the words used, the syntax of the grammar and the content of the passage, and as a result, I have a different viewpoint than you seem to have, and I am hoping that we could learn from each other.

 

[Sinthesis]

The very act of Joseph in I twerp resting(auto-fill for 'interpreting') a dream legitimizes allegory as a valid way God communicates to us.

I would be careful about how I differentiate between wine and bread in the allegory. Remember that communion includes both, and we certainly don't reject the communion wafer in favor of the wine.

 

[By Grace]

The very act of Joseph in I twerp resting(auto-fill for 'interpreting') a dream legitimizes allegory as a valid way God communicates to us.

I believe that is stretching things too far. Allegories may be the way to interpret dreams; but iit seems to me that to take that and push it into a way to interpret the Bible is another matter. Because this event of Joseph happened long before Moses wrote Genesis, it creates more doubt IMHO about using this to make it an example of the way to interpret Scripture.

 

[jasonc]

mikeitz, the part used and associated with the channukah feast. I have never heard much on this from jews. I take it plainly. the dreams are dreams and use imagery to point a prophetic event when interpreted. we don't believe literally there somewhere in the middle east there is this gold statue with half clay iron toes that will be smashed by a rock from heaven.

 

[DWJL511]

That's a good question, by Grace. : )

We don't just "allegorize" anything and everything. We keep it mainly to drawing out the beauty of Christ and His finished work (His sacrifice), His love for the Bride/church, and the new covenant (grace/faith/Spirit) vs the old covenant (law/works/flesh)—how one has replaced the other through Christ. These are consistent themes/gems hidden throughout the Old Testament for us to find—it is God's glory to conceal a matter; our privilege as kings to search it out (Proverbs 25:2).

It is very much Christo-centric, where the focus is on what Jesus has done on the cross and what He does in our lives today for His Bride, as opposed to what man has done (his sins/shortcomgins) and has to do (his works to please God and earn His blessings). One glorifies Christ and His finished work, the other glorifies man and his works. (You'll find that the majority of preaching and teaching today falls in the latter category, unfortunately)

I believe it is the former way of studying the Old Testament that gives one the Emmaus Road experience, where one's heart is "strangely warmed" by Christ's love as he sees Christ and His love (drawn out) in the Scriptures. And I believe this is the "safe" way of "allegorizing," because it glorifies Christ, His grace and His finished work, and not man.

There are plenty of types of Christ in the Old Testament. As you have mentioned, Abraham sacrificing Isaac is one of the most beautiful examples. Oh, Isaac carrying up the wood on his back, do you see Christ carrying up the wooden cross? What a beautiful shadow! The story is definitely real, historical (we are not denying that). But the way it's been taught is that the Christian must sacrifice something precious in his life to prove his love for God. Granted, there are sacrifices for being a good Christian, but such an interpretation only brings bondage as it is man-centered rather than Christo-centric. It glorifies what man has to do rather than what Christ has done for us. I have a friend who almost sold his house (after selling many other things) because of this "give up your Isaac" teaching in his cell group.

The letter of the law kills, but the Spirit gives life. When we interpret the story by drawing out Christ and His sacrifice, and we see how much the Father (Abraham) loves us by giving up His one and only Son (Isaac), it brings life. It strengthens, it encourages. It points us to Christ, not to ourselves. It glorifies His perfect work, not our imperfect works. And this is what empowers the Christian to go on into greater works.

Thank you for your kind clarification. It is clear in the Bible that there indeed types and shadows, Isaac on the altar as a sacrifice is one of the clearest examples.

So my next question to you is to what extent do you go to find "types and shadows" which to me is allegorizing? I am not saying that allegorizing is "bad" but I am wondering how far you and your church take that method of interpretation? Where do you guys draw the line?

As you may guess, I was trained in the literal methods, to analyze the the words used, the syntax of the grammar and the content of the passage, and as a result, I have a different viewpoint than you seem to have, and I am hoping that we could learn from each other.

 

[DWJL511]

Let me give you another example, by Grace. I saw this, as I meditated on the passage. It's really exciting, when the Spirit opens your eyes to see Christ and His finished work, and how the old has been made obsolete, and replaced with the new...

Kill The Fatted Calf!

Here’s another snapshot of Christ and His finished work:

Luke 15:23–24
And bring the fatted calf here and kill it [PUT AN END TO ANIMAL SACRIFICES, CHRIST IS THE END OF THE LAW], and let us eat and be merry [NO MORE LEGALISM AND THE HEAVY YOKE OF RELIGION, REJOICE BECAUSE…]; for this my son [JESUS] was dead [CRUCIFIED TO DEATH] and is alive again [RESURRECTION/CONQUERED THE GRAVE]; he [JESUS] was lost [THEY COULDN’T FIND HIM IN THE STONY TOMB] and is found [FOUND ALIVE OUTSIDE THE STONY TOMB]. And they began to be merry.​

Friends, put an end to your religious sacrifices for God because Christ is THE sacrifice that ends all sacrifices. He is the only sacrifice that God accepts because only God (the Son) can satisfy God (the Father).

Rejoice, feast and be merry because Jesus has fully met the demands of the law and silenced it for you. He has appeased the wrath of God against sin for you.

And He is found today, not in the stony tomb of the law, but right there in your heart of flesh, in His love letters to you, out there in the midst of your every challenge!

 

[By Grace]

Kill The Fatted Calf!

Here’s another snapshot of Christ and His finished work:

Luke 15:23–24
And bring the fatted calf here and kill it [PUT AN END TO ANIMAL SACRIFICES, CHRIST IS THE END OF THE LAW], and let us eat and be merry [NO MORE LEGALISM AND THE HEAVY YOKE OF RELIGION, REJOICE BECAUSE…]; for this my son [JESUS] was dead [CRUCIFIED TO DEATH] and is alive again [RESURRECTION/CONQUERED THE GRAVE]; he [JESUS] was lost [THEY COULDN’T FIND HIM IN THE STONY TOMB] and is found [FOUND ALIVE OUTSIDE THE STONY TOMB]. And they began to be merry.​

<SNIP>

Thank you for sharing that DWJ,It points out somethings that I believe need to be addressed. The first thing that I note which is good is that you do not take of one verse and try to hang a doctrine on it, which is a characteristic common to many cults.

But I have to ask you if you take into consideration the greater context the speaker, and His stated purpose before you go "unveiling Christ and His work."? We both know that Jesus was speaking a parable here, and that is the one of the two sons, and it begins in Luke 15:11| "And he said, 'A certain man had two sons'": and ends with this last verse in the chapter: 32 It was meet that we should make merry, and be glad: for this thy brother was dead, and is alive again; and was lost, and is found. So the first thing that I notice is that you are not considering all the rest of those verses.

Nor are you considering the two previous parables which Jesus used: Verse 14 " What man of you, having an hundred sheep, if he lose one of them, doth not leave the ninety and nine in the wilderness, and go after that which is lost, until he find it? " and ends with Jesus saying " I say unto you, that likewise joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, more than over ninety and nine just persons, which need no repentance. "

Then there is between the first parable and the two brothers parable (aka Prodigal Son) there is the parable of the woman who lost one of her ten coins.That parable ends with " Rejoice with me; for I have found the piece which I had lost."

If there is one unifying verse to this entire chapter, it is Luke 15:10 "Likewise, I say unto you, there is joy in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner that repenteth"

For convenience,I colored the verses that say the same things. Because that SAME thought is stated four times in a chapter, that God the Father rejoices along with the non-fallen angels in the return of a person to the fold of the Kingdom of God. I respectfully submit to you that the theme of the entire chapter is the return of something precious that was lost.

Therefore I ask you by what means do you get these subjects (in your own words) below as the meaning of the three parables, or even those two verses:

1. ANIMAL SACRIFICES, CHRIST IS THE END OF THE LAW
2. NO MORE LEGALISM AND THE HEAVY YOKE OF RELIGION,
3. RESURRECTION/CONQUERED THE GRAVE
4. FOUND ALIVE OUTSIDE THE STONY TOMB

There is absolutely nothing mentioned in the entire chapter with those four subjects listed, so frankly, I am bewildered as to your approach to Scriptures.

 

[DWJL511]

Hi by Grace,

Do I consider the larger context of the parable, even the other 2 parables (lost coin and lost sheep)?

Yes and no. No because it's not necessary for what I'm talking about (you are free to disagree, of course). Yes, because I am already very familiar with the Prodigal Son story and what it means. I also know that all three parables speak of repentance. My pastor has preached in-depth on how all three parables are linked, (even it's prophetic significance), and of course, how they all teach us about what true repentance is (notice how the sheep didn't do anything except allow itself to be rescued and carried) and heaven's joy.

As for the four subjects you listed, I've never said that those are the meanings or themes of the three parables, so I'm not quite sure why you think I'm saying that. I did simply bring the four points out from the two verses, and they speak of Christ and His finished work. I hope you don't expect me to prove that these four things are biblical

 

[Deborah13]

I believe it is the former way of studying the Old Testament that gives one the Emmaus Road experience, where one's heart is "strangely warmed" by Christ's love as he sees Christ and His love (drawn out) in the Scriptures. And I believe this is the "safe" way of "allegorizing," because it glorifies Christ, His grace and His finished work, and not man.

While I agree with your interpretation of the types/shadows in Joseph's interpretation, I would not say the story itself is an 'allegory'. I fully believe that all that was said really did happen, it's not merely a story.

I would be careful about how I differentiate between wine and bread in the allegory. Remember that communion includes both, and we certainly don't reject the communion wafer in favor of the wine.

The only reason I think we can say that the breads in the basket, do not symbolize the bread of life/or Christ's body, is because they were breads of all kinds.

I have never heard much on this from jews.

Josephus (b) says, two of the baskets were full of bread, and the third had various sorts of food, such as is usually, prepared for kings:
(b) Antiqu. l. 2. c. 5. sect. 3.
Quote from John Gills Commentary and Josephus in The Antiquities of the Jews

 

[By Grace]

Let me give you another example, by Grace. I saw this, as I meditated on the passage. It's really exciting, when the Spirit opens your eyes to see Christ and His finished work, and how the old has been made obsolete, and replaced with the new...

Kill The Fatted Calf!

Here’s another snapshot of Christ and His finished work:

Luke 15:23–24
And bring the fatted calf here and kill it [PUT AN END TO ANIMAL SACRIFICES, CHRIST IS THE END OF THE LAW], and let us eat and be merry [NO MORE LEGALISM AND THE HEAVY YOKE OF RELIGION, REJOICE BECAUSE…]; for this my son [JESUS] was dead [CRUCIFIED TO DEATH] and is alive again [RESURRECTION/CONQUERED THE GRAVE]; he [JESUS] was lost [THEY COULDN’T FIND HIM IN THE STONY TOMB] and is found [FOUND ALIVE OUTSIDE THE STONY TOMB]. And they began to be merry.

Hi by Grace
<SNIP>
As for the four subjects you listed, I've never said that those are the meanings or themes of the three parables, so I'm not quite sure why you think I'm saying that. I did simply bring the four points out from the two verses, and they speak of Christ and His finished work. I hope you don't expect me to prove that these four things are biblical

No, I am NOT attempting to say "You are wrong" nor am I saying that the 4 subjects that you mentioned are NOT based in the Bible. However, I AM questioning the relevance of those four things to the entire chapter which are three different parables reclaiming that which was once lost. I may be wrong on this, but it seems as if you are doing a "free association" with those two verses, and as a result you are ignoring the context of those verses.

Here is something about me that you may not know. In my many years with CARM and Walter Martin, I have developed an axiom that has never been wrong. It is "Any Scripture that is ripped from its context is a pretext 100% of the time." So when i see someone as you who has a different slant on some things that is the first rule of Apologetics which I apply, and when I deal with the cults on these forums, the cult members have no idea of what is meant by the term, "context" as it applies to Bible study. I am merely explaining my mind set, and not accusing you of being a cultist, OK?

As a result of the two quotes of yous above, and this statement: "I've never said that those are the meanings or themes of the three parables " I am finding confusion in your statement in the second post in the first post when you posted,: "And bring the fatted calf here and kill it [PUT AN END TO ANIMAL SACRIFICES, CHRIST IS THE END OF THE LAW], and let us eat and be merry [NO MORE LEGALISM .... "

I am sure that we can agree that those subjects, while being true,are not mentioned nor hinted at in any of the three parables. Can you understand my confusion?

 

[DWJL511]

Hi Deborah13,

Yes, the story really did happen. Er, never said the story was an "allegory." The way I interpreted it is, however, referred to as "allegorizing" by by Grace.

Quote: "While I agree with your interpretation of the types/shadows in Joseph's interpretation, I would not say the story itself is an 'allegory'. I fully believe that all that was said really did happen, it's not merely a story."

 

[By Grace]

<SNIP>." The way I interpreted it is, however, referred to as "allegorizing" by by Grace.

Quote: "While I agree with your interpretation of the types/shadows in Joseph's interpretation, I would not say the story itself is an 'allegory'. I fully believe that all that was said really did happen, it's not merely a story."

I hope that that term did not upset you, but it does seem to me that in the example you gave it seems as if element in the narrative simply is a representation of an abstract or spiritual meaning through concrete or material forms. That is the definition of the word, "allegory". Now please look what you posted. .And bring the fatted calf here and kill it [PUT AN END TO ANIMAL SACRIFICES, CHRIST IS THE END OF THE LAW], and tell me if calling the parable about the returned Prodigal Son is really about putting an end to the sacrificial system, as you seem to believe because you write those in capital letters.

Yes, I am attempting to "paint you into a corner" but I am doing it in a very nice manner, and trying to hard to not seem to say "I am right. and you are wrong" in any sort of manner. Simply speaking, it seems to be that you are doing exactly what you say are NOT doing. So I am simply asking for a clarification.


figurative treatment of one subject under the guise of another.

 

[eddif]

Genesis 40:18-19

Joseph, baker and butler were all in the same situation. Jesus and the two thieves were basically in a similar situation.

Joseph and Jesus were in trouble because of lies.

The butler finally lifted up the name of Joseph.
One thief finally lifted up Jesus.

Two people were freed physically.
Two people were freed spiritually.

I try and do symbolism. All our differing gifts are needed to KISS our work.

eddif

 

[DWJL511]

Hi by Grace,

Am not upset at all, just wondering why it's difficult for you to understand what I have said and explained.

I know all about the importance of context. My pastor always tells us, "When you take the 'text' out of the 'context,' you are left with a 'con'!"

I know what each parable means (repentance, joy of the finder), and in "allegorizing" as you call it, I am not denying that the story is real. I even believe that three parables really took place sometime, somewhere.

To answer your question, NO, the parable of the Prodigal Son has nothing to do with putting an end to animal sacrifices, though the fatted calf was killed.

But does it matter?

Cannot God speak to us about a topic that has little or nothing to do with the verse or passage we are reading or meditating upon? Haven't so many Christians heard from God and gotten their answers to prayer while meditating on a verse that has nothing to do with their situation? (In His light we see light, Ps 36:9.) Is God to be bound by our Bible interpretation guidelines and rules?

Please don't get me wrong here. I am not saying throw out all Bible interpretation rules. There are some rules I follow, such as "let the Bible interpret the Bible." I like to use verses (not current culture or traditional/popular teachings) to interpret what another verse means (see my Judgment Day thread for an example of this). Like my pastor says, the Bible is it's best commentary. I also consider the context—my other thread on the three convictions of the Holy Spirit was argued/presented based on context, and to my delight, I found a writing by Spurgeon saying basically the same thing.

But as I mentioned, the Holy Spirit can show you something from a verse that has little or nothing to do with the verse. My only condition is that it MUST NOT contradict the rest of Scripture. My other condition is that one must be well grounded in the differences between the old and new covenants (that to me is the most important key to understanding Scripture, as most people jumble up the two.) So if the four points, including how Christ put an end to animal sacrifices, does not contradict the larger context of entire Scripture, it is a valid interpretation or revelation, as far as I am concerned.

For me, personally, that's the beauty (and thrill) of reading and meditating on Scripture. The Holy Spirit shows you things you never saw before, though you may have read the verse many times. It's a Spirit thing, not a mind thing. It often happens in a flash and your mind catches up later. (I'll post another example soon.)

Rest assured I'm not offended about your trying to 'corner me.' I actually appreciate your interest and questioning. I hope I have not just generated more questions from you, lol.

 

[Malachi]

The two dreams parallel grace and law, Spirit and flesh, faith and works—themes consistent throughout the Bible.

I believe this might be taking these dreams beyond their intended purpose. And let's not forget that the chief butler forgot Joseph, even though Joseph entreated him to do so. Sounds like an ungrateful wretch.

Joseph is clearly a type of Christ, but as in all types, we must not take them beyond a legitimate interpretation. For example, Joseph was not the firstborn of Jacob, but Christ was the firstborn of Mary.

 

[Deborah13]

I believe this might be taking these dreams beyond their intended purpose. And let's not forget that the chief butler forgot Joseph, even though Joseph entreated him to do so. Sounds like an ungrateful wretch.

Joseph is clearly a type of Christ, but as in all types, we must not take them beyond a legitimate interpretation. For example, Joseph was not the firstborn of Jacob, but Christ was the firstborn of Mary.

Joseph was the firstborn of Rachel. Jesus was the firstborn of Mary.
Mat 2:18 `A voice in Ramah was heard--lamentation and weeping and much mourning--Rachel weeping for her children, and she would not be comforted because they are not.'