What's new
  • Do not use Chrome Incognito when registering as it freezes the registration page.
  • Guest Come and celebrate the birth of Christ by having some ho, ho, ho, holiday fun at the second annual it's the most wonderful time of the year Christmas celebration. Enter Here
  • Guest, Join Papa Zoom today for some uplifting biblical encouragement! --> Daily Verses
  • No longer will OSAS vx OSNAS be allowed to be debated, argued, or discussed in theology forum. Too much time is required to monitor and rescources used to debate this subject which hasn't been definitively decided in 3,000 years.

Types & shadows needing NT support?

OzSpen

Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2014
Messages
4,598
Gender
Male
Christian
Yes
This topic is based on information from another thread where debate was not allowed.

Do these OT words direct references to Christ and not types or shadows? I'm speaking of LORD (YHWH), LORD God (Yahweh Elohim), God (Elohim) or Almighty (El Shaddai).

Is it true that we need to go beneath the surface of a word or statement to gain a true understanding of the meaning? Is Noah's Ark a type of Christ? See 1 Peter 3:20-22 (NIV).

We are told in 1 Cor 10:4 (ESV) that 'all drank from the spiritual Rock that followed them, the Rock was Christ'. To which rock is Paul referring in the OT? We know that there are two Meribah incidents involving the rock (e.g. Ex 17:6-7 ESV; Num 20:10-13 ESV) that were about 40 years apart. The first one was at Horeb, Mt Sinai, which was near the start of their wandering in the wilderness. The last one happened at Kadesh which was as they were about to enter the Promised Land.

Matt 16:16-18 (ESV) and 1 Pet 2:4-8 (ESV) confirm Jesus as the Rock and the 1 Peter 2:6-8 example cites various passages from the OT to lend support for the statements. In 1 Cor 10:1-7a (ESV), Paul tells us that
For I want you to know, brothers [and sisters] that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, 2 and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, 3 and all ate the same spiritual food, 4 and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank from the spiritual Rock that followed them, and the Rock was Christ. 5 Nevertheless, with most of them God was not pleased, for they were overthrown in the wilderness.

6 Now these things took place as examples for us, that we might not desire evil as they did. 7 Do not be idolaters as some of them were....
The issue I am raising is: Do Christians have the right to create their own understanding of what is a type or shadow from the OT that is fulfilled in the NT or do we need the NT's confirmation that it is a type or shadow? To me, the latter seems to be the biblical means of identification.

How can we confirm that YHWH, Yahweh Elohim, Elohim, and El Shaddai are references to Christ in reality and not in type or shadow? What's the biblical evidence?

Oz
 

Eugene

Member
Joined
Aug 24, 2012
Messages
10,778
Gender
Male
Dear Brother OzSpen,
I have no idea of your intent in proving God’s different names used as examples of Jesus. I agree there must be relevance to Jesus in the names used, but we read in 1 Cor 10:11, Now all these things (Judgments?) happened unto them for ensamples (analogies): and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come.

As a type or description of Jesus I read the word “Image,” and that being other than spirit we read of in Col 1:15.

Isa 43:3 For I am the LORD (Jehovah) thy God, the Holy One of Israel (Jesus?), thy Saviour (Jesus?).

Isa 43:11 I, even I, am the LORD (Jehovah); and beside me there is no savior (Jesus)?.

In power Jesus is described as the almighty in Rev 1:8 during His reign.

He is the last Adam in 1 Cor 15:45.

Other OT references are in Isa 9:6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

I hope I’m not derailing your thoughts on this.
 

OzSpen

Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2014
Messages
4,598
Gender
Male
Christian
Yes
Dear Brother OzSpen,
I have no idea of your intent in proving God’s different names used as examples of Jesus. I agree there must be relevance to Jesus in the names used, but we read in 1 Cor 10:11, Now all these things (Judgments?) happened unto them for ensamples (analogies): and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come.

As a type or description of Jesus I read the word “Image,” and that being other than spirit we read of in Col 1:15.

Isa 43:3 For I am the LORD (Jehovah) thy God, the Holy One of Israel (Jesus?), thy Saviour (Jesus?).

Isa 43:11 I, even I, am the LORD (Jehovah); and beside me there is no savior (Jesus)?.

In power Jesus is described as the almighty in Rev 1:8 during His reign.

He is the last Adam in 1 Cor 15:45.

Other OT references are in Isa 9:6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

I hope I’m not derailing your thoughts on this.
Eugene,

You wrote: 'I have no idea of your intent in proving God’s different names used as examples of Jesus'. That is not my idea. They were not my words originally. They were raised by Malachi at #33 at: http://christianforums.net/Fellowship/index.php?threads/understanding-types-shadows.64517/page-2
and I was not allowed to debate this topic as it was in 'The Lounge' forum.

Apart from 1 Cor 10 (ESV), I don't think you are giving examples of types or shadows in the OT that are fulfilled in the NT, as demonstrated by NT statements.

In that other thread, we had people using Adam and Eve as types and shadows. My question is: Is it legitimate for Christians to make up, create, decide their own opinion on what is a type or shadow of Christ or some other theology - without the NT confirming that such is a type or shadow?

I'm not discussing the fulfillment of OT prophecy as in the example you gave from Isa 9:6 (ESV), which is fulfilled according to Luke 2:11 (ESV).

My discussion is about types and shadows that Christians want to push from the OT, but with no confirmation of such in the NT.

Oz
 

JLB

Jesus is the Way, the Truth and the Life
Supporter
Joined
Jul 13, 2012
Messages
22,196
Gender
Male
This topic is based on information from another thread where debate was not allowed.

Do these OT words direct references to Christ and not types or shadows? I'm speaking of LORD (YHWH), LORD God (Yahweh Elohim), God (Elohim) or Almighty (El Shaddai).

Is it true that we need to go beneath the surface of a word or statement to gain a true understanding of the meaning? Is Noah's Ark a type of Christ? See 1 Peter 3:20-22 (NIV).

We are told in 1 Cor 10:4 (ESV) that 'all drank from the spiritual Rock that followed them, the Rock was Christ'. To which rock is Paul referring in the OT? We know that there are two Meribah incidents involving the rock (e.g. Ex 17:6-7 ESV; Num 20:10-13 ESV) that were about 40 years apart. The first one was at Horeb, Mt Sinai, which was near the start of their wandering in the wilderness. The last one happened at Kadesh which was as they were about to enter the Promised Land.

Matt 16:16-18 (ESV) and 1 Pet 2:4-8 (ESV) confirm Jesus as the Rock and the 1 Peter 2:6-8 example cites various passages from the OT to lend support for the statements. In 1 Cor 10:1-7a (ESV), Paul tells us that


The issue I am raising is: Do Christians have the right to create their own understanding of what is a type or shadow from the OT that is fulfilled in the NT or do we need the NT's confirmation that it is a type or shadow? To me, the latter seems to be the biblical means of identification.

How can we confirm that YHWH, Yahweh Elohim, Elohim, and El Shaddai are references to Christ in reality and not in type or shadow? What's the biblical evidence?

Oz


The Old: ...Thus the Lord my God will come, and all the saints with You. Zechariah 14:5

The New: “And behold, I am coming quickly, and My reward is with Me, to give to every one according to his work. 13 I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End, the First and the Last.” Revelation 22:12-13




JLB
 

Eugene

Member
Joined
Aug 24, 2012
Messages
10,778
Gender
Male
My discussion is about types and shadows that Christians want to push from the OT, but with no confirmation of such in the NT.
Can you give an example? I may also be guilty of that, although I don't always attempt to prove the OT with proof from the NT. Thanks.
 

OzSpen

Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2014
Messages
4,598
Gender
Male
Christian
Yes
Can you give an example? I may also be guilty of that, although I don't always attempt to prove the OT with proof from the NT. Thanks.
Eugene,

I gave one example in the other thread. Here it is so that we can discuss and debate if we want.

There are at least 4 different interpretations of 1 Cor 10:3, 'And did all eat the same spiritual meat'. This is not the place to discuss these. They are articulated by Charles Hodge in A Commentary on 1 & 2 Corinthians (Edinburgh/Carlisle, Pennsylvania: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1974), pp. 172-174. See HERE.

We see Israel's example in 1 Cor 10:1-5 (NIV) and that example applied by giving a warning against idolatry (1 Cor 10:6-13 NIV).

In vv 1-5, it is a powerful type with the language of 'our fathers' and their form of 'baptism' and the 'Eucharist'. It prefigured our baptism and the Lord's Supper.

What was the purpose of the type given from the OT and articulated in 1 Cor 10:1-5 (NIV)? It continues with some of the events in Exodus to warn the Corinthians (vv 6, 11-12). These Corinthians enjoyed blessings like those of Israel but the Corinthians were in danger of losing those blessings because of their idolatry: 'Now these things occurred as examples to keep us from setting our hearts on evil things as they did. Do not be idolaters....' (1 Cor 10:6-7a NIV).

These things in Exodus happened to be examples to the Corinthians 'so, if you think you are standing firm, be careful that you don't fall' (1 Cor 10:12 NIV).

That's my understanding of this type. But it is important to realise that it is only a type or shadow because it is specifically mentioned as such in the NT. We are not left to speculate that types and shadows are on nearly every page of the OT. That isn't true.

Yes, there are types and shadows that are mentioned in the NT that draw attention to examples from the OT, but the NT has to mention them as examples to make them types.

Oz
 

OzSpen

Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2014
Messages
4,598
Gender
Male
Christian
Yes
The Old: ...Thus the Lord my God will come, and all the saints with You. Zechariah 14:5

The New: “And behold, I am coming quickly, and My reward is with Me, to give to every one according to his work. 13 I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End, the First and the Last.” Revelation 22:12-13
JLB
JLB,

The passage you have given from the OT is that 'the Lord my God will come, and all the saints with You' (Zech 14:5). The fulfillment you provide from Rev 22:12-13 does not state anything about 'all the saints with you'.

The Pulpit Commentary online gives a more detailed exposition and broader application than what you suggested:

Zechariah 14:5

Ye shall flee to the valley of the mountains; ye shall flee by the valley of my mountains; i.e. by the ravine made by the cleaving of Olivet into two, which God calls "my mountain," because effected by his special interposition. Septuagint, φραχθήσεται ἡ φάραγξ τῶν ὀρέων μου, "The valley of my mountains shall be blocked;" Vulgate, Fugietis ad vallem montium eorum. The last word is probably an error for meorum. Into the chasm thus miraculously formed the remnant shall flee for refuge. Unto Azal; ἕως ἰασόδ; usque ad proximum (Vulgate); so Symmachus. If Azal, or Azel, be a proper name, it is with some probability identified with Beth-ezel, mentioned in Micah 1:11, a village on the east of Olivet. The meaning in this case is that the valley should extend from the west unto the east side of the Mount of Olives, and that in it the people shall find an asylum, that they might not be involved in the judgments which fall on the enemy. Some take Azal to mean "union," and see in it a symbol of the union of the Law and the gospel, or the Jew and Gentile, in one Church—the valley of God's mountain extending to "union;" that is, to enfolding all the faithful (see Wordsworth, in loc.).The earthquake in the days of Uzziah. This is mentioned in Amos 1:1, but not in the historical books (see note on Amos, loc. cit.).The intervention of the Lord is here accompanied by an earthquake, which produces the same panic as on the former occasion, and drives the inhabitants to flight. Shall come. To smite his enemies and to defend his people. All the saints (holy ones) with thee. The versions have, "with him;" and thus many Hebrew manuscripts. But such abrupt changes of persons are not uncommon (see note on Zechariah 2:8). The "holy ones" are the angels (comp. Deuteronomy 33:2; Job 5:1; Daniel 7:10; and the parallel predictions in Matthew 24:30, Matthew 24:31; Matthew 25:31) [The Pulpit Commentaries, Zechariah 14, StudyLight.org].
Near the end of Calvin's commentary on Zechariah 14:5, he stated:
And this also is the object of the conclusion, which has been overlooked by some. All the saints with thee. There seems to be here a kind of indignation, as though the Prophet turned himself away from his hearers, whom he observed to be in a measure prepared obstinately to reject his heavenly doctrine; for he turns his discourse to God. The sentence seems indeed to lose a portion of its gracefulness, when the Prophet speaks so abruptly, Come shall Jehovah my God, all the saints with thee [182] He might have said "all the saints with him:" but as I have said, he addresses God, as though he could not, on account of disgust, speak to malignant and perverse men, and this serves much to confirm the authority of his prophecy; for he not only declares boldly to men what was to be, but also appeals to God as his witness; nay, he seems as though he had derived by a secret and familiar colloquy what he certainly knew was committed to him by God. But by saints, as I think, he understands the angels; for to include the holy patriarchs and kings, would seem unnatural and far-fetched: and angels, we know, are called saints or holy in other places, as we have seen in the third chapter of Habakkuk (Habakkuk 3:1); and they are called sometimes elect angels. In short, the Prophet shows, that the coming of God would be magnificent; he would descend, as it were, in a visible manner together with his angels, that men's minds might be roused into admiration and wonder. This is the meaning (Calvin, Zechariah 14, Biblehub)
Both the Pulpit Commentary and Calvin's commentary seem to point to more specific examples of the fulfillment of Zech 14:5. Seems to me that here we have an example of a prediction in Zech 14:5 that was fulfilled in Zechariah's day and had a double fulfillment in the future when Jesus' returns.

Oz
 

wondering

Supporter
Joined
Dec 26, 2015
Messages
12,795
Gender
Female
Hi Oz,
This thread is reminding me of that other disagreement we had regarding witnessing. Does one witness using knowledge or does one witness using spiritual mattes...

Do you know that poem The Learned Astronomer?
Sometimes when we know too much about something, it takes away the mystery.

I don't think we should use only those types and foreshadows that are permitted to us because they're mentioned in the N.T. as such. Doesn't this limit us too much? Am I not free to encounter Jesus wherever I might find Him?

The entire bible was written to show God's relationship to Man. Jesus is the ultimate revelation of that relationship. I see Him all over the O.T., as one poster said from the other thread. Can I not discern the bible spiritually also? Must it always be using intellectual knowledge? Most people don't know as much as you do and so this question never even arises.

So is the prophetic scripture and the fulfillment scripture not valid unless one of the N.T. writers speaks of it as such? I am trying to understand you better. When I open up my bible, am I entering into a classroom?

Could it be that ALL must be said or it is not valid? Was EVERYTHING written down?
John 21:25

1 Corinthians 10:3
All ate the same manna.
Jesus is the new manna which does not rot after one day but lasts forever.
We must, even today, all eat the same manna.
Manna = Spiritual food.
Jesus is the new manna.
Jesus is our spiritual food.

Now very learned persons will have 3 other meanings for this scripture.
But most of us are not learned and will be satisfied with the above.
I mean, how much do you want us to know??

Wondering
 

OzSpen

Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2014
Messages
4,598
Gender
Male
Christian
Yes
Hi Oz,
This thread is reminding me of that other disagreement we had regarding witnessing. Does one witness using knowledge or does one witness using spiritual mattes...

Do you know that poem The Learned Astronomer?
Sometimes when we know too much about something, it takes away the mystery.

I don't think we should use only those types and foreshadows that are permitted to us because they're mentioned in the N.T. as such. Doesn't this limit us too much? Am I not free to encounter Jesus wherever I might find Him?

The entire bible was written to show God's relationship to Man. Jesus is the ultimate revelation of that relationship. I see Him all over the O.T., as one poster said from the other thread. Can I not discern the bible spiritually also? Must it always be using intellectual knowledge? Most people don't know as much as you do and so this question never even arises.

So is the prophetic scripture and the fulfillment scripture not valid unless one of the N.T. writers speaks of it as such? I am trying to understand you better. When I open up my bible, am I entering into a classroom?

Could it be that ALL must be said or it is not valid? Was EVERYTHING written down?
John 21:25

1 Corinthians 10:3
All ate the same manna.
Jesus is the new manna which does not rot after one day but lasts forever.
We must, even today, all eat the same manna.
Manna = Spiritual food.
Jesus is the new manna.
Jesus is our spiritual food.

Now very learned persons will have 3 other meanings for this scripture.
But most of us are not learned and will be satisfied with the above.
I mean, how much do you want us to know??

Wondering
Wondering,

There are several concerns I have about your post but I'll say up front that you did not address the topic of this thread, which deals with how one identifies types and shadows when they are not affirmed as such by the NT. If there is no NT confirmation, then the alleged OT types become no more than individualistic interpretations with no more weight than a person's assertions.

Now to some points (not comprehensive) from your post:
  1. 'Does one witness using knowledge or does one witness using spiritual mattes (sic)'. I have never asserted that witnessing only involves knowledge and that one does not witness using spiritual insight. That's a false understanding of my view. Besides, that is not the subject being discussed here, so it is a red herring.
  2. No, I do not know the poem, 'The Learned Astronomer', and I don't know how knowing that poem is meant to address the topic I've raised of types and shadows in the OT and the need for NT verification.
  3. 'I don't think we should use only those types and foreshadows that are permitted to us because they're mentioned in the N.T. as such. Doesn't this limit us too much? Am I not free to encounter Jesus wherever I might find Him?' If you invent the types and shadows, that amounts to postmodernism in action. There is no hermeneutical way of countering anyone who comes to this forum and says, 'Jesus told me X, Y, Z' and it is not endorsed by Scripture. There are droves of people in my region who have existential experiences of 'mystery' that are a country mile from biblical fidelity. I have no way of knowing whether the postmodern, existential interpretation is for real unless I have my thoughts firmly planted in the revealed Scripture. In fact, I have no Gospel to proclaim unless it is biblically based.
  4. 'Can I not discern the bible spiritually also? Must it always be using intellectual knowledge? Most people don't know as much as you do and so this question never even arises'. This kind of demeaning put down is totally unnecessary on an evangelical Christian forum. If it were not for people with knowledge of the original languages, you wouldn't even have a Bible you can read in English.
  5. One more, 'The entire bible was written to show God's relationship to Man'. Try telling that to the Amalekites who were slaughtered by Saul, 'Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys' (1 Sam 15:3 NIV).
There are many other red herrings that you raised in your post that are unrelated to the topic of my OP. I could have written, 'red herrings', at the beginning of my post and said nothing more. But I didn't. I've chosen to at least address some of your issues that are unrelated to the OP.

Oz
 

Eugene

Member
Joined
Aug 24, 2012
Messages
10,778
Gender
Male
The issue I am raising is: Do Christians have the right to create their own understanding of what is a type or shadow from the OT that is fulfilled in the NT or do we need the NT's confirmation that it is a type or shadow? To me, the latter seems to be the biblical means of identification.
Brother OzSpen, I found the article by Charles Hodge interesting and not at all against other teaching I’ve read concerning the spiritual meat being the word of God, the water referring to being led or taught by the Holy Spirit, and Jesus being the Rock.

His going into supposition concerning whether the Rock was separate from the mount or not is superfluous to me as to necessity, but the relationship seems to carry forth from the oneness of those people baptized into Moses as disciples, to us becoming one body of believers, and Him being with us, or rather in us wherever we go.

Stating that many Christians today create their own understanding of shadows and types I think is the product of precept upon precept, and line upon line as we grow in grace and knowledge of our Lord. Over the years I've changed certain views; some due to experience, and at other times maturing in the word of God.

I'll just give one example how I've use the striking the Rock instead of speaking to it. At first Moses was instructed to strike the Rock, and that to me was a type of the crucifixion of our Lord in Exodus 17: 5-6.
Next I read in Num 20:8 that Moses was to speak to the Rock, but he struck the Rock twice, and God said to him in Num 20:12, And the LORD spake unto Moses and Aaron, Because ye believed me not, to sanctify me in the eyes of the children of Israel, therefore ye shall not bring this congregation into the land which I have given them.

Here there was evident consequence, and we read in Deut 32:50 And die in the mount whither thou goest up, and be gathered unto thy people; as Aaron thy brother died in mount Hor, and was gathered unto his people:

Deut 32:51 Because ye trespassed against me among the children of Israel at the waters of Meribah-Kadesh, in the wilderness of Zin; because ye sanctified me not in the midst of the children of Israel.

Now how could or would I use this as a type pertaining to Christendom? We read of a sin that is unto death in
Rom 6:16 Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness? Did Moses die as the result of his unbelief? Of course, but do any think he went to hell; we see Jesus with Elias and Moses on what has become known as the mount of transfiguration in Mt 17:4. As an example of things
1 Cor 10:11 Now all these things happened unto them for ensamples: and they are written for our admonition (or warnings), upon whom the ends of the world are come. Could lying the Holy Spirit be justification for such judgment such as that of Ananias & Sapphira of Acts 5:1? I think so.
 

OzSpen

Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2014
Messages
4,598
Gender
Male
Christian
Yes
Brother OzSpen, I found the article by Charles Hodge interesting and not at all against other teaching I’ve read concerning the spiritual meat being the word of God, the water referring to being led or taught by the Holy Spirit, and Jesus being the Rock.

His going into supposition concerning whether the Rock was separate from the mount or not is superfluous to me as to necessity, but the relationship seems to carry forth from the oneness of those people baptized into Moses as disciples, to us becoming one body of believers, and Him being with us, or rather in us wherever we go.

Stating that many Christians today create their own understanding of shadows and types I think is the product of precept upon precept, and line upon line as we grow in grace and knowledge of our Lord. Over the years I've changed certain views; some due to experience, and at other times maturing in the word of God.

I'll just give one example how I've use the striking the Rock instead of speaking to it. At first Moses was instructed to strike the Rock, and that to me was a type of the crucifixion of our Lord in Exodus 17: 5-6.
Next I read in Num 20:8 that Moses was to speak to the Rock, but he struck the Rock twice, and God said to him in Num 20:12, And the LORD spake unto Moses and Aaron, Because ye believed me not, to sanctify me in the eyes of the children of Israel, therefore ye shall not bring this congregation into the land which I have given them.

Here there was evident consequence, and we read in Deut 32:50 And die in the mount whither thou goest up, and be gathered unto thy people; as Aaron thy brother died in mount Hor, and was gathered unto his people:

Deut 32:51 Because ye trespassed against me among the children of Israel at the waters of Meribah-Kadesh, in the wilderness of Zin; because ye sanctified me not in the midst of the children of Israel.

Now how could or would I use this as a type pertaining to Christendom? We read of a sin that is unto death in
Rom 6:16 Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness? Did Moses die as the result of his unbelief? Of course, but do any think he went to hell; we see Jesus with Elias and Moses on what has become known as the mount of transfiguration in Mt 17:4. As an example of things
1 Cor 10:11 Now all these things happened unto them for ensamples: and they are written for our admonition (or warnings), upon whom the ends of the world are come. Could lying the Holy Spirit be justification for such judgment such as that of Ananias & Sapphira of Acts 5:1? I think so.
Eugene,

Have you ever heard of postmodern reader-response criticism? Do you know what it means?

For a brief mention of its meaning, see D A Carson & Douglas Moo, An Introduction to the New Testament, pp 61, 62, 66 (online).

How do you think your comments here fit with reader-response criticism?

Oz
 

Eugene

Member
Joined
Aug 24, 2012
Messages
10,778
Gender
Male
How do you think your comments here fit with reader-response criticism?
I had no idea that my discussion to a question was a criticism rather than tossing some ideas around concerning types and shadows portrayed in scripture.

Having read the excerpt of Post Modern Reader-Response Error Theology, it seems to suggest there is no right or wrong leading me to wonder at God’s purpose in having the Bible written. Thanks.
 

OzSpen

Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2014
Messages
4,598
Gender
Male
Christian
Yes
I had no idea that my discussion to a question was a criticism rather than tossing some ideas around concerning types and shadows portrayed in scripture.

Having read the excerpt of Post Modern Reader-Response Error Theology, it seems to suggest there is no right or wrong leading me to wonder at God’s purpose in having the Bible written. Thanks.
It seems that you are misunderstanding the theory and practice of postmodern reader-response criticism in your own writing.

What you did in #10 was give us a string of verses that were interpreted as Eugene's postmodern reader-response ideology/theology.

So, prior to my giving you the link to reader-response theory, it seems that you did not have an understanding of what you have done with these verses at #10.

Reader-response errors happen when a reader accepts that the writer of any document does not determine its meaning but that the reader's understanding and response are what matters, i.e. the reader's meaning is the meaning of the text. That seems to be what you have done with the verses you gave in #10.

This is such a serious error infiltrating the Christian church that Kevin Vanhoozer has addressed it in, Is There a Meaning in This Text? (Zondervan 2009)

Do you think you would read the local newspaper like you did the verses you gave in #10?

Oz
 

JLB

Jesus is the Way, the Truth and the Life
Supporter
Joined
Jul 13, 2012
Messages
22,196
Gender
Male
JLB,

The passage you have given from the OT is that 'the Lord my God will come, and all the saints with You' (Zech 14:5). The fulfillment you provide from Rev 22:12-13 does not state anything about 'all the saints with you'.
The passage from Revelation 22 is not the fulfillment but is saying the same thing as the OT.

I was showing that Jesus is the Lord God, who is coming... with His saints.

The coming of the Lord is directly associated with the Resurrection/Rapture in which He will come at the end of the age, to gather His people, and destroy the antichrist. Matthew 24:29-31, 1 Thessalonians 4:13-5:3, 2 Thessalonians 2:1-8

Now, brethren, concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together to Him, we ask you, 2 not to be soon shaken in mind or troubled, either by spirit or by word or by letter, as if from us, as though the day of Christ had come. 3 Let no one deceive you by any means; for that Day will not come unless the falling away comes first, and the man of sin is revealed, the son of perdition, 4 who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God or that is worshiped, so that he sits as God in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God. 5 Do you not remember that when I was still with you I told you these things? 6 And now you know what is restraining, that he may be revealed in his own time. 7 For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work; only He who now restrains will do so until He is taken out of the way.8 And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord will consume with the breath of His mouth and destroy with the brightness of His coming. 2 Thessalonians 2:1-8

The Coming = Resurrection/Rapture.
The Coming = Destruction of the antichrist.


There is no separating these things from each other.


JLB
 

Sinthesis

Member
Joined
Feb 23, 2009
Messages
5,188
Christian
Yes
If there is no NT confirmation, then the alleged OT types become no more than individualistic interpretations with no more weight than a person's assertions.
That doesn't make them by definition wrong, only that they need to be considered on their own merits. The NT is not meant to be a comprehensive list of how exactly Jesus' work is prefigured in the OT. The NT is not big enough. However, if we understand the principle of the Gospel, we can then apply it to any particular situation to better understand the consequences of following or ignoring Jesus' doctrine.

Jhn 21:24 - This is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things: and we know that his testimony is true.
Jhn 21:25 - And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.​

We don't need everything written when we have the Holy Spirit to fill in the blanks.
 

OzSpen

Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2014
Messages
4,598
Gender
Male
Christian
Yes
That doesn't make them by definition wrong, only that they need to be considered on their own merits.
It doesn't make them right either, until corroborating evidence is provided.

We don't need everything written when we have the Holy Spirit to fill in the blanks.
Subjectivism, whether by the Spirit or any other measure, is very difficult to discern because of the variation from person to person. 'The Spirit filled in the blanks for me' is in competition with 'The Spirit filled in the blanks for you' and the information provided may be very different for the same topic. Subjectivism is a poor measure of competent content of revelation.

Oz
 

JLB

Jesus is the Way, the Truth and the Life
Supporter
Joined
Jul 13, 2012
Messages
22,196
Gender
Male
It doesn't make them right either, until corroborating evidence is provided.



Subjectivism, whether by the Spirit or any other measure, is very difficult to discern because of the variation from person to person. 'The Spirit filled in the blanks for me' is in competition with 'The Spirit filled in the blanks for you' and the information provided may be very different for the same topic. Subjectivism is a poor measure of competent content of revelation.

Oz
That's why it's called "multi faceted" wisdom, because the truth that is found in wisdom, is like a diamond or precious stone and is relevant as God sees each circumstance.


JLB
 

Javier

Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2011
Messages
18,314
The issue I am raising is: Do Christians have the right to create their own understanding of what is a type or shadow from the OT that is fulfilled in the NT
Yes.

do we need the NT's confirmation that it is a type or shadow?
Only if you want to impress it upon someone as undeniable fact. Otherwise you can only share it using your best efforts of honest debate you can muster and leave the rest to God.

if we understand the principle of the Gospel, we can then apply it to any particular situation
Yes, I agree completely with this. I've learned much from the Bible by doing this. For example, an understanding of Galatians 4:24-31 NASB will provide the principles of understanding to see that Jacob and Esau are also a picture of the old and new covenants, even though the scriptures don't specifically say that, as far as I know.
 

OzSpen

Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2014
Messages
4,598
Gender
Male
Christian
Yes
That's why it's called "multi faceted" wisdom, because the truth that is found in wisdom, is like a diamond or precious stone and is relevant as God sees each circumstance.
JLB
That's why it is called subjectivism and/or Gnosticism as it is impossible to obtain objective information.
 

OzSpen

Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2014
Messages
4,598
Gender
Male
Christian
Yes
Yes.

Only if you want to impress it upon someone as undeniable fact. Otherwise you can only share it using your best efforts of honest debate you can muster and leave the rest to God.
Jethro,

That makes you a supporter of subjective interpretation and reader-response ideology. It also makes you a sitting duck for any kind of hermeneutic that comes along and wants to dethrone your reader-response. It makes no fixed interpretation possible.

Try that approach with your next electricity bill, a letter from a lawyer, or reading a local newspaper. Creating your own reality in reader-response theology amounts to Gnosticism in action in the 21st century.

That approach makes Jesus a moving target of any kind of interpretation. If you don't believe me, take a read of John Dominic Crossan, The Birth of Christianity (HarperCollins Publishers 1998).

What is reader-response theory?

Reader Response
Reader response is a school of literary criticism that ignores both the author and the text's contents, confining analysis to the reader's experience when reading a particular work. Reader response theorists are particularly concerned with the traditional teaching approaches that imply that a work of literature has a particular interpretation. According to Louise Rosenblatt, one of the primary figures in reader response, all reading is a transaction between the reader and writer (as represented by an immutable text). She further posits that the "stance" of the reader, either "aesthetic" (reading by choice or for pleasure) or "efferent"(reading by assignment or because one has to), has a major influence on the textual experience (source Chegg).
Oz
 

2020 Hosting Fee

Total amount
$532.00
Goal
$667.40
Top