Types & shadows needing NT support?

[JLB]

That's why it is called subjectivism and/or Gnosticism as it is impossible to obtain objective information.

Which by your comment, you are doing, since your opinion has no scriptural support.

8 To me, who am less than the least of all the saints, this grace was given, that I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ, 9 and to make all see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the ages has been hidden in God who created all things through Jesus Christ;10 to the intent that now the manifold wisdom of God might be made known by the church to the principalities and powers in the heavenly places, 11 according to the eternal purpose which He accomplished in Christ Jesus our Lord, 12 in whom we have boldness and access with confidence through faith in Him. Ephesians 3:8-12


Paul used types and shadows from the Old Testament scriptures to reveal the unsearchable riches of Christ to the Gentiles.

This multifaceted [manifold] wisdom is being made known by the Church, which you say is Gnosticism, or Subjectivism.



JLB

 

[Jethro Bodine]

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.

It makes no fixed interpretation possible in regard to hard and fast and plain words of the Bible. That's all. That hardly means it can't possibly be true.

Try that approach with your next electricity bill, a letter from a lawyer, or reading a local newspaper.

That's not a good argument to make.
No one is suggesting that personal interpretation --meaning that interpretation isn't spelled out in the Bible word for word--can somehow be inconsistent with what is written in the Bible. Perhaps that is the big mistake you are making about this. This isn't about saying your electric bill is $30.00 when it plainly says it's $150.00 on the written bill.

I asked in another thread if you thought that Joseph was a type and shadow of Christ. Do you think so?

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).

What is being defended in this thread fails to meet the criteria for this being a matter of 'Reader Response':

1. Personal interpretation does not ignore the author of the Bible and the context, nor content, of the Bible. One of the rules of personal spiritual revelation not spelled out in scripture is that it can not contradict what the Bible already says.
2. Personal interpretation is not about 'confining analysis to the reader's experience' because it does not consist of analysis confined only to the reader, and is not based on an experience other than the experience of spiritual revelation itself. It's not about having experiences, and an analysis of spiritual matters that contradict what the Bible does say about a particular subject.
3. The spiritual interpretation that is being defended here is exactly the opposite of being "concerned with the traditional teaching approaches that imply a work...has a particular interpretation". Because it is open to a greater spiritual depth and insight and understanding of scripture it sometimes grates against the traditional interpretation of scripture (i.e. 1 Corinthians 3:8-15 NASB. Not a terribly good example because so much of the non-traditional interpretation of that passage is directly supported by the Bible).

 

[OzSpen]

Which by your comment, you are doing, since your opinion has no scriptural support.
JLB

So, does this statement by you, about me, have scriptural support? There are many things we do in OT and NT studies that are not specifically spelled out as the A, B Cs of hermeneutics. Jesus said, 'I am the door'. Is he an actual door or not? What opinion from English or Greek grammar are you going to use to determine its meaning? You are barking up the wrong hermeneutical tree with this approach.

8 To me, who am less than the least of all the saints, this grace was given, that I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ, 9 and to make all see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the ages has been hidden in God who created all things through Jesus Christ;10 to the intent that now the manifold wisdom of God might be made known by the church to the principalities and powers in the heavenly places, 11 according to the eternal purpose which He accomplished in Christ Jesus our Lord, 12 in whom we have boldness and access with confidence through faith in Him. Ephesians 3:8-12

How am I to interpret 'the manifold wisdom of God'? Where do I find it and how do I know that it is the manifold wisdom of God?

Paul used types and shadows from the Old Testament scriptures to reveal the unsearchable riches of Christ to the Gentiles.

You are rehashing old stuff here. I was writing about OT types and shadows from the OT that need to be identified as such in the NT. Otherwise, they are nothing more than the reader's subjective opinion.

This multifaceted [manifold] wisdom is being made known by the Church, which you say is Gnosticism, or Subjectivism.

Where did I state that?

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

It makes no fixed interpretation possible in regard to hard and fast and plain words of the Bible. That's all. That hardly means it can't possibly be true.

And that's the problem. If there are no hard and fast rules for the plain words of John 3:16 (ESV), then you have postmodern reader-response Gnosticism in action. It leads to hermeneutical shipwrecks. If there were not hard, fast and plain meanings to words of the Bible (and to any other writing), what you and I write on CFnet would not be understood. I think you are whistling in the wind of subjective vagueness.

That's not a good argument to make.
No one is suggesting that personal interpretation --meaning that interpretation isn't spelled out in the Bible word for word--can somehow be inconsistent with what is written in the Bible. Perhaps that is the big mistake you are making about this. This isn't about saying your electric bill is $30.00 when it plainly says it's $150.00 on the written bill.

It is a good argument to make because personal interpretation, subjective interpretation, is a bummer when it comes to understanding the meaning of your electricity bill. You must read it literally to obtain its plain, literal meaning. There is no other means of interpretation of your electricity bill and it is a fixed interpretation.

I asked in another thread if you thought that Joseph was a type and shadow of Christ. Do you think so?

As I've stated a few times in this thread, an OT person or incident is not a type or shadow unless it is confirmed in the NT as such. Some see the OT story of Joseph (Gen 37-45) as a type of Christ because of Joseph's humiliation and glorification that could be compared with Jesus' passion and resurrection. However, the NT does NOT confirm that the OT Joseph is a type of Christ. Joseph's story is an illustration with a parallel with Jesus - but it is NOT a type or shadow because the NT does not confirm it as such.

Personal interpretation does not ignore the author of the Bible and the context, nor content, of the Bible. One of the rules of personal spiritual revelation not spelled out in scripture is that it can not contradict what the Bible already says.

That might be what you see, but in this thread I've seen too many personal interpretations that were subjective impositions on the biblical data. So you say that a rule of personal spiritual revelation (not revealed in the Bible) must not contradict the Bible. That's your own personal opinion and it is open to contradiction by another personal interpretation. You are building your interpretation on the slippery sands of personal revelation.

1. Personal interpretation is not about 'confining analysis to the reader's experience' because it does not consist of analysis confined only to the reader, and is not based on an experience other than the experience of spiritual revelation itself. It's not about having experiences, and an analysis of spiritual matters that contradict what the Bible does say about a particular subject.
2. The spiritual interpretation that is being defended here is exactly the opposite of being "concerned with the traditional teaching approaches that imply a work...has a particular interpretation". Because it is open to a greater spiritual depth and insight and understanding of scripture it sometimes grates against the traditional interpretation of scripture (i.e. 1 Corinthians 3:8-15 NASB. Not a terribly good example because so much of the non-traditional interpretation of that passage is directly supported by the Bible).

That's subjective Gnosticism in action and it is what the church apologists had to battle in the first few centuries of the church's existence. Seems like it is alive and well in your posts.

Oz

 

[GodsGrace]

One of the first things I learned about the bible is that it's suitable for EVERYONE.

A very simple person could read it and come away knowing the love of God and His offer of salvation and how to live a "good" life. Even though they may not understand the word "world" in any given verse.

Also, a very intellectual and learned person can delve into it and glean much and study it for years, including language, history, customs.

God speaks to us, individually, from His Word.
Sometimes the language He uses is spiritual.

Sometimes the bible must be read intellectually - to learn its truths.
Sometimes it must be read spiritually - to learn its truths.

I like 1 Corinthians 2:1-13

Some here feel demeaned by this idea. The person reading the bible spiritually could also be feeling demeaned by the intellectual persuasion.

Wondering

 

[JLB]

So, does this statement by you, about me, have scriptural support? There are many things we do in OT and NT studies that are not specifically spelled out as the A, B Cs of hermeneutics. Jesus said, 'I am the door'. Is he an actual door or not?

Actual my interpretation would be that their is a multifaceted meaning to Jesus being the door, that may or may not find it's truth in the opinion's of man's commentary.

What opinion from English or Greek grammar are you going to use to determine its meaning? You are barking up the wrong hermeneutical tree with this approach.

But the anointing which you have received from Him abides in you, and you do not need that anyone teach you; but as the same anointing teaches you concerning all things, and is true, and is not a lie, and just as it has taught you, you will abide in Him.
1 John 2:27


Any method of interpretation, that is not led by and inspired by God, is lacking at best.


This is what led to the fall of mankind.

We are to partake of the tree of life as our source, not from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.


This is the promise of the New Covenant -

33 But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. 34 No more shall every man teach his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them, says the Lord. For I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more.” Jeremiah 31:33-34

and again

It is written in the prophets, ‘And they shall all be taught by God.’ Therefore everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to Me. John 6:45


Jesus said it this way -

You search the Scriptures, for in them you think you have eternal life; and these are they which testify of Me. But you are not willing to come to Me that you may have life.
John 5:39-40

and again


15 He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?”
16 Simon Peter answered and said, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”
17 Jesus answered and said to him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. 18 And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it. Matthew 16:15-18

“Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven.

The rich, life changing spiritual revelation, that is found in God's word, comes directly from Him.


What hermeneutics did Moses use to write the Old Testament scriptures?



JLB

 

[Jethro Bodine]

That's subjective Gnosticism in action and it is what the church apologists had to battle in the first few centuries of the church's existence. Seems like it is alive and well in your posts.

I think what you really mean to say is the idea of esoteric knowledge upon which Gnosticism relied seems alive and well in my posts.
If being able to discern things by the Spirit of God that others can't, or aren't yet able to discern, is considered esoteric knowledge, then yes, that broad definition and application of esoteric knowledge is alive and well in my posts. That is the very foundation of teaching. I guess your problem is that you feel that is not allowed.

"we do speak wisdom among those who are mature; a wisdom, however, not of this age nor of the rulers of this age, who are passing away; 7but we speak God’s wisdom in a mystery, the hidden wisdom which God predestined before the ages to our glory; 8the wisdom which none of the rulers of this age has understood..." (1 Corinthians 2:6-8 NASB)

By pure definition, if that isn't esoteric knowledge, then nothing is.

All I'm saying is, it is allowed as long as it does not contradict, or can not be reconciled with what we already know to be true in the Bible. In Paul's case, his esoteric knowledge did not contradict, or not reconcile with the scriptures of his day, what we call the OT.

The use of Paul's esoteric knowledge to teach spiritual truth shows us it's okay to say that Joseph, for example, is a type and shadow of Christ. Does Christianity and the truth of God come crashing down in a worthless heap if, technically, God did not say it's a type and shadow of Christ? Of course not. You're tossing out all privilege of personal interpretation and suggestion and it's value in spiritual education just because there certainly are those who would abuse it. Your's is a misguided, contentious argument. What you should be arguing against is not esoteric knowledge, but esoteric knowledge that has no basis or support in scripture.

 

[OzSpen]

I think what you really mean to say is the idea of esoteric knowledge upon which Gnosticism relied seems alive and well in my posts.
If being able to discern things by the Spirit of God that others can't, or aren't yet able to discern, is considered esoteric knowledge, then yes, that broad definition and application of esoteric knowledge is alive and well in my posts. That is the very foundation of teaching. I guess your problem is that you feel that is not allowed.

"we do speak wisdom among those who are mature; a wisdom, however, not of this age nor of the rulers of this age, who are passing away; 7but we speak God’s wisdom in a mystery, the hidden wisdom which God predestined before the ages to our glory; 8the wisdom which none of the rulers of this age has understood..." (1 Corinthians 2:6-8 NASB)

By pure definition, if that isn't esoteric knowledge, then nothing is.

All I'm saying is, it is allowed as long as it does not contradict, or can not be reconciled with what we already know to be true in the Bible. In Paul's case, his esoteric knowledge did not contradict, or not reconcile with the scriptures of his day, what we call the OT.

The use of Paul's esoteric knowledge to teach spiritual truth shows us it's okay to say that Joseph, for example, is a type and shadow of Christ. Does Christianity and the truth of God come crashing down in a worthless heap if, technically, God did not say it's a type and shadow of Christ? Of course not. You're tossing out all privilege of personal interpretation and suggestion and it's value in spiritual education just because there certainly are those who would abuse it. Your's is a misguided, contentious argument. What you should be arguing against is not esoteric knowledge, but esoteric knowledge that has no basis or support in scripture.

Where does the Bible provide an exposition of the need for and the meaning of 'esoteric knowledge'?

 

[OzSpen]

I think what you really mean to say is the idea of esoteric knowledge upon which Gnosticism relied seems alive and well in my posts.

If being able to discern things by the Spirit of God that others can't, or aren't yet able to discern, is considered esoteric knowledge, then yes, that broad definition and application of esoteric knowledge is alive and well in my posts. That is the very foundation of teaching. I guess your problem is that you feel that is not allowed.

"we do speak wisdom among those who are mature; a wisdom, however, not of this age nor of the rulers of this age, who are passing away; 7but we speak God’s wisdom in a mystery, the hidden wisdom which God predestined before the ages to our glory; 8the wisdom which none of the rulers of this age has understood..." (1 Corinthians 2:6-8 NASB)

By pure definition, if that isn't esoteric knowledge, then nothing is.

One definition of esotericsm is: 'Esoteric: known or knowable only to initiates; secret or mysterious knowledge; cryptic; hidden; concealed; clandestine, cover' (source).

1 Corinthians 2:6-8 NASB is hardly an explanation to cover this meaning of esoteric knowledge in the secular world or in a biblical worldview.

 

[OzSpen]

Which by your comment, you are doing, since your opinion has no scriptural support.

I think it's time for you to do a study of the content and destructive nature of Gnosticism that invaded the early church. There was no need for Irenaeus to write Against Heresies (ca. AD 180) if what you said is true, that what I'm saying is not in the Bible.

See: The Refutation of Gnosticism in Early Church History (Liberty University Baptist Theological Seminary, March 6, 2016).

Now check out the nature of Gnosticism practised in the contemporary (evangelical) church!

Oz

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Where does the Bible provide an exposition of the need for and the meaning of 'esoteric knowledge'?

Wondering and I already shared it:
"we do speak wisdom among those who are mature; a wisdom, however, not of this age nor of the rulers of this age, who are passing away; 7but we speak God’s wisdom in a mystery, the hidden wisdom which God predestined before the ages to our glory; 8the wisdom which none of the rulers of this age has understood..." (1 Corinthians 2:6-8 NASB)

 

[JLB]

I think it's time for you to do a study of the content and destructive nature of Gnosticism that invaded the early church. There was no need for Irenaeus to write Against Heresies (ca. AD 180) if what you said is true, that what I'm saying is not in the Bible.

See: The Refutation of Gnosticism in Early Church History (Liberty University Baptist Theological Seminary, March 6, 2016).

Now check out the nature of Gnosticism practised in the contemporary (evangelical) church!

Oz

I can read what is written in scripture, that warns against such things.

19 And so we have the prophetic word confirmed, which you do well to heed as a light that shines in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts; 20 knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation, 21 for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. 2 Peter 1:19-21


However, what I'm saying is: The Holy Spirit who moved upon those who wrote the scriptures can bring a fuller understanding to us, from what was written in the old testament, but may not have been expressed in the new testament.

I will be the first one to warn folks against practicing the works of the flesh, of which is heresies.

Of course, we are to warn against such things, but that is not what the topic of this thread is about, which reads:

Types & shadows needing NT support?

A [true] shadow or type of Christ is from the Holy Spirit, and may not have been revealed in the new testament.

However a true shadow and type will be consist with: Glorifying Christ, lead a person closer to God, produce faith [Romans 10:17], useful for teaching, correction, and instruction in righteousness.

Again, of course no one is promoting false doctrine or heresy.



JLB

 

[GodsGrace]

I'd like to repost what JLB says in no. 32:

"However a true shadow and type will be consist with: Glorifying Christ, lead a person closer to God, produce faith [Romans 10:17], useful for teaching, correction, and instruction in righteousness."

This is important. I know persons that have understood something about Jesus from a prefiguring or shadowing or type in the O.T.
Whether or not it was confirmed by a N.T. writer.
The bible must also speak to us personally with guidance from the Holy Spirit.

Wondering

 

[Malachi]

In that other thread, we had people using Adam and Eve as types and shadows.

This is supported by the NT (see Ephesians 5 and other passages). Ideally, we should have NT corroboration, but that may not always be found, yet the interpretation will not be in violation of Scripture. There are things which can be spiritually discerned.

 

[JLB]

Ideally, we should have NT corroboration, but that may not always be found, yet the interpretation will not be in violation of Scripture.

Amen!

 

[smaller]

What most believers end up finding out in the long run is that God is Objective Truth beyond their entire grasp. That's called respect for The Divine.

And they also find out that everyone who engages the Word is very much subjective in how they handle it because we are by our nature, subjective. This inherent subjective nature can not be avoided as it's a built in condition of all created things.

As to shadows and typology? A lot of people try to make differences between allegories, similitudes, parables, metaphors, types and shadows. But they are all similar in nature, that being that they transition from hard literal fact to associations. Paul practiced spiritual comparisions for employment as did Jesus as thee "methodology" for dissections. Those MARKS they left are the guidelines for uses in dissections and understandings. 1 Cor. 2:13. Paul employs this kind of methodology throughout his H.S. inspired writings because that is the language of God Himself to us.

The reality of the O.T. is that God, through the prophets, spoke by similitude. The entirety of the O.T. bears literal, but the meanings of alllll the things written are alllll similitude. Every last stroke of the pen. Hosea 12:10, Psalm 78:1-2, Luke 8:11, Romans 7:14, etc etc

There are rules in the scriptures to engage these matters. Unless a person is devoted to Gods Word, they will know none of it. They will instead bask in their own subjective traps. Dry holes.

God has quite purposefully locked away what is contained in His Word on the types, shadows, allegory, parable, metaphor side of the ledgers and no mere mortal can find it out. It can't be done.

His Things are only found out in "submission." In "defeat." In "weakness."

 

[OzSpen]

One of the first things I learned about the bible is that it's suitable for EVERYONE.

A very simple person could read it and come away knowing the love of God and His offer of salvation and how to live a "good" life. Even though they may not understand the word "world" in any given verse.

I urge you to try that approach by handing a new Christian or an unbeliever a copy of the Book of Leviticus. You might discern that Leviticus is NOT for EVERYONE and a 'simple person' (your language) might not know the love of God that brings salvation from Leviticus.

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

smaller,

As to shadows and typology? A lot of people try to make differences between allegories, similitudes, parables, metaphors, types and shadows. But they are all similar in nature, that being that they transition from hard literal fact to associations.

Try telling that to English teachers who know their material.:blush

 

[OzSpen]

A [true] shadow or type of Christ is from the Holy Spirit, and may not have been revealed in the new testament.

Who said?

 

[OzSpen]

This is supported by the NT (see Ephesians 5 and other passages). Ideally, we should have NT corroboration, but that may not always be found, yet the interpretation will not be in violation of Scripture. There are things which can be spiritually discerned.

I do not find a word in Ephesians 5 that supports what I asked: 'In that other thread, we had people using Adam and Eve as types and shadows'.