interpretation and community

To rehash the three points  I’ve made about using “rightly” and “proper” to manage interpretations of Scripture:

1.  Using “rightly” and “proper” effectively split’s the community of believers into two camps—insiders and outsiders. 2.  “Rightly” and “proper” are extra biblical means of defining belief in Jesus and Paul‘s letters. 3.  Using “rightly” and “proper” are usually practices carried out by insiders and it privileges the insider’s camp over the outsider‘s camp.            

So, in short, talking about “rightly” understanding some piece of Scripture or having a “proper interpretation” is a way that some conservative evangelicals manage the abundant possibilities opened up by the Holy Bible and a way that they sustain their particular visions of faith.

Has anyone checked out the LXX (septuagint) on Psalm 22’s final line?  I think it’s not that far off the greek that Jesus uses as his final words in John on the Cross.

My aramaic’s non-existent, but I’d be curious to know if anyone had any thoughts on whether or not there might be a similarity there.

It’s make for an interesting theory - Synoptic Gospels quoting the begining of Ps.22 - John quoting the end!

In some study of the atonement, I’ve found it helpful to consider that Jesus may have been referring to Psalm 22 in it’s entirety and not simply expressing anguish or forsakeness.  This interpretation seems to me to fit with Jesus’ other words.  Namely, "it is finished."  That is, the work that was required to turn people to the Lord is now finished.  This, in the end, is what makes Good Friday… good!!

Hi Andrew, I too have enjoyed the interchange.  What I appreciate about your reading of the texts is a strong concern for the redemptive-historical context, as well as the canonical context of the OT. I appreciate the historical ‘realism’, as you frame it, in your interpretation of prophecy.  I think this is commendable. 

The thread on the jealousy of God has again raised a number of important questions about how we construct the context within which we endeavour to interpret the teaching of Jesus and the apostles. It is not enough simply to acknowledge that the texts we tend to cite in order to support our arguments come with literary contexts. There is also the question of how we interpret that context. It is at this level, it seems to me, that the fundamental misunderstandings arise.

Some of the most hotly contested texts between Judaism and Christianity, such as Psalm 2:12 and 22:14, Isaiah 7:14 and Isaiah 53 can be viewed, understood and even harmonised by reference to the rabbinic modes of interpretations, in ways that strict adherence to historical-critical analysis often won’t recognise or allow. Here are some examples of the less well-known and understood rabbinic modes of interpretation.

While some within the emerging movement have renounced infant cannibalism, I think it’s time to reconsider the arguments being presented in light of the differences between the culture of our day and the cultures that existed in Bible times…

I originally posted this on my blog without further comment, and I got a few positive remarks, but we didn’t really get into discussing the point of the post.

Obviously, this is a satirical post intended to elicit discussion about the process we use to determine whether a moral prohibition in the bible is applicable today. In the discussion on "A New Way to Dialogue About Homosexuality," I again encountered the argument that loving, monogamous homosexual relationships were not an extant category in Paul’s day, nor was homosexuality recognized as a biologically influenced trait, therefore biblical injunctions against it are irrelevant. Can’t the same be said for certain forms of infant cannibalism?

Out of the discussion that came out ‘a new way to dialogue about homosexuality’ i felt it would be apropriate to outsource the discussions surrounding ‘culture and Bible’ into a new thread.

I would like to share some observations of how I feel that our own culture leads many christians to read, act or think differently to what the Bible might have said in its cultural context. What I would like to encourage is a critical thinking of our own perceptions and our own motives of why we do it. I assume the questions will come up where it is legitimate to take certain texts as not being relevant for our culture today.

Review of ,

I previously posted this review on one of my blogs. I thought this was one that the OST populace may enjoy.

I commend to you the short book The Prophetic Imagination by Walter Brueggemann. Perhaps I can explain it as pop-Christian-lit for people that don’t enjoy getting treated like 12 year olds.

Since Brueggemann is a Professor specialising in Old Testament and since the book is based on a series of lectures it is quite readable and addresses issues of interest in some depth without overloading on detail. This proved to be a weakness as well: sometimes I found the language a little difficult to read. However, if I slowed and read it out loud it was quite powerful.

I asked, “Can faith be based on a book”? I have not seen a single reply that suggests anything other than yes, of course. In fact it must be or there will be no faith. All answers rely on a quote from the Book itself or by a writer on the subject. Where does that leave an emerging theology, open or shut? Very clearly shut.