Submitted by Georgie Porgie
Any truly valid interpretation of Scripture must be based upon sound rules. These rules must then be applied consistently. The following are the most basic rules we attempt to always follow in our interpretation of Scripture. We do not feel at liberty to discard these rules when they lead us to a conclusion in contradiction to what ‘orthodoxy’ has taught us. We instead endeavour to allow the scriptures to speak for themselves and believe by faith whatever conclusions they may lead us to.
I It will be assumed that the 39 books of the Old Testament, and the 27 Books of the New Testament are the wholly inspired Word of God. “That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.” 2 Tim 3:17.
II The Bible itself will always be used to define its own terminology, symbols, etc. No appeal will be made to any man-made dogma, theory, or writing, such as the apocrypha or psudopygrypha, to explain Biblical terms which are already clearly defined within the Bible itself.
III The proper interpretation of any given passage will be determined, not only by that with which it stands immediately connected, but by considering all scriptures which have bearing upon the subject throughout the entire Bible . The truth of any given subject can only be determined by bringing together all scripture which sheds light on that subject.
IV Every passage will be given as literal an interpretation as possible, unless such a literal interpretation would render the meaning absurd, or bring it into disagreement with other passages which speak in positive language.
V No interpretation will be given to any scripture beyond what the fair meaning of the text itself allows. For Example: Carcass cannot in any case be interpreted to mean immortal soul burning in hell.
VI All passages belonging to any particular subject must contain one or more of the peculiar features of that subject, by which it may be identified as belonging to that subject.
VII The truth of any doctrine must be determined firstly by those passages which speak in clear and positive language, and not those which are symbolic or parabolic in nature. No inference should be drawn from any symbolic or parabolic passage which would bring the passage into contradiction with those which speak unequivocally on the same subject.
VIII No doctrine will be derived based on a single passage of scripture, a mere inference, or an argument from silence. Any true doctrine will found throughout the entire Bible.
Fundamental Rules for Interpreting Scripture
1. Since Jesus spoke and the Bible writers wrote primarily for the people of their day, always consider the historical, geographical, and cultural setting of the passage you are studying.
2. Always consider the context of the unit, chapter, and book when interpreting a text. The meaning of each verse must agree with the theme of the unit, chapter, and book, as well as the overall teaching of the Bible.
3. When interpreting a passage or verse, make sure to study each sentence grammatically to get the correct meaning. Pay special attention to the verbs as they deal with actions.
4. Make sure to get the meaning of each text as intended by the Bible writer or inspired speaker before making application. This is called bridge-building and is important in giving Bible studies.
5. Difficult texts must be interpreted in the light of the clear teachings of the whole Bible. Therefore, study all that Scripture teaches on a given subject before coming to a conclusion on any single verse.
6. The New Testament must be interpreted in the light of the Old Testament and vice versa. The Old Testament is promise and the New Testament is fulfilment. Both complement each other.
7. For accuracy, use the best translations and, if at all possible, compare with the original text.
Here are the eight rules:
1) The rule of DEFINITION: What does the word mean? Any study of Scripture must begin with a study of words. Define your terms and then keep to the terms defined. The interpreter should conscientiously abide by the plain meaning of the words. This quite often may require using a Hebrew/English or Greek/English lexicon in order to make sure that the sense of the English translation is understood. A couple of good examples of this are the Greek words “allos” and “heteros”. Both are usually translated as “another” in English – yet “allos” literally means “another of the same type” and “heteros” means “another of a different type.”
2) The rule of USAGE: It must be remembered that the Old Testament was written originally by, to and for Jews. The words and idioms must have been intelligible to them – just as the words of Christ when talking to them must have been. The majority of the New Testament likewise was written in a milieu of Greco-Roman (and to a lesser extent Jewish) culture and it is important to not impose our modern usage into our interpretation. It is not worth much to interpret a great many phrases and histories if one’s interpretations are shaded by pre-conceived notions and cultural biases, thereby rendering an inaccurate and ineffectual lesson.
3) The rule of CONTEXT: The meaning must be gathered from the context. Every word you read must be understood in the light of the words that come before and after it. Many passages will not be understood at all, or understood incorrectly, without the help afforded by the context. A good example of this is the Mormon practice of using 1 Cor. 8:5b: “…for there be gods many and lords many…” as a “proof text” of their doctrine of polytheism. However, a simple reading of the whole verse in the context of the whole chapter (e.g. where Paul calls these gods “so-called”), plainly demonstrates that Paul is not teaching polytheism.
4) The rule of HISTORICAL BACKGROUND: The interpreter must have some awareness of the life and society of the times in which the Scripture was written. The spiritual principle will be timeless but often can’t be properly appreciated without some knowledge of the background. If the interpreter can have in his mind what the writer had in his mind when he wrote – without adding any excess baggage from the interpreter’s own culture or society – then the true thought of the Scripture can be captured resulting in an accurate interpretation. Oliver Wendell Holmes said, “Our only interest in the past is for the light it throws upon the present.”
5) The rule of LOGIC: Interpretation is merely logical reasoning. When interpreting Scripture, the use of reason is everywhere to be assumed. Does the interpretation make sense? The Bible was given to us in the form of human language and therefore appeals to human reason – it invites investigation. It is to be interpreted as we would any other volume: applying the laws of language and grammatical analysis. As Bernard Ramm said:
“What is the control we use to weed out false theological speculation? Certainly the control is logic and evidence… interpreters who have not had the sharpening experience of logic…may have improper notions of implication and evidence. Too frequently such a person uses a basis of appeal that is a notorious violation of the laws of logic and evidence.” (Protestant Biblical Interpretation, Boston: W. A. Wilde, 1956)
6) The rule of PRECEDENT: We must not violate the known usage of a word and invent another for which there is no precedent. Just as a judge’s chief occupation is the study of previous cases, so must the interpreter use precedents in order to determine whether they really support an alleged doctrine. Consider the Bereans in Acts 17:10-12 who were called “noble” because they searched the Scriptures to determine if what Paul taught them was true.
7) The rule of UNITY: The parts of Scripture being interpreted must be construed with reference to the significance of the whole. An interpretation must be consistent with the rest of Scripture. An excellent example of this is the doctrine of the Trinity. No single passage teaches it, but it is consistent with the teaching of the whole of Scripture (e.g. the Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit are referred to individually as God; yet the Scriptures elsewhere teach there is only one God).
8) The rule of INFERENCE: An inference is a fact reasonably implied from another fact. It is a logical consequence. It derives a conclusion from a given fact or premise. It is the deduction of one proposition from another proposition. Such inferential facts or propositions are sufficiently binding when their truth is established by competent and satisfactory evidence. Competent evidence means such evidence as the nature of the thing to be proved admits. Satisfactory evidence means that amount of proof which would ordinarily satisfy an unprejudiced mind beyond a reasonable doubt. Jesus used this rule when he proved the resurrection of the dead to the unbelieving Sadducees in Matt. 22:23-33.
Learning these eight rules and properly applying them will help keep any interpreter from making errors and will hopefully alleviate many of the disagreements unfortunately present in Christianity today. However, these eight principles are no substitute for the Holy Spirit which will, if you let Him, guide you in the truth [John 14:26]. If you receive Christ into your heart, God will give you the Holy Spirit freely as a gift [Acts 2:38]. I urge you, if you have not already done so, to examine the claims and the work of Jesus Christ and to receive Him as your Saviour.
Interpreting Scripture (Hermeneutics)
Hermeneutics is defined in one dictionary as “the art of finding the meaning of an author’s words and phrases, and of explaining it to others.” When applied to Scripture, accurate hermeneutics would require the scholar to:
• Study the context of the passage and the theme of the book.
• Look up the actual meaning of each word in the original languages.
• Note the verb tenses, the cases, and other grammatical determinants.
• Learn the cultural setting of the passage.
• Determine what the original readers understood it to mean.
• Check out cross-references to see how the words are used in other contexts.
• See how the first mention of the word or topic is presented in the Bible.
• Confirm an interpretation with two or three similar passages.
These are all proven study methods and good guidelines of interpretation. Here are some other additional factors of correct Biblical hermeneutics?
1. Spiritual Perception Over Intellectual Understanding
The first factor of interpreting Scripture is to approach it as an exercise in spiritual discernment rather than just an intellectual pursuit. Paul emphasized this in his letter to the Corinthian believers. “But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned” (I Corinthians 2:14). Jesus Himself confirmed that Biblical understanding does not come from human reasoning but from spiritual enlightenment. He said, “I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes” (Matthew 11:25).
The Holy Spirit is the One Who inspired the writing of Scripture, and He is the most qualified One to interpret its meaning to each reader. Jesus assured us that the Holy Spirit would indeed guide us into all truth. “Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth” (John 16:13).
This being the case, it is also reasonable to conclude that if a person who wants to interpret Scripture has sinful habits or practices in his life that grieve the Holy Spirit and quench His power, the Holy Spirit will not reveal the truth of Scripture to such a person. In fact, God warns that such individuals will take Scripture out of context to their own destruction. (See II Peter 3:16.) This result supports the axiom that a man’s morality will dictate his theology and his philosophy.
2. God’s Revelation Over Human Reasoning
In the final analysis, accurate Biblical interpretation is based on the revelation of Jesus Christ throughout the Scriptures. Nowhere is this more clearly demonstrated than on that walk on the road to Emmaus. The disciples had been personally taught by Jesus for three years.
However, they still did not understand the Scriptures from which He taught. They were distracted by the conflicting interpretations of contemporary scholars. It was not until Jesus began with Moses and all the prophets and explained how they revealed Him that they understood the true meaning of Scripture. “And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself” (Luke 24:27). They later recalled, “Did not our heart burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the Scriptures?” (Luke 24:32).
The scholars of Jesus’ day carried out heated debates over the correct interpretation of Scripture, but Jesus counselled them to search the Scriptures on the basis that they testified of Him. “Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me” (John 5:39).
3. Genuine Love Rather Than Justification of Selfishness
Since the Scriptures reveal the person and work of the Lord Jesus Christ, it also follows that the primary theme of the Bible is the love of God and how we are to live out His love in our daily words and actions.
When a clever lawyer tried to involve Jesus in a wordy battle, He began his forensic sparring with the question “Which is the greatest commandment?” The reply that Jesus gave is a profound principle for Biblical interpretation. All the Law and prophets are based on the command to love God with all of our hearts, souls, minds, and strength, and to love our neighbours as ourselves.
Therefore, we must interpret Scripture on the basis of how it teaches us to love God and to love others. Love is the theme of the Bible. All good character qualities are simply practical expressions of genuine love. When the Pharisees used the Law of Moses to justify their harsh and unloving treatment of wives, Jesus reproved them for hardness of heart and took them back to the Creation design of one man and one woman becoming one flesh for the rest of their lives.
The lawyer who tried to engage Jesus in debate then tried to justify himself by asking, “Who is my neighbour?” to which Jesus responded with the parable of the Good Samaritan.
4. Christ’s Commands Over Man’s Theology
Every interpretation of Scripture is based on some foundational structure of reasoning. Jesus provides the structure of truth in the commands that He gave to His disciples during His earthly ministry, and they are the guiding lights for correct Biblical interpretation. They clarify what was written in the Old Testament and are further explained in New Testament teaching. Jesus promises that if we keep His commands before our eyes, He will reveal more of Himself to us. This was the great goal of Paul: “That I may know him, and the power of his resurrection” (Philippians 3:10). Jesus further promises, “If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed; And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free” (John 8:31–32).
It is customary for a Bible scholar to base his interpretation of a passage on the theological position that he has accepted. The problem with this approach is that no theological system is totally without some human error, because it is not inspired. It is man’s explanation of Biblical truth.
This is not to say that theology is unimportant. Wrong doctrine leads to wrong behaviour. No one was more concerned about false doctrine than the Apostle Paul. He maintained a continual battle against false teaching. However, he did not base sound doctrine on the theological views of his day but on the words of Jesus Christ and that which leads to Christ like living.
He explains this in his epistle to Timothy. “If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness; He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings, perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself” (I Timothy 6:3–5).
5. One Interpretation and Many Applications
The Bible makes it clear that there is only one interpretation of Scripture. However, there can be many applications. It is the Holy Spirit Who guides us not only to the right interpretation of a passage but also to the precise application of Scripture to our daily lives. If our lives are in harmony with the Lord, we can expect the Holy Spirit to illuminate certain passages of Scripture for our personal application. When this happens, it is God giving us a “rhema” of Scripture.
In the New Testament, the Word of God is generally referred to by the Greek word logos. Jesus is identified as the Living Word (logos). However, there are many references that use the Greek word rhema to define the Word of God. A rhema is a precise direction of Scripture for a particular person or circumstance. When Jesus told Peter to cast his net on the other side of the boat, Peter replied, “Master, we have toiled all the night, and have taken nothing: nevertheless at thy word [rhema] I will let down the net” (Luke 5:5). Jesus did not tell every one to cast their nets on the other side of the boat—only Peter.
It is on the point of the Holy Spirit applying a passage of Scripture to a decision that critics often rise up and claim that this is not acceptable hermeneutics. Their quarrel is not with believers who know in their spirits that God is directing them by the witness of two or three rhemas, but with the Holy Spirit Who confirms the application of rhemas.
Jesus used rhemas in overcoming Satan’s temptations, and one of the passages He used affirms rhemas. “But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word [rhema] that proceedeth out of the mouth of God” (Matthew 4:4).
6. Correct Divisions of Truth Versus Truth Out of Balance
Paul gave Timothy wise instruction in hermeneutics when he wrote, “Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth” (II Timothy 2:15).
Scripture is a living, powerful instrument in the hand of God. It functions on what appears to us to be paradoxes. In a similar fashion, the muscles in our bodies are only able to function by opposing tensions.
On the one hand, Scripture presents the Law of God, but then it contrasts this with the grace of God. Scripture teaches the need for justice, but then it counters this with mercy. We are told to cease from our own labour and enter the rest that is in Christ. At the same time, we are commanded to work for the night is coming when no man can work and to labour for the Lord. We have freedom in Christ. However, we are to make ourselves servants to all people.
If we emphasize only one side of God’s Biblical equation, we can certainly support it with verses of Scripture, but we will come out with the wrong answer. Truth out of balance leads to heresy. For example, if we emphasize the “rest” that a believer has and fail to give equal and primary emphasis to the “labour” of a believer, we will view any emphasis on working for the Lord as legalism.
Paul put labour and rest together when he wrote, “There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God. For he that is entered into his rest, he also hath ceased from his own works, as God did from his. Let us labour therefore to enter into that rest, lest any man fall after the same example of unbelief” (Hebrews 4:9–11). Similarly, there is certainly freedom in Christ. However, if we focus on freedom, we will react to God-ordained authority as being oppressive and cultish.
Proper hermeneutics requires diligent use of all the above factors under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
Avoid Scripture Twisting: Eight Basic Rules Of Bible Interpretation
1. Begin with what the passage says, but always ask, “What does the passage mean?”, not what it “says.”
2. Pay attention to the Greek and Hebrew, (For those without language training, an interlinear Bible used in conjunction with a Vine’s Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words or Expository Dictionary of Bible Words is recommended).
3. Remember the context. Read verses in the context of the whole passage, the chapter and even the book. Finally, keep in mind the larger context of the New Testament or Old Testament.
4. The Bible is progressive revelation. This means that, generally, the New Testament specifically interprets the Old Testament.
5. Always interpret the incidental passage by the systematic teachings of that topic; consider all the passages dealing with the topic, A good topical Bible is a useful aid (e.g. Nave’s Topical Bible).
6. Interpret the unclear passages by the clear ones. A favourite ploy of the cults is to choose a difficult passage and build their unique doctrines on it.
7. Beware of novel interpretations, check various conservative commentaries on the passage. There is very little new under the sun. Many of the heresies of the cults have been dealt with thoroughly. Even though there are many Christian denominations, it is interesting that on the essential doctrines there is solid agreement. Always go beyond what the passage is saying to get at its intended meaning. Cult leaders are expert in isolating passages and imposing their interpretation on it.
8. Come to Scripture prayerfully, submitting to be taught by the Holy Spirit, allowing the Scripture to interpret itself and not be clouded by personal doctrinal presuppositions.
1. Pray! Pray! Pray! The Holy Spirit knows better then you do!
2. Always know what the verse actually says, not what you think you remember it saying
3. Take the verse in literary context, don’t just read what you want to read to prove your point and don’t forget the Bible is a mosaic of different kinds of literature meant to be read different ways.
4. Take the verse in cultural context, just like you saying “it’s raining cats and dogs” is not what you literally meant
5. Remember the Bible is a whole 66 books! Interpret all verses in relation the other 1000’s of verses
6. Check the other translations, The variations are complimentary and show the whole picture
7. The Bible was not originally written in English, go back to the sources
8. Theological presuppositions are bad, scripture determines doctrine, not the other way around
9. Check the Theologians’ opinions, The Ph.D, professor of heart surgery of Harvard is better then your uncle Ted’s heart removal service. Professional opinions matter! (but don’t assume they’re always right)
10. Assume nothing, be ready to learn, don’t give up. Remember, only God knows everything.
561 responses to “Hermeneutics And Exegesis”
Dictionary,
Again I must agree with your rule of thumb for those who wish to hold forth in public on bible related matters.
“ if, when you hear a significant scripture read, you do not automatically also internally hear the parallels, and do not automatically recognise the key concepts, ideas, issues and onward connexions to other themes and applications, you do not know enough to stand up to teach.”
Clearly to do the above you must 1- have learned and 2- have the Spirit.
Is this not the reason that discipleship of newborn babes (brephos) is necessary? Is this not what Peter is teaching in 1 Peter 2:2?
In the same way (AS) that neonates in the natural realm need milk for their physical and mental development, spiritual neonates (brephos) must DESIRE (the verb is in the imperative) the sincere or undiluted or unadulterated or unfortified milk of the word, that they may grow thereby.
Is this not why in one injunction of the Great commission that believers are instructed to GO TEACH BAPTIZE and TEACH ?
When you have learned the Word, the Holy Spirit can use the Word in your heart to DISCERN THE TRUTH IMPARTED THROUGH THE WORD from the lies of other teachers. Is this not the very clear teaching in the section of 1 John 2:19-27
Are we not to expect “over-confident and too often dismissive or distorting, ill-instructed assertions on that which is deep and deeply serious”? Surely this is the same GNOSTIC VIEW THAT WAS PREVALENT IN JOHN’S DAY, AND WHICH HE DENOUNCED IN I JOHN & 2 JOHN 5-11.
But we can read such Gnosticism in the air and off the pitch! It is hilarious! Zoe went to seminary and has studied the Bible. He is dismissed as a lunatic and fanatic.
You are dismissed because you can correct these illiterates on several fronts BECAUSE YOU ARE JUST MUCH BETTER READ! You are dismissed too because you know the Bible also, and have also studied. In a culture where studying and being well read has been held up as supreme STUDYING THE BIBLE IS SCOFFED AT! My own father has scoffed at me for 42 years. This is a form of Gnosticism. It is the background of the subjects that John is dealing with in 1 John
DEPART FROM THE TEACHINGS GIVEN FEOM THE BEGINNING AND PASTED ON VIA THE APOSTLES
IN STEAD CONCENTRATE ON DEEP QUESTIONS
What does Paul say about such nonsense?
2 Tim 2:23 BUT FOOLISH AND UNLEARNED QUESTIONS AVOID KNOWING THAT THEY ENGENDER STRIFES.
Instead what are we to do?
2 Tim 2:15 Make every effort to present yourself before God as a proven worker who does not need to be ashamed, teaching the message of truth accurately.
Why
2 Tim 3:16 Every scripture is inspired by God and useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 3:17 that the person dedicated to God may be capable and equipped for every good work.
What are we to appreciate?
2 Pet 3:15 And regard the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as also our dear brother Paul wrote to you, according to the wisdom given to him, 3:16 speaking of these things in all his letters. Some things in these letters are hard to understand, things the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they also do to the rest of the scriptures.
So what are we to do?
2 Pet 3:17 Therefore, dear friends, since you have been forewarned, be on your guard that you do not get led astray by the error of these unprincipled men and fall from your firm grasp on the truth. 3:18 But grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
This is a cute note that I found Id like to share here
This world is in a mess, but there is a way out for you and for me. Someone has stated it this way:
Philosophy says: Think your way out.
Indulgence says: Drink your way out.
Politics says: Spend your way out.
Science says: Invent your way out.
Industry says: Work your way out.
Communism says: Strike your way out.
Fascism says: Bluff your way out.
Militarism says: Fight your way out.
but
Jesus Christ says: “I am the way (out)
Zoe
One of the things I do when I study a book of the Bible is to look for other folk’s outlines of the book. That is what I like to do.
When I did this for J Vernon McGee’s writings on Isaiah, this is what I found
OUTLINE
I. JUDGMENT (POETRY), CHAPTERS 1–35
Revelation of the sovereign on the throne
A. Solemn Call to the Universe to Come into the Court Room to Hear God’s Charge against the Nation Israel, Chapter 1
B. Preview of the Future of Judah and Jerusalem, Chapter 2
C. Present View of Judah and Jerusalem, Chapter 3
D. Another Preview of the Future, Chapter 4
E. Parable of the Vineyard and Woes Predicated for Israel, Chapter 5
F. Isaiah’s Personal Call and Commission as Prophet, Chapter 6
G. Prediction of Local and Far Events, Chapters 7–10
(Hope of future in coming child)
H. Millennial Kingdom, Chapters 11–12
I. Burdens of Surrounding Nations (Largely Fulfilled), Chapters 13–23
1. Burden of Babylon, Chapters 13–14
2. Burden of Moab, Chapters 15–16
3. Burden of Damascus, Chapter 17
4. Burden of the Land beyond the Rivers of Ethiopia, Chapter 18
5. Burden of Egypt, Chapters 19–20
6. Burden of Babylon, Edom, Arabia, Chapter 21
7. Burden of the Valley of Vision, Chapter 22
8. Burden of Tyre, Chapter 23
J. Kingdom, Process, and Program by Which the Throne is Established on Earth, Chapters 24–34
K. Kingdom, Mundane Blessings of the Milliennium, Chapter 35
II. Historic Interlude (Prose), Chapters 36–39
(This section is probably a prophetic picture of how God will deliver His people in the Great Tribulation, see 2 Kings 18–19; 2 Chron. 29–30.)
A. King Hezekiah and the Invasion of Sennacherib, King of Assyria, Chapter 36
B. King Hezekiah’s Prayer and the Destruction of the Assyrian Hosts, Chapter 37
C. King Hezekiah’s Sickness, Prayer, and Healing, Chapter 38
D. King Hezekiah Plays the Fool, Chapter 39
III. Salvation (Poetry), Chapters 40–66
Revelation of the Savior in the Place of Suffering (There is a threefold division marked by the concluding thought in each division, “There is no peace to the wicked.”)
A. Comfort of Jehovah Which Comes through the Servant, Chapters 40–48
(Polemic against idolatry—Help and hope come only through the Servant)
B. Salvation of Jehovah Which Comes through the Suffering Servant, Chapters 49–57
1. Redeemer of the Whole World, Who Is God’s Servant, Chapters 49–52:12
2. Redemption Wrought by the Suffering Servant, Who Is God’s Sheep (Lamb), Chapters 52:13–53:1
3. Results of the Redemption Wrought by the Redeemer, Who Is God’s Only Savior, Chapters 54–57
C. Glory of Jehovah Which Comes through the Suffering Servant, Chapters 58–66
1. Sin Hinders the Manifestation of the Glory of God, Chapters 58–59
2. Redeemer Is Coming to Zion, Chapters 60–66 (Nothing can hinder God’s progress—He will judge sin)
In noticed that McGee considers chapter 28 in a section entitled “Kingdom, Process, and Program by Which the Throne is Established on Earth, Chapters 24–34.”
So being a neonate who does not understand the deeper things about God, I checked to see what this man considered to be a great expositor of the Word all around the world had to say. This man is by no means in the BU seed pickers or milk drinkers class. Look what I found
I learned a lot from the context about whom this prophecy was initially directed to. And by interpreting the Scripture in its context I see that the prophet is saying that the Word of the Lord was given unto Israel precept upon precept, line upon line, here a little, and there a little. I learned that this is the PRIMARY INTERPRETATION OF THIS PASSAGE. One must agree with McGee that it is a grind of getting into God’s Word and explaining it to those with spiritual lactose intolerance and galactosemia.
Now clearly the application of the text is that one learn the Bible piece by piece. A little bit here, and a little bit there just like one learned Maths or Spanish or Music at school or Medicine (took 5 years to start) etc. How is it possible to come up with another interpretation or application to this passage.
I will take the time and repeat this process with Mathew Henry Stedman and other commentaries available on line including Constable who currently is still teaching at Dallas Theological Seminary.
Please read Vernon’ s note on Isaiah 28 in my next post, onlookers.
J VERNON MC GEE on ISAIAH 28
CHAPTER 28
THEME: The immediate invasion of Ephraim by Assyria is a picture of the future and a warning to Jerusalem
This chapter brings us to an entirely new section. The prophecies which were totally future are included in chapters 24–27 inclusively.
From chapters 28–35 we have prophecies which have a local and past fulfillment, and also there are those that reach into the future and cover the same period as in the previous section.
This new section is identified by six woes, and it culminates in the great war of Armageddon in chapter 34, followed by the millennial benefits brought to the earth in chapter 35.
Now the chapter before us is a fine illustration of the combination of the near and far view, the past and future events, the local and immediate, and the general and far distant prophecies. We will see that which has been fulfilled and that which is yet to be fulfilled.
The northern kingdom of Israel, designated here was soon to go into Assyrian captivity. This was a preview of the coming future day, but it was to be a warning to the southern kingdom of Judah. The first part was fulfilled when Shalmaneser, king of Assyria, invaded Ephraim in 721 B.C., overthrew the northern kingdom, and took the people into captivity.
THE IMMEDIATE CAPTIVITY OF EPHRAIM
The first woe is against the northern kingdom.
Woe to the crown of pride, to the drunkards of Ephraim, whose glorious beauty is a fading flower, which are on the head of the fat valleys of them that are overcome with wine! [Isa. 28:1].
Ephraim and Israel are synonymous terms for the ten northern tribes, also called Samaria. The picture here of drunkards is both literal and spiritual. They were in a stupor as far as spiritual understanding was concerned. To be spiritually drunk is to be filled with pride.
Behold, the Lord hath a mighty and strong one, which as a tempest of hail and a destroying storm, as a flood of mighty waters overflowing, shall cast down to the earth with the hand [Isa. 28:2].
The Assyrian is designated here as a strong one, a destroying storm, and a flood of mighty waters.
The crown of pride, the drunkards of Ephraim, shall be trodden under feet [Isa. 28:3].
Maybe you don’t like this, but God does not apologize for it; He simply tells us that this is what He did. The prophet picks up the future of the drunkard here. A high level of civilization had been developed in the northern kingdom with its comforts and outward beauty expressed in homes and gardens and trees. All you have to do to confirm this is go to the hill of Samaria and see the palace built by Omri and Ahab. This is the place where Ahab and Jezebel lived. It seems that the Lord always gives the wicked and the rich the best places to live, and I think it is poetic justice. It is not going to be so good for the wicked and rich in the next world; so they have it pretty good here. The hill of Samaria is one of the most beautiful spots in the land. When I stood there I could see the Mediterranean Sea, the Jordan valley, Mount Hermon in the north covered with snow, and the walls of Jerusalem in the south. It’s a great place, but God judged these people in the northern kingdom, and He brought down their high civilization.
THE FAR DISTANT JUDGMENT
Now the prophet begins to move into the future. The expression “in that day” refers to the Day of the Lord, which begins with the Great Tribulation and extends on through the Millennium.
In that day shall the LORD of hosts be for a crown of glory, and for a diadem of beauty, unto the residue of his people [Isa. 28:5].
This looks into the future to the millennial kingdom which is coming. The thing that caused the downfall of Ephraim, the northern kingdom, was their pride—they wore a crown of pride. But in that future day when God brings them back to the land, it will be crown of glory.
And for a spirit of judgment to him that sitteth in judgment, and for strength to them that turn the battle to the gate.
But they also have erred through wine, and through strong drink are out of the way; the priest and the prophet have erred through strong drink, they are swallowed up of wine, they are out of the way through strong drink; they err in vision, they stumble in judgment [Isa. 28:6–7].
A businessman recently told me that when a man begins to drink and indulge in sin he loses his sharpness in business. He said, “Because I am a Christian I may be biased, but I have found over the long haul, over a period of years, that this is factual. I have learned it through bitter experiences.”
Now God is making this same observation regarding the northern kingdom: “they are out of the way through strong drink; they err in vision, they stumble in judgment.”
But the word of the LORD was unto them precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little; that they might go, and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken [Isa. 28:13].
Sections like this have caused some expositors of the past to call Isaiah “the prophet of the commonplace.” Teaching is a slow, patient, and continuous work. This is the way that even spiritual truth is imparted. God does not impart it in a flash to a lazy and lethargic soul. As the people lapse into apostasy in any age, it becomes increasingly difficult to impart spiritual truth.
There are many Christians today who are not satisfied with their Christian lives. To be brutally frank, they are ignorant of the Word of God. Then they hear about a wonderful two-week course that will give them the answers to all their problems. They will learn how to handle their marital problems, how to get along with their mother-in-law, how to guide their children aright, and how to become model employees. My friend, let me say this to you very candidly. Neither a little course nor some great emotional experience will solve your problems. There is no shortcut to success in the Christian life. There is only one way to grow as a Christian, and it is so commonplace and ordinary that I hesitate to say it.
The Word of the Lord was given unto Israel precept upon precept, line upon line, here a little, and there a little. It was the daily grind of getting into God’s Word. What happened? Israel did not follow through. They fell backward; that is, they were in a backslidden state. There are many Christians in the same condition today. It is not that they are weaker than anybody else; it is simply that they do not spend enough time in the Word of God. I realize that this method is not very exciting, but line upon line and precept upon precept is the only way you are going to grow in the Christian life.
To that incognizant, uninformed, imposter, who does not have a clue re ‘rightly dividing’ the Word of Truth; I already answered his unbiblical nonsense regarding the doctrine of the Trinity, sometime last year on another thread, in detail from Scripture; to which, his benighted folly and ignorance rejected, as to be expected!
If the light that be in HIM, is DARKNESS, O’ how great is that DARKNESS!
Greek Grammar and Syntax.
The Practical Use of the Article.
“The definite article in Greek is the Greek index-finger pointing out individual identity. It frequently does more that that. It marks contrast. It makes the word with which it is used stand out distinctly. It points out an object and draws the reader’s attentin to it. The definite article in Greek was originaly derived from the demonstrative pronoun, and it has retained some of the demonstrative force.”
“The Greek does not have an indefinite article comparable to the one in English. The absence of the definite article constitutes in Greek, where the CONTEXT indicates, the equivalent of the indefinite article in English. The presence and the absence of the article must be carefully noted by Greek students. The presence of the article ‘identifies.’ The absence of the article qualifies. That is, when the article is used, the emphasis is upon particular identity, individuality, even uniqueness in some context, and upon contrast. When the article is not used, the emphasis is upon quality or character of the person or thing designated by the noun. Therefore, the ‘articular’ noun identifies. The ‘anarthous’ noun qualifies.” (The Practicle Use of the Greek New Testament, by Kenneth S. Wuest, p. 15,16) emphasis added.
GP, Can you imagine a ‘nut’ case, who has no formal medical training, attempting to teach and correct you on the finer point of diagnosis, (interpretation) of a patient who is seriously ill?
Or, say, another ‘nut’ case, who has no training in Jurisprudence, walking into the CJs Chambers, who is preparing a judgment on a court of appeal matter, and seeking to instruct him, on writing the judgment? Hardly!
Yet, here on BU, we have idiots, who are NOT only, not Christians in the first place, but, arrogantly stomp in here seeking to pontificate on Scriptural matters, that they are grossly illiterate and empty-headed about!
Folly personified!!!
@ GP..
All this is very true. But don’t you think that in the Barbados of 2010, where “free education” has been available since 1962, that all my so called literate Bajans should be able to think straight in English, and do with out nasty ad hominems?
Why do yo always harp on this topic every time you get upset?
They are many who have benefited from the free education you always harp about and many have gone on to do great things for themselves and country. I am sure that those educated Bajans outnumber the uneducated ones. I may be off base here but the constant “free” education comment is starting to sound a bit worn. You cant judge a whole country because of a few on a blog or because some did wrong to you man.
The religion of the future will be a cosmic religion. It should transcend personal God and avoid dogma and theology. Covering both the natural and the spiritual, it should be based on a religious sense arising from the experience of all things natural and spiritual as a meaningful unity. Buddhism answers this description. If there is any religion that could cope with modern scientific needs it would be Buddhism. (Albert Einstein).
I tend to agree with Einstein in that most religions are incapable of coping with scientific needs. What sense does it make holding on to a dogma simply because it has been passed on from generation to generation if it doesn’t fit into what is known scientifically.?
There is probably a God, but it is highly unlikely that the Bible was inspired by God. Belief in God should not be predicated on the Bible being divinely inspired. How do we know that the Quran isn’t the word of God? Have we read it in its entirety? Probably not, but people in the Middle East would be convinced it was divinely inspired.
A few examples why the Bible is seemingly inadequate is posed in the form a few questions.
How does the story of Noah’s flood account for plants? Did Noah gather every seed for every plant we now see on the earth? Also, based on the dimensions of the Ark, how could all the animals we see today (over one million species) fit on the ark? From Noah and his family, how is it possible to have the various races in today’s world? The lack of understanding of how rainbows (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rainbo) are formed caused the writers of the Bible to claim that a rainbow is a promise that God will not destroy the earth again with inundation. Why would the only holy man on the earth, Noah, become drunk not long after the flood? What comfort is there in knowing that God will not destroy the earth with a flood but by an inferno? Finally, out of an entire population Noah and five other people were the only ones considered holy. If one extrapolates this to a modern context, from a probabilistic standpoint GP et al have a chance of 6/1000000 of making the cut so to speak. The assumptions are a very conservative estimate of one million inhabitants in Noah’s time and that God doesn’t change his standards. After all the bible says that God is static!
Dr. Georgie……Good teacher how are you doing? Didn’t really want to rain on your parade here but I gotta say it….Are you aware of the FACT that the term ‘Hermeneutics’ was derived from the Greek word Hermes which was the name they gave to the Kemetian great one Thoth? GP this whole theory originated in Ancient Egypt, with the great Black Ones!
Dictionary that’s for you as well mon cher! Ancient Egypt, Kemet, that’s where the fire started!
Hello Hopi
Nice to see you
What does the Greek word “hermes ” mean?
Technician
I have told you before, and the same applies here. “ Quid dixi scripsique, dixi scripsique!”
I am glad that you can perceive that “All this is very true.”
With regard to your “. But don’t you think that in the Barbados of 2010, where “free education” has been available since 1962, that all my so called literate Bajans should be able to think straight in English, and do with out nasty ad hominems?” I do not hear you respond to those who really engage in ad hominems. Your criticisms are reserved solely only for the SSS or the Bat Cave boys or the BU Trinity. Ah lie? If Zoe or Dictionary had addressed any one on BU as I was addressed two nights ago, you and others would be out in force! Ah lie?
FYI I am not upset, as I don’t let the nonsense I read on BU ever get me upset, believe me, irregardless to your perceptions when I wield my pen— said to be sharper than the sword.
I will continue to harp about the free education instituted in 1962, because I benefited greatly from it, as did many of my generation. It is something to be harped about, as it is not generally available even in great democracies like the USA ( the so called greatest country ever!) I will continue to harp about the free education instituted in 1962, HERE, THERE & EVERY, WHERE. So as Sandi said in the early 90’s IF YOU DON’T LIKE IT YOU CAN LUMP IT TECHIE MA BOY!
You are certainly most incorrect in thinking that the educated Bajans outnumber the uneducated ones! That is a MYTH, as is the so called 98% literacy rate. Your theory is certainly not evinced by the quality of the opinion presented on BU.
And it is incredulous to cogitate that one such as I will judge a whole country because of a few on a blog.
The facts are IMHO that with all the free educatin since 1962 we have not gone forward as we ought. You can agree or disagree. But just as you have the right to opine, please kind sir allow me the privilege of“ Quid dixi scripsique, dixi scripsique!”
Can you know comment on the STRUCTURE SEQUENCE OR SUBSTANCE OF THE RELEVENT INFORMATION PRESENTED AS THE TOPIC OF THIS DISCUSSION WITH ANY LOGIC OR COHERENCE AND EVINCE THAT YOU WERE A RECIPIENT OF THE FREE EDUCATION, SIR?
@GP……….”Hermes” is the names the Greeks gave to the Ancient Egyptian named Thoth from whom we got the english word “thought.”
Is it only me? or does anyone else notice the fact that after coming on BU pontificating about their great expertise in exegesis, hermeneutics, Greek and scriptural knowledge, these fine gentlemen are reduced to the sad state of throwing insults at an admitted idiotic seed picking bush man…..
…and all because of a few simple questions.
First let us reflect on Doctor the honourable GP.
Sir please; If you come here constantly bragging about your great knowledge, insulting the less learned (like the seed picking bush man), showing off your exegesis and other big words – How, pray tell, does it become ad Hominem to question your own personal judgment and life?
Are you unaware that Ad Hominem is not fallacious if the attack goes to the credibility of the argument.
If you are unable to demonstrate basic knowledge and common sense in your life here on earth why should the BU family accept that you are somehow competent to guide us in the much more complex spiritual realm?
You are stuck in a job that you have been trying to escape;
You don’t even have enough common sense to not send copies of your passport to perfect strangers, yet you expect the bush man to accept your word on the meaning of the bible?
As was demonstrated above, you clearly do not understand Isaiah 28. Indeed your exegesis is the exact opposite to the clear meaning of the text.
The fact that Jesus used parables to hide the truth confuses you…..
Then you said that the Bible “teaches the Trinity” – and now you CANNOT say where or how it does so. (because it doesn’t….) It actually teaches the OPPOSITE.
A wiser man would urgently review his personal position at this point and ask a few questions in search of meaningful answers…… A wiser man would thank God for having been shown that there are gaps in his doctrine and seriously go after a ‘more perfect understanding’
…. but a ‘brilliant scholar’ who already knows everything, and who ‘no one here on BU can teach the bible to’ -would never take such an approach…
Of course you will not heed my word. However Bush Tea’s advice to you would be to at least desist from the litany of insults and abuse.
1 – who in their right mind cusses a bushman? that is throwing water into the sea
2 – It makes you look really bad – and quite pathetic
3 – you don’t even do it well.
and finally,
As Adrian Hinds would confirm for you, cussing and fighting are skills that were highly refined and developed where we come from…. you are just lucky that the bushman have moved on….
@BushTee
Bravo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
@ ac
I see that you were trying to assist the trinity folks in responding with logic and facts to the challenge to show where the bible teaches that there is a Trinity.
……don’t waste your time girlfriend….it just is NOT there. Those verses that you quoted were simply emphasizing the fact that the resurrected Jesus was in fact, again a member of the collective that we call God. (If you have seen me you have seen the father – we are of the same mind and family) We are one. (as can be said of a family)
Now when he says “In my fathers household there are (already) many mansions” does that suggest a small number of ‘mansion dwellers’ to you?
…even more critically, he promises his disciples that ‘I go to prepare a place for you – such that WHERE I AM (and we have established already that he is at the state where he IS a full member of the family) THERE YOU SHALL BE ALSO…’
….now ac, if God is a trinity, (and always will be) then Jesus was talking gibberish here.
HOWEVER, if God is a ‘family’, and Jesus became the ‘firstborn ‘son, and he then ‘prepares a place’ for the others that will follow – (those called the children of God numerous times in the bible) then what Jesus said makes quite a lot of sense – don’t you think?
THIS is the Good News that Jesus brought to our world ac….. that is what GOSPEL means…… See if you can grasp the significance of the promise…
Here is another angle that you may like ac:
….compare what Bush Tea just said with the structure of our world and with the human family. Remember that man was made in the image of God; man’s instinct is to find a wife and, through a process of conception, pregnancy and childbirth, build a family that he loves and cares for….. Hmmmmmm
…..maybe we should talk about that bush bath some more ac…
Zoe
One of the things I do when I study a book of the Bible is to look for other folk’s outlines of the book. That is what I like to do.
When I did this for Dr Constable’s writings on Isaiah, this is what I found
OUTLINE
I. Introduction chs. 1—5
A. Israel’s condition and God’s solution ch. 1
1. The title of the book 1:1
2. Israel’s condition 1:2-9
3. God’s solution 1:10-20
4. Israel’s response 1:21-31
B. The problem with Israel chs. 2—4
1. God’s desire for Israel 2:1-4
2. God’s discipline of Israel 2:5—4:1
3. God’s determination for Israel 4:2-6
C. The analogy of wild grapes ch. 5
1. The song of the vineyard 5:1-7
2. The wildness of the grapes 5:8-25
3. The coming destruction 5:26-30
II. Isaiah’s vision of God ch. 6
A. The prophet’s cleansing 6:1-8
B. The prophet’s commission 6:9-13
III. Israel’s crisis of faith chs. 7—39
A. The choice between trusting God or Assyria chs. 7—12
1. Signs of God’s presence 7:1—9:7
2. Measurement by God’s standards 9:8—10:4
3. Hope of God’s deliverance 10:5—11:16
4. Trust in God’s favor ch. 12
B. God’s sovereignty over the nations chs. 13—35
1. Divine judgments on the nations chs. 13—23
2. Divine victory over the nations chs. 24—27
3. The folly of trusting the nations chs. 28—33
4. The consequences of Israel’s trust chs. 34—35
C. Tests of Israel’s trust chs. 36—39
1. The Assyrian threat chs. 36—37
2. The Babylonian threat chs. 38—39
IV. Israel’s calling in the world chs. 40—55
A. God’s grace to Israel chs. 40—48
1. The Lord of the servant ch. 40
2. The servant of the Lord chs. 41:1—44:22
3. The Lord’s redemption of His servant chs. 44:23—47:15
4. The servant’s attention to her Lord ch. 48
B. God’s atonement for Israel chs. 49—55
1. Anticipation of salvation 49:1—52:12
2. Announcement of salvation 52:13—53:12
3. Invitation to salvation chs. 54—55
V. Israel’s future transformation chs. 56—66
A. Recognition of human inability chs. 56—59
1. The need for humility and holiness chs. 56—57
2. The relationship of righteousness and ritual chs. 58—59
B. Revelation of future glory chs. 60—62
1. Israel among the nations ch. 60
2. Israel under the Lord chs. 61—62
C. Recognition of divine ability chs. 63—66
1. God’s faithfulness in spite of Israel’s unfaithfulness 63:1—65:16
2. The culmination of Israel’s future 65:17—66:24
Another way of outlining the book is according to the groups of people to whom Isaiah
apparently delivered his prophecies.
I. Prophecies to the people of Isaiah’s day (pre-exilic Israelites) chs. 1—39
II. Prophecies to the captives in Babylon (exilic Israelites) chs. 40—55
III. Prophecies to the restoration community (post-exilic Israelites) chs. 56—66
NOTE THAT CHAPTER 28 IS FOUND IN HIS SECTION ON
3. The folly of trusting the nations chs. 28—33
Note that he agrees with McGee that a new section begins here.
Now here is Dr Constables notes on the first 13 verses of Isaiah 28.
Dr Constable has been teachng Bible at Dallas Theological Seminary for over 30 years.
Onlookers notice that Dr Constable like McGee sets the verses in thier historical context and gives thier primary interpretation. NOTE THAT THIS WAS A PREDICTION OF JUDGEMENT ON HS OWN PEOPLE ISRAEL
The woe against Ephraim and Judah ch. 28
“The section begins (1-6) and ends (23-29) with double illustrations drawn from nature and agriculture. Between lies a meditation in eight broadly equal parts on how Jerusalem’s leaders refused the word of invitation and inherited the word of wrath (7-22).”
The prophet began by exposing the folly of the leaders of the Northern Kingdom. He condemned them for their proud scoffing. The “woe” appears at first to be against them alone, but as the chapter unfolds it becomes clear that Isaiah was pronouncing woe on the leaders of the Southern Kingdom even more.
28:1 “Woe” (Heb. hoy), as mentioned earlier (cf. 5:8, 11, 18, 20, 21, 22; 6:5), is a term of lament and threat. It expresses emotion, summons others, and connotes sympathy. Here the object of the prophet’s “woe” was the leaders of Ephraim, the Northern Kingdom of Israel.
The reason for his “woe” was the pride of these representatives that was their outstanding mark and that resulted in their complacent revelry (cf. Amos 4:1; 6:1, 6).
This nation and its leaders had been objects of admiration, but now their glory was fading, like the flowers they wore in garlands on their heads as they indulged in drunken revelry.
Ephraim’s capital, Samaria, stood like a crown at the
eastern end of the fertile Shechem Valley, which drained into the Mediterranean Sea to the west. A false sense of security led these leaders to spend too much time drinking wine, which now controlled them.
“The metaphor of drunkenness dominates the episode. It is a figure of Israel’s stumbling, bumbling life during the last decades of its existence (ca. 740-21 B.C.).”
28:2 Ephraim was in danger because the Lord had an irresistible agent who would humble her pride, as a storm overwhelms the unprepared. Assyria was that agent, but the prophet did not name it, perhaps because he wanted to emphasize the principles involved in the judgment.
28:3 With prophetic perfect tenses, Isaiah predicted the overthrow of Ephraim and its leaders. It was as good as accomplished. With hand (v. 2) and foot
(v. 3) God would throw down and trample His people.
28:4 Ephraim’s pride (v. 3) made her ripe for judgment. Her enemy would pluck her and consume her as greedily and as easily as a person who sees
a ripe fig on a tree at the beginning of the fig season picks it, pops it into his mouth, and swallows it (cf. Hos. 9:10; Mic. 7:1).
28:5-6 “In that day,” when Ephriam would fall, the Lord would also preserve a remnant of the Northern Kingdom. He would be the true crown (king, cf.
11:1-9) of His people and a source of glory for them, in contrast to their present fading garlands (cf. v. 1; 4:2-6).
He would also become the standard and facilitator of justice for their judges and the strength of their
soldiers (cf. 11:2). This does not mean that the faithful Ephraimites would turn on their enemies and defeat them but that they would find in the Lord all that they had looked for in the wrong places before.
Note that this note of mercy concludes a pronouncement of judgment. Isaiah now compared the pride and indulgence of the Ephraimite leaders to that of their Southern Kingdom brethren. The leaders of Judah were even worse.
28:7-8 The priests and the false prophets in Judah also drank so much that their visions and judgments were distorted, and they degraded themselves by
vomiting all over their tables.
28:9-10 These drunken leaders mocked Isaiah for the simplicity and repetition with which he presented the Lord’s messages.
“Verses 9, 10 give us the jeering reply of the pro-Assyrian party of King Ahaz, who resisted the impact of Isaiah’s words recorded in the previous paragraph. They scoffed at his remarks as ‘Sunday School moralizing,’ appropriate for infants but quite irrelevant to grown men who understand the art of practical politics.”
“His [God’s] laws are like little petty annoyances, one
command after another, or one joined to another, coming constantly.”
They accused Isaiah of proclaiming elementary teaching and of speaking to them like small children (cf. 6:9-10). What Isaiah advocated was trust in
the Lord rather than reliance on foreign alliances for national security.
Isaiah built his hearers’ knowledge bit by bit adding a little here and a little there. This is, of course, the best method of teaching, but it has never appealed to proud intellectuals who consider themselves beyond the
simplicity of God’s truth.
Similarly today many modern university professors of religion ridicule those who believe we should take the Bible at face value.
28:11-12 Isaiah turned his critics’ words back on themselves; what they had said about his words in mockery would overtake them. If God’s people refused
to listen to words spoken in simple intelligibility, He would give them unintelligibility as a judgment (cf. Matt. 23:37).
Since they refused to learn from a prophet who appealed to them in their own language, He
would teach them with plunderers whose language (Akkadian) they would not understand but whose lances they would. They would learn to rest on
Yahweh from their foreign foe’s treatment of them if they refused to learn that lesson from Isaiah.
The Apostle Paul used verse 11 to remind the Corinthians that messages in tongues (foreign languages), far from being a sign of spirituality, indicate
that the recipients are spiritually immature (1 Cor. 14:20-21).
Likewise Isaiah revealed that when people are so spiritually dull that simple messages do not move them, God will teach them through experience.
28:13 The Lord would continue to teach them bit by bit, and a little here and a little there, through hardship. The result would be retrogression, brokenness, entrapment, and captivity.
“. . . in order for maturity to be reached, the child must be allowed to suffer the consequences of its actions. For the parent to intervene constantly and to nullify the results is to give the child a wholly misshapen understanding of life.”
28:14-15 The rulers in Jerusalem scoffed at the Lord’s word, but Isaiah called on them to listen to it. They had made a covenant with some nation (probably Egypt) that involved deception and falsehood (probably against Assyria). They thought that as a result the scourge of their dreaded enemy (Assyria) would not touch them. But Isaiah sarcastically told them
that their covenant was really with death and Sheol; death would be the outcome of their pact. They were the naive ones, not he (cf. vv. 9-10).
======================================
Whenever, I have the chance to learn from those who KNOW because they have studied, I follow those persons.
Here is another teacher that has this passage right
and explaind verse 13 in its context. All of us are stupid not settled and need work.
But the word of the Lord was unto them precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, there a little; that they may fall and go backwards,
[ [So now to Judah, get the warning.] Wherefore hear ye the word of the Lord, ye scornful men, [Ye scornful men who are saying, “Who is he gonna teach? He ought to go back to babies that have been taken from their mother’s breasts!”, “you scornful men”] that rule this people which are here in Jerusalem.
[Now to the leaders he addresses these remarks.] Because you have said, We have made a covenant with death, and with hell are we at agreement; when the overflowing scourge shall pass through, it shall not come unto us: for we have made lies our refuge, and under falsehood we have hid ourselves (28:13-15).
This is what basically they were saying. They were being threatened with this Assyrian invasion. The Assyrians had wiped out Ephraim. They are being threatened by the Assyrian invasion. But while the Assyrians were besieging Samaria, it took them three years to take Samaria, while this was going on to their north, and the northern kingdom was falling, they sent their emissaries down to Egypt, to seek the help of the Pharaoh.
They made these treaties with Egypt, where the Pharaoh promised to send up the Egyptians, to help them to fight off the Assyrians and all, and they were trusting in the promises that were made to them by the Pharaoh of Egypt. But the promises of help that he made, he was not able to fulfill. Thus, they were trusting in lies.
Here is Mathew Henry on Isaiah 28
Mathew Henry’s Commentary is one of the oldest and well loved commentaries.
Now wunnuh could read it or not. But the Word will be going out.
In tis post you can see the CONTEXT IN WHICH VERSES 9-13 are sett
This is basic Hermeneutics and Exegesis.
Chapter 28
In this chapter,
I. The Ephraimites are reproved and threatened for their pride and drunkenness, their security and sensuality (v. 1-8). But, in the midst of this, here is a gracious promise of God’s favour to the remnant of his people (v. 5, 6).
II. They are likewise reproved and threatened for their dulness and stupidity, and unaptness to profit by the instructions which the prophets gave them in God’s name (v. 9–13).
III. The rulers of Jerusalem are reproved and threatened for their insolent contempt of God’s judgments, and setting them at defiance; and, after a gracious promise of Christ and his grace, they are made to know that the vain hopes of escaping the judgments of God with which they flattered themselves would certainly deceive them (v. 14–22).
IV. All this is confirmed by a comparison borrowed from the method which the husbandman takes with his ground and grain, according to which they must expect God would proceed with his people, whom he had lately called his threshing and the corn of his floor (ch. 21:10) (v. 23–29). This is written for our admonition, and is profitable for reproof and warning to us.
Verses 1-8 Here,
I. The prophet warns the kingdom of the ten tribes of the judgments that were coming upon them for their sins, which were soon after executed by the king of Assyria, who laid their country waste, and carried the people into captivity. Ephraim had his name from fruitfulness, their soil being very fertile and the products of it abundant and the best of the kind; they had a great many fat valleys (v. 1, 4), and Samaria, which was situated on a hill, was, as it were, on the head of the fat valleys.
Their country was rich and pleasant, and as the garden of the Lord: it was the glory of Canaan, as that was the glory of all lands; their harvest and vintage were the glorious beauty on the head of their valleys, which were covered over with corn and vines. Now observe,
1. What an ill use they made of their plenty. What God gave them to serve him with they perverted, and abused, by making it the food and fuel of their lusts.
(1.) They were puffed up with pride by it. The goodness with which God crowned their years, which should have been to him a crown of praise, was to them a crown of pride. Those that are rich in the world are apt to be high-minded, 1 Tim. 6:17. Their king, who wore the crown, was proud that he ruled over so rich a country; Samaria, their royal city, was notorious for pride. Perhaps it was usual at their festivals, or revels, to wear garlands made up of flowers and ears of corn, which they wore in honour of their fruitful country.
Pride was a sin that generally prevailed among them, and therefore the prophet, in his name who resists the proud, boldly proclaims a woe to the crown of pride. If those who wear crowns be proud of them, let them not think to escape this woe.
What men are proud of, be it ever so mean, is to them as a crown; he that is proud thinks himself as great as a king. But woe to those who thus exalt themselves, for they shall be abased; their pride is the preface to their destruction.
(2.) They indulged themselves in sensuality. Ephraim was notorious for drunkenness, and excess of riot; Samaria, the head of the fat valleys, was full of those that were overcome with wine, were broken with it, so the margin. See how foolishly drunkards act, and no marvel when, in the very commission of the sin, they make fools and brutes of themselves; they yield, [1.] To be conquered by the sin; it overcomes them, and brings them into bondage (2 Pt. 2:19); they are led captive by it, and the captivity is the more shameful and inglorious because it is voluntary.
Some of these wretched slaves have themselves owned that there is not a greater drudgery in the world than hard drinking. They are overcome not with the wine, but with the love of it. [2.] To be ruined by it. They are broken by wine. Their constitution is broken by it, and their health ruined. They are broken in the callings and estates, and their souls are in danger of being eternally undone, and all this for the gratification of a base lust.
Woe to these drunkards of Ephraim! Ministers must bring the general woes of the word home to particular places and persons. We must say, Woe to this or that person, if he be a drunkard. There is a particular woe to the drunkards of Ephraim, for they are of God’s professing people, and it becomes them worse than any other; they know better, and therefore should give a better example.
Some make the crown of pride to belong to the drunkards, and to mean the garlands with which those were crowned that got the victory in their wicked drinking matches and drank down the rest of the company.
They were proud of their being mighty to drink wine; but woe to those who thus glory in their shame.2. The justice of God in taking away their plenty from them, which they thus abused. Their glorious beauty, the plenty they were proud of, is but a fading flower; it is meat that perishes. The most substantial fruits, if God blast them and blow upon them, are but fading flowers, v. 1. God can easily take away their corn in the season thereof (Hos. 2:9), and recover locum vastatum—ground that has been alienated and has run to waste, those goods of his which they prepared for Baal.
God has an officer ready to make a seizure for him, has one at his beck, a mighty and strong one, who is able to do the business, even the king of Assyria, who shall cast down to the earth with the hand, shall easily and effectually, and with the turn of a hand, destroy all that which they are proud of and pleased with, v. 2.
He shall throw it down to the ground, to be broken to pieces with a strong hand, with a hand that they cannot oppose. Then the crown of pride, and the drunkards of Ephraim, shall be trodden under foot (v. 3); they shall lie exposed to contempt, and shall not be able to recover themselves.
Drunkards, in their folly, are apt to talk proudly, and vaunt themselves most when they most shame themselves; but they thereby render themselves the more ridiculous. The beauty of their valleys, which they gloried in, will be, (1.) Like a fading flower (as before, v. 1); it will wither of itself, and has in itself the principles of its own corruption; it will perish in time by its own moth and rust. (2.) Like the hasty fruit, which, as soon as it is discovered, is plucked and eaten up; so the wealth of this world, besides that it is apt to decay of itself, is subject to be devoured by others as greedily as the first-ripe fruit, which is earnestly desired, Mic. 7:1.
Thieves break through and steal. The harvest which the worldling is proud of the hungry eat up (Job 5:5); no sooner do they see the prey but they catch at it, and swallow up all they can lay their hands on. It is likewise easily devoured, as that fruit which, being ripe before it has grown, is very small, and is soon eaten up; and there being little of it, and that of little worth, it is not reserved, but used immediately.
II. He next turns to the kingdom of Judah, whom he calls the residue of his people (v. 5), for they were but two tribes to the other ten.
1. He promises them God’s favours, and that they shall be taken under his guidance and protection when the beauty of Ephraim shall be left exposed to be trodden down and eaten up, v. 5, 6. In that day, when the Assyrian army is laying Israel waste, and Judah might think that their neighbour’s house being on fire their own was in danger, in that day of treading down and perplexity, then God will be to the residue of his people all they need and can desire; not only to the kingdom of Judah, but to those of Israel who had kept their integrity, and, as was probably the case with some, betook themselves to the land of Judah, to be sheltered by good king Hezekiah.
When the Assyrian, that mighty one, was in Israel as a tempest of hail, noisy and battering, as a destroying storm bearing down all before it, especially at sea, and as a flood of mighty waters overflowing the country (v. 2), then in that day will the Lord of hosts, of all hosts, distinguish by peculiar favours his people who have distinguished themselves by a steady and singular adherence to him, and that which they most need he will himself be to them.
This very much enhances the worth of the promises that God, covenanting to be to his people a God all-sufficient, undertakes to be himself all that to them which they can desire. (1.) He will put all the credit and honour upon them which are requisite, not only to rescue them from contempt, but to gain them esteem and reputation. He will be to them for a crown of glory and for a diadem of beauty.
Those that wore the crown of pride looked upon God’s people with disdain, and trampled upon them, for they were the song of the drunkards of Ephraim; but God will so appear for them by his providence as to make it evident that they have his favour towards them, and that shall be to them a crown of glory; for what greater glory can any people have than for God to acknowledge them as his own? And he will so appear in them, by his grace, as to make it evident that they have his image renewed on them, and that shall be to them a diadem of beauty; for what greater beauty can any person have than the beauty of holiness? Note, Those that have God for their God have him for a crown of glory and a diadem of beauty; for they are made to him kings and priests. (2.)
He will give them all the wisdom and grace necessary to the due discharge of the duty of their place. He will himself be a spirit of judgment to those that sit in judgment; the privy counsellors shall be guided by wisdom and discretion and the judges shall govern by justice and equity. It is a great mercy to any people when those that are called to places of power and public trust are qualified for their places, when those that sit in judgment have a spirit of judgment, a spirit of government. (3.)
He will give them all the courage and boldness requisite to carry them resolutely through the difficulties and oppositions they are likely to meet with. He will be for strength to those that turn the battle to the gate, to the gates of the enemy whose cities they besiege, or to their own gates, when they sally out upon the enemies that besiege them. The strength of the soldiery depends as much upon God as the wisdom of the magistracy; and where God gives both these he is to that people a crown of glory. This may well be supposed to refer to Christ, and so the Chaldee paraphrast understands it: In that day shall the Messiah be a crown of glory. Simeon calls him the glory of his people Israel; and he is made of God to us wisdom, righteousness, and strength.2. He complains of the corruptions that were found among them, and the many corrupt ones (v. 7):
But they also, many of those of Judah, have erred through wine. There are drunkards of Jerusalem, as well as drunkards of Ephraim; and therefore the mercy of God is to be so much the more admired that he has not blasted the glory of Judah as he has done that of Ephraim. Sparing mercy lays us under peculiar obligations when it is thus distinguishing. Ephraim’s sins are found in Judah, and yet not Ephraim’s ruins. They have erred through wine. Their drinking to excess is itself a practical error; they think to raise their fancy by it, but they ruin their judgment, and so put a cheat upon themselves; they think to preserve their health by it and help digestion, but they spoil their constitution and hasten diseases and deaths. It is also the occasion of a great many errors in principle; their understanding is clouded and their conscience debauched by it; and therefore, to support themselves in it, they espouse corrupt notions, and form their minds in favour of their lusts.
Probably some were drawn in to worship idols by their love of the wine and strong drink which there was plenty of at their idolatrous festivals; and so they erred through wine, as Israel, for love of the daughters of Moab, joined themselves to Baal-peor. Three things are here observed as aggravations of this sin: —(1.) That those were guilty of it whose business it was to warn others against it and to teach them better, and therefore who ought to have set a better example: The priest and the prophet are swallowed up of wine; their office is quite drowned and lost in it. The priests, as sacrificers, were obliged by a particular law to be temperate (Lev. 10:9), and, as rulers and magistrates, it was not for them to drink wine, Prov. 31:4.
The prophets were a kind of Nazarites (as appears by Amos 2:11), and, as reprovers by office, were concerned to keep at the utmost distance from the sins they reproved in others; yet there were many of them ensnared in this sin. What! a priest, a prophet, a minister, and yet drunk! Tell it not in Gath. Such a scandal are they to their coat. (2.) That the consequences of it were very pernicious, not only by the ill influence of their example, but the prophet, when he was drunk, erred in vision; the false prophets plainly discovered themselves to be so when they were in drink. The priest stumbled in judgment and forgot the law (Prov. 31:5); he reeled and staggered as much in the operations of his mind as in the motions of his body. What wisdom or justice can be expected from those that sacrifice reason, and virtue, and conscience, and all that is valuable to such a base lust as the love of strong drink is? Happy art thou, O land! when thy princes eat and drink for strength, and not for drunkenness, Eccl. 10:17. (3.)
That the disease was epidemic, and the generality of those that kept any thing of a table were infected with it: All tables are full of vomit, v. 8. See what an odious thing the sin of drunkenness is, what an affront it is to human society; it is rude and ill-mannered enough to sicken the beholders, for the tables where they eat their meat are filthily stained with the marks of this sin, which the sinners declare as Sodom. Their tables are full of vomit, so that the victor, instead of being proud of his crown, ought rather to be ashamed of it. It bodes ill to any people when so sottish a sin as drunkenness has become national.
MATHEW HENRY on ISAIAH 28 9-13
Verses 9-13 The prophet here complains of the wretched stupidity of this people, that they were unteachable and made no improvement of the means of grace which they possessed; they still continued as they were, their mistakes not rectified, their hearts not renewed, nor their lives reformed.
Observe,I. What it was that their prophets and ministers designed and aimed at. It was to teach them knowledge, the knowledge of God and his will, and to make them understand doctrine, v. 9.
This is God’s way of dealing with men, to enlighten men’s minds first with the knowledge of his truth, and thus to gain their affections, and bring their wills into a compliance with his laws; thus he enters in by the door, whereas the thief and the robber climb up another way.
II. What method they took, in pursuance of this design. They left no means untried to do them good, but taught them as children are taught, little children that are beginning to learn, that are taken from the breast to the book (v. 9), for among the Jews it was common for mothers to nurse their children till they were three years old, and almost ready to go to school. And it is good to begin betimes with children, to teach them, as they are capable, the good knowledge of the Lord, and to instruct them even when they are but newly weaned from the milk.
The prophets taught them as children are taught; for, 1. They were constant and industrious in teaching them. They took great pains with them, and with great prudence, teaching them as they needed it and were able to bear it (v. 10):
Precept upon precept. It must be so, or (as some read) it has been so. They have been taught, as children are taught to read, by precept upon precept, and taught to write by line upon line, a little here and a little there, a little of one thing and a little of another, that the variety of instructions might be pleasing and inviting,—a little at one time and a little at another, that they might not have their memories overcharged,—a little from one prophet and a little from another, that every one might be pleased with his friend and him whom he admired.
Note, For our instruction in the things of God it is requisite that we have precept upon precept and line upon line, that one precept and line should be followed, and so enforced by another; the precept of justice must be upon the precept of piety, and the precept of charity upon that of justice. Nay, it is necessary that the same precept and the same line should be often repeated and inculcated upon us, that we may the better understand them and the more easily recollect them when we have occasion for them.
Teachers should accommodate themselves to the capacity of the learners, give them what they most need and can best bear, and a little at a time, Deu. 6:6, 7. 2.
They courted and persuaded them to learn, v. 12. God, by his prophets, said to them, “This way that we are directing you to, and directing you in, is the rest, the only rest, wherewith you may cause the weary to rest; and this will be the refreshing of your own souls, and will bring rest to your country from the wars and other calamities with which it has been long harassed.’’ Note, God by his word calls us to nothing but what is really for our advantage; for the service of God is the only true rest for those that are weary of the service of sin and there is no refreshing but under the easy yoke of the Lord Jesus.
III. What little effect all this had upon the people. They were as unapt to learn as young children newly weaned from the milk, and it was as impossible to fasten any thing upon them (v. 9): nay, one would choose rather to teach a child of two years old than undertake to teach them; for they have not only (like such a child) no capacity to receive what is taught them, but they are prejudiced against it.
As children, they have need of milk, and cannot bear strong meat, Heb. 5:12.
1. They would not hear (v. 12), no, not that which would be rest and refreshing to them. They had no mind to hear it. The word of God commanded their serious attention, but could not gain it; they were where it was preached, but they turned a deaf ear to it, or as it came in at one ear it went out at the other.
2. They would not heed.
It was unto them precept upon precept, and line upon line (v. 13); they went on in a road of external performances; they kept up the old custom of attending upon the prophet’s preaching and it was continually sounding in their ears, but that was all; it made no impression upon them; they had the letter of the precept, but no experience of the power and spirit of it; it was continually beating upon them, but it beat nothing into them. Nay,
3. It should seem, they ridiculed the prophet’s preaching, and bantered it. The word of the Lord was unto them Tsau latsau, kau lakau; in the original it is in rhyme; they made a song of the prophet’s words, and sang it when they were merry over their wine. David was the song of the drunkards. It is great impiety, and a high affront to God, thus to make a jest of sacred things, to speak of that vainly which should make us serious.
IV. How severely God would reckon with them for this. 1. He would deprive them of the privilege of plain preaching, and speak to them with stammering lips and another tongue, v. 11. Those that will not understand what is plain and level to their capacity, but despise it as mean and trifling, are justly amused with that which is above them.
Or God will send foreign armies among them, whose language they understand not, to lay their country waste. Those that will not hear the comfortable voice of God’s word shall be made to hear the dreadful voice of his rod. Or these words may be taken as denoting God’s gracious condescension to their capacity in his dealing with them; he lisped to them in their own language, as nurses do to their children, with stammering lips, to humor them; he changed his voice, tried first one way and then another; the apostle quotes it as a favour (1 Co. 14:21), applying it to the gift of tongues, and complaining that yet for all this they would not hear.
2. He would bring utter ruin upon them. By their profane contempt of God and his word they are but hastening on their own ruin, and ripening themselves for it; it is that they may go and fall backward, may grow worse and worse, may depart further and further from God, and proceed from one sin to another, till they be quite broken, and snared, and taken, and ruined, v. 13. They have here a little and there a little of the word of God; they think it too much, and say to the seers, See not; but it proves too little to convert them, and will prove enough to condemn them. If it be not a savour of life unto life, it will be a savour of death unto death.
ADAM CLARKE ON ISAIAH 28:9 et secq
This is for those who can understand English as Doctionary pointed out.
This is simple for the simplest babe (brephos)
Verse 9. Whom shall he teach knowledge?”Whom, say they, would he teach knowledge?”] The scoffers mentioned below, ver. 14, are here introduced as uttering their sententious speeches; they treat God’s method of dealing with them, and warning them by his prophets, with contempt and derision.
What, say they, doth he treat us as mere infants just weaned? doth he teach us like little children, perpetually inculcating the same elementary lessons, the mere rudiments of knowledge; precept after precept, line after line, here and there, by little and little? imitating at the same time, and ridiculing, in ver. 10, the concise prophetical manner.
God, by his prophet, retorts upon them with great severity their own contemptuous mockery, turning it to a sense quite different from what they intended. Yes, saith he, it shall be in fact as you say; ye shall be taught by a strange tongue and a stammering lip; in a strange country; ye shall be carried into captivity by a people whose language shall be unintelligible to you, and which ye shall be forced to learn like children.
And my dealing with you shall be according to your own words: it shall be command upon command for your punishment; it shall be line upon line, stretched over you to mark your destruction, (compare 2 Kings xxi. 13;) it shall come upon you at different times, and by different degrees, till the judgments, with which from time to time I have threatened you, shall have their full accomplishment.
Jerome seems to have rightly understood the general design of this passage as expressing the manner in which the scoffers, by their sententious speeches, turned into ridicule the warnings of God by his prophets, though he has not so well explained the meaning of the repetition of their speech in ver.
13. His words are on ver. 9 “Solebant hoc ex persona prophetarum ludentes dicere: ” and on ver. 14 “Quod supra diximus, cum irrisione solitos principes Judaeorum prophetis dicere, manda, remanda, et caetera his similia, per quae ostenditur, nequaquam eos prophetarum credidisse sermonibus, sed prophetiam habuisse despectui, praesens ostendit capitulum, per quod appellantur viri illusores. ” Hieron. in loc.
And so Jarchi interprets the word µylm mishelim in the next verse: Qui dicunt verba irrisionis parabolice. ” And the Chaldee paraphrases ver. 11 to the same purpose, understanding it as spoken, not of God, but of the people deriding his prophets:
“Quoniam in mutatione loquelae et in lingua subsannationis irridebant contra prophetas, qui prophetabant populo huic.” -L.
Verse 10. For precept must be upon precept] The original is remarkably abrupt and sententious. The hemistichs are these:- wxl wx wxl wx yk latsav tsav latsav tsav ki wql wq wql wq lakau kau lakau kau µ ry[z µ ry[z sham zeeir sham zeeir For, – Command to command, command to command.
Line to line, line to line.
A little there, a little there.
Kimchi says wx tsau, precept, is used here for hwxm mitsuah, command, and is used in no other place for it but here. wx tsau signifies a little precept, such as is suited to the capacity of a child; see ver. 9. wq kau signifies the line that a mason stretches out to build a layer of stones by.
After one layer or course is placed, he raises the line and builds another; thus the building is by degrees regularly completed. This is the method of teaching children, giving them such information as their narrow capacities can receive; and thus the prophet dealt with the Israelites. See Kimchi in loc., and see a fine parallel passage, Heb. v. 12-14, by which this may be well illustrated.
My old MS. Bible translates oddly:- For sende efter sende, sende efter sende: Abide efter abiide, abide efter abiide: Lytyl ther, lytyl ther.
Coverdale is also singular:- Commande that may be commanded; Byd that maye be bydden: Foorbyd that maye be forbydden; Kepe backe that maye be kepte backe: Here a litle, there a litle.
Verse 12. This is the rest “This is the true rest”] The sense of this verse is: God had warned them by his prophets that their safety and security, their deliverance from their present calamities and from the apprehensions of still greater approaching, depended wholly on their trust in God, their faith and obedience; but they rejected this gracious warning with contempt and mockery.
When I wanted to learn Biochemistry and teach Biochemistry, I read the leading texts on the subject written by experts in the field.
When I went to Medical school I was taught by men who were experts in thier fields.
When I want to understand the gist of a Bible passage I compare commentary with commentary or read something by some one who can explain the words used in theHebrew or Greel or the Latin Vulgate.
I dont go to the unlearned to teach me Bible. It just does not make sense.
Onlookers:
Ignorance and distortion insisting on its “rights” to teach on equal terms with study and soundly established knowledge.
From the sublime to the ridiculous is but a step: WE indeed have a right to our opinions, but error does not have equal rights with truth in the path of reasoning and warrant. So, if we are wise, we will recognise that we are finite, fallible, morally fallen and often en-darkened and hardened against — or on another metaphor, benumbed to — the pricking voice of conscience, by our sin and willful rebellion against God and what may be known about him.
As Paul warns us:
Let’s go back to some basics — GP and Zoe, Isa 28 is fine but we are dealing with real basics here!
Kellogg-style sentence diagramming, simplified form (forgive me Fr Ryan, I am going to ignore all the interesting bits and pieces on modifiers and connecting words!):
In the above, we see in a simplified, even crude format, a way we can piece out what the words are doing, first in the English.
Then, when we shift tot he underlying Greek [or Hebrew] we may see more.
For that, nothing beats having eSWORD or The Word, in parallel column form, with an English text with Strong’s codes hot and with Robinson’s morphological codes also hot. In another column, we can have the Greek or Heb originals withthe same codes hot, if we want. And In another column, we can have a useful modern English version.
When we highlight a word, as a rule, the Dictionary and Commentary references will heat up, and a click on a tab will take us to a wealth of commentary by trained experts who spent their lifetime studying these matters. Books are also accessible , and the whole is electronically searchable.
These days I have well past a gig of resources instantly accessible from my desktop.
And yet, i still find that nothing really beats having the knowledge base going in your head, live. And that, backed up by a humble, prayerful attitude that asks God the Spirit of Truth to illuminate your knowledge — how many times have I seen one and the same Scripture come alive in a fresh, deeper and more powerful way?
For instance Acts 17 came alive to me as the teaching on nationhood under God, and civilization in confrontation with God at kairos. And, one of the most powerful moments was when I finally found an online street map of Athens, following up on someone’s remarks on the name of the street at the foot of Mars hill. Holy Apostle Street, leading on to Dionysius the Areopagite street as it passes by the foot of the Acropolis.
The verdict of history is in: the future belonged, not to the mockingly skeptical and cynical philosophers, nor to the manipulative rhetors and follytricians, but to the pure gospel and those who stood up for the truth and the right before it became the popular thing to do.
Once to every man and nation comes the time to decide the good or evil side.
G’day
Dictionary.
PS: I am using the NET Bible free access translation much of the time. The above though is NIV. Many Study Bible resources are keyed to the KJV.
GP Says;
“When I want to understand the gist of a Bible passage I compare commentary with commentary or read something by some one who can explain the words used in theHebrew or Greel or the Latin Vulgate.
I dont go to the unlearned to teach me Bible. It just does not make sense.
**********************************************************************************************
Well sir, I guess that means stalemate, since many of us on BU, when we want to learn wisdom, go to some teacher who demonstrate by success in basic matters, that they are wise.
We will not follow advice from known thieves on honesty;.
We will not heed guidance from braggarts on modesty
We will not blindly follow the lead of a doctor trapped in an unhappy life, who is seeking to advise us on how to successfully plan our eternal life.
Bush Tea will not entertain advice on nation building from Jamaicans, or from any other jokers who, having destroyed their own country and families with their ‘wisdom’, have now emigrated to do a ‘better ‘job of nation building with us Bajans.
Bush tea is not impressed by someone coming here on BU claiming impressive credentials while admitting failure to achieve any meaningful successes in simple life issues.
Someone characterized by being;
– chased from Barbados despite his ‘brilliant Polyclinic solutions’
– trapped in a hated job from which he unsuccessfully seeks desperate escape
– rejected for work by basic offshore medical schools
– apart from regurgitating the writings of others (his idea of teaching) – making no meaningful contribution to medical services to those in need
As to being taught by the unlearned, this is probably exactly the attitude adopted by the learned scribes, priests etc in the temple when a 12 -year-old Jesus walked into their discussions and asked a few simple questions……
LOL… now you can post a new series of junk to seek to push this comment into the background. That is much easier than responding. rotfl
@BUSH T
Tell me more about the tea bath and while you at it how about foot massage.
@ ac
What tea bath what?!?
…..BUSH bath!! …. you like you have something else in mind yuh….
The Bush Bath is a unique Caribbean experience…. ask any Vincie. It will cleanse and cure much better than any GP can….
…..but before you get to the foot massage ….you feel that bush tea didn’t see you sharing nuff licks over in the thread about men letting the side down nuh? you rinse out the bushman over there.(LOL)…. but that is OK – just as long as BAFBFP out the picture…
By the end of the second foot massage the bushman can guarantee that you will have a different perspective about men and their roles…. rotfl
What are we trying to achieve on the religious blogs?
BU believe we can have a conversation and share knowledge regarding bible interpretation and the other books of religion for that matter.
How does religion influence our daily lifes?
We all understand that our religious beliefs is heavily underpinned by faith. For intelligent people to keep bashing each other over the heads on this issue is to put it midly an exercise in futility.
The BU household is particularly interested in the argument for and against the concept/belief of the Unitarian versus Trinity. So far we have been drowned in the verbiage by GP and Dictionary regarding Trinity, on the other hand we understand BT’s position. Please help us understand Trinity using a less heavy approach.
@ One ‘Bush-man’ Yes, your ‘Occultic’ activities, an abomination before Almighty God, sternly condemned by Him, are all to obvious in your blatant spiritual blindness, resolutely reflected in your utter perversion and corruption of His Word, the Bible.
“…maybe we should talk about that bush bath some more ac…”
@ac, Stay clear of such Occultic deception…this will bring abomination to you life…!
Bush man, You have resorted to a vile, vicious, ‘ad hominem’ attack on GP, simply because your polluted, unbiblical interpretation has no warrant whatsoever, defenseless nonsense, you then seek to attack him personally, as you have NO substance to bring to bear on the Scriptural matter at hand. Cheap, cheap, nasty..but true to form from those of your ilk!
Ad hominem: relating to or associated with a particular person . 2. (of an argument) appealing to the emotions, and NOT to reason. (The Concise Oxford Dictionary).
Ad hominem: “To the man” An argument that is directed to one’s prejudices rather than to one’s intellect, or an argument that attacks the opponent rather than his argument.”
Bush Man, is this all you can do? Attack GP personally, with NASTY ad hominem, which has no bearing AT ALL on the subject matter?
Was the Apostle Paul’s credibility, the most anointed, gifted, inspired writer of the NT, questioned, because he ended up in Jail, with nothing of this world’s goods, actually betrayed by almost everyone?
You reek of your Occultic associations, spiritual corruption, and intellectual dishonesty; but such is to be expected when one has choosen the path that you have taken!
David
How does religion influence our daily life?
Fundamentally! – whether we accept this or not. It influences why we do what we do at the very core of our decision making.
Things like;
-what we learn in society about ‘right and wrong’
-how we socialize with others
-If, how, and to whom we marry
-if we divorce, and if so, on what terms….
– and practically everything important.
..practically EVERYTHING that we take for granted as ‘given’, is dictated by our religious dogma or lack thereof. This explains why there is a fundamental challenge when different cultures clash.
Now over the centuries, religion has been cloaked in mystery and mystique…. with pundits behaving much like the BU trinity. Only difference being that because there was no BU back then, heretics like Bush Tea would have been declared a devil long ago and dutifully burned at some stake – probably with Zoe lighting the match in God’s name, while GP offered up a impressive sounding prayer. (Dict would likely be off somewhere composing some lengthy manuscript outlining how reconstruction should proceed in the most current disaster area…)
This thing call ‘faith’ was interpreted to mean ‘do not think about these things, just do as we say and accept that we know…..’
Take the Trinity bit…..
This universally accepted position has absolutely NO basis in the bible whatsoever. Indeed, it is nothing but a position voted on at the Council of Nicea which took place in 325 A.D. by the order of the Roman Emperor Caesar Flavius Constantine. This is simply HISTORY.
Basically things were falling apart with the empire, everyone was fighting each other (mostly over religion as usual) and Constantine call the meeting….. they voted on who God was, and all these ‘scholars’ henceforth would have us believe that since this vote was passed, surely God must have conformed to the resolution……
….David, don’t tell anyone else this, but that council even made an insert into the bible script at that time (somewhere in 2 John 5 if I recall correctly…) to support their vote. Unfortunately for them, subsequent versions of the bible were translated from prior manuscripts and so only the King James and its derivatives continue to carry that ratch…. something about the father, the son, and the spirit, and these three being one…
This Trinity scam is identical to the Santa Claus story – universally told, extensively documented, and globally marketed – despite being totally ridiculous.
Why it is a dangerous and wicked deceit is that it negates the very genesis of the news (the so called GOOD NEWS or GOSPEL) that Jesus brought to mankind.
This GOOD NEWS is that God is in the process of expanding their family.
Life on Earth happens to be an integral part of this process, and whereas man had chosen badly, and threatened this part of the project with total failure; one of the individuals of this ‘family’ made the ultimate conceivable sacrifice (read John 3 16 now that this perspective is clearer…) and has restored the project to a path of success….. the ultimate good news….
This Trinity concept has instilled in religion the opposite news, …..that God is a closed shop.
……. who or what in these circumstances, would you think could be legitimately referred to as an ‘anti-christ’ position….?
@ Zoe
Good Morning to you. You just wake up?
Why are you ranting and raving sir? How did Bush Tea attack GP? I merely explained why it is difficult for intelligent people here on BU to accept insults and instruction from someone who HIMSELF told us that he is essentially a failure compared to others of his training and qualifications……
…just as he explained why he do not accept teaching on the bible from anyone on BU especially from untrained idiotic seed picking bushmen…..
Take a few deep breaths Zoe….
Have you considered that Jesus was not crucified because the religious ‘know-it-all’s of the day like you, agreed with his approach. …
Since you are up, why not respond to some of the specific points that have been raised here…. such as where does the bible teach the Trinity as GP says….
…and PLEASE Zoe, leave my ac out of this. If she wants a bush bath that is our business…… butt out!! …..unless…..are you BAFBFP…?
David
I can say what others are trying to achieve on the religious blogs?
I can only share what I have learned, how I came to know it, from whom and the methods that I was used , and the methods that I follow.
I can only share that I have met many men and women who share the same methods, and read many books by men who share and teach the methods that I was taught to use and who have the same interpretations that I have arrived at.
I will give you an example. Around the time I came to live in the USA, while reading the Pauline epistles, I got the impression that in each chapter there seem to be a key verse or punch line. It seemed to me that Paul would take his argument up to that punch line, and then sort of ease of. One notable exception to this ploy is of course 1 Timothy 3:16 in which the chapter ends with this declaration of high Christology.
And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.
Soon after I came to FL I heard a man exegeting in 2 Corinthians, and I saw him interpret the passages in exactly the same fashion, as I had deduced.
Please be corrected Sir, as I have not posed ANYTHING on BU about the Doctrine of the Trinity except to say that I believe it because the Bible teaches the doctrine.
Since you understand BT’s position, let him teach you the Trinity. I studied it and have good stuff I n my archives. But the Spirit dictates what I teach, when, to whom and where. Go ahead make mock sport of that statement too.
I wont comment on your note about being drowned in verbiage by GP and Dictionary, except to say that I have learned much from Dictionary’s verbiage. He is certainly well read and a brilliant man , who brings a lot of substance to debate on BU.
David:
I have said very little here at BU on the doctrine of the Trinity, other than a very basic summary on what it addresses and linking a more extensive discussion, on the Shamrock Principle. (Gotta hold the link as there are two more important points to link in this comment . . . )
In truth, the doctrine is in terms of warrant (as opposed to its significance!), a secondary matter.
First things must come first: the core warranting case of the Christian faith is not the doctrine of the trinity, but the resurrection of Christ, as we may see from Ac 17:16 – 32, 1 Cor 15:1 – 11, Rom 1:1 – 5 etc.
That is why I have always pointed tot his central citadel of the Christian faith, the point that addresses the issue of whether this is just a belief on display among the abundant stocks in the marketplace of interesting ideas and values, or whether it has adequate warrant to say that it is credibly true, sufficiently so that the man or woman who has had adequate opportunity to find out and see that truth and warrant for her- or him- self is morally responsible for it.
On that credible fact, we may now know that the Lord of Life is the risen Christ — i.e. even as this is the pivotal issue that decided Saul of Tarsus — and that the OT prophesies that predicted in specifics his coming, passion and resurrection up to 700+ years ahead of time are therefore the Word of God.
Also, we know from that, that the apostles he authorised are his spokesmen, so their teachings are also authoritative and credibly inspired by the Spirit poured out on them.
The resurrection warrants the Scriptures of he OT and NT, in short.
It is in that context that one would then come to the understanding — insofar as this is possible! [cf here quantum mechanics and relativity theory in physics: what is a “wavicle,” especially a relativistic one? How is it that electrons and photons are both waves — like those marching up Long beach, and a particle like a tiny cricket ball????] — and acceptance (based on careful exegesis — what we have actually focussed on in this thread . .. ) of the Triune concept of God as taught in the scriptures, implicitly in the OT, explicitly in the NT and eventually as synthesized in creedal statements.
Then we can begin to see that the concept — though quite unexpected — that the ground of reality is complex not simple unity makes sense of reality in astonishing ways.
for instance, it answers powerful;ly to the vexed philosophical issue of the one and the many. Citing, for instance, Probe Ministries’ useful discussion:
Now, if we go at the question the back-ways around we run into the problem that I like to highlight by asking a riddle:
So, I ask us to think through first things first, then use credible, tested truth as a basis for assessing other matters. (And you will note that in the same note that has in it a discussion on the key warranting argument of the Christian faith, there is a section on worldview choice based on first identifying a cluster of warranted, credible truths.)
G’day
D
@GP
You are getting your tail up and unnecessary so. BU was being honest when we stated we understand BT’s position. The fact that we asked you and others lettered in theology and who have devoted a life long commitment to studying the bible to explain the Trinity position establishes some doubt on our part and respect for what you can offer. Instead of responding in the spirit the question was asked you become defensive GP? Remember your audience, there is a reason why at school one is taught précis and concise writing. Thought better of you Sir! Anyway it is your prerogative as you stated to answer. BU modus operandi should be clear to all, we will ask the hard questions but with respect.
PS: The discussion on the Shamrock Principle is here.
It is named after a famous — possibly apocryphal (like the pendulum of Galileo and the apple of Newton . . . ) — incident in the work of Padraig in Ireland.
Riddle me this, riddle me that, guess me this riddle and p’raps not:
Believe it or not, this is highly relevant to the doctrine of the trinity!
(Hint: when is “One” not a “simple” concept? How does that tie into the word for one used in the Shema of Dt 6:4, the original form of the great creedal prayer of Judaism — Sh’ma Yisrael, Adonai elohenu, Adonai echad — that so many chanted as they were marched at gunpoint into the gas chambers of Hitler’s death camps?)
PPS: David, why are technical textbooks seldom short, even when they contain summaries of chapters? (Why can’t a summary substitute for a chapter?)
@Dictionary
Why not state what the doctrine of Trinity is as stated in the Bible in 100 words?
Why not rebut what Bush Tea stated about the birth of Trinity and how it has been represented in different versions of the Bible?
Don’t you think that by succinctly locating your response to our query in such a frame many of us who are not as read in the subject matter may gain some traction in turning on light where there is darkness?
David
My tail is not up nor am I being defensive. I offered you a humble suggestion Sir, and politely so Sir
Also I was being very honest and sincere when I offered that suggestion.
Set up a thread and let BT teach the doctrine of the Trinity. He knows all about it. He ought to be able to teach it.
I am interested in Hermeneutics and Exegesis (Methods of Bible Study) now OK? And have other things doing. Dont you want a further contribution on the kidney? You want Trinity too at the same time?
Wait David,
You see a stake that you like?
…my man, when they light you don’t look to Bush Tea for no water hear? we got a drought bout here…..
The truth is that these are probably three quite nice people. It is just that they are unaccustomed to being asked to be logical. Additionally they do not really understand much of what they purport to believe.
In an ideal world, they would at this point admit to an incomplete understanding and ‘Seek, Ask, Knock’ as suggested by their bible,
…but pride is a killer.
David
Note that the doctrine of Trinity in the Bible CAN NOT BE stated in 100 words?
Why should any one rebut what Bush Tea stated about the birth of Trinity and how it has been represented in different versions of the Bible?
The Trinity was not born at Nicea. Eveything did not hapen at Nicea as is taught on BU.
Note also that there is ONE translation of the Bible in GERMAN. Luther obviously did a great job.
Why dont you ask folk to respon reasonably to any of the good teaching all ready put on this thread?
Re Don’t you think that by succinctly locating your response to our query in such a frame many of us who are not as read in the subject matter may gain some traction in turning on light where there is darkness?
Maybe when Dictionary went to school he had to strive to attain the standards set by the school teacher and syllabus, rather than by the students. LOL
It will take for sure MORE VERBIAGE TO SIMPLYFY THING DAVID and BU FOLK DONT LIKE VERBIAGE LOL
I think you should ban us three, after all many reasons have been given to suggest why we are unworthy teachers of the Word. LOL
While the BU flock insult me for sharing what I learned about studying the Bible, others in our little Barbados are pressing on with some of the same principles.
I received this circular from a church leader in Barbados this morning.
A special invitation is extended to you to do 3 weeks of training in Greek with Dr. Clinton Chisholm in July (date to be confirmed). This would enhance your reading and study of the New Testament in particular. Would like you specially to consider joining. Kindly also share with any one who can benefit. See note below.
Dr. Chisholm is willing to do these classes and a number of other very helpful courses in the island, etc. if requested.
Hoping to hear from you soon!
The same person sent me this forwarded note
When God is about to reposition your life
know that the devil will begin to attack!
Happy moments, praise God.
Difficult moments, seek God.
Quiet moments, worship God.
Painful moments, trust God.
Every moment, thank God.
I just recieved this in an email.
I post it here because it is a good exampe of an APPLICATION OF THIS PASSAGE RATHER THAN AN INTERPRETATION OR EXEGESIS
SERVICE-STIMULUS SERMON
Genesis 47:13-27
I would love to give the Pastor of this predominantly black church in
Virginia a hug and a high five. This guy is obviously a leader
Perhaps we should each decide who our
real leader is….It is amazing to see that very little has
changed in 4,000 years.
—————————————————
Good morning, brothers and sisters; it’s always a delight to see
the pews crowded on Sunday morning, and so eager to get into
God’s Word. Turn with me in your Bibles, if you will to the 47th
chapter of Genesis, we’ll begin our reading at verse 13, and go
through verse 27.
Brother Ray, would you stand and read that great passage for us?
….(reading)….
Thank you for that fine reading, Brother Ray…. So we see that
economic hard times fell upon Egypt , and the people turned to
the government of Pharaoh to deal with this for them. And Pharaoh
nationalized the grain harvest, and placed the grain in great storehouses
that he had built. So the people brought their money to Pharaoh, like a
great tax increase, and gave it all to him willingly in return for grain. And
this went on until their money ran out, and they were hungry again.
So when they went to Pharaoh after that, they brought their
livestock -their cattle, their horses, their sheep, and their donkey –
to barter for grain, and verse 17 says that only took them through
the end of that year..
But the famine wasn’t over, was it? So the next year, the people
came before Pharaoh and admitted they had nothing left, except
their land and their own lives. “There is nothing left in the sight
of my lord but our bodies and our land. Why should we die before
your eyes, both we and our land? Buy us and our land for food,
and we with our land will be servants to Pharaoh.” So they
surrendered their homes, their land, and their real estate to
Pharaoh’s government, and then sold themselves into slavery
to him, in return for grain. What can we learn from this, brothers
and sisters?
That turning to the government instead of to God to be our provider
in hard times only leads to slavery? Yes… That the only reason
government wants to be our provider is to also become our master?
Yes.
But look how that passage ends, brothers and sisters! Thus Israel
settled in the land of Egypt , in the land of Goshen .. And they gained
possessions in it, and were fruitful and multiplied greatly.” God
provided for His people, just as He always has! They didn’t end up
giving all their possessions to government, no, it says they gained
possessions! But I also tell you a great truth today, and an ominous
one. We see the same thing happening today – the government today
wants to “share the wealth “once again, to take it from us and redistribute
it back to us. It wants to take control of healthcare, just as it has taken
control of education, and ration it back to us, and when government
rations it, then government decides who gets it, and how much, and
what kind. And if we go along with it, and do it willingly, then we will
wind up no differently than the people of Egypt did four thousand years
ago – as slaves to the government, and as slaves to our leaders.
What Mr. Obama’s government is doing now is no different from what
Pharaoh’s government did then, and it will end the same. And a lot of
people like to call Mr. Obama a “Messiah,” don’t they? Is he a Messiah?
A savior? Didn’t the Egyptians say, after Pharaoh made them his slaves,
“You have saved our lives; may it please my lord, we will be servants to Pharaoh”?
Well, I tell you this –
I know the Messiah; the Messiah is a friend of mine;
and Mr. Obama is no Messiah! No, brothers and sisters,
if Mr. Obama is a character from the Bible, then he is Pharaoh.
Bow with me in prayer, if you will.
Lord, You alone are worthy to be served, and we rely on You, and You alone.
We confess that the government is not our deliverer, and never rightly will be.
We read in the eighth chapter of 1 Samuel, when Samuel warned the people
of what a ruler would do, where it says “And in that day you will cry out
because of your king, whom you have chosen for yourselves, but
the LORD will not answer you in that day.” And Lord, we acknowledge
that day has come. We cry out to you because of the ruler that we have
chosen for ourselves as a nation. Lord, we pray for this nation. We pray
for revival, and we pray for deliverance from those who would be our masters.
Give us hearts to seek You and hands to serve You, and protect Your people
from the atrocities of Pharaoh’s government.
In God We Trust…
@David, I sense a genuine interest on your part to hear a bit more about the doctrine of the Trinity; which I have already expanded on from Scripture on a previous thread a while back; but, will do it again.
First, let us used some basis common sense and logic, as we look at how and why, the doctrine of the ‘Trinty’ was finally put into a creedal statement.
David; Dictionary, GP and myself, ‘THREE’ individual persons have been facetiously labeled as the BU Trinity, now, a ‘Trinity’ of anything, logically constitute THREE, or THREE constitute, logically a ‘Trinity’ that is basic commonsense, right!
My focus here is on how one arrives at defining what a “Trinity’ of anything is, that numbers, 1 +1+ 1= a Trinity. Whether it is apples, oranges, footballs, or people, etc, etc., we can either refer to them as “Three’ apples, oranges, footballs, or as ‘Three’ people, OR, as a ‘Trinity’ of apples, oranges, people, etc; that is logical commonsense.
Now, those that decry the doctrine of the ‘Trinity’ God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit, say that because there is no explicit use of the term ‘Trinity’ in Scripture, that the concept of the term, is unbiblical, and that there is no such thing as the ‘Trinity.’
Well, let us look carefully at the implicit concept of the ‘Trinity’ as found in the OT, then at the explicit concept of it as found in the NT.
The Scriptures give us the revelation of the Eternal Godhead, who has revealed Himself as *One* God, existing in three persons, even the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit; *distinguishable* BUT, *indivisible* in essense; co-eternal, co-existent, co-equal in nature, attributes, power and glory. There IS but *One* Eternal Godhead, who is one undivided and indivisible essence; and in this one essence there ARE *three* distinct persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit
The Eternal Godhead.
It is well to note at the beginning of this section, that NO human pen or tongue can define God by mere words, and that our finite minds cannot explain the mystery of the Godhead. The Scriptures do not attempt to explain the mystery, they simply declare it [Colossians 2:2; 1 Timothy 3:16]. Much of the misunderstanding relative to the being of God, especially in the area of the distinctions in the Godhead (Trinity) has come into the Church, because of the ‘terminology’ and the theological phraseology that has been developed through the centuries.
Man CANNOT know God or what God is like APART from revelation. If God does not reveal Himself to man, it is impossible for him to discover God for himself. Man with all his searching cannot find out God. God Himself must take the initiative (Job 11:7; Matt. 11:25-27) This God HAS DONE in His Word, the Bible. The Word of God IS the revelation of God. Without it, we would have no revelation as to His essence, nature and being. Unless man accepts this revelation, he will STUMBLE along in the darkness of mere human reason, aided by demonic subterfuge, lies and falsity. We must turn to the Scriptures to consider what Almighty God has revealed about Himself in His own inner mode of being, realizing that “the secret things belong to the Lord our God; but those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children for ever, that we may do all the words of this law.” (Deut. 29:29).
The Godhead.
A term used in the New Testament relative to God is “the Godhead”. The word refers to that which is Divine, to Deity, involving God’s revelation of His own mode of being. Acts 17: 29 “…we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver or stone, graven out by man’s device.”
Colossians 2:9 “For in Him (Christ) dwelleth ALL the fulness of the Godhead bodily.”
The Bible also reveals that in the Eternal Godhead, there are THREE which are spoken of as the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. (Matt. 28: 19; 3: 16-17; 1 John 5: 7-8; John 14: 6-17). The very fact that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, (Trinity) are linked together in the baptismal command (Matt. 28: 19) shows that there IS co-existence, co-equality in nature, power, and attributes, as well as co-eternity of being; and, therefore the ‘explicitely implied’ doctrine of the *Trinity* is entirely Scripturally based and formulated in a Creedal statement.
Remember, this is coming from Divinely Inspired Scripture, emphatically revealing the *UNITY* of the Eternal Godhead, as three distinct Persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, a *Trinity* of co-equal, co-eternal persons, which IS confirmed by the Greek in Matthew 28: 19.
“And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying. ‘All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and make disciples of ALL nations, baptizing them in the NAME of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, Teaching them to observe ALL things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.’ Amen.”
It is imperative to NOTE, that in this baptismal command given by Jesus, THAT, He did NOT say to baptize in the ‘names’ plural, BUT, ‘eis to onoma’ NAME, *singular* now, what is the significance of this?
The absolute significance here, in the SINGULAR, *NAME* and NOT ‘names’ reveals again, the co-equality, co-etrernity, co-attributes, of the Eternal Godhead, that IS; the FATHER, the SON, and the HOLY SPIRIT; a *TRINITY* of distinct, yet indivisible persons, explicitly implied in NT Scripture.
IF, Jesus had said ‘in the NAMES…’ instead of ‘in the NAME…’ that would have implied ‘Tritheism’ three Gods, which is NOT what the Trinity is.
Let us therefore, consider the Truth that God IS *One* and God is three, *Trinity* as set forth in the Scriptures. In doing so, we must find that in the Biblical revelation of God, there are two streams of Scripture concerning His Person, and these are: God is ONE, and God is three.
It is vitally important to remember, relative to these statements, that IF either of these streams are OVER-EMPHASIZED, then heresy results. If the stream of Scriptures concerning the fact that God is One, is overemphasized, then we lapse into the heresy of *Unitarianism* that is, a numerical number one God. On the other hand, if the stream of Scriptures is over-emphasized concerning the fact that God is three, then it results in the heresy of *Tritheism*, that is the worship of three separate Gods. It is here that great exegetical balance must be exercised. It is well to remember the phrase previously used in the Statement of Faith, that ‘we believe in one God, existing in three persons, distinguishable, but indivisible.”
God is One -that is, indivisble.
God is Three- that is, distinguishable.
The Almighty God of the Bible, is revealed as one God. Both the Old Testament and New Testament confirm the fact that there is but One God. Both Testaments declare the unity of God.
Old Testament Scriptures:
Deuteronomy 4: 35- 39- ‘The Lord He is God, there IS none beside Him.”
Exodus 20:3 – “Thou shalt have NO OTHER gods before Me.”
1 Samuel 2: 2: 11 Samuel 7:22 – “There is NONE beside Me.’
Psalm 86: 120; 83: 18 – Thou are God alone”
Isaiah 44:6,8; 43: 10; 45: 18 – “Beside Me there is NO God” Deueronomy 6:4 – “Hear O Israel, the Lord our God is one Lord.”
Each of these verses show clearly that there is but ONE God, or that God is one, that He is the one and only true God. False religions made many gods, but the national tenet of Israel’s faith was ‘Hear O Israel, Jehovah they God is one Jehovah” Deut. 6:4. The true Hebrew believers were monotheistic, not polytheistic; they worshipped the One true God rather than the many gods of ancient, paganistic, idolatry.
New Testament Scriptures:
Mark 12: 29 – “The Lord our God is one God”
1 Cor. B4 – There is none other God but one”
Mark 12:32 – “For there is one God and there is none other but He”
Galatians 3:20 – “God is one”
Ephesians 4:6 – ” One God and the Father of all”
James 2:19 – “Thou believest there is one God, thou doest well.”
1 Timothy 1:17; 2:5 – “For there is one God.”
The New Testament declares the unity of God. Christianity continues the true faith of Israel in the fact that it IS *Monotheistic*. It centers around the worship of the One True God.
The Threeness (Trinity) of the Godhead.
As clearly as the Scriptures teach that God is One, so clearly do the same Scriptures teach that Almighty God is three, that Is, a Trinity or tri-unity of Divine persons. The union of three in one. One God manifested in three persons.
The Scriptures speak of two kinds of unity or oneness; Absolute unity, or compound unity. This is seen in the use of two Hebrew and two Greek words translated by the word ‘One’. The two Hebrew words are ‘Yechead” and “Echad”.
YACHAED, speaks of absolute unity, a mathematical or numerical one. It is used about twelve times in the old testament, BUT, never to describe the unity of God..
Here are a few examples.
Abraham offered up “his only (yachead) son, Isaac” (Gen. 22: 2,12).
“Deliver my darling” (i.e., My only one) (Psa. 22:20).
“They shall morn for Him, as one mourneth for his only (yachead) Son” (Zech. 12: 10).
ECHAD, speaks of a compound or collective unity which comprises more than one person. I.e., One crowd, one people, one nation.
“These two shall be one (echad) flesh” (Gen. 2:24)
“People gathered together as One” (Ezra 3:1).
“All the rest of Israel were of one (echad) heart…” (1 Chron. 12:38).
The Hebrew word “echad” is used hundreds of times in the Old Testament and is usually significant of the compound unity; the unity of more than one. It is this word “echad” which is used concerning the one God. A compound unity of co-equal, co-eternal, Persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
The two Greek words which carry the same thought as these two Hebrew words, are “heis” and “monos”. Whenever Scripture speaks of the fact that God is one, it is never referring to a mathematical or numbrr one God, BUT, always to a compound unity; the unity of more than one Person. It speaks of plurality of Divine Persons iin one God. This uinity is a compound unity, which is revealed as tri-unity, the union of three in one.
(The Foundations of Christian Doctrine, pp. 41, 55, 56, 57) emphasis added.
The above is just a brief look, at the Scriptural basis for the Creedal Statement of the “Trinity’ which is so explicitely implied, throughout God’s Word, the Bible, that for those who deny this entirely Scriptural FACT, well, they have choosen to be blinded spiritually!
More to come on the Biblical basis for the doctrine of the Trinity.
@ David, The ‘expilcitely implied’ concept of God revealed in THREE distinct Persons, the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit, was written in Divinly Inspired NT Scripture, Circa 100 A.D. 300 years before Nicea 325 A.D.
This historic ignorance as spewed forth by one ‘Bush Man’ et al, further shows how inept they are re Biblical and Church History facts.
Then again, can one expect other than such folly, from one who is into ‘Bush baths’ one of the rituals of Occultic Witchcraft, masqurading as good for you; all Demonic abominations to those who practice such spiritual DARKNESS!
BT, No wonder in your ‘seeking, knocking, and finding’ you have still NOT found, nor understand the Truth.
Bush Man…Ya knocking, and seeking..in de wrong places…!
Oh Mr Zoe, you have presented a case, still a little long for a seed picker – but I think that I was able to follow your logic.
A few questions if I may.
You are at pains to emphasize that ‘we believe in one God, existing in three persons, distinguishable, but indivisible.” Why do you need to stretch simple concepts to meet this preconceived conclusion?
Let us look at the various points that you used.
The word used for God is a collective noun, like crowd, or team etc. (or Big Boss Engineers). — agreed!
This collective is comprised of various individuals, some of whom are identified in the bible (eg the Father, the word, The Son) — Agreed
Contrary to your suggestion, these individuals are not equal (you said “A compound unity of co-equal, co-eternal, Persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.”) John 14, 28 “I go to the father, for the father is greater than I” and John 15,1 “I am the true vine, My father is the husbandman..” – different roles carried.
Mr Zoe, THIS is a family being described. A family that is of one mind, with a father, a son, (who describes himself as a vine – with his disciples as branches) There is nothing to suggest that more individuals do not exist – they may well be otherwise engaged, don’t you think?
Also Why would Jesus note that ‘In my father’s house are MANY mansions…..”? For whom Zoe? Since he was going to prepare places for his followers….
All of you references properly support the concept of a spiritual family called God, as does the FACT that when this same God created man in his OWN image, they (God) created man to instinctively operate in FAMILY groups….(in God’s own image!!?) with fathers, children as well as grands and in-laws….
The problem is that you start your search with the preconceived answer (a holy Trinity) in mind- and you then strain to arrive at that answer.
What say you….?
Zoe
What does John 1:1; John 5 and Phil 2:6 say about equality?
John 5: 19 equal in working
vs 20 equal in knowing
vs 23 equal in honor
vs 24 &25 equal in regenerating
vs 26 equal in self existence
vs 21, 28 & 29 equal in resurection
vs 22 & 27 equal in judging
What dies John 10:30 mean?
Here is another point that you may wish to consider Mr Zoe;
If as you suggest, God is represented as a Trinity, (existing in three persons, distinguishable, but indivisible,) please explain how this important aspect of God’s person is represented and modeled in human beings.
You obviously know that God created man ‘in his own image’, therefore one would imagine that such an important concept of God’s existence as being “three persons, distinguishable, but indivisible.” would somehow be represented in that image created, which personifies man…… unless we are saying that man was not really created in God’s (FULL) image…..?
…..on the other hand, if we follow the natural, logical flow of the bible and conclude, as Bush Tea suggests, that this is a family arrangement being explained…… not only do we have the ‘family’ arrangement represented in the created image called mankind, but numerous other ‘mysteries’ also explained – such as the sanctity of the family (marriage) vows; the role of the wife; the instinctive love of parents for children etc.
The main point Mr Zoe, being that whereas families are unlimited in scope, size and growth potential – a Trinity is static and unyielding (even on BU -LOL).
Why would Jesus then be going to prepare a place for followers with the promised that ‘where he is’ they will also be….? if ‘where he is ‘ was indeed in a Trinity?
@GP..
Your criticisms are reserved solely only for the SSS or the Bat Cave boys or the BU Trinity. Ah lie?
YES you lie!!
@ David, As I started addressing your interest in the Biblical doctrine of the Trinity, formulated into a Creedal Statement 300 years, AFTER, it was already, ‘explicitely implied’ throughout NT Scripture.
Old Testament Scriptures.
Genesis 1:1-2 – “In the beginning GOD…and the Spirit of GOD moved on the face of the waters” (John 1: 1-3, The word for “God” is “Elohim” plural of the Hebrew word ‘El’. It is a uni-plural word, denoting plurality of divine Person without stating the number, BUT WHICH subsequent Scriptures show to be THREE divine Persons, even the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, each active in creation.
Isaiah 6:8 – “The voice of the Lord, saying, Who will go for US?”| (John 12:41).
All of these verses speak of the plurality of divine Persons in the one God, and generally this Hebrew uni-plural word “Elohim” is used in the Old Testament to speak of the Eternal Godhead. It is the Old Testament equivalent for the New Testament definition of God as Father, Son and Holy Spirit, or, the Godhead.
Isaiah 48:16- “The Lord God (the Father) and His Spirit (the Holy Spirit) hath sent Me (the Son)”
Isaiah 61: 1 – “The Spirit (the Holy Spirit) of the Lord (the Father) is upon Me, because He hath anointed Me” (Luke 4:18).
Psalm 110: 1 – “The Lord (the Father) said unto my Lord (the Son) sit Thou at My right hand until I make Thine enemies Thy footstool.”
Genesis 19: 24 – “Then the Lord (the Son) rained fire and brimstone from the Lord (the Father) out of heaven” Psalm 45: 6-7 – “They throne O God (the Son cf. Hebrews 1: 8-9) is forever…therefore God, Thy God (the Father) hath anointed Thee.”
The Old Testament speaks of:
The FATHER (Isaiah 63:16; Malachi 2:10)
The SON (Psalm 45: 6-7; 2: 6-7, 12; Prov. 30:4; Isaiah 7: 14; 9:6).
The HOLY SPIRIT (Genesis 1:2; Isaiah 11: 1-3; 48: 16; Genesis 6:3; 61:1; 63: 10).
New Testament Scriptures.
The revelation of God in three Persons is the distinctive ministry of the blessed Son of God. The only way God could be known to man in His inner nature and being of tri-unity was by revelation. God had to reveal Himself. Who could bring or give this incredible, marvelous, wonderful revelation? What patriarch, prophet, or saint could reveal God to mankind? No angel nor created being could unveil Almighty God in His glory, in the truth of His Eternal Godhead, as Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
Only Jesus Christ Could.
The only Person who could reveal Almighty God to man, WAS the very ONE who dwelt in the bosom of the Father. It had to be one of the Persons of Elohim, one in the Eternal Godhead, WHO alone could reveal God to man. In the counsels of the Eternal Godhead, it was the Eternal SON (the Word) who was to come and declare God in His tri-unity of being.
Hebrews 1: 1-2 – “God who at sundry times and in divers manners spake unto the fathers by the prophets, hath in these last days spoken unto us in the Person of His Son.”
Matthew 11:27 – “No man knoweth the Son, BUT the Father, neither ANY man the Father, save (but) the Son, and He to whomsoever the Son (JESUS) will reveal Him (the Father).” John 1:18 – ‘No man hath seen GOD at any time, the only-begotten Son, who IS in the bosom of the Father, He (Jesus Christ) hath declared Him (the Father)”
The amplified New Testament says, “No man has EVER seen God at any time; the ONLY unique Son, the only begotten God, who IS IN the bosom (that is, in the intimate presence) of the Father, He (Jesus) has declared Him, He has revealed Him, brought Him out where He can be seen: He (Jesus) has interpreted Him, and He (Jesus) has made Him (the Father) KNOWN” (John 1:18).
The clearest revelation of Almighty God the Father, had to come through One of these Divine Persons, of the Trinity. Here we have one of the fundamental reasons for the Incarnation, (The Word becomning Flesh, Jesus). The only way God could be revealed to man was by becoming a man. All of this was prophesied in the Old Testament, and then FULFILLED in the Virgin Birth of the Son of God. He was God, manifest in the flesh . (Isaiah 7:14; 9:6-9; Genesis 3:15; Matt. 1:21-23; John 1: 1-3; 14-18).
It IS the New Testament, which plainly declares the number of DIVINE PERSONS to be THREE, no more, and NO less. The whole of the New Testament abounds with CLEAR references to THREE distinct, divine Persons, who are revealed as the Eternal Godhead.
The Old Testament veiled the revelation of God. Being the “age of the shadow”, when all things pertaining to the inner nature and being of Almighty God were veiled in types, shadows and divine names and titles, it remained for the Son of God, the Lord Jesus Christ, in the fulness of time, to unveil God in His fulness.
The following is a set of Scriptures from the Gospels and Epistles which show the *distinction* in the Godhead, as Father, Son and Holy Spirit. These verses tell of three distinct Person, each having DISTINCT ministry and FUNCTION, Yet, One in mind and will, One in essence, and One in purpose, plan and operation of redemption.
Matthew 3: 16-17
The FATHER’s voice which spoke from heaven
The SON of God in Jordan’s waters of baptism
The HOLY SPIRIT descending bodily in the shape of a dove.
Matthew 28 :10
Baptizing them into the *name* singular
of the FATHER
and of the SON
and of the HOLY SPIRIT.
Matthew’s Gospel opens and closes with specific revelation of the Godhead, as Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
John 14: 16-17
The FATHER hears the prayer of the Son
The SON prays to the Father
The HOLY SPIRIT as the Comforter will be given.
1 Corinthians 12: 4-6
Diversities of gifts, but the same SPIRIT (Holy Spirit)
Differences of ministrations, but the same LORD (The Son)
Diversities of operations but the same GOD (The Father).
Ephesians 2:18.
Access unto – The FATHER
Through Him – The Son
By one Spirit – The HOLY SPIRIT.
Ephesians 4: 4-6
There is one LORD ) The Son
There is one Spirit – The Holy Spirit
There is one God – The Father.
11 Corinthians 13: 14
The grace of our LORD JESUS CHRIST – The Son
The love of God- The Father
The Communion of the Holy Spirit – The Spirit.
Revelation 4-5
There are three revealed in these chapters of Revelation.
The one in the throne, the Father God
The Lamb before the throne, the sacrificial Son
The seven lamps of fire before the throne, the Holy Spirit in His fulness.
The Lord Jesus, in John’s Gospel (chapters 15, 16, and 17) clearly brings to view the Divine Persons in the Godhead. The Son prays to the Father to send the Holy Spirit. He prays that the disciples may be “one, as we are one” and that they may be “one in us.” (John 17: 21-23) The “oneness” here is certainly NOT a numerical oneness, but a compound unity, the unity of more than one person.
God has declared that “in the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every Word be established” (Deut. 19: 15; Matth 18: 16-20). If God were not three in one (triune), He could never fulfill His own Word. It would mean that God would have given to man a law which He Himself cannot fulfull. The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are three witnesses making a perfect, full and complete witness.
(The Foundations of Christian Doctrine, pp. 57-60) emphasis added.
I’ll just make reference to John 14:28, where Jesus said, “…I am going to the Father; for My father is greater than I.”
Some misunderstand and misiinterpret what this really means. First, for the Father to be greater than Jesus, does mean better than Jesus the Son, this is in the context of functional insubordination, as in the Incarnation, when Jesus humbled Himself, and became man, He empitied Himself, of His equality with the Father, during His life on earth, Yet, He was given back the GLORY He had with the Father, before the World was!
Later on, I’ll give Scriptural proof, of the Omnipotence, Omniscience, Omnipresence, and the Immutability of each One, in the Eternal Godhead, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, which logically, could NOT be so, unless their are ALL co-equal, etc, etc.
BTW, Prime Minister Thompson, is GREATER, functionally, than the rest of us ordinary citizens, BUT, that does NOT make him better than us, does it!
Equality is not a major point.
However for two entities to be considered ‘equal’, it is not sufficient to prove that certain aspects or attributes of the two are equal.
ALL aspects would need to be equal; or at least the totality of attributes would need to be equal.
In any case, Jesus SPECIFICALLY stated that they were NOT equal since the father was GREATER than he is.
Of course this presents NO PROBLEM at all for a family situation (in fact you will note that the bible directs that the father is to be the HEAD of the family in the model for mankind that represents the image of God)
…..unfortunately, it requires some complex contortions of logic to explain how existing in three persons, distinguishable, but indivisible. is possible in the absence of equality…. oh dear!!
Mr Zoe
I already asked you to kindly explain – based on your concept of the existence of God as “three persons, distinguishable, but indivisible”.- what exactly happened when the word became man.
Exactly what took place in order to accomplish the ‘division of the indivisible’ so that Jesus could be separated from the father in order to accomplish John 3, 16?
Was God a ‘Bi-nity’ or ‘Duality’ for that period….?