No applications from Scripture?

[Esaias]

.

As far as the standard argument of there being many applications, that's nonsense. There is not a single verse of Scripture given to anyone anywhere that authorizes us to take a verse of the Bible out of its context to make it apply some other way than the way it was originally intended when it was inspired and written.



I am not sure I understand what is being claimed here. It seems contrary to the very purpose of Scripture to suggest that we are not to apply Scripture to our own situations?

Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea; And did all eat the same spiritual meat; And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ. But with many of them God was not well pleased: for they were overthrown in the wilderness. Now these things were our examples, to the intent we should not lust after evil things, as they also lusted. Neither be ye idolaters, as were some of them; as it is written, The people sat down to eat and drink, and rose up to play. Neither let us commit fornication, as some of them committed, and fell in one day three and twenty thousand. Neither let us tempt Christ, as some of them also tempted, and were destroyed of serpents. Neither murmur ye, as some of them also murmured, and were destroyed of the destroyer. Now all these things happened unto them for ensamples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come. Wherefore let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall.
(1 Corinthians 10:1-12)

Is this not a perfect example, where Paul took historical events from the Old Testament Sinai Wilderness experience, and found application to the believers of his own day in Corinth? And did he not say "all these things ... were written for our admonition..."? Did he not specifically say "all these things happened unto them for ensamples"? Does this not mean that the history of Israel was a Providentially provided real-life and real-time example of spiritual principles at work that are to be studied, pondered, and learned from by the church?

Please explain what you meant when you said it is nonsense that there are "many applications of scripture"???

[1ofthechosen]

I placed this on another thread for Votive but I'll copy and paste it here. Because what you have quoted is exactly what I was questioning.

"That would make all types and shadows only a private interpretation. That's if there is as I've heard individuals say "theres no spiritual principals and illustrations in the scripture." All I can say is they are all through it, and the Spirit bears witness. Matter of fact He's the one that shows them to me! No different then how He showed Paul that Isaiah 28:11-12 was a picture of the Holy Spirit baptism. Some people still today, (mainly those who don't believe in the Holy Spirit infilling) say that is about the heathen nations that brought them into captivity. But Paul goes and places the context on it In the middle of 1 Corinthians 14:20-22. Who showed Paul that? The same one that shows me principal's and illustrations, of types and shadows all throughout the word of God."

[1ofthechosen]

I am not sure I understand what is being claimed here. It seems contrary to the very purpose of Scripture to suggest that we are not to apply Scripture to our own situations?

Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea; And did all eat the same spiritual meat; And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ. But with many of them God was not well pleased: for they were overthrown in the wilderness. Now these things were our examples, to the intent we should not lust after evil things, as they also lusted. Neither be ye idolaters, as were some of them; as it is written, The people sat down to eat and drink, and rose up to play. Neither let us commit fornication, as some of them committed, and fell in one day three and twenty thousand. Neither let us tempt Christ, as some of them also tempted, and were destroyed of serpents. Neither murmur ye, as some of them also murmured, and were destroyed of the destroyer. Now all these things happened unto them for ensamples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come. Wherefore let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall.
(1 Corinthians 10:1-12)


Is this not a perfect example, where Paul took historical events from the Old Testament Sinai Wilderness experience, and found application to the believers of his own day in Corinth? And did he not say "all these things ... were written for our admonition..."? Did he not specifically say "all these things happened unto them for ensamples"? Does this not mean that the history of Israel was a Providentially provided real-life and real-time example of spiritual principles at work that are to be studied, pondered, and learned from by the church?

Please explain what you meant when you said it is nonsense that there are "many applications of scripture"???

It's funny I found this link at the bottom of the page, he posted on this very subject.

http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com/showthread.php?t=51854

[votivesoul]

Hi, Esaias

My quote was said in reference to the idea that a preacher could take a verse of Scripture, know it's context, then apply it in many ways, even to the point of taking it out of context to do so. So, for example, not removing ancient landmarks can mean not telling a saint from another assembly to disobey the standards that his pastor teaches, instead of it only referring to property lines and geographical landmarks so people could determine their location.

So, in that regard, there are not "many applications", wherever context must be destroyed in order for the application to apply.

Can and should we apply the Holy Scriptures to our lives? Yes, absolutely, but not to the point of ruining context. That being the case, as I see it, of course, to say that there is even one verse of Scripture that allows us to break context in order to generate multiple applications, is nonsense.

[votivesoul]

Hi, Esaias

My quote was said in reference to the idea that a preacher could take a verse of Scripture, know it's context, then apply it in many ways. So, for example, not removing ancient landmarks can mean not telling a saint from another assembly to disobey the standards that his pastor teaches, instead of it only referring to property lines and geographical landmarks so people could determine their location.

So, in that regard, there are not "many applications", wherever context must be destroyed in order for the application to apply.

Can and should we apply the Holy Scriptures to our lives? Yes, absolutely, but not to the point of ruining context. That being the case, as I see it, of course, to say that there is even one verse of Scripture that allows us to break context in order to generate multiple applications, is nonsense.

Paul wrote about Israel being baptized unto Moses in the cloud and the sea, just as you quoted. That event is typological to salvation, an experience that can be had through application of the Gospel as found in the Scriptures. In such light, no context is being broken in order to generate numerous applications that have nothing to do with the actual passage of Scripture (like removing ancient landmarks having to do with rebelling against 21st century Oneness Pentecostal standards).

[votivesoul]

To try and give an example:

A man reads about Samson in Judges, and sees that Samson desired a Philistine for a wife, and he reads that it was "of the LORD".

Next day, man meets an unsaved woman, is attracted to her and likes her, and remembering how God led Samson to desire a Philistine wife, decides to pursue her on those grounds, and they get married.

When challenged, he points to Judges and the story of Samson and says he merely applied those verses to himself and he's justified for his actions, explaining that if God can break His own word to make Samson marry a non-Israelite, and if God's no respecter of persons, then God can do it again so he married an unsaved woman and God is okay with it.

However...

Context was: Samson was called to be a judge and deliverer of Israel from the Philistines. God had a specific cause and made use of a one-time opportunity so that He could begin to use Samson in his calling to physically annihilate the sworn enemies of God and His people, the very ones the land itself had been vomiting out for decades and more.

Samson, in context, then lost that wife when the Philistines "ploughed with his heifer", eventually fell to ruin, and killed himself while killing a huge number of Philistines in the process.

So, the lesson here is: that man ain't Samson, and God didn't set him up with an unsaved woman as his wife, just because it happened one time in the Bible.

The man destroyed the entire context of the story in order to justify his application of the text.

Thus, there is no "one context, many applications" doctrine of the Bible. There is only "one context, and the application the Bible sets forth for God's people". To divorce the two is a horrendous mistake that leads to all sorts of false doctrine, false or bad praxis, and etc. It's how people over-spiritualize the Scriptures in an effort to make any verse of the Bible mean whatever they want. An example:

Israelites under the law were allowed to own gentile slaves. Stories in Joshua, Judges, and Samuel all show application of that allowance.

Someone reads those passages and over-spiritualizes them, ties them to "Israel of God" in Galatians, and begins to think he has the right to own slaves. One context, but many applications, right?

We are spiritually descended from and heirs of, Abraham, right? Galatians 3 says so. So, can we mate with our wife's hired help, or have a concubine on the side? David had 8 wives, and Jesus is prophetically called "David" in the Prophets and Psalms, and we are made one with Christ, so we are one with "David", so that means we can have up to 8 wives, right?

This is what I mean by making up as many applications as a person or preacher wants, just to sell a doctrine or justify a decision or action, regardless of actual context. I know an ordained UPCI minister and elder who pastors a church who used the story in 1 Samuel 16 about God telling Samuel to take a cow with him and tell the people of Bethlehem he came to perform a sacrifice when he was really there to anoint Saul's replacement, as a justification for fibbing the truth of a matter in order to keep someone else in the dark.

One context, many applications?

The examples can be endless.

Jeremiah 29:11 comes to mind. People love the verse, they quote it, sing about it, put it in art and write it on the front page of their Bible as some kind of special promise God has made to them, when it's not about them at all. The expected end is bringing Judah back into Judea after God exiles them into Babylon for their sins. That's the context, and therefore, the only application is toward those Judeans who went into Babylon. To try and turn that verse into some divine destiny adventure plan is bogus hermeneutics. If we're going to quote that verse and apply it to ourselves, then are we going to disobey God's Word, woefully sin against Him, backslide, get ourselves exiled from the Kingdom of God into some kind of over-spiritualized "Babylon" just so we can receive our "expected end"?

Sure, God does know the thoughts He thinks about us. That much is given. But that's just a fact on principle. There's no application there. But the rest of the verse isn't about us, isn't spoken to us, and has nothing to do with us, so we ought not try to apply to ourselves. It's that simple.

[votivesoul]

It's funny I found this link at the bottom of the page, he posted on this very subject.

http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com/showthread.php?t=51854

You missed it. In that thread, I asked regarding "universal applications" from the Word, meaning applications that can be made across the board. I then asked about if there were any contextual applications from the 1st century that have no bearing on today, meaning because the applications related to that era only, they cannot be used for today.

That is nothing like admitting there is only one context with many applications.

Plus, I was asking questions to gain insight and understanding, not making statements dealing out insight and understanding.

Also, I was asking about what it means for bishops to be blameless, which is pretty open ended, meaning many things may fall under such a category, meaning many things might apply, but note! I never decided to ruin the context, which is what it means to be a bishop, what God and the Holy Scriptures require, and how that's to be played out in the context of a New Testament church.

Context remains intact, so a discussion of possible applications remains in order.

Hence: You missed it.

[1ofthechosen]

You missed it. In that thread, I asked regarding "universal applications" from the Word, meaning applications that can be made across the board. I then asked about if there were any contextual applications from the 1st century that have no bearing on today, meaning because the applications related to that era only, they cannot be used for today.

That is nothing like admitting there is only one context with many applications.

Plus, I was asking questions to gain insight and understanding, not making statements dealing out insight and understanding.

Also, I was asking about what it means for bishops to be blameless, which is pretty open ended, meaning many things may fall under such a category, meaning many things might apply, but note! I never decided to ruin the context, which is what it means to be a bishop, what God and the Holy Scriptures require, and how that's to be played out in the context of a New Testament church.

Context remains intact, so a discussion of possible applications remains in order.

Hence: You missed it.

What I was saying is you were asking if there were universal applications to these scriptures. It was more the question I was pointing out, Nothing else!

I just wanted to bring that the forefront, because I know Brother Esaias explains things well. As well as you, Brother Votive. Its hard to engage you, because I don't use the right wording always.

So I know I would be able to get a understanding of what you were meaning, by what brother Esaias laid out.

[Tithesmeister]

To try and give an example:

Jeremiah 29:11 comes to mind. People love the verse, they quote it, sing about it, put it in art and write it on the front page of their Bible as some kind of special promise God has made to them, when it's not about them at all. The expected end is bringing Judah back into Judea after God exiles them into Babylon for their sins. That's the context, and therefore, the only application is toward those Judeans who went into Babylon. To try and turn that verse into some divine destiny adventure plan is bogus hermeneutics. If we're going to quote that verse and apply it to ourselves, then are we going to disobey God's Word, woefully sin against Him, backslide, get ourselves exiled from the Kingdom of God into some kind of over-spiritualized "Babylon" just so we can receive our "expected end"?

Sure, God does know the thoughts He thinks about us. That much is given. But that's just a fact on principle. There's no application there. But the rest of the verse isn't about us, isn't spoken to us, and has nothing to do with us, so we ought not try to apply to ourselves. It's that simple.

Votive Soul, this is a passage that is the "poster child" for taking scripture out of context. It is such a beautiful text and so very poetic that the temptation is just too much. I have often tried to explain to people the proper context of the "plans that God had for them" and how the "prophets" were saying that their captivity would only be for two or three years, when God told Jeremiah that their captivity would last seventy years. I usually get a response that they believe I am in heresy. I understand what you are saying and I agree with you on this.

However, before you clarified I was pretty much in agreement with Esaias. I thought you were saying what he thought you said. It just goes to show how easily we can have a misunderstanding when we are dealing only with the printed word, without the aid of voice inflections and body language. I am glad to see your clarification.

We should always strive to properly divide the word of truth, because there are so many ways to interpret poorly. It's often a matter of Exegesis as opposed to Eisgeses.

[Esaias]

Hi, Esaias

My quote was said in reference to the idea that a preacher could take a verse of Scripture, know it's context, then apply it in many ways, even to the point of taking it out of context to do so. So, for example, not removing ancient landmarks can mean not telling a saint from another assembly to disobey the standards that his pastor teaches, instead of it only referring to property lines and geographical landmarks so people could determine their location.

So, in that regard, there are not "many applications", wherever context must be destroyed in order for the application to apply.

Can and should we apply the Holy Scriptures to our lives? Yes, absolutely, but not to the point of ruining context. That being the case, as I see it, of course, to say that there is even one verse of Scripture that allows us to break context in order to generate multiple applications, is nonsense.

Thank you for the clarification. For a moment I thought I might have to go back and edit all my posts I ever made. :)

[Esaias]

Regarding Jeremiah 29:11. There is certainly an immediate, historical application. But does not this verse teach that even though God chastises His people, sometimes with sore punishments, nevertheless it's all part of His Plan for us, with a good final outcome? Is this not exactly what Heb 12:7-11 teaches?

And what about Jeremiah 29:13? Are we to say that verse was for them, at that time, only? That it is pure eisegesis to take that passage and preach repentance and faith to modern day sinners?

Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you guys are saying?

[1ofthechosen]

In such light, no context is being broken in order to generate numerous applications that have nothing to do with the actual passage of Scripture (like removing ancient landmarks having to do with rebelling against 21st century Oneness Pentecostal standards).



Ok you make it sound like that, as If it's some fly by night church. But is this not what Paul is doing in both 1 Corinthians 9:8-10 when he says " Say I these things as a man? or saith not the law the same also? [9] For it is written in the law of Moses, Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn. Doth God take care for oxen? [10] Or saith he it altogether for our sakes? For our sakes, no doubt, this is written: that he that ploweth should plow in hope; and that he that thresheth in hope should be partaker of his hope."

Or when he references it again in 1 Timothy 5:17-18 when he again says "Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in the word and doctrine. [18] For the scripture saith, Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn. And, The labourer is worthy of his reward."

The context of this had nothing to do with people. Although there was clearly a application there for that. Which is the same as with Deuteronomy 27:17 "Cursed be he that removeth his neighbour's landmark. And all the people shall say, Amen." Deuteronomy 19:14 "Thou shalt not remove thy neighbour's landmark, which they of old time have set in thine inheritance, which thou shalt inherit in the land that the Lord thy God giveth thee to possess it." Which Solomon clearly uses in Proverbs 22:28-29 brother is this only about a landmark, you answer it "Remove not the ancient landmark, which thy fathers have set. [29] Seest thou a man diligent in his business? he shall stand before kings; he shall not stand before mean men."

And for icing on the cake read Hosea 5. What does the Most High God say about Judah in verse 10? "The princes of Judah were like them that remove the bound: therefore I will pour out my wrath upon them like water." This one clearly shows to the same context with what Elder White said in his message. So not only was he using a application from scripture correctly, God Himself said almost the samething using the same context.

Paul lived this way as to not move ancient customs I can show it clearly by many texts from the book of Acts. He took vows with the Jews, he even circumcised Timothy, just for the Jews said he was trying to share the gospel with. He didn't even come against the pagan cultures i.e. the Romans, and the Greeks. The only way he did is if it was against God, and immoral. Acts 25:7-8 "And when he was come, the Jews which came down from Jerusalem stood round about, and laid many and grievous complaints against Paul, which they could not prove. [8] While he answered for himself, Neither against the law of the Jews, neither against the temple, nor yet against Cæsar, have I offended any thing at all."

There has been customs at all times, and the Apostolic church is not the only one even today with customs. While they maybe the only ones that enforce it, that doesn't change the fact it's not a foreign practice. As if the Apostolic church in the 21st century invented something brand new.

Do you at least see what I'm saying?

[houston]

No.

[1ofthechosen]

No.

What you mean no? Lol

[votivesoul]

What I was saying is you were asking if there were universal applications to these scriptures. It was more the question I was pointing out, Nothing else!

I just wanted to bring that the forefront, because I know Brother Esaias explains things well. As well as you, Brother Votive. Its hard to engage you, because I don't use the right wording always.

So I know I would be able to get a understanding of what you were meaning, by what brother Esaias laid out.

It's probably just as much me as you, or anyone. I try to be as specific and concise as I can be, and only intentionally write with exactitude what I mean to say. I have a low tolerance for ambiguity. I try never to infer anything, and am almost always never coy when I post. So, I likewise find myself reading what others write in the same light, when that's not always the case.

[votivesoul]

Regarding Jeremiah 29:11. There is certainly an immediate, historical application. But does not this verse teach that even though God chastises His people, sometimes with sore punishments, nevertheless it's all part of His Plan for us, with a good final outcome? Is this not exactly what Heb 12:7-11 teaches?

And what about Jeremiah 29:13? Are we to say that verse was for them, at that time, only? That it is pure eisegesis to take that passage and preach repentance and faith to modern day sinners?

Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you guys are saying?

I think it would be a mistake to jump to that verse then isolate it in order to teach a modern day sinner about repentance and faith.

The use of the "you" in verse 13 is the same group of people who make up the "you" of verse 10, that is, already covenanted people of God, who ought to have already been saved, being sent into Babylon for their sins.

Additionally, since those God said He would bring back to Judea would be the remnant of those He didn't personally have killed by the sword, by fire, plague, or famine, which is also that "you" group in Jeremiah 29, I think it's very hard to make use of verse 13 for the purposes you describe above.

As far as Hebrews 12 goes, that verse is a universal principle that always applies in every situation for every believer: God always chastises those He loves. It is just as much true of the "you" that the text addresses, as it is of us.

The key is to always first establish the context, then determine if the context can or cannot allow for the application we want to make. If the answer is yes, the application can be made while the context isn't diminished or broken, then teach or share away.

I realize we may not all of us agree where context will or won't be diminished or broken, which is fine, and it's why we engage and debate. But let's always agree to strive to place context before application, and not the other way around.

[Esaias]

I think it would be a mistake to jump to that verse then isolate it in order to teach a modern day sinner about repentance and faith.

The use of the "you" in verse 13 is the same group of people who make up the "you" of verse 10, that is, already covenanted people of God, who ought to have already been saved, being sent into Babylon for their sins.

Additionally, since those God said He would bring back to Judea would be the remnant of those He didn't personally have killed by the sword, by fire, plague, or famine, which is also that "you" group in Jeremiah 29, I think it's very hard to make use of verse 13 for the purposes you describe above.

As far as Hebrews 12 goes, that verse is a universal principle that always applies in every situation for every believer: God always chastises those He loves. It is just as much true of the "you" that the text addresses, as it is of us.

The key is to always first establish the context, then determine if the context can or cannot allow for the application we want to make. If the answer is yes, the application can be made while the context isn't diminished or broken, then teach or share away.

I realize we may not all of us agree where context will or won't be diminished or broken, which is fine, and it's why we engage and debate. But let's always agree to strive to place context before application, and not the other way around.

So, you are saying we should not tell people "God says if you seek Him with your whole heart He will be found"? Because that was a promise for a specific people at a specific time?

That approach would imply that Acts 2:38 was likewise only for those people, at that time, would it not?

[votivesoul]

Ok you make it sound like that, as If it's some fly by night church. But is this not what Paul is doing in both 1 Corinthians 9:8-10 when he says " Say I these things as a man? or saith not the law the same also? [9] For it is written in the law of Moses, Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn. Doth God take care for oxen? [10] Or saith he it altogether for our sakes? For our sakes, no doubt, this is written: that he that ploweth should plow in hope; and that he that thresheth in hope should be partaker of his hope."

Or when he references it again in 1 Timothy 5:17-18 when he again says "Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in the word and doctrine. [18] For the scripture saith, Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn. And, The labourer is worthy of his reward."

The context of this had nothing to do with people. Although there was clearly a application there for that. Which is the same as with Deuteronomy 27:17 "Cursed be he that removeth his neighbour's landmark. And all the people shall say, Amen." Deuteronomy 19:14 "Thou shalt not remove thy neighbour's landmark, which they of old time have set in thine inheritance, which thou shalt inherit in the land that the Lord thy God giveth thee to possess it." Which Solomon clearly uses in Proverbs 22:28-29 brother is this only about a landmark, you answer it "Remove not the ancient landmark, which thy fathers have set. [29] Seest thou a man diligent in his business? he shall stand before kings; he shall not stand before mean men."

And for icing on the cake read Hosea 5. What does the Most High God say about Judah in verse 10? "The princes of Judah were like them that remove the bound: therefore I will pour out my wrath upon them like water." This one clearly shows to the same context with what Elder White said in his message. So not only was he using a application from scripture correctly, God Himself said almost the samething using the same context.

Paul lived this way as to not move ancient customs I can show it clearly by many texts from the book of Acts. He took vows with the Jews, he even circumcised Timothy, just for the Jews said he was trying to share the gospel with. He didn't even come against the pagan cultures i.e. the Romans, and the Greeks. The only way he did is if it was against God, and immoral. Acts 25:7-8 "And when he was come, the Jews which came down from Jerusalem stood round about, and laid many and grievous complaints against Paul, which they could not prove. [8] While he answered for himself, Neither against the law of the Jews, neither against the temple, nor yet against Cæsar, have I offended any thing at all."

There has been customs at all times, and the Apostolic church is not the only one even today with customs. While they maybe the only ones that enforce it, that doesn't change the fact it's not a foreign practice. As if the Apostolic church in the 21st century invented something brand new.

Do you at least see what I'm saying?

I see it, but see this:

Paul was something neither your or me or anyone else ever was or will be again. His writings are Sacred Scripture, currently forever settled in heaven. They are binding on the Church of the Living God.

Therefore, while under that inspiration, for him to quote from Deuteronomy and make use of the text the way he did was not out of line.

Now, if another bonafide Apostle to the Gentiles who received direct revelation of the Gospel without anyone teaching it to him, who is inspired by the Holy Spirit to pen infallible Scripture, shows up some day, then we can talk.

Jesus took the divorce permission from the Torah and said that it was written by Moses, and was not inspired by God. Anyone else in the world get to do that?

So, let's not be too quick to say that because Paul or one of the other writers of Holy Scripture did it, we get to, too. Because that is also destroying context, that is, the context of who they were and why they were chosen by God to transcribe His Word.

[votivesoul]

So, you are saying we should not tell people "God says if you seek Him with your whole heart He will be found"? Because that was a promise for a specific people at a specific time?

That approach would imply that Acts 2:38 was likewise only for those people, at that time, would it not?

God can be found when He is sought, but not simply because of Jeremiah 29:13. It's given elsewhere in the Holy Scriptures as a universal truism. If Jeremiah 29:13 was the only place it was written, then it would not be a universal truism for all people for all time.

Conversely, there are verses which indicate God hides Himself behind thick darkness, and cannot be found (e.g. Isaiah 45:15, 1 Kings 8:12, Psalm 97:2). What if we took those verses and taught them the same way, that is, universally true? We'd convince people there's no hope of ever finding God, and we know that's not true. We realize then that such verses have to be understood in light of their context. The same is true then, of Jeremiah 29:13.

So, when it comes to Acts 2:38, there is nothing contextually speaking to indicate that it cannot be applied outside of 1st century Jerusalem, Day of Pentecost. It is the universal response to the Gospel.

But, take a different scenario from the Book of Acts just a chapter later, where Simon Peter says "Silver and gold have I none..."

If that was a universal truism, with universal application, then everyone of us every day can find people who cannot walk physically and yank them to their feet and see them get healed.

But that's not the case, is it? If it was the case, what are we wasting time here at AFF yammering when there are disabled people everywhere that would go walking and leaping and praising God when they were healed at our hand in the name of Jesus?

So, not many applications to that specific verse, because the context doesn't allow for it. Further, not any other application other than the one that's already present in the text based on the context even exists. And we certainly ought not to break the context in order to shoehorn some kind of application to fit.

Some new agers who have no concept of the supernatural insist that the real miracle of the loaves and fish wasn't that Jesus generated these things out of thin air in a consistent stream until all were fed, it was that the example of the little boy giving up his lunch inspired the multitude to share with each other the food they were all "actually", secretly carrying with them, and so, that's how everyone was fed.

That sounds nice and neat, if you're a "Historical Jesus" seminarinarian, but the context of the story doesn't allow for that interpretation, therefore such an interpretation is never going to lead to the correct application. Such an interpretation breaks the context, which then leads to a "social gospel" type application that is false, that is, if we just all followed the little boy's example, we'd all share our food with those who don't have enough, and the whole world would be fed and no one would ever go hungry.

Again, that sounds nice and neat, but that's not the right application of that story, because the context doesn't allow for such an interpretation.

But that kind of thing is done all the time, by believers of every type, from every group. I am against it, and so, I try my absolute best to not be a hypocrite and allow for it in my own understanding or explanations. It unnecessarily obfuscates the meaning of any given text, and makes it hard if not impossible to correctly exegete and teach the Scriptures. It's a hindrance to the Gospel and the expansion of the Kingdom of God.

[Esaias]

Jesus took the divorce permission from the Torah and said that it was written by Moses, and was not inspired by God.

No, He did not say that.

[Esaias]

God can be found when He is sought, but not simply because of Jeremiah 29:13. It's given elsewhere in the Holy Scriptures as a universal truism. If Jeremiah 29:13 was the only place it was written, then it would not be a universal truism for all people for all time.

Conversely, there are verses which indicate God hides Himself behind thick darkness, and cannot be found (e.g. Isaiah 45:15, 1 Kings 8:12, Psalm 97:2). What if we took those verses and taught them the same way, that is, universally true? We'd convince people there's no hope of ever finding God, and we know that's not true. We realize then that such verses have to be understood in light of their context. The same is true then, of Jeremiah 29:13.

So, in other words, verses must be understood not only in their immediate contexts, but also in the context of the entire Bible. Correct?

Which means that applications of Scripture to current situations can and must be made, BUT they must be made in light of the entirety of Scripture, and thus not "taken out of context". Amen?

So, when it comes to Acts 2:38, there is nothing contextually speaking to indicate that it cannot be applied outside of 1st century Jerusalem, Day of Pentecost. It is the universal response to the Gospel.

Actually, the immediate context of the verse is those people, in that time. Just like in the Jeremiah passages. But we have additional Scripture which indicates the passage has additional application to people outside that immediate historical context. Again, just like the Jeremiah passages.



Again, that sounds nice and neat, but that's not the right application of that story, because the context doesn't allow for such an interpretation.

But that kind of thing is done all the time, by believers of every type, from every group. I am against it, and so, I try my absolute best to not be a hypocrite and allow for it in my own understanding or explanations. It unnecessarily obfuscates the meaning of any given text, and makes it hard if not impossible to correctly exegete and teach the Scriptures. It's a hindrance to the Gospel and the expansion of the Kingdom of God.

The example is not an application of the text, but a twisting of the text and a denial of the plain statements of the text, so of course that "application" will be in error.

I understand what you are attempting to prevent (misapplication of Scripture) but I honestly think your statement(s) to the effect that a passage has one historical application only (unless there is some sort of "universal principle" in it) was too broad. And speaking of finding a universal principle in a passage, exactly how does that work? As far as I can see, we can look at a passage to see what it reveals about God's character, and we can examine the rest of Scripture to see if we see that character trait repeated, and can then conclude that the original passage reveals a universal principle.

Can you state your understanding of this subject as a "hermeneutical rule" that Bible students can follow?

[votivesoul]

No, He did not say that.

Word for word, no. Conceptually yes, I believe so. Jesus made it plain that God's sole desire for marriage is based on the Genesis account of Adam and Eve, and that what God joins together, let no man put asunder.

That is mutually exclusive to "Moses, because of the hardness of your heart" permitted the get.

Jesus said it was Moses who gave Israel that right. He didn't say God did. That's why random divorce, or even divorces that were permitted under Moses became unattainable under Christ. It used to be if a woman merely displeased her husband, he could put her away. Jesus said not any more. God hates putting away right? So why so many permits in the Torah for it, unless, just as Jesus said, the right to do it came from Moses on account of the people's obstinacy toward God's desired plan for marriage given in Genesis?

Clearly, however, you seem to have another take? Care to share? Here or a new thread is fine.

[votivesoul]

So, in other words, verses must be understood not only in their immediate contexts, but also in the context of the entire Bible. Correct?

Which means that applications of Scripture to current situations can and must be made, BUT they must be made in light of the entirety of Scripture, and thus not "taken out of context". Amen?

Just so. Exactly right.

Actually, the immediate context of the verse is those people, in that time. Just like in the Jeremiah passages. But we have additional Scripture which indicates the passage has additional application to people outside that immediate historical context. Again, just like the Jeremiah passages.

Yes, that is the immediate context (those people) but that immediate context contains nothing in it that would limit it historically to only those people. The verses in Jeremiah, however, have that limitation, as already explained.

The example is not an application of the text, but a twisting of the text and a denial of the plain statements of the text, so of course that "application" will be in error.

Yes, the twisting of the text occurs, because the context is misconstrued (diminished, broken). The text indicates the people were without food. To say otherwise is the twisting. However, the historical context of the Gospels shows us a Jesus Who had supernatural power to perform the miraculous. To strip the passage of the miraculous in order to get a merely mundane application is not simply twisting the verse, it's also tossing the context of the person and power of the Son of David described in the text.

I understand what you are attempting to prevent (misapplication of Scripture) but I honestly think your statement(s) to the effect that a passage has one historical application only (unless there is some sort of "universal principle" in it) was too broad. And speaking of finding a universal principle in a passage, exactly how does that work? As far as I can see, we can look at a passage to see what it reveals about God's character, and we can examine the rest of Scripture to see if we see that character trait repeated, and can then conclude that the original passage reveals a universal principle.

Can you state your understanding of this subject as a "hermeneutical rule" that Bible students can follow?

Another time, perhaps. I am not sure how codified and articulated it is in it's current form, that is, how I see it in my own head. It's more a working paradigm or walking thesis of which I believe the theory is absolutely correct and the philosophy sound. But it would be a noble pursuit to write it on tablets so God's people can run...