Scripture interpretation
 

I invite the Elders to please comment on or correct the following

One problem with Scripture interpretation is the framework through which you view the relationship between God and mankind.

Covenant Approach:
(Biblical approach)

- Focuses on specific covenants that God established with mankind, such as:
- Adamic (creation)
- Noahic (after the flood)
- Abrahamic (with Abraham and his descendants)
- Mosaic (the Law given at Sinai)
- Davidic (God's promise to David)
- New Covenant (established through Jesus Christ)
- Emphasizes the progressive revelation of God's redemptive plan through these covenants.
- Sees God's dealings with mankind as both conditional and unconditional, with an emphasis on His sovereign grace and faithfulness.
- Highlights the unity and continuity of God's plan across different covenants.

Dispensationalism
(Fairly recent development)

- Views God's relationship with mankind as a series of dispensations or periods, each with its own unique rules and expectations.
- Emphasizes a literal, futuristic interpretation of biblical prophecy.
- Typically divides history into 7-8 dispensations, such as innocence, conscience, human government, promise, law, grace, and kingdom.
- Sees God's dealings with mankind as primarily conditional, based on human response to divine revelation.

Key differences:

- The covenant approach focuses on specific covenants, Dispensationalism focuses on periods of time.
- The covenant approach highlights continuity and progression
Dispensationalism tends to emphasize discontinuity between different periods.
- The covenant approach emphasizes God's sovereignty and grace, Dispensationalism often stresses human responsibility.

Re: Scripture interpretation
 

Dispensationalism, a relatively recent development in Bible interpretation, emerged in the 1800s through the teachings of John Nelson Darby and the Plymouth Brethren movement. Popularized in the United States through the Scofield Reference Bible (1909) and later amplified by evangelical leaders like Hal Lindsey and Tim LaHaye, dispensationalism has become a dominant force in evangelical circles. However, its framework for understanding God's relationship with mankind is problematic.

In contrast to dispensationalism, the covenant approach offers a more biblical and cohesive framework for understanding Scripture. By emphasizing specific covenants, such as the Adamic (Genesis 2:15-17), Abrahamic (Genesis 12:1-3, 15:1-21, 17:1-27), Mosaic (Exodus 19:1-24:8), Davidic (2 Samuel 7:1-29, 1 Chronicles 17:1-27), and New Covenant (Jeremiah 31:31-34, Hebrews 8:6-13), we see a progressive revelation of God's redemptive plan (Ephesians 2:11-22, 3:1-21).

Dispensationalism, on the other hand, fragments history into distinct dispensations, creating a disjointed narrative that prioritizes human response over God's faithfulness. By focusing on covenants, we acknowledge both conditional and unconditional aspects of God's dealings with mankind (Genesis 12:1-3, Jeremiah 31:31-34), whereas dispensationalism tends to emphasize human responsibility, potentially leading to a works-based understanding of salvation (Ephesians 2:8-10, Titus 3:4-7).

Conclusion:
Scripture affirms the unity and continuity of God's plan across different covenants (Ephesians 1:3-14, Colossians 1:15-23), emphasizing God's sovereignty and grace (Romans 8:28-39, Ephesians 1:3-14). In contrast, dispensationalism introduces unnecessary divisions and a conditional focus that diminishes God's sovereign grace. By returning to a covenantal understanding of Scripture, we can better appreciate the richness and coherence of God's redemptive plan.

Re: Scripture interpretation
 

Does the Bible provide its own internal framework for organising and presenting its data?

All these post-Biblical man-developed systems leave something to be desired, in my opinion.

Re: Scripture interpretation
 

Bro E

I'm thinking there are more guidelines (methods, rules) for scripture interpretation. Would you please discuss them.

I want to make sure my doctrine is sound when I witness to people and when I speak to the ladies group at my church.

Re: Scripture interpretation
 

I think what you are looking for is called Covenant Theology.

Covenant Theology is a form of Biblical Theology. Biblical Theology always sounds right, until a lack of deep understanding of it takes it far its original intention and destroys the unity of Scripture which the Systematic Theology tries to champion. People that champion Covenant Theology also come up with some random stuff.

BTW, David Bernard criticizes both.

Anyway, may God gives you wisdom and understanding to keep things balance.

Re: Scripture interpretation
 

Thank you

Re: Scripture interpretation
 

This will prove to be a very interesting discussion I look forward to reading.

To bring clarity, it would help to clearly define, with detail, the key words: covenant, dispensation, etc. Often words mean different things to different people. For example, the story of Noah shows the first use of the word covenant. In it God tells Noah what to do and says this is my covenant with you. This doesn't convey the idea of an agreeing but of a commanding and Noah's compliance. But reading between the lines may show more. Usually covenants are thought, in my mind, to be agreements between 2 or more parties, which require both parties outlining their stance and the others agreeing to each others terms. Does the first use of the word covenant convey this? I think not. And so a detailed definition should be established of the words used, done so all are talking about the same concepts.

Re: Scripture interpretation
 

Hi Don

Actually,

Here is a more organic system of bible interpretation:

1. Narrative and Historical Progression: The Bible unfolds as a story, with each section building upon the previous one. Understanding the chronological and geographical context is essential.

2. Genre and Literary Style: Recognize the different genres, such as history, poetry, prophecy, letters, and apocalyptic literature, each with its unique characteristics and interpretation guidelines.

3. Context: Consider the immediate context, including the passage's purpose, audience, and authorial intent.

4. Types and Shadows: Identify patterns and foreshadowing in the Old Testament that find fulfillment in the New Testament.

5. Progressive Revelation: Recognize how God's revelation unfolds progressively, with later sections building upon earlier ones.

6. Themes: Identify recurring themes and motifs throughout the Bible, demonstrating its cohesive message.

7. Note how later biblical authors interpret and apply earlier texts, providing insight into the intended meaning.

Basically, let the bible interpret the bible.

Re: Scripture interpretation
 

Re: Scripture interpretation
 

Don,

Are you a dispensationalist and if so I'm interested in how you define it?

You are correct, definitions are important.

Re: Scripture interpretation
 

If I believe that the putting away of the Old Testament, to be replaced with the New Testament, makes someone a dispensationalist, then I'm a dispensationalist.

But I had asked first and don't think it proper to butt in. Did you not answer for a reason?

Please define covenant and dispensationalism. This is your thread and should have your definition.

Re: Scripture interpretation
 

In the Bible, a covenant is a solemn agreement or binding relationship between God and his people. It involves mutual commitments, obligations, and promises, often sealed with signs, symbols, or sacrifices.

Key elements that define a covenant in the Bible include:

*Parties involved: God and his people.
*Promises and obligations: Specific commitments and responsibilities for each party (God's promise to bless Abraham, Abraham's promise to obey God).
*Signs and symbols: Tangible representations of the covenant ( the rainbow, circumcision, the Passover lamb).
*Purpose and blessings: Covenants often involve promises of blessings, protection, or land, and serve as a means of establishing or deepening relationships with God.

Examples of covenants in the Bible include:

- The Edenic Covenant (Genesis 2:15-17)
- The Abrahamic Covenant (Genesis 12:1-3, Genesis15:1-21)
- The Mosaic Covenant (Exodus 19-24)
- The Davidic Covenant (2 Samuel 7:1-17)
- The New Covenant (Jeremiah 31:31-34, Luke 22:20)

These covenants shape the narrative of the Bible and reveal God's character, love, and plans for his people.

Re: Scripture interpretation
 

The old covenant has not been done away with.

The Old testament/covenant is with the house of Israel and Judah. It's the 10 commandments

The New testament/covenant is also with the house of Israel and Judah. It's the 10 commandments.

The old covenant is the ten commandments:

Deuteronomy 4:13 KJV
13 And he declared unto you his covenant, which he commanded you to perform, even ten commandments; and he wrote them upon two tables of stone.

The new covenant is also the ten commandments:

Hebrews 8:10 KJV
10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:

Re: Scripture interpretation
 

The church is Israel.

Re: Scripture interpretation
 

:highfive

Re: Scripture interpretation
 

I understand what you’re saying. And I agree that a definition should be established, for dispensationalism in particular. I was once accused of being a dispensationalist on here (shocking I know, but true). I didn’t understand enough about what the other party believed dispensationalism entailed to even be properly offended. (I still don’t, by the way). I definitely had a different idea of dispensations than they did. My understanding was that the old covenant and the new covenant were indeed two different, and distinct dispensations. I still believe that.

However, I am now aware that dispensationalism is a whole ‘nother thing. And it is easier to say the word than it is to agree on a definition. So, it seems that one person winds up speaking Chinese, while another is speaking Swahili.

Re: Scripture interpretation
 

In Romans 11:16-24, Paul uses the metaphor of an olive tree to describe God's relationship with Israel and the inclusion of Gentiles in God's plan. Here's a breakdown:

- The olive tree represents Israel, the people of God (v. 16).
- The natural branches represent the Jewish people, who were broken off due to unbelief (v. 17-20).
- The wild olive shoots represent the Gentiles, who were grafted into the tree through faith in Jesus Christ (v. 17, 23-24).
- The root of the olive tree represents the promises and heritage of Israel, which the Gentiles are now part of (v. 17-18).

By being grafted into the olive tree, Gentiles are joined to the people of God, becoming part of the Israel of God (Galatians 6:16). This doesn't replace Israel but expands it to include those who believe in Jesus, the Messiah.

Paul emphasizes that the Gentiles are not a new or separate tree but are grafted into the existing tree, connecting them to the rich heritage and promises of Israel. This metaphor shows that the Church is not a new entity but an extension of God's original plan, with Jesus as the connection point.

In Romans 9:24-26, Paul also writes about the inclusion of Gentiles in God's plan, quoting Hosea 2:23 and 1:10, saying, "They will be called 'my people' who were not my people, and she who was not beloved will be called 'beloved'." This echoes the idea that Gentiles are now part of the people of God, the Israel of God.

Re: Scripture interpretation
 

A dispensationalist is a Christian who believes in a literal interpretation of Scripture and a distinction between Israel and the Church. They argue that God has two separate covenants

1. Israel: God's earthly people, with promises and prophecies yet to be fulfilled (e.g., kingdom restoration, land inheritance).
2. The Church: God's spiritual people, comprising believers from all nations, grafted into the olive tree (Romans 11).

Dispensationalists believe that the Church is not spiritual Israel or the Israel of God (Galatians 6:16), but rather a distinct entity. They emphasize that the Church did not replace Israel but is a separate entity with its own unique purpose and destiny.

In contrast, non-dispensationalists see the Church as the spiritual continuation or fulfillment of Israel, with the promises and covenants extending to the Church.

Key dispensationalist beliefs:

- Distinction between Israel and the Church
- Literal interpretation of Scripture
- Separate plans and purposes for Israel and the Church
- No equivalence of Israel with the Church

Some notable dispensationalists include John Nelson Darby, Charles Ryrie, and Hal Lindsey.

Re: Scripture interpretation
 

What if?

What if both are correct (to some extent) and both are partially in error?

I definitely agree with some points of dispensationalism (as you have defined it) AAAAND I certainly agree with some aspects of covenantism (once again, per your definition).

We often think that we all have to be either all this or all that. Sometimes the correct answer is in the middle (in my humble opinion).

Also I think your definition of the two covenants may be in error, but that’s a different subject for another post, or even another thread.

Re: Scripture interpretation
 

Bro TM please explain how the definition of the two covenants may be in error.

Re: Scripture interpretation
 

Yes ma’am. I will try. But I worry that it will torpedo your thread and I’m not sure how much time I can devote for defending my position. Please be patient.

Re: Scripture interpretation
 

Okay. We can address it in a separate thread.

Re: Scripture interpretation
 

Jeremiah said the New Covenant would be with the house of Israel, and the house of Judah:

Jeremiah 31:31-34 KJV
31 Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:
32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the Lord:
33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the Lord, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.
34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the Lord: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.

Hebrews also says the the new covenant is with the house of Israel and the house of Judah.

Hebrews 8:8-11 KJV
8 For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:
9 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.
10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:
11 And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.


The Old Covenant was the law written on tablets of stone, the 10 commandments:

Exodus 34:27-28 KJV
27 And the Lord said unto Moses, Write thou these words: for after the tenor of these words I have made a covenant with thee and with Israel.
28 And he was there with the Lord forty days and forty nights; he did neither eat bread, nor drink water. And he wrote upon the tables the words of the covenant, the ten commandments.

The New Covenant is the law written on fleshly tablets of the heart. Hebrews 8:8-11

The Old Covenant had animal sacrifices.

The New Covenant has the blood of Messiah for remission of sins. The church is grafted in and is the Israel of God.

Both covenants contain the law of commandments.

Re: Scripture interpretation
 

The New Covenant, established through Jesus Christ, is a fulfillment of the Old Covenant. The core elements remain the same, but the medium and sacrifice change.

In the Old Covenant, the blood of bulls and goats was used to atone for sins (Hebrews 9:12-14, Leviticus 17:11). However, this was only a temporary and imperfect solution, as it did not completely remove sin (Hebrews 10:1-4).

In the New Covenant, the blood of Messiah (Jesus Christ) replaces the blood of animals. Jesus' sacrifice is the perfect and eternal atonement for sins, accomplishing what the Old Covenant could not (Hebrews 9:23-28, Hebrews 10:12-14).

The New Covenant is built on the same promises and commandments as the Old Covenant but is now ratified through Jesus' blood, making it a better covenant (Hebrews 7:22, Hebrews 8:6-13). The old is fulfilled in the new, and the shadows give way to the reality of Christ's sacrifice.

Key points:

- Same covenant, different sacrifice
- Blood of Messiah replaces blood of animals
- Fulfillment of Old Covenant promises
- Transformation from temporary to eternal atonement
- Better covenant established through Jesus Christ

This understanding is central to Hebrews 8-10, where the author explores the relationship between the Old and New Covenants, highlighting the superiority of Jesus' sacrifice and the New Covenant it establishes.

Re: Scripture interpretation
 

Here are some New Testament scriptures that affirm the importance of keeping God's commandments as a demonstration of loving Him:

1. John 14:15 - "If you love me, you will keep my commandments."
2. John 14:21 - "Whoever has my commandments and keeps them, he it is who loves me."
3. John 15:10 - "If you keep my commandments, you will abide in my love."
4. 1 John 2:3-6 - "And by this we know that we have come to know him, if we keep his commandments... Whoever says 'I know him' but does not keep his commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in him."
5. 1 John 5:2-3 - "By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and keep his commandments. For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments."
6. Revelation 12:17 - "And the dragon was angry with the woman, and went to make war with the rest of her offspring, who keep the commandments of God and hold to the testimony of Jesus."
7. Revelation 14:12 - "Here is a call for the endurance of the saints, those who keep the commandments of God and their faith in Jesus."

These scriptures emphasize that loving God is not just a feeling or intellectual assent but is demonstrated through obedience to His commandments. The new covenant is the law/commandments written on the heart

Re: Scripture interpretation
 

What does that even mean?

Re: Scripture interpretation
 

Whaaat?

Re: Scripture interpretation
 

There are TWO Olive Trees - one, domesticated, and one that is wild. BOTH are Israelite -

Jeremiah 11:16-17 KJV
The LORD called thy name, A green olive tree, fair, and of goodly fruit: with the noise of a great tumult he hath kindled fire upon it, and the branches of it are broken. [17] For the LORD of hosts, that planted thee, hath pronounced evil against thee, for the evil of the house of Israel and of the house of Judah, which they have done against themselves to provoke me to anger in offering incense unto Baal.

The House of Israel was divorced by God and deported from their land, and declared to be heathens, "Not-My-People" (Hosea 1). The House of Judah was not so fully cut off from God:

Hosea 4:15 KJV
Though thou, Israel, play the harlot, yet let not Judah offend; and come not ye unto Gilgal, neither go ye up to Beth–aven, nor swear, The LORD liveth.

Because Judah was not declared to be "Not-My-People", they still retained title to the designation "Israel", whereas the House of Israel lost it and became heathens ("gentiles").

But, the two Houses would be re-joined together under Christ:

Hosea 1:8-11 KJV
Now when she had weaned Lo–ruhamah, she conceived, and bare a son. [9] Then said God, Call his name Lo–ammi: for ye are not my people, and I will not be your God. [10] Yet the number of the children of Israel shall be as the sand of the sea, which cannot be measured nor numbered; and it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people, there it shall be said unto them, Ye are the sons of the living God. [11] Then shall the children of Judah and the children of Israel be gathered together, and appoint themselves one head, and they shall come up out of the land: for great shall be the day of Jezreel.

So the domesticated olive tree is the House of Judah, and the wild olive tree is the House of Israel (otherwise known as "gentiles" and "Greeks" in the NT), who were being joined together in one body under Messiah:

Romans 9:22-26 KJV
What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: [23] And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory, [24] Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles? [25] As he saith also in Osee, I will call them my people, which were not my people; and her beloved, which was not beloved. [26] And it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people; there shall they be called the children of the living God.

Paul even references the specific prophecy in Hosea, to show that Judeans and Gentiles being united as one body in Christ is the fulfillment of the prophecy concerning the House of Judah and the divorced House of Israel being reunited under one Head.

The wild, heathenized, scattered, dispersed, "gentilized" House of Israel was being grafted back into the legal Israel of God (God's Covenanted nation) via Christ and the new covenant, which as we have seen already was made with the House of Israel and the House of Judah. And this brings us to a correct understanding and identification of the Apocalyptic Two Witnesses:

Revelation 11:3-4 KJV
And I will give power unto my two witnesses, and they shall prophesy a thousand two hundred and threescore days, clothed in sackcloth. [4] These are the two olive trees, and the two candlesticks standing before the God of the earth.

The candlestick was already interpreted in Revelation chapters 1 and 2 by Christ Himself as representing the Church, ie the new covenant people of God. The olive trees are identified in Scripture as representing "Jew and Gentile" being united as one in Christ, which as we saw in Paul's reference to Hosea is the House of Judah and the House of Israel entering the new covenant. So the Two Witnesses are therefore the two-fold people of God (House of Israel, and House of Judah) in new covenant relationship with Christ.

Isaiah 43:1-12 KJV
But now thus saith the LORD that created thee, O Jacob, and he that formed thee, O Israel, Fear not: for I have redeemed thee, I have called thee by thy name; thou art mine. [2] When thou passest through the waters, I will be with thee; and through the rivers, they shall not overflow thee: when thou walkest through the fire, thou shalt not be burned; neither shall the flame kindle upon thee. [3] For I am the LORD thy God, the Holy One of Israel, thy Saviour: I gave Egypt for thy ransom, Ethiopia and Seba for thee. [4] Since thou wast precious in my sight, thou hast been honourable, and I have loved thee: therefore will I give men for thee, and people for thy life. [5] Fear not: for I am with thee: I will bring thy seed from the east, and gather thee from the west; [6] I will say to the north, Give up; and to the south, Keep not back: bring my sons from far, and my daughters from the ends of the earth; [7] Even every one that is called by my name: for I have created him for my glory, I have formed him; yea, I have made him. [8] Bring forth the blind people that have eyes, and the deaf that have ears. [9] Let all the nations be gathered together, and let the people be assembled: who among them can declare this, and shew us former things? let them bring forth their witnesses, that they may be justified: or let them hear, and say, It is truth. [10] Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me. [11] I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour. [12] I have declared, and have saved, and I have shewed, when there was no strange god among you: therefore ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, that I am God.

Re: Scripture interpretation
 

Awesome Elder Esaias! Thank you!

Re: Scripture interpretation
 

If we trace the various covenants God makes in Scripture, we see that they are essentially made with one family line, from Adam to Noah to Abraham to Jacob. This is a point that it seems many modern Christian theologies seem to overlook or fail to mention. As if God makes these random Covenants with random people at random times, without really showing the continuity between each successive covenant.

The first mention of "covenant" is the covenant made with Noah.
The next mention of "covenant" is the covenant with Abraham.
It is passed to Isaac, and then to Jacob.
From there it is made with the descendants of Jacob during the Exodus.
Several other covenants are mentioned as being parts of the covenant with Israel (such as the covenant with Aaron for the priesthood, keeping the sabbath as a covenant, etc).
Joshua then makes a covenant with the people to keep the covenant of the LORD (so this is technically a renewing of the covenant, not so much a new or replacement covenant).
David declares the promises God made to him concerning his dynasty to be a covenant.
High priest Jehoiada makes a covenant between him, the people, the king, and the LORD, that they should be the Lord's people. Obviously this is a renewing of the covenant like in Joshua's day, not a replacement or new covenant being made.
King Josiah does similarly.
The Jews under Nehemiah make a covenant (once again, a renewal of the covenant, essentially).
Then of course, there is the promised "new covenant" that would be made with Israel and Judah, which according to the Gospels was established by Jesus.

So, it appears to me that according to the Bible, there is the Covenant with Noah, the Covenant with Abraham/Isaac/Jacob, the Covenant with Israel, and the New Covenant (also with Israel). The "Davidic Covenant" is like the Aaronic covenant of the priesthood, that is, it is a part of the Covenant made with Israel (think of it as an addendum, or a subpart). The Covenant with Israel (aka the "Mosaic Covenant" or the "Sinaitic Covenant") is basically the expansion of the Abrahamic Covenant to the entire nation (the national "phase" of the Abrahamic Covenant as it were). Although, we should keep in mind that the Abrahamic Covenant and the Sinaitic Covenant had significant differences, and thus should be considered as inter-related and intertwined but still distinct entities.

Christ came to establish the New Covenant, yet of Him it is said:

Luke 1:67-73 KJV
And his father Zacharias was filled with the Holy Ghost, and prophesied, saying, [68] Blessed be the Lord God of Israel; for he hath visited and redeemed his people, [69] And hath raised up an horn of salvation for us in the house of his servant David; [70] As he spake by the mouth of his holy prophets, which have been since the world began: [71] That we should be saved from our enemies, and from the hand of all that hate us; [72] To perform the mercy promised to our fathers, and to remember his holy covenant; [73] The oath which he sware to our father Abraham,

So the new covenant is instituted in order to fulfill the Abrahamic covenant. It is not so much an entirely different covenant, but it is the completion or fulfillment of the Abrahamic covenant. Much like the Sinaitic covenant was the national scope of the Abrahamic covenant, so too was the New covenant (especially at it is the replacement for the Sinaitic covenant).

Re: Scripture interpretation
 

:highfive You are welcome. Just thinking out loud here.

Re: Scripture interpretation
 

So, the so called "Edenic Covenant", the "Covenant of Works", etc seem to be man-made additions or categories that the Bible itself doesn't really recognise (or authorise).

What we actually have are:

1. The Noahic Covenant
2. The Abrahamic Covenant
3. The Sinaitic or Mosaic Covenant
4. The New Covenant

We can certainly look at Scriptures through the "Covenantal" lens, as it were, that is, studying the role of Covenant in the Bible. But I don't see why that should be "the center" around which everything in the Bible must revolve.

Other attempts have been made to find other centers, like "The Kingdom", or what have you. But all these concepts are contained in the Bible., yet the Bible itself does not make them the center of DOCTRINE (which after all is what we are talking about when we talk about this or that "theology").

So what is the center of Bible Doctrine? According to the Bible?

Is it "the covenant"? Is it "the kingdom"? Is it "God's moral government"? Is it "grace"? Is it "redemption"? All these are themes of the Bible, but what does the Bible itself say is the center or "point" of it all, around which everything revolves and upon which everything depends?

Revelation 19:10 KJV
And I fell at his feet to worship him. And he said unto me, See thou do it not: I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren that have the testimony of Jesus: worship God: for the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.

Prophecy is speaking by the Holy Spirit, by inspiration of God. All the Bible may be called "prophecy" in that all Scripture is inspired by the Spirit. The "spirit of prophecy" is "the testimony of Jesus Christ". This seems to be saying that testimony of Jesus Christ is the
center around which all Scripture revolves:

John 5:39 KJV
Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.

So it seems that "Jesus Christ", His testimony, His doctrine, His message, is the center of Bible theology. He referred to Himself as the Way, the Truth, and the Life. All those terms are used in the NT to describe real Christianity. Everything revolves around Him, Who He is, What He does, Why He does it, etc.

Re: Scripture interpretation
 

1 Corinthians 1:22-25 KJV
22 For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom:
23 But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;
24 But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.
25 Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.

Re: Scripture interpretation
 

In thinking about this, I wondered "Why didn't Jesus or at least His apostles give us a systematic theology? Or tell us what the outline and center of biblical theology were to be? It would make things so much simpler, right?"

But I realise the NT was written down by different authors, who each give a unique perspective on the doctrine of Christ, teaching what each of their respective audiences needed to hear and learn.

The epistle to the Hebrews contains a pretty in depth theology with Priesthood and Atonement as its center, and the distinctions between the old covenant and the new covenant. Meanwhile, the epistle to the Romans contains a pretty in depth theology with "justification" as its center. Then there is the epistle of James, which centers on "true faith" as its center. And we can do this with each author, and each epistle, each Gospel account. We can see Peter's emphasis to the Jews, and Paul's emphasis to the Greeks. We can see John's emphasis being the Logos and purification (in his Gospel) and the Life and sanctification (in his first epistle). Each author teaches the doctrine of Christ, but with different emphases depending on the audience and on the author's own unique individual perspective (the gift given to each by Christ).

So it seems we should not be searching for a "final theological system" to categorise or organise the Bible's truth into. Rather, we should seek to understand the doctrine of Christ and find Biblically consistent ways to express that doctrine to our respective audiences, whether that be an individual we are witnessing to or a church we are teaching or whoever might be reading some book we write or whatever the case may be.

We can present the Bible through the lens of covenant (as a theme), we can present the Bible through the lens of prophecy as a theme, we can present the Bible through many different lenses, as it were. As long as we are presenting the Bible Truth in an understandable way then we will be "doing theology" like we should. Depends on the audience, the times (what needed to be focused on say 100 years ago may not be the same issue that needs to be focused on today, for example), and the ways in which Christ has revealed Himself to the individual believer or teacher.

Ephesians 4:15-16 KJV
But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ: [16] From whom the whole body fitly joined together and compacted by that which every joint supplieth, according to the effectual working in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body unto the edifying of itself in love.

1 Corinthians 3:5-11,13-15 KJV
Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but ministers by whom ye believed, even as the Lord gave to every man? [6] I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase. [7] So then neither is he that planteth any thing, neither he that watereth; but God that giveth the increase. [8] Now he that planteth and he that watereth are one: and every man shall receive his own reward according to his own labour. [9] For we are labourers together with God: ye are God's husbandry, ye are God's building. [10] According to the grace of God which is given unto me, as a wise masterbuilder, I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon. [11] For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ. [13] Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is. [14] If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. [15] If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.

Re: Scripture interpretation
 

.

Re: Scripture interpretation
 

Sorry if I'm not being clear.

This is how I see it:

Old Covenant:
10 commandments written on stone tablets
Animal sacrifices, can't remit sins, looks forward to Messiah

New covenant:
10 commandments written on the fleshly tablet of the heart
Blood of Jesus for remission of sins

Re: Scripture interpretation
 

With scripture added:

Old Covenant:

- 10 commandments written on stone tablets: Exodus 31:18, Deuteronomy 9:10
- Animal sacrifices: Leviticus 1-7, Hebrews 10:4 (explaining that animal sacrifices cannot remit sins)
- Looks forward to Messiah: Galatians 3:23-25, Hebrews 9:9-10

New Covenant:

- 10 commandments written on the fleshly tablet of the heart: 2 Corinthians 3:3, Hebrews 8:10 (quoting Jeremiah 31:33)
- Blood of Jesus for remission of sins: Matthew 26:28, Acts 2:38, Hebrews 9:14-15
- Jesus as the Messiah: John 1:29, Acts 2:36, Hebrews 1:1-3

- Old Covenant: External, written on stone (Exodus 31:18)
- New Covenant: Internal, written on the heart (2 Corinthians 3:3)
- Old Covenant: Animal sacrifices (Leviticus 1-7)
- New Covenant: Jesus' blood (Matthew 26:28)
- Old Covenant: Looks forward to Messiah (Galatians 3:23-25)
- New Covenant: Jesus is the Messiah (John 1:29)

Re: Scripture interpretation
 

Both covenants are the same in that they are God's commandments.

Re: Scripture interpretation
 

Sister you are being as clear as crystal. 👍🏽

Re: Scripture interpretation
 

So, one of the reasons we need to receive the Holy Ghost is so that everyone can be grafted into the covenant originally made with Abraham.