Quote:
Originally Posted by Standards
Good answer. Now my question is, why must we examine scripture differently than the Apostles examined the Old Testament? I know the answer, I just want to get your perspective.
|
My point is:
We are mistaken if we do examine Scripture differently than the apostles.
Reading
Matthew 2:15, as a "fulfilled prediction from the OT" messes the whole thing up, and it opens Matthew himself to charges of illiteracy. However, if we see the very real cultural differences here and the fact that the apostles were NOT employing some form of linear Western rationalism in their handling of Scripture, then we can at least begin to unravel quite a few puzzles.
Their approach was one of idealism. An "ideal" existed and events tended to follow the pattern of the ideal. In this world there were, of course, many opportunities for the "ideal" to be corrupted or profaned. There were also times when the "ideal" was realized with irony and the predictable outcome was replaced by something "new."
But the ancient method was that events would unfold according to an "ideal." Moses lead the children of Israel through the Sea and into a wilderness where God and ministering angels were their provider as they faced a series of temptations. Jesus passed through the waters of Jordan in John's baptism and went into a wilderness where he was tempted and angels ministered to him.
God spoke to the people at Babel - through the confusion of their own tongues. He spoke to the Jews in the days of Isaiah through the tongues of the Assyrians. He spoke to those who had crucified Christ through the tongues of the apostles. He speaks to the "unbelievers" in the Corinthian assembly as Paul describes in
1 Corinthians 14.
Threaded Mode
