Quote:
Originally Posted by rdp
My overriding point was/is that God spoke favorably of animal sacrifices....but now clearly would radically disapprove of them. Honestly, I think we're moving away from the simplicity of the instructions "not with gold jewelry....". Moreover, as I pointed out before, Ezek. 23:40 also demonstrates a DISAPPROVAL of ornamentation by God.
You see, it's always risky business to employ metaphorical verses to butress one's doctrinal posture...since theses types of verses usually can cut both ways. However, when you come to the epistles, we're not dealing w/ metaphors....we're dealing w/ "literal" instructions to the "literal" NT church. Check in in a few days....busy right now....rdp.
|
Let's be clear, I don't believe this passage in 1 Timothy is a metaphor. That doesn't mean literal means throwing out interpretive devices, including discovering authorial intent, learning what it meant to the audience and then deciding what it means for us. I don't think we are getting off-track. I think this is all a part of exegetical discovery.
Sacrifice had a huge role in the Story of God. It was how sin was taken care of. Why would God have a different opinion about sacrifice? Because He came already as the ultimate sacrifice and throwing a goat out there in place of the Messiah is blasphemous! In this case, God's approval/disapproval are by default of a work He did, and the symbolism of sacrifice. That doesn't seem to be the same thing, or even similar thing, with jewelry.
Ez 23:40 certainly doesn't look like God's disapproval with jewelry. I think that has been adequately responded to on this thread.
I'm concerned with your definition and frequent use of "literal." You seem educated enough in hermeneutics/exegesis to understand this.
Threaded Mode
