But to answer your question, I'm not sure which it could be. It is possible to be either one. Since it's Christ that told the parable I at first think the purchaser is Christ. But if I apply it to my life, then it is I that is the purchaser. I'm leaning more toward Christ being the purchaser, but I haven't fully decided enough to vote yet.
__________________
Life is to short not to expose yourself to a holy God.
I'd just like to say thank you, Stephen Hoover, for starting this thread.
Until you did, I had never even thought about this scripture... I had only heard it taught on once I believe... or explained once. And so the whole idea of it being a portrait of Christ wasn't even a consideration.
The picture of Christ purchasing us is a much better fit.
And what a picture it is!!! Beautiful!
__________________ Mrs. LPW
Psalm 19:14
Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O LORD, my strength, and my redeemer.
I'd just like to say thank you, Stephen Hoover, for starting this thread.
Until you did, I had never even thought about this scripture... I had only heard it taught on once I believe... or explained once. And so the whole idea of it being a portrait of Christ wasn't even a consideration.
The picture of Christ purchasing us is a much better fit.
And what a picture it is!!! Beautiful!
You are welcome! As I said earlier I could see how both views could be symbolized in the parable.
I do find it intriguing how it may show Christ giving his ALL...
I am not so sure that I like how that would picture the church though... as having great value to be purchased with the blood of the Only Begotton.
Christ was driven to the cross, not by our value, but by His love for us who had no value to him at all. We are made relevant by His undeserving and inexplicable love. We offer God nothing of value. He is complete and lacking nothing.
__________________ "It is inhumane, in my opinion, to force people who have a genuine medical need for coffee to wait in line behind people who apparently view it as some kind of recreational activity." Dave Barry 2005
I am a firm believer in the Old Paths
Articles on such subjects as "The New Birth," will be accepted, whether they teach that the new birth takes place before baptism in water and Spirit, or that the new birth consists of baptism of water and Spirit. - THE PENTECOSTAL HERALD Dec. 1945
"It is doubtful if any Trinitarian Pentecostals have ever professed to believe in three gods, and Oneness Pentecostals should not claim that they do." - Daniel Segraves
I'm still kinda wondering if it is possible to have more than one interpretation to a parable.
Since in Matt. 13:18, Jesus gave only one interpretation of the parable of the sower.
And in Matt. 13:37, he gave only one interpretation to the parable of the tares of the field.
I don't recall ever reading a parable that Jesus told in which he explained that one particular parable to have multiple meanings.
Is it possible for there to be more than one interpretation, or in other words to mean more than one "picture" that the master is trying to paint.
If in this parable, the disciples would have said, "Lord, tell us the meaning of the parable of the hidden treasure",
Would Jesus have said "Which interpretation do you want to hear?"
Or would he have said, "Theres 2 (or more) interpretations (or meanings), here they are.
It looks to me like that would be extremely confusing to the disciples that were listening to the parable trying to figure out its meaning.
__________________ As for me, may I never boast about anything except the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ. Because of that cross, my interest in this world has been crucified, and the world’s interest in me has also died.- Gal. 6:14
I'm still kinda wondering if it is possible to have more than one interpretation to a parable.
Since in Matt. 13:18, Jesus gave only one interpretation of the parable of the sower.
And in Matt. 13:37, he gave only one interpretation to the parable of the tares of the field.
I don't recall ever reading a parable that Jesus told in which he explained that one particular parable to have multiple meanings.
Is it possible for there to be more than one interpretation, or in other words to mean more than one "picture" that the master is trying to paint.
If in this parable, the disciples would have said, "Lord, tell us the meaning of the parable of the hidden treasure",
Would Jesus have said "Which interpretation do you want to hear?"
Or would he have said, "Theres 2 (or more) interpretations (or meanings), here they are.
It looks to me like that would be extremely confusing to the disciples that were listening to the parable trying to figure out its meaning.
Shag, I would not (and did not intend to) argue that these parables have dual interpretations.
As I mentioned in post #14:
"the third poll option was given for those who would say both interpretations can be possible or could be reconciled with all of scripture, not so much that the original intent was twofold."
I would have changed the wording slightly in the third option if people had not already been voting.
I am saying that either view could be synchronized with the whole of scripture.
Of course as you mentioned limits would need to be placed on the analogies - we cannot pay for our own salvation.
But I think the analogy breaks down in the other view as well. That we were so "valuable" to God that he gave His life does not ring true to me.
I would say it speaks to the greatness of His love towards us that He was willing to give His life for such a worm as I. Any and all my "value" comes from cross of Christ.
__________________ "It is inhumane, in my opinion, to force people who have a genuine medical need for coffee to wait in line behind people who apparently view it as some kind of recreational activity." Dave Barry 2005
I am a firm believer in the Old Paths
Articles on such subjects as "The New Birth," will be accepted, whether they teach that the new birth takes place before baptism in water and Spirit, or that the new birth consists of baptism of water and Spirit. - THE PENTECOSTAL HERALD Dec. 1945
"It is doubtful if any Trinitarian Pentecostals have ever professed to believe in three gods, and Oneness Pentecostals should not claim that they do." - Daniel Segraves
Also, even though the disciples, when asked by Jesus, said they understood the meaning of the parables, it appears highly doubtful they actually did.
Given both views explicity implicate the soon coming event of the cross, I find it hard to believe they had a full grasp of Christ as a "lamb led to slaughter" and all it would mean in their near future.
__________________ "It is inhumane, in my opinion, to force people who have a genuine medical need for coffee to wait in line behind people who apparently view it as some kind of recreational activity." Dave Barry 2005
I am a firm believer in the Old Paths
Articles on such subjects as "The New Birth," will be accepted, whether they teach that the new birth takes place before baptism in water and Spirit, or that the new birth consists of baptism of water and Spirit. - THE PENTECOSTAL HERALD Dec. 1945
"It is doubtful if any Trinitarian Pentecostals have ever professed to believe in three gods, and Oneness Pentecostals should not claim that they do." - Daniel Segraves
I understand, now (thick headed), what you meant by option 3, either of the 1st two options could be the (one and only) correct interpretation. Not, that both could both be the correct interpretations at the same time.
I agree that it is thru the accepting of "the work of the cross", and allowing him to "govern" our lives, that we become a "treasure"(of value) to the Lord.
I agree that the disciples probably did not 100% completely understand the coming cross to Christ, and all that went with it.
Yet, the previous parable, Jesus told them the parable concerning the "end of the world" with the angels separating the tares and wheat.
I'm sure they didn't undertand that one 100% either, after all, they went back and asked him to explain it to them. (and that explanation is/was atleast 2 thousand years past the cross)
I think it could be of worthy note that this parable had taken place 2 chapters after Jesus had mentioned "as Noah was in the belly of the whale 3 days, so shall the son...., speaking of the cross. So he had already been trying to "paint them a futuristic picture", whether they were "completely grasping" it or not. (I'm not sure if I had mentioned that previously)
__________________ As for me, may I never boast about anything except the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ. Because of that cross, my interest in this world has been crucified, and the world’s interest in me has also died.- Gal. 6:14
I agree that it is thru the accepting of "the work of the cross", and allowing him to "govern" our lives, that we become a "treasure"(of value) to the Lord.
)
But then is that not problematic?
Did the purchaser bring great value to the treasure, or did he simply come upon it and recognize it's great value?
I don't read it as the treasure having great potential.
__________________ "It is inhumane, in my opinion, to force people who have a genuine medical need for coffee to wait in line behind people who apparently view it as some kind of recreational activity." Dave Barry 2005
I am a firm believer in the Old Paths
Articles on such subjects as "The New Birth," will be accepted, whether they teach that the new birth takes place before baptism in water and Spirit, or that the new birth consists of baptism of water and Spirit. - THE PENTECOSTAL HERALD Dec. 1945
"It is doubtful if any Trinitarian Pentecostals have ever professed to believe in three gods, and Oneness Pentecostals should not claim that they do." - Daniel Segraves
I don't see it as the purchaser "bringing" great value to the treasure.
I see "the stumbling on to the treasure", possibly as God seeing that "He found a "chosen people"(samaritans & gentiles), that could be "engrafted in" thru what he (thru manifesting as the Son) would do on the cross(as a purchase), because "the apples of his eyes-the jews", just couldn't get it right.
That could be the wrong interpretation. But I sure wanna get to the bottom of this mystery!
How could the "field" be the earth, if the sinners were purchasing Jesus/ salvation. In other words, why would sinners purchase the earth to get Jesus?
Also, I love the fact that most this latter discussion centers around "the cross". I feel that some times "we pentecostals" are guilty of going straight to Acts 2:38, without 1 st making sure the story of the cross has been given. The message of Acts 2:38 always, in my opinion, came only after the preaching of the cross, and should not be preached without the cross 1st being preached and understood.
__________________ As for me, may I never boast about anything except the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ. Because of that cross, my interest in this world has been crucified, and the world’s interest in me has also died.- Gal. 6:14
Hybrid Mode
