What is new about the New Covenant

[Charisma]

Wishing to avoid all possible discussion about replacement theology, using Hebrews 9:15 as a springboard, what is new about the New Covenant?

(KJV) Hebrews 9:15
And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.

[duxrow]

Wishing to avoid all possible discussion about replacement theology, using Hebrews 9:15 as a springboard, what is new about the New Covenant?

(KJV) Hebrews 9:15
And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.

The OT was strictly for the Hebrews -- they were the 'chosen' people, like as Jacob chose Rachel, and they were examples to show us the Way.
The NT is for ANYBODY who will believe this 'whale of a tale', and become 'fruitful' like Leah and Mt7:20.
Better answers are out there, Charisma, but this off top of my head today. ;-)

[Charisma]

Hi dux, :welcome:

Thanks for your 'off the top of' your head reply. I wasn't expecting one quite so fast! Hmm. Nor to take not a little issue with your first sentence:


The OT was strictly for the Hebrews

Would you care to rethink that statement in the light of Genesis to Joshua (just for starters)?

[duxrow]

Yea right, Charisma. Confused over the difference between OT and OC. The Covenant didn't begin until Moses charged the people, IMO, so everything prior to that was just the 'lead-up' to that First Covenant. And my take is that when Jesus said "It is finished", that began the New Covenant dispensation.

The OT/NT and OC/NC are often about the same, so the nuance got me.. :yo:

[Charisma]

:lol: Hi dux, I hope you don't mind my smiling loudly. I really wasn't too bothered about the 'difference between OT and OC', although of course to keep the distinction clear whenever either one is mentioned, does assist those who are even less clear, to become more clear as to the meanings of the two terms.

It was more the use of the term 'Hebrew' which made me raise my eyebrow - not that the Hebrews were not the recipients of the Old Covenant, but the Old Covenant was open to non-Hebrews according to the Old Covenant itself.

Also, what does 'Hebrew' mean? Where did the name originate, and what about Genesis 26:4 '... and in thy [Isaac's] seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; 5 Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.

???

[duxrow]

:lol: Hi dux, I hope you don't mind my smiling loudly. I really wasn't too bothered about the 'difference between OT and OC', although of course to keep the distinction clear whenever either one is mentioned, does assist those who are even less clear, to become more clear as to the meanings of the two terms.

It was more the use of the term 'Hebrew' which made me raise my eyebrow - not that the Hebrews were not the recipients of the Old Covenant, but the Old Covenant was open to non-Hebrews according to the Old Covenant itself.

Also, what does 'Hebrew' mean? Where did the name originate, and what about Genesis 26:4 '... and in thy [Isaac's] seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; 5 Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.

???

Keep smiling, Charisma.. Something about Hebrew connected to the 14th Generation of Eber -- long time ago considered origin of 'hebrew' -- but leading eventually to the House of Judah and Dynasty of David. Covenant a comparison of marriage, and so after Jesus died on the cross, the true-believers were free to marry another/again.. hah This time to the Bridegroom! You think? :thumb:

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Keep smiling, Charisma.. Something about Hebrew connected to the 14th Generation of Eber -- long time ago considered origin of 'hebrew' -- but leading eventually to the House of Judah and Dynasty of David. Covenant a comparison of marriage, and so after Jesus died on the cross, the true-believers were free to marry another/again.. hah This time to the Bridegroom! You think? :thumb:

There is indeed "something" about "Hebrew" connecting with the Number 14. The first occurrence of the word "Hebrew" is found in Genesis 14:
Genesis 14:13 And there came one that had escaped, and told Abram the Hebrew; for he dwelt in the plain of Mamre the Amorite, brother of Eshcol, and brother of Aner: and these were confederate with Abram.

Likewise, it is in Genesis 14 that we find the first appearance of Melchizedek:
Genesis 14:18 And Melchizedek king of Salem brought forth bread and wine: and he was the priest of the most high God.

And where do we learn about Melchizedek? In the 14th Epistle, the Book of Hebrews, on Spoke 14 of the Bible Wheel:

http://www.biblewheel.com/Wheel/Spokes/Spoke14_500t.gif

And all of this is rather profoundly integrated with the meaning of the 14th Letter Nun, as discussed in some detail in my Spoke 14 articles such as A Priest Forever after the Order of Melchizedek (http://www.biblewheel.com/Wheel/Spokes/Nun_Melchizedek.php) and Jesus Christ: High Priest and Heir of All Things (http://www.biblewheel.com/Wheel/Spokes/Nun_Heir.php). The fact that Eber is the 14th generation from Adam coheres very well with this pattern.

This is the mystery of the Bible Wheel. The evidence of a very meaningful and highly intelligent design - that integrates content with structure, the Hebrew alphabet and universal archetypes - remains as solid as ever, and yet the fact that the Bible is filled with errors, contradictions, and moral abominations attributed to God cannot be denied. So I am confronted with a mystery - the Bible cannot mean what the fundamentalists think it means (whether they are followers of "Traditional Christianity" or of a sect that replaces "Traditional Christianity" with their own idiosyncratic fundamentalist dogmas).

This mystery - this dynamic tension between the seeming divine aspects of the Bible and the other aspects that are obviously corrupt - can only be seen by a person truly devoted to truth. Perhaps the Bible is a test to see if believers are more devoted to the lies of their religion than the truth. The fact that the most "devout" Christians deny the plain truth of the Bible is perhaps the greatest irony in the history of the world.

The dogmas of fundamentalism destroy the minds of believers. That's why they cannot admit what any child can see. Children understand the story of the Emperor's New Clothes.

[Mystykal]

There is indeed "something" about "Hebrew" connecting with the Number 14. The first occurrence of the word "Hebrew" is found in Genesis 14:
Genesis 14:13 And there came one that had escaped, and told Abram the Hebrew; for he dwelt in the plain of Mamre the Amorite, brother of Eshcol, and brother of Aner: and these were confederate with Abram.

Likewise, it is in Genesis 14 that we find the first appearance of Melchizedek:
Genesis 14:18 And Melchizedek king of Salem brought forth bread and wine: and he was the priest of the most high God.

And where do we learn about Melchizedek? In the 14th Epistle, the Book of Hebrews, on Spoke 14 of the Bible Wheel:

http://www.biblewheel.com/Wheel/Spokes/Spoke14_500t.gif

And all of this is rather profoundly integrated with the meaning of the 14th Letter Nun, as discussed in some detail in my Spoke 14 articles such as A Priest Forever after the Order of Melchizedek (http://www.biblewheel.com/Wheel/Spokes/Nun_Melchizedek.php) and Jesus Christ: High Priest and Heir of All Things (http://www.biblewheel.com/Wheel/Spokes/Nun_Heir.php). The fact that Eber is the 14th generation from Adam coheres very well with this pattern.

This is the mystery of the Bible Wheel. The evidence of a very meaningful and highly intelligent design - that integrates content with structure, the Hebrew alphabet and universal archetypes - remains as solid as ever, and yet the fact that the Bible is filled with errors, contradictions, and moral abominations attributed to God cannot be denied. So I am confronted with a mystery - the Bible cannot mean what the fundamentalists think it means (whether they are followers of "Traditional Christianity" or of a sect that replaces "Traditional Christianity" with their own idiosyncratic fundamentalist dogmas).

This mystery - this dynamic tension between the seeming divine aspects of the Bible and the other aspects that are obviously corrupt - can only be seen by a person truly devoted to truth. Perhaps the Bible is a test to see if believers are more devoted to the lies of their religion than the truth. The fact that the most "devout" Christians deny the plain truth of the Bible is perhaps the greatest irony in the history of the world.

The dogmas of fundamentalism destroy the minds of believers. That's why they cannot admit what any child can see. Children understand the story of the Emperor's New Clothes.

Hi Richard:

YOU Said: "This is the mystery of the Bible Wheel. The evidence of a very meaningful and highly intelligent design - that integrates content with structure, the Hebrew alphabet and universal archetypes - remains as solid as ever, and yet the fact that the Bible is filled with errors, contradictions, and moral abominations attributed to God cannot be denied. So I am confronted with a mystery - the Bible cannot mean what the fundamentalists think it means (whether they are followers of "Traditional Christianity" or of a sect that replaces "Traditional Christianity" with their own idiosyncratic fundamentalist dogmas).

This mystery - this dynamic tension between the seeming divine aspects of the Bible and the other aspects that are obviously corrupt - can only be seen by a person truly devoted to truth. Perhaps the Bible is a test to see if believers are more devoted to the lies of their religion than the truth. The fact that the most "devout" Christians deny the plain truth of the Bible is perhaps the greatest irony in the history of the world. The dogmas of fundamentalism destroy the minds of believers. That's why they cannot admit what any child can see. Children understand the story of the Emperor's New Clothes.

I agree with your observations... My confusion comes with why you would continue to debate these Christian doctrines when you do not even believe in a GOD of any kind which can communicate with you individually. And you do not believe in an after-Life!?


Namaste,

Mystykal

[Richard Amiel McGough]

I agree with your observations... My confusion comes with why you would continue to debate these Christian doctrines when you do not even believe in a GOD of any kind which can communicate with you individually. And you do not believe in an after-Life!?

You don't believe what they believe. Why do you debate with them?

[Mystykal]

You don't believe what they believe. Why do you debate with them?
Hey Richard:

I guess you don't really want to answer?... What I mean is they consider themselves Christians - so of course I have no problem "debating" them as a fellow "Christian"... I meant what is in it for you if you argue from the Bible and yet do not believe in a GOD or the GOD of the Bible in any way?! It seems kind of like a waste... You keep approaching the Bible subject matter in a way which does not address the basic framework as written down like you get to pick and choose the entire subject matter that you think belongs in the Bible while at the same time acting like parts of it like miracles do not exist AT ALL. Making the figure of Jesus into some kind of made-up fairy! I mean, it's one thing to disagree about theology but quite another to assert that the whole scheme is a made up pile of myths strung together without any Spiritual substance whatsover! Really?:eek:

Namaste,

Mystykal

[David M]

Hello Chrasima



Also, what does 'Hebrew' mean? Where did the name originate, and what about Genesis 26:4 '... and in thy [Isaac's] seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; 5 Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.

???
I was waiting to see if someone would define what a Hebrew was before I replied. Since no-one has said what I am about to say, here goes.

I heard that the word for Hebrew means "to cross over". Abram was called a Hebrew because God called him our of Ur of the Chaldees to come into the promised land and he would have crossed over the River Jordan, and so Abram's descendants would be Hebrews.

During the wilderness journey after coming out of Egypt, the people were called; 'The Children of Israel' namely the descendants of Jacob whose name was changed to Israel. The term Children of Israel is mentioned right through to the Book of the Revelation. After the journey of the C of I for 40 years in the wilderness, they finally "crossed over" the river Jordan into the promised land (like Abram) and hence the term Hebrew applies to them.

It is interesting the number of different names that have been applied to the Jewish people throughout their history.

All the best
David

[Charisma]

Hi dux and Richard,

Thanks for the info you have given. :yo:

I'm still not sure what the significance of Eber as a man, is, in relation to the New Covenant? (I note he lived long before the Old Covenant.)


Thanks, David, for a nice clear, simple answer.

Do you have any thoughts on what 'a new covenant' means from God's point of view - which is what should inform our point of view.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Hey Richard:

I guess you don't really want to answer?... What I mean is they consider themselves Christians - so of course I have no problem "debating" them as a fellow "Christian"... I meant what is in it for you if you argue from the Bible and yet do not believe in a GOD or the GOD of the Bible in any way?! It seems kind of like a waste... You keep approaching the Bible subject matter in a way which does not address the basic framework as written down like you get to pick and choose the entire subject matter that you think belongs in the Bible while at the same time acting like parts of it like miracles do not exist AT ALL. Making the figure of Jesus into some kind of made-up fairy! I mean, it's one thing to disagree about theology but quite another to assert that the whole scheme is a made up pile of myths strung together without any Spiritual substance whatsover! Really?:eek:

Namaste,

Mystykal

Hey there Mystykal,

I answered that way because you seemed to be applying a different standard for yourself than me. You differ from other Christians in some ways as dramatically as I. That does not disqualify you from the conversation. I simply don't understand your point, why you think I should not discuss these things on my own forum. I spent over a decade in study of the Bible producing my book and this web site. How can you ask why I still discuss things with folks here? The fact that I no longer believe in the bible god does not disqualify me from commenting on what I think it all means. The evidence for the Bible Wheel still stands and the whole things is a bit of mystery now. So I enjoy discussing it.

Your words highlighted red reveal a profound confusion. I have never written a word that would suggest I thought the Bible had no "spiritual substance". It seems like you are making a conscious effort to misunderstand me.

The fact that I do not believe in any kind of "theistic style god" that goes about "doing things" like any other bit player in the cosmic drama does not disqualify me from discussing the Bible! David M rejects the idea that Christ is God. I reject the idea that Yahweh is God. From an orthodox Christian point of view there is no difference since in that view Christ is God. Does that mean David M should not be discussing his beliefs about the Bible?

I really don't get what you are getting at. My interest in discussing the Bible should be self-evident since I produced this site, this forum, and the Bible Wheel book.

It's also very strange that you would elevate the stories of miracles into crass literalisms. Do you really believe that Jesus literally walked on water? That seems pretty nutty to me, and many Christians have interpreted the miracle stories as metaphors. Other CHRISTIANS have rejected them out of hand. I just don't understand your point. You don't want me discussing these things on my own forum?

And why are you so offended by the idea that Jesus could have been a "made up fairy"? Isn't every other god just made up? If Krishna, Mithra, and Moroni can be "just made up" why not Jesus? Indeed, there are many overlaps in the story of Jesus with all the made up stories. And besides, all the "miracles" totally sound like typical made up myths. Are you saying you don't see this? It seems pretty obvious to me.

I think the main difference between us is that you have no standard for evidence. You just believe what you like and disregard the rest.

I disagree with your assertion that "it's one thing to disagree about theology but quite another to assert that the whole scheme is a made up pile of myths" because theology is a kind of intellectual form of mythology in that it's all made up out of imagination. How are you going to "test" the truth of stories about Jesus walking on water or being born of a virgin? You can't, so why believe it? Do you believe all the "miracle" stories literally? Really?

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Hi dux and Richard,

Thanks for the info you have given. :yo:

I'm still not sure what the significance of Eber as a man, is, in relation to the New Covenant? (I note he lived long before the Old Covenant.)


Thanks, David, for a nice clear, simple answer.

Do you have any thoughts on what 'a new covenant' means from God's point of view - which is what should inform our point of view.

The "Eber" connection is interesting because Hebrews is the book that clearly explains the difference between the New and the Old Covenants. That's what Hebrews 8 is all about. Have you read it?

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Hello Chrasima


I was waiting to see if someone would define what a Hebrew was before I replied. Since no-one has said what I am about to say, here goes.

I heard that the word for Hebrew means "to cross over". Abram was called a Hebrew because God called him our of Ur of the Chaldees to come into the promised land and he would have crossed over the River Jordan, and so Abram's descendants would be Hebrews.

During the wilderness journey after coming out of Egypt, the people were called; 'The Children of Israel' namely the descendants of Jacob whose name was changed to Israel. The term Children of Israel is mentioned right through to the Book of the Revelation. After the journey of the C of I for 40 years in the wilderness, they finally "crossed over" the river Jordan into the promised land (like Abram) and hence the term Hebrew applies to them.

It is interesting the number of different names that have been applied to the Jewish people throughout their history.

All the best
David

That's pretty much the explanation I have heard. It makes sense.

And for folks interested in etymology, the basic root "eber" = Ayin Bet Resh is curiously similar to the etymology of the English word "over" of the same meaning. Here is the entry from the online etymological dictionary:

Old English ofer "beyond, above, upon, in, across, past; on high," from Proto-Germanic *uberi(cf. Old Saxon obar, Old Frisian over, Old Norse yfir, Old High German ubar, German über, Gothic ufar "over, above"), from PIE *uper (see super- (http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=super-&allowed_in_frame=0)).

There are a fair number of such "coincidences" which some folks take as evidence that Hebrew was the primordial language spoken in Eden.

[Mystykal]

Hey there Mystykal,

I answered that way because you seemed to be applying a different standard for yourself than me. You differ from other Christians in some ways as dramatically as I. That does not disqualify you from the conversation. I simply don't understand your point, why you think I should not discuss these things on my own forum. I spent over a decade in study of the Bible producing my book and this web site. How can you ask why I still discuss things with folks here? The fact that I no longer believe in the bible god does not disqualify me from commenting on what I think it all means. The evidence for the Bible Wheel still stands and the whole things is a bit of mystery now. So I enjoy discussing it.

Your words highlighted red reveal a profound confusion. I have never written a word that would suggest I thought the Bible had no "spiritual substance". It seems like you are making a conscious effort to misunderstand me.

The fact that I do not believe in any kind of "theistic style god" that goes about "doing things" like any other bit player in the cosmic drama does not disqualify me from discussing the Bible! David M rejects the idea that Christ is God. I reject the idea that Yahweh is God. From an orthodox Christian point of view there is no difference since in that view Christ is God. Does that mean David M should not be discussing his beliefs about the Bible?

I really don't get what you are getting at. My interest in discussing the Bible should be self-evident since I produced this site, this forum, and the Bible Wheel book.

It's also very strange that you would elevate the stories of miracles into crass literalisms. Do you really believe that Jesus literally walked on water? That seems pretty nutty to me, and many Christians have interpreted the miracle stories as metaphors. Other CHRISTIANS have rejected them out of hand. I just don't understand your point. You don't want me discussing these things on my own forum?

And why are you so offended by the idea that Jesus could have been a "made up fairy"? Isn't every other god just made up? If Krishna, Mithra, and Moroni can be "just made up" why not Jesus? Indeed, there are many overlaps in the story of Jesus with all the made up stories. And besides, all the "miracles" totally sound like typical made up myths. Are you saying you don't see this? It seems pretty obvious to me.

I think the main difference between us is that you have no standard for evidence. You just believe what you like and disregard the rest.

I disagree with your assertion that "it's one thing to disagree about theology but quite another to assert that the whole scheme is a made up pile of myths" because theology is a kind of intellectual form of mythology in that it's all made up out of imagination. How are you going to "test" the truth of stories about Jesus walking on water or being born of a virgin? You can't, so why believe it? Do you believe all the "miracle" stories literally? Really?

Hi RichardL
If I struck a nerve I am sorry! I was not suggesting that you CANNOT comment on these topics - it is your website! And you are very knowledgeable... You missed my point which was one of models... I can't understand how you discard the Biblical model at all different levels and then still talk about spirituality from a Biblical point of view. Like you discuss the Bible but the gods of the Bible are myths or at best the stories explaining the actions of these gods are mythological in nature... yet the Bible states that the words are 'inspired" and factual... and yes you are right I do not think that the stories are always told in a factual way... I definitly do not believe in verbal-plenary inspiration model used by most Evangelicals... So I just wanted to understand how you justify your ideas with the blatant departure from the concepts as understood as being from the Biblical perspective....

Carry On...:yo:

Namaste,

Mystykal

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Hi RichardL
If I struck a nerve I am sorry! I was not suggesting that you CANNOT comment on these topics - it is your website! And you are very knowledgeable... You missed my point which was one of models... I can't understand how you discard the Biblical model at all different levels and then still talk about spirituality from a Biblical point of view. Like you discuss the Bible but the gods of the Bible are myths or at best the stories explaining the actions of these gods are mythological in nature... yet the Bible states that the words are 'inspired" and factual... and yes you are right I do not think that the stories are always told in a factual way... I definitly do not believe in verbal-plenary inspiration model used by most Evangelicals... So I just wanted to understand how you justify your ideas with the blatant departure from the concepts as understood as being from the Biblical perspective....

Carry On...:yo:

Namaste,

Mystykal
Hey there Mystykal,

No worries! You didn't hit a nerve. I was just trying to answer your questions. Sorry if I missed your point - things like that happen a lot in online conversations. That's why we need a little back and forth give and take to understand each other. It's an asymptotic approach - each time we have an exchange we should be a little closer to understanding each other.

It's curious to me that you don't understand how I could discuss the Bible "from a Biblical point of view" without actually believing it to be true. I could do exactly the same thing with any topic. For example, I could debate whether or not the Papacy is Biblical with Catholics without believing either Catholicism or the Bible is true. I could debate whether suicide bombing is a valid form a Jihad from a Quranic point of view without believing in the Quran. I really don't understand your point.

And your comments seem self-contradictory. First you seem to suggest that there is some sort of contradiction between my rejection of the "God model" and the fact that the "the Bible states that the words are inspired and factual" but then you immediately follow that with an admission that you do not accept everything as "literal" that the Bible says is literal, so how is your approach different than mine? You explicitly reject the "verbal-plenary inspiration model" and have not explained your theory of inspiration so your comment that the Bible is "inspired" is not yet well-defined so there is no way for me to even know what you mean. Indeed, I don't think you even know what you mean. You certainly have not been able to express it after many months of conversation.

Shine on! :sunny:

Richard

[Mystykal]

Hey there Mystykal,

No worries! You didn't hit a nerve. I was just trying to answer your questions. Sorry if I missed your point - things like that happen a lot in online conversations. That's why we need a little back and forth give and take to understand each other. It's an asymptotic approach - each time we have an exchange we should be a little closer to understanding each other.

It's curious to me that you don't understand how I could discuss the Bible "from a Biblical point of view" without actually believing it to be true. I could do exactly the same thing with any topic. For example, I could debate whether or not the Papacy is Biblical with Catholics without believing either Catholicism or the Bible is true. I could debate whether suicide bombing is a valid form a Jihad from a Quranic point of view without believing in the Quran. I really don't understand your point.

And your comments seem self-contradictory. First you seem to suggest that there is some sort of contradiction between my rejection of the "God model" and the fact that the "the Bible states that the words are inspired and factual" but then you immediately follow that with an admission that you do not accept everything as "literal" that the Bible says is literal, so how is your approach different than mine? You explicitly reject the "verbal-plenary inspiration model" and have not explained your theory of inspiration so your comment that the Bible is "inspired" is not yet well-defined so there is no way for me to even know what you mean. Indeed, I don't think you even know what you mean. You certainly have not been able to express it after many months of conversation.

Shine on! :sunny:

Richard

Hi Richard:

A couple of points. Anyone can discuss anything! But to cherry pick the facts and to take things out of their context is another matter. It is not if you believe but if you DONT - then the truth cannot come out in your searching... The Bible is not like any other book! It cannot be understood correctly without the indwelling or overlord the Holy Spirit (Feminine Deity in Hebrew allocated as Shekinah). So, just shooting the breeze about the Bible is fine but pointless. The purpose for discussing the possibilites of anything is to find the truth in it. If, as the Bible declares the Holy Spirit is needed to "rightly diivide the word of truth" then it is pointless to try and understand what the Bible Might be saying....

YOU Said. "your comments seem self-contradictory. First you seem to suggest that there is some sort of contradiction between my rejection of the "God model" and the fact that the "the Bible states that the words are inspired and factual" but then you immediately follow that with an admission that you do not accept everything as "literal" that the Bible says is literal, so how is your approach different than mine? You explicitly reject the "verbal-plenary inspiration model" and have not explained your theory of inspiration"

Well, first off - The Bible does not say anything is "literal". As a rule, theologians have accepted the Bible as being literal except in the obcious cases of Bible prophecy where animals are used to represent kingdoms etc. This assumption of Biblical literacy has given us religious dogmas which verge on the insane. The idea that Adam and Eve were "naked " in the garden is silly when we see GOD ASKING them "who told you you were naked?" AFTER they had sinned... which marked a departure/change for them. It is silly to thing that for one hundred years Adam and Eve ran around not knowing that they were naked. Unless they were not naked. And that is the missing piece in the story which is hidden in the word ADAM. The "firey" earth man was covered in light. A robe of light which he lost when he sinned.

as to my understanding of inspiration.... The closest is this:

It is possible that many who engage in discussions over the Bible are not fully aware of what the real issues are. As a first step in clarifying the questions associated with the use of contemporary higher criticism, I will briefly set forth the differences between the liberal methodology and the long-standing true Christian approach to the Bible.

1. Methodological Assumptions. The difference between true Christians who seek a modified use of the historical-critical method and those who reject it does not lie in the fact that one method is scholarly and the other not. Both groups of scholars seek an understanding of Scripture that takes into account the historical and literary contexts of the Bible. The difference lies in the assumptions which undergird the respective methods.

Unlike the official approach, advocates of the higher-critical methods assume that: (a) the Bible is not fully inspired (i.e., some parts of the Bible are more inspired than others); (b) the Bible is not fully trustworthy (because of alleged mistakes in some of the Bible’s historical and scientific assertions); (c) the Bible is not absolutely authoritative in all that it teaches or touches upon (portions allegedly shaped by the personal or cultural prejudices of the writers and their times are uninspired and not binding on us); and (d) there are internal discrepancies, contradictions, or inconsistencies in Scripture; this diversity in Scripture (i.e., pluralism or conflicting theologies in the Bible) is believed to be caused by the Bible’s many human writers. Are these assumptions valid?

2. Historical Inquiry. The true Christian in opposing the modified use of the historical-critical method do not object because they do not want to study the historical or cultural backgrounds of the Bible. They welcome the inquiry of those who accept what Scripture says as trustworthy and who desire simply to learn its meaning. What they reject is the intrusion of unbiblical assumptions drawn from secular thought, culture, or subjective experience as the basis to judge the credibility of the biblical record and to conjecture and reconstruct what may or may not have actually happened.

The historical interpretation of the historical-critical method, if adopted, will breed a new papalism of scholars, since ordinary laypeople who are not trained as historians will be expected to depend on the experts for understanding the real historical backgrounds of the contents of the Christian faith. Besides, such a historical approach fails to show a way out should the historical experts disagree.

How much easier it would be to follow the example of Jesus in simply taking the Bible as historically reliable. He believed in the historical trustworthiness of the account about Adam and Eve, Satan, Cain and Abel, Noah’s universal flood, and Jonah’s story (Matt 19:4, 5; 23:35; 24:38, 39; 12:40; etc.). Should we not? [12]

3. Critical Reasoning. The difference between the traditional or official Christian approach to Scripture and the historical-critical approach is not that the latter is critical while the former is not; both are critical, depending upon how one defines the term.

If by critical interpretation we mean the answering of questions about the date, place, sources, background, literary character, credentials, and purposes of each biblical book or composition, then upholding the Christian church’s position will have no difficulty in describing their own approach as critical. If, however, the term implies charging the Bible with untrustworthiness or fraudulence of any kind (which is what proponents of the historical-critical method intimate), then they are opposed to it.

True Christians who are tempted to adopt the reasoning of the historical-critical method face a major dilemma. How do they exalt the Bible as the judge of human errors and at the same time keep the human interpreter as the arbiter of Scripture’s errors? How can they commend the Bible as a true witness yet charge it with falsehood? Is this not theological double-talk? It seems to me that those seeking to use modified versions of the higher-critical methodologies are riding two convictional horses---religious certainty about the Bible’s power, and an intellectual uncertainty about its full truth.

4. Scientific Objectivity. The difference between the official Christian approach and the historical-critical method is not that the latter is scientific or objective while the former is not. Such an assessment can only be made after understanding the meanings of the terms.

If by scientific or objective is meant that one is neutral in one’s assumptions, then it must be pointed out that there has never been, and indeed, can never be, complete scientific objectivity or neutrality in the study of the Bible. For the moment anyone begins to interpret the biblical data, presuppositions set in. Therefore, the claim to divorce the study of Scripture from presuppositions (whether biblical or non-biblical), in the hope of achieving a scientific objectivity is not only impossible, but also an illusion.

An interpretation can only be said to be genuinely scientific, in the proper sense if, and only if, it is wholly determined by the object of study---which in this case is Scripture itself, the self-revelation of God. Since the historical-critical method is shaped by some a priori philosophical presuppositions that are brought from outside to Scripture, it cannot legitimately be described as a scientific method. Only the true Christian official position can correctly make that claim, for it seeks to interpret Scripture solely on the basis of correct inferences from Scripture.

5. Doubts and Skepticism, the Result. In rejecting even a modified use of the historical-critical method, true Christians opposed to the method are guarding against the repudiation of biblical teaching and lifestyle that inevitably results once the method is adopted.

This point is best illustrated from the published works of some of our scholars who have embraced modified versions of the method. As we have shown elsewhere, these scholars are not only questioning the trustworthiness of some scriptural accounts, but they are also raising doubts over basic Christian teachings like a literal six-day creation, a worldwide flood, the Ten Commandments, the substitutionary atonement of Christ, the sanctuary, clean and unclean meat, homosexuality, etc.

It is evident from the above example that once we start questioning or passing judgment upon the Word of God, it does not take long before we begin to criticize or reject its message. This skepticism may explain why the pioneers were opposed to the use of higher criticism. [14] It may also explain the unfavorable view about the method, tracing it to Satan himself. It is said that:

"Satan had the highest education that could be obtained. This education he received under the greatest of all teachers. When men talk of higher criticism, when they pass their judgment upon the word of God, call their attention to the fact that they have forgotten who was the first and wisest critic. He has had thousands of years of practical experience. He it is who teaches the so-called higher critics of the world today. God will punish all those who, as higher critics, exalt themselves, and criticize God’s Holy word."

And herein lies the inspiration theories which are pushed around in the Christian church in general. I hold to thought inspiration which holds that ideas and not mere words hold the key to understanding truth and the mind of GOD.

Namaste,

Mystykal

[David M]

Thanks, David, for a nice clear, simple answer.

Do you have any thoughts on what 'a new covenant' means from God's point of view - which is what should inform our point of view.

Herllo Charisma
I had not seen your reply until now and could have missed this because of all the posts made in another thread I am following.

Only recently have I heard that this "new covenant" is really a "renewed covenant". You might like to think along this line.

From God's point of view, Israel broke the covenant God had made with them.

Exodus 24:8 And Moses took the blood, and sprinkled it on the people, and said, Behold the blood of the covenant, which the LORD hath made with you concerning all these words.

Almost immediately the people broke God's covenant having stated; All that the LORD hath said will we do, and be obedient.


Ezekiel 44:7 In that ye have brought into my sanctuary strangers, uncircumcised in heart, and uncircumcised in flesh, to be in my sanctuary, to pollute it, even my house, when ye offer my bread, the fat and the blood, and they have broken my covenant because of all your abominations.


Matt 26:28 For this is my blood of the new testament (covenant), which is shed for many for the remission of sins.


Hebrews 10:9 Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?


Israel which broke the covenant is included in the renewed covenant which includes the Gentiles. Gentiles become Jews inwardly through circumcision of the heart and included in the renewed covenant relationship with God through Jesus. Under the law given to Moses, a gentile could become a Jew and they were known as Proselyte Jews.

Those are my thoughts on the subject; what are yours?

All the best
David

[duxrow]

:focus: The Old Covenant emphasis was on the male (to bring forth the promised Seed, 1Pet1:23), but the New Covenant emphasis is on the New Birth and the fruitful female.

The Old Covenant precept (teaching) was how Moses was assigned to lead Israel to the Promised Land,
so we in the New Covenant era would understand about Jesus coming to lead us to Heaven.

Moses told the Tribes: "God will raise up unto thee a prophet from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me.." Deut18:15.

That would be Jesus! Moses was the baby who floated down the Nile to a people foreign to him, just as Jesus came from heaven as a baby, in a 'body prepared', bringing salvation to all races and colors of mankind -- wearing figuratively a 'coat of many colors', like Joseph! GLORY!