The gold standard for interpreting Scripture has been the grammatical historical method. But it's not what the early church used. For example, Matthew uses Isaiah 7.14 to mean that it was a prophecy of Christ's birth. But it is a clear case of eisegesis. There's no relevance to the birth of Christ in the text.
Quote
The Example of Matthew 1:22,23
Compare Matthew’s quotation of Isaiah 7:14 and the extended quote from Isaiah which follows:
Now all this took place to fulfill what was spoken by the Lord through the prophet: “Behold, the virgin shall be with child and shall bear a son, and they shall call his name Immanuel,” which translated means, “God with us.” (Matthew 1:22,23)
Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, a virgin will be with child and bear a son, and she will call His name Immanuel. He will eat curds and honey at the time He knows enough to refuse evil and choose good. For before the boy will know enough to refuse evil and choose good, the land whose two kings you dread will be forsaken. The LORD will bring on you, on your people, and on your father’s house such days as have never come since the day that Ephraim separated from Judah, the king of Assyria. In that day the LORD will whistle for the fly that is in the remotest part of the rivers of Egypt and for the bee that is in the land of Assyria. (Isaiah 7:14-18)
Isaiah’s prophecy really outlines a timetable for the destruction of two troublesome foreign kings named Rezin and Pekah. Isaiah says to Judah’s king Ahaz, in effect, that by the time a particular maiden1 marries, has a son, and sees him through his “Bar Mitzvah”, these two kings will be gone. Some commentators try to say that Isaiah is not speaking to Ahaz, but to the whole “House of David.” They take this mental handle and try to stretch the meaning to make it fit the true virgin birth to come. But verse 16 ties the prophecy to the two kings and verse 18 calls upon Egypt and Assyria to be the instruments of their destruction. What have Egypt and Assyria to do with the conception and birth of Jesus?2
Note how the New English Translation phrases Isaiah 7:14:
For this reason the sovereign master himself will give you a confirming sign. Look, the young lady over there is about to conceive and will give birth to a son. You, young lady, will name him Immanuel3. (Isaiah 7:14)
The NET Bible completely captures Isaiah’s original sense. So what was Matthew thinking when he so boldly proclaimed the fulfillment of Isaiah 7:14?
The Example of Matthew 2:15
Now compare Matthew 2:15 and Hosea 11:1
He remained there until the death of Herod. This was to fulfill what had been spoken by the Lord through the prophet: “Out of Egypt I called my son.” (Matthew 2:15)
When Israel was a youth I loved him, And out of Egypt I called My son. (Hosea 11:1)
Hosea’s prophecy specifically refers to the nation of Israel and the Exodus from Egypt. Whereas, Isaiah 7:14 has some interesting handles to grab and stretch, Hosea 11:1 just doesn’t! His words are what they are and cannot possibly be said to predict that a future Messiah would spend any time in Egypt. Why would Matthew say that Hosea’s words were fulfilled?
https://bible.org/article/hints-alle...ent-quotes-old
We shall return to Matthew's method, what it involved, shortly. However let's take an example of a common interpretation held by scholars that seems to be free of metaphors and allegories, to see if our modern method, grammatical historical interpretation, is less arbitrary.
Modern churches lack revelation, because they are not in the Kingdom. They depend on the grammatical historical form of hermeneutics to arrive at interpretation of the text, which is a problem, because of the wide semantic range of words. The latter results in multiple conclusions, whilst sod and drash have a self authenticating mechanism built it. One feature is continuity, and the other is reinforcement.
For example, we think receiving the Holy Spirit through belief, as stated in Gal 3.2, describes a visceral experience. In other words, people who receive the Holy Spirit receive a personal physical experience of an impetus from God the Holy Spirit, with varying degrees. Some experience glossalia, tongues. Others are physically teleported to different locations, like Jesus being led into the desert, or Philip beamed to and fro from the location of the Ethiopian eunuch.
It isn't. It describes an offer of a challenge to be overcome by faith, a cross to be picked up.
Abraham was offered an opportunity to escape from Pharaoh by trusting God. He flubbed, failed. When offered a challenge again, to trust God for his son's life, he succeeded in trusting God. He had learned from the experience of suffering and deliverance given by God.
Similarly, Caleb. Ditto Jesus.
Heb 5
8Although He was a Son, He learned obedience from the things which He suffered.
However, Israel forgot God's great works of salvation:
Ps 106
21They forgot the God who had saved them,
who had done great deeds in Egypt,l
22Amazing deeds in the land of Ham,
fearsome deeds at the Red Sea.
Unlike Caleb, who changed from a fearful follower to a courageous leader, they never "meta noia-ed", did not "born again-ed".
Num 14
24But as for My servant Caleb, because he has had a different spirit and has followed Me fully, I will bring him into the land which he entered, and his descendants shall take possession of it.
Heb 6
7For ground that drinks the rain which often falls on it and produces vegetation useful to those for whose sake it is also tilled, receives a blessing from God;
Coming back to Matthew's method, it seems that Matthew was shown an idea, among a myriad of ideas, and looked for support from Scripture, finally finding it, even if the support was tenuous, in Is 7.14
In other words, Matthew looked for guidance, attempted to build up a doctrinal base, from the Holy Spirit, not from Scripture, but confirmed this guidance, by turning TO Scripture.
1 Cor 14
26What then shall we say, brothers? When you come together, everyone has a psalm or a teaching, a revelation, a tongue, or an interpretation. All of these must be done to build up the church.
1 Cor 3
10By the grace God has given me, I laid a foundation as an expert builder, and someone else is building on it. But each one must be careful how he builds. 11For no one can lay a foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ.
12If anyone builds on this foundation using gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, or straw, 13his workmanship will be evident, because the Day will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire will prove the quality of each man’s work. 14If what he has built survives, he will receive a reward. 15If it is burned up, he will suffer loss. He himself will be saved, but only as if through the flames.
In other words, grammatical historical will get us nowhere. Being in the Kingdom, receiving revelation, is how we should build a Temple for the Holy Spirit, establish the pool of knowledge, doctrinal base, in the local chapter of God's People, that is acceptable to God in guiding to spiritual maturity.
Quote
The Example of Matthew 1:22,23
Compare Matthew’s quotation of Isaiah 7:14 and the extended quote from Isaiah which follows:
Now all this took place to fulfill what was spoken by the Lord through the prophet: “Behold, the virgin shall be with child and shall bear a son, and they shall call his name Immanuel,” which translated means, “God with us.” (Matthew 1:22,23)
Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, a virgin will be with child and bear a son, and she will call His name Immanuel. He will eat curds and honey at the time He knows enough to refuse evil and choose good. For before the boy will know enough to refuse evil and choose good, the land whose two kings you dread will be forsaken. The LORD will bring on you, on your people, and on your father’s house such days as have never come since the day that Ephraim separated from Judah, the king of Assyria. In that day the LORD will whistle for the fly that is in the remotest part of the rivers of Egypt and for the bee that is in the land of Assyria. (Isaiah 7:14-18)
Isaiah’s prophecy really outlines a timetable for the destruction of two troublesome foreign kings named Rezin and Pekah. Isaiah says to Judah’s king Ahaz, in effect, that by the time a particular maiden1 marries, has a son, and sees him through his “Bar Mitzvah”, these two kings will be gone. Some commentators try to say that Isaiah is not speaking to Ahaz, but to the whole “House of David.” They take this mental handle and try to stretch the meaning to make it fit the true virgin birth to come. But verse 16 ties the prophecy to the two kings and verse 18 calls upon Egypt and Assyria to be the instruments of their destruction. What have Egypt and Assyria to do with the conception and birth of Jesus?2
Note how the New English Translation phrases Isaiah 7:14:
For this reason the sovereign master himself will give you a confirming sign. Look, the young lady over there is about to conceive and will give birth to a son. You, young lady, will name him Immanuel3. (Isaiah 7:14)
The NET Bible completely captures Isaiah’s original sense. So what was Matthew thinking when he so boldly proclaimed the fulfillment of Isaiah 7:14?
The Example of Matthew 2:15
Now compare Matthew 2:15 and Hosea 11:1
He remained there until the death of Herod. This was to fulfill what had been spoken by the Lord through the prophet: “Out of Egypt I called my son.” (Matthew 2:15)
When Israel was a youth I loved him, And out of Egypt I called My son. (Hosea 11:1)
Hosea’s prophecy specifically refers to the nation of Israel and the Exodus from Egypt. Whereas, Isaiah 7:14 has some interesting handles to grab and stretch, Hosea 11:1 just doesn’t! His words are what they are and cannot possibly be said to predict that a future Messiah would spend any time in Egypt. Why would Matthew say that Hosea’s words were fulfilled?
https://bible.org/article/hints-alle...ent-quotes-old
We shall return to Matthew's method, what it involved, shortly. However let's take an example of a common interpretation held by scholars that seems to be free of metaphors and allegories, to see if our modern method, grammatical historical interpretation, is less arbitrary.
Modern churches lack revelation, because they are not in the Kingdom. They depend on the grammatical historical form of hermeneutics to arrive at interpretation of the text, which is a problem, because of the wide semantic range of words. The latter results in multiple conclusions, whilst sod and drash have a self authenticating mechanism built it. One feature is continuity, and the other is reinforcement.
For example, we think receiving the Holy Spirit through belief, as stated in Gal 3.2, describes a visceral experience. In other words, people who receive the Holy Spirit receive a personal physical experience of an impetus from God the Holy Spirit, with varying degrees. Some experience glossalia, tongues. Others are physically teleported to different locations, like Jesus being led into the desert, or Philip beamed to and fro from the location of the Ethiopian eunuch.
It isn't. It describes an offer of a challenge to be overcome by faith, a cross to be picked up.
Abraham was offered an opportunity to escape from Pharaoh by trusting God. He flubbed, failed. When offered a challenge again, to trust God for his son's life, he succeeded in trusting God. He had learned from the experience of suffering and deliverance given by God.
Similarly, Caleb. Ditto Jesus.
Heb 5
8Although He was a Son, He learned obedience from the things which He suffered.
However, Israel forgot God's great works of salvation:
Ps 106
21They forgot the God who had saved them,
who had done great deeds in Egypt,l
22Amazing deeds in the land of Ham,
fearsome deeds at the Red Sea.
Unlike Caleb, who changed from a fearful follower to a courageous leader, they never "meta noia-ed", did not "born again-ed".
Num 14
24But as for My servant Caleb, because he has had a different spirit and has followed Me fully, I will bring him into the land which he entered, and his descendants shall take possession of it.
Heb 6
7For ground that drinks the rain which often falls on it and produces vegetation useful to those for whose sake it is also tilled, receives a blessing from God;
Coming back to Matthew's method, it seems that Matthew was shown an idea, among a myriad of ideas, and looked for support from Scripture, finally finding it, even if the support was tenuous, in Is 7.14
In other words, Matthew looked for guidance, attempted to build up a doctrinal base, from the Holy Spirit, not from Scripture, but confirmed this guidance, by turning TO Scripture.
1 Cor 14
26What then shall we say, brothers? When you come together, everyone has a psalm or a teaching, a revelation, a tongue, or an interpretation. All of these must be done to build up the church.
1 Cor 3
10By the grace God has given me, I laid a foundation as an expert builder, and someone else is building on it. But each one must be careful how he builds. 11For no one can lay a foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ.
12If anyone builds on this foundation using gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, or straw, 13his workmanship will be evident, because the Day will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire will prove the quality of each man’s work. 14If what he has built survives, he will receive a reward. 15If it is burned up, he will suffer loss. He himself will be saved, but only as if through the flames.
In other words, grammatical historical will get us nowhere. Being in the Kingdom, receiving revelation, is how we should build a Temple for the Holy Spirit, establish the pool of knowledge, doctrinal base, in the local chapter of God's People, that is acceptable to God in guiding to spiritual maturity.
Comment