Adam Knowlden
03-02-2004, 08:13 PM
Hey Will.
[ QUOTE ]
In Cornith, it was thought to be a sign of male prostitution in the pagan temples.
[/ QUOTE ]
Agreed, Paul labeled homosexuality as being "against nature".
First, King James watered down a lot of the translation for homosexuality in his version of the bible because he was an open homosexual. If we look at the original manuscripts there is no doubt homosexuality is a form of fornication.
[ QUOTE ]
<font color="red"> 1 Cor. 11:3 – “But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.”
Any thoughts? Deep discussion here... Hehe. </font>
[/ QUOTE ]
Let's be clear, the bible does not teach men are superior to women, but that both sexes fulfill different roles.
Paul said in Gal. 3,
<font color="green"> 26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.
27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.
</font>
And God makes it clear in Sam. 16:7:
<font color="blue">7 But the LORD said unto Samuel, Look not on his countenance, or on the height of his stature; because I have refused him: for the LORD seeth not as man seeth; for man looketh on the outward appearance, but the LORD looketh on the heart. </font>
For example, it is true that women were not held in the same esteem as men in Christ time. But who did Christ appear to first?
<font color="brown"> In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre.
2 And, behold, there was a great earthquake: for the angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat upon it.
3 His countenance was like lightning, and his raiment white as snow:
4 And for fear of him the keepers did shake, and became as dead men.
5 And the angel answered and said unto the women, Fear not ye: for I know that ye seek Jesus, which was crucified.
6 He is not here: for he is risen, as he said. Come, see the place where the Lord lay.
7 And go quickly, and tell his disciples that he is risen from the dead; and, behold, he goeth before you into Galilee; there shall ye see him: lo, I have told you.
8 And they departed quickly from the sepulchre with fear and great joy; and did run to bring his disciples word.
9 And as they went to tell his disciples, behold, Jesus met them, saying, All Hail. And they came and held him by the feet, and worshipped him.
10 Then said Jesus unto them, Be not afraid: go tell my brethren that they go into Galilee, and there shall they see me.
</font>
Two women!
And Christ was disappointed when the disciples did not believe their account of His resurrection. Christ certainly did not hold any weight with women being unable to witness.
<font color="red"> 10 It was Mary Magdalene, and Joanna, and Mary the mother of James, and other women that were with them, which told these things unto the apostles.
11 And their words seemed to them as idle tales, and they believed them not.
</font>
In those times, women were not considered worthy witnesses. They were not even allowed to be witnesses in court. As you can see Jesus smacked that stupidity in the face...
<font color="666666"> 22 Yea, and certain women also of our company made us astonished, which were early at the sepulchre;
23 And when they found not his body, they came, saying, that they had also seen a vision of angels, which said that he was alive.
24 And certain of them which were with us went to the sepulchre, and found it even so as the women had said: but him they saw not.
25 Then he said unto them, O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken:
26 Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory?
</font>
Now biblically men and women do play different roles. But when combined in marriage they make one complete person. Accompanying each other in life, as one person.
<font color="red"> And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?
6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
</font>
On a side note, notice He said, "Male and female" not "male and male" or "female and female".
The bible does say men and women have different roles. It does not say one is superior to the other!
[/ QUOTE ] Complementarian View
The complementarian view teaches that God created men and women as equals with different gender-defined roles. Scholars chose the term complementarian in order to emphasize both the equality of the sexes and the complementary differences between men and women. According to this viewpoint, God created men and women equally in His divine image. Men and women are fully equal in personhood, dignity, and worth (Genesis 1:26-28). Furthermore, complementarians assert, all believers in Jesus Christ--whether male or female--are baptized, Spirit-gifted, believer-priests and are full members of the Body of Christ. Therefore, they should use their spiritual gifts to their fullest potential and grow in their faith to full spiritual maturity.
According to the complementarian viewpoint, it is equally true that God created men and women to be different and to fulfill distinct gender roles. God designed the man to be husband, father, provider, protector. He is to be head of the family and to lead the church family. God designed the woman to be wife, mother, nurturer. She is to actively help and submit to the man’s leadership. God designed these differences at creation. The Bible uses key terms like head, helper, and submission to describe these differences, which are our sovereign Creator’s wise design for His image-bearing creation.
To correctly represent the biblical teaching on gender, both truths--equality and role differences--need to be affirmed and held in balanced tension. When properly understood and practiced, these role differences promote godly manhood and womanhood and marvelously enrich family life as well as life in the local church. God is profoundly concerned that gender differences not be minimized or blurred. These differences are fundamental to our sexual identity as male and female and thus need to be better understood and developed according to Scripture.
Adherents of the complementarian view believe that it best represents the plain, literal, straightforward teaching of the Bible on gender. Furthermore, role differences are clearly and repeatedly taught and practiced by Jesus Christ and His apostles.
[/ QUOTE ]
That is the view held by the vast majority, and the one that is supported by scripture.
God gave male and females different roles, the bible does not say men are superior to females. That is absurd.
[ QUOTE ]
Does this mean that women need long hair?
Linking that with other verses about veils - must women "cover" their heads with something when praying?
[/ QUOTE ]
For one as I said, God judges the heart not appearance.
Now, let me make one thing clear here though. That is not an excuse for Christian women to wear mini-skirts in church. Or like many of these new fads were women are basically naked.
Clothing is often the reflection of the heart. Usually when one is rebelling, how do they display it? Clothing. If your heart is wrong, it can reflect in your clothing. For example in Proverbs we read,
<font color="blue">10 And, behold, there met him a woman with the attire of an harlot, and subtil of heart.
</font>
There is a direct coorelation, she was subtil of heart and her attire reflected that. Now what she wore wasn't important, the fact is it was the attire of a harlot and her subtil heart caused her to dress in that manner.
God doesn't judge the outward, but He does judge the heart. If your heart is wrong, often it will reflect in the clothing, so therefore, dressing inappropriately is a reflection of pride in the heart and is a sin.
Now a girl wearing pants isn't a sin. If a guy is turned on that easily that a woman has to wear a sari like middle eastern women, he has a lust problem. That's not the girls fault. But at the same time, women should understand that the intentions of their heart can be reflected in their clothing and not intentionally lead men into temptation through provacative dress.
This is true of men just as easily. For example, we see a man demon possessed here:
<font color="blue"> 2 And when he was come out of the ship, immediately there met him out of the tombs a man with an unclean spirit,
3 Who had his dwelling among the tombs; and no man could bind him, no, not with chains:
4 Because that he had been often bound with fetters and chains, and the chains had been plucked asunder by him, and the fetters broken in pieces: neither could any man tame him.
5 And always, night and day, he was in the mountains, and in the tombs, crying, and cutting himself with stones.
6 But when he saw Jesus afar off, he ran and worshipped him,
7 And cried with a loud voice, and said, What have I to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of the most high God? I adjure thee by God, that thou torment me not.
8 For he said unto him, Come out of the man, thou unclean spirit.
9 And he asked him, What is thy name? And he answered, saying, My name is Legion: for we are many.
10 And he besought him much that he would not send them away out of the country.
11 Now there was there nigh unto the mountains a great herd of swine feeding.
12 And all the devils besought him, saying, Send us into the swine, that we may enter into them.
13 And forthwith Jesus gave them leave. And the unclean spirits went out, and entered into the swine: and the herd ran violently down a steep place into the sea, (they were about two thousand;) and were choked in the sea.
14 And they that fed the swine fled, and told it in the city, and in the country. And they went out to see what it was that was done.
15 And they come to Jesus, and see him that was possessed with the devil, and had the legion, sitting, and clothed, and in his right mind: and they were afraid.
</font>
Notice..fully clothed and in his right mind! Our culture needs to recognize a lot of these new fashion trends are not from God. Anyway before we get too far off topic. /forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif
[/ QUOTE ] Does this mean that women need long hair?
Linking that with other verses about veils - must women "cover" their heads with something when praying?
[/ QUOTE ]
First realize Paul took the vow of a Nazarite. One of the commandments of the Nazarites was to not cut their hair for a certain time.
<font color="green"> 1 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,
2
Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, When either man or woman shall separate themselves to vow a vow of a Nazarite, to separate themselves unto the LORD:
Nazarite Jud 13:5, 1st Sam 1:11, Isa 11:1, Matt 2:23, Mark 1:24, Luke 1:26
3 He shall separate himself from wine and strong drink, and shall drink no vinegar of wine, or vinegar of strong drink, neither shall he drink any liquor of grapes, nor eat moist grapes, or dried.
4 All the days of his separation shall he eat nothing that is made of the vine tree, from the kernels even to the husk.
5 All the days of the vow of his separation there shall no razor come upon his head: until the days be fulfilled, in the which he separateth himself unto the LORD, he shall be holy, and shall let the locks of the hair of his head grow.
6 All the days that he separateth himself unto the LORD he shall come at no dead body.
7 He shall not make himself unclean for his father, or for his mother, for his brother, or for his sister, when they die: because the consecration of his God is upon his head.
8 All the days of his separation he is holy unto the LORD.
9 And if any man die very suddenly by him, and he hath defiled the head of his consecration; then he shall shave his head in the day of his cleansing, on the seventh day shall he shave it.
10 And on the eighth day he shall bring two turtles, or two young pigeons, to the priest, to the door of the tabernacle of the congregation:
11 And the priest shall offer the one for a sin offering, and the other for a burnt offering, and make an atonement for him, for that he sinned by the dead, and shall hallow his head that same day.
12 And he shall consecrate unto the LORD the days of his separation, and shall bring a lamb of the first year for a trespass offering: but the days that were before shall be lost, because his separation was defiled.
13 And this is the law of the Nazarite, when the days of his separation are fulfilled: he shall be brought unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation:
14 And he shall offer his offering unto the LORD, one he lamb of the first year without blemish for a burnt offering, and one ewe lamb of the first year without blemish for a sin offering, and one ram without blemish for peace offerings,
15 And a basket of unleavened bread, cakes of fine flour mingled with oil, and wafers of unleavened bread anointed with oil, and their meat offering, and their drink offerings.
16 And the priest shall bring them before the LORD, and shall offer his sin offering, and his burnt offering:
17 And he shall offer the ram for a sacrifice of peace offerings unto the LORD, with the basket of unleavened bread: the priest shall offer also his meat offering, and his drink offering.
18 And the Nazarite shall shave the head of his separation at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, and shall take the hair of the head of his separation, and put it in the fire which is under the sacrifice of the peace offerings.
19 And the priest shall take the sodden shoulder of the ram, and one unleavened cake out of the basket, and one unleavened wafer, and shall put them upon the hands of the Nazarite, after the hair of his separation is shaven:
20 And the priest shall wave them for a wave offering before the LORD: this is holy for the priest, with the wave breast and heave shoulder: and after that the Nazarite may drink wine.
21 This is the law of the Nazarite who hath vowed, and of his offering unto the LORD for his separation, beside that that his hand shall get: according to the vow which he vowed, so he must do after the law of his separation.
</font>
Now, Paul was not a life long nazarite like Samson or John the Baptist. But the fact is there were times when Paul took on the Nazarite vow and would have had long hair.
<font color="red">“And Paul after this tarried there yet a good while, and then took his leave of the brethren, and sailed thence into Syria, and with him Priscilla and Aquila; having shorn his head in Cenchrea: for he had a vow.” </font>
Here is the description of Samuel's birth:
<font color="red"> For, lo, thou shalt conceive, and bear a son; and no razor shall come on his head: for the child shall be a Nazarite unto God from the womb: and he shall begin to deliver Israel out of the hand of the Philistines. (Judges 13:5)
…I will give him unto the LORD all the days of his life, and there shall no razor come upon his head. (1Samuel 1:11) </font>
Here is a bit about the Nazarite vow:
[/ QUOTE ] Nazarites:
Persons separated to the service of God
(Numbers 6:2)
DIFFERENT KINDS OF
From the womb
(Judges 13:5; Luke 1:15)
By a particular vow
(Numbers 6:2)
Required to be holy
(Numbers 6:8)
Esteemed pure
(Lamentations 4:7)
PROHIBITED FROM
Wine or strong drink
(Numbers 6:3; Luke 1:15)
Grapes or anything made from the vine
(Numbers 6:3,4; Judges 13:14)
Cutting or shaving the head
(Numbers 6:5; Judges 13:5; 16:17)
Defiling themselves by the dead
(Numbers 6:6,7)
Raised up for good of the nation
(Amos 2:11)
Ungodly Jews tried to corrupt
(Amos 2:12)
DEFILED DURING VOW
To shave the head the seventh day
(Numbers 6:9)
To bring two turtle doves for a burnt offering
(Numbers 6:10,11)
To recompense their vow with a trespass offering
(Numbers 6:12)
ON COMPLETION OF VOW
To be brought to tabernacle door
(Numbers 6:13)
To offer sacrifices
(Numbers 6:14-17)
To shave their heads
(Numbers 6:18; Acts 18:18; 21:24)
To have the left shoulder of the ram of the peace offering waved upon their hands by the priest
(Numbers 6:19,20; Leviticus 7:32)
ILLUSTRATIVE OF
Christ
(Hebrews 7:26)
Saints
(2 Corinthians 6:17; James 1:27)
[/ QUOTE ]
The word Nazarite signifies separation. Some were appointed of God, before their birth, to be Nazarites all their days, as Samson and John the Baptist.
(Samson - Jud 13:5,7; 16:17
Samuel - 1Sa 1:11
John the Baptist - Mt 11:18; Lu 1:15; 7:33 )
Were they living in sin? No.
Again though, is a man wearing long hair or a woman short hair a reflection of a rebellious heart? Then that would be a sin.
[ QUOTE ]
Should Women Cut Their Hair?
There are some churches that believe and teach that a Christian woman must never cut her hair. A woman's hair is not to be touched by sissors, they reason, for it is "a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven" (I Cor. 11:6). Those who hold this view seem to think that "shorn" means any cutting of the hair. This, however, is not the case. "Shorn" is simply the past participle of the word shear. If a woman has her head shaved or shorn, the hair is removed right down to the scalp!
There were at Corinth certain cult prostitutes who had shaved heads, though, as Lenski points out, "only a few of the very lowest type had shaved heads" (Commentary on First Corinthians, p. 439). Because of this, we can understand why a woman's shaved head was a sign of "shame" at Corinth, and thus the reference in I Corinthians 11:6. But what does any of this have to do with a Christian woman today merely having her hair cut? There is no connection whatsoever.
While the shaved head was considered a shame at Corinth, because of its association with harlotry there, it was not necessarily a sign of shame elsewhere. Instead, shaving of the hair of the head, as strange as this practice would appear to us today, was a common sign of mourning. In the scriptures, there are numerous references to people making themselves bald by shearing or shaving off the hair of their heads.
Job, for example, shaved his head and mourned (Job 1:20; 2:11, 13). Other verses include the following: "They shall make themselves utterly bald . . . they shall weep" (Ezekiel 27:31). "Make thee bald, and poll thee for thy delicate children . . . for they are gone into captivity" (Micah 1:16). ". . . all of them mourning. . . and baldness upon every head" (Amos 8:10). "On all their heads shall be baldness . . . weeping abundantly" (Isaiah 15:2; Jeremiah 16:6; Jeremiah 48:37; Isaiah 22:12; Ezra 9:3; etc.).
Both men and women shaved off their hair in times of extreme mourning, not just men. Troubles that were to come upon Jerusalem would cause the daughters of Zion to mourn and put on sackcloth. Instead of well set hair, they would have baldness, the result of hair being shaved off in mourning (Isaiah 3:24). Jerusalem, likened to a woman, was told: "Cut off thine hair, 0 Jerusalem, and cast it away, and take up a lamentation" (Jeremiah 7:29).
If a soldier of Israel took a wife from among the captives of war, the instructions were that "she shall shave her head", mourn for her parents for one month, and then become his wife (Deuteronomy 21:10-14). If it is a sin for a woman to cut her hair, as some suppose, how can we explain the instructions here in which a woman's hair was not just cut, but even shaved off? if it was not a sin in the Bible for a woman to shave off all the hair of her head in a time of mourning, as the custom then was, how can it be a sin for a Christian woman today to merely have part of her hair cut off?
Churches which make legalistic rules about women's hair have caused unnecessary confusion and unhappiness. While they pride themselves in having a high standard, they sometimes become judges, judging by the outward appearance. A Christian lady I know visited a church which does not allow women to cut their hair. Her hair was a normal length for a woman, but not the length required by this church. Anyhow, the minister called on the congregation for testimonies, asking all who were going to testify to stand up. Finally it got back to where this lady was standing, waiting her turn. Then the preacher, sounding somewhat hostile, said: "I don't allow women with short hair to testify in my church!" She was told to sit down.
At different times, a number of women from this same church had gone to a Christian doctor asking what they could do for headaches. In several cases the doctor felt the weight of their uncut hair piled on their heads was a contributing factor to their problem. But the "hair" thing was so big in their church, they could not cut part of it off!
I have seen women who give others the impression that they are "especially holy" because they have long, uncut hair. They feel they are given this long hair for a covering! Yet what does it cover? It is commonly worn on top of their heads instead of hanging down. It neither covers their face, back, or neck. It covers little more than the short hair on a man's head would cover!
Some insist that a woman is to have "long hair" which, to them, means hair that is not cut or trimmed by sissors. Yet if they see a man with hair that hangs down over his ears, even though a several inches have been cut off by sissors, they smoothly change their definition and say he is a shame because he has "long hair," quoting 1 Corinthians 11:14.
If the explanation we gave earlier is correct, "Even nature itself does not teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him. But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering" (I Corinthians 11: 14-15). The word translated "covering" in verse 15 is not the same Greek word that was used earlier in this chapter when it spoke of a woman covering her head. The word "covering" in verse 15 is peribolaion (Strong's Concordance, #4018), which means "something thrown around one." This word appears one other place and is translated "vesture" (Hebrews 1:12). It means simply clothing. The line of thought connects verses 14 and 15 together. The point is, according to "nature" a man's long hair is not a shame ; nor is a woman's long hair her glory, as though it were given to her for clothing (or literally, instead of clothing)!
On the other hand, if we are to understand this passage about what "nature" teaches as a rule that women must have long hair, this is still not the extreme view that the hair can never be cut. "Long hair" does not, necessarily, mean hair that is never cut or trimmed. Furthermore, if a woman had to have hair hanging down her back in order to be a Christian, millions of women would be automatically excluded. Women of some races simply do not have hair that grows lonq!
The Bible does not instruct us to take a measuring tape to see if a woman's hair is long enough to qualify her for church membership! Instead, the Christian woman is left at liberty to wear her hair the length she finds comfortable, practical, and appropriate within the realm of her own Christian convictions.
While it may be true that most women in the Bible wore their hair in a long style, there is no direct Biblical commandment for so doing. There would actually be more Biblical support for men wearing beards, than for the idea that a woman must never cut her hair. Yet, the vast majority of those men who insist on uncut hair for women, do not, themselves, wear a beard!
For a moment, consider a few things about beards. Men in the Bible such as Aaron (Psalm 133:2 ), Mephibosheth (II Samuel 19:24), David (I Samuel 21:13), Ezra (Ezra 9:3), and Ezekiel (Ezekiel 5:1) are all specifically mentioned as having beards. A verse, commonly applied to the sufferings of Jesus, indicates that he had a beard: "I gave my back to the smiters, and my cheeks to them that plucked off the hair" (Isaiah 50:6). The apostles apparently also had beards, for Jesus and his apostles looked enough alike that Judas had to point out which one was Jesus (Matthew 26:48).
All of David's servants had beards. We read that Hanun, supposing them to be spies, "took David's servants, and shaved off the one half of their beards, and cut off their garments in the middle, even to their buttocks, and sent them away" (II Samuel 10:4). Even though their garments were cut off, they seem to have been especially embarrassed because of what happened to their beards! "The men were greatly ashamed"; so David told them to stay at Jericho "until your beards be grown, and then return"!
Since boys before reaching the age of manhood, and also eunuchs, were without facial hair, primitive man reasoned that a beard was not only an indication of male virility, some believed it was the very source of it! But for whatever reasons men in the Bible wore beards, they did so because of custom, not divine commandment.
That the wearing of beards was not an inflexible command is seen by the fact that Joseph "shaved himself" (Genesis 41:14) when he was taken from the dungeon to appear before Pharoah. Since the Egyptians did not wear beards, it seems probable that Joseph followed the Egyptian custom in order to appear acceptable before Pharoah. On this same basis, whether a man wants a beard or not is entirely up to him as an individual. The Bible does not command it.
I believe it is proper for a woman to look like a woman and a man like a man in matters of dress and appearance according to time and place. However, this rule must have its necessary limitations, otherwise a beard would be an absolute requirement for all men. A beard clearly identifies the face of a man from that of a woman. It is also true that among people who normally wore beards, when some men began to shave, they were accused of trying to look like women! In view of these things, it is not very consistent for men to accuse women of trying to look like men, because they wear slacks or have their hair cut, when these men shave off their beards.
[/ QUOTE ]
Adam Knowlden
03-03-2004, 01:38 AM
[/ QUOTE ] Note that we have 27 girls and 4 guys in my class, so I want to be fully armed to deal with this debate!
[/ QUOTE ]
Sounds like you need to be armed anyway with that ratio. /forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif
But I would also show them the rules of interpertation, especially rule 4. There is nothing that is invalid in the bible, but the rules of interpertation apply.
[ QUOTE ]
Eight Rules of Interpretation
"...the Eight Rules of Interpretation used by legal experts for more than 2500 years.
1.Rule of Definition.
Define the term or words being considered and then adhere to the defined meanings.
2.Rule of Usage.
Don't add meaning to established words and terms. What was the common usage in the cultural and time period when the passage was written?
3.Rule of Context.
Avoid using words out of context. Context must define terms and how words are used.
4.Rule of Historical background.
Don't separate interpretation and historical investigation.
5.Rule of Logic.
Be certain that words as interpreted agree with the overall premise.
6.Rule of Precedent.
Use the known and commonly accepted meanings of words, not obscure meanings for which their is no precedent.
7.Rule of Unity.
Even though many documents may be used there must be a general unity among them.
8.Rule of Inference.
Base conclusions on what is already known and proven or can be reasonably implied from all known facts.
"It will be worth your time to acquaint yourself with these rules and commit them to memory or jot them in the flyleaf of your Bible. Using them will keep you free from cultism and false teachings. All the early Church Fathers used them. Irenaeus used them when he wrote Against Heresies, which dealt with Gnosticism and other untruths. Every law court religiously follows them and honest theologians dare not violate them. Much false teaching is the result of violating one or more of these universal rules of interpretation."
- From "Who Said Women Can't Teach?" by Charles Bromley.
These are expanded by appologetics ministries in the following manner:
"And so we have the prophetic word made more sure, to which you do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star arises in your hearts. But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation." [2 Peter 1:19,20 NAS]
We can't have a "sure word" about the meaning of Scripture (or anything else) unless we have a sure method to interpret the words. The following eight rules are the center of all grammatical interpretation. They have been accepted and used by scholars from Socrates to the present. While my hope is that they will be used to "rightly divide the word of truth" of the Holy Bible, they are equally applicable to legal, historical, and other such language.
Since the Bible teaches that God is not the author of confusion [1 Cor. 14:33], how can the many disagreements today between Christians and the proliferation of the cults be explained since all, or nearly all, claim to use the Bible as the basis of their doctrines? Nearly all false doctrines taught today by Christians and cultists alike can be traced to the distortion of the meaning of Biblical words. These eight rules are prayerfully offered in the hope that they may help many come to the truth of what God says in His Word.
The Rev. Guy Duty said in his book Divorce & Remarriage:
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
When two interpretations are claimed for a Scripture, the construction most in agreement with all the facts of the case should be adopted. When all the facts of an interpretation are in agreement they sound together in harmony, like notes in a chord.
Biblical interpretation is more than knowing a set of rules, but it cannot be done without the rules. So, learn the rules, and rightly apply them...." (Divorce & Remarriage, Minneapolis: Bethany House, 1967)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here are the eight rules:
1) The rule of DEFINITION: What does the word mean? Any study of Scripture must begin with a study of words. Define your terms and then keep to the terms defined. The interpreter should conscientiously abide by the plain meaning of the words. This quite often may require using a Hebrew/English or Greek/English lexicon in order to make sure that the sense of the English translation is understood. A couple of good examples of this are the Greek words "allos" and "heteros". Both are usually translated as "another" in English - yet "allos" literally means "another of the same type" and "heteros" means "another of a different type."
2) The rule of USAGE: It must be remembered that the Old Testament was written originally by, to and for Jews. The words and idioms must have been intelligible to them - just as the words of Christ when talking to them must have been. The majority of the New Testament likewise was written in a milieu of Greco-Roman (and to a lesser extent Jewish) culture and it is important to not impose our modern usage into our interpretation. It is not worth much to interpret a great many phrases and histories if one's interpretations are shaded by pre-conceived notions and cultural biases, thereby rendering an inaccurate and ineffectual lesson.
3) The rule of CONTEXT: The meaning must be gathered from the context. Every word you read must be understood in the light of the words that come before and after it. Many passages will not be understood at all, or understood incorrectly, without the help afforded by the context. A good example of this is the Mormon practice of using 1 Cor. 8:5b: "...for there be gods many and lords many..." as a "proof text" of their doctrine of polytheism. However, a simple reading of the whole verse in the context of the whole chapter (e.g. where Paul calls these gods "so-called"), plainly demonstrates that Paul is not teaching polytheism.
4) The rule of HISTORICAL BACKGROUND: The interpreter must have some awareness of the life and society of the times in which the Scripture was written. The spiritual principle will be timeless but often can't be properly appreciated without some knowledge of the background. If the interpreter can have in his mind what the writer had in his mind when he wrote - without adding any excess baggage from the interpreter's own culture or society - then the true thought of the Scripture can be captured resulting in an accurate interpretation. Oliver Wendell Holmes said, "Our only interest in the past is for the light it throws upon the present."
5) The rule of LOGIC: Interpretation is merely logical reasoning. When interpreting Scripture, the use of reason is everywhere to be assumed. Does the interpretation make sense? The Bible was given to us in the form of human language and therefore appeals to human reason - it invites investigation. It is to be interpreted as we would any other volume: applying the laws of language and grammatical analysis. As Bernard Ramm said:
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"What is the control we use to weed out false theological speculation? Certainly the control is logic and evidence... interpreters who have not had the sharpening experience of logic...may have improper notions of implication and evidence. Too frequently such a person uses a basis of appeal that is a notorious violation of the laws of logic and evidence." (Protestant Biblical Interpretation, Boston: W. A. Wilde, 1956)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6) The rule of PRECEDENT: We must not violate the known usage of a word and invent another for which there is no precedent. Just as a judge's chief occupation is the study of previous cases, so must the interpreter use precedents in order to determine whether they really support an alleged doctrine. Consider the Bereans in Acts 17:10-12 who were called "noble" because they searched the Scriptures to determine if what Paul taught them was true.
7) The rule of UNITY: The parts of Scripture being interpreted must be construed with reference to the significance of the whole. An interpretation must be consistent with the rest of Scripture. An excellent example of this is the doctrine of the Trinity. No single passage teaches it, but it is consistent with the teaching of the whole of Scripture (e.g. the Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit are referred to individually as God; yet the Scriptures elsewhere teach there is only one God).
8) The rule of INFERENCE: An inference is a fact reasonably implied from another fact. It is a logical consequence. It derives a conclusion from a given fact or premise. It is the deduction of one proposition from another proposition. Such inferential facts or propositions are sufficiently binding when their truth is established by competent and satisfactory evidence. Competent evidence means such evidence as the nature of the thing to be proved admits. Satisfactory evidence means that amount of proof which would ordinarily satisfy an unprejudiced mind beyond a reasonable doubt. Jesus used this rule when he proved the resurrection of the dead to the unbelieving Sadducees in Matt. 22:23-33.
Learning these eight rules and properly applying them will help keep any interpreter from making errors and will hopefully alleviate many of the disagreements unfortunately present in Christianity today. However, these eight principles are no substitute for the Holy Spirit which will, if you let Him, guide you in the truth [John 14:26]. If you receive Christ into your heart, God will give you the Holy Spirit freely as a gift [Acts 2:38]. I urge you, if you have not already done so, to examine the claims and the work of Jesus Christ and to receive Him as your Savior.
This paper will close with some words from King Solomon, the wisest man who ever lived, excepting our Lord Jesus Christ:
"A wise man will hear, and will increase learning; and a man of understanding shall attain unto wise counsels: to understand a proverb, and the interpretation." [Prov. 1:5,6]
(File provided by: The Light BBS - Silver Springs, FL.
Note: I believe this information was first published by the Personal Freedom Outreach. )
Exegesis, or critical interpretation, and hermeneutics, or the science of interpretive principles, of the Bible have been used by both Jews and Christians throughout their histories for various purposes. The most common purpose has been that of discovering the truths and values of the Old and New Testaments by means of various techniques and principles.
Our goal must be exegesis (drawing the meaning out of the text) and not eisogesis (superimposing a meaning onto the text).
By using eisogesis instead of exegesis, a Marxist interpreter could, for example, so skew the meaning of the U.S. Constitution that it came out reading like a socialistic document.
Cultists have done the same type of thing with Holy Scripture. There are entire sites dedicated to this attempting to show the bible as "full of contradictions" when really all they have done is show their expertise in eisogesis.
Every word in the Bible is part of a verse, and every verse is part of a paragraph, and every paragraph is part of a book, and every book is part of the whole of Scripture.
No verse of Scripture can be divorced from the verses around it. Interpreting a verse apart from its context is like trying to analyze a Rembrandt painting by looking at only a single square inch of the painting, or like trying to analyze Handel's "Messiah" by listening to a few short notes.
The context is absolutely critical to properly interpreting Bible verses.
The immediate context of a verse is the paragraph (or paragraphs) of the biblical book in question. The immediate context should always be consulted in interpreting Bible verses.
The broader context is the whole of Scripture.
The entire Holy Scripture is the context and guide for understanding the particular passages of Scripture.
We must keep in mind that the interpretation of a specific passage must not contradict the total teaching of Scripture on a point.
Individual verses do not exist as isolated fragments, but as parts of a whole.
The exposition of these verses, therefore, must involve exhibiting them in right relation both to the whole and to each other. Scripture interprets Scripture.
As J. I. Packer puts it, "if we would understand the parts, our wisest course is to get to know the whole."
They so skew the meaning of the biblical text that it comes out saying something entirely different than what was intended by the author.
Jesus consistently interpreted the Old Testament quite literally, including
the Creation account of Adam and Eve (Matthew 13:35; 25:34; Mark 10:6),
Noah's Ark and the flood (Matthew 24:38-39; Luke 17:26-27),
Jonah and the great fish (Matthew 12:39-41),
Sodom and Gomorrah (Matthew 10:15), and
The account of Lot and his wife (Luke 17:28-29).
In his book The Savior and the Scriptures, theologian Robert P. Lightner notes - following an exhaustive study - that Jesus' interpretation of Scripture "was always in accord with the grammatical and historical meaning. He understood and appreciated the meaning intended by the writers according to the laws of grammar and rhetoric."
Jesus affirmed the Bible's
divine inspiration (Matthew 22:43),
its indestructibility (Matthew 5:17-18),
its infallibility (John 10:35),
its final authority (Matthew 4:4,7,10),
its historicity (Matthew 12:40; 24:37),
its factual inerrancy (Matthew 22:29-32), and
its spiritual clarity (Luke 24:25).
Moreover, He emphasized the importance of each word of Scripture (Luke 16:17). Indeed, He sometimes based His argumentation on a single expression of the biblical text (Matthew 22:32,43-45; John 10:34).
Jesus said His words lead to eternal life (John 6:63). But for us to receive eternal life through His words, they must be taken as He intended them to be taken.
A cultic reinterpretation of Scripture that yields another Jesus and another gospel (2 Corinthians 11:3-4; Galatians 1:6-9) will yield only eternal death (Revelation 20:11-15).
[/ QUOTE ]
vBulletin® v3.7.2, Copyright ©2000-2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.