p.ost

how to tell the biblical story in a way that makes a difference

Add new comment

One final comment about interpretive paradigm for those who might be really open that Andrew could be wrong.

Can we really trust the Ancient Jewish intepretive paradigms to uncover the meaning of OT laws and prophets? What did Jesus say to the very experts that Andrew affirms to be exemplars of understanding both the OT prophecies, laws, and writings, as well as the Christ event.

And He answered and said to them, “Why do you yourselves transgress the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition? 4 “For God said, ‘HONOR YOUR FATHER AND MOTHER,’ and, ‘HE WHO SPEAKS EVIL OF FATHER OR MOTHER IS TO BE PUT TO DEATH.’ 5 “But you say, ‘Whoever says to his father or mother, “Whatever I have that would help you has been given to God,” 6 he is not to honor his father or his mother.’ And by this you invalidated the word of God for the sake of your tradition. 7 “You hypocrites, rightly did Isaiah prophesy of you:
8 ‘THIS PEOPLE HONORS ME WITH THEIR LIPS, BUT THEIR HEART IS FAR AWAY FROM ME. 9 ‘BUT IN VAIN DO THEY WORSHIP ME, TEACHING AS DOCTRINES THE PRECEPTS OF MEN.’ ” Matt. 15:3-9

Apparently Jesus had major differences with the prevailing intepretive paradigm of first-century Judaism.

He was also saying to them, “You are experts at setting aside the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition.
10 “For Moses said, ‘HONOR YOUR FATHER AND YOUR MOTHER’; and, ‘HE WHO SPEAKS EVIL OF FATHER OR MOTHER, IS TO BE PUT TO DEATH’; 11 but you say, ‘If a man says to his father or his mother, whatever I have that would help you is Corban (that is to say, given to God),’ 12 you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or his mother; 13 thus invalidating the word of God by your tradition which you have handed down; and you do many things such as that.”

Notice Jesus says that first century Judaism was expert at setting aside the commandments of God. He also accused this interpretive paradigm of invalidating the Word of God. These are serious indictments.

It was precisely in this interpretive paradigm that Paul was an expert among experts. Gal. 1:14

Jesus said to them, “Is this not the reason you are mistaken, that you do not understand the Scriptures or the power of God? Mk 12:24

Apparently, ancient Judaism had adopted an woefully inadequate interpretive paradigm because the Jews were subverting the Scripture, fundamentally ignorant of the Word of God, and could not even recognize their own Messiah when He appeared.

Finally, Then their eyes were opened and they recognized Him; and He vanished from their sight. Lk. 24:31

-AND- “Then He opened their minds to understand the Scriptures.” Lk 24:45.

The Jewish interpretive paradigm was harshly rebuked by Christ for its inability to understand Scripture, its deliberate invalidation of the Word of God, and its ability to subvert the truth about the Messiah. Paul was a leading proponent and expert in this methodology. Yet, it was inadequate to lead Paul to the right conclusions about Jesus Christ. It took a miracle. The men on the road to Emmaus required divine intervention to recognize Jesus. The Disciples had to have their minds open by divine action before they could understand the Scriptures. The disciples never started following Jesus as the Messiah because of their interpretive paradigm. Jesus called, and they followed in every case. They only learned later, much later, how to rightly interpret Scripture so as to demonstrate the Jesus was the Messiah. If anything is clear, it is this: unregnerate people MUST have a new interpretive paradigm to understand the Scripture and to rightly know who Jesus really is. And that paradigm can only come through the agency of the Holy Spirit, by divine and supernatural transformation. Sinners do not become saints because they employed some ancient Jewish, naturalistic interpretive paradigm and figured it out. You must be born again said Jesus to one of the masters of Andrew’s narrative-historical method! If it was bankrupt and inadequate then, 2,000 years of distance cannot possibly have made it the interpretive paradigm of choice today.

What other motives could these men have for affirming interpretive paradigms that tell us Jesus is not God, eternal punishment is a product of men, and that the path to God is much broader than even Jesus said it was in Matt. 7?