Changes

The New Testament can be understood better through the eyes (perspective), among other things, of the Judaism of the First Century. We can understand the New Testament best through the interplay of Old Testment, and contemporary with the New Testament Jewish understandings and practice, thus avoiding reading in from our own post New Testament and cultural perspectives. This will not only help to the understanding of the New Testament, but also to the understanding of how to apply it rightly to our present situations.  

The New Testament can be understood better through the eyes (perspective), among other things, of the Judaism of the First Century. We can understand the New Testament best through the interplay of Old Testment, and contemporary with the New Testament Jewish understandings and practice, thus avoiding reading in from our own post New Testament and cultural perspectives. This will not only help to the understanding of the New Testament, but also to the understanding of how to apply it rightly to our present situations.  

Example 1.  

'''Example 1.'''

We are so used to living in the Christian or Christian influenced world that we just assume monogamy, one man and one woman, to be the starting position from which we build our married life. We view polygamy as a deviation perhaps of Islam, paganism, and view the polygamy of the biblical forefathers - Abraham, and Jacob with their wives (and concubines) in particular, but King David, King Solomon (surely his many wives got him in trouble!) as well, as something special and antiquated, and basically bracketed out from our consciousness. In addition, we encounter  the problems of the modern mission field involving multiple marriages of recent converts to the Lord. What to do? "Require" that they divorce all their wives but one? Which one should they keep. The first? Any other criteria? Perhaps, divorce none and have a polygyomous church grow up? And what of the benefit that has accrued in certain situations by polygamous marriage - such as tribes where the men have almost been wiped out in wars and an overabundance of starving woman and children? Who would take care of them but the remaining men? What is the solution?

We are so used to living in the Christian or Christian influenced world that we just assume monogamy, one man and one woman, to be the starting position from which we build our married life. We view polygamy as a deviation perhaps of Islam, paganism, and view the polygamy of the biblical forefathers - Abraham, and Jacob with their wives (and concubines) in particular, but King David, King Solomon (surely his many wives got him in trouble!) as well, as something special and antiquated, and basically bracketed out from our consciousness. In addition, we encounter  the problems of the modern mission field involving multiple marriages of recent converts to the Lord. What to do? "Require" that they divorce all their wives but one? Which one should they keep. The first? Any other criteria? Perhaps, divorce none and have a polygyomous church grow up? And what of the benefit that has accrued in certain situations by polygamous marriage - such as tribes where the men have almost been wiped out in wars and an overabundance of starving woman and children? Who would take care of them but the remaining men? What is the solution?

We can see that a bishop or overseer, in I Timothy 3:2, is to have only one wife, is, first of all, not speaking in referance  to divorce and remarriage , but to the situation of polygamy. Then we can see, the wisdom of the rule of one wife for elders of the church - there is just too much to do and be responsible for in the work of the church that any more than one wife will deprive from the church and deprive from the family. Then we can see, that these are not iron clan rules, deviation from which is sin, but good and responsible quides that Paul is giving Timothy for the chosing of the leaders (and servants) of the Church. Then we can see, how it all fits in with the other guides - Don't chose a man that can't love and manage his own family, nor a man that has a bad reputation or drinks too much to lose sobriety, etc. And we can understand that all that needs to apply to our own situation in our century. And we can see that these were recommendations primarily to Timothy who had a task probably different from most of us, so we must truly learn the principles behind to make the wisdom of God's Word then applicable and real for our lives today. And we can see that the activity of the Holy Spirit did not end with the first century- and must not end for us in this century, by we must learn, and be enabled by Him to now apply what He has already told us in the Holy Scriptures for our present generation with its particulur problems.   

We can see that a bishop or overseer, in I Timothy 3:2, is to have only one wife, is, first of all, not speaking in referance  to divorce and remarriage , but to the situation of polygamy. Then we can see, the wisdom of the rule of one wife for elders of the church - there is just too much to do and be responsible for in the work of the church that any more than one wife will deprive from the church and deprive from the family. Then we can see, that these are not iron clan rules, deviation from which is sin, but good and responsible quides that Paul is giving Timothy for the chosing of the leaders (and servants) of the Church. Then we can see, how it all fits in with the other guides - Don't chose a man that can't love and manage his own family, nor a man that has a bad reputation or drinks too much to lose sobriety, etc. And we can understand that all that needs to apply to our own situation in our century. And we can see that these were recommendations primarily to Timothy who had a task probably different from most of us, so we must truly learn the principles behind to make the wisdom of God's Word then applicable and real for our lives today. And we can see that the activity of the Holy Spirit did not end with the first century- and must not end for us in this century, by we must learn, and be enabled by Him to now apply what He has already told us in the Holy Scriptures for our present generation with its particulur problems.   

Example 2.

'''Example 2.'''

 

Telling without saying.  

Telling without saying.  

Four methods of Jewish Biblical interpretation are   

Four methods of Jewish Biblical interpretation are   

Derash = a more searching of the all facets relevant to the text and involving stories, customs, sayings, even analysis of the Hebrew letters, and relating to all facets of life  

Derash = a more searching of the all facets relevant to the text and involving stories, customs, sayings, even analysis of the Hebrew letters, and relating to all facets of life  

Sod = the secret and hidden, sometimes esoteric meaning of the text.   

Sod = the secret and hidden, sometimes esoteric meaning of the text.   

    Together the first letters (consonents) of these words spell PaRDeS = Paradise. The second word, Remez, means hint or indication, and that is "telling without saying". This method is used in the writing of the account of the Gospel of Matthew of the giving of the "Sermon on the Mount"  beginning with the Beatitudes "Blessed are..." This is rightly seen, in this most Jewish of Gospels,  as the new Law , or, better, Teaching (Torah) of the Kingdom of Heaven  paralleling and then exceeding the Old Law of Mount Sinai.  

 

Together the first letters (consonents) of these words spell PaRDeS = Paradise. The second word, Remez, means hint or indication, and that is "telling without saying". This method is used in the writing of the account of the Gospel of Matthew of the giving of the "Sermon on the Mount"  beginning with the Beatitudes "Blessed are..." This is rightly seen, in this most Jewish of Gospels,  as the new Law , or, better, Teaching (Torah) of the Kingdom of Heaven  paralleling and then exceeding the Old Law of Mount Sinai.  

In the account of Luke, it is the Sermon on the Plain. In Matthew, it is the Sermon on the Mount. Both are historically correct as the location on the north shore of the Sea of Galilee is a high hill fanning out to a plain and meeting the sea. Why does Matthew prefer to use a Mountain? Because this will recall to listeners and readers of the Gospel that other mount,  Mount Sinai, which Moses had ascended to receive the now "Old Law".  

In the account of Luke, it is the Sermon on the Plain. In Matthew, it is the Sermon on the Mount. Both are historically correct as the location on the north shore of the Sea of Galilee is a high hill fanning out to a plain and meeting the sea. Why does Matthew prefer to use a Mountain? Because this will recall to listeners and readers of the Gospel that other mount,  Mount Sinai, which Moses had ascended to receive the now "Old Law".