Faith in the living, resurrected Word (while the scriptures are only 50% historically accurate).

[Shrewd Manager]

Isn't that it in the number 3 spot?

Elisha's 16 miracles:

1. Parted the waters of the Jordan River (2 Kng 2:14)
2. Purification of the water source for Jericho (2 Kng 2:18-22)
3. Protection of the prophet by two she-bears (2 Kng 2:23-25)
4. Water for the army of Israel and success over the Moabites (2 Kng 3:16-25)
5. Providing the widow's oil (2 Kng 4:1-7)
6. Elisha's annunciation prophecy for the woman from Shunem (2 Kng 4:8-17)
7. Resurrection of the son of the Shunammite woman (2 Kng 4:18-37)
8. Purified the poison soup (2 Kng 4:38-41)
9. Multiplication of loaves (2 Kng 4:42-44)
10. Healing of Naaman (2 Kng 5:1-19)
11. Gehazi cursed with a skin disease (2 Kng 5:25-27)
12. Miracle of finding the axe (2 Kng 6:1-7)
13. Capturing a band of Aramaeans by striking them blind (2 Kng 6:8-23)
14. Prophesizing relief from the enemy and the famine (2 Kng 6:24-7:20)
15. Prophesizing the death of Ben-Hadad and the rise of Hazael (2 Kng 8:7-15)
16. Prophesizing that Israel's defeat of King Hazael of Damascus (2 Kng 13:14-19)
    

You're right oops, halleluja I can see! So it is a miracle. Ok, even more reason that it has spiritual and symbolic meaning at its core. The spiritual sense is the only 'transcendent' or fixed eternal way of reading. Its what visions, prophecies and miracles are made of. Idk why Christians of today are often so averse to the spiritual sense.

 

[Shrewd Manager]

I don't think it was for the kids.

Maybe you have never worked as a manager or leader? Respect isn't free, you have to earn it.

I'm not disputing the principle, just not entirely clear as to how you glean it from that story.

 

[Shrewd Manager]

What does making them jealous look like?

Christian charity, which includes doctrine, reproof, correction and instruction in righteousness. Love both tender and tough as the circumstances dictate.

 

[Saint Steven]

Idk why Christians of today are often so averse to the spiritual sense.

How do you confirm what the spiritual sense is? Isn't that different for everyone? There isn't really a standard of interpretation for that, unless I am missing something here. ???

That would be a barrier to acceptance for the majority. (If I'm right)

 

[Hillsage]

I love this comparison below. Many use the Matt. five verse to support the law still being in effect. But Jesus explains what he meant in the Luke twenty-four verse. Obviously, "the Law or the Prophets" in Matthew referred to the books, not the law itself.

Matthew 5:17
“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.

I sometimes wonder if we even know what "law" Jesus was talking about. He didn't say "the law of Moses, the Prophets.....like He did in your Luke 24 verse...quote below.

So maybe he was talking about the "law of sin and death". Or maybe it was the "law of Christ", "law of the spirit of life in Christ", "law of God" "law of sin" "law of my mind", "law of liberty", "law of the Jews" "law of our fathers". Does anyone even teach on all these? Or do we just lump them into some "heaping of terms" theology as I've heard "theologians" do with the terms 'iniquity, transgression, sin. I've not found any elaborative teachings on all those 'laws', but I admittedly haven't looked much either.

Luke 24:44
He said to them, “This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms.”

OK, still 2 grand kids left behind from Dallas and we're going bowling.

 

[Saint Steven]

I'm not disputing the principle, just not entirely clear as to how you glean it from that story.

At the beginning of the chapter Elisha is the apprentice. By the end of the chapter Elijah is gone and the apprentice has the cloak. The first thing he does with it is tests its power. See scripture below. Those watching bow in reverence. (respect is earned) The chapter ends with the story about the bears. (more respect earned) I dare you to call Elisha "baldy" next time you see him. - lol

2 Kings 2:13-16
Elisha then picked up Elijah’s cloak that had fallen from him and went back and stood on the bank of the Jordan. 14 He took the cloak that had fallen from Elijah and struck the water with it. “Where now is the Lord, the God of Elijah?” he asked. When he struck the water, it divided to the right and to the left, and he crossed over.
15 The company of the prophets from Jericho, who were watching, said, “The spirit of Elijah is resting on Elisha.” And they went to meet him and bowed to the ground before him. 16 “Look,” they said, “we your servants have fifty able men. Let them go and look for your master. Perhaps the Spirit of the Lord has picked him up and set him down on some mountain or in some valley.”
“No,” Elisha replied, “do not send them.”

 

[Shrewd Manager]

I 'think' I do see a distinction. I think it is still a little murky to see, or even to study. I know that the word can mean "anointed" as well as "the anointed one" and the epithet definition is where the church 'may' blur the lines of understanding IMO.

5547 Christos: anointed, i.e. the Messiah, an epithet of Jesus

But I haven't studied it enough to take much of a position or take any kind of real stand. Do you take a "substance/form" distinction with your examples above?

JOH 1:41 He first findeth his own brother Simon, and saith unto him, We have found the Messias/Messias, which is, being interpreted, the Christ/Christos.

3323 Messias: the Messias (i.e. Mashiach), or Christ

5547 Christos: anointed, i.e. the Messiah, an epithet of Jesus

Thoughts?

I'd have to give it more thought, there's certainly a number of ex post 'technical' analytic distinctions between types, shadows, symbols and so forth. It's perhaps more a question of emphasis - to what aspect of (the spirit of) Christ is our attention drawn eg Christ in the narrative pattern/ structure, Christ in the person or event etc. Because the logos is this organizing principle that is both the process and the telos.

Hm, just musing. Food for thought.

 

[Saint Steven]

I sometimes wonder if we even know what "law" Jesus was talking about. He didn't say "the law of Moses, the Prophets.....like He did in your Luke 24 verse...quote below.

He says "the Law or the Prophets". You can't separate "the Law" from "the Prophets". It is a set. Also notice the capitalization. (indicates titles) Not in the Greek, I know.

Furthermore, "the Law or the Prophets" has to be something that could be both abolished or fulfilled. This narrows the possibilities considerably. Can you see it now?

Matthew 5:17
“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.

 

[Shrewd Manager]

At the beginning of the chapter Elisha is the apprentice. By the end of the chapter Elijah is gone and the apprentice has the cloak. The first thing he does with it is tests its power. See scripture below. Those watching bow in reverence. (respect is earned) The chapter ends with the story about the bears. (more respect earned) I dare you th call Elisha "baldy" next time you see him. - lol

2 Kings 2:13-16
Elisha then picked up Elijah’s cloak that had fallen from him and went back and stood on the bank of the Jordan. 14 He took the cloak that had fallen from Elijah and struck the water with it. “Where now is the Lord, the God of Elijah?” he asked. When he struck the water, it divided to the right and to the left, and he crossed over.
15 The company of the prophets from Jericho, who were watching, said, “The spirit of Elijah is resting on Elisha.” And they went to meet him and bowed to the ground before him. 16 “Look,” they said, “we your servants have fifty able men. Let them go and look for your master. Perhaps the Spirit of the Lord has picked him up and set him down on some mountain or in some valley.”
“No,” Elisha replied, “do not send them.”

So respect from the adults, then respect from the kids. 'Anyone else like to question my authority?' [cowed silence]. Again, happy to accept this as a moral teaching in some way, but as Elisha is a type of Christ, we're bound to find the spirit of Christ therein.

 

[Saint Steven]

So respect from the adults, then respect from the kids. 'Anyone else like to question my authority?' [cowed silence]. Again, happy to accept this as a moral teaching in some way, but as Elisha is a type of Christ, we're bound to find the spirit of Christ therein.

Looks like you have your work cut out for you. But finish the outline of Revelation first please. Thanks. - lol

 

[Saint Steven]

...Elisha is a type of Christ, we're bound to find the spirit of Christ therein.

Curious as to why you think Elisha is a type of Christ.

 

[Saint Steven]

The spiritual sense is the only 'transcendent' or fixed eternal way of reading.

This quote is from post #201. Could you unpack this for me? (us)
I don't understand how the "spiritual sense" could be a "fixed eternal way of reading."
It seems to me that it would be more personalized and random. (like the kids say)

 

[Shrewd Manager]

Curious as to why you think Elisha is a type of Christ.

I was hoping you wouldn't ask that, cause I heard a great message with tonnes of parallels some time ago and can't recall in detail or locate it at present! Also, as you've probably surmised, it's been a while since I've read Elisha's story.

But just a glance at the list of his miracles ought to suggest strong correlations:

1. Parted the waters of the Jordan River (2 Kng 2:14)
2. Purification of the water source for Jericho (2 Kng 2:18-22)
3. Protection of the prophet by two she-bears (2 Kng 2:23-25)
4. Water for the army of Israel and success over the Moabites (2 Kng 3:16-25)
5. Providing the widow's oil (2 Kng 4:1-7)
6. Elisha's annunciation prophecy for the woman from Shunem (2 Kng 4:8-17)
7. Resurrection of the son of the Shunammite woman (2 Kng 4:18-37)
8. Purified the poison soup (2 Kng 4:38-41)
9. Multiplication of loaves (2 Kng 4:42-44)
10. Healing of Naaman (2 Kng 5:1-19)
11. Gehazi cursed with a skin disease (2 Kng 5:25-27)
12. Miracle of finding the axe (2 Kng 6:1-7)
13. Capturing a band of Aramaeans by striking them blind (2 Kng 6:8-23)
14. Prophesizing relief from the enemy and the famine (2 Kng 6:24-7:20)
15. Prophesizing the death of Ben-Hadad and the rise of Hazael (2 Kng 8:7-15)
16. Prophesizing that Israel's defeat of King Hazael of Damascus (2 Kng 13:14-19)

Recall Jesus' resurrection of the damsel echoing #7, the multiplication of fish and loaves #9, and the healing of Naaman in #10 (we were just discussing on another thread), which Jesus refers to at the outset of his ministry in Luke 4:27 when he offends the Jews, essentially saying God's sent him for the gentiles:

"And there were many lepers in Israel in the time of Elisha the prophet; and none of them was cleansed, but only Naaman the Syrian."

Then Jesus proceeds to cleanse 10 lepers, showing he has a power of more anointing than Elisha.

It's a bit sketchy on this very cursory comparison, but it's there, wouldn't you say?

 

[Shrewd Manager]

This quote is from post #201. Could you unpack this for me? (us)
I don't understand how the "spiritual sense" could be a "fixed eternal way of reading."
It seems to me that it would be more personalized and random. (like the kids say)

Because it identifies an aspect of God and Logos playing out in any setting. For instance, the exegesis I gave is a teaching about man's struggle against sin. This is the universal experience of spiritual warfare, regardless of time and place. If you see it as primarily a moral lesson about earning respect, it's a bit dangerous cause it suggests extreme violence is the way.

See, it's been suggested that the number 42 represents the tension between 6 and 7 (ie 6 x 7), man and God, and settles on man (4+2), so is not a good number according to scriptural usage. (Still, I was born again at 42, so can't complain!). Here Elisha puts down the rebellion of the human side in favour of the path of God. The she-bears probably represent a protective instinct.

I accept that allegorical interpretations may be open to eisegesis, but then so are literal interpretations. That's just what the sola scriptura protestants discovered after flipping the bird to the Pope as interpretive authority. The point is, I believe if it's always guided by Christ - the 'meta-narrative' of God's salvific plan - you can't go too far wrong.

 

[public hermit]

How do you confirm what the spiritual sense is? Isn't that different for everyone? There isn't really a standard of interpretation for that, unless I am missing something here. ???

That would be a barrier to acceptance for the majority. (If I'm right)

I think this is right. On the one hand, a passage or a figure can be a type pointing to the archetype (Christ). Moses is sometimes considered a type of the archetype. In the more general sense of a "spiritual sense" it would vary. There would not be a consensus. But there would be a common goal, i.e. love.

Augustine touches on this possibility of interpretations that don't mirror the author's intent:

"Whoever, then, thinks that he understands the Holy Scriptures, or any part of them, but puts such an interpretation upon them as does not tend to build up this twofold love of God and our neighbour, does not yet understand them as he ought. If, on the other hand, a man draws a meaning from them that may be used for the building up of love, even though he does not happen upon the precise meaning which the author whom he reads intended to express in that place, his error is not pernicious, and he is wholly clear from the charge of deception" (Augustine, On Christian Doctrine 1.36.40).

When he refers to "the precise meaning which the author whom he reads intended" he means the human author. If the interpreter misses the human author's intention, the interpretation is good so long as it builds up the two-fold love. Of course, knowing the author's intent isn't always obvious, either.

My contention, one I suppose I got from Augustine, is not only is Christ revealed in
the OT in terms of type/archetype, but the OT is interpreted in service of the love of God revealed in Christ (e.g. by making the goal of interpretation the two-fold love command).

http://www.ntslibrary.com/PDF Books/Augustine doctrine.pdf

Typology of Moses and Jesus

 

[Hillsage]

He says "the Law or the Prophets". You can't separate "the Law" from "the Prophets".

I thought I quoted 9 verses which did that very thing. Prophets weren't mentioned in any of those verses. But I agree it is indicated in the context of some of them.

It is a set. Also notice the capitalization. (indicates titles) Not in the Greek, I know.

Furthermore, "the Law or the Prophets" has to be something that could be both abolished or fulfilled. This narrows the possibilities considerably. Can you see it now?

What 'I see', is what you are saying. I don't see it saying 'that' for sure as you apparently believe.

Matthew 5:17
“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.

I agreed with you that he said "the law or the prophets" in the Matt verse. My 'point of question' was based upon you assuming that "the law" without mention of it being "the law of Moses" in the Luke verse made it correct to assume they were the same "law". I still don't know. But don't feel like I'm saying 'you're wrong'.

But the Law of the prophets doesn't necessarily mean the "law of Moses".

MAT 7:12 So whatever you wish that men would do to you, do so to them; for this is the law and the prophets.

Do you know where that the above bold is in the "law of Moses"?

Time for bed.

 

[Saint Steven]

It's a bit sketchy on this very cursory comparison, but it's there, wouldn't you say?

Yes, I agree it's a bit sketchy. - lol
The fact that they were both prophets seems to account for the similarities.
I look for more than that to call something a "type" of Christ. But I'll have to admit, I'm certainly not well studied in that area.

The Luke 4:27 reference is a good one. After I posted my question to you, I did a quick search and that came up. That's the strongest connection I see here.

Which reminds me of a nagging thought. It seems to me that references in the NT to OT passages are oftentimes misquotes, or have nothing to do with the context of the passage quoted. Have you noticed that? This might actually feed us back into the OP subject. Does that detract from inerrancy? OT misquotes.

 

[Saint Steven]

Because it identifies an aspect of God and Logos playing out in any setting. For instance, the exegesis I gave is a teaching about man's struggle against sin. This is the universal experience of spiritual warfare, regardless of time and place. If you see it as primarily a moral lesson about earning respect, it's a bit dangerous cause it suggests extreme violence is the way.

See, it's been suggested that the number 42 represents the tension between 6 and 7 (ie 6 x 7), man and God, and settles on man (4+2), so is not a good number according to scriptural usage. (Still, I was born again at 42, so can't complain!). Here Elisha puts down the rebellion of the human side in favour of the path of God. The she-bears probably represent a protective instinct.

I accept that allegorical interpretations may be open to eisegesis, but then so are literal interpretations. That's just what the sola scriptura protestants discovered after flipping the bird to the Pope as interpretive authority. The point is, I believe if it's always guided by Christ - the 'meta-narrative' of God's salvific plan - you can't go too far wrong.

Thanks, that's an interesting explanation.
And I would say that is a valid approach for someone to choose, but still seems rather personalized and random. (best indicated by your born again age) - lol

But I can't see that it would be a "fixed eternal way of reading." I certainly agree with the "transcendent" part, but still think that would be Spirit led, and AGAIN personalized and random.

Shrewd Manager said: ↑

The spiritual sense is the only 'transcendent' or fixed eternal way of reading.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~​

And my side comment about earning respect was just that. I don't claim that the passage is TRYING to teach that. I see it as a historic narrative. It tells us what happened and doesn't sugar coat it.

There may be a cautionary takeaway for those wielding God's power. Elisha acted in anger, but God honored the curse he spoke. If I was Elisha, I would have felt some guilt afterwards. And he probably learned his lesson. It seems there was no repeat of this sort of thing later on in the historical record. I need to scan that list again.

 

[Saint Steven]

I think this is right. On the one hand, a passage or a figure can be a type pointing to the archetype (Christ). Moses is sometimes considered a type of the archetype. In the more general sense of a "spiritual sense" it would vary. There would not be a consensus. But there would be a common goal, i.e. love.

Augustine touches on this possibility of interpretations that don't mirror the author's intent:

"Whoever, then, thinks that he understands the Holy Scriptures, or any part of them, but puts such an interpretation upon them as does not tend to build up this twofold love of God and our neighbour, does not yet understand them as he ought. If, on the other hand, a man draws a meaning from them that may be used for the building up of love, even though he does not happen upon the precise meaning which the author whom he reads intended to express in that place, his error is not pernicious, and he is wholly clear from the charge of deception" (Augustine, On Christian Doctrine 1.36.40).

When he refers to "the precise meaning which the author whom he reads intended" he means the human author. If the interpreter misses the human author's intention, the interpretation is good so long as it builds up the two-fold love. Of course, knowing the author's intent isn't always obvious, either.

My contention, one I suppose I got from Augustine, is not only is Christ revealed in
the OT in terms of type/archetype, but the OT is interpreted in service of the love of God revealed in Christ (e.g. by making the goal of interpretation the two-fold love command).

http://www.ntslibrary.com/PDF Books/Augustine doctrine.pdf

Typology of Moses and Jesus

Yes. That's good.
I was thinking as I read your post that there is always the possibility of a personal insight that has NOTHING to do with the passage. A person can latch on to one word in a verse and feel that God has communicated something deep and profound to them personally.

HOWEVER, they cannot rightful turnaround and announce that this is the true meaning of the passage. (even though God did in fact speak to them) Because it was ONLY for them in that moment. It only applies to them.

 

[Saint Steven]

I thought I quoted 9 verses which did that very thing. Prophets weren't mentioned in any of those verses. But I agree it is indicated in the context of some of them.





What 'I see', is what you are saying. I don't see it saying 'that' for sure as you apparently believe.

Matthew 5:17
“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.

I agreed with you that he said "the law or the prophets" in the Matt verse. My 'point of question' was based upon you assuming that "the law" without mention of it being "the law of Moses" in the Luke verse made it correct to assume they were the same "law". I still don't know. But don't feel like I'm saying 'you're wrong'.

But the Law of the prophets doesn't necessarily mean the "law of Moses".

MAT 7:12 So whatever you wish that men would do to you, do so to them; for this is the law and the prophets.

Do you know where that the above bold is in the "law of Moses"?

Time for bed.[/QUOTE]
I would say that every one of these passages refers to the books.

Matthew 5:17
“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.

Matthew 7:12
So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.

Matthew 11:13
For all the Prophets and the Law prophesied until John.

Matthew 22:40
All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”

Luke 16:16
“The Law and the Prophets were proclaimed until John. Since that time, the good news of the kingdom of God is being preached, and everyone is forcing their way into it.

Luke 24:44
He said to them, “This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms.”

John 1:45
Philip found Nathanael and told him, “We have found the one Moses wrote about in the Law, and about whom the prophets also wrote—Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.”

Acts 13:15
After the reading from the Law and the Prophets, the leaders of the synagogue sent word to them, saying, “Brothers, if you have a word of exhortation for the people, please speak.”

Acts 24:14
However, I admit that I worship the God of our ancestors as a follower of the Way, which they call a sect. I believe everything that is in accordance with the Law and that is written in the Prophets,

Acts 28:23
They arranged to meet Paul on a certain day, and came in even larger numbers to the place where he was staying. He witnessed to them from morning till evening, explaining about the kingdom of God, and from the Law of Moses and from the Prophets he tried to persuade them about Jesus.

Romans 3:21
But now apart from the law the righteousness of God has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify.