Private Interpretations of Scripture

[robert derrick]

Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. (2 Peter 1: 20)

The context of the Scripture is ministry:

For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty. For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount. (2 Peter 1:16-18)

Immediately following the Scripture is warning against false teachers. (2 Peter 2:1)

True interpretation of Scripture begins with rightly dividing between Scripture that is written, and things of our own mind that is not.

2 Peter 1:20 does not say specifically that there is no private interpretation of Scripture. What it does say in context, is that we should not prophecy, preach, nor minister our private interpretations as Scripture.

I.e. Only Scripture quoted is undeniable truth of God.

All the rest is teaching, admonition, and understanding of Scripture:

So they read in the book in the law of God distinctly, and gave the sense, and caused them to understand the reading. (Nehem 8:8)

And the proper sense of Scripture will always make perfect sense from Scripture quoted.

I.e. a good identifier of false teaching, is when arguments from around the world of culture and original languages must be brought in to persuade and convince such teaching is true.

I.e. just quoting the Scripture isn't good enough, because the Scripture either isn't there, or an average normal sense of it isn't what is being taught.

 

[marks]

This passage is actually speaking of the origin of prophecy.

2 Peter 1:20-21 KJV
20) Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
21) For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

NLT . . .

20 Above all, you must realize that no prophecy in Scripture ever came from the prophet’s own understanding, 21 or from human initiative. No, those prophets were moved by the Holy Spirit, and they spoke from God.

Much love!

 

[MatthewG]

Hello Robert,

For you will try to keep it very simple and hope if you consider this below, that if you have any insight to add or share with me please do so,

What is an example of someone sharing their private interpretation? What would a Ministry look like if it only gave its own private interpretation? When it comes to scripture, believe you can sufficiently find out many truths about God's will and desire for all people, and even that of the Son of God who died for all people, who came down from heaven, lived, after dying was buried and was risen after 3 days of being in the ground by the Promise of the Father who raised Jesus back up from the dead as justification over Death, Grave, Sin and that of even Satan, and His Demons that was to come after the Bride of Christ had been started gathering and were taken away.

If you notice in that scripture 2 Peter 1:16-18: This letter which was written by Peter was the second letter of the first epistle that Peter sent out. He sent out according to (1 Peter 1:1-3 ) the first letter to God's elect, exiles scattered throughout the provinces of Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, who have been chosen according to the know Foreknowledge of God the Father.

Not sure if in this first letter ever mentions anything about the return of the Lord Jesus Christ was going to be witnessed by them ~ They were eyewitness of his majesty ( of it ?) of the power and coming of the Lord Jesus Christ?

Am going to assume that Peter decided to write a second letter to the same group of people out there in the Exiles who were God's Elect.

Thank you with love in Christ,
Matthew G.

 

[Webers_Home]

.

This passage is actually speaking of the origin of prophecy.

I am thoroughly convinced that you are 100% correct.

George Orwell's novel "Nineteen Eighty-Four" depicts a dystopian society
wherein citizens are not allowed to do their own thinking, to the extreme
that a system of thought police is in place to control people's opinions; even
children are enlisted as informants to rat on their parents should perchance
their thoughts not align with Big Brother's thoughts.

For example: were Big Brother to decree that 2 + 2 = 5, nobody would
argue, not even behind closed doors, because nobody can be trusted to keep
your secrets.

Discussions are rare to nonexistent in an Orwellian society because no one is
asked for their opinion, instead, they are given Big Brother's opinion, and its
opinion is the only opinion allowed all across the land, i.e. to debate Big
Brother's opinion is to risk fines and/or imprisonment and torture.

When truth is dictated by a central authority like that depicted in Nineteen
Eighty-Four, we end up with a totalitarian world structured like Communist
China, North Korea, Roman Catholicism, and the Watchtower Society. That is
an inevitable result when people assign a central authority to do their
thinking for them.

And who is to vet the central authority to verify they know what they're
talking about? But once that kind of power is in place, it becomes from
thence self-vetting; which is definitely not a good thing.
_

 

[Robert Gwin]

Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. (2 Peter 1: 20)

The context of the Scripture is ministry:

For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty. For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount. (2 Peter 1:16-18)

Immediately following the Scripture is warning against false teachers. (2 Peter 2:1)

True interpretation of Scripture begins with rightly dividing between Scripture that is written, and things of our own mind that is not.

2 Peter 1:20 does not say specifically that there is no private interpretation of Scripture. What it does say in context, is that we should not prophecy, preach, nor minister our private interpretations as Scripture.

I.e. Only Scripture quoted is undeniable truth of God.

All the rest is teaching, admonition, and understanding of Scripture:

So they read in the book in the law of God distinctly, and gave the sense, and caused them to understand the reading. (Nehem 8:8)

And the proper sense of Scripture will always make perfect sense from Scripture quoted.

I.e. a good identifier of false teaching, is when arguments from around the world of culture and original languages must be brought in to persuade and convince such teaching is true.

I.e. just quoting the Scripture isn't good enough, because the Scripture either isn't there, or an average normal sense of it isn't what is being taught.

In our day the spiritual food, which is basically Bible understanding comes through the faithful slave that Jesus assigned to care for his sheep in his absence. Since the Bible's completion, the inspired writings are complete, the moving forward of the faith was the progressive revelations of Bible truths. Pro 4:18; Dan 12:4; Isa 2:3

As far as individual interpretation, we all have that responsibility Rob, Jesus sent his disciples out to make more disciples, teaching others all the things he commanded, until we reach the ends of the earth with the message. Acts 1:8; Mat 24:14. Our responsibility is found at Acts 17:11 in which after we receive the word, we need to make sure that is actually is from God, by examining the teachings in comparison to the Scriptures.

 

[robert derrick]

Hello Robert,

For you will try to keep it very simple and hope if you consider this below, that if you have any insight to add or share with me please do so,

What is an example of someone sharing their private interpretation? What would a Ministry look like if it only gave its own private interpretation? When it comes to scripture, believe you can sufficiently find out many truths about God's will and desire for all people, and even that of the Son of God who died for all people, who came down from heaven, lived, after dying was buried and was risen after 3 days of being in the ground by the Promise of the Father who raised Jesus back up from the dead as justification over Death, Grave, Sin and that of even Satan, and His Demons that was to come after the Bride of Christ had been started gathering and were taken away.

If you notice in that scripture 2 Peter 1:16-18: This letter which was written by Peter was the second letter of the first epistle that Peter sent out. He sent out according to (1 Peter 1:1-3 ) the first letter to God's elect, exiles scattered throughout the provinces of Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, who have been chosen according to the know Foreknowledge of God the Father.

Not sure if in this first letter ever mentions anything about the return of the Lord Jesus Christ was going to be witnessed by them ~ They were eyewitness of his majesty ( of it ?) of the power and coming of the Lord Jesus Christ?

Am going to assume that Peter decided to write a second letter to the same group of people out there in the Exiles who were God's Elect.

Thank you with love in Christ,
Matthew G.

What is an example of someone sharing their private interpretation?

One of prophecy would be of the first resurrection, whether it occurs before, during, or at the end of the last great tribulation on earth, before the Lord's return.

It can only be given as a proposition based upon Scriptural reading. It cannot be declared as truth one way or the other, because no Scripture plainly says so.

There is however the dangerous side of 'sharing' our private interpretations of Scripture, when it comes to doctrine of rule and law of Christ vs matters of personal conscience and faith.

Scripture says plainly that no drunkard shall enter into the kingdom of heaven.

Therefore, there are several private interpretations of the Scripture pertaining to drinking alcohol based upon personal conscience and faith: not drink any. drink in moderation. drink for health. drink for social gathering.

To then go on and preach any of these as Scripture itself, is to make our own personal conscience to become the rule God for all others to obey, which is to then become a lawgiver unto ourselves and to judge others falsely. (James 4:11-12)

Preachers are not supposed to tell the people what sin is. They are supposed to tell the people what God says sin is according to the Scriptures.

Preach the Scripture that no drunkard shall enter in, and then leave it to the hearers to obey it according to their own faith and conscience.

In this way we only preach the gospel according to the Scriptures, and do not begin to preach another gospel according to our own mind and personal interpretation of Scripture, that Scripture does not plainly say.

What would a Ministry look like if it only gave its own private interpretation?

Like any other cult. They are all adding to the Word of God their own personal beliefs and preaching it as truth of God. They make themselves the head of the body of believers, instead of allowing Jesus to be the only true Head of the church, by only preaching and teaching that which He says and is written.

that of the Son of God who died for all people, who came down from heaven, lived, after dying was buried and was risen after 3 days of being in the ground by the Promise of the Father who raised Jesus back up from the dead as justification over Death, Grave, Sin and that of even Satan, and His Demons that was to come after the Bride of Christ had been started gathering and were taken away.

That is the gospel that Paul preached according to the Scriptures (1 Cor 15:3-4). How do we know? Because the Scriptures say so. Simple and good and true.

Am going to assume that Peter decided to write a second letter

I don't see Scripture written that way. That speaks of Scripture being by the will of men. But rather, the Lord had Peter write a 2nd letter for His own purpose of instruction, enlightenment, exhortations, and prophecy.

For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

We aren't saved by our own will (John 1:13), nor was Scripture written by the will of the prophets and apostles.

We are saved by believing the Scriptures as from the true God, and doing His will accordingly:

Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.

 

[robert derrick]

Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God.

By preaching our own private interpretations of Scripture as Scripture itself, is to no longer be an ambassador for Christ, beseeching the hearers in Christ' stead, but rather to make ourselves another head over the body instead of Christ.

A false christ and self-made apostle usurping the headship of the body of Christ:

(2 Cor 11):
But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.

For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him...

For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ. And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.

Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works.

The moment we begin to preach other than what is plainly written for all to read, as being equal to truth of Scripture, we make ourselves false teachers of our own righteousness, rather than the righteousness of God, and so become ministers of Satan, rather than of Jesus Christ.

This is how the body is destroyed from within.

 

[MatthewG]

Okay. Thank you for taking time to explain all of that.

 

[robert derrick]

This passage is actually speaking of the origin of prophecy.

2 Peter 1:20-21 KJV
20) Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
21) For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

NLT . . .

20 Above all, you must realize that no prophecy in Scripture ever came from the prophet’s own understanding, 21 or from human initiative. No, those prophets were moved by the Holy Spirit, and they spoke from God.

Much love!

True. The origin is both the prophecy of Scripture and of Scripture itself: the true God of heaven and earth.

And likewise in context of ministry, no teaching of Scripture should ever come from the teacher's own mind or interpretation of Scripture.

The context is all about ministry: what the apostles heard from God Himself, and then wrote as Scripture, and then warnings of them that falsely teach their own things as equal to Scripture.

Prophecy in it's oldest form was to declare the things of God. Not just to 'prophesy' of specific future events.

And so, no prophecy of Scripture...no preaching of Scripture...not teaching of Scripture...no ministering of Scripture should be of any private interpretation of Scripture.

The origin of Scripture is God, and the origin of ministry of Scripture is God, if only Scripture is ministered.

We can have personal understandings and beliefs: interpretations of Scripture in our own lives, but unless it is specifically written as Scripture and plainly understood by Scripture, we ought not to 'bleed over' our own minds about Scripture into doctrine of Christ.

And Moses said, Hereby ye shall know that the LORD hath sent me to do all these works; for I have not done them of mine own mind.

Scriptures were not written from men's own minds, and teaching of scripture should not be from men's own minds.

Divisions come when men's own minds are put forth as Scripture itself: I.e. their own word is equal with God's.

That ye might learn in us not to think of men above that which is written, that no one of you be puffed up for one against another.

The end result of preaching our own mind about things of God as Scripture itself, will be the pride of elevating ourselves above Scripture, and become as another head of the body, preaching another gospel of a false christ. It is the origin of Lucifer's error:

Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.

And it is still the origin of ministerial error and false teaching.

 

[robert derrick]

.

I am thoroughly convinced that you are 100% correct.

George Orwell's novel "Nineteen Eighty-Four" depicts a dystopian society
wherein citizens are not allowed to do their own thinking, to the extreme
that a system of thought police is in place to control people's opinions; even
children are enlisted as informants to rat on their parents should perchance
their thoughts not align with Big Brother's thoughts.

For example: were Big Brother to decree that 2 + 2 = 5, nobody would
argue, not even behind closed doors, because nobody can be trusted to keep
your secrets.

Discussions are rare to nonexistent in an Orwellian society because no one is
asked for their opinion, instead, they are given Big Brother's opinion, and its
opinion is the only opinion allowed all across the land, i.e. to debate Big
Brother's opinion is to risk fines and/or imprisonment and torture.

When truth is dictated by a central authority like that depicted in Nineteen
Eighty-Four, we end up with a totalitarian world structured like Communist
China, North Korea, Roman Catholicism, and the Watchtower Society. That is
an inevitable result when people assign a central authority to do their
thinking for them.

And who is to vet the central authority to verify they know what they're
talking about? But once that kind of power is in place, it becomes from
thence self-vetting; which is definitely not a good thing.
_

And who is to vet the central authority to verify they know what they're talking about?

In the church ministry, we are for ourselves. The danger of the ministry is the thirst for power over others as the central authority on all things of God: they begin to preach their own interpretations and rules and commandments for Scripture and doctrine of God.

True ministry begins in the home, where we sit and read and minister to one another:

And thou shalt teach them diligently unto thy children, and shalt talk of them when thou sittest in thine house, and when thou walkest by the way, and when thou liest down, and when thou risest up. (Deut 6)

A strong Christian church begins with strong Christian homes:

I have written unto you, young men, because ye are strong, and the word of God abideth in you, and ye have overcome the wicked one. (1 John 2)

I don't care about world gvts. If I want to exercise civil disobedience, and risk punishment or fine, then so be it. And if that disobedience includes believing and living as a Christian, then even better:

But let none of you suffer as a murderer, or as a thief, or as an evildoer, or as a busybody in other men's matters. Yet if any man suffer as a Christian, let him not be ashamed; but let him glorify God on this behalf. (1 Peter 4)

 

[marks]

True. The origin is both the prophecy of Scripture and of Scripture itself: the true God of heaven and earth.

And likewise in context of ministry, no teaching of Scripture should ever come from the teacher's own mind or interpretation of Scripture.

The context is all about ministry: what the apostles heard from God Himself, and then wrote as Scripture, and then warnings of them that falsely teach their own things as equal to Scripture.

I'd say the meaning of the passage is about the origin of prophecy, and the context is about the certainty of prophecy, as it relates to our personal certainty based in our life experience.

2 Peter 1:16-21 KJV
16) For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.
17) For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.
18) And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount.
19) We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:
20) Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
21) For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

We know the prophecy is true, it came from God, not what the prophet thought. And we haven't followed fables, we saw for ourselves!! But even so, the prophecy is more sure.

Much love!

 

[robert derrick]

I'd say the meaning of the passage is about the origin of prophecy, and the context is about the certainty of prophecy, as it relates to our personal certainty based in our life experience.

2 Peter 1:16-21 KJV
16) For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.
17) For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.
18) And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount.
19) We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:
20) Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
21) For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

We know the prophecy is true, it came from God, not what the prophet thought. And we haven't followed fables, we saw for ourselves!! But even so, the prophecy is more sure.

Much love!

We know the prophecy is true, it came from God, not what the prophet thought. And we haven't followed fables, we saw for ourselves!! But even so, the prophecy is more sure.

I appreciate your faithfulness to what is written in order to teach something from Scripture. Quoting Scripture is how we prove Scripture and avoid giving our own personal theories about Scripture.

And so, it certainly works for me.

We know what is for sure by reading it as such in Scripture. And we know what is not for sure, by not seeing it in Scripture.

So, whether it be prophecy or ministry, it is the same origin and result.

And prophecy is ministry of old: speaking the things of God.

But he that prophesieth speaketh unto men to edification, and exhortation, and comfort...For ye may all prophesy one by one, that all may learn, and all may be comforted. (1 Cor 14)

All Scripture is prophecy, and so is all good for instruction of God and His righteousness, that we may learn.

Prophesy is preaching the things of God to edify, exhort, and comfort. Not just foretelling specific events of the future.

Therefore, no prophecy of scripture...no ministering of Scripture...is to be by any private interpretation of scripture, but only by the Scriptures themselves.

 

[marks]

Prophesy is preaching the things of God to edify, exhort, and comfort. Not just foretelling specific events of the future.

Therefore, no prophecy of scripture...no ministering of Scripture...is to be by any private interpretation of scripture, but only by the Scriptures themselves.

There is the meaning of the passage, a certain thing, and there are applications of that meaning, which can be different. I don't backtrack the application into the passage as though that were it's meaning.

This passage is telling us about those who penned Scripture.

Much love!

 

[robert derrick]

There is the meaning of the passage, a certain thing, and there are applications of that meaning, which can be different. I don't backtrack the application into the passage as though that were it's meaning.

This passage is telling us about those who penned Scripture.

Much love!

That's fine.

This passage is telling us about those who penned Scripture.

That would God the Father from the excellent glory and His pens of ready writers, the prophets and apostles.

there are applications of that meaning, which can be different.

To me, that would be private interpretations or personal applications.

An interpretation (epilusis) is also called expounding, and determining elsewhere in Scripture:

But without a parable spake he not unto them: and when they were alone, he expounded all things to his disciples.

Private interpretations being personal alone time expounding from the our Lord in matter of personal faith and conscience.

But if ye enquire any thing concerning other matters, it shall be determined in a lawful assembly.

Personal faith with Jesus, where things of conscience are determined between us alone.

It's where friendship with Jesus begins, after keeping the commandments, and moving on to grow in matters of faith and conscience.

Those who live a Christian life by zero-tolerance rules, especially those preached for law of Christ, remain perpetual children, never learning to grow in the grace and admonition and friendship of the Lord.

 

[marks]

there are applications of that meaning, which can be different.

To me, that would be private interpretations or personal applications.

I think that God uses His Scriptures in all sorts of ways, and with Power, in the lives of His children. I think that He takes a snippet of a verse sometimes and gives it to us, and shows that He truly understands our deepest inner man.

But those may not apply to others when God is giving it to me that way. I want to make sure I distinguish between these.

It's where friendship with Jesus begins, after keeping the commandments, and moving on to grow in matters of faith and conscience.

I would put friendship with Jesus as primary. Keeping His commandments will come as we come to know Him.

Those who live a Christian life by zero-tolerance rules, especially those preached for law of Christ, remain perpetual children, never learning to grow in the grace and admonition and friendship of the Lord.

Living life according to rules instead of according to the knowledge of Christ, yes, I agree with you, it does not lead to spiritual maturity.

Much love!

 

[robert derrick]

I think that God uses His Scriptures in all sorts of ways, and with Power, in the lives of His children. I think that He takes a snippet of a verse sometimes and gives it to us, and shows that He truly understands our deepest inner man.

But those may not apply to others when God is giving it to me that way. I want to make sure I distinguish between these.



I would put friendship with Jesus as primary. Keeping His commandments will come as we come to know Him.



Living life according to rules instead of according to the knowledge of Christ, yes, I agree with you, it does not lead to spiritual maturity.

Much love!

Amen.

 

[Desire Of All Nations]

And the proper sense of Scripture will always make perfect sense from Scripture quoted.

I.e. a good identifier of false teaching, is when arguments from around the world of culture and original languages must be brought in to persuade and convince such teaching is true.

I.e. just quoting the Scripture isn't good enough, because the Scripture either isn't there, or an average normal sense of it isn't what is being taught.

This is a false argument, because the inspired texts were written in Hebrew and Greek, not English, Spanish, German, or Japanese. There is also the issue that translated bibles don't do a good enough job at conveying the actual message in some of the passages because the translators often rely on their own opinion of what a word or phrase should be translated as. Furthermore, when reading certain passages, the culture of the time definitely has to be taken into account if the reader is to understand the message that is being conveyed.

A great example of this is Lev. 19:27. A casual reader will think God forbids men from grooming their beards for any reason. A true bible student however, will investigate that passage in light of what the Canaanite men did(like they should), since that law was obviously given so Israelite men wouldn't imitate what the Canaanite men were doing. And upon proper investigation, said bible student would realize God was actually forbidding Israelite men from shaving their head or beard in idolatrous patterns or shapes.

Another great example is Eph. 2:14-15. A casual reader would think Paul is saying Christ abolished God's commandments to make Jews and Gentiles equal, but that isn't what Paul is saying at all. A person has to take into account the period he wrote that in because it was directly used as inspiration to drive a fundamental lesson home about how Jewish and Gentile converts were supposed to treat each other. Conveniently enough, the Bible already provides the cultural context:

"Then Paul took the men, and the next day, having been purified with them, entered the temple to announce the expiration of the days of purification, at which time an offering should be made for each one of them. Now when the seven days were almost ended, the Jews from Asia, seeing him in the temple, stirred up the whole crowd and laid hands on him, crying out, 'Men of Israel, help! This is the man who teaches all men everywhere against the people, the law, and this place; and furthermore he also brought Greeks into the temple and has defiled this holy place.' (For they had previously seen Trophimus the Ephesian with him in the city, whom they supposed that Paul had brought into the temple.)" - Acts 21:26-29

The cultural context of this passage lays the foundation for understanding what Paul wrote in Eph. 2:14-15. The "law of commandments contained in ordinances" isn't the Law as most readers assume, because God never commanded such a thing to be done anywhere in the Law. The "law" Paul refers to is the Pharisaical tradition that Gentiles weren't allowed in the inner court of the Temple for any reason. As an excavated sign reads(Ancient Temple Mount ‘warning’ stone is ‘closest thing we have to the Temple’), the Jews weren't going to be held legally responsible for harming any Gentile that decided to risk being seen in the inner court of the Temple.

With all of this information taken into account, the message Paul is conveying in Eph. 2:14-15 becomes crystal clear: no such discrimination exists between ethnic Jews and Gentiles in the Church because Christ died to reconcile both groups to God through His sacrifice.

 

[robert derrick]

This is a false argument, because the inspired texts were written in Hebrew and Greek, not English, Spanish, German, or Japanese.
.

Thank for your good effort; however, Hebrew and Greek are languages of men, not inspired languages of God.

Any language of men writing the Scriptures of God is as good for instruction in righteousness and truth of Christ as any other. The same God who inspired men to write in their own languages, has also ensured later men could write them also in other languages. It is the inspired Scriptures of God that are important, not the languages of men they are written in.

Which makes a great case for my point:

A good identifier of false teaching, is when arguments from around the world of culture and original languages must be brought in to persuade and convince such teaching is true.

1. Such proponents of 'scholarship' outside of reading the Scriptures as written, therefore require ancient languages mastery in order to know the first principles of the doctrine of Christ: I.e. if we cannot possibly know exactly how the law of Moses was done away without it. Therefore, in like manner we cannot possibly know anything about doctrine of God by Scripture only. Such as Jesus is God and water baptism does not save the soul.

If so, then translation of languages of men is worthless to the believer 'untrained' in Hebrew, Syriac, Koine Greek, etc...

That is the same error the great 'scholars' of scribes and rabbis to accuse Jesus and His disciples as being ignorant pertaining to the oracles of God:

And the Jews marvelled, saying, How knoweth this man letters, having never learned?

And then throw in some good old fashioned manuscript quibbling, and off we go to whatever we want, and the Scriptures in our own language therefore can deceive us 'casual' readers. (Which of course is an insult made by 'serious' readers. Casual reading of Scripture is sloppy doctrine making based upon some Scriptures read with casual understanding, which has nothing to do with language and cultural expertise. They are called shoestring doctrines of men)

The conclusion of necessary 'Scholarship' of things outside of simple Scripture reading is that God was able to have all His Scriptures written by His prophets and apostles perfectly on paper, but has not been able to do so in other languages of men by translation. (Also, Hebrew etc...is just another language of men, and not the divine language of God: I.e. any language of men God has His words written in, is as good for doctrine as any other. Greeks and Hebrews don't have a 'leg up' with God and His Word on other illiterate schlubs.)

My Bible proves different. All the Scriptures of God ever written in the world are in it in my language, and the proof is that none of them contradict nor err in historical fact nor doctrine nor prophetic fulfillment: My Bible is Perfectly true in all things Scripture.

If someone doubts their own Bible, so that it is not reliable in all instruction of righteousness and doctrine of God, so that they feel compelled to dive deep into the Greek or Hebrew, and also to become a culture studies expert, then they need another Bible.

I.e. I don't need validation of doctrine of God from language and cultural 'experts'. I have the Scriptures themselves, and Scriptural doctrine is proven by Scripture alone, not from private interpretations of the Scriptures based upon whatever 'scholarly' justification and/or personal motive of the individual.

2. God doesn't write Scripture to fit into man's cultural biases, especially not the heretical Pharisaical part that had Jesus crucified. God doesn't play to His enemies, when having His Word written as Scripture for His friends. Scripture of God is written to cleanse all cultures of sin, that He calls sin in Scripture.

There is Scripture written to show certain limited ministerial allowance for such humanistic things, as with Timothy being circumcised to satisfy bigoted Jews, and Paul being cleansed according to the Law of Moses to show his proper 'Jewishness' to unbelieving Jews. Which of course did him absolutely no good. That is why ministerial condescension is limited to sober-minded judgement. Such as, no minister should enter a nudist colony naked in order to win some nude freaks, because Scripture says we are to be modestly clothed in public. (1 Tim 2:9)

And so, if one wants to argue the law of God can be separated into two parts of Commandment vs ritual, fine.

But standard languages complex added with a dose of cultural scholarship doesn't do it for me. I argue from the Scriptures as plainly written only, and if someone cannot do so, then they need to train themselves more on Scriptural understanding as written, than in ancient languages and social concepts of men: The Scriptures for rightly dividing the Word of truth says nothing about needing such things to do so.

I studied in like scholarship manner for many hours and over years of time, and yet I jettison anything, when plain Scripture demands it.

'Scholarship', no matter how hard studied, is more of a snare to Scriptural understanding of doctrine and prophecy, than any help it may perhaps bring, which is usually very limited.

Now, if someone wants to show knowledge of the historical facts of the nation of Israel before Christ, and clear up some so-called Scriptural 'inconsistencies' of names, events, and numbers. That is fine.

But the first principles and doctrine of Christ are simply written in Scripture so that any believing child can read and understand and obey them, and they can easily do so in their own languages of men, which in itself is a manifest glory of God to bring to pass in all the world.

 

[robert derrick]

This is a false argument, because the inspired texts were written in Hebrew and Greek, not English, Spanish, German, or Japanese. There is also the issue that translated bibles don't do a good enough job at conveying the actual message in some of the passages because the translators often rely on their own opinion of what a word or phrase should be translated as. Furthermore, when reading certain passages, the culture of the time definitely has to be taken into account if the reader is to understand the message that is being conveyed.

A great example of this is Lev. 19:27. A casual reader will think God forbids men from grooming their beards for any reason. A true bible student however, will investigate that passage in light of what the Canaanite men did(like they should), since that law was obviously given so Israelite men wouldn't imitate what the Canaanite men were doing. And upon proper investigation, said bible student would realize God was actually forbidding Israelite men from shaving their head or beard in idolatrous patterns or shapes.

Another great example is Eph. 2:14-15. A casual reader would think Paul is saying Christ abolished God's commandments to make Jews and Gentiles equal, but that isn't what Paul is saying at all. A person has to take into account the period he wrote that in because it was directly used as inspiration to drive a fundamental lesson home about how Jewish and Gentile converts were supposed to treat each other. Conveniently enough, the Bible already provides the cultural context:

"Then Paul took the men, and the next day, having been purified with them, entered the temple to announce the expiration of the days of purification, at which time an offering should be made for each one of them. Now when the seven days were almost ended, the Jews from Asia, seeing him in the temple, stirred up the whole crowd and laid hands on him, crying out, 'Men of Israel, help! This is the man who teaches all men everywhere against the people, the law, and this place; and furthermore he also brought Greeks into the temple and has defiled this holy place.' (For they had previously seen Trophimus the Ephesian with him in the city, whom they supposed that Paul had brought into the temple.)" - Acts 21:26-29

The cultural context of this passage lays the foundation for understanding what Paul wrote in Eph. 2:14-15. The "law of commandments contained in ordinances" isn't the Law as most readers assume, because God never commanded such a thing to be done anywhere in the Law. The "law" Paul refers to is the Pharisaical tradition that Gentiles weren't allowed in the inner court of the Temple for any reason. As an excavated sign reads(Ancient Temple Mount ‘warning’ stone is ‘closest thing we have to the Temple’), the Jews weren't going to be held legally responsible for harming any Gentile that decided to risk being seen in the inner court of the Temple.

With all of this information taken into account, the message Paul is conveying in Eph. 2:14-15 becomes crystal clear: no such discrimination exists between ethnic Jews and Gentiles in the Church because Christ died to reconcile both groups to God through His sacrifice.

I will apply the rule of ministry in this thread to the argument about the the law of God:

Parsing the law of Moses into two separate categories, so that there becomes a commandments verses ritual set of Scriptures in the law is false:

1. No Scripture plainly says so.

Show the Scripture where any point of the law of Moses is called 'ritual' or 'religious' in nature.

The same law carried the same death penalty throughout, whether for murder, violating the Sabbath, adultery, how to properly enter the tabernacle of God, false prophecy, handling the ark of the covenant...Offend in one point, offend in all.

Preaching private interpretation of Scripture for doctrine of God begins by not rightly dividing the Word of truth: not rightly dividing between what is written, and what is not.

'Ritual' law of Moses is not written in Scripture. That is a private interpretation based upon a personally desired outcome of doctrine.

2. Setting up commandments vs ritual is creating Scripture vs Scripture: One part of Law of the Scriptures of God vs another part of the Law and it's Scriptures: i.e. some law and Scripture of law are 'superior to' and more enduring than other Scriptures and 'part' of law of God.

Once again, there is no Scripture for 'parts' of the law, while there are Scriptures demanding we take the law of God as whole, and never think to divide it one from another.

The Law and Word of God do not contend with themselves and separate themselves from one another, no more than does the Father with the Son. Even as the Father and the Son are one, so is the law of God one. (Lev 7:7)