Consider this
Is it possible that some passages of Scripture were never meant to be understood by all until the right time God chooses to disclose (reveal) the deeper meaning of the passage through His Holy Spirit?
posted by Bob Carder @ 2:47 PM
48 comments
48 Comments:
well, this is pretty dangerous ground. sounds almost like muhammad or joseph smith. if you are getting a new revelation that no one has ever heard before be very careful how you tread. be dead certain that it fits with the rest of the bible. im wary of this type of open interpretation/new revelation thing....
Isaiah 7:14 is a prime example of this. There's no way Ahaz would have understood this prophecy to pertain to the Messiah ... unless I'm missing something in the context. The prophecy was not fully explained until Matthew used it to describe the birth of Christ.
Did you have specific passages in mind?
hey joel. you raise a good point. Ahaz may not have recogonized that immediately, but certainly the Pre-Christ Jews saw this as talking about the Messiah (as do post-Christ Jews today who are still waiting)
I assume you are asking Bob the question about specific passage? bob, can you show us a passage that you think the meaning has just been revealed now?
Not really, although I am aware of passages that are Rhema, only revealed by the Holy Spirit. I was just asking the question.
I do believe Logos can be understood by all. But Rhema is a Holy Spirit revelation.
Levi - do you see this aspect of Truth?
Have you ever read a passage and received something today and then read the same passage a year later and receive something different?
Has anyone out there ever receive a Holy Spirit "rhema" or revelation through a specific passage of Scripture?
If so, let her blow.
i've read it and gotten different applications, but i don't think i would say different "interpretations". so if by revelation you mean a revelation of applications, i think you are correct. but i'm still unsure on the interpretation stuff.
but interesting...
but levi, just a question:
In the time of the NT, there wasnt any widespread publication of the gospel or the letters. every thing they were learning by word of mouth was a new revelation of the law and prophets and poems, wasnt it? it was a new meaning to something incredibly old. when we read the epistles, arent we reading the Rhema given to the apostles?
But is the meaning truly new? i mean, Scripture forwards and backwards proclaims God's manifold wisdom, that HE ALONE IS GOD, and Paul writes that no one can proclaim that "JESUS IS LORD" except by the Holy Spirit (unless i misunderstood that passage) so...
im not sure i have a point anymore, i think im just ranting and thinking, and im out of stuff at the moment, so have at it.
all i know is this: the Bible can be read with different applications depending on your context. the applications are based on the theological principle that is timeless and cultureless found in the passage. (ie. nowhere is the command abortion is wrong, yet we can say it is wrong based on the theological principle that God values life, etc.) each time i open to read i can have a different way of looking at how it applies to my life, but the theological principle (the interpretation) stays the same.
i think every passage has its own meaning inside it-- the Holy Spirit does not reveal any new meaning...but he can and does often reveal a new application. we can read 1 John whatever and still extract the same exact meaning the early church did, yet our application may be different because our context is different. meaning never changes; but how that meaning is applied to one's life has a near infinite number of manifestations. are you getting me here or am i totally off in my thinking? just thoughts...
Read Galatians 4 and get back to us.
Levi,
What biblical evidence (or historical for that matter) is there to tell us that the Jews interpreted the Isaiah passage as Messianic? Among NT writers only Matthew employs it.
As far as I know Jews today don't see it as Messianic either. If they do, please direct me to some info source on it.
I'm not asking this to pick a fight. I genuinely desire to know.
The original question was directed to Bob.
Bob,
Where does scripture make a distinction between who can and cannot receive logos and rhema? Sounds suspiciously Word-of-Faith to me.
Technically speaking, there is a difference between revelation and illumination. God reveals himself through his acts recorded in Scripture. Illumination is the appropriation of revelation to my own life and situation.
Logos is revealed truth. Rhema is revealed instruction or application.
The Holy Spirit is involved in all - revelation and illumination.
'When the Spirit comes, he will guide you into all truth.'
Thanks h2b. Where does the Bible make this distinction? Can you point me to a passage or two?
thanks guys. I do appreciate your responses. I think H2B had some good information for us to think about. The questions are also great.
"Rhema" is a Holy Spirit revealed word. For me, I understand the Logos pretty well. But when a passage is revealed with deeper meaning - with new eyes - the passage becomes more powerful than just conviction. It truly sets us free.
Read all the parables in light of the Great Commission mandate and you will see the parables come alive with even greater insight.
Read the Old Testament in light of God revealing a message for the Church today and you will see things you never saw before.
I do not believe the Holy Spirit will reveal this deeper insight without us seeking Him to do so.
Many sermons are preached in the Logos without the "rhema" and that's what puts us all to sleep. I desire a fresh word from the Lord and now that I am receiving that fresh word the other isn't enough.
Let's get Terry to weigh in on this.
Still waiting on those scripture references ...
Jesus said that the heart of the hearer is the issue even when the Holy Spirit is speaking. (See Matthew 13 and the parable of the soils.) People respond based on their willingness to obey.
In my experience "deeper meaning" is subjective and often borderline heretical. Shouldn't we instead concentrate on the original meaning of the text and then derive the application?
Take for example the parable of the soils. Jesus specifically addressed it to a Jewish audience. He used it to explain why some of His fellow Jews (not gentiles) accepted, rejected, or remained neutral concerning His proclamation of the kingdom of God. To read the parable in light of the Great Commission is to miss the purpose. In Matthew's chronology the Great Commission hadn't even been issued yet. Although the application of the parable could fit with the Great Commission that's not how it should be interpreted. I think we lead our people into bad Bible study techniques when we do this.
The early church fathers used a "deeper meaning" approach and derived all sorts of weird ideas about the meaning of the parable. One said that it was about resurrection. Huh? That's what happens when we read with a filter for "deeper meaning" which is often just our pet subject projected on the text.
How does one know if they're preaching or teaching with this "greater insight"? People find it interesting ... goosebumps generated ... Outreach magazine contacts you as the new golden boy preacher ... you just feel it in your heart? Is anything more required than asking the Holy Spirit to guide you in the prep and delivery?
The sermons that I've endured where the preacher claimed to be under the influence of the Holy Spirit are typcially rambling cliches. To use a cliche, there's often a lot of heat, but no light. People are hyped up because it's supposed to be a word from God, but it's usually nothing more than pious bluster.
Joel,
Do you know/read/have any knowledge of Greek?
GN - Yes. I had a fun-filled year and a half of Greek in seminary. I understand that there is a subtle difference between logos and rhema, but I'm not aware of the distinction mentioned on this thread.
If the Bible makes this distinction, I'd like to see the references to it. Otherwise, the subject seems to be ripped out of the Kenneth Hagan playbook.
Awesome! Then you are familiar with the passages regarding the differences, though I would consider them not so subtle. Every usage of Rhema is in direct reference to the word of God being spoken, not written or as a past experience, but something that God is doing in the midst of that person in order to bring them life, greater strength in Him, and greater awareness of the life of Jesus Christ- in every way to His glory.
Three examples of Rhema recorded (and thus in our lives, Logos) in the New Testament are Galatians 4, where Paul openly declares a new understanding of the ancestry of Abraham and it's spiritual significance, 1 Peter 3, where Peter regards the flood with a new spiritual understanding, and nearly the entire book of Hebrews. These things are not heretical in our eyes, though at the time to the Jews to hear such interpretation was cause for stoning! They were not heretical and neither are those instances occurring from pulpits across the nation when pastor's regard Mary's perfume as the thing valuable to us that must be poured out. I know you see what I am getting at.
There is not a new "interpretation" of scripture as if it means something different, but there is a continual revelation and application of Truth in our lives by the Holy Spirit. I know you do not disagree. But what have we termed such a thing in the past? Application- here it is termed as scripture would speak, Rhema. The word of God spoken into the life of one who knows the voice of his Shepherd. Does that make sense?
An example from our experiences
Judges 6:
I find that my generation has also done as the Israelites had in those days. We have noticed the power of Midian and in many instances have prepared shelters (buildings) in places we believe the enemy will ignore us in. When we dare to sow any seed (evangelize/preach the gospel) we dare not defend it and allow our enemy to ravage the fruit. The situation has become so desperate that indeed His people are finally crying to Him for help. This passage has spoken to me regarding the need to be armed once again and realize that the battle is the Lord's. He will defend His people, but that comes at a price of repentance and consecration. I encourage you to read Judges 6 and ask if the Lord confirms such a word. If so, you are seeing what we mean by Rhema. It is not interpretation as if some differing principle of truth has arisen, but interpretation as the Lord applies Jesus to the circumstance we find ourselves in.
Are those the references you were asking for or were you looking for a direct reference to scripture saying, "Rhema" and its use?
GN,
Thanks for your help. After further study, I've got to disagee with your conclusions. At times rhema means "inspired word or words," but so does logos. In addition, there are times when the New Testament uses rhema to mean something other than "inspired word(s)".
Here are some examples:
Matthew 18:16 - witness testimony
Matthew 27:14 - charges against Jesus
Luke 1:37 - thing
Luke 1:65 - news of Zachariah
Luke 24:11 - women's news of the resurrection
Acts 6:11, 13 - blasphemous words
Acts 16:38 - News that Paul & Silas are Romans
Here's an example where logos was definitely inspired because the words came from the lips of Christ:
Luke 24:44 Then He said to them, "These are the words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things must be fulfilled which were written in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms concerning Me."
Rhema and logos are nearly equivalent in meaning: word, message, saying. At times the biblical authors shift the meaning through their context.
Just so you know I did my homework, here are all the citations for rhema. Most are "inspired" words, but not all.
rhema - Matthew 12:36; Matthew 18:16; Matthew 27:14; Mark 9:32; Mark 14:72; Luke 1:37; LLuke 2:15; Luke 1:38; Luke 2:29;Luke 2:50; Luke 9:45; Luke 18:34; Luke 3:2; Acts 10:37; Acts 28:25; Romans 10:8; 2 Corinthians 13:1; Ephesians 6:17; Hebrews 6:5; 1 Peter 1:25
rhemasin - John 5:47
rhemata - Luke 1:65; Luke 2:19; Luke 2:51; Luke 7:1; Luke 24:11; John 3:34; John 6:63, 68; John 8:20, 47; John 10:21; John 12:48; John 14:10; John 15:7; John 17:8; Acts 2:14; Acts 5:20; Acts 6:11, 13; Acts 10:22; Acts 10:44; Acts 11:14; Acts 13:42; Acts 16:38; Acts 26:25; Romans 10:18; 2 Corinthians 12:4
rhemati - Matthew 4:4; Luke 5:5; Ephesians 5:26; Hebrews 1:3; Hebrews 11:3
rhematos - Matthew 26:75; Luke 2:17; Luke 9:45; Luke 20:26; Luke 22:61; Acts 11:16; Romans 10:17
rhematon - Luke 24:8; John 12:47; Acts 5:32; Hebrews 12:19; 2 Peter 3:2; Jude 1:17
Whoever is teaching this stuff needs to do a more thorough study of the Greek and contextual use of the words. It's not exactly heresy, but it is the kind of flakiness that can lead to it.
thanks joel. i don't know squat about greek and rhema/logos, but this helps. thanks for all the research.
also thanks to honest2blog for those remarks. am i correct to interpret your comment to say that the Logos (as you describe it) never changes and is not bound to time or culture, but the Rhema (as you describe it) does change for each individual person? Going back to my earlier comments, the Logos would be the theological principle and teh Rhema would be the personal application. Is this correct?
So for the original post by Bob, all theological principles in scripture were to be understood by all cultures of all times. God does not reveal any new deeper theological principles. However, he can and does reveal different applications for the theological principles and those applications cannot violate any other theological principle found in the Bible. Logos and Rhema aside, would we all agree that this is a proper conclusion to come to?
Yes, I am aware and have also checked the same occurences. But I must insist even by your references that rhema in every instance is a spoken word, that is, it has breath behind it. In a theological context however, He is the One speaking, yes? Anyway, I do not know what you mean by, "Teaching this stuff," though considering we are all one breath away from heresy at all times. What do you find close to heresy regarding it and also, what are your conclusions regarding the scriptural instances (at least by our understanding) of rhema in Galatians 4 and 1 Peter 3?
Joel asks - Shouldn't we instead concentrate on the original meaning of the text and then derive the application?
Terry says - Rely on the Spirit that is why God gave it to us.
Here are some verses to consider.
We are from God; he who knows God listens to us; he who is not from God does not listen to us. By this we know the spirit of truth and the spirit of error.
For the word of God [is] quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and [is] a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.
That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give unto you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him:
Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit;
But God hath revealed [them] unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.
Instead of knowing the finer points of Greek we really need to know the Holy Spirit.
GN,
What I'm trying to point out is that logos and rhema are essentially the same thing: word(s); message; rumor; news; etc. Either word can be used to arrive at the same meaning. To say that one is an inspired word while the other is a human word is an extra-biblical teaching. The Bible does not itself make this distinction.
In every instance rhema is not a spoken word. Luke 1:37 is just such a case: "For nothing is impossible with God." Here rhema is not a word that has breath behind it.
Galatians 4 and 1 Peter 3 do not contain the word rhema. If it's there, you're going to have to point me to the specific verse.
Even if these are cases of rhema teaching, or whatever, Peter and Paul were inspired by the Holy Spirit to find a deeper meaning. They were Apostles with a capital A. We are not. We do not have the authorization to read a deeper meaning into the text. Our task is to uncover the original meaning prayerfully and, to the best of our ability and in community with scholars (alive and dead), study with diligence to be approved workmen of the Word.
I said that teaching like this can lead to heresy because heretics use this deeper meaning method. Examples: Benny Hinn; Kenneth Copeland; Kenneth Hagan; Todd Bentley; and numerous so-called charismatics. They often find meaning that is unsupported by the biblical text. Their unique teaching generates a following and tremendous revenues. The "deeper meaning" lets their followers feel that they're the chosen, in-group with God.
It all boils down to this: there's no place in the scriptures that say rhema brings change because it's inspired (or illuminated) and logos does not because it's physical. That's just a goofy idea that some preacher came up with to justify his own "unique" take on a text probably without going to the trouble to actually study it.
Apparently, the one speaking the message of the Gospel doesn't even need to be filled with the Holy Spirit to bring people to faith. In Philippians 1:15-18 Paul said that some were preaching the good news out of goodwill (presumably under the influence of the Holy Spirit) while others preached out of envy and rivalry (presumably not filled with the Holy Spirit). He said that motive didn't matter as long as the word was getting out. His words: "The important thing is that in every way, whether from false motives or true, Christ is preached."
Joel,
Your fourth paragraph tells me all I need to know. Thank you. Press on.
Terry,
Thanks for pointing back to the real issue.
Terry,
Why must knowing the finer points of Greek and empowerment by the Holy Spirit be mutually exclusive? In the teaching and preaching ministry depicted in the NT, study was highly regarded.
Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, Luke 1:3
Be diligent to present yourself approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, accurately handling the word of truth. 2 Timothy 2:15
Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true. Acts 17:11
The Bereans were commended for fact-checking the Holy Spirit inspired messages of Paul. They studied and were noted for good character, a quality given by the Holy Spirit.
All of the verses you cited above came from the pens of the Apostles. They had no written revelation from God except for the OT, so they had to rely verbal revelation. We do not have the same authority as these men. We cannot make our own interpretations and call them rhema. There is no scriptural warrent for it.
When churches venture down the path suggested here they inevitably question the authority of God's revealed word in the Bible. Preachers who preach this way typically become more outlandish in their interpretations because it takes more "deeper meaning" to give listeners the same buzz. Their audiences demand it because it's a form of spiritual amusement.
Why not rather allow the Holy Spirit to guide us in the original meaning? What we need now is the truth conveyed back then. Truth is absolute and unchanging and desperately needed in a world that lusts after innovation.
GN,
GN said - Your fourth paragraph tells me all I need to know.
Joel said - Does this mean I'm not as spiritual as you guys?
I'd still love for you to point me to rhema in the Galatians 4 and 1 Peter 3.
Joel I am not suggesting what you suggest I am suggesting. I insist that no matter how much Greek you know, without the Holy Spirit you have nothing. No Salvation, No Eternal Life, No understanding of Scripture, nothing. Scripture is God breathed. It is the tutor to bring us to Christ. It is not the only way God reveals Himself to us. See Psalm 111
So let's test your statements by Scripture.
You stated - "They were Apostles with a capital A."
Who does this include and what Scripture do you base this distinction on? Does this include the original 12? The 11 plus Matthias? The 12 + Matthias? The 13 with Matthias + Paul??? Or the other dozens referred to as apostles in the Scripture? Or is it just the ones that wrote? Who does Scripture say is in this elite group?
"We are not." - Not what and Scripture please.
"We do not have the authorization to read a deeper meaning into the text." - Scripture please!
Scripture - "That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give unto you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him:"
"Our task is to uncover the original meaning prayerfully and, to the best of our ability and in community with scholars (alive and dead)" - Is knowing God a scholarly pursuit? If you think the Bible is a text book then this approach works. Scripture for this too please.
Please don't try to assess my theology here - these are just questions for you. You have called for scripture support from others and these are serious theological positions you take.
Gentlemen, let's not go on the defense here.
Whenever we allow the Holy Spirit to lead us - it doesn't always make sense. It adds mystery to our lives because God works as he wills.
Re-read my original post. Is it possible that The Holy Spirit can reveal truth to us that we never saw before? Is it possible that even Old Testament passages can be applied today through renewed Holy Spirit revelation?
After I came to believe that the Great Commission is a supreme command I re-read the parables and now those parables newly revealed energy that always points back to God's redemptive plan for the world.
Now that I have come to accept the Great Commission mandate - the Old Testament also carries renewed life and application for today as well. The Matthew 28 Great Commission is a passage God has led me to believe with deeper meaning as revealed by the Holy Spirit. Not necessarily a "rhema" passage but truly a revelation with greater depth and authority. Before when I read that passage I could assume/believe that we are fulfilling the mandate through our church activities and by sending missionaries around the world. Now I see it as a personal responsibility for all to be taken seriously. While I thought I was being obedient to the Great Commission now I believe I was disobedient because I didn't teach and then hold believers accountable to the Great Commission as a personal mandate for all. I should have told believers they were sinning if they were not actively engaging the Great Commission. The Holy Spirit has revealed a greater depth to this passage - a depth that truly changes my passion level today.
I don't think this is a theological debate. I don't believe that allowing the Holy Spirit to reveal the depth of a passage is heretical. However, it does open the door for allegorical teaching, but then again the New Testament is filled with allegorical teaching, right?
Because we are always learning the Holy Spirit is always teaching. I do not believe we know all the truth until it is revealed to us by the Holy Spirit.
G.N. said, There is not a new "interpretation" of scripture as if it means something different, but there is a continual revelation and application of Truth in our lives by the Holy Spirit. I know you do not disagree.
Joel said, Isaiah 7:14 is a prime example of this. There's no way Ahaz would have understood this prophecy to pertain to the Messiah ... unless I'm missing something in the context. The prophecy was not fully explained until Matthew used it to describe the birth of Christ.
Are we in agreement more than we think?
Joel said, Why not rather allow the Holy Spirit to guide us in the original meaning? What we need now is the truth conveyed back then. Truth is absolute and unchanging and desperately needed in a world that lusts after innovation.
The Planter: We all agree that Truth is absolute. The question is, do we absolutely know the Truth? Or, is the Holy Spirit always at work to reveal Truth not necessarily as we understand it - but as He wishes for us to understand it. This post does give more credence for the work and ministry of the Holy Spirit. It leads to a greater dependence upon the Holy Spirit as I read Scripture. The Holy Spirit would never lead us to live in contradiction of Scripture.
I am interested in G.N. comments referencing Joel's 4th paragraph. Can you learn me something here.
I gotcha, I was looking at the wrong paragraph. Joel's 4th paragraph does set us apart.
Joel said: Even if these are cases of rhema teaching, or whatever, Peter and Joel said, Paul were inspired by the Holy Spirit to find a deeper meaning. They were Apostles with a capital A. We are not. We do not have the authorization to read a deeper meaning into the text. Our task is to uncover the original meaning prayerfully and, to the best of our ability and in community with scholars (alive and dead), study with diligence to be approved workmen of the Word."
The planter: Holy Spirit revelation is largely missing in the modern American Church. The Holy Spirit was never meant to be controlled, subdued and missing. When the Holy Spirit works freely the manifold wisdom of God (that God is God and He alone is God) is revealed and the demons shutter. The Holy Spirit is still revealing Truth that does not contradict Logos - it carries Logos into Rhema revelations.
We must not rely entirely on our education for Truth. We need to use our Holy Spirit birthed discernment and Holy Spirit revealed understanding. What's missing in the church? Largely the Holy Spirit and His work. Let's unleash Him today!
joel-
"These were Apostles with a capital A"
really? maybe i missed something, or maybe my concordance is being stupid again, but the ONLY time i see the word 'apostle' capitalized is when it describes Jesus in Hebrews 3:1. all other references are uncapitalized, unless you are reading NIV in which it will be capitalized in every title it appears, but thats not a significant capitlization, just a grammatically correct one. So, how are we different from them? we were given the same commission werent we? the EXACT same commission?
Terry, thanks for the challenge. I hope that the things I’m writing are not insulting. That’s not my intent. As a pastor, I’m constantly “on” as a watchman over the flock. Issues like this stir me out of a desire to protect. It is not my intention to tear down.
Terry said - Joel I am not suggesting what you suggest I am suggesting. I insist that no matter how much Greek you know, without the Holy Spirit you have nothing. No Salvation, No Eternal Life, No understanding of Scripture, nothing. Scripture is God breathed. It is the tutor to bring us to Christ. It is not the only way God reveals Himself to us. See Psalm 111
Joel – Great! We’re in complete agreement here. Please forgive my misrepresentation of your statement. I actually had a Pentecostal brother tell me not to think so much once. He was asking me throw away reason in favor of the Holy Spirit, as if the Holy Spirit doesn’t work through our thinking ability. My reply to you was knee jerk.
Terry said - You stated - "They were Apostles with a capital A."
Who does this include and what Scripture do you base this distinction on? …Who does Scripture say is in this elite group?
"We are not." - Not what and Scripture please.
"We do not have the authorization to read a deeper meaning into the text." - Scripture please!
Joel – Peter makes the distinction himself in 2 Peter 1:12-2:22. He’s confronting false teachers who were apparently twisting scripture, creating their own prophesy, and interpreting the Old Testament according to their own whim. Peter’s argument for correct interpretation of scripture and, thus, Apostleship with a capital A is that they had been first-person eyewitnesses of Jesus Christ. They saw Him in the flesh – pre or post resurrection.
The early church councils made this same distinction. They only included as inspired scripture those letters written by Apostles, the ones who had personally witnessed the resurrected Lord. They also looked for conformity to the Old Testament and consensus by the community of faith.
Terry said - Scripture - "That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give unto you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him:"
Joel said - When Paul wrote this to the Ephesians the canon of NT scripture had not been established. Now we have it. The letters of the Apostles disclose God’s Person (revelation) and guide us into holy living (wisdom).
Terry said - Is knowing God a scholarly pursuit? If you think the Bible is a text book then this approach works. Scripture for this too please.
Joel said – It should be a part of pursuing God, but not exclusively the means. To know Him involves an ongoing relationship and study of the original meaning of His word. God’s interaction with Israel and with the New Testament church leads us to know Him – what He loves and hates, His purposes, and etc. – so that we may love Him through obedience. (John 14:23-24) In John 15:1-8, Jesus told his disciples to “remain” or “abide” in Him. This is not a mystical union but the instruction of a rabbi to His students to devote themselves to His teaching.
Terry, I think that we probably do agree more than disagree. Here’s why I think diligent study is needed. Delving into the original meaning of the text keeps us from devising interpretations that are off base. It serves as guardrails for our message. I am convinced that the Holy Spirit guides me in my study time because I often “see” things that the commentaries may over look. I always, however, make sure that I haven’t crossed the line into error by employing rigorous study in my prep time. Because of my own fallen nature I sometimes misunderstand what the Holy Spirit is saying. Sometimes I’m just bringing my own opinion to the text. The community of scholars, tradition, and the whole counsel of Scripture help me to determine whether or not my interpretation is in line.
I do believe that God still speaks today. A love relationship requires communication. I don’t buy the line from the old hymn that asks, “What more can He say than to you He has said?” In addition to the Bible, God speaks to me through people, circumstances, and occasionally directly. But I would never assume that the rare times of His still, small voice are as authoritative as the Bible. When all’s said and done the Bible is His primary and only authoritative revelation. That’s why study, guided by the Holy Spirit to find His original meaning, is the best safeguard to be an approved workman of the Word.
Not trying to be a butt, but I'd still like to see the Galatians 4 & 1 Peter 3 rhema/logos teaching explained. It was a new concept to me and that's why I originally asked the question. I genuinely want to know. If I can transition from logos to rhema and impact more people for Christ I'd like to know how to do it. Just call me Simon Magus.
Bob, I told you my take on your original post. New applications can be revealed, but the theological principles remain the same and are not new revelations. No one seems to want to comment on that. But oh well.
To terry: yes, terry, I agree with Joel that Christianity is a scholarly pursuit. Christianity involves the marriage of Athens and Jerusalem. We are called to love the Lord our God with all our mind, in addition to all our soul, heart, strength...
We have a mind, let us use it to pursue God. Our knowledge of God should go beyond his revelation; we are told to seek him and to seek him with all our being (including this logic)...part of the effort is to be by us.
Though our efforts are guided by the Holy Spirit, we should not dwell in the spiritual realm alone. Faith and reason should coincide. we ought not focus solely on the faith side.
The original meaning is really the best meaning of Scripture. Though we can never fully recover that meaning because we are separated by time, culture, and context (and in the OT, covenant), we ought to strive our hardest to shoot for the original meaning. Scripture can speak for itself. Our job is to extract that meaning with the help of the Holy Spirit, not read our meaning into it. And the Spirit will not reveal anything contradictory of his Word.
Also, Scripture may not be the only revelation we have of God, but it is the best we have today. "Prima Scriptura" is the way we should go.
Zach,
The whole capital A thing was just a teaching devise. I was trying to make a point about Apostles who, after seeing the resurrected Lord, were sent and apostles today who are sent. They (Big A Apostles) were the authoritative writers of the NT and interpreters of the OT. That's all I meant. I far as I can tell the Great Commission is appropriate for all believers.
levi said...
Bob, I told you my take on your original post. New applications can be revealed, but the theological principles remain the same and are not new revelations. No one seems to want to comment on that. But oh well.
The Planter: Perhaps not new in the sense of something different. But I do not believe we have not received everything the Holy Spirit has to offer us. So if something is not new in the new sense it can still be something that is new to me. I do believe there are new revelations from the Holy Spirit on existing Truth not yet understood or revealed.
Joel, my point is that your teaching device has made a distinction in Scripture that Scripture itself does not make, unless i am sorely mistaken. Referring to them as the "Capital-A" Apostles sets them on a pedestal above all believers and that is Scripturally unsupported, as God does not show favoritism, and is bordering on the Catholic worship of the saints, which is idolatry.
As a Catholic, I can tell you that we do not worship the saints. They are only models of how were are to live. We understand that they were only humans just like us, each with his or her own flaws and struggles. Sainthood only recognizes their exceptional devotion to our Lord, and the saints serve as reminders of how our devotion ought to be as well. We do not deify them in any way. It is not idolatry.
And if Joel permits me to present some defense on his behalf which I think he would regard as similar to his own view... St. Paul, St. Peter and all the others who wrote our New Testament were not different from us in their humanity. However, they were different in their authority to write the inspired, holy Scriptures. Neither you nor I, Zach have that same authority. That is all that is meant by calling them apostles "with a capital A." And that is a proper view of who they were and who we are in relation to them. If it puts them on a pedestal, it is because they have that authority to be on the pedestal. They heard God and wrote the Bible under his inspiration. We do not have that authority. Though we may hear God, we do not have the authority to write a "new New Testament."
you all should stop and read all 41 comments and you would see you are all basically saying the same thing and please would someone answer joel about Gal. 4 and I Peter?
Levi,
Great summation. I can't add a thing.
Martilou,
Thanks. I'm still waiting.
joel-
sorry this took so long. as to the rhema in galatians 4 and 1 peter, these are instances of the Holy Spirit revelaing a Scripture in a new meaning. if you look at the story of Sarah and Hagar, just in its text (its logos) you would not reason out what is being said in galatians 4. it is a Spirit revelation.
Thanks Zach. I understand the the concept. The Apostles (sorry, I couldn't help the capital A), under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, assigned these Old Testament stories a meaning that they did not originally contain. I agree 100% with this view.
I'm not trying to awaken a sleeping dog, but there are two things that I disagree with here:
1. The Bible never, in any place that I can find, says that when the message was rhema it was inspired and when it was logos it was not. I am open to this teaching if someone can show it to me.
2. I do not believe we are authorized to reinterpret as the early church Apostles were.
I do agree with Levi, however. Although we shouldn't tamper with the original meaning by offering a supposed deeper meaning, we should convey the timeless truth in a relevant manner. Times change and the timeless truth of the Bible must be used, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, to develop contemporary application.
Is there agreement here?
Joel said,
Galatians 4 and 1 Peter 3 do not contain the word rhema. If it's there, you're going to have to point me to the specific verse.
Even if these are cases of rhema teaching, or whatever, Peter and Paul were inspired by the Holy Spirit to find a deeper meaning. They were Apostles with a capital A. We are not. We do not have the authorization to read a deeper meaning into the text. Our task is to uncover the original meaning prayerfully and, to the best of our ability and in community with scholars (alive and dead), study with diligence to be approved workmen of the Word.
The Planter: My point is that the Holy Spirit is still at work revealing the Truth with supported texts to us. I do not see Rhema here. However, I do see that Hagar represents what man can do and Sarah represents what only God can do. There is some interesting allegorical teaching regarding Sarah and Hagar in those references in the Old Testament.
No I do not believe anyone has the right to change the meaning of a passage. But I also believe the Holy Spirit guides us in all truth and missed truth can become revealed Truth that is consistent with the teachings of Scripture.
You say you believe Logos and Rhema are one. Let me remind you that their functions are functions are different. Both are Truth. To that we all agree. In fact their is much more agreement than disagreement here. We are not heretics like those mentioned who twist truth for our own gain. We just want all the Holy Spirit revelation God will give us. I think we have relied on our own ability to understand Truth at the expense of what the Holy Spirit came to do - that is reveal Truth.
I appreciate the watch dogging for the sake of the Truth. But if you will, the Holy Spirit is at work revealing the written word. That's why when I read Scripture it becomes fresh and alive and the applications are never ending.
Where in Scripture does it say we're not authorized to interpret as the early Apostles did? Do not we have the same Holy Spirit? The same Scripture?
that's stretching but you are right. I can't think of anywhere. I keep jumping in and out of the old and new.
Chad, yes! No & Yes! Does that make us radical or what?
Post a Comment
<< Home