Subscribe
Notify of
8 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Brian

Hey Skip,

Events of the present is always seen in view of events of the past. In the rabbinic mind God’s ways are consistant and reliable. This allows the rabbis to interpret verses in multi-faceted ways, in light of present events. What is the statue of limitations on this application? Seems to me, that we could make God’s word say whatever we want it to say. At a latter time, some questions and comments on the kingdom of heaven/God. Shalom

Skip Moen, Ph.D.

Not sure how to reply to this. Are you offering a critique, criticism or comment?

Brian

Hey Skip,

Sorry for not being more succinct, I was processing while writing. Comments, followed by a question, then another comment or possible critique of this technique. Then just a future heads-up, that I had some further comments and questions, concerning the kingdom of heaven/God theme. Hope this makes more sense.

Brian

Good morning Skip,

I believe you said that in the book of Matthew there are 28 instances were he quotes from the Tanak that are not in verbal agreement with the text he quotes from. Yet, it is still faithful to the intent and unfolding of that passage, in the light of the events, of the life and ministry of Yeshua.

This makes sense in light of the reliability and consistent ways of YHWH. Therefore, this way of interpretation was done throughout Israel and beyond, by the rabbis of the first century. By what criteria do we judge this today, so that we remain faithful to YHWH and His Scripture? HOPE this makes more sense. In His care.

Skip Moen, Ph.D.

There is no doubt at all that the rabbis applied the text of the Tanakh in ways that we would find unusual, perhaps even inappropriate, since we have adopted the historicist view of Greek narrative. The fact that the authors of the New Testament follow the patterns of the rabbis only demonstrates once more that these men were not Greek, ethnically or in their thought processes. But the biggest issue is this: what does this imply about the current evangelical conservative doctrine of plenary inspiration? It seems to me that these passages in Matthew (and many others in the NT) suggest that no author of the New Testament writings could have subscribed to the same doctrine we hold. A new understanding of what inspiration means is probably required.

Pam

A new understanding of what inspiration means is probably required.

Do we have a new understanding to consider?

Skip Moen, Ph.D.

Yes, in fact, I discuss this in my lecture series on epistemology and inspiration.

Brian

Shalom Skip,

Thank you Skip for your consistant response, it does speak loudly for you. When the Jewish communities live, breathe, and eat the text of Scripture, basically from the beginning of their lives to the end. And when they see everything in life from the standpoint of what God said and did; it seems, a reasonable and logical process, for the rabbis and authors of the New Testament to apply the text of the Tanak, in this way. By the way, are you familar with the scholar and writer, James Dunn? In His shalom