How It Works
As we come close to the end of 2016, I thought it useful to articulate as best I can how I approach the Scriptures. This is really a simplified version of what I think about the paradigms of the authors. I try my best to figure out what they thought and how they viewed the world, as I believe this is the key to understanding the messages of the Bible. Some of these points are shared by both Jews and Christians. Some are not.
- The biblical text is paradigm dependent. By that I mean that just like all human language, the meanings of the words are derived from the way the words were used by the author at the time he wrote in his culture. Sometimes the text is in Greek. Sometimes in Aramaic. Sometimes in Hebrew. But the meaning of the text depends on the ethos of the author regardless of the language he uses. This means we must know the historical period, the political situation and the human dynamics of the author before we can pontificate about his theology.
- Since the text itself is a product of the paradigm of the author, an interpreter who does not share that paradigm is likely to misinterpret the text according to the interpreter’s paradigm. History bears this out. Examples are prolific.
- Christian interpretation of the text depends on a Christian paradigm. Adopting a Christian paradigm presupposes certain views of “Jesus,” Paul and other authors. In particular, the Christian Church has a long history of interpreting the text according to its doctrinal positions and it continues to do so because it has a vested interest in this paradigm. But this does not mean that the original authors shared the same paradigm. In fact, I would argue that the original authors and the original audience did not share this Christian paradigm and it is incumbent on us to notice and articulate the differences.
- The authors of the text wrote over a long period of time and the message changed in its details during that time. This was the result of political and social influences as Israel experienced various stages in its development. Certain critical issues like the idea of the Messiah evolved over time as the thinking of the authors was altered by their circumstances. This historical development is crucial for understanding the text. Ignoring it, or interpreting the text as if it were written from a timeless perspective, radically alters the message. Interpreters today must begin exegesis with the social-political environment of the author.
- The authors of the text were Hebraic in their point of view regardless of the language they used. They were devoutly monotheistic, Torah conscious, nationalistic and exclusive. Any interpretation of the text that steps away from this orientation carries the burden of proof to show exactly why the authors would leave this cultural and historical mindset. Paradigm conversion explanation cannot rely solely on the text since the proofs from the text will be paradigm dependent.
- Above all else, the biblical text is the product of actual human beings in relationship with YHVH. Proper interpretation of the text requires recognition of the human dynamics and emotions of these people. The text is not raw theology. It is life experience and any interpretation of the text must strive to understand this human component before theological conclusions can be drawn.
In 2017, I will try to follow these six steps in more detail. At the end of the day, I am convinced that the fundamental issue is paradigm conversion. If you can’t see that the Bible is thoroughly Hebrew and Jewish, then you can’t see it–and all of your interpretation of the text will be colored by this blindness. Of course, you won’t think it is blindness because most of it will make perfect sense in your Christian paradigm. The same thing can be said for understanding the text as Hebraic and Jewish. It’s not strictly a matter of textual proof. It is a matter of meta-theology, that is, the interpretative scheme we bring to the text. Issues involving interpretative schemes cannot be settled by textual evidence. They must be explored by historical examination, culture, probability, external evidence, reasonableness, human dynamics and Spirit. The point of connection is usually the anomalies created by one paradigm or another. These are crucial, but they are not enough to force a change in paradigm. In the end, you have to see it. How that happens I really don’t know. But I’m searching.
I think we need to be careful with our definition and perception of “Jewish” as well. Because if we’ve mistakenly identified the Jewishness of our bible with the Rabbinic Jewishness of the last 1500 or so years, then we’ve added a paradigm that didn’t really exist all that much in the bible. For the most part anyway. The same can be said about “Christian” as well.
A wise man I know says “words in themselves have no real meaning. The meaning of words is determined by the context in which they were written or spoken. Looked at from a historical-grammatical perspective”. And I agree with that.
Mark, first of all, I want to thank Skip for the above articulation, and that I believe that many or most earnest seekers are equally frustrated with the overload of human paradigm – that reading back into the text what will (‘naturally’ lol) mean that we do not have to change the particular paradigm we inherited, as well as frustrated with the subsequent nonsense that that interpretation makes of the text.
Following your balanced caution (which I would like to thank you, too), I would like to add that I have found – post trinity divide, in particular – a significant shift in all paradigm thinking on both sides of this particular problem. In other words, I think I see equal suffering on the side – as you point out – of rabbinic Judaism after about 400 CE as I see on the trinity side after the same. Both sides lost (I think precisely because they became sides) and what I see they lost was the missing pieces of the puzzle they both had to decide – (perhaps even AGREE) to drop to engage in this artificial – and so therefore wholly nonproductive – division. I am suspicious that this whole problem came about by division that already existed on BOTH sides (because history reveals that it already existed by that time, duh), and so therefore both sides had to agree to come up with a ‘reason’ for that division, and, viola! they found something they could both agree to disagree on!
I would hope that we do not seek to merely perpetuate what has not been solved by millennia of petrified, polarized division that has been DRIVING this debate so far, by just more of the same. Because I see it that way, I profoundly disagree with the assumption that this division is a RESULT of this paradigm shift. I believe, instead, that the current paradigms on both sides came about as a result of an already existing division. This distinction is important to me, as I would like to see both sides come to a mutual understanding again (they did have one at one time, we know), but, because of the belief that we have to solve the artificial ‘problem’ FIRST before that can happen, we are not seeking mutual understanding FIRST (which, if I am right, would rapidly evaporate this non-issue (my take) again). I would like to investigate what had to have gotten dropped ON BOTH SIDES. Frankly, I have become highly curious about just what that might had to have been. The debate, as it stands, is totally boring to me.
Good point. Here’s where I am so far. Having just finished reading a significant historical analysis of events at the time of the development of each stage of the Messianic idea in Israel, it seems clear that men altered their thinking and provided explanations (sometimes “divine”) when the roll-out of events did not meet the projected (prophecies) expectations. So, over the course of Israel’s history, Messianic ideas developed and evolved as the actual historical scenes unfolded. By the first century several different views of the Messianic idea were in place. Due to the political situation of Israel, some believed that the Messiah MUST be a political figure of great status, rescuing Israel from oppression, while others believed in a spiritual Messiah who would return Israel to deep faith in YHVH. The actual political environment pushed men to “explain” what was happening in spiritual terms and as Roman occupation worsened, especially after the destruction of the Temple, variously evolved view ossified. The Galillean contingent that supported Yeshua as Messiah adopted a Messiah ben Joseph position, still expecting an imminent return, while the Jerusalem contingent looked for a Messiah ben David, eventually following Akiva’s pronouncement in the Bar Kobah revolt. As we know now, both sides experience considerable disappointment and consequently re-interpeted their expectations to fit lived reality. The wedge was created not because of the paradigm but as a result of trying to hold on to certain prophecies and expectations inspire of historical disappointments. Christianity grew from this same soil, adopting a Greek-based paradigm that hardened its thinking especially along anti-jewish lines in order to separate itself from the failed prophecies of political Israel. Unfortunately the now three sides of the issue stopped talking. And here we are today, still shouting at each other rather than asking, “Where did this idea come from?”
Skip, building on your quote: “The Galillean contingent that supported Yeshua as Messiah adopted a Messiah ben Joseph position, still expecting an imminent return, while the Jerusalem contingent looked for a Messiah ben David, eventually following Akiva’s pronouncement in the Bar Kobah revolt. As we know now, both sides experience considerable disappointment and consequently re-interpeted their expectations to fit lived reality. The wedge was created not because of the paradigm but as a result of trying to hold on to certain prophecies and expectations inspire of historical disappointments. Christianity grew from this same soil, adopting a Greek-based paradigm that hardened its thinking especially along anti-jewish lines in order to separate itself from the failed prophecies of political Israel.”
Jesus Remembered – Christianity In The Making – Volume 1 – James D. G. Dunn (pg. 891)
“Here again, whatever we may make of the facts (interpreted data), it is almost impossible reasonably to doubt that the sequel to Jesus’ mission began with different members of his disciple group(s) seeing Jesus alive, seeing him as ‘risen from the dead’. Not least, these experiences and the conviction which they embodied from their first articulation of them (‘resurrection’) must have signified God’s confirmation of Jesus. Which is to say, the hope that Jesus was remembered as indicating in regard to his future had been vindicated, as he himself had been vindicated; the son of man had indeed come on the clouds to the Ancient of Days and received his kingdom. Which is also to say that to that extent at least Jesus’ hope and intention in regard to the kingdom of God had been realised. So too, we could go on to argue, the transmutation of the disciple band into ‘the church of God’ which soon attracted the ire of Saul the Pharisee (Gal. 1.13) was a recognizable realization of Jesus’ hope for a renewed Temple ( supported on the ‘pillar’ apostles ‒ Gal. 2.9), just as the Lord’s Supper probably functioned more or less from the first as the continuation of Jesus’ practice of table-fellowship and symbol of the new covenant inaugurated in his death. So too, it could be pointed out, the destruction of Jerusalem and its Temple, only forty years later, proved as accurate a fulfillment of Jesus’ other forebodings as one could ask for. So there was the continuity of fulfillment between Jesus’ aims and hopes and what in the event transpired.
Over all, of course, it was hardly a complete realisation of all that Jesus was remembered as forecasting and looking for: his resurrection was not the beginning of the harvest of resurrection of the dead; the mission soon to be undertaken to the Gentiles did not match very closely any expectation Jesus may have entertained regarding the eschatological pilgrimage to Zion of Gentile proselytes; the final judgment did not follow; the eschatological reversal which took place fell far short of the sort of hopes which Jesus’ words must have engendered. But it was ever so with prophecy expressed in the images of human experience. And the measure of fulfillment and the continuity which that expressed were all the first Christians needed to sustain their claim that God had vindicated Jesus’ mission and was continuing that same mission in a new and different form through them.”
Skip – What is the “significant historical analysis of events at the time of the development of each stage of the Messianic idea in Israel” that you just finished reading?
I will be using it a bit in the new year.
Joseph Klausner, The Messianic Idea In Israel From Its Beginning To The Completion Of The Mishnab, originally published by Macmillian, now in Scholar’s Choice edition. 543 pages of historical analysis of the social-political influences on the development of the Messianic idea and the person of the Messiah in JEWISH context.
Now THAT interests me!
It’s odd, tho, isn’t it? that we read so much ABOUT the Scriptures, sometimes I don’t read the actual Scriptures.
?[b]BORING[b] ?? [b][i] boring[i][b] ?? [i]BORING[i]
I thought it was just me reverting back to my ADD days.
Craig! Thanks so much for the pictorial! i got it!
hmmmm, maybe not. LOL LOL LOL
Of course, I agree. What we want is the mindset of the authors, not the cultural reinterpretation that happened centuries later.
I know you truly do Skip. As do any of us that desire the perfect will of YHVH. The problem, as I see it, though, is that it appears to be impossible for so many to completely shake off bias interpretations of the text. So much pushing one side against another. One position against another.
I thank my God and my King, Yeshua Messiah, that I never received “church” indoctrination. I don’t have pent up anger or resentment against Christians or those of the different Judaisms. I’m truly thankful that I don’t have to shake or fight against “trinity” doctrine theories. I’m not Catholic or Jewish so I’m not afraid to look at the text for what I see it as. In the language it was written.
The most commented on posts on this blog, by far, is in regard to the “trinity”. Honestly, I just don’t understand the need to blast each other on either position. I don’t get having to “prove” one wrong or one right. Why can’t we just let the text be the text? Because if anyone is trying to be honest then they would have to agree that it supports both positions. An examination of the languages shows that to be plainly clear. What I personally see is an awful lot of philosophical speculations going on. And that’s as Greek as it gets. Do we really think we will somehow be able to put our finger on it and be able to convince someone else by reasoning? I believe the text is meant for us to struggle over and through but it is only by the Ruach that we will individually be able to say “I get it”. And I seriously doubt anyone of us will be able to ever convince another human being by mere logic and philosophical ramblings. If scripture tells us anything it tells us that we are saved by grace through faith. Not reason, philosophical discourse, bias positions or otherwise.
HaShem has each and every one of us on an individual unique journey. And do any of us know where that will end up at? So, instead of trying to prove one right over the other, why not just agree that the journey is extremely important and that at some point, though we currently see through the glass dimly, we will, in the end, see clearly.
May the name above all names, Yeshua our Messiah, be blessed.
As hard as we may try, it’s impossible to divide ONE.
But with God, all things are possible.
As long as ALL the things aren’t logically impossible, like dividing 1 by 3 and getting 1. 🙂
Oh, dear, still trying to do God math. WHY do we think “One” is about math, for goodness’ sake? I mean, I am really asking. Really.
Dearest Laurita,
IT’S A NUMBER!!!!
Well, I know it is in Greek…
Is it logically possible to part the waters of a sea, with the resultant bare sea floor dry enough within minutes of parting for individuals to tread between the now parted sea waters?
Interestingly, the Hebrew does not suggest “dry” ground. It uses a term that means more like “congealed.”
You mean they walked on wiggler jello?
I have read in other places (askelm.com; easiest to find) that it was frozen.
Philosophical, Logical, and highly intellectual people, have been banging their brains against the hand of God for a very long time, on a regular basis, over the many things of YHVH that don’t add up to our definitions of what’s logical with Him and what isn’t. Like creating something out of nothing in the beginning.
He doesn’t say “all things are possible by Him and will be able to be figured out by us”.
In fact, He tells us “For My thoughts are not your thoughts, Nor are your ways My ways,” declares the LORD. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, So are My ways higher than your ways and My thoughts than your thoughts.”
I find it best to just affirm His words are true. Whether I can figure them all out or wrap my finite head around them or not.
Is a number like “1” a real number in Hebrew? Or is it really letters like “אחד”? Hmmm. So, 3 letters can actually be 1 number? Interesting.
I hear ya Mark. I have these thoughts as well. Why the propensity to argue rather than actively walk the journey?
This is why I just don’t go to any “church” building anymore. While I enjoy connecting with folks, I do not care for the baggage that comes with “church.”
God says He has built into every human the ability to know Him and to see that creation is His. We are therefore, without excuse.
Anyways, I am there with you brother 🙂
Hello Dawn
I should clarify a few things.
I find no problems with active, intense, and sometimes heated debate and discussion over scripture. I believe scripture is intended for us to do such. The problem comes in when we think it’s always cut and dry. Sometimes it is sometimes it isn’t. And when we see the text saying more than one thing about something, then IMHO it’s better to just say “it’s true even if I don’t see it or can’t explain it”.
And the other point I’d like to clarify is “Church”. We don’t find that word in the text. More appropriately it would be “assembly”. And I do believe we should, in fact, be a physical part of one. Of course, I know some aren’t able to for a number of reasons but, I don’t think one of them should be “I don’t feel like it or want too”. A physical community gives us security for survival, accountability, responsibility, much-needed interaction for our youth, and a real iron sharpening iron environment to name just a couple of the hundreds of reasons. But I just don’t see a biblical model for willingly choosing to isolate ourselves from a physical community of believers. I do understand why some reject it because of past experiences but, as we grow and mature I think we should be able to get over that. I also believe we still, at this time, have need for the teaching of one to another. When the New Covenant is realised in it’s fullness that won’t be the case but we aren’t there yet.
Thank you for your comment and I pray your Shabbat will be restful.
Hi Mark,
To clarify a remark I made, I do not isolate myself from believers. I chose not to assemble in a modern church because of the “doctrines” so ardently preached.
I actually assemble with and meet with believers quite often. I am good with this and have some good teaching opportunities too. There are many ways to assemble sans the “church” bit.
I respect your view here and hope that you respect mine as well.
A restful Shabbat to you as well.
Most assuredly I respect your views as I try to everyone’s. Occasionally someone will say something that will lead me off on a rabbit trail. It very well may have nothing to do with the comment. Could be just a word, as in this case. But, I definitely meant you know disrespect.
Mark, I think most of the “Jewishness” of the many Bibles we read, have been lost in translations.
The AV/Authourised Version, or, the King James Version, are indoctrinated with agendas. Notice the word-VERSION?
Shalom!
Same could be said of the Talmud, Mishnah, and Gemara. Not only have they been changed and added to many times but, much is lost in they’re translations as well.
Not just those either. Have you ever read the “Stone edition” bible? Can you say “indoctrinated with agendas”?
“Words in themselves have no real meaning”
Perhaps we should all practice active listening a whole lot more!
Thank you, Skip, your heart is in this TW, not that it isn’t in all the TWs you wrote.
You are never for division, but always FOR truth. I have just today, watched the Nov. Conversation/interview you had with Jounrey 2020. I came across it by “accident”, and was so glad I watched it. It revealed a lot of your journey, and what made you who you are to write the TWs that has blessed and impressed so many around the globe. Keep it up, Skip! Todah rabah v’brachot!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wHJhXUhaMsY
You expressed and desired that folks have that free environment to share different views.
I agree; these dialogues should not be defensive; rather, be respectful, first and foremost;
not in arrogance to teach, but to guide.
“Since the text itself is a product of the paradigm of the author, an interpreter who does not share that paradigm is likely to misinterpret the text according to the interpreter’s paradigm.” Rightly so!
E.g. Even as I wrote the above, no one could fathom my thoughts nor emotions when I wrote it, nor under what circumstances. That, is “human dynamics” as you expressed it.
The emphasis absolutely, would be -“They must be explored by historical examination, culture, probability, external evidence, reasonableness, human dynamics and Spirit.” NO adapting/ altering, to tie in to one’s paradigm! Changing YHWH’s Word is a crime!
To walk in fear/ reverence of The Almighty God The Creator, THE Rock, The Savior, The Judge and The Redeemer, The Giver of Life, Who will NOT give His esteem to another! There/HE is ONE and none other!
Amein! Shalom.
Ester, thanks so much for posting the youtube link. I just finished watching it. It gives so much dimension to what Skip is all about so that friends and relatives can understand how and why I read TW. This link should be included on Skip’s web site for recommended viewing before further reading. Great presentation Skip!
Todah, George, I am so glad you watched it. Hope many others will do too, to benefit from it.
Shalom!
Thank you for posting that link, Ester. And “Thank You!!” to Skip as well for doing the interview. It was filled with wonderful insight and inspiration, with food for thought. Definitely worth sharing to help others understand why we willingly sit at this teacher’s feet.
“By your fruits shall you know them”. Skip, WE are your fruit and judging solely from the comments of the community members in 2016 you had a bumper crop! Thank you from one of those hundred fold kernals. May the blessings of YHWH be upon you, your family, friends, this community, your outreach and ministry in 2017.
Can I add something to the mix? What about the economics of the individual writer, or writing from the perspective of the poor, which Yeshua had us keep as “what you do for the least of these, you do unto me.”
When we let God bring us on our journey to what it is like to be “one of the least of these” we have a whole different perspective as well. I know that God has brought me to places to identify with many that I thought I would never go, and the perspective the Lord gives you from these places is one where theology is really not an issue when you’re in survival mode. I would imagine that since the Israelites experienced so much suffering through the years, especially when you look at people like Jeremiah, that I wonder, how did that play into what they wrote?
I’m looking forward to 2017 Skip. You have opened my eyes on Scripture and you’ve also affirmed how God has been leading me at others. Thank you.
Another great year Skip! Thank you for finishing 2016 strong and your commitment to keep discipling one word at a time in 2017. Thank you also for sharing your approach to interpreting Scripture. It is helpful not only in my personal study of the Scripture, but also what I do as faculty on MCB Quantico, VA. Shalom
I have been exposed to Skip’s thinking for 10 years or more and I am very thankful God has placed him at this time in history to challenge and encourage our relationship with God. Thank you Skip, I really do appreciate every “Today’s Word” as I am encouraged, challenged and able to be in this relationship with you,
I so agree, and it is this very topic that calls me to keep my toe in your doorstep.
Thank you, Skip, for taking us deeper and deeper! I was first introduced to your work in August 2014, and have benefited immeasurably as I have walked along. And even more after my husband joined the “hike” last year. Thankful to have met you in July, and we look forward to fellowship in February. Shabbat Shalom!
Thanks so much for sharing with us during the year 2016, I’m looking forward to 2017. I haven’t been very active in commenting within the group, but I have really been moved by the Words that I receive through email. It’s hard for me to put into words my thoughts and experiences. I do know that knowledge is very dangerous, because I do fight with and through indoctrination. I’m sure that many here like Skip has had something in life that caused them to look for and at God from a different perspective. Mine was the loss of our daughter. She had special needs, she was with us for 11 years. I think of her as our Angel sent, in the function of the word Angel. Through indoctrination I was told a lot of things that never happened. Or shall I say happen in the way that we wanted it to happen. Our daughter never walked, talked, although we were told to look for those things to happen. But as we moved forward My wife and I now see much that she gave to us both and It’s amazing that she never spoke a word. There are things that I have gotten peace with, and still somethings I do still struggle with. So may His blessings continue to keep us and change us as we move forward.
Shalom Aleichem,
Keith