I’ve been told that the only proper way to interpret scripture is to look at it through a “Jesus lens”. That we must interpret the entire OT through the red letters in the NT. But this seems to ignore a couple of things.
1. That Jesus spoke in and through the OT. Jesus, as the second person of the Godhead, is for all intents and purposes speaking the words attributed to YHWH.
Clearly if you deny that Jesus is the the Logos spoken of in John, or that Jesus is the eternally existent second person of the triune God, you won’t agree with this,
2. Very often when Jesus spoke in the red letters, he starts by saying something like “It is written...”, then He proceeds to quote the OT. At His temptation, “It is written...”, His first appearance in the synagogue He quotes Isaiah 61:1. Which raises the question, if Jesus so frequently referenced the OT on matters of importance, is it possible that we should view Jesus through the lens of the OT instead of the other way around?
I’m also curious about Jesus use of Isiah 61:1. If we’re to accept that He meant v.1 in a wooden literal way, does that mean that He was implying that all of chapter 61 should be treated the same way?
If the answer is no, why the arbitrary cut off?
If the answer is yes, then wouldn’t that change Jesus message?
We have to remember that it’s likely that His audience would have known the entire passage and it seems possible that they could have finished the prophecy in their minds.
It just seems odd that in so many important instances Jesus referred back to Jewish scripture, maybe that’s more important than we might think.
10 comments:
?
I think the audience would quite likely know the rest of Isaiah 61, but I don't see what that buys you. It's more of the same. God will tear down the rich oppressors and lift up the poor and oppressed. It's the great Day of Setting Things Right... the great WAY of setting things right, restoring justice for a long-suffering oppressed people.
So, no, it would not change the message of Jesus coming to preach good news to the poor and marginalized/oppressed. It only reinforces it.
Why do you continue to dodge this very simple question? Why do you not even acknowledge the question that you continue to dodge. You cite a bunch of verses where Jesus says, "I have come..." and gives a variety of reasons why he came, as if that would throw me off or change my tune, but it doesn't. I agree with ALL the reasons he said he came. So, you citing all those other verses, I can say, "yes, yes, yes" to each one.
But I ask you if you can affirm that Jesus MEANT what he said when he said he'd come to preach good news to the poor, and you can't/won't answer it. You appear to be stalling, as if you're desperately trying to find some source to give a good answer and you're finding nothing. Is that's what is happening here?
I ask you if you can affirm that Jesus did indeed come to preach good news to the poor specifically, as he says specifically and you don't answer the question.
I ask you in what sense did Jesus come to preach good news to the poor... in what sense is your notions about "the good news" in any way good news specifically for the poor? You don't answer the question.
Look, I'm entirely fine with "I don't know" if that's your answer. It's just odd that ALL three of you all continue to ignore the very reasonable question.
Jesus BEGINS his ministry with an appeal to Isaiah 61 where he says he's going to preach good news TO THE POOR, to set right that which has been done wrong, to free the oppressed. WHY did Jesus begin with that claim? What WAS his "Good News for the poor" AND how was it good news for the poor?
These are reasonable questions, friends.
The question is not why He began with that claim, but why you insist on limiting Him based on that claim.
You also missed the point of the post and didn’t answer any of the questions asked. It’s almost like you have a monomaniacal drive to simply repeat your talking points regardless of anything else.
One thing that's been left out in the woodenly literal interpretation of both the Luke passage as well as the Isiah passage is what is the prophecy. Isiah was prophesying about something that was to come and Jesus appears to be announcing the fulfillment of that prophecy. But what if it's about something other than a woodenly literal reading superficially suggests? What if you can;t separate the two texts?
The first question is, does the Luke text demand a wooden literal interpretation or are there other plausible interpretations?
The second question is, can we interpret the Isiah text in a wooden literal manner?
The third question is, if we are compelled to accept a wooden literal interpretation of the texts, then shouldn't we expect that the results promised would happen?
Fifth question, did what was promised in the prophecy actually happen as prophesied?
Here is an example of what I'm talking about.
If we are adopting a woodenly literal interpretation, that excludes any other possibility except Jesus talking about the materially poor, then how do we evaluate this statement?
"18 “The Spirit of the Lord is on me,
because he has anointed me
to proclaim good news to the poor.
He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners
and recovery of sight for the blind,
to set the oppressed free,
19 to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.”[f]
20 Then he rolled up the scroll, gave it back to the attendant and sat down. The eyes of everyone in the synagogue were fastened on him. 21 He began by saying to them, “Today this scripture is fulfilled in your hearing.”"
So, He appears to be offering blanket freedom for prisoners, sight for the blind, and some unspecified good news for the poor. He also is clear that this prophecy "has been fulfilled" "Today".
Were all the blind given sight, prisoners freed, and the poor "good newsed" that day? If they weren't doesn't that invalidate His claim to "have fulfilled" the prophecy?
He didn't say that it would be fulfilled in the future, He specifically said "has been fulfilled".
Remember, we're excluding any possibility except the literal giving of sight to the blind and freedom to the prisoners, and good news to the poor?
Why just the blind? Why not the deaf and the lame?
Yet at no time during His earthly ministry did Jesus engage in blanket healings, or stage mass prison breaks, why?
Finally, if Jesus was truly political, why did He never directly challenge Rome? Even though Romans ultimately crucified Him, it wasn't for rebellion against Rome.
Let me commend you. Those are all good questions to ask. I would suggest they are the right questions to ask. Follow that line of reasoning and thinking and see where it goes.
Not answering these reasonable questions and not thinking it through, as you all have been doing, is not the way to go. Seems to me.
So when we follow these questions, we can see reasonably that Jesus never did heal everyone, or even very many, relatively speaking. He did not give monetary resources to the poor on a large-scale bases.
So, reasonably speaking, we can assume the Jesus isn't speaking of literally healing everyone and totally alleviating poverty for everyone. What are we left in?
It seems obvious to many, we are left with having compassion for the poor, sick, oppressed and marginalized as our starting point. But not because salvation is found in simple minded charity.
Rather, it seems to many of us that this way of Grace that Jesus talked about was about a little bit of everything.
It was about embracing solidarity with the poor and oppressed and marginalized as our starting point. It was about siding with them against the oppressor and the wealthy if they would keep them out of money or place them in jail.
It was about opposing policies, both personal and societal, that would unjustly oppress the poor and marginalized. It's about recognizing that a polluted environment is going the harm the poor and marginalized first and most of all.
It's not about exclusion, like excluding the wealthy. However, it is about inviting the poor to the welcome table and the rich to abandon all and join them there.
You've certainly managed to both avoid actually answering any of the questions asked while saying virtually nothing substantial simultaneously.
The fact remains that if you are going to insist on your opinions as being correct, then you can't get past the fact that the text clearly says that Jesus didn't do what He said he would.
It seems rational that you are either going to take the entirety of the text literally or the entirety of the text figuratively. Instead, your arguing for a woodenly literal reading of one part of the text, and an entirely figurative reading for the rest. I'm sure that it's a convenient coincidence, and nothing more, that division between figurative and literal happens where it does you the most good.
At this point, I seriously question your ability or willingness to approach the text from an unbiased point of view and to follow things to the logical conclusion even if it doesn't fit in your box.
Feo,
For some reason I didn't immediately send your comment to the trash, and I actually read it, and your response is much more like what I would say than I thought. My problem is that your comment seems at odds with Dan's position vis-a-vis Jesus claims of divinity/messiahhood, which tempts me to post it. However your history warns me not to.
And Feo makes the decision easy.
Feo, you missed the point. I don’t expect you to be respectful because you’ve demonstrated repeatedly your inability to be respectful.
But it’s cute that you have such a surplus of pride.
Feo,
Last one. You aren’t disrespectful because I don’t post your comments, I don’t post your comments because you’re disrespectful. It’s your pride getting in the way again.
He's such a sad case. I don't read anything of his for the most part. All that goes to spam gets deleted with all the rest of the spam. I used to check them first to see if he's ready to provide his plan. Seems I was right and he never will, though now he claims he has if only we'll share something or other. I skip right over his comments at Dan's and don't waste my time. If ever he's ready to present his plan, he'll have to have Dan refer me to it or I'll never know he's finally done that. If Dan thinks he's asked some wonderful question or made some profound point that Dan feels I should address, Dan will have to reprint it himself. I simply don't care what feo posts anymore, and I don't care what he thinks about it. Your last comment to him reflects a long-time reality: he accuses us of behaviors that justify his nastiness, as if that's ever an excuse for an alleged Christian and alleged adult...but the reality is that he's been an arrogant, condescending ass from Day 1.
Post a Comment