One of the most alarming issues presented by this unsupported blog post is the inconsistency of claiming Christocentric interpretation by utilizing Satan's.
Regardless of that, let's respond to the issues presented within Charles Wiese's post found here.
What the Devil says here is just a small portion of Psalm 91 but there's nothing within Psalm 91 that explicitly states that Psalm 91 is about the Son of God. But Devil seemed to realize that Psalm 91 is primarily about the Son of God. According to the Devil if Jesus truly is the Son of God then Psalm 91 is about Jesus. Certainly the Devil takes these words out of context as is shown by Jesus' refusal to throw Himself down, but Jesus doesn't deny the basic premise that Psalm 91 is primarily about the Son of God. Because of our union with Christ we also can take the words of Psalm 91 upon our lips. But Psalm 91 first and foremost is about Christ Himself."
I'm grateful, at least, that Wiese has correctly pointed out that Satan acontextualized Psalm 91:11, 12, but how then can we conclude that Satan rightly applies this phrase to Christ? Furthermore, what Christ actually does is shows that that Psalm IS NOT fulfilled by Him. Yet if you examined Psalm 22, a clear Messanic Psalm, you find fulfillment in Christ.
"But both the Devil and Jesus knew that the Scriptures are all about Jesus. After the resurrection, the Apostles all realized that the Scriptures were all about Jesus. Matthew doesn't have any problem taking a statement from Hosea 11:1 about what God had done for Israel and interpreting it as a prophecy about Jesus."
The first element that's missing is the fact that Matthew was using the inspired words of the Holy Spirit and was being moved by the Holy Spirit to pen Scripture. Secondly, there was fulfillment in what was said in Hosea 11:1, whereas Psalm 91:11, 12 doesn't have fulfillment in Christ. The issue is not to disprove that Christ was prophesied and holds many an anti-type, but to throw the Historical, grammatical approach out en toto is ignorant.
"The early church fathers understood that the Scriptures were all about Jesus. Despite all the error that had crept into the church over time, you cannot find a pre-Reformation Christian commentary on the Psalms that doesn't interpret them as being all about Jesus."
I find this statement hard to believe, particularly because Wiese holds to an understanding that the method of Protestant interpretation was unknown before the Reformation and thus everyone before the Reformation had an overt, Christocentric interpretation to the Psalms.
This does show that a portion of Reformation hermeneutics was present before the reformation. "Similarly, Theodore of Mopsuestia (ca. A.D. 350-428), thought to be the greatest interpreter among those associated with Antioch, wrote that only four psalms (2; 8; 45; 110) truly contained messianic prophecy about the incarnation of Christ and the Church."[2]
Obviously that doesn't limit the amount of Psalms that could contain other types of messianic prophecies such as Psalm 22, but clearly you have in the Patristic period an individual who didn't adhere to dramatic, Christocentric hermeneutics."But starting with Calvin, many Protestants were deceived into thinking that some Psalms are Messianic while others are not. In reaction to some of the fanciful allegorical interpretations of the past, many Protestants a method of Biblical interpretation claimed to have greater objectivity."
That is interesting considering, "Luther stressed that proper interpretation also has a subjective element.... Like Luther and Aquinas, Calvin rejected allegory in favor of a historical interpretation of Scripture. With Luther, he also affirmed the Scripture as the Church's only ultimate authority, an authority to be accepted by faith. Again, Calvin believed in a subjective element in interpretation...."[3]
The end result is a method of interpretation which had not existed before and one that actually forbids the very kind of Biblical interpretation that we find the Apostle's engaging in." False, as stated above. Besides, "[p]roper interpretation seeks to cultivate proper, ethical and devout Christian life. According to Augustine, to interpret the Bible properly one must focus on a text's literal or historical meaning, by which he meant its 'real meaning' or what the text intended to say."[4]
Among Cyril, Aquinas, and Augustine, if Calvin's hermeneutic is to interpret "grammatically and historically",[5] how is modern hermeneutics completely unheard of before the Reformation? We are not told."Jesus says the Scriptures are all about Jesus. Any system of interpretation that does not find Jesus in every passage must be rejected." What an incredible claim. I do recognize that the Scriptures testify to Jesus Christ (John 5:39), however should we honestly say that,“He drank of the wine and became drunk, and uncovered himself inside his tent” (Genesis 9:21 NAS95) is about Christ? What about Able? The Author of Hebrews seems to think that the accounts of Able are about Able and his faith. Or what about Jacob and Esau? The Author of Hebrews seems to think those stories are about Jacob and Esau and more particularly Jacob's faith (Hebrews 11:20, 21). Or what if we focused on Esau specifically? If we interpreted the accounts of Esau NOT Christocentrically, but interpreted Esau as a profane and immoral person, should that not be rejected too? (Hebrews 12:16).
"The Devil did not dare to try to convince Jesus that all the Scriptures; are not about Jesus. In the middle ages the Devil caused a shift in focus from what Jesus did to what we need to do for Jesus but there was no outright denial that the Scriptures were all about Jesus. It really wasn't until the Reformation that the Devil managed to convince some in the church that faithfulness to the Scriptures required a person to believe that some of the Scriptures are not really about Jesus. The Devil would loves it when we diligently study the Scriptures and think they are about something other than Jesus."
Psalm 91 doesn't find fulfillment in Christ, and Christ showed that. Personally, I'd take Christ's interpretation to Psalm 91 over Satan's. Ironic considering that Psalm 91 isn't about Jesus, yet Wiese is wanting us to believe it is (Which Satan was trying to do to Christ), and then accuses Reformation hermeneutics as being influenced by Satan.
Notes
1). Klein, et all, Introduction to Biblical Interpretation, 39; c.f. J. O'Keefe "Christianizing Malachi: Fifth-Century Insights from Cyril of Alexandria." Vigiliae Christianae, 50
2). Ibid.
3). ibid, 47, 48
4). ibid, 41
5). Mickelson,Interpreting the Bible, 40
"I'm grateful, at least, that Wiese has correctly pointed out that Satan acontextualized Psalm 91:11, 12, but how then can we conclude that Satan rightly applies this phrase to Christ? Furthermore, what Christ actually does is shows that that Psalm IS NOT fulfilled by Him."
ReplyDeleteJesus never denies that the Psalm is about Him. He does say that the Devil's application is wrong. What the Devil leaves out is verse 13 which is prophecy of Christ who tramples upon the serpent.
"The conclusion that many would have believed that Jesus was Messiah had they witnessed this doesn't match the context since Christ was led by the Spirit into the wilderness ἔρημος which is a deserted, uninhabited place. "
It says that the Devil took Him to the top of the temple. The temple was not an uninhabited place.
"The first element that's missing is the fact that Matthew was using the inspired words of the Holy Spirit and was being moved by the Holy Spirit to pen Scripture. Secondly, there was fulfillment in what was said in Hosea 11:1, whereas Psalm 91:11, 12 doesn't have fulfillment in Christ. The issue is not to disprove that Christ was prophesied and holds many an anti-type, but to throw the Historical, grammatical approach out en toto is ignorant."
Matthew was inspired by the Holy Spirit to interpret all of the OT as being about Jesus even passages specifically spoke of a past event that God accomplished in Israel such as Hosea 11:1. Throughout Matthew's Gospel, Jesus is portrayed as the new Israel--Israel reduced to one, who accomplishes all that Israel failed to do. Jesus makes it through the temptation in the wilderness, Israel failed to do so, etc. It seems much wiser to me to take the example of the Gospel writers and Paul on how the OT should be interpreted rather than construct our own method of interpretation.
"First, Cyril actually did "favor a more grammatically based approached".[1] This does show that a portion of Reformation hermeneutics was present before the reformation. "Similarly, Theodore of Mopsuestia (ca. A.D. 350-428), thought to be the greatest interpreter among those associated with Antioch, wrote that only four psalms (2; 8; 45; 110) truly contained messianic prophecy about the incarnation of Christ and the Church."[2] Obviously that doesn't limit the amount of Psalms that could contain other types of messianic prophecies such as Psalm 22, but clearly you have in the Patristic period an individual who didn't adhere to dramatic, Christocentric hermeneutics."
You can read the commentaries of these writers as part of the Ancient Christian Commentary series and judge for yourself.
I appreciate the time you took to respond.
Delete"Jesus never denies that the Psalm is about Him. He does say that the Devil's application is wrong. What the Devil leaves out is verse 13 which is prophecy of Christ who tramples upon the serpent."
Jesus does in fact show that the quoted portion is not to be fulfilled by Him.
I'm glad you decided to expand the context a little bit, as it shows that the one who takes refuge in the Lord will be shown salvation in verse 16. Was Christ shown salvation? Clearly verses 11 and 12 ARE NOT fulfilled by Christ which is what Satan quotes and attempts to apply. You've missed the way the New Testament utilizes messianic fulfillment, which is where the quote is fulfilled, e.g. Hebrews 1 as well as the quote from Matt 2:15. Furthermore, Verse 13 is not fulfilled, considering Gen 3:15 using in both the Hebrew text and the Septuagint a different word for serpent than that of Psalm 91, shows that Christ was to bruise the serpents head, not trample on him.
"Matthew was inspired by the Holy Spirit to interpret all of the OT as being about Jesus even passages specifically spoke of a past event that God accomplished in Israel such as Hosea 11:1. Throughout Matthew's Gospel, Jesus is portrayed as the new Israel--Israel reduced to one, who accomplishes all that Israel failed to do. Jesus makes it through the temptation in the wilderness, Israel failed to do so, etc. It seems much wiser to me to take the example of the Gospel writers and Paul on how the OT should be interpreted rather than construct our own method of interpretation."
How is it much wiser to utilize the Gospel writers interpretation of the OT as completely about Christ when Matthew doesn't even do that? Matt 3:3 shows Isaiah 40:3 as being fulfilled in John the Baptist, not Christ. Paul also didn't interpret the entirety of the OT as being about Christ either, something you falsely concluded. Galatians 4:21-31 shows Isaiah 51:1 and Genesis 21:10, 12 as not being about Christ. So I would have to agree with you in following their example, except it takes me away from your conclusion. Perhaps you could also show me how the examples I gave of Noah, Able, Jacob and Esau should be interpreted Messianically.
"You can read the commentaries of these writers as part of the Ancient Christian Commentary series and judge for yourself."
I appreciate the advise, however, I did provide an ancient interpreter who didn't view the Psalms the way you've concluded.
Thanks for responding!
The angels do in fact tend to Jesus. The Devil was trying to keep Jesus from the cross. If Jesus had performed some stunt by jumping off the top of the temple and the angels swooped down and saved Him, they would accept Him as a Messiah. But the way of Christ is the way of the cross. He is coronated in His crucifixion. Jesus does not deny that the angels would keep Him from killing Himself but instead that the Scriptures say not to put God to the test. Jesus walks in perfect faith and refuses to test God's promises.
ReplyDeleteAbel was hated by Cain for his righteousness. Abel was a shepherd. Abel was eventually killed not for doing anything wrong but for his righteousness. Able's offering was acceptable to God. Cain's offering of his own works was not acceptable.
Jacob was the elect one who foreshadowed Jesus who is the truly elect one. Just as Christ took upon our human nature Jacob took on the nature of Esau.
The issue of Esau is a bit more controversial. I don't think a Christocentric reading of the Scriptures demands that we read every character as picturing Jesus to us. On the other hand I do think it's entirely possible to read Esau as a type of Christ as well. Esau rightfully deserved the blessing but he became hated by God so that Jacob would receive the blessing. If you read the actual narratives, Jacob seems far more wicked than Esau but Jacob receives the promise while Esau suffers.
Isaiah 40:3 is still ultimately a prophecy about Jesus. John the Baptizer was sent as the verse says to prepare the way of the Lord and Jesus is the Lord.
Jesus is the rock, Jesus is the New Covenant. On the night in which He was betrayed He took the cup and said this is the New Covenant/Testament in my blood. If you can't even find Jesus in the Galatians and Genesis passages I don't know what to tell you. I don't know who you think the New Covenant is in?
Noah constructed the ark, Christ built the church. As Peter says Noah and his family were saved through the waters of the flood just as we are saved through the waters of baptism where Christ washes us. Noah's name means "rest." Christ provides our rest. Noah was a just man, the Bible even says he was perfect, Jesus is the only one who is completely both of these things. All those who were joined to Noah were saved, all who are united with Christ are saved. Noah alone did the work that made this salvation happen, Christ alone does the work in our salvation. This just scratches the service, there's lots more.
You are correct that Theodore of Mopsuesita for a time followed a more extreme version of the methods of Diodore and taught that only a handful of Psalms were truly Messianic but after being heavily cricized he repented of this position and eventually promised to destroy his commentary on the Psalms which he eventually did which is why we have no surviving copies.
Jesus said that all the Scriptures are about Him and the Devil would like nothing more than to convince us that they are about someone else.
"The angels do in fact tend to Jesus."
ReplyDeleteNo, serving Jesus is different from what's being said in Psalm 91 as both the Hebrew שׁמר and the Greek διαφυλάσσω both mean to guard, not to minister. You also ignored the concept of showing Christ salvation, which clearly cannot be fulfilled by Christ. Psalm 91 stands to refer to people who take refuge in the LORD. If you wanted to say that that has messianic fulfillment in taking refuge in Christ, I see no issue there, but that's clearly not what you're saying.
"Abel was hated by Cain for his righteousness...."
I appreciate an explanation, but you stated that any interpretation that doesn't find Christ in it should be rejected. The Author of Hebrews' interpretation doesn't find Christ in Abel, so should it be rejected? That's the point.
"Jacob was the elect one who foreshadowed Jesus.. Jacob took on the nature of Esau."
How in the world do you make the claim that Jacob took the nature of Esau? Furthermore, Romans 9:10-13 doesn't interpret Jacob Christocentrically. And neither does that Author of Hebrews.
You seem to be making incredible stretches that the New Testament isn't.
"The issue of Esau is a bit more controversial..."
So it is ok in your hermeneutic to interpret a profane and immoral person as being about Christ? And the Author Hebrews disagrees with your interpretation of the Narrative, considering Jacob is listed in the faith Chapter (Heb 11) and we are warned to not have someone like Esau among us (Hebrews 12:16)
"Isaiah 40:3 is still ultimately a prophecy about Jesus..."
That's not the issue nor the fulfillment of the prophecy. Matthew provides a prophecy that was fulfilled not by Christ, but by John the Baptist. This same concept of prophecy fulfilled in John the Baptist and not Christ is seen Matthew 11:10 from Malachi 3:1. If Christ knew that all of the OT was about Him, why did He interpret that as being about John the Baptist?
"Jesus is the rock, Jesus is the New Covenant... I don't know who you think the New Covenant is in?"
Did you take the time to read Galatians 4? Jesus isn't even mentioned in Galatians 4. What you've presented here is nothing more than a red herring to the real issue. Paul utilizes two OT passages and DOESN'T interpret them as being about Christ. Which according to you is an interpretation that should be rejected.
"Noah constructed the ark, Christ built the church. As Peter says Noah and his family were saved through the waters of the flood just as we are saved through the waters of baptism where Christ washes us..."
First, no we are not saved through the waters of baptism, if you read the context of 1 Peter 3:21, it is not a physical water baptism that is being talked about, however, that's off topic.
You've missed what I presented entirely. How do you interpret Noah being drunk and uncovering himself as being about Christ? Especially if you've just "scratched the [surface]".
"You are correct that Theodore of Mopsuesita for a time followed a more extreme version of the methods of Diodore..."
Citation? I appreciate you admitting that not interpreting every Psalm as messianic wasn't a novelty by the Reformation.
"Jesus said that all the Scriptures are about Him and the Devil would like nothing more than to convince us that they are about someone else."
Did He say all the Scriptures are about Him? Considering He even shows that a passage is about John the Baptist.
Is Deut 24:1-4 about Christ?
I misunderstood your question. I didn't realize you were talking specifically about the book of Hebrews. The Book of Hebrews like the other NT Epistles was originally written as a sermon to be read as a whole when believers were gathered to receive the Lord's Supper. The book presents Christ as the real sacrifice for sins in whom we find our sabbath rest. The book is written to warn those Jews who had faith in Christ but wanted to return to the temple to offer sacrifices again. The book speaks of the deeds of OT saints and says that the reason they did these things was because of their faith in Christ. To return to the OT sacrfices would be to deny the faith of Abraham and other OT saints. Hebrews 11 isn't written to say "be like Abraham and do such and such" but to direct us to the object of Abraham's faith who is Christ.
ReplyDeleteJohn the Baptizer's only real significance is that he points to Christ. Jesus uses the passage not so much to say just that John is the fulfillment of this prophecy but as proof that Jesus Himself is Yawheh. In fact Jesus goes on to say that John is the greatest of OT prophets but then goes on to say how much greater the New Covenant in Christ is.
Bible chapters are helpful for locating passages but they aren't inspired. If you want to know what Paul's point is you have to read the whole Epistle and Galatians is all about Christ-crucified. Paul keeps showing over and over again that we are saved by Christ-crucified and not by the works of the Law.
My point is not that every action that every person does shows us what Christ does but that every passages ultimately points us to Christ. You could take the example of Noah's drunkenness in a couple of different ways that would point you to Christ. You could use it to show that even though he was the most righteous man on the earth at the time he was still worthy of damnation and needed Christ as His savior. But given the narrative and the blessings and curses that follow based on the reaction of his sons. But the way that many patristic commentators went with the passage was to see it as a type of the passion of Christ. Noah drunk from the cup just as Christ would later drink the cup. Noah was naked just as Christ was later stripped naked. He was mocked just as Christ would later be mocked. Believers honor Christ-crucified--God hanging dead and naked on the cross, but unbelievers mock Him.
As for Deuteronomy 24, Paul tells us that that law is a schoolmaster to drive us to Christ. Christ Himself uses this passage to show that even those with the strictest interpretation of it were still breaking God's Law and in need of Christ as their savior. Christ says it is only because of their utter sinfulness and hardness of heart that Moses permitted them to write a certificate of divorce but they misinterpreted it (as even some translations do) as a command about what you should do.
You can read about Theodore in the Dictionary of Christian Biography and literature: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/wace/biodict.html?term=Theodorus,%20bp.%20of%20Mopsuestia It cites Facundus as the source for the evidence of his repentance. When I was talking about "all Christian commentators" I had orthodox Christian commentators in mind. Theodore questioned the canonicity of many of the books of the OT canon and denied that the doctrine of the Trinity could be found in the OT. He also accused of being a Nestorian.
ReplyDelete"Hebrews 11 isn't written to say 'be like Abraham and do such and such' but to direct us to the object of Abraham's faith who is Christ."
ReplyDeleteAmong the smoke screens of your first paragraph I must point you back to the real issue that I presented, since you're clearly talking past the salient argument from Hebrews. The point, of which you are forced by context to concede, is that Hebrews 11 shows OT passages that aren't interpreted Christocentrically. Christ would have to be the subject, not object of the interpretation for your conclusions to be true.
"Jesus uses the passage not so much to say just that John is the fulfillment of this prophecy but as proof that Jesus Himself is Yawheh."
The problem is that you've stated any interpretation that says a passage isn't about Christ should be rejected and that Christ understood all the OT passages are about Him, yet you've clearly missed that he actually says a prophecy IS about John the Baptist in Matt 11:10, "This is the one about whom it is written." You also said that Matthew under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit interpreted all of the OT as being about Christ. Three conclusions of yours shown to be false by one verse.
"If you want to know what Paul's point is you have to read the whole Epistle and Galatians is all about Christ-crucified."
We're not discussing the remote context, we're looking at the immediate context, where Paul interpets Hagar as Mount Sanai which corresponds to Jerusalem. THAT is a clear example of an interpretation that isn't about Christ. According to you, we should reject Pauline hermeneutics.
"You could take the example of Noah's drunkenness in a couple of different ways that would point you to Christ. "
Wow... So Christ was intoxicated during the passion? Even concluding that spiritually, you have incredible Christological issues with your hermeneutic. You've utilized Satan's hermeneutic to draw a conclusion, you've stated that a profane and immoral person and a drunk man can be interpreted Christocentrically. Incredible.
"As for Deuteronomy 24, Paul tells us that that law is a schoolmaster "
You've dodged the question... Is Deuteronomy 24:1-4 about Christ?
"You can read about Theodore in the Dictionary of Christian Biography and literature:"
The conclusions that you've made are not entirely accurate even given the source you've provided. He was regarded as orthodox during his life. In fact he was even called a hammar of heretics. Not everyone agreed to unorthodoxy regarding Theodore. Cyril even seemed pressured to actually accuse him of being the Father of Nestorianism. Also you've mentioned that he did burn his copies of the Psalms and that we have no surviving copies, yet you can purchase his commentaries on Psalms 1-81 on Amazon.