No. If we want to say that God didn't intend Scripture to be for every generation I suppose we could call parts of it old fashioned and therefore not applicable to us, but that's not the case.
Literal, Figurative, Both or Neither?
Sort:
SoulMate333 wrote:
Great discussion. I enjoyed reading through the points. Because we need to consider the cultural context of the time, can we then say that certain verses that deal with, for example, hair length and head coverings, non-essentials people seem to love to argue about (Satan's way of distracting us from the essential tenets of our faith and the Gospel), was for a specific time, a specific purpose, and for a specific culture?
It of course depends on the specifics in question, but certainly there are cases like that whether it's a cultural matter or a theological matter for a specific time and purpose that no longer applies today (like the Old Testament sacrificial system or stoning someone for not observing the Sabbath). I think what you say speaks to the whole process of Bible interpretation where in proper exegesis one must: (1) First, determine what was meant (to the ancient audience) in order to know (2) what it actually means (to a timeless audience), so that (3) we know how to correctly apply it today (to a contemporary audience).
Also, a lot of the Bible, as you know, is a record of the history of ancient Israel. But just because something is recorded in the Bible doesn't mean the Bible condones or requires it. Such as arranged marriages or polygamy or slavery or violent murder.
Kjvav wrote:
No. If we want to say that God didn't intend Scripture to be for every generation I suppose we could call parts of it old fashioned and therefore not applicable to us, but that's not the case.
I assume then that you have no problem with gifts of the Spirit like prophecy, healings, miracles, speaking in tongues, etc. (not trying to be flippant; serious question wondering your view on such things)
Well, we have to consider all the Bible says on the subject and can't just limit to one passage. But as far as 1 Corinthians 13 goes, it teaches that all things must be done in love and that the gifts are temporary and enable us to know God in part at the present time, until the day we are "face-to-face" with God and know God fully.
Feb 27, 2023
0
#27
Not face-to-face, but when that which is perfect is come. In other words, when the word of God is finished, when the scriptures are complete.
Paul can't mean Scripture. It doesn't fit and line up with Scripture:
8 Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. 9 For we know in part and we prophesy in part, 10 but when completeness comes, what is in part disappears.....12 For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known."
Even with the Bible, we still only know in part and don't know fully even now. Paul says we will know fully and not just in part when 'the perfect' comes and when "we shall see face to face." To see "face-to-face" implies a person and most naturally God (we don't see a book/Scripture "face-to-face"). Nor do we "know fully" with Scripture (we still do not know God fully even though we have the Bible. We will only fully know God when we are with God in all His fullness).
The 'perfect' = the Bible also doesn't work, because Paul says he will fully know when he sees 'the perfect' face-to-face. But if he meant the Bible, then Paul died before the canon of Scripture was complete, before he could ever "fully know." It's difficult to see how Paul could be anticipating the day when he would see the completed Bible "face-to-face" and then "fully know." It doesn't make sense. The most natural understanding would seem to be God Himself. Indeed, it doesn't seem possible to fully know God any other way, other than being present with God in all His fullness and glory. Anything less, even having Scripture, is still only knowing "in part."
An additional thought comes to mind: even Jesus as the Word God became flesh was not the fullness of God, because of His humanity. Even so, He was (and is) still the greatest revelation of "God with us" (Immanuel). As wonderful as the Bible is, I would still rather be in the very presence of Jesus, then to only just read about Him in the Bible. In the same way, it's hard to imagine how Paul (or any of the apostles) could think a completed Bible is superior to Jesus Himself.
For these and other reasons, that's why the most natural understanding of when 'the perfect comes' seems to refer to the very presence of God Himself in all His fullness, or the Second Coming of Christ (which accomplishes the same by ushering us into God's eternal presence).
Great discussion. I enjoyed reading through the points. Because we need to consider the cultural context of the time, can we then say that certain verses that deal with, for example, hair length and head coverings, non-essentials people seem to love to argue about (Satan's way of distracting us from the essential tenets of our faith and the Gospel), was for a specific time, a specific purpose, and for a specific culture?