Posted by Basta on September 28, 2013 at 18:55:52
In Reply to: Re: Matthew 7 posted by Pastor Don on September 27, 2013 at 18:12:43:
I believe we can and should interpret the meaning of scripture in its literary and historic context. Matthew 7:14-15 is not a revelatory scripture such as John 3:16, where we either believe or don't believe the claim Jesus has made. Matt. 7:14-15 is an apophorism, and it is situated in the CONTEXT of Matthew 7 (not John 3!) The style and form of Matthew 7 is first century rabbinic pedagogy. Remember, Matthew's original audience was primarily Jewish, so for us to see Jesus in the role of Rabbi is the proper historical/cultural frame to bring to our understanding of this passage. Matthew 7 isn't like John's gospel where the Lord speaks to us in the context and audience expectation of high Christology.
Here is my point: We either interpret scripture within its context using scholarly methods, or we interpret scripture to mean whatever we say it means based on our biases & prejudices, which aren't always bad--they're just difficult to defend and often mislead us from the truth of what scripture actually reveals. I can defend the methods I've used in my interpretation of Matthew 7:14-15. If you can show me where I've made an error in my reasoning about the contextual meaning of this apophorism, I'll accept that.
I've long held my tongue, brother, when I've read you cite this scripture to mean something it does not say. You can argue there is no way to bring scholarly logic to our understanding of sacred scripture, and I will say you are losing sight of your high calling. I simply challenge you to use what you learned about scriptural interpretation at Bible college to show me where I'm wrong.