In most systems of inference a certain level of Rigor is applicable. How necessary is such rigor to determining Truth?

When rigor is relaxed to the point that one can apparently jump from any one notion to another in a seemingly arbitrary manner, then on what do we base our trust in the line of inference.

This OP is inspired by parts of the letters of Paul pointed out to me by Pilgrim.

'Twisting scripture' is a familiar refrain; but I don't think that would be the case here. There's nothing wrong in someone taking a verse to make a general principle - it all depends what they mean, but not necessarily twisting scripture. A few examples might be helpful:

1. In the NT in 2 Cor. 8:15 the apostle Paul quoted Exodus 16:18 to exhort about Christian giving. If you check the Exodus 16 verse, you find that it has nothing in context to do with ANY type of giving or offering - NOTHING at all! But Paul used that verse and quoted it directly in 2 Cor. 8:15 to speak . . what. . Christian giving? Yes, he did. How is it then that anti-tithers do not make the same charge of 'tiwsting scripture' against Paul?

2. Again in both 1 Cor. 9:9 and 1 Tim. 5:18, the apostle Paul quoted Deuteronomy 25:4 - "Thou shalt not muzzle the ox when he treadeth out the corn", and he used that in speaking about Christian giving to support Gospel ministers. Checking carefully, the Deut. 25 verse has nothing to do with financially supporting preachers or ministers - but no anti-tither has screamed the charge of 'twisting scripture' at Paul.

I know that the Jews (the Rabbis/pharisees) had techniques of exegesis that they adhered to. The rigor might be less than that used in mathematics but it still had rigor. there were still rules they adhered to.

When Paul 'twists' scripture, is there a rigorous limit he doesn't exceed or is he just joining issues anyhow that pleases him? I wonder.

Today all the various factions of christianity claim that the others don't understand the bible and are missing key points.

Yet most derive their doctrines from the bible. So is there a proper way to read and understand the bible or are we free to just extrapolation ideas as we wish from the text?

Is a literal reading of the bible of any value in understanding christianity?

Nobody is yet helping me with this my line of enquiry.

Is the bible to be taken literally or not. If not, then how is it to be interpreted.


For example, was it known by all Jews that the commandment not to 'muzzle the ox while it treadeth' was not referring to oxen at all.

Is the meaning of any text singular or can numerous various meanings be extrapolated from a text?

Pastor AIO:

Nobody is yet helping me with this my line of enquiry.

Is the bible to be taken literally or not. If not, then how is it to be interpreted.

No vex - I'd wanted to respond all along (I thought it was a brilliant topic, deep and refreshing); but my delay was because I'd hoped that others would be free to first come in and enjoy.

However, there are both literal and symbolic teachings in the Bible - we all know that; but the reason why I contextualize my answer thus is because the question (Is "the bible" to be taken literally or not) seems too wide to allow for balanced consideration. 'The Bible' was not given to be a
platitude of just one answer between 'yes' and 'no' - obviously, there are prophecies (for instance) that may be symbolic rather than literal; yet, in their fulfilment are literal.

Pastor AIO:
For example, was it known by all Jews that the commandment not to 'muzzle the ox while it treadeth' was not referring to oxen at all.

I don't know if all Jews knew that or took it in quite that determinative tone. Nonethless, it is obvious that many Jews applied both to oxen and human affairs/transactions. [Perhaps, when I visit the library this weekend, I'll consult some of the Jewish scholarly material that I'm familiar with and look up the subject for you].

Even so, let me leave you a sample of one I have in my notebook on my desk (emphasis mine):

[list]
But in any case, between the original command set down in Deuteronomy, which presumably was given originally out of concern for the proper care of oxen, and the application of the OT text and in 1 Corinthians 9, the text had passed through the grid of Jewish exegesis²⁷ to yield finally the analogy that Paul employs here. The argument works a fortiori, by applying the reasoning of the Torah concerning provision for working oxen to the situation of those laboring in the gospel ministry. In both Pauline texts, Paul followed or adapted the Jewish interpretation of the text and applied it to material support for those engaged in ministry.

[list]²⁷ This commandment had been a well of deeper meaning for rabbinical scholars (see StrB 3.382-99). It was used as a particular illustration of the “lesser to greater” logic that urged that God’s concern for animals implied far greater concern for the people (b. B. Mes. 88b; b. Git. 62a; 1 Cor 9:9; e.g., Philo, On the Virtues 145; see additional refs. in Knoch, 40). Pharisaic interpretation apparently deduced from this text a broader principle: oxen stand for all species of labor including that of humans (D. I. Brewer, “1 Corinthians 9:9-11: A Literal Interpretation of ‘Do Not Muzzle the Ox,’” NTS 38 [1992]: 554-65), and Paul may have drawn on this halakic rule instead of engaging in creative midrash himself.[/list]

source: The letters to Timothy and Titus By Philip H. Towner, p. 365[/list]

I hope that would be helpful for now.

Pastor AIO:

Is the meaning of any text singular or can numerous various meanings be extrapolated from a text?

Several meanings can indeed be extrapolated from a text - and there are several examples in both the OT and NT. As in the example above in Deut. 25:4 and Paul's use of that verse in both 1 Cor. 9:9 and 1 Tim. 5:18, we see how Paul derived some meaning from the 'treading ox' and applied it to support for ministers of the Gospel. I understand that the principle in this strand of Jewish interpretation follows thus: 'from the lower to the higher' - and it may well have been used by the Lord Jesus Himself when the Jews had issues with Him for healing a man on the Sabbath:

And he said unto them,
What man shall there be among you, that shall have one sheep,
and if it fall into a pit on the sabbath day, will he not lay hold on it, and lift it out?
How much then is a man better than a sheep?
Wherefore it is lawful to do well on the sabbath days.
~~ [Matthew 12:11-12]

Cheers.

Wow!!!! brilliant topic i am just seeing it. I beleive questions raised in this topic need to be thoroughly thrashed out so we all can collectively have a better understanding of the bible. in my own understanding the bible is NOT one book neither was it written for just one purpose or to just one set of people. It is basically a collection of books estimated to have been written over a three thousand year period covering the history and the revelation of God to the jewish people and the life and times of our Lord Jesus christ. It is also the set of books which the early church fathers[catholic priests] in their own wisdom and for debatable reasons believed were the truely inspired books. I have gone into a bit of history becos i believe the bible cannot be properly understood if we don't know it's history or it's make up even though the christian religious establishment would like to pass it off as the 100% accurate word of God a careful scrutiny of the bible would reveal that it is definitely not 100% accurate and even the bible or any other divine records does not claim it to be the undiluted word our preachers claim it to be. That said i would like to define the bible as the revelation of God to man written by men and corrupted by men over the ages. Even till this day our preachers are still trying their best to corrupt it thus their penchant to twist scriptures especially in the pentecostal fold were they are less accountable.

That said to understand the bible one must take scriptures in it's proper text and read not just verses but the whole chapter for better undertanding. You must know whom the scripture was addressed to and for what purpose before you decide what is applicable to us. Also christians must also be tutored as to were Judaism stopped in the bible and were christianity began and the differnces between them. [cos some churches are fond of bringing judaism practises in to christian just becos it is in the bible] even though they are not christian requirements

The truth is that this topic is enough to write a whole book on, i guess at this point i would just sit back and contribute to various views and opinions less i yak too much and throw it off course.

Thank you o, PIlgrim and KUnleoshb. Phew!

I'll come back with more comments when I'm more settled but one quick thought, that is a bit of an aside but humorous to consider, is this:

Can the passage about Oxen be applied to officials of the nigerian civil service?

pilgrim.1:


Nonethless, it is obvious that many Jews applied both to oxen and human affairs/transactions.

Even so, let me leave you a sample of one I have in my notebook on my desk (emphasis mine):

[list]
But in any case, between the original command set down in Deuteronomy, which presumably was given originally out of concern for the proper care of oxen, and the application of the OT text and in 1 Corinthians 9, the text had passed through the grid of Jewish exegesis²⁷ to yield finally the analogy that Paul employs here. The argument works a fortiori, by applying the reasoning of the Torah concerning provision for working oxen to the situation of those laboring in the gospel ministry. In both Pauline texts, Paul followed or adapted the Jewish interpretation of the text and applied it to material support for those engaged in ministry.

Since nigerian officials are threshing in their workplace is it not right that they too be left unmuzzled. People complain about corruption but shouldn't they be allowed to graze where they toil?

Pastor AIO:

Thank you o, PIlgrim and KUnleoshb. Phew!

I'll come back with more comments when I'm more settled but one quick thought, that is a bit of an aside but humorous to consider, is this:

Can the passage about Oxen be applied to officials of the nigerian civil service?


Since nigerian officials are threshing in their workplace is it not right that they too be left unmuzzled. People complain about corruption but shouldn't they be allowed to graze where they toil?

Indeed, a humorous case to consider. But there's an answer: let the nigerian civil service explain their labour within the grid of Jewish exegesis, and viola! the 'oxen' will find a way!

pilgrim.1:

Indeed, a humorous case to consider. But there's an answer: let the nigerian civil service explain their labour within the grid of Jewish exegesis, and viola! the 'oxen' will find a way!

pilgrim.1:
Pharisaic interpretation apparently deduced from this text a broader principle: oxen stand for all species of labor including that of humans (D. I. Brewer, “1 Corinthians 9:9-11: A Literal Interpretation of ‘Do Not Muzzle the Ox,’” NTS 38 [1992]: 554-65), and Paul may have drawn on this halakic rule instead of engaging in creative midrash himself.[/list]

Not difficult at all. The grid of jewish exegesis clearly states that Oxen stand for ALL species of labor. If our officials are labouring somewhere then according to biblical understanding they have every right to chop from the same place where they labour.

Pastor AIO:

Not difficult at all. The grid of jewish exegesis clearly states that Oxen stand for ALL species of labor. If our officials are labouring somewhere then according to biblical understanding they have every right to chop from the same place where they labour.

This perhaps aptly explains why some pastors feel it is their civil right to divert church funds for personal purposes.  But on a more serious note if we are to apply morals[which is central to christianity] and other christian teachings it would conflict with the central theme of the christian message. This again shows how easily the bible can be twisted to justify personal biases and opinions.

KunleOshob:

This perhaps aptly explains why some pastors feel it is their civil right to divert church funds for personal purposes. But on a more serious note if we are to apply morals[which is central to christianity] and other christian teachings it would would conflict withthe central theme of the christian message. This again shows how easily the bible can be twisted to justify personal biases and opinions.

wbb

pilgrim.1:

Even so, let me leave you a sample of one I have in my notebook on my desk (emphasis mine):

[list]
But in any case, between the original command set down in Deuteronomy, which presumably was given originally out of concern for the proper care of oxen, and the application of the OT text and in 1 Corinthians 9, the text had passed through the grid of Jewish exegesis²⁷ to yield finally the analogy that Paul employs here. The argument works a fortiori, by applying the reasoning of the Torah concerning provision for working oxen to the situation of those laboring in the gospel ministry. In both Pauline texts, Paul followed or adapted the Jewish interpretation of the text and applied it to material support for those engaged in ministry.

[list]²⁷ This commandment had been a well of deeper meaning for rabbinical scholars (see StrB 3.382-99). It was used as a particular illustration of the “lesser to greater” logic that urged that God’s concern for animals implied far greater concern for the people (b. B. Mes. 88b; b. Git. 62a; 1 Cor 9:9; e.g., Philo, On the Virtues 145; see additional refs. in Knoch, 40). Pharisaic interpretation apparently deduced from this text a broader principle: oxen stand for all species of labor including that of humans (D. I. Brewer, “1 Corinthians 9:9-11: A Literal Interpretation of ‘Do Not Muzzle the Ox,’”  NTS 38 [1992]: 554-65), and Paul may have drawn on this halakic rule instead of engaging in creative midrash himself.[/list]

source:  The letters to Timothy and Titus  By Philip H. Towner, p. 365[/list]

What is obvious is that there is next to nothing to be found in the letters of Paul that is not derived from the Pharisaic traditions.  Sure, by his own admission he was raised and educated as a pharisee however in his later stage I do not see anywhere where he has departed from pharisee ideology.  

The pharisees had 4 ways of interpreting biblical text.  These were called the Pardes.

The Pardes typology describes four different approaches to Biblical exegesis in rabbinic Judaism (or - simpler - interpretation of text in Torah study). The term, sometimes also spelled PaRDeS, is an acronym formed from the name initials of these four approaches, which are:
Peshat (פְּשָׁט) — "plain" ("simple" or the direct meaning[1].
Remez (רֶמֶז) — "hints" or the deep (allegoric) meaning beyond just the literal sense.
Derash (דְּרַשׁ) — from Hebrew darash: "inquire" ("seek" — the comparative (midrashic) meaning, as given through similar occurrences.
Sod (סוֹד) (pronounced with a long O as in gold) — "secret" ("mystery" or the mystical meaning, as given through inspiration or revelation.
Each type of Pardes interpretation examines the extended meaning of a text. As a general rule, the extended meaning never contradicts the base meaning. The Peshat means the plain or contextual meaning of the text. Remez is the allegorical meaning. Derash includes the metaphorical meaning, and Sod represents the hidden meaning. There is often considerable overlap, for example when legal understandings of a verse are influenced by mystical interpretations or when a "hint" is determined by comparing a word with other instances of the same word.
Some thinkers, such as the Tolaat Yaakov, divide Pardes into Peshat, Remez, Din (law), and Sod. According to this understanding, Drash is divided into the homiletics, which are classified under Remez, and legal interpretations, which are classified under Din.
The Pardes typology is quite similar to the contemporary Christian fourfold allegorical scheme.

Peshat is what most christians do when they read their bible.  Yet there is so much of christianity that is derived via Remez and derash.  These were actually a system of inference with rules and they were developed via a dialectic between groups of pharisees.  An interpretation does not get accepted simply after one individual gets a notion and decides it's an insight into truth.
I'm thinking of the RCCG pastor that says do not come to church empty handed and derives that teaching from the bible.  I'm yet to be convinced that his line of inference is a valid one.

KunleOshob:

This perhaps aptly explains why some pastors feel it is their civil right to divert church funds for personal purposes.  But on a more serious note if we are to apply morals[which is central to christianity] and other christian teachings it would conflict with the central theme of the christian message. This again shows how easily the bible can be twisted to justify personal biases and opinions.

What if you were a miller and you left your oxen to thresh the wheat and you left them unmuzzled. Then you came back and found that the oxen had eaten all the wheat. Even as they were threshing it they were gobbling it up. Wouldn't you muzzle them up straight away.
I think the idea is for the oxen not to go hungry where they are labouring. Not to gorge themselves with private jets and fleets of cars. And definately the Oxen cannot be allowed to get more out of the deal than the Miller himself.

@Pastor AIO,

Pastor AIO:

Not difficult at all. The grid of jewish exegesis clearly states that Oxen stand for ALL species of labor. If our officials are labouring somewhere then according to biblical understanding they have every right to chop from the same place where they labour.

Ah, there - chop from where you labour, abi? It does not, however, carry through that they should chop in a fashion that spells 'c-o-r-r-u-p-t-i-o-n' (as hinted in the humour earlier).

Anyways. . .

Pastor AIO:

What is obvious is that there is next to nothing to be found in the letters of Paul that is not derived from the Pharisaic traditions.  Sure, by his own admission he was raised and educated as a pharisee however in his later stage I do not see anywhere where he has departed from pharisee ideology.

 

The cloak does not make the monk, as they say. He may have derived his interpretative outlines for certain texts from the matrix of Jewish hermeneutics, but in just the same way did the other writers of the Biblical documents. Perhaps a hint of this as normative could be deduced from what the Lord Jesus taught His disciples in Matt. 23:2 & 3 - "The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat: All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do" - the essential feature was one of hermeneutics, but it does not extend to application, for which He cautioned: "but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not."

Pastor AIO:

The pharisees had 4 ways of interpreting biblical text.  These were called the Pardes.
Peshat is what most christians do when they read their bible.  Yet there is so much of christianity that is derived via Remez and derash.  These were actually a system of inference with rules and they were developed via a dialectic between groups of pharisees.

You're absolutely correct (or, should I say that I agree with you - leaving room for others who might not share the same view). I'm quite familiar with Pardes, but the problem most Christians have with Biblical exegesis is to take just one out of the four (such as Peshat) and rest all their thoughts thereto, seeing nothing else. Although Peshat has its benefit in Biblical exegesis, it does not stand alone as exclusive from other methods - to hold on to Peshat alone tends to eisegesis (the opposite of exegesis).

Pastor AIO:

An interpretation does not get accepted simply after one individual gets a notion and decides it's an insight into truth.

True - and that is why using only one out of the four hermeneutical devices is unhealthy. All four (Peshat, Remez, Derash and Sod) are intended to work together in hermeneutics and Biblical exgesis. Unfortunately, it happens that many people tend to apply only one of them and will never see beyond that one approach.

Pastor AIO:

I'm thinking of the RCCG pastor that says do not come to church empty handed and derives that teaching from the bible.  I'm yet to be convinced that his line of inference is a valid one.

I understand why you may feel that way - perhaps you might have been approaching the verse from only Peshat and did not consider other approaches as a collective whole. Applying the Pardes as a 'wholeness' would make the point clear that the verse as used by the RCCG pastor may not be problematic.

_____________

addendum:

In the case of the RCCG pastors use of that verse (Deut. 16:16), one wonders about Paul's use of the OT verses in both 1 Corinthians 9 and 1 Timothy 5. Certainly, anyone who would have problems with the apostle's hermeneutics would only be approaching his epistles from Peshat while ignoring the others - Peshat, Remez, Derash and Sod.

pilgrim.1:


You're absolutely correct (or, should I say that I agree with you - leaving room for others who might not share the same view). I'm quite familiar with Pardes, but the problem most Christians have with Biblical exegesis is to take just one out of the four (such as Peshat) and rest all their thoughts thereto, seeing nothing else. Although Peshat has its benefit in Biblical exegesis, it does not stand alone as exclusive from other methods - to hold on to Peshat alone tends to eisegesis (the opposite of exegesis).

True - and that is why using only one out of the four hermeneutical devices is unhealthy. All four (Peshat, Remez, Derash and Sod) are intended to work together in hermeneutics and Biblical exgesis. Unfortunately, it happens that many people tend to apply only one of them and will never see beyond that one approach.

I understand why you may feel that way - perhaps you might have been approaching the verse from only Peshat and did not consider other approaches as a collective whole. Applying the Pardes as a 'wholeness' would make the point clear that the verse as used by the RCCG pastor may not be problematic.

_____________

addendum:

In the case of the RCCG pastors use of that verse (Deut. 16:16), one wonders about Paul's use of the OT verses in both 1 Corinthians 9 and 1 Timothy 5. Certainly, anyone who would have problems with the apostle's hermeneutics would only be approaching his epistles from Peshat while ignoring the others - Peshat, Remez, Derash and Sod.

This is how I understand Derash.  Please correct me if I am wrong.  It looks at metaphors, similitudes or allegories.  In other words the structure of relationships.  For example, I have a father.  I can say that the relationship between me and my father is equivalent to the relationship between you and your father.  In other words there are certain things that are true about my relationship with my father that is also true about your relationship with your father.  Let's call it the Father-Child relationship. 

The ability to extract (or abstract) certain essential features of a relationship and apply it wherever that relationship is found is a key aspect of human intelligence.  It's the ability to mark a difference between the Special and the General.  A wide variety of Special (or specific) cases can be found to actually be the same in General ( or generically). 

For example, the relationship between these numbers: 3, 4, and 5.  The interact in a certain way and what can be said to be true of their relationship can be applied to other sets of number.  In fact it is considered to be the same as those other sets of numbers.

For instance, 5, 12, and 13.

Or 7, 24 and 25.

These three sets of numbers are bound by the same relationship to each other.  As a consequence what can be said of one can also be said of the others.  In fact what can be said of all of them can be put in abstract form.  Namely that they are related to each other in this manner:

[size=15pt]a² + b² = c²[/size]

The square of one plus the square of another is equal to the square of the third. This is known as pythagoras' theorem. Any set of three numbers that are thus interrelated will have the properties of that relationship. And that relationship is an object in itself that can be studied and it's properties can be discovered.

Easier still would be to say 3/4 (three quarters) or the relationship between 3 and 4, is the same as 15/20 or the relationship between 15 and 20. That relationship, which is what we are studying, acts in the same way no matter what the specific numbers in it are.

So to come to my point, A metaphor is actually about a relationship. The relationship of the elements within a story. That insight of that relationship is then applied to another circumstance that bears the same internal relationships.
When an Oxen is milling the corn and is allow to freely graze on it that dynamic can be applied to any labourer that is hard at work and might need to panu (snack) to keep his strength up. The correlations are obvious here.

Where I just do not see the correlation is where one is told not to come to church empty handed (without money) because when Deuteronomy tells the Jews to come to 3 feasts they shouldn't come empty handed (without food). Where are the correlants? Is the church sermon the feast? What are they eating there? If it is the pastor's rhetoric that is being shared by the people then everybody should come with a piece of rhetoric of their own so that everybody can share. That would be more fitting.
I personally would take that deuteronomy verse and extrapolated from it the lesson that I should never turn up to a dinner I've been invited to empty handed. Always bring a bottle of wine or something.

@Pastor AIO,

Pastor AIO:

This is how I understand Derash.  Please correct me if I am wrong.  It looks at metaphors, similitudes or allegories.  In other words the structure of relationships. 

. . .

So to come to my point, A metaphor is actually about a relationship. The relationship of the elements within a story. That insight of that relationship is then applied to another circumstance that bears the same internal relationships. . . .

Thanks for your observations. As regards Derash, you're not wrong; but I just need to add that your explication of that term using those examples to draw 'allegories' is more akin in some way to Remez. In simple terms (for the benefit of others following this thread), Remez is also used as an interpretative tool that points more properly to allegories; but again, the difficulty in this is drawn from the context and perspective of the interpreter. On the other hand, Derash is also 'allegorical' but more so on a "comparative" basis. The difference between the two is that, while remez brings out the allegories of a given text, derash seeks a deeper meaning of those allegories and/or metaphors of that given text.

So, yes, you've communicated quite well; but remez was more explicated in your observations.

Pastor AIO:

Where I just do not see the correlation is where one is told not to come to church empty handed (without money) because when Deuteronomy tells the Jews to come to 3 feasts they shouldn't come empty handed (without food). Where are the correlants? Is the church sermon the feast? What are they eating there? If it is the pastor's rhetoric that is being shared by the people then everybody should come with a piece of rhetoric of their own so that everybody can share. That would be more fitting.

Questions of this nature arise because you might be looking more at Peshat - the 'literal implications' of the verse under review. What this interpretative tool does is to look at the 'plain' text and draw conclusions only in that direction. If, however, one was to look beyond the peshat and involve both the remez and derash, the correlation becomes easily obvious.

Pastor AIO:
I personally would take that deuteronomy verse and extrapolated from it the lesson that I should never turn up to a dinner I've been invited to empty handed. Always bring a bottle of wine or something.

Again, that is peshat at work. The problem then would be that no Christian could be a 'Christian' if we would have to abide only the peshat rule throughout our reading of the OT verses.

However, look at verse 17 of that same Deuteronomy 16 - 'Every man shall give as he is able, according to the blessing of the LORD thy God which he hath given thee'. If we abide the peshat rule alone here, of course it would mean a literal Jewish feast across board and no opening whatsoever to other applications of that verse. However, the apostle Paul was quite clearly alluding to this same verse 17 when he wrote about Christian (financial) giving in the NT - 'Every man according as he purposeth in his heart, so let him give' (2 Cor. 9:7).

The basic denominator in both verses is this: 'everyone' was to give according to their ability - such an ability is based on what someone has, and not on what he does not have.

In this way, we can see the correlation in the matters you raised, as well see their out-working as applicable in various circumstances.

However, the apostle Paul was quite clearly alluding to this same verse 17 when he wrote about Christian (financial) giving in the NT - 'Every man according as he purposeth in his heart, so let him give' (2 Cor. 9:7).

I don't think that it is right to assume that the giving here is just about financial giving.It could also be other material stuff like food,clothing,medical supplies,etc.They all could make up a bounty to be given to people.
Restricting it to finances(like some bible translations do)is pretty myopic in my opinion.

ttalks:

I don't think that it is right to assume that the giving here is just about financial giving.It could also be other material stuff like food,clothing,medical supplies,etc.They all could make up a bounty to be given to people.
Restricting it to finances(like some bible translations do)is pretty myopic in my opinion.

I wasn't trying to be so restrictive - for which reason I included 'financial' in parenthesis to help those who might be reading from various versions and translations apart from those we might have been generally using.

Yet, I appreciate yours as a very valid point - which would strengthen the very issue we're seeking to explicate here. Examining Deuteronomy 16:16 (and verse 17 by extension) should not be restricted to just the Jewish feast, as long as people do not come to a 'feast' to eat medical supplies. Just teasing. On the whole, everyone is usrged to give as they are able - according to what God has blessed them with.

pilgrim.1:

@Pastor AIO,
Questions of this nature arise because you might be looking more at Peshat - the 'literal implications' of the verse under review. What this interpretative tool does is to look at the 'plain' text and draw conclusions only in that direction. If, however, one was to look beyond the peshat and involve both the remez and derash, the correlation becomes easily obvious.

I remain unconvinced. Perhaps you could spell it out for me how with using remez and derash the correlation becomes obvious.

Pastor AIO:

I remain unconvinced. Perhaps you could spell it out for me how with using remez and derash the correlation becomes obvious.

What have we observed about remez and derash? Here again:

pilgrim.1:

As regards Derash, you're not wrong; but I just need to add that your explication of that term using those examples to draw 'allegories' is more akin in some way to Remez. In simple terms (for the benefit of others following this thread), Remez is also used as an interpretative tool that points more properly to allegories; but again, the difficulty in this is drawn from the context and perspective of the interpreter. On the other hand, Derash is also 'allegorical' but more so on a "comparative" basis. The difference between the two is that, while remez brings out the allegories of a given text, derash seeks a deeper meaning of those allegories and/or metaphors of that given text.

Basically, both terms (remez and daresh) point to 'allegories' and 'comparative' meanings to be deduced from a given text. They are not focusing on 'literal' meanings. To read Deuteronomy 16:16 and just remain on the idea of Jewish feast(s) and nothing more is to tend to peshat. But by looking at what other ways one may apply the text, that is where remez and peshat come into play - such as that they examine the allegorical meanings of the text that could be applicable in other circumstances beyond the Jewish feasts.

Deuteronomy 16:16 was specific in the sense that a feast was involved.
So one knows that the stuff expected to be brought to a feast is specifically stuff to aid the feast and that is food/drink.

2 Corinthians 9:7 was not specific in what could be given as it related it to helping others in need.
Anything can be given to help people in need such as those examples I gave including finances.

that's basically the difference between the two verses.

@topic

Very Fine topic I must say.

In studing of the preacher and his preaching (homiletus), One must have the mindset of God. We must understand that to every law there must be a spirit behind.

Just as Jesus made very clear that the letter killeth and the spirit giveth Life. Do we how saw that the law is not needed no sir as paul puts the law is a light unto us that we have either erred or that we are in the right part.

Now to the issue of quotation and the application by paul the apostle. We need to understand Paul first and what drove him to make that statement.

It is not new for a minister to meet with unkind returns for good-will to a people, and diligent and successful services among them. To the cavils of some, the apostle answers, so as to set forth himself as an example of self-denial, for the good of others. He had a right to marry as well as other apostles, and to claim what was needful for his wife, and his children if he had any, from the churches, without labouring with his own hands to get it. Those who seek to do our souls good, should have food provided for them. But he renounced his right, rather than hinder his success by claiming it. It is the people's duty to maintain their minister. He may wave his right, as Paul did; but those transgress a precept of Christ, who deny or withhold due support.

This is the standard that paul has raised.

Paul was a man of God. Ah not as we have the Hiphop pastors that we have.

ttalks:

Deuteronomy 16:16 was specific in the sense that a feast was involved.
So one knows that the stuff expected to be brought to a feast is specifically stuff to aid the feast and that is food/drink.

That's peshat.

ttalks:
2 Corinthians 9:7 was not specific in what could be given as it related it to helping others in need.
Anything can be given to help people in need such as those examples I gave including finances.

That's both remez and derash.

ttalks:
that's basically the difference between the two verses.

Which does not take anything away from what this thread is all about.

The oxen cannot say "dont muzzle me" but there is right giving to the owner of the OXEN because he owns the Oxen.

pilgrim.1:

What have we observed about remez and derash? Here again:

Basically, both terms (remez and daresh) point to 'allegories' and 'comparative' meanings to be deduced from a given text. They are not focusing on 'literal' meanings. To read Deuteronomy 16:16 and just remain on the idea of Jewish feast(s) and nothing more is to tend to peshat. But by looking at what other ways one may apply the text, that is where remez and peshat come into play - such as that they examine the allegorical meanings of the text that could be applicable in other circumstances beyond the Jewish feasts.

Let me demonstrate how I would go about interpreting it.  I would take the feast to represent a communal activity.  After all a feast is food eaten in the company of others.   I would therefore say that when one is going to engage in a communal activity that one should make a contribution to the gathering.  
However to specify that one should bring money when it is not money that people are going to share in church is twisting the allegory.  

I did not remain on just the feast, but extrapolated to a more general context.

Backslider:

@topic

This is the standard that paul has raised.

Paul was a man of God. Ah not as we have the Hiphop pastors that we have.

backslider indeed

Pastor AIO:

Let me demonstrate how I would go about interpreting it.  I would take the feast to represent a communal activity.

That's okay - and in context, yes. The question is: is communal activity restricted to just feasts?

Pastor AIO:
After all a feast is food eaten in the company of others.   I would therefore say that when one is going to engage in a communal activity that one should make a contribution to the gathering.

I don't have a problem with that. However, the communal activity as regards 'feasts' remains on the literal level of interpretation - there doesn't seem to be any hint about remez or derash here. By extension, 'communal activity' goes beyond a feast and looks at other expressions of that same thing - 'communal activity'.

Pastor AIO:

However to specify that one should bring money when it is not money that people are going to share in church is twisting the allegory.

No, you're still on the page of peshat and mistaking it for 'allegory'. A peshat reading is NOT an allegory; and it is when someone is stayed on such peshat reading that he claims that another person is 'twisting' a particular verse. Thus, if we hold on to 'peshat' (literal reading), then there is no room to see anything else other than what the text seems to say: in this case, 'food, food, and more food' - nothing else. Someone comes along and tries to broaden our understanding of that verse by looking at the remez and derash of that verse, and you could imagine what outcry would come from those holding only a peshat reading of that verse. This is exactly what is happening here - because you're still on the peshat page, you're assuming it is a twisting of the 'allegory', whereas peshat is NOT an 'allegory'. Since remez points to the allegory of the verse, there is no 'twisting' of that allegory - and to claim that someone is twisting the allegory is to confuse it for its literality and keep harping on 'feast' and 'food'.

Pastor AIO:

I did not remain on just the feast, but extrapolated to a more general context.

If the more general context is what has been proffered, then how could you be wondering that someone was 'twisting' it's allegory? It seems for a moment you slipped up between peshat and remez while still discussing its literal view - which is what I understood by your statement that "After all a feast is food eaten in the company of others". If we look beyond just a feast-food activity, then I believe the remez will begin to make sense here.

@ AIO

The laws for the three yearly feasts are here repeated; that of the Passover, that of the Pentecost, that of Tabernacles; and the general law concerning the people's attendance.

God delivered a state from another state but he made it law to ISREAL alone as a state to show appreciation. Because he alone is the redeemer of Isreal. In the old testament it was GOD to State and there was a law how appreciation should be done. But in this dispensation we have bound by grace(undeserved favour) to show more appreciation. But as I said Our HIP HOP PASTORS are out there using all kinds of manipulations to Muzzle the people. Dont me wrong You as a pastor have the Right to Muzzle but there must be respect and love for the People. As paul asked does God care for the OXEN?

Never should a believer forget his low estate of guilt and misery, his deliverance, and the price it cost the Redeemer; that gratitude and joy in the Lord may be mingled with sorrow for sin, and patience under the tribulations on his way to the kingdom of heaven.

They must rejoice in their receivings from God, and in their returns of service and sacrifice to him; our duty must be our delight, as well as our enjoyment.

If those who were under the law must rejoice before God, much more we that are under the grace of the gospel; which makes it our duty to rejoice evermore, to rejoice in the Lord always.

When we rejoice in God ourselves, we should do what we can to assist others also to rejoice in him, by comforting the mourners, and supplying those who are in want. All who make God their joy, may rejoice in hope, for He is faithful that has promised.

@PastorAIO
There is absolutely no way pilgrim.1 is going to agree with you on this. If you haven't noticed she is at her best when it comes to twisting scripture and she actually thrives on it. There is no way the scriptures would mean anything to her if she can't force her opinion or bias into it.

KunleOshob:

@PastorAIO
There is absolutely no way pilgrim.1 is going to agree with you on this. If you haven't noticed she is at her best when it comes to twisting scripture and she actually thrives on it. There is no way the scriptures would mean anything to her if she can't force her opinion or bias into it.

I think it is best to keep the discussions to what is being discussed and free from trying to interpolate your usual style of dragging this to personality accusations. Please Kunle, keep me out of your rabies, okay?

I never said communal activity was restricted to just feasts.

Let me state my case again. I interpret from that text that wherever people are gather to some communal activity that everyone should bring something no matter how small to contribute that communal activity.

To insist that people bring money when the sharing of money is not at the center of the activity is wrong. It it were a financial Co-op that we were establishing then okay, yeah I would accept that.

The wise people in my village would say, "Words are foolish, they go anywhere you push them". That should summarize this thread, my point is we can never fully determine what is meant by those books in the bible, I know no christian is willing to accept that it might just be the writings of a  psychotic man, an angry man, or whatever emotions they were feeling when they were writing, add that to the mix and another meaning emerges all together.

Chrisbenogor:

The wise people in my village would say, "Words are foolish, they go anywhere you push them". That should summarize this thread, my point is we can never fully determine what is meant by those books in the bible, I know no christian is willing to accept that it might just be the writings of a psychotic man, an angry man, or whatever emotions they were feeling when they were writing, add that to the mix and another meaning emerges all together.

Chrisbenogor, "Words are foolish, they go anywhere you push them". Perhaps that is where the psychotic mix you interjected has led to. There really is no need to make such unwarranted statements by ignoring the basis of the discussion of this thread. People who are too eager to rubbish the persuasions of other people actually assume that what others are discussing are "foolish", and at the end it turns out they only advertizing their own folly. I don't mean this in a derogatory manner at you personally; but it would perhaps be helpful to let others alone even when you don't understand them.