SermonIndex Audio Sermons
Promoting Authentic Biblical Christianity.
Looking for free sermon messages?
Sermon Podcast | Audio | Video

Discussion Forum : General Topics : Some Thoughts on Wilkerson's Word and Prophecy In General

Print Thread (PDF)

Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 )
PosterThread









 Re: Some Thoughts on Wilkerson's Word and Prophecy In General

As far as Wilkerson's usage of Scripture as found in this word, I personally can find no fault with it. No doubt, not every citation stands up to the rigors of the historical-grammatical rules of interpreting the Scriptures, though much of it does. While not wanting to slight the importance of using the historical-grammatical method of exegesis, if you really closely study the Scriptures you will find that this method was not always used by the Lord, the apostles, or the writers of the Gospels. Indeed, without getting caught up into a full-blown discussion of the issue, you will often find NT citations of the OT do not follow this rule, and sometimes even deliberately break such a "rule" of interpretation (even in Messianic fulfillment passages!) Indeed, sometimes all a citation of the OT in the NT is looking to do is take the "spirit" of what that passage was saying, and apply it to whatever situation is being addressed. For example, Paul cited an OT law about not muzzling an ox while it is threshing to prove that one should financially support those engaged in ministry. From the historical-grammatical method of interpretation, this is simply irresponsible on Paul's part. But what he quotes is in keeping with the "spirit" of what is being said, and thus, none of us find fault with the apostle. Such examples could be multiplied by the dozens for those interested in a real in depth Bible study. But, I will not belabor this point any further...

---------------------------

Kingjimmy,

I pasted your entire paragraph above because I think what you said is very important and should be discussed.

I understand why you did not want to further the point concerning biblical interpretation because you had other things to say, but honestly, I think historical-grammatical interpretation goes right to the heart of this matter.

Whether or not I agree with the "word" does not really matter to me. Like you I have mixed thoughts about Pastor David's preaching, but I think I have mixed thoughts about any prominent Christian's preaching. I think God allows that so we won't put them on pedestals.

Like many, I consider Pastor David like a spiritual grandfather, and unlike many, it’s not been his "hard words" that have affected my life as much as his teaching on the New Covenant. I was at Mt. Zion School of Ministry when he first started preaching on the New Covenant. He and Pastor Carter used to come out just about every week and preach. When he started opening up the grace of God in the New Covenant it was like a well in a desert for me.

One thing I have always admired about Pastor David is that he seems like a child when it comes to studying the scriptures. What I mean is, unlike many leaders of prominent denominations, he never has allowed himself to stay in some doctrinal holding pattern...he seems excited about learning and knowing who God is from the scriptures.

Anyway, back to my point....

I believe that proper interpretation of the scriptures is absolutely at the heart of this matter. What other means do we have to "test all things?" If there is not a context in which scripture is to be interpreted, then anyone can say anything (of course I am taking this to the extreme...but I hope you get my point.)

You mention that the Apostles interpreted scriptures outside of their historical-grammatical context. I won't say that I disagree completely because, at this point, I do not know. If the Apostles did interpret based upon the "spirit" of the text, then they, being Apostles and writers of the New Testament, would be the only ones with the authority to do so. No, yes?

Anyway...

I know you mentioned that you did not want to have a full blown discussion about this, but I think a civil discussion about this could be profitable. I would like to hear folks' thoughts about this because like I said, I think it goes right to the heart of the matter concerning prophecy. I don't know about you, but I am not so much interested in "words" from men; I am interested in understanding and knowing THE WORD of God. Because:

Quote:
If the foundations (His Word) be destroyed, what can the righteous do?



I hope I did not use that out of context!

 2009/3/13 15:16









 Re:

Until we bear another's burden or walk in HIS sandals ~

http://www.sermonindex.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=27868&forum=45

 2009/3/13 15:25
KingJimmy
Member



Joined: 2003/5/8
Posts: 4419
Charlotte, NC

 Re:

Quote:

I pasted your entire paragraph above because I think what you said is very important and should be discussed.



Indeed, it is very much worthy of discussion. I was only short about it in the original post because I didn't want it to distract from my overall point. I'm personally surprised this hasn't attracted more attention, as I believe it to be important for understanding not only this word, but also many other words Wilkerson has given in the past. Not only in understanding words by Wilkerson, but also understanding the New Testament. Such is a very deep subject matter that is larger than a few posts on Sermon Index can ever hope to be.

Quote:

If there is not a context in which scripture is to be interpreted, then anyone can say anything (of course I am taking this to the extreme...but I hope you get my point.)



Of course, the "historical grammatical" context of Scripture forms the basis of all interpretation. All meaning that one extracts from Scripture must have this as its foundation, otherwise one will do nothing more than allegorize everything to mean whatever they want a passage to mean, without care to its original meaning.

I lack the technical verbage to spell this out in a more scholarly way, and would commend to you books by such scholars as C. Walter Kaiser, Jr., who treat this subject matter in a much fuller way. But, if you have not studied this matter on your own yet, I would highly commend to you a study of the NT usage of the OT.

By way of background, my understanding of this subject came through my witnessing to a few Jewish folks who were unimpressed by my proof-texting of Messianic passages regularly cited in the NT as Christ fulfilling. After checking out some of their counter arguments, I began to sense that the NT doesn't always cite the OT in a historical-grammatical context.

In my first post I offered Paul's citation of the OT law about not muzzling an ox while it is threshing serving as "proof" that ministers are to receive financial support for their labor. (See 1 Corinthians 9:3-14; c.f. Deut. 25:4) Paul asks about this passage, "God is not concerned with oxen is He?" Well, in the original historical-grammatical context, He most certainly was! God definitely was talking about oxen, and not gospel ministers in the original context. However, Paul's usage of this passage serves in keeping with a "case law" contextual usage, that is concerned with the historical-grammatical usage, that serves as a paradigm for future situations that may arise where the principle taught in the passage can find application.

Like I said, my original interest in the subject matter came out of apologetic concerns about proving to Jews that Jesus is the Christ according to the Scriptures. While I don't recall the Scripture I was debating with them at the time, there always is one Scripture in my mind that stands out the most:

Matthew 2:15 And He remained there until the death of Herod. This was to fulfill what had been spoken by the Lord through the prophet: "Out of Egypt I called My Son."

In this passage Matthew cites Hosea 11:1 as a "proof" that Jesus was to flee to Egypt and come out of Egypt back into Israel. But you know what is troubling about this passage that will require much prayerful pondering? The original historical-grammatical context of Hosea 11:1 makes no such claim. Indeed, in the original context of Hosea 11:1, God chastises Israel for the harlotry they have committed by turning from God to idols, in spite of their history with God whereby He delivered them from the hand of Egypt through the Exodus. To try and make Hosea 11:1 a passage that in its historical-grammatical context had something to do about the coming Messiah and his life, such would accuse the same Messiah of being a sinner, as God accuses Israel of being such in that very passage.

But is Christ a sinner? Did Matthew do what Jews often accuse the New Testament of doing, as merely proof-texting whatever passage the authors wanted it to mean to make Jesus fit in the Scriptures? Some have indeed concluded these things. I though, am not one of them, and believe such conclusions come from a shallow understanding of the "context" the NT authors often make of the OT.

Did the authors of the NT have a right we ourselves do not have, simply by virtue of their being the authors of the NT? If they did, there is no Scriptural basis for such a doctrine. Far from having a special unique right to do with the Scriptures whatever they wanted to simply because they are inspired, it is my conviction that the authors of the Scripture had a "method" to their apparent "madness."

Now, discovering that "method" is very labor intensive, sometimes yielding different results. But overall, I'd like to suggest the following "method" whereby one can safely quote Scripture in a way that doesn't limit usage merely to the historical-grammatical context. It is a method that "expands upon" the historical-grammatical context, and is much more simple than it sounds. Indeed, it has been a method just about any preacher in history has used, and in fact, I believes makes real preaching possible. Indeed, many of us use this method, without realizing it is a method. It's a rather natural thing to do, and it is one that the NT often does with the OT.

For example, Wilkerson quotes a passage from the OT about judgment. In it's original historical context, Jeremiah 18:11-12 has to do with God's indictment of Israel and His justification for the judgment He's getting ready to bring upon the nation and the land. Now, historically and grammatically, the interpretation of that passage can only mean that. And if such is the case, then we cannot find any personal application in the passage. After all, Jeremiah is talking about Babylon and Jerusalem, and this passage has already had its fulfillment 2500 years ago.

But it is my conviction that we can take this passage which has its historical-grammatical context, and apply it to our situation. We can take the "theme" of this passage, and see how it applies to us. As a professor of mine in Bible college used to say, "When your context is their context, that is the word of the Lord to you and your congregation." So, contextually, if our situation parallels theirs, then one can safely apply that passage to your situation. That passage can be "fulfilled" in your own generation yet again, even if it were already fulfilled in the literal historical-grammatical context of the past.

Such is why Matthew 2:15 can cite Hosea 11:1 as being a "fulfillment." It's not that Hosea 11:1 predicted any such thing directly. But, historically speaking, God delivered Israel out of the land of Egypt. Israel is God's son. Therefore, Matthew takes this passage and sees parallel's with it in the life of Christ. Since God delivered Christ out of Egypt in order to save His life, Matthew sees a parallel. This passage is in this sense, "fulfilled" by Christ. His life context paralleled Israel's context.

Thus, I believe David Wilkerson is safe in citing Jeremiah's prophecy and applying it to our situation. Hopefully by the inspiration of the Spirit, he's noticed a parallel of contexts, our context overlapping theirs. As a result, Jeremiah's word to Israel can find a target in us as well. This is. in keeping with the Biblical precedent for this method, as well as a precedent that has happened for 2,000 years

Much more could be said on this subject. But I think this is a lot to digest for now. Carefully chew on it. It is worthy of much thought.


_________________
Jimmy H

 2009/3/13 17:06Profile









 Re:

Excellent Brother. Hermeneutically & apologetically.

Some in the prophetic movement recoil at the test of both - Praise GOD it's permitted here and confirms a true word and protects this Site from the counterfeits, in the long haul.

Grateful!

 2009/3/13 18:29
KingJimmy
Member



Joined: 2003/5/8
Posts: 4419
Charlotte, NC

 Re:

There is a flippancy with many in the prophetic movement that we should recoil over. Many of them scrape at the crust of God's word in what they say. We must not be that way. Rather, we must get a shovel and be prepared to dig deep. That is hard work, and is likely the type of work that those in the so-called "school of the prophets" in the Old Testament engaged in.


_________________
Jimmy H

 2009/3/13 20:20Profile
KingJimmy
Member



Joined: 2003/5/8
Posts: 4419
Charlotte, NC

 Re:

Any further reflections on the hermeneutical issues raised?


_________________
Jimmy H

 2009/3/14 17:33Profile
JoanM
Member



Joined: 2008/4/7
Posts: 797


 Re: Reflections

My thoughts/reflections on the historical-grammatical hermeneutic issues raised. They have noting to do with Wilkerson. I am using the specific difficulty you gave as an example, Matthew quoting Hosea, in order to increase clarity (I hope).

Matthew 2:15 - And He remained there until the death of Herod. This was to fulfill what had been spoken by the Lord through the prophet: "Out of Egypt I called My Son." and Hosea 11: 1 When Israel [was] a child, then I loved him, and called my son out of Egypt.

[b]I think Matthew is making more than a parallel, speaking Truth at every level[/b]. Wasn't Jesus the Messiah, the Son of Man, actually IN Israel, even in the flesh of Israel, at the time that God called a people out of Egypt?

I say this because for me, Jesus answered this very question/problem. To those that hear Matthew, the answer is in Matthew 12:35-37 (for others its in Luke 20: 41-44). The heart of the answer is: “[b]If David then call him Lord, how is he his son?[/b]”

I should probably stop here but ...

Hosea 11 sounds like God was in agony over what was true, at that time of Hosea. Reading Hosea further, Israel [u]had[/u] destroyed itself. But God is God, (just as we learn through Moses' successful intercession) ransoming Israel from the grave. Jesus was in fact raised from the grave. The Son of Man, a flesh and blood Lamb of God, in fact took on the very sin of Israel (plus) that Hosea speaks of.

David, who was King of Israel, was also a prophet (also spoke prophecy, as Jesus said “in spirit”). There are many examples of what you picked out: Paul draws Christ's priesthood specifics from that Psalm. I see how the following things are true: Jesus was called out of Egypt, in the flesh, at the Exodus, He was called out of Egypt, in the flesh, during His incarnation, and anyone indwelt by the Spirit of Christ is/has been called out of “Egypt”, and will be called out. We follow Him.

Maybe you should ignore that last part as it is not worth getting bogged down in. The only important thing here is our Lord's answer to this: “[b]If David then call him Lord, how is he his son?[/b]”

 2009/3/14 20:12Profile









 Re:

Quote:
David, who was King of Israel, was also a prophet (also spoke prophecy, as Jesus said “in spirit”).



Finding your post Joan and enjoying it.

Also just noticed a thread on the Deity of Christ posted today. Praise GOD!


1 Peter 1:10-12

[i]"Of which salvation the prophets have enquired and searched diligently, who prophesied of the grace that should come unto you: searching what, or what manner of time [u]the Spirit of Christ[/u] which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow. Unto whom it was revealed, that not unto themselves, but unto us they did minister the things, which are now reported unto you by them that have preached the gospel unto you with the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven; which things the angels desire to look into."[/i]


Your addition seems to go very well with what Jimmy posted above -
Quote:
There is a flippancy with many in the prophetic movement that we should recoil over. Many of them scrape at the crust of God's word in what they say. We must not be that way. Rather, we must get a shovel and be prepared to dig deep. That is hard work, and is likely the type of work that those in the so-called "school of the prophets" in the Old Testament engaged in.



Good thread - praying one for another.

Today's Blog by David Wilkerson about staying in His Presence is very good as well. Bless Jesus!

Thank you.

 2009/3/16 16:49





©2002-2019 SermonIndex.net
Promoting Genuine Biblical Revival.
Privacy Policy