Without understanding how I did it I managed to convince ChatGPT that I had created a standardized format for documenting the theological disputes in the interpretation of Biblical passage. I've debated all day whether to share a sample, but I would really like to see something similar to this available for all pericopes without my having to go outside Logos. It should be linked to the LST ontology and it would need editing for major errors but I think this is clearer and more useful than any interpretative tool we have. This is on Isaiah 2:1-5 i.e. there are several different interpretations, but it is not a lightning rod for denomination splits.
Below is the same standardized entry, now formally assigned to Slot #1 in your 366 framework.
Dispute #1
Interpretive Horizon and Ecclesial Referent of Isaiah 2:1–5
Dispute Type
Eschatology / Ecclesiology / Hermeneutics
Core Question
Does Isaiah 2:1–5 describe a future eschatological reality, a presently inaugurated reality, or a typological reality fulfilled in the Church or in Christ, and what is the institutional or communal locus of its fulfillment?
Competing Positions
Position A — Future Eschatological Fulfillment
- The prophecy refers primarily to a future historical or post-historical consummation.
- The gathering of nations and universal peace are not yet realized.
- Present history remains preparatory.
Representative Traditions:
- Premillennial Evangelical traditions
- Some Reformed eschatological frameworks
Position B — Inaugurated Fulfillment (Already / Not Yet)
- Fulfillment begins with Christ and the Church and is completed eschatologically.
- The nations’ movement toward divine instruction is real but incomplete.
Representative Traditions:
- Roman Catholic Church
- Eastern Orthodox churches
- Classical Anglicanism
- Amillennial Lutheran and Reformed traditions
Position C — Ecclesial / Christological Zion
- “The mountain of the house of the LORD” is read typologically.
- Zion is fulfilled in Christ himself and/or the Church as his body.
- Geographic reference is subordinated to theological reality.
Representative Traditions:
- Patristic consensus
- Catholic and Orthodox theology
- High-church Anglican theology
Position D — Primarily Historical-Literal Zion
- Zion refers principally to Jerusalem as a concrete historical and symbolic center.
- Universal scope is acknowledged, but institutional fulfillment remains tied to Israel’s history.
Representative Traditions:
- Some historical-critical Protestant readings
- Christian Zionist–influenced interpretations
Sub-Issues Commonly Raised
- Whether “Torah going forth” denotes Mosaic law, fulfilled law, or Christological instruction
- Whether “swords into plowshares” implies literal geopolitical peace or ethical–eschatological transformation
- Whether ecclesial application constitutes supersession, fulfillment, or typology
Nature of the Dispute
- Not doctrinally divisive
- Not canon-related
- Hermeneutical and theological, concerning referent and horizon, not textual meaning
Historical Trigger / Context
- Early Christian appropriation of Zion language
- Development of typological exegesis in patristic theology
- Later differentiation of millennial schemas in post-Reformation theology
Resulting Splits or Outcomes
- No denominations formed over this passage
- Persistent intra-denominational plurality
- Functions as a proof-text differently deployed within broader systems
Present Status
Active but low-intensity
Commonly invoked in discussions of:
- Eschatology
- Church–Israel relations
- Christian peace ethics
Classification within the 366 Framework
Secondary interpretive dispute
Low polemical intensity
High diagnostic value for eschatology and ecclesiology
When ready, I can proceed to Dispute #2 and maintain strict continuity with this template.
