I noticed this Gospel harmony in Pre-pub.
I have a question though : Does the harmonizing process rob these texts of their individuality? Doesn't this resource inadvertently divest each Gospel of their original literary purpose?
from Wikipedia: "A Gospel harmony is an attempt to compile the Christian canonical gospels into a single account.This may take the form either of a single, merged narrative, or a tabular format with one column for each gospel, technically known as a 'synopsis', although the word 'harmony' is often used for both. Harmonies are constructed to establish a chronology of events in the life of Jesus depicted in the canonical gospels, to better understand how the accounts relate to each other, or to establish events in the life of Jesus."
from Wikipedia:
"A Gospel harmony is an attempt to compile the Christian canonical gospels into a single account.This may take the form either of a single, merged narrative, or a tabular format with one column for each gospel, technically known as a 'synopsis', although the word 'harmony' is often used for both. Harmonies are constructed to establish a chronology of events in the life of Jesus depicted in the canonical gospels, to better understand how the accounts relate to each other, or to establish events in the life of Jesus."
Steven L. Cox and Kendell H. Easley, Holman Christian Standard Bible: Harmony of the Gospels (Nashville, TN: Holman Bible Publishers, 2007), 5.
For some reason, I have Stevie Wonder and Paul McCartney stuck in my head:
Matthew, Mark, and Luke and John, live together in perfect harmony,Side by side in my Logos Bible, Oh Lord, why don't we?
Because they don't. So Tatian's heavy editing. And so Logos offering several alternative 'attempts' as Wikipedia describes it.
Sorry, Josh. I had read and understood your original clip. I was just attempting to show that common usage didn't always make the distinction - similar to homily/sermon.
I didn't take your post as a negative one. You are correct that the distinction between a harmony and a synopsis is commonly blurred. I just thought the screenshot (which is from this article) gave a more thorough definition than Wikipedia - it addressed the distinction issue.
To answer my own OP, some types of harmonies can certainly rob the Gospel texts of their individuality and, also, strip them of their original literary purpose. But some types of harmonies (like the parallel) if used correctly can help in the understanding of what these purposes were.
To each their own! I think I'll stick with Aland's "Synopsis of the Four Gospels". [:D]
"Robbing the Gospel texts of their individuality" is a term that is loaded. It is best applied sparingly.
For instance, I would not apply that term to a Children's Bible (with a functional harmony) or some kind of Bible Easy Reader for language learners (again with a functional harmony). As much as the Lord was concerned about motivations, so should I be.
Not to be argumentative but in a literal way, every Sunday, pastors 'harmonize' the gospels. As they pull verses from one gospel, and then another, the implication is the sources are compatable and 'sealed' if you will. So a printed harmony versus a spoken harmony?
When one reads 'the fathers' they don't seem to be too worried about it, and were more in contact with the 'newness' of the accounts. As Lee notes, early teaching of the gospel almost demands it, especially when there's a language difference.
The Bible is supposed to be understood as a unified prophetic document. The appropriate ways the Book's structure can be massaged and manipulated to extract the intended message are right there within the Book, waiting to be comprehended if done according to His revealed will. That YHWH fully expects humans to be curious about 4 differing documents that address the "same" material ought to be a complete gimme...and that includes laying them out in a side-by-side fashion for the sake of comparison. Prophecy by its 'Elohhiym-ordained nature requires a certain amount of historical and narrative decontextualization in order to extract the intended prophetic context and message. That makes many people uncomfortable...and that is actually part of the prophecies themselves.
I noticed this Gospel harmony in Pre-pub. I have a question though : Does the harmonizing process rob these texts of their individuality? Doesn't this resource inadvertently divest each Gospel of their original literary purpose?
The Gospels have no literary purpose--they have a prophetic purpose.
Maybe the literary purpose was to be prophetic. [:P]
Not to be argumentative but in a literal way, every Sunday, pastors 'harmonize' the gospels. As they pull verses from one gospel, and then another, the implication is the sources are compatable and 'sealed' if you will. So a printed harmony versus a spoken harmony? When one reads 'the fathers' they don't seem to be too worried about it, and were more in contact with the 'newness' of the accounts. As Lee notes, early teaching of the gospel almost demands it, especially when there's a language difference.
I think it depends on your presuppositions. Liberal "scholarship" presupposes that the accounts are different, and thus contradict each other. People of faith presuppose (correctly in my opinion) that they are collaborating witnesses, who's accounts may differ slightly but can ultimately be harmonized once all relevant factors are taken into consideration.
For example, many make a big issue over Matthew and Lukes genealogies differing. However the supposed contradiction disappears once it is understood that Matthews genealogy is in the Jewish form, and Lukes is in the Greek form. Both are correct and accurate when it is understood that the different audiences had different customs for dealing with such issues. Rather than attempting to force his readers to learn jewish customs, Luke simply rewrote it in a way that they would understand.
For example, many make a big issue over Matthew and Lukes genealogies differing. However the supposed contradiction disappears once it is understood that Matthews genealogy is in the Jewish form, and Lukes is in the Greek form.
Excuse me for pointing this out, but your "explanation" is probably the fourth or fifth different version of "why the genealogies are different but not contradictory" that I have heard. The more common one is that one is Mary's lineage and the other is Joseph's, and there are a few others as well. I don't want to hash this particular thing out here, but I do want to draw attention to the fact that many people put forward "resolvances" (I may have just coined that word [:P] ) and resolutions that conflict with other imagined resolutions. What that tells me is that people are so willing to "believe" that they will readily allow themselves to believe nonsense in order to maintain their predeterminations. Not all of the genealogy explanations can be correct--someone's resolution of the problem is a pie-in-the-sky lie.
The point that is well-worthy of consideration by all is...Christians believe tons of conflicting stuff, the majority of which must be junk. How does this correspond with Jn. 16:13? Is the Holy Spirit a hopelessly inept bumbler? Or does the problem stem from another source? If the Spirit isn't incompetent, that must mean that many Christians, at a minimum, aren't being led by the Spirit. Hmmm, why would that be?
I would suggest that using "liberal" as a pejorative term in contrast with "people of faith" only clouds the search for understanding. Also, in reference to the posts about the gospels being prophecies seems to contradict the only stated purposes we have. Luke and John state their purposes and they have nothing to do with prophecy:
Luke 1- Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled[ among us, 2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word.3 With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus,4 so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.
30 Jesus performed many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book.31 But these are written that you may believe[b] that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name. John 20
I would suggest that using "liberal" as a pejorative term in contrast with "people of faith" only clouds the search for understanding
I agree. I would also suggest that using "conservative", "fundamentalist", and "unscholarly" as pejorative terms in contrast with people of faith also clouds the search for understanding.
Also, in reference to the posts about the gospels being prophecies seems to contradict the only stated purposes we have. Luke and John state their purposes and they have nothing to do with prophecy
Dan. 12:9, 10 9 He said, “Go your way, Daniel, for these words are concealed and sealed up until the end time. 10 “Many will be purged, purified and refined, but the wicked will act wickedly; and none of the wicked will understand, but those who have insight will understand.
Mt. 13:10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 10 And the disciples came and said to Him, “Why do You speak to them in parables?” 11 Jesus answered them, “To you it has been granted to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been granted. 12 “For whoever has, to him more shall be given, and he will have an abundance; but whoever does not have, even what he has shall be taken away from him. 13 “Therefore I speak to them in parables; because while seeing they do not see, and while hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand. 14 “In their case the prophecy of Isaiah is being fulfilled, which says, ‘You will keep on hearing, but will not understand; You will keep on seeing, but will not perceive; 15 For the heart of this people has become dull, with their ears they scarcely hear, and they have closed their eyes, otherwise they would see with their eyes, hear with their ears, and understand with their heart and return, and I would heal them.’ 16 “But blessed are your eyes, because they see; and your ears, because they hear. 17 “For truly I say to you that many prophets and righteous men desired to see what you see, and did not see it, and to hear what you hear, and did not hear it.
Just in case you are wondering, the above from Matthew is related to "I come not bringing peace but a sword."
By far the most common explanation given from the pulpit for why Yeishuu`a spoke in parables is that "He was speaking in simple, common language using stories and word pictures that were familiar to His audience so that they could easily understand Him", which is a complete contradiction of His own testimony and something I have heard and read dozens of times. Let's be perfectly clear on this point--anyone who is speaking such rubbish is emphatically NOT among those whose eyes are blessed and see. Parables are New Testament prophecy, or at least one version of it. Every single book of the NT, including the Gospels, isn't merely fulfilling prophecy but actually creating it.
That quote from Jn. 20:30, 31 is so riddled with prophecy it would take at least 2-3 thick books to cover it all...and it has the exact same warning attached to it that the parables do.
Fwiw, reading the Gospels as "literature", a biography, or open letters won't ever open your eyes to see.
By far the most common explanation given from the pulpit for why Yeishuu`a spoke in parables is that "He was speaking in simple, common language using stories and word pictures that were familiar to His audience so that they could easily understand Him", which is a complete contradiction of His own testimony and something I have heard and read dozens of times. Let's be perfectly clear on this point--anyone who is speaking such rubbish is emphatically NOT among those whose eyes are blessed and see. Parables are New Testament prophecy, or at least one version of it. Every single book of the NT, including the Gospels, isn't merely fulfilling prophecy but actually creating it. That quote from Jn. 20:30, 31 is so riddled with prophecy it would take at least 2-3 thick books to cover it all...and it has the exact same warning attached to it that the parables do. Fwiw, reading the Gospels as "literature", a biography, or open letters won't ever open your eyes to see.
Is this not one of those "resolutions that conflict with other imagined resolutions?" [:O]
I guess that depends on whether you are referring to the first half of what you quoted or the second half.
If the first, certainly. If the second, I would say "no", obviously, since I was expressing my perspective. It would remain for someone else to explain why it is "imagined". While I'm just trying to prod prophetic thinking in others (the sooner, the better) and not actually looking to stir debate, nevertheless, I'm quite certain I can counter any challenge. YHWH expresses His "fingerprints" in a handful of ways...one of the most enduring (Gen. 1 to Rev. 22) is prophecy.
I've already made this point, but even Yeishuu`a gets in on the act. Mt. 24:25...AND...Mk. 13:23. These two synoptic sayings bring us back to the considerations of the OP.
I guess that depends on whether you are referring to the first half of what you quoted or the second half. If the first, certainly. If the second, I would say "no", obviously, since I was expressing my perspective. It would remain for someone else to explain why it is "imagined". While I'm just trying to prod prophetic thinking in others (the sooner, the better) and not actually looking to stir debate, nevertheless, I'm quite certain I can counter any challenge. YHWH expresses His "fingerprints" in a handful of ways...one of the most enduring (Gen. 1 to Rev. 22) is prophecy. I've already made this point, but even Yeishuu`a gets in on the act. Mt. 24:25...AND...Mk. 13:23. These two synoptic sayings bring us back to the considerations of the OP.
Do you believe the ordering of the books is important? For instance, do you think it is of prophetic importance that Luke is placed as the third gospel in our modern Bibles?
No, I don't see an inherent reason for the common order. In fact, if order were to be an issue, then I would think the order Luke, Matthew, Mark, John would be more appropriate given Ezek. 1:10 (applying the well-established Luke=Man, Matthew=Lion, Mark=Bull, John=Eagle formula). But again, I don't think it matters. There is far too much information that a person must process for presentation order to matter. No person, at his or her first reading, will likely retain or recall first impressions of the books after years of rereading and study. Also, as I said, the process of prophetic "mapping", so to speak, requires a certain amount of decontextualization. This shouldn't alarm or surprise anyone since Bible characters do it all the time, albeit to most hermeneuticist's great consternation.
The standard refrain "context is king" isn't true at all, at least in the usual sense of what people mean when they say that. Rather, "prophetic context is king". Broken record here: prophecy trumps all.
Harmonizing anything can be very destructive. Harmonizing two poems does not make either one better, but different. Harmonizing two Gospels is to create something different than the original. Matthew, Mark, Luke and John each have a beautiful portrait of Jesus Christ that becomes different when any two of them are amalgamated into one. The picture of Jesus in John is of Him who carries his own cross, whereas in Mark Simon of Cyrene carries it. John doesn't need a Gethsemane scene, a Transfiguration, a Sermon on the Mount, parables, etc. Mathew, Mark, and Luke although called the Synoptics, and agree in many ways at the same time are distinctively differ in important other ways. These are not contradictions, but distinctions that were meaningful and helpful in portraying Jesus as the One through God was acting in restoring God;s Kingdom. To see God in Jesus is primarily what it means for a person in the Gospel stories to have faith. When we harmonize these beautiful and awesome Gospel Narratives we lose that powerful distinction which allows us to hear that Gospel Story in such a way for us to experience that faith creating recognition. Synopsis, Yes; Harmony Never! Synopsis is a powerful tool for comparison and contrast. Harmonizing is a way destroying the distinctiveness and creating something different! Our four Gospels are awesome and sufficient to see Jesus as fully God and Fully Human. They don't need changing,which harmonizing or amalgamation does.
Peace, Jim! Even if I were not to agree with you -- which I do indeed! -- I would still be beholden to you for the sheer beauty of a great post!
*smile* Thank you very kindly!
Again, Peace and Joy to my Logos Forums Brothers and Sisters! *smile*
Just very recently a post by Steve Clark featuring permission from WalkWithTheWord Website to share a .docx file with the Logos forums came back to life.
The document is 26 pages long and can be made into a PB, evidently. It is a Chronology of the Gospels relative to Jesus' Life which I would think might relate to some of the discussion we've had on this thread..
The URL of that thread, if you are interested, is: http://community.logos.com/forums/t/53050.aspx
Excuse me for pointing this out, but your "explanation" is probably the fourth or fifth different version of "why the genealogies are different but not contradictory" that I have heard. The more common one is that one is Mary's lineage and the other is Joseph's, and there are a few others as well.
True. I also have seen those other explanations. They are attempts at reconciliation which in my opinion are flawed. The explanation that I presented is the best that I have seen.
Maybe a good point is to always consider numerous commentaries, rather than just one [H]
I would suggest that using "liberal" as a pejorative term in contrast with "people of faith" only clouds the search for understanding I agree. I would also suggest that using "conservative", "fundamentalist", and "unscholarly" as pejorative terms in contrast with people of faith also clouds the search for understanding.
I think people who worry about which words somebody uses more than the point they made have already ceased any search for "understanding". [8-|]
Excuse me for pointing this out, but your "explanation" is probably the fourth or fifth different version of "why the genealogies are different but not contradictory" that I have heard. The more common one is that one is Mary's lineage and the other is Joseph's, and there are a few others as well. True. I also have seen those other explanations. They are attempts at reconciliation which in my opinion are flawed. The explanation that I presented is the best that I have seen. Maybe a good point is to always consider numerous commentaries, rather than just one
Maybe a good point is to always consider numerous commentaries, rather than just one
I will certainly agree with the last statement...to the extent that one feels it necessary to consult commentaries at all. I have hundreds of them, but rarely consult them. I do, though, on occasion...if I've meditated on something for days or weeks and nothing has broken through, I will see if someone has a perspective that I haven't considered.
Whether your genealogy explanation is best is something I don't have time to put to the test right now. I'm eyeball deep in other issues, primarily the book I'm working on. I will keep it in mind though. I still think the conundrum, or perhaps "crisis" is a better description, I pointed out regarding Jn. 16:13 and the Spirit guiding into all truth is a quandary to which everyone should devote some significant meditation and prayer. Something is seriously amiss across the Christian spectrum, and I have this niggling suspicion it isn't the Spirit's fumble. Your comment about all previous explanations being "flawed" brings this point into focus.
Purpose of Gospel Harmonies
I was always told it made the music sound better.
I pointed out regarding Jn. 16:13 and the Spirit guiding into all truth is a quandary to which everyone should devote some significant meditation and prayer. Something is seriously amiss across the Christian spectrum, and I have this niggling suspicion it isn't the Spirit's fumble.
It could be that some misunderstand John 16:13, and think it was a promise to guide them personally into "all truth". When in fact, it was a promise made only to the apostles, and was in particular regarding things which they had been unable to learn during Christ's earthly ministry (See John 14:25-26).
Too many people personalize these verses and declare themselves as individuals to be infallibly guided popes. Jesus was not intending to create thousands of self-guided popes with new views on things, but rather to insure that the leaders of a newly formed Christian community would be led by God and would accurately remember the things Jesus had already taught them.
Purpose of Gospel Harmonies I was always told it made the music sound better.
For some reason I didn't see that coming...and now I wonder why it took until page 4 for it to happen. [:)]
Who do you think the "you" in both John 14:26 and John 16:13 refer to? Since you like to see all Scripture in a prophetic light, I'd suggest that this makes most "prophetic" sense if this was being directed to a select group of early church disciples (as opposed to all Christians throughout time). It was this Spirit-guided revelation of "all truth" that allowed this select group to be the ones to produce the inspired writings of the New Testament.
I'd say the true quandary is this: Why will your book not be labeled as an "inspired" work equal to Luke's gospel? Don't you claim that the same Spirit that directed Luke to "all truth" has, also, personally directed you to "all truth"?
This was certainly my sentiment when I wrote the OP. However, someone brought up a good question that I've been wrestling with. What do you do with children's Bibles? They must both harmonize and simplify the text for young readers. This certainly destroys the distinctiveness of each individual Gospel. But the overall purpose of such Bible's appears to be necessary and good. What do you think?
Along with this, it seems like the suggestion is to jettison the clear purpose statements of Luke and John in favor of some esoteric interpretation. Sounds a lot like Gnosticism. Just because some inspired NT writers use a pesher method, doesn't mean that we can do the same.
Along with this, it seems like the suggestion is to jettison the clear purpose statements of Luke and John in favor of some esoteric interpretation. Sounds a lot like Gnosticism.
So does this: Dan. 12:3, 4, 9, 10; Hos. 14:9; Jn. 7:17; Jn. 8:47 ...to name just a few.
Just because some inspired NT writers use a pesher method, doesn't mean that we can do the same.
Far be it from you to follow the example of someone who was inspired...is that your credo?
Who do you think the "you" in both John 14:26 and John 16:13 refer to? Since you like to see all Scripture in a prophetic light, I'd suggest that this makes most "prophetic" sense if this was being directed to a select group of early church disciples (as opposed to all Christians throughout time). It was this Spirit-guided revelation of "all truth" that allowed this select group to be the ones to produce the inspired writings of the New Testament. I'd say the true quandary is this: Why will your book not be labeled as an "inspired" work equal to Luke's gospel? Don't you claim that the same Spirit that directed Luke to "all truth" has, also, personally directed you to "all truth"?
You ask fair questions. Unfortunately, sufficient answers would take too long for me to write. However, I will say this. 'Elohhiym is not limited by the apparent incapacity of most humans to think about more than one thing at a time. There are many books about the types of the tabernacle and the priestly activities. Every one of the elements has a symbolic purpose in addition to the important but mundane practical purpose that was germane for those on site at that particular point in time. Few people today would insist "there's nothing prophetic about the sacrifices, or the furniture of the tabernacle, or the priestly garments". For the life of me, I can't understand why anyone would insist that YHWH forgot how to do that when Malachi closed his eyes for the last time.
I find it baffling and bizarre that my suggestion that folks think and view Scripture prophetically is met with reactions that indicate people think I'm trying to feed them some poisoned pill. However, if someone were looking for evidence of "the famine of the hearing of the words of YHWH", this is precisely the kind of attitude that would produce that circumstance. Be assured, most of the people affected by this prophesied condition will have Bibles laying open on their laps.
...
DP: Think prophetically.
...: Why should I? I don't wanna. You can't make me!
DP: Alright, then...don't.
Not everything in Scripture requires a prophetic interpretation. From what I can gather from your position, it appears you have taken this idea to the furthest extreme possible based on debatable presuppositions. Please forgive me for being underwhelmed by your assertions.
For instance, Luke is explicit in his purposes for writing his Gospel. The primary purpose being listed in the first four verses - that Thephilus specifically (and believers generally) "may have certainty concerning the things [they] have been taught." I see no reason to suppose other purposes that are not obviously advertised by Luke. In fact, to state the opposite would be quite presumptuous.
I am responding to this post:
Milford Charles Murray wrote the following post at Sat, Sep 21 2013 1:15 PM:
From Joshua Lieder:
I enjoyed Jim and your responses...and, for the most part, am finding this string and the original post very interesting.
I always wonder about these new Chronological Bibles too. How do they land on the right order? (I looked and Mark did not come first in the Bible I held up in my local Christian bookstore). Sorry if I am muddying the waters or this has already been covered in the string elsewhere.
I am glad for all 4 gospels and their distinctives and their similarities. I might use a "harmony" in a sermon to help me understand and convey the orginal meaning of a text or central theme...but thats it. I would never purchase a whole Bible that did it. Thats just too "Jesus Seminar" with the marbles for me personally.
It might be interesting to see this https://www.logos.com/product/3580/a-simplified-harmony-of-the-gospels but I would not purchase it.
TRANSLATION: This was directed to a select group, NOT to all believers. Josh has spoken!
Not everything in Scripture requires a prophetic interpretation. From what I can gather from your position, it appears you have taken this idea to the furthest extreme possible based on debatable presuppositions. Please forgive me for being underwhelmed by your assertions. For instance, Luke is explicit in his purposes for writing his Gospel. The primary purpose being listed in the first four verses - that Thephilus specifically (and believers generally) "may have certainty concerning the things [they] have been taught." I see no reason to suppose other purposes that are not obviously advertised by Luke. In fact, to state the opposite would be quite presumptuous.
TRANSLATION: This was directed to a single individual, PLUS all believers. Josh has spoken!
[^o)]
MORAL: It's perfectly alright to make rules to suit your whims.
[+o(]
[quote]
Not to speak for Josh, but one of the interpretive questions we might ask about a passage is, "To whom is this addressed?" There are a great many who would understand, that since the words of John 16:13 were spoken to the circle of disciples who were to become apostles, that this promise is to them specifically.
That's your interpretive guide? Seriously? For prophecy?? [8-)]
Wow...
Josh has spoken!
More like...
Josh looks at context!
But don't ya'll get it? The context of prophecy is the whole Bible...or to put it another way, prophecy has no limit of context. Like YHWH Himself, prophecy is not time-bound, though it may be time specific. Prophecy is as elastic as YHWH wants it to be.
I think the problem most people have with interpreting Scripture prophetically is the hand-wringing worry they harbor that "allowing" prophetic interpretation suddenly means it's open season and anything goes. While that is an issue--there are always going to be loose cannons where prophecy is concerned--throwing out the baby with the bath water helps no one.
Not to speak for Josh, but one of the interpretive questions we might ask about a passage is, "To whom is this addressed?"
This is a context-driven assumption. Unfortunately for this prejudicial viewpoint, Dan.12:8, 9, 10 completely eviscerate this erroneous assertion. This was ADDRESSED to Daniel, but he didn't and COULDN'T understand it. It is explicitly stated that it is for a much later time. So much for context.
Prophecy is timeless and elastic, designed to mean precisely what YHWH wants it to mean, regardless of any perceived human context. That's just the way it is.
I'm afraid your methodology might make prophecy as "elastic as [David] wants it to be."
[quote]I think the problem most people have with interpreting Scripture prophetically is the hand-wringing worry they harbor that "allowing" prophetic interpretation suddenly means it's open season and anything goes. While that is an issue--there are always going to be loose cannons where prophecy is concerned--throwing out the baby with the bath water helps no one.
I'm not trying to toss the baby out with the bath water. I'm certainly not rejecting prophecy outright. I believe Scripture is filled with prophecy. What concerns me is that you appear to subscribe to some subjective hermeneutical rules - one of which relies on having the Spirit help you come to the correct interpretation. But the Spirit's illumination is not about "understanding the text properly" (a non-believer [in contrast to a believer] can just as easily discern what a particular text means); however, without the Spirit they will not be convicted by it. The Spirit's illumination brings to the believer a blessed assurance of the truthfulness of the biblical teachings. Please forgive me for being brazen here, but you seem to be substituting proper Bible study with this idea that with enough prayer and meditation the Spirit will give you all the answers.
For now, we are at a dead end. But once prophecies are made known, a few of the legs on your chair won't be there anymore. At that point, with the log jam busted...
...well, time will tell. Good thing is, it won't be too long.
Oh, and regarding prophecy, I generally believe in overkill (where inescapable trumps debate) . Ironic, since in a somewhat different way, so does YHWH.
I find it baffling and bizarre that my suggestion that folks think and view Scripture prophetically is met with reactions that indicate people think I'm trying to feed them some poisoned pill.
I think it is pretty much common knowledge that scripture is composed of many different Genres, and thus your suggestion that this be ignored and it all be treated as prophecy makes little sense.
Actually, it makes perfect sense. You think prophecy is a genre? Honestly?? I've addressed the "genres" canard on here before, but you possibly weren't here for that based on your post count. Case in point--I'm sure you are familiar with the divisions of the Bible, right? Law, History, Prophets, Writings, right? No, wrong. In the Hebrew breakdown, the "Histories" are called the Former Prophets, and for good reason. There is probably more prophecy in Samuel than there is in Isaiah. Even if that is a slight exaggeration, many of the most important prophecies in the Bible are found in Samuel. In fact, unless you are pretty solid on what the Samuel prophecies are, the prophecies of Isaiah make little sense, including many of the most famous ones about Yeishuu`a that most people consider to be well-known old friends. In fact, Isaiah actually has prophecies that say the time will come (it is obviously upon us with a vengeance!) that people will consider talk about prophecy and its importance to be nonsense.
Ruth is a cute little story, huh? Packed with prophecy. Proverbs are little snippets of "practical advice" for daily living? Almost PURE prophecy. Psalms, a sweet collection of songs? Yeah, and probably the most densely packed balls of prophecy in the Bible...except maybe for Job, and Ecclesiastes, and Esther...and the Gospels, and the Epistles, and Acts--there are sections of Acts so packed and steeped in prophecy that they're practically packed in like sardines in oil. A few months back, someone challenged me to find prophecy in Nehemiah. I did, without even having to stretch. Even that tender little love poem, Song of Songs is a prophecy magnet.
Let's go back to Psalms. Genre? Songs, right? Ever, heard of Asaph? As in the Psalms of Asaph? There are about a dozen of them, and 1 Chr. 25:1 points out that the sons of Asaph were "to prophesy with lyre, harps, and cymbals". That makes the psalms of Asaph prophecies. So much for the discrete genre of "psalms".
Some people call the Protoevangelion the first prophecy in the Bible. The problem is, Genesis 3 is waaaay too late in the game to earn that title. The first verse of the Bible is one of the most densely packed nuggets of prophecy in the Bible, a fact that was ridiculed to scorn on this forum 2-3 years back. Of course, bumblers have been handling prophecy for centuries, much as a toddler might a loaded gun. It's easy to decry that crime, and rightly so. But don't think that the common antipathy toward the widespread malfeasance of past and current prophecy-handlers hasn't calloused most minds where prophecy is concerned. If you take that position, you have just set yourself against prophecy and become a prophetic object lesson.
No prophecy in the Gospels? Is that the consensus here? I'm sorry for not falling into line with that silliness...I'm too busy reading Deut. 18:15, 16, 17, 18, 19. By the way, if you insist that there is no prophecy in the Gospels ("read the stated purpose statement in John!" [:@]), you have just denied "that Prophet" (you know...the "Savior") and cast yourself in place of the words of verse 19 as one who "will not listen to the words spoken in YHWH's name". Make no mistake, if you do not readily SEE His words as prophetic, the words of Mt. 13:13, 14, 15 regarding Isa. 6:10 have enveloped you in a massive stranglehold. Excuse me while I take a few extra steps away from the spot where you are standing.
You can stand on the newly enlarged beach and wag your imprecating finger at the encroaching tsunami wave of prophecy if you so choose. It will nevertheless proceed unhindered and swallow you whole as surely as the fact that you just read this sentence. Prophecy is inescapable; no genre is immune to it...and in the Bible it is everywhere, touching everything.
Tell me...how do you determine what is prophetic and what is not? Especially those texts that aren't "blatantly" prophetic in nature.
Prophecy in the Former Prophets is for the most part "forth telling" rather than "foretelling,"
Josh, you are missing his point. But it is his point so up to him to respond if he wishes.
Y'all got it settled yet?[C]
I've thought about that a lot. I'm not sure if this will register or not...but you CANNOT think about prophecy from a human perspective. If you do, you are lost, and probably in more ways than one. I am well-aware that most Christians think they might "get" the gist of what I'm saying, but their own words betray them. Most Christians' perspective is from-themselves-outward. Unfortunately, even if one's outward perspective is God-focused, it is a view which can do little more than leave a person dead in the water (make a baptism pun if you see fit). My favorite verse in the Bible is Phil. 2:5. Per NKJV, "Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus." That can be condensed to "Adopt the mind of Yeishuu`a." It can be distilled to "Think like God."
Thinking like a human, aka thinking like a typical Christian, allows a person to honestly believe that handing someone a pocket NT is a great and generous Spirit-led blessing instead of an outrageous blasphemous heresy. The irony is that the decapitated corpse that is a pocket new testament is incapable of providing anyone the salvation that the human-focused, salvation-focused mindset is so intent on attaining. Prophecy actually pictures this exact process in its numerous permutations. It is the strong delusion of 2 Thessalonians. It is the famine of the hearing of the words of YHWH. It is why many are called but few are chosen. It is why so many who call Him "Lord, Lord" will hear the words "depart from Me". It's why He talks in parables so that those listening CAN'T understand. And get this...it's WHY he chose "a devil" as one of His disciples--it wasn't just to fulfill the need for a betrayer...it goes much, much deeper than that.
Of course, hardly anyone will believe any of what I just said. That's okay, though. Exactly enough will.
So, the beginning of "how" would be to stop thinking about saving your neck. That is not His prime concern. Think about the things that are on His mind. And whatever you do, please don't start in the book of John.
Oh, and one other thing. If you start from His perspective, and then start laying the pieces out, prophecies in the hundreds upon hundreds portray a complete picture that is undoubtedly from Him. It isn't familiar, but that is part of what makes it clearly from Him. No picture could have so many interlocking parts as this one Book has and not be of and from Him. Because though it isn't familiar, when heard, many know it is "that thing that was always missing". If you don't think anything is missing, it probably won't have that effect.
Btw, virtually any comment against this scenario can be addressed by a prophecy that clearly describes it.
He has a point? please explain it to us.
