Interpretation of Matthew 24:17

[Yeshuasdaughter]

Don’t know how much I’m allowed to say about the Bible on this forum; don’t want to offend. When setting down his words in writing, God included the incredibly instructive fact that no Scripture is of any private interpretation. It seems to me that you are presenting an interpretation that will only make sense to a few.

Scriptural interpretation is a serious function, because the prudent believer bases their entire life on their understanding of God’s written word. I’d recommend that you define for yourself the rules of interpretation that led you to your conclusion. Then apply those rules to similar passages to ‘test drive’ your methods.

If you find yourself using a different set of guidelines for interpreting one passage than you use to understand another passage, you’ll want to get clear with yourself about why that’s so.

In other words, we need consistent methods of approaching the Bible. Me? I’m a consistent literalist, so I balance myself by concentrating on how to understand obviously non-literal passages.

Reading your posts, I’m unable to discern a consistent approach, or an approach that might be useful in understanding other passages. It seems, rather, that you have found a piece of Scripture that resonates with other ideas you’re working on. That would be a weak foundation for promoting a novel interpretation for what is otherwise a straightforward Biblical imperative.

Yes, scripture is interpreted through scripture. The New Testament is surprisingly a very Jewish document. One could even call it the Brit Hadasha. All interpretation can be through studying the Tanakh or Old Testament.

 

[Alexej]

Brit Hadasha. All interpretation can be through studying the Tanakh or Old Testament.

@Yeshuasdaughter - please translate Brit Hadasha for me, and unpack it.
I would appreciate hearing your take on this

 

[Polchinski]

Don’t know how much I’m allowed to say about the Bible on this forum; don’t want to offend. When setting down his words in writing, God included the incredibly instructive fact that no Scripture is of any private interpretation. It seems to me that you are presenting an interpretation that will only make sense to a few.

Its interesting you used the word "few" at the end of the quoted sentence. Didn't Jesus also say that only few are saved (Matt 7:13-14) That seems to suggest to look for interpretations that only make sense to a few. Although the fact that scripture is of no private interpretation has also been said (2 Peter 1:20). How do you reconcile those two things?

 

[The Pandector]

Its interesting you used the word "few" at the end of the quoted sentence. Didn't Jesus also say that only few are saved (Matt 7:13-14) That seems to suggest to look for interpretations that only make sense to a few. Although the fact that scripture is of no private interpretation has also been said (2 Peter 1:20). How do you reconcile those two things?

I'm sorry, Polchinski. I said 'few' to acknowledge the fact that in this world there may well be others beside yourself who see that as a reasonable interpretation. That has nothing to do with the few being saved, as compared to the many who are being lost. Can't reconcile where there's no conflict.

You seem very interested in understanding Scripture. There are several references in the Bible to the twisting of Scripture. Maybe I'm so cautious because I don't want to fall under that condemnation. I'm a 'better safe than sorry' kind of guy, and tread cautiously in the Word. I'll be more cautious in commenting.

 

[Polchinski]

I'm sorry, Polchinski. I said 'few' to acknowledge the fact that in this world there may well be others beside yourself who see that as a reasonable interpretation.

I know thats not how you meant to use the word "few". But what I am saying is that it "happened" to have a point even though it wasn't intended.

If only few are saved, yet the number of Christians is far from few, this implies that most Christians aren't true Christians. Logically, this also implies that most Christians misinterpret the Bible. This implies that conventional interpretations are not to be trusted and we are to look for unconventional ones.

 

[The Pandector]

I know thats not how you meant to use the word "few". But what I am saying is that it "happened" to have a point even though it wasn't intended.

If only few are saved, yet the number of Christians is far from few, this implies that most Christians aren't true Christians. Logically, this also implies that most Christians misinterpret the Bible. This implies that conventional interpretations are not to be trusted and we are to look for unconventional ones.

Your assumption is that the validity of a claim to being Christian is proof of the validity or invalidity of their doctrine. A person could be a false Christian and still 'believe' in sound doctrine, just as a true believer can hold unsound doctrines. Most people don't study Scripture and derive their own doctrines; saved or not, people tend to absorb doctrine from disparate sources. I'm not judging good or bad; it's just the way it is.

To your other point about church membership/attendance versus spiritual conversion... I don't believe you can judge the doctrine someone sits under by the morals they live by. True for some but certainly not for all.

 

[Polchinski]

Your assumption is that the validity of a claim to being Christian is proof of the validity or invalidity of their doctrine.

That comes from the assumption that salvation is by faith alone.

 

[The Pandector]

Don't know if I'm being trolled here.

'Faith alone' or 'salvific faith' or whatever, isn't identified by a claim or church attendance. We agree on that, I think. Claiming you're a Christian doesn't make you one.

 

[tree]

https://capmin.org/is-salvation-by-faith-alone-in-christ-alone/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sola_fide

 

[Polchinski]

https://capmin.org/is-salvation-by-faith-alone-in-christ-alone/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sola_fide

It is interesting that, in the first paragraph of "Sola Fide" link, it mentioned Methodists as an example of people that don't believe in faith alone. I was assuming that they did, because they are Protestant. So its nice to learn otherwise.

Since I don't want to derail this thread, I created a separate thread on this topic: Are Calvinism vs Arminianism and Faith vs Works correlated