I do think Christians of different factions should be gracious to one another. We should be humble about our own beliefs and worship styles. We should allow for some level of variety in areas that aren't so clear in the Bible. That all needs to happen. I think it does mostly in the American church today. But we can always be better.
However, I get concerned when I hear talk about using a lens to interpret scripture. The lens bends and shapes the image externally. I think the only lens we need is the lens of our physical eyes to read the text. The Bible is an object and presents objective truth that we need to conform ourselves to. God gave us a book to know about Him so that we would use the same faculties to know Him as we do to understand any other piece of knowledge.
The reason I am skeptical about lenses is because I don't think it helps to insert some idea about Jesus into every scripture before I interpret it. That is the act of eisegesis which is the source of a lot of theological error. Instead we should aim for exegesis, taking out the meaning the original author placed into the text. Remember every verse in the Bible is inspired by God. There aren't pieces of it that are insufficient on their own.
Of course we need to interpret within context. Scripture interprets scripture. When we do that it should be clear that there are common themes in the OT and NT, that the OT points forward to Jesus, and the NT points back to Jesus. I even think there are multiple appearances of Jesus in the OT, in addition to the many types and shadows of Him that show up in the Law. But I don't get there from using a "Jesus lens". I get there by interpreting the text according to the normal rules of language, grammar, syntax, and comparing one verse to all the other verses as appropriate. I
RMB, I think we come with a "lens" when approaching any subject. We do not have "Monarchical vision," a completely objective view. We are human, we are influenced.
As I have mentioned, I attend two different churches: a Protestant church more often, and an Orthodox church occasionally. The Protestant pastor is tremendously well grounded in Scripture. When it comes to Calvinism vs. Arminianism, he goes with Calvin all the way from everything I have heard from him.
Now, here is one thing I am certain of: if I asked him to do a five-part sermon to demonstrate that there is truth in Arminianism, I bet he could do it - there is enough Scripture he could draw on, and he knows the Bible very well. Not that he would do it (because he would feel it was false teaching), but he could.
Yes, you might say that testing Scripture with Scripture leads him to Calvin (and debating his doctrine isn't my point). But there are men of good will, godly men, that, at minimum, struggle with how to reconcile all of this. And they test Scripture with Scripture along with the best of them.
Yes. As humans we all have bias that comes from our own past experiences and personality. There is no getting around that. My point is that we should try to identify them as much as possible in order to avoid letting our biases dictate our interpretation of the Bible. In other words, we should do our best to treat the Bible as objective not subjective.
One way to do that is by letting the words on the page speak for themselves (i.e. not using a predetermined lens by which to understand the words). That doesn't mean what we learn of Jesus in the NT won't shape what we believe about OT passages, because it will. My main point is that I wouldn't start with injecting Jesus into an OT passage, but I wouldn't shy away from the fact if He is already present within.
Even with that, people will differ in their beliefs. That's fine. I have no problem with someone disagreeing with me on theological points, especially if they can give a good reason for it or show that they honestly studied the Bible to get to that point.
"There is a view – I cannot say widely held or not, but I believe it is – that not only is Jesus foretold in the Old Testament, but that the Old Testament should be read through the lens that is Jesus Christ."
In the circles I run in (Eastern Orthodox for the most part), this is the view of how to read the entirety of scripture, OT, NT, St Paul, and even the Fathers, Canons, etc. St Paul might agree with this view, as would Moses (see John 5:46). I agree that re-reading scriptures, esp. Paul, through the lens of Jesus would indeed change how we interact with one another as brothers and sisters, not just within Christianity, but also outside.
I guess I only say this to encourage you to go in this direction. It is the correct one. I can't tell you what you will find on the other side, however, only that it will be glorious.
Justin, I don't think I ever really understood the idea of reading Jesus without the lens of St. Paul before I went deep with the Sermon on the Mount. Not to dismiss Paul, never. But...well, to say anything more would just repeat what I have already written above.
Of the various terms that different traditions use to mean to grow more Christ-like, "theosis" has always struck me as the most meaningfully effective. God became man so man could become God and all that...there was a time that this would have struck me as blasphemy.
Of course, reading it in context and recognizing what is meant helped me overcome such a concern. Reading the Sermon on the Mount really sealed the deal.
One of the ways I justify "loving my neighbor as I do myself" is to imagine the way I want my neighbor to treat me and then treat him in that manner. It is certain that I don't want my neighbor to treat me badly, so why would I even consider treating him like that? Yet we do, in more ways than can be enumerated here, most egregiously and obviously in the way we use government and law to force our neighbors to act and behave in certain ways and to fund our tactics via taxation, which is only a "legal" form of theft.
When my neighbor's political maneuverings are incorporated into everyday life, I complain. Often. Loudly. And then, I go to work to overcome them by getting my own political maneuverings built into the "top dog" spot...and my neighbor complains. Often. Loudly. And then...
The cycle never ends.
I want my neighbor to love me as he does himself, but this means that I must first show him the love that I have for myself. There is no other explanation which works. It is a most ingenious paradox.
Not just a common thread theologically - it relates and explains historically NOW - https://crushlimbraw.blogspot.com/2024/06/why-are-white-nations-being-targeted.html?m=0 - why are White nations being targeted for destruction as we speak?
I do think Christians of different factions should be gracious to one another. We should be humble about our own beliefs and worship styles. We should allow for some level of variety in areas that aren't so clear in the Bible. That all needs to happen. I think it does mostly in the American church today. But we can always be better.
However, I get concerned when I hear talk about using a lens to interpret scripture. The lens bends and shapes the image externally. I think the only lens we need is the lens of our physical eyes to read the text. The Bible is an object and presents objective truth that we need to conform ourselves to. God gave us a book to know about Him so that we would use the same faculties to know Him as we do to understand any other piece of knowledge.
The reason I am skeptical about lenses is because I don't think it helps to insert some idea about Jesus into every scripture before I interpret it. That is the act of eisegesis which is the source of a lot of theological error. Instead we should aim for exegesis, taking out the meaning the original author placed into the text. Remember every verse in the Bible is inspired by God. There aren't pieces of it that are insufficient on their own.
Of course we need to interpret within context. Scripture interprets scripture. When we do that it should be clear that there are common themes in the OT and NT, that the OT points forward to Jesus, and the NT points back to Jesus. I even think there are multiple appearances of Jesus in the OT, in addition to the many types and shadows of Him that show up in the Law. But I don't get there from using a "Jesus lens". I get there by interpreting the text according to the normal rules of language, grammar, syntax, and comparing one verse to all the other verses as appropriate. I
https://thecrosssectionrmb.blogspot.com/
https://libertarianchristians.com/author/rhesabrowning/
RMB, I think we come with a "lens" when approaching any subject. We do not have "Monarchical vision," a completely objective view. We are human, we are influenced.
As I have mentioned, I attend two different churches: a Protestant church more often, and an Orthodox church occasionally. The Protestant pastor is tremendously well grounded in Scripture. When it comes to Calvinism vs. Arminianism, he goes with Calvin all the way from everything I have heard from him.
Now, here is one thing I am certain of: if I asked him to do a five-part sermon to demonstrate that there is truth in Arminianism, I bet he could do it - there is enough Scripture he could draw on, and he knows the Bible very well. Not that he would do it (because he would feel it was false teaching), but he could.
Yes, you might say that testing Scripture with Scripture leads him to Calvin (and debating his doctrine isn't my point). But there are men of good will, godly men, that, at minimum, struggle with how to reconcile all of this. And they test Scripture with Scripture along with the best of them.
Yes. As humans we all have bias that comes from our own past experiences and personality. There is no getting around that. My point is that we should try to identify them as much as possible in order to avoid letting our biases dictate our interpretation of the Bible. In other words, we should do our best to treat the Bible as objective not subjective.
One way to do that is by letting the words on the page speak for themselves (i.e. not using a predetermined lens by which to understand the words). That doesn't mean what we learn of Jesus in the NT won't shape what we believe about OT passages, because it will. My main point is that I wouldn't start with injecting Jesus into an OT passage, but I wouldn't shy away from the fact if He is already present within.
Even with that, people will differ in their beliefs. That's fine. I have no problem with someone disagreeing with me on theological points, especially if they can give a good reason for it or show that they honestly studied the Bible to get to that point.
"There is a view – I cannot say widely held or not, but I believe it is – that not only is Jesus foretold in the Old Testament, but that the Old Testament should be read through the lens that is Jesus Christ."
In the circles I run in (Eastern Orthodox for the most part), this is the view of how to read the entirety of scripture, OT, NT, St Paul, and even the Fathers, Canons, etc. St Paul might agree with this view, as would Moses (see John 5:46). I agree that re-reading scriptures, esp. Paul, through the lens of Jesus would indeed change how we interact with one another as brothers and sisters, not just within Christianity, but also outside.
I guess I only say this to encourage you to go in this direction. It is the correct one. I can't tell you what you will find on the other side, however, only that it will be glorious.
Justin, I don't think I ever really understood the idea of reading Jesus without the lens of St. Paul before I went deep with the Sermon on the Mount. Not to dismiss Paul, never. But...well, to say anything more would just repeat what I have already written above.
Of the various terms that different traditions use to mean to grow more Christ-like, "theosis" has always struck me as the most meaningfully effective. God became man so man could become God and all that...there was a time that this would have struck me as blasphemy.
Of course, reading it in context and recognizing what is meant helped me overcome such a concern. Reading the Sermon on the Mount really sealed the deal.
Beautiful! Thank you.
One of the ways I justify "loving my neighbor as I do myself" is to imagine the way I want my neighbor to treat me and then treat him in that manner. It is certain that I don't want my neighbor to treat me badly, so why would I even consider treating him like that? Yet we do, in more ways than can be enumerated here, most egregiously and obviously in the way we use government and law to force our neighbors to act and behave in certain ways and to fund our tactics via taxation, which is only a "legal" form of theft.
When my neighbor's political maneuverings are incorporated into everyday life, I complain. Often. Loudly. And then, I go to work to overcome them by getting my own political maneuverings built into the "top dog" spot...and my neighbor complains. Often. Loudly. And then...
The cycle never ends.
I want my neighbor to love me as he does himself, but this means that I must first show him the love that I have for myself. There is no other explanation which works. It is a most ingenious paradox.
No Enemies on the Right (side of Christ)?