Prior Book | Prior Chapter | Prior Verse | Next Verse | Next Chapter | Next Book | Viewing NASB and Amplified 2015 | |
NASB | Hebrews 10:11 ¶ Every priest stands daily ministering and offering time after time the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins; |
AMPLIFIED 2015 | Hebrews 10:11 ¶ Every priest stands [at his altar of service] ministering daily, offering the same sacrifices over and over, which are never able to strip away sins [that envelop and cover us]; |
Bible Question:
I want to ask whether a specific method of biblical interpretation is valid and does it have a term. (Please don’t get too hung up on the specific example I choose because I’m interested in the validity of the principle, not the specific example.) Every priest stands daily ministering and offering time after time the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins; The above verse contrasts Christ’s once and for all sacrifice with the ongoing sacrifices of the OT Jews. Now sacerdotalist Christians (Catholics, Orthodox etc) say ‘their Eucharist is a sacrifice’ which clearly is repeated daily. Heb 10:11 is not specifically referring to the Catholic Mass but to the repeated sacrifices of Judaism. Obviously similar, but not exactly the same. So is this type of extrapolation a valid way of reading the Bible. It is simply a clumsy way of reading Scripture or allowable? Please remember I’m asking about a principle, I could have given another example. But I think that the principle is very important. |
Bible Answer: Dear Robin, There are two general schools of thought regarding the interpretation Scripture. Although they have their origins centuries ago, every hermeneutical approach today fit into one or the other. They are the Alexandrian school and Antiochian school, based in catechetical institutions in these two cities. The Alexandria school emphasizes a very subjective, layered interpretation of the Word. This approach was embraced by the Church of Rome. It has become increasingly popular -- without being named -- by most non-confessional denominations in modern evangelicalism. The Antiochian school emphasizes what is known as the grammatico-historical approach. The latter was embraced by the Reformers, even making its way into principles of interpretation used in jurisprudence. The former approach has a great deal of appeal since it allows men to bolster the doctrines they choose, comfortably leaving their own wisdom unchallenged. The latter approach seeks to uncover the single intended message as originally penned by the inspired writers of Scripture, focusing on hearing the message of God, as opposed to enshrining human wisdom. In this student's humble opinion, the Antiochian school represents the only rational approach to the interpretation of any form of intelligent communication. While not denying the importance of the Holy Spirit to properly understand the truth of God, this approach is the most reasonable in the light of our doctrine of the verbal plenary inspiration of Scripture. I'm not certain that this provides the principles that you asked about. However, I attempted to provide a set of hermeneutical principles in my postings in thread #156916. To the best of my understanding, those principles -- although not exhaustive -- represent the Antiochian school of thought. In Him, Doc "What God has disclosed of Himself in Scripture does not permit us to pick and choose. On the other hand, it mandates that we interpret what He has disclosed within the constraints that He has Himself imposed -- i.e., with full recognition of the developing plot line in Scripture, and of Scriptures highly diverse literary genres. Ignoring the former is typically the liberal fallacy; ignoring the later is typically the fundamentalist fallacy." --D. A. Carson |
Up | Down View Branch | ID# 170341 | ||
Questions and/or Subjects for Heb 10:11 | Author | ||
|
Robin Hass | ||
|
DocTrinsograce | ||
|
Robin Hass |