Hi Andrew:

OK, THAT was a pretty killer reply. I understand more fully where your logic (I’ll call it that) lies now. And much of it resonates true.

I’m a bit pressed for time and I want to re-read (probably re-re-read, too) your posting.

My heartfelt desire is to understand what God left us with so that His people can do His will corporately on this earth. As we await Jesus’ return. And that’s not a dormant waiting, but a proactive, Kingdom-living/Kingdom-building waiting. So (and I’m merely re-stating my primary hope of bible revelation, now) how are we to understand the Bible, OT and NT and the huge gap between the two covenants of God, the Gospels in particular, Paul’s letters, etc.?? How are we to work with what God has left us so that THE CHURCH can become the "spotless bride" Jesus is seeking upon his return?

This involves interpreting scripture properly and gaining Godly revelation from that interpretation. And then putting it into action, and I’ll even use two of the three prongs you identified: A corporate action (or effect) upon all of God’s people; and a political action (agreeing that "who rules over God’s people" is critical). There’s probably a historical - if you will - aspect, too but really we are talking about the present. We can refer to it as a time-based aspect (end times?)

So, in hungering to succeed at all that God would have us achieve in perfecting His Church this question is inescabable: In arriving at the notional ideal of perfect Bible/scripture interpretation and action, what is required? A corollary question might be Is the revelation humans can gain soley through reading and interpreting scripture enough to complete our marching orders?

Therefore, is it not enough to rightly discern the Word; to take the literal words and messages of Jesus and Paul and the other NT authors, and act upon them in FAITH? To not alter the Word (assuming we have the best possible translations) "one jot or tittle" which arguably can result from theorizing about context? Or is the theorizing part of the inspired revelation? To a degree, I can imagine it is.

Jesus preached and taught on the Kingdom of God. He admonished his listeners over and over to repent (turn from evil in all of it’s many forms and become righteous) and while the entire history of mankind was surely marked by evil and unrighteousness prior to Jesus’ coming (I’m thinking you aren’t referring to this history), the more immediate history and circumstances of Jesus’ time… I’m not sure what is gained from juxtaposing scripture interpretation with that particular moment in history.

How about this: David’s times were marked by, shall we say, lots of fighting between various nations and Israel. David lived his life, and is perhaps the most famous example of a man with all the human foibles in full evidence, but with a passion (heart) for God. The takeaway - literally - on David is that God will overlook many of mankind’s worst sins, and the most important characteristic a person can have in the eyes of God is to "love Him with all of your heart, soul, mind and strength." Jesus later added "and love your neighbor(s) as yourself."

All the historical context one could attach and analyze with respect to the narrative of David doesn’t add much, and in fact could corrupt the essential message if one decided to interpret all of the exogenic circumstances of David’s time as being particularly determinative of David’s heart. David’s heart helped him - through God’s favor and mercy - overcome many circumstances. Not visa versa. In the same way, Jesus’ coming and His heart for His people, and Paul’s heart for Jesus and the gentiles, all of this is apparent from a literal reading of the NT (and interpreting the NT passages - to a degree - through OT prophesies). The GOSPEL that both announce - the coming of the Kingdom of God - really addresses all of history. Which is why Chajc’s point about the entirety of the Bible - again, for sake of heurism - can be viewed as "the gospel." That’s an aside… my point is that the "particular historic circumstance" you seem to be referring to that should somehow inform our interpretation of Jesus and Paul’s teachings is really not too identifiable, and if one so chooses to try to identify it, there is a profound risk of tainting or corrupting or perhaps just diluting God’s Word and/or the revelation we are supposed to be imparted from God. So there is an element of selectivity and subjectivity that enters into the equation, so to speak, that is potentially a problem.

I’m kind of rambling right now in my haste to get to some other stuff I need to work on, so I’ll quit for now, re-read your message, and hopefully be blessed in the process.