So let me remind you of the reason why we went on that huge theological detour about Systematic theology followed by my in-depth discussion on the “Sheep Pen” approach to interpreting Scripture in the first place.
It all has to do with the modern academic view that the 4 books of Samuel and Kings were corrupted.
And why do they say these books were corrupted?
Well, that all has to do with the establishment of the first human king over Israel.
Again, since these modern academics are handcuffed by a Greek, black & white mentality, they can’t get over the seeming contradiction that the Scriptures seem to say that God wanted Israel to have a king and that he did NOT want Israel to have a king.
“Like which one is it?” they say to themselves.
They can only come to one of two conclusions.
The Lord either changed His mind about Him wanting to install a king over Israel…
Or the holy bible was dishonestly re-edited to further an agenda…likely to promote King David.
However, as I’ve already said, BOTH of those choices are wrong.
The issue was never whether God wanted a king for Israel or not…
But WHAT KIND of King should rule over Israel.
Well, instead of me ranting about this, let me introduce the opinion of one of the greatest Bible scholars ever to have graced the world with his presence.
His name is C.F. Keil or Karl Friedrich Keil.
He was a conservative German Lutheran “Old” Testament commentator.
Now why am I bringing him up?
Because he was a conservative critic who reacted strongly against the so-called scientific biblical criticism of his day.
He strongly supported the Mosaic authorship of the Torah and wrote a commentary in the mid-1800’s on the Bible that remains one of the most enduring contributions to biblical studies to this day.
Let me share a quote of his taken straight from his commentary on the books of Samuel.
“Modern critics, however, have discovered irreconcilable contradictions in the history (of Saul and Israel) simply because instead of studying it for the purpose of fathoming the plan and purpose which lie at the foundation, they have entered upon the inquiry with a twofold assumption: 1) that the government of Jehovah over Israel was ONLY a subjective ideal of an Israelite nation, without any objective reality; and 2) that the human monarchy was irreconcilably opposed to the government of God. Governed by these axioms, which are derived NOT from the Scriptures but from the philosophical view of modern times, the critics have found it impossible to explain the different accounts in any other way than by the purely external hypothesis that the history contained in this book has been compiled from two different sources, in one of which the establishment of the earthly monarchy was treated as a violation of the supremacy of God, whilst the other took a more favorable view.”
Ya get what’s being said here?
Since the language is a bit high falutin’, it may be a bit difficult to understand…
But what Professor Keil is saying is that modern bible critics have flipped the Bible study process on its head by beginning with the assumption the Scriptures are inherently faulty and in error.
Therefore, since that’s their assumption, their whole purpose for examining the Scriptures is not for edification and inspiration but for investigation and interrogation.
In other words, the only reason to engage in Bible study is simply to see how many errors one can find in the text.
Professor Keil hit the nail right on its proverbial head.
But there’s another reason why the Enlightenment scholars came to the anti-scriptural conclusions that they did.
Have any idea what it might be?
Here’s a hint.
It’s what I’ve been discussing this whole past week.
That’s right.
I’m talking about the gentile European method of determining Scriptural truth by establishing Systematic Theological doctrines that resulted in inflexible and dogmatic orthodoxy.
It’s because of this bs mindset that I and others are branded as heretics for denouncing their trinitarian views when the truth is we’re on much stronger Scriptural ground than they are.
Ya feel me?
Gentile systematic theology requires one best answer to every question pertaining to Christian doctrine no matter how complex the topic may be.
And once an answer is accepted and established, it becomes an impenetrable wall to protect the agreed-to-orthodoxy.
Again, this is an uncircumcised gentile innovation folks.
And here’s what else you should know…
Modern Systematic Theology is the foundation upon which Christian denomination rests today.
That’s right, I said EVERY Christian denomination today without exception.
I believe I’ve already demonstrated beyond the shadow of a doubt just how flawed Systematic Theology and its Orthodoxy versus Heresy mindset really is.
It was NOT the way the ancient Hebrews…
Nor the Jews during Yeshua’s time…
Nor how the 1st generation of messianic believers…
Viewed and interpreted Scripture.
They instead operated according to the Sheep Pen method that I introduced (which I got from Tom Bradford’s Torah studies).
Rather than a rigid wall of bs denominational orthodoxy (there’s about 3000 of them today) which only gives you the option to stand on one side or the other…
The Sheep Pen method gives you the freedom to wander around and savor a variety of nuggets of God’s truth without being branded a heretic.
This is how Scripture was originally meant to be interpreted…
And again, this was how the ancient Hebrews, the Jews during Yeshua’s time and the 1st generation church interpreted Scripture.
Ya feel me homies?
Over and out.
Leave a Reply