Theological Hermeneutics V – Redemptive-Historical Reading of Scripture

Imbibing the theodrama by reading Scripture is critical to the development of our theological sensitivities. One of the more important dimensions of this maturing understanding of the theodrama is the concept of redemptive-historical movement within the drama itself.

The theodrama is progressive; it is telos-oriented or goal-oriented. Watching the movement of the drama toward the goal through the various movements of redemptive history is quite instructive and formative for biblical-theological thought. It is a significant part, I think, of theological hermeneutics. It provides, in fact, a critical insight into the continuity and discontinuity of the biblical story (e.g., between Old Testament and New Testament) and highlights the plot line of the metanarrative itself.

Below is a “relatively simple” approach (or method) to reading Scripture with our eyes open to the redemptive-historical movements within the drama.

1. Inductively discover the flow of Redemptive History through reading and exegesis. Consistent, extensive and intensive exposure to the biblical text is necessary. There is no substitute for reading chucks of the biblical text such as reading whole books at a time or reading pericopes in a sitting.  Reading a chapter a day is fine and good, but sometimes we miss the flow by breaking our reading into arbitrary (yes, that is what chapter breaks are for the most part) divisions. When reading, seek to be in tune with or watch for the redemptive cycles present.  The metanarrative cyle of Creation, Chaos (Fall), Redemption is repeated throughout Scripture.

2. Identify the key events of Redemptive History. What are the peak events of redemptive history throughout the Biblical narrative? Peak events are turning points, beginning points or closures in redemptive history.  Some of them are quite obvious, e.g., Creation, Exodus, Sinai, Conquest of the Land, Building of the Temple, Exile, Restoration, Incarnation, Resurrection, Pentecost. Others are more moderate in character, that is, they participate in the larger moments but are nevertheless formative for how faith is experienced by a community.  For example, the table experience of Israel on Sinai in Exodus 24 is a significant moment in redemptive history that shapes how Israel experiences assemblies and fellowship offerings in the rest of its history.

3. Identify the key texts which explicitly interpret these events. The narratives of the events themselves, of course, are interpretative. They give their own significance to the events.  However, within Scripture, other texts also interpret and apply (perhaps even reapply to different contexts) the significance of the event. How do the texts frame the event and interpret them (including later texts)? Creation is narrated in Genesis 1-3 but is also poetically interpreted and applied to Israel in Psalm 33.  The Exodus is narrated in Exodus 1-15 but it is also interpreted in Deuteronomy 5-11.  The Building of the Temple is narrated in both 1 Kings 8 and 2 Chronicles 5-7 with different emphases and varied meaning, but the moment of the Ark’s resting in the dwelling place of God is poetically celebrated in Psalm 132. The death of Jesus is narrated in the Gospels (each with their own unique take on the significance and meaning–just think of the different “words from the cross” in each Gospel), but the meaning of the death of Jesus is also interpreted and applied in Romans.  And the list could go on…and on…and on.

4. Discover the central theological themes through exegesis. What theological themes are evidenced in the interpretation of the event in the various contexts and literary genres? For example, when we examine the prayer of Solomon at the temple dedication in 2 Chronicles 6 we see themes like sin, grace, forgiveness, and the orientation of the human heart. The building itself, though not without significance, is symbolic of these themes and the concrete way in which Israel experiences these themes. The Temple has sacramental significance. It is God’s gracious presence in Israel; God is present in grace, mercy, reconciliation, and forgiveness.  This is what the Temple represents in the theological interpretation offered by Solomon’s prayer.

5. Integrate the theological themes into a redemptive-historical matrix. How does the event and its attached interpretation fit into the whole of redemptive-history? For example, what is the redemptive-historical significance of the building of the temple.  As God’s gracious, forgiving and reconciling presence in Israel, it represents the loving-kindness of God to the people of Israel. It is a testimony of God’s basic orientation toward Israel. This presence is analogous to God appearing to Jacob at Bethel, to Moses in the burning bush, etc. It is the testimony of God’s love.  Other themes, of course, could be developed as I am merely illustrating.

6. Integrate the theological themes into a theological flow within the Biblical story. As we reflect on the themes of reconciliation, grace and forgiveness, how do these themes appear through the metanarrative of the story of God?  The temple is but one concrete expression of something that we see throughout God’s relationship with humanity. Whether it is the grace Noah received, or the grace Abraham received, or the forgiveness David experience in the sancturary, or God’s gracious response to the prayers of Jehoshaphat, etc., we come to see this is the character of God who is slow to anger and rich in mercy.

7. Apply the theological themes in a Christological Context. How are the theological themes of these redemptive-historical events fulfilled (or interpreted) in a Christological (or “new covenant”) context? The temple presence of God in Israel, for example, finds fulfillment in both the incarnation of the Logos who as  God dwells (lives) among his people in the flesh and also in the outpouring of the Holy Spirit into the body of Christ (the indwelling of the Spirit).

This is a controversial biblical-theological step. I think it is quite legitimate and reflects a canonical hermeneutic–one that reads the whole canon in the light of the climactic mighty act of God in Christ. In other words, how do I think Christologically about the Old Testament? The unity of redemptive history and the climax of that history in Christ yield a Christological application.

The unity of redemptive history is theocentric, but also Christological. The various lines of the biblical story converge at a Christological point (cf. Luke 24:32, 44). The OT was written “about” Jesus. This was characteristic of Jesus’ 40 days of teaching, and Jesus refers to the whole of Scripture. Christological application is the unity of Scripture.

This is evidenced in the preaching in Acts: “all the prophets” (3:18-24; 10:43; cf. Acts 13:27; 17:2-3; 26:22-23).  Redemptive-historical themes taken up in the history of Israel find their climax (fulfillment) in Christ. Thus, it is not only appropriate to think theologically about those themes in the context of their Hebraic setting, but also in the context of their Christological setting. It is a both/and, but it is also a type/fulfillment as well.

This should not be mistaken for finding Christ under every rock in the Old Testament. On the contrary, it is not a search for Christ in the Old Testament but rather teasing out the redemptive themes in the Hebrew Scriptures in terms of their Christological fulfillment. Whether it is presence, grace, forgiveness, reconciliation, atonement, etc., these grand theological motifs in the history of Israel–known through redemptive-historical events and prophetic interpretation–find their final (telic) and climactic reality in the Christ Event.

This does not mean that the theodrama is Christocentric in antagonism to theocentrism.  Rather, quite the opposite is true. The theodrama is God-centered–it is divine action that redeems humanity. But it is Christocentric in terms of the means by which God accomplishes the redemption of humanity. God redeems his cosmos through Christ by the Spirit.

8. Apply the Christological reflection to contemporary needs. How should this Christological fulfillment (interpretation) be applied to modern needs and questions? Setting the biblical-theological themes in a Christological context provides a way of applying those themes to those who who live in the Messianic age (the “last days”) and who follow the Messiah as disciples. The presence of the Holy Spirit, for example, is grounded in Christ’s ascension to the right hand of the Father after having made purification for sin and poured out the Spirit into our hearts. The presence of the Spirit is the sanctifying and transforming work of God to conform us to the image of Christ.

The Point:  If we read something in the New Testament in isolation from its roots in the Hebrew Scriptures, then we will miss something. We will miss the larger significance of the point in the theodrama. We might miss the theocentric character of the point as we default to a Christocentrism (or even a Christomonism). Further, we might miss the theological character of the point as we isolate the text in order to fit it into some constitutional “pattern” rather than the seeing it as part of the theodrama. Consequently, a redemptive-historical perspective on the theodrama is, I think, practically essential for gaining a wholistic perspective on any significant theological topic if we are to apply and embody it fully in our own contexts. Redemptive history–through an inductive reading of the narrative where the metanarrative is visible–provides a fuller understanding of the mighy acts of God and how they shape us for and call us to participation in the the theodrama, the grand story of God.


21 Responses to “Theological Hermeneutics V – Redemptive-Historical Reading of Scripture”

  1.   Matt Says:

    “Further, we might miss the theological character of the point as we isolate the text in order to fit it into some constitutional “pattern” rather than the seeing it as part of the theodrama”

    I noticed for years how many time we communion became an explanation rather then an experience. It seems we were explaining a constitutional patter rather then participants in the theodrama? Part of the theological understanding of communion then consisted of “doing it because the first century church did” rather then a cooperate act of communion with and in light of Christ and his death and resurrection. In fact many times following a pattern was the main significance that suggested, especially if you had brought a friend who only observed the Lord Supper once a month.

    That Leads me to ask a second question. How much of the hesitancy that exists regarding scripture being more descriptive then prescriptive is prompted by “brand loyalty” or survival? It seem to me that over the years one of the axioms of outreach for us has been come be apart of the church of Christ because we do worship right? Talk about replacing the theological character of the church. Why am I a member of the church of Christ? Shouldn’t it be, first and foremost, because Christ is there.

  2.   richard constant Says:

    john mark
    i am going to put some writings to gether to day
    i think i can do this in a day
    i will send on e-mail or would you like a long post
    my words with scripture referance
    your kind of long post
    my daughter got married this week end and i left fri just got back home an hour or two ago and got caught up


  3.   richard constant Says:

    Yeah I have to address it to if we come to worship God in spirit and truth in Jesus as your words are spirit and the apostles gave us the words of the spirit and how to act and behave the way that the divine nature would act and behave.
    Everyone comes in two the relationship with God through Christ acts and behaves differently. That does not keep them from being in the divine nature if they are coming together through the preaching of the spirit as the apostles taught.
    To me the form and function of the assembly of the brotherhood is a celebration of the righteousness that has been this code honest through the faithfulness of the son of guy and we are given examples of how to do that but those examples do not become set in concrete and stone because that doesn’t have anything to do with the spirit and the truth and the life that is found in the new believer we are told how wants to be served he wants to be served through righteousness so do we sing praises as to we give thanks for the sacrifice of Christ yes.
    Did Christ not tell us through the apostles to be baptized in be disciples disciples of why did the form and function of the church I would pay to differ with anyone that is not anywhere close to what God wants individuals to be he wants individuals to come together to be a support group to confess their own righteousness to each other and to ask for help how to do better tomorrow give blessings and singing praises and to pray for the world we are to seek and save the lost we can only do that by becoming more like the divine nature that God intends us to be.
    I’ll stop there rich in California
    blessing so

  4.   K. Rex Butts Says:

    Long ago I gave up on the old patternistic, constitutional hermeneutic that discoverd truth through the deductive use of command, example, and inference. Since then I have been in the process of reconstructing a better approach and though I cannot articulate it as well as you do, I have taken this narrative approach that you articulate. Interestingly, as I began to try and live out of this theocentric grounded / christological climax hermeneutic, it also changed my view on a very important issue to a view that at one time was very common place in the Stone Campbell tradition (though not necessarily held for the same reasons).

    At the risk of over simplification, I began to see that, with Christ as the climax of the drama, my duty as a Christian and our duty as the church was to reproduce the life of Jesus (thus be followers of Jesus). The purpose of the church was not to imitate another historical period of the church but imitate the life of Jesus. As such, I could no longer hold on to the view that as a Christian I could participate in violence. You can read about that from an old blog post of mine with this link:

    I still wonder how Jesus would have responded if he would have witnessed someone beating another individual up or robbing someone on the street. And so, in such a hypothetical (though very possible scenario) situation I still wrestle with what would be the appropriate response. However, I cannot participate in or support the political violence that continues to ravish our world.

    So this hermeneutical approach has messed me all up:-) and turned me into a preacher whose faith is very against the grain of our time.

    Great post!


  5.   richard constant Says:

    I’d like to look at a couple of things.
    Start at the beginning maybe Genesis..

    Gen 1:31 And God saw everything that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day.

    Bob told Adam one thing don’t eat of the fruit of the tree of good and evil.
    Sure Adam talked Eve about this.

    If everything that God may good then man was good so was eve, so are the angels

    There’s too many people that have gone into the reason for free well so I will just say that it is free well we get a choice so to the angels.

    For reasons that we can speculate on through certain Scriptures and Isaiah in the New Testament, Satan seems to have interacted with God’s good, by not doing good himself.

    The bottom line is Satan deceived Eve, and Adam bought into the deception.

    God says this is a tree that produces the ability to understand good from evil.
    There were consequences to that action that was taken when God said don’t do it.
    Bottom line they doubted God in believe Satan,
    I would call that unfaithfulness to the word of God. Just kind of going along with the hermeneutics of Scripture.
    The consequences of that act was death, separation from God, not only were they separated from God, they were separated from the tree of life. And God said if they even that then they get to live forever.
    From this little scenario Adam teaches his sons the difference good and evil, that doesn’t mean that they’re unfaithful to God. That doesn’t mean that they’re totally evil.
    God said you do this this will happen. It did. Adam and Eve knew how to make God happy they knew they knew how to be good.
    They also know what evil is and I’m sure they wanted to be pleasing to God.
    Nonetheless they miss the Mark of righteousness in the garden God being righteous anybody missing the Mark of righteousness dies.
    The law of sin and death.
    So Romans five says sin is not imputed where there is no law at all man sinned so all men died.
    What it comes down to is believe and unbelief faithfulness and unfaithfulness.

    What I enjoy looking at when I’m thinking about these types of principles is Hebrews 12-22 through 24.

    Genesis everyone’s brand-new they wanted to good and 24 of Hebrews 12 puts it very good I’ll read this and to Jesus the mediator of a new covenant and to this sprinkled blood speaks something better than Abels blood.
    And then think about what we get told in the Hebrew letter
    exercising your mind in the word of righteousness to learn to discern both good from evil.
    God’s people got so bad they crucified God..
    Those are just some of the hermeneutics that I like to work through that you’re discussing in this post John Mark I hope this works for you I hope I explained it right.
    Bless you my brother Rich in California

  6.   John Mark Hicks Says:


    I agree that your explanation/duty vs. experience dichotomy has been at work in many ways. The Eucharist is a good example where this is can be highlighted. Reorienting from a constitutional model to a theodramatic model would help, I think, in terms of thinking in terms of participation (experience) rather than compliance (duty/explanation).

    I would quibble, however, on one point. I don’t think Scripture is merely descriptive. Rather, it also has a prescriptive dimension in the sense that the text applies theology to original readers and calls them to imitation of Jesus. I would suggest that applied theology is prescriptive, but not in a constitutional sense but in the sense of following the script of God’s mighty acts. Scripture, then, functions as a call to participate in particular ways in the story of God.


    You are always getting ahead of me. 🙂 I have written a post on your point about Jesus as the pattern (a way of phrasing your point) in the past myself and I want to remphasize that point in a future post. I’m glad you raised it because I think it is an important dimension–indeed central–to understanding ecclesiology.

    My post on your point is found at


    You have some good emphases, I think. However, I think you give too much attention to legal metaphors. For example, I don’t think Genesis says the tree produces the ability to distinguish between good and evil….Adam and Eve knew it was wrong to eat the forbidden fruit, right?

    John Mark

  7.   richard constant Says:

    I read this a long time but in so many words Adams told to keep hands off the tree of good and evil. It would seem to me the union and the nature of being in the guarden without sin, do everything that Adam would tell he would be the truth.
    you see fit Angels left their principalities they were un faithful to God in their own way man becomes not faithful to God in his own way and suffers the consequences.
    Mann was told directly by God not to eat of the fruit of the tree of knowledge.
    eve was deceived by the serpent. Which presents a whole set of contemporary problems. Oh boy ha ha.
    But the direct command seems to me to come from God to man and man informing his help make of what God had instructed them to do.

    The legal form I think is justified here in the beginning only because God is establishing the fact that he has no respect or persons.
    Where I’m going with this legal form is in the act of being faithful and unfaithful of doing good and not doing good.

    There’s a difference between what I’m saying are trying to say. And what I’m not saying in any way trying to say what I am not in any way trying to say is God says if anyone takes a piece of bubblegum is going to get his hand cut off.
    Blessings rich in California

  8.   richard constant Says:

    Gen 3:22 And Jehovah God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil; and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever –

  9.   John Mark Hicks Says:


    Quoting Gen 3:22 is insufficient because the term “know” is the question. The original couple certainly knew it was evil to eat the forbidden fruit and good to eat other fruit. They knew the epistemological difference.

    I think the phrase “know good and evil” is a juridical term which means to judge what is good and what is evil. In other words, the couple has assumed the perogative of God to decide what is evil and what is good for themselves. It is an assertion of their autonomy, their independence from God. They will create their own story rather than live within God’s

  10.   richard constant Says:

    Behold, the man is become as one of us,

    fig leaves
    hideing from God

    God’s question who told you you were naked
    Satan telling eve it would make you as a God

    My idea here is that because creation was good.
    In essence prevailed.
    Innocence no longer prevailed after eating the fruit.
    Something happened that altered their perception of the creation the way it stood.
    And it wasn’t good.
    And judgment rose from that.

    You got to help me John Mark.
    To me the words convey, there was a difference between God and man, and the rest of God’s creation..
    you’re the theologian here tell me what you read or give me an answer.haha
    you just can’t throw a bone out into the water
    with the word to know on it.
    And tell me go fetch
    lovingly your brother Rich in California
    scheduled for work right now I must go

  11.   Gardner Says:

    I’ve enjoyed your posts and been trying to soak them in. They expand my understanding of the approach of good brethren with whom I’ve had little personal contact. That’s one of the blessings of blogging. However, I’m going to be buried under and won’t be able to comment much in coming weeks.

    Frankly, I know I’m out of my intellectual league when exchanging ideas with you and Bobby V, but you’re both so accommodating and respectful that I feel comfortable making comments anyway. I agree with you in many ways, especially regarding misplaced priorities in the Stone-Campbell movement, though I imagine that when as you put it, “the rubber meets the road,” we’re going to arrive at some different conclusions.

    I may be sensing, however, if not in you, in some of those who comment, a tendency to quickly categorize some of the approaches of men such as Lipscomb, Harding, especially when they seek some scriptural precedent such as command, example and necessary inference, as reading the Bible only “constitutionally.” Do you really think that Lipscomb and Harding only read the Bible “constitutionally” since they appealed on occasion to the necessity for scriptural precedent? (I mention Lipscomb and Harding since you’re an authority on them.) While I agree with you that some debater types, have tended to use the need from precedent from Biblical commands, examples and inferences as a stick to beat up those who disagree with them while ignoring the larger overall picture of God’s grace and plan for men’s redemption, I don’t think all who seek Biblical precedents are like them. Can’t we read the Bible to try to better grasp God’s grace and his marvelous plan of redemption while at the same time seeking examples from the scriptures to determine how to work, worship and organize ourselves as communities of believers? Why does it have to be one or the other? Why can’t it be both?

    Along the same line, why can’t we see participation in the Lord’s Supper both in terms of participation (experience) and compliance (duty/explanation)? I agree with you that too often and in the minds of too many the Lord’s Supper has only been a matter of duty and not experience. However, their imbalance doesn’t mean that participation in it is not something that God requires, i.e. a duty. Let’s address the imbalance by emphasizing the experience, without throwing out the fact that it is still a duty.

    It’s easy to get into the “either/or” game, when sometimes following Christ means emphasizing “both.”

  12.   richard constant Says:

    I got a reprieve for a few minutes I don’t have believed quite yet.
    It would seem the whole word of duty. It wrong.
    The spirit of Christ moves through man and then act by that spirit of self-sacrifice because of the unmerited favor that was given by God.
    The expression of love for men and creation, cumulated and the very words and actions and ultimate sacrifice of God for men.
    Yes we are to come together we are express our feelings to one another we are to apply the word to our lives learn to be good as Christ is good.
    In so doing we give glory to our father.
    We walk around every day making mistakes.
    Repenting of them.
    We are slaves of righteousness we are servants of God we are priest and Kings and we act that way because of God’s grace and Christ love.
    Rules constitutions.
    To me that has nothing to do but an outline.
    To come together and help each other to commune with God at a table and enjoy each other’s company and remember the sacrifice.
    But primarily it’s the resurrection it’s the divine nature it’s the gift of grace through faith.
    As I said before I been in the church of Christ all my life I’ve been studying for most of it.
    I was an anti-institutional member I guess you would call it.
    We have taken God spirit of life and love and mercy and made it into a cold form singing preaching and pants. We have an agenda.
    We are PERT predispose to the agenda to expedite it.
    Maybe the agenda is wrong
    maybe man has too much man.
    And not enough spirit of love mercy and the faithfulness of the divine nature.
    They’re not rules their expressions of love

  13.   Gardner Says:

    I guess terms such as “duties,” “obligations,” “reponsibilities,” etc. are out of style in our postmodern world, but the concepts are biblical. I agree 100% that love is the highest motivation and also that some have turned worship/service into solely mechanical “duties” rather than joyful expressions. However, the concept of responsibility is still biblical. We do what’s right even when we may not feel it 100%. Here again, we don’t need one concept to the exclusion of the other, but rather a package deal, a harmonizing of the two, with priority being given of course to the motivating influence of love.

  14.   Matt Says:

    “I would suggest that applied theology is prescriptive, but not in a constitutional sense but in the sense of following the script of God’s mighty acts.”
    You have to forgive my ignorance, but could you give me an example of how one follows the script. I think this would help me get my head around what you are describeing. Thanks

  15.   John Mark Hicks Says:


    I appreciate your interaction with the posts. It is quite helpful to me.

    On Harding and Lipscomb, they both read the Bible with two different lenses. When it came to moral law (see my previous post on this distinction), they read Scripture as a story or narrative. Harding insisted on reading the Bible “consecutively” as I am suggesting in this redemptive-historical post. His article on the Holy Spirit available at Hans Rollmann’s website (see is an example of this as are his articles on providence.

    However, when they read searching for “positive law,” then they read with a legal lens. This is the constitutional reading of which I write. I think this is the problematic hermeneutic as it violates the nature of Scripture itself whereas the “Bible reading” that Harding uses on the Holy Spirit is more of a narrative reading.

    I, for one, don’t have any problem with the language of duty, responsibility and obligation. The problem is if we frame it with a “positive law” or “legal” hermeneutic approach. We are responsible to be holy as God is holy, for example. We are responsible to obey the language of the Supper–“do this…” In that sense it is a both/and…but I would want to be sure that one half of that is not rooted in some kind of postive law, constitutional reading of Scripture.

    Thanks for reading, Gardner.

  16.   John Mark Hicks Says:


    Thanks for the question. I appreciate the curiosity. 🙂

    I hope to comment more on this point of the script and how kingdom practices flow from the script, so I will not say much here.

    One example in following the script is the role of table fellowship within redemptive history. The function of table is continuous, I think, from Israel through the ministry of Jesus into the practice of the church and on into the Eschaton. The script is the story lived out and when we see the story lived out in continuity in this way, it seems to me that God is drawing us into a way of living in connection with table fellowship. But I will have more to say about this kind of approach in future posts.

  17.   K. Rex Butts Says:

    Though Lipscomb and Harding did read scripture through a legal or constitutional lens, one thing I always appreciated about those two CoC giants was the lens of grace and humility through which they tired to read, interpret, and apply scripture. This lens of grace and humility seemed to disappear significantly as the 20th century progressed.


  18.   richard constant Says:

    sorry jphn mark i re read youy post
    thank i had just woke up and …
    didn’t get it i do at this time 920 pm

    my dad used to say “richard getting you to understand something sometimes is like pounding
    a nail into hard wood”

    in other words he bent a lot of nails

    blessings rich thank you john mark

  19.   richard constant Says:

    John Mark I put these in here as a lead in and verification of what Christ said about keeping his words which were God’s words and his commandments and they’re all based on love and truth and I tried not to use too many Scripture codes only the ones I considered the important ones

    These lead me into Romans I believe the first seven versus predicate everything that Paul is talking about in detail of the righteous act of God saving men even though they were under the law of death because of sin through the faithfulness of the spirit of life that is found in Christ through the resurrection.

    Although my point being is that Romans 12 is specifically talking about a hermeneutic Fellowship through the differentiation of individual characteristics, that built the church up through applying these individual characteristics to the benefit of every one. every one is different who len’s of perception is needed to work out good in a faithful way. through Word of Christ for the glory of God, which is not legal in any way, what so ever. not dutifuly required in any way whatsoever, only to be caught up in the love expressed to us. Christ says if you love me and I love my father then you reciprocate by loving me and glorifying my father.
    In other words we become faithful to the word of righteousness trying to move away from fleshly lusts and pick up the divine nature which is fashioned after the character of God.
    The assembly is God’s support group we help each other, we expose the un righteousness in our lives in which the differentiation of character attributes help us by seeing the actualization of the faithfulness through a person with a different primary characteristic, we help each other understand each other so we may Fully incorporate in ourselves the divine nature. Giving glory to God through Christ by the word of faithfulness which was preached

    Joh 6:45
    Joh 6:58
    Joh 6:63
    Joh 7:38
    Joh 8:12
    Joh 8:26 I have many things to speak and to judge concerning you: howbeit he that sent me is true; and the things which I heard from him, these speak I unto the world.
    Joh 10:18
    Joh 12:44 And Jesus cried and said, He that believeth on me, believeth not on me, but on him that sent me.
    Joh 12:45 And he that beholdeth me beholdeth him that sent me.
    Joh 12:46 I am come a light into the world, that whosoever believeth on me may not abide in the darkness.
    Joh 12:47 And if any man hear my sayings, and keep them not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world.
    Joh 12:48 He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my sayings, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I spake, the same shall judge him in the last day.
    Joh 12:49 For I spake not from myself; but the Father that sent me, he hath given me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak.
    Joh 12:50 And I know that his commandment is life eternal: the things therefore which I speak, even as the Father hath said unto me, so I speak.
    Joh 13:35 By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.
    Joh 14:20 In that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you.
    Joh 14:21 He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself unto him.
    Joh 14:22 Judas (not Iscariot) saith unto him, Lord, what is come to pass that thou wilt manifest thyself unto us, and not unto the world?
    Joh 14:23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my word: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.
    Joh 14:24 He that loveth me not keepeth not my words: and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father’s who sent me.
    Joh 14:25 These things have I spoken unto you, while yet abiding with you.
    Joh 14:26 But the Comforter, even the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said unto you.

    oh well john mark if you see fit deleat any or all i do remember what you ask of me

    just me trying to articulate.
    This is can be lonesome weeks for me or a week or something blessings John Mark be safe

    Blessings all rich in California

  20.   richard constant Says:


    To be perfectly honest, your question relates more to philosophy and one’s interpretation of the events in Eden than to the Hebrew language. The word “to know” has many of the same meaning as it does in other languages, that is, cognitive acquisition, understanding, intimacy, recognition, etc. Therefore, knowing Hebrew won’t help you understand what Yahweh entails by indicating that the man and his wife now know good and evil. What seems to be clear is that “to know good and evil” is recognized as an element of “being like one of us”, that is, one of the heavenly beings.
    I have my own theories as to what “to know good and evil” means and how that relates to “God-ness”, but it stems from my understanding of the whole of the creation narrative(s) and would take far too long to typify in an e-mail.


    i got an answer

  21.   richard constant Says:

    My question is what does to know me for as to the knowledge of many in hermeneutic of what is being said about that tree of knowledge

    I have no ability in Hebrew and all and I would kind of like some sort of an understanding of primarily what happened when they perked to look of the fruit of the tree the change them

    Blessings rich in California

    Also I would like to know how much conjecture would there be in the answer that you would be giving.

    To me it relates to Hebrews went in the Hebrew letter that says that he exercises his mind in the word righteousness learns to discern both good from evil. I would think that because of the tree men started out knowing precisely what good and evil was as far as God was concerned as being as one of us.
    As Christ comes back and delivers the word of righteousness which is good from a standpoint of God.
    That darkness was in the world and the light shining in the darkness in the darkness being the evil.
    If you could give me some sort of an explanation that would work around what I am trying to explain to you it would help me immensely in my study thank you very much

Leave a Reply