How do you discern which parts of the New Testament are Applicable for Christians today?

[Sudsy]

Max, to the underlined. How do you consider that this warning is for the entire canon and is not just speaking of the Revelation ?

Do you have a different interpretation?

I was raised with the interpretation that this was a warning specifically regarding the contents of the Revelation. Many scholars believe this is correct yet some of them suggest that although it is meant to be read as applying to the Revelation, it could should also be applied to the canon. Which raises another issue as what books make up the canon ?

The canon for the Catholic bible, contains 73 books, 46 OT and 27 of the NT. Many, non-Catholics view the canon as a 66 collection of books, 39 OT and 27 NT. So, if the warning in Revelation applies to 'the canon' then are the 66 book bibles taking away books from the bible or is the 73 book bibles adding to 'the canon' ? There are specific doctrines taught from these 7 books that the Catholic beliefs promote but many non-Catholics do not agree are relevant to form certain Christian belief and practise.

Here is more about these differences - https://www.bereanpatriot.com/the-bible ... explained/

Personally, I believe it is a warning regarding the Revelation and don't think it applies to all scripture. However, regarding what in the NT is applicable today that will probably never be agreed upon by all believers as we all now 'see through a glass darkly' and only 'know in part' until Jesus returns. And that belief too, is challenged by some who think this refers to our bibles as 'that which is perfect has come'.

Anyway, this thread is a NT focus on what is applicable today so I better leave this 'canon' issue for another time, perhaps another thread.

[barnhart]

My goal is to view the New Testament like the early church did. They found it relevant and applicable. They also found it prescriptive (your definition) except in areas where it doesn't claim to be. For example Jesus is recorded as saying "go wash in the pool of Siloam" yet they did not find this prescriptive according to your definition.

What about washing our face and anointing our head before we fast? How do you view this command?

I agree with Ken. I see it as a teaching on avoiding the trap of serving God for the approval of men, in direct reference to the Pharisees.

[Sudsy]

My goal is to view the New Testament like the early church did. They found it relevant and applicable. They also found it prescriptive (your definition) except in areas where it doesn't claim to be. For example Jesus is recorded as saying "go wash in the pool of Siloam" yet they did not find this prescriptive according to your definition.

What about washing our face and anointing our head before we fast? How do you view this command?

My view is that this means that when one fasts they should not do something to their face that makes them appear sad that they are going without food. One of those appearance things the Pharisees were in the habit of doing to look like a super spiritual person. So I take this not as a literal statement to be practised with oil by every believer from that point forward but rather to continue to do your daily face preparations and not alter that any to appear to be fasting.

Like when Jesus said to go into your closet to pray doesn't mean to go into the place where you store your clothes. But rather to go into a quiet place without interruptions so one can totally focus on speaking with God. Notice how it says and to 'shut the door'. Go where you can shut out worldly activity that can hinder one's focus on God. A place where you are not also getting the notice of others in your praying as the Pharisees were prone to do. Jesus often went to a private place to pray in the evening and it wasn't for show but it also was not recorded as finding a closet somewhere.

Jesus was keen on not appearing to look religious but rather our actions should cause people to see God and not how great a Christian we are.

[Swiss Bro]

I believe ALL of the NT is applicable and prescriptive. Reason: there are absolutely no new behaviors today that did not exist in the time of Jesus and the Apostles.

I do not believe that we can pick and choose items from the NT like a smorgasbord. The NT is an integrated whole teaching that cannot be picked apart for the savory bits and leaving out the parts we do not like as though we are fussy children. I take very seriously the warning in Revelation.

Revelation 22:18-19
18 I warn every one who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if any one adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book, 19 and if any one takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.

This.

[Ernie]

I believe the text says we should do that "when" we fast, not "before". Considering that washing the face and anointing the head was a part of daily hygiene, the command seems to be to continue normal hygiene without interruption so that most people would have no idea that you are fasting.
I guess a lot of people use hair gel of some sort to anoint their heads rather than olive oil. Washing the face seems fairly self explanatory.
But I do see this as prescriptive.

My goal is to view the New Testament like the early church did. They found it relevant and applicable. They also found it prescriptive (your definition) except in areas where it doesn't claim to be. For example Jesus is recorded as saying "go wash in the pool of Siloam" yet they did not find this prescriptive according to your definition.

What about washing our face and anointing our head before we fast? How do you view this command?

I agree with Ken. I see it as a teaching on avoiding the trap of serving God for the approval of men, in direct reference to the Pharisees.

So... I agree with both Barnhart and ken-sylvania. I use the same model for the prescription about shaking the dust off one's feet when people reject the Gospel. With these two, I follow the principle.

But I hear many people using the same interpretation model (looking at the principle of the thing) for practices like footwashing, headcovering, hospitality, and the holy kiss. For these prescriptions I believe there is a principle but more than a principle.

I haven't been able to make a good argument for why I only follow the principle for the first two, and follow more than the principle for the last four.

If any of you have a good argument for this, I'm open to hearing it.

[Neto]

I believe the text says we should do that "when" we fast, not "before". Considering that washing the face and anointing the head was a part of daily hygiene, the command seems to be to continue normal hygiene without interruption so that most people would have no idea that you are fasting.
I guess a lot of people use hair gel of some sort to anoint their heads rather than olive oil. Washing the face seems fairly self explanatory.
But I do see this as prescriptive.

What about washing our face and anointing our head before we fast? How do you view this command?

I agree with Ken. I see it as a teaching on avoiding the trap of serving God for the approval of men, in direct reference to the Pharisees.

So... I agree with both Barnhart and ken-sylvania. I use the same model for the prescription about shaking the dust off one's feet when people reject the Gospel. With these two, I follow the principle.

But I hear many people using the same interpretation model (looking at the principle of the thing) for practices like footwashing, headcovering, hospitality, and the holy kiss. For these prescriptions I believe there is a principle but more than a principle.

I haven't been able to make a good argument for why I only follow the principle for the first two, and follow more than the principle for the last four.

If any of you have a good argument for this, I'm open to hearing it.

In a way this won't help answer your question, because one of the things in your second category is similar to the things in the first category. That is that those things are just stated, but with no reasons given. That (to me) suggests that we should look for the principle in the statement, not think that we should "slavishly" follow it. "Dusting off the feet" against someone was already recognized as a symbolic action. "Anointing the head with oil" was normal preparation for going out in public. Reasons and even Scriptural references are given for the head-covering. Foot-washing? Perhaps it could be classified with the first two as well, so I'm not certain about it, except that there is something so personal about it, that I think it really emphasizes or clarifies the meaning behind it. So maybe I don't have a good enough reason to classify the one thing I thought of at first with the first category - things which primarily only exemplify a principle. But I would tend to classify "the holy kiss" with those things as well. (But it was also completely new to me, at least in the way it is practiced by the Beachy Amish-Mennonites - on the lips. The Brazilian "air kiss" is what I think to be more appropriate.) There were two ways a kiss was given in Jesus' time, and this question comes up in translating the story of the betrayal of Jesus by Judas Iscariot. First, the two ways. A student would kiss a Rabbi's hand. A friend would kiss his friend on the forehead. So where did Judas kiss Jesus in the garden? On the hand. (No, I cannot prove this directly from Scripture. But Jesus' response, calling him 'Friend', was a reprimand, a reminder that Judas had distanced himself from Jesus, that he was rejecting Jesus' friendship. I was forced to answer this question when translating this story in the book of Luke, because you cannot make a general statement like "Judas kissed Jesus" in Banawa. You must say where.)

[ken_sylvania]

I believe the text says we should do that "when" we fast, not "before". Considering that washing the face and anointing the head was a part of daily hygiene, the command seems to be to continue normal hygiene without interruption so that most people would have no idea that you are fasting.
I guess a lot of people use hair gel of some sort to anoint their heads rather than olive oil. Washing the face seems fairly self explanatory.
But I do see this as prescriptive.

What about washing our face and anointing our head before we fast? How do you view this command?

I agree with Ken. I see it as a teaching on avoiding the trap of serving God for the approval of men, in direct reference to the Pharisees.

So... I agree with both Barnhart and ken-sylvania. I use the same model for the prescription about shaking the dust off one's feet when people reject the Gospel. With these two, I follow the principle.

But I hear many people using the same interpretation model (looking at the principle of the thing) for practices like footwashing, headcovering, hospitality, and the holy kiss. For these prescriptions I believe there is a principle but more than a principle.

I haven't been able to make a good argument for why I only follow the principle for the first two, and follow more than the principle for the last four.

If any of you have a good argument for this, I'm open to hearing it.

To paraphrase Steve from another thread - if the practice seems illogical to me, then the focus is on the principle of the thing. If the practice seems logical to me, then anybody who focuses on only the principle is a backsliding liberal!

[ken_sylvania]

I believe the text says we should do that "when" we fast, not "before". Considering that washing the face and anointing the head was a part of daily hygiene, the command seems to be to continue normal hygiene without interruption so that most people would have no idea that you are fasting.
I guess a lot of people use hair gel of some sort to anoint their heads rather than olive oil. Washing the face seems fairly self explanatory.
But I do see this as prescriptive.

What about washing our face and anointing our head before we fast? How do you view this command?

I agree with Ken. I see it as a teaching on avoiding the trap of serving God for the approval of men, in direct reference to the Pharisees.

So... I agree with both Barnhart and ken-sylvania. I use the same model for the prescription about shaking the dust off one's feet when people reject the Gospel. With these two, I follow the principle.

But I hear many people using the same interpretation model (looking at the principle of the thing) for practices like footwashing, headcovering, hospitality, and the holy kiss. For these prescriptions I believe there is a principle but more than a principle.

I haven't been able to make a good argument for why I only follow the principle for the first two, and follow more than the principle for the last four.

If any of you have a good argument for this, I'm open to hearing it.

As far as shaking the dust off one's feet - I guess I have a hard time extrapolating a one-time directive to someone to "go do this" as a broad command for everyone to do it. Jesus basically sent a specific group of people on a specific mission and told them what to do during that mission with no hint that the instructions were for a broader group or a longer time. I mean, Jesus told his disciples to go to a village, find a colt, and bring it to Him. I don't think anyone thinks that it was a command for everyone to do that.

[Bootstrap]

I believe the text says we should do that "when" we fast, not "before". Considering that washing the face and anointing the head was a part of daily hygiene, the command seems to be to continue normal hygiene without interruption so that most people would have no idea that you are fasting.
I guess a lot of people use hair gel of some sort to anoint their heads rather than olive oil. Washing the face seems fairly self explanatory.
But I do see this as prescriptive.

I agree with Ken. I see it as a teaching on avoiding the trap of serving God for the approval of men, in direct reference to the Pharisees.

So... I agree with both Barnhart and ken-sylvania. I use the same model for the prescription about shaking the dust off one's feet when people reject the Gospel. With these two, I follow the principle.

But I hear many people using the same interpretation model (looking at the principle of the thing) for practices like footwashing, headcovering, hospitality, and the holy kiss. For these prescriptions I believe there is a principle but more than a principle.

I haven't been able to make a good argument for why I only follow the principle for the first two, and follow more than the principle for the last four.

If any of you have a good argument for this, I'm open to hearing it.

To paraphrase Steve from another thread - if the practice seems illogical to me, then the focus is on the principle of the thing. If the practice seems logical to me, then anybody who focuses on only the principle is a backsliding liberal!

I wonder how people in this thread would apply 1 Corinthians 15:54:

"Now if there is no resurrection, what will those do who are baptized for the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why are people baptized for them?"

I haven't found categorization helpful. I think it's more useful to try to understand a text in its original context, then ask how to apply it today. Ofte it's straightforward. Don't commit adultery. Sometimes it's hard to even be sure what it meant to them, as the above verse, and it's therefore hard to know how to obey today. I'm not sure that I would encourage people to baptize for the dead today.

Sometimes the most literal possible application may actually violate the spirit of the original command. Consider the following:

2 Mark my words! I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all. 3 Again I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law. 4 You who are trying to be justified by the law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace. 5 For through the Spirit we eagerly await by faith the righteousness for which we hope. 6 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value. The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love.

7 You were running a good race. Who cut in on you to keep you from obeying the truth? 8 That kind of persuasion does not come from the one who calls you. 9 "A little yeast works through the whole batch of dough." 10 I am confident in the Lord that you will take no other view. The one who is throwing you into confusion, whoever that may be, will have to pay the penalty. 11 Brothers and sisters, if I am still preaching circumcision, why am I still being persecuted? In that case, the offense of the cross has been abolished. 12 As for those agitators, I wish they would go the whole way and emasculate themselves!

Would you teach modern Americans who are circumcised that Christ is of no value to them? I do not think that circumcision has the same meaning in the modern American context that it did to Paul in Galatians.

So I think this thread asks an important question. I don't think the answer is simple. I think it usually requires groups of believers, intent on obedience, reading carefully, seeking God's guidance together.

[Sudsy]

So the 'Great Commission' was addressed to the eleven disciples Mattew 28:16-20. Yet there are no references to these disciples ever baptizing as this text reads they were to do it. There is also no reference that any were baptised other than by immersion.

Did Peter understand the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit to be 'Jesus' ? Because that is what is recorded as the directions Peter gave on the day of Pentecost when 3,000 were saved ?

Why do Trinitarians not baptise in Jesus name like the Oneness Pentecostals do ? They each have their scriptural support texts, so who is being obedient ? What is scripturally correct ?

I am curious how others discern what is correctly applicable to these seemingly different instructions.