Midrash and me

From early on in my Christian journey I saw patterns in scripture.  With the help of a handful of Bible Teachers along the way, I was seeing what the original writers of the text were saying.  The extraction of the patterns turns out to be part of a Rabbinical interpretation theory.  Academics will have come across Peshat, Remez, Drash and Sod as part of this method.  It goes a little bit like this:

Peshat is the plain meaning of the text (most historical - grammatical interpretations stay here.
Remez is a hint of something deeper
Drash is the application of the patterns in the text in view of Hebrew prophecy. (Midrash is the extraction of the drash)
Sod is the much maligned spiritual meaning (which can become mystical if not handled properly)

To be clear, the Rabbis have texts called 'Midrash' but these are not what this is.  Post temple, they went off on a tangent and called their work Midrash, confusing to mix the two definitions. To make it more confusing, some work Rabbis did was good. Sigh.  Its complicated.  To start engaging this, the gentile mind must understand that the writers of the Bible were wired differently.  The writer's thinking was so different that the gentile believers have come to all sorts of wacky conclusions based on not paying attention to its Jewishness.  Over time, starting just after the Apostolic age, the Bible was seen through a variety of perspectives that were affected by Plato / Aristotle / the enlightenment / the Reformation etc.  So much error came from this.    Let's stick with the Apostolic writings... that makes sense.

Because the Bible was written over 1500 years we have to be in high academics to track the situation in life that determined the individual writing style.  So what we are primarily interested in is what the Holy Spirit has woven into the text.  To begin the journey of understanding the patterns and spiritual meanings we can use this method that helps take us from Peshat to engaging the Holy Spirit in what he wants to show us. It's helpful if, like me, you don't have a Jewish background at all.

The Text
What does it say?  It is absolutely applicable to the time in which it was written and this is the basis for any further interpretation theory.   If we depart from this we have failed Hermeneutically.

The Context
What are the surrounding details that places the plain meaning?  At this stage you cannot avoid the Jewish cultural aspects.  WARNING:  many have slipped down the slippery slope of Mosaic law in their zeal to learn of this beautiful culture and language.  Start with where, when, how, who? What are the socio-political and economic circumstance of the time?  Who is ruling?  Where is it in the Jewish year?  Who is involved or mentioned?  How did they get there? What are the circumstances of the writing?  There are many factors to this and we try to get as much as we can.

The Co-Text
After we have found where else it says 'it' we can then find what the other texts are saying.  Here is where we find Hebraic patterns ... 'prophecy' in the Jewish mindset.  Many have settled for a 'chain' study of words.  That falls short of the intention of scripture, for us to access themes, patterns and the intention of the Holy Spirit which is the final component:

The 'Cog-text'
This is my term for the observation of how the thing you are observing fits into 'The Cogs of the Kingdom.'  It serves as a precautionary device to make sure the observations of patterns / types / allegories fit with the broader meaning of scripture.  By making a pattern into a doctrine some have gone off into some gnostic cul de sac.  We don't want that do we?   The Cog-text is the way the scripture fits together like one harmonious engine.  If the product of this engine is 'God's saving plan,' it purrs like a cat!  The scriptural process of interpretation must sit within the whole council of God to remain 'on track' scripturally.  There are examples in scripture that are confusing unless we understand the process.

 An example of this is where Matthew says in 2:15.  'Out of Egypt I have called my son.'  This quote from Hosea 11 is definitely referring to Israel.  Did Matthew get it wrong?  He did if we only see the text in an historical grammatical gentile methodology.

Many are surprised to find this typology / allegory but Paul shows us it very clearly in Galatians 4:24f.  Words like: 'taken figuratively' / 'stands for' /corresponds to/ Paul is showing us Midrash. Don't forget it's not just allegorising.  It is taking out the prophetic patterns side by side and applying them to the whole council of God.  Paul tells us the root themes, Egypt is always 'this fallen world' in scripture.  We all know God's chosen people were freed from Pharaoh (Satan) and the taskmasters (Sin).  So the Exodus was the saving plan of God.  Now we observe another pattern.

Israel are 'God's beloved.'  So Matthew could say Hosea 11:1 applies here because Jesus is God's beloved and was called out of Egypt.  Jesus = Israel as God's beloved.  Another Midrash on this is 'out of Egypt I have called my son' is any believer!  As God's beloved you are called from this world.  The same applies to the Rapture!  God's collective beloved will be called out from this world = Egypt. 

While they are different things in and of themselves, they all echo the first fulfilment Hosea spoke of:  The Exodus.  So because the saving plan of God is prophetically consistent, it applies to all occurrences where 'God's beloved' are called out of 'Egypt' ... this world.   Its like a tree where the trunk is the prophetic fulfilment and the branches are connected and associated fulfilments.  We may start with a branch and the Holy Spirit helps us connect it to a prophetic pillar of Gods truth.  

That is one difference in how the scriptures were written and how we are to see them.  

Gary Ward