Hermeneutics: Interpreting Scripture

[posthuman]

i believe we should have such respect for scripture that we are never surprised that we find in it something we can't understand; that when this happens we should rejoice in having discovered treasure, rather than slaving to explain it away as the opposite of what it is.

such things are not contradictions. they are illumination of the glory and wisdom of God and our relative poverty and foolishness. they are for our patient instruction.

 

[posthuman]

That was exactly my point, so I am glad we agree! :^)

He does not say the purpose of parables is to open every eye.

to the contrary, one of their purposes is specifically to close some eyes.

do you agree with that?
He is the One Who said it.

 

[posthuman]

we should carefully notice that even His disciples did not understand the parables immediately, but He later privately explained them.

why??
was omniscient omnipotent omniloving infinite God incapable of telling a parable they could comprehend? of opening their understanding to know it?

but He showed them by this that knowledge must come from God, not inherent to man apart from Him.
yes, even being apostles, except He will it and allow it, they remained incapable of knowledge of Him and His Kingdom.

so they were incapable of understanding apart from His private, purposeful revealing to them. they did not even realize that He would give Himself over and allow Himself to be crucified until it happened, no matter that He had told them plainly dozens of times! so what idiots we are to presume we know the totally of His will, or fathom His love!

 

[GWH]

to be consistent you must accept both that He takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked and that He hardens hearts and hides knowledge from people; that salvation is by mercy only, to whom He will show it, and that sovereign election exists, about which mankind is exceedingly vain to think to complain against Him.

none of which means He does not love all nor that humankind has no free agency.


in my opinion your theology in our conversation has been too narrow, not allowing for the mystery and primacy of His will. because i intentionally focused on what i perceived you were neglecting, you presumed me from the beginning to fit into the narrow box of the extreme opposite of your narrow box. that is not the case. harmonization of scripture, in my view, does not allow us to camp ourselves in either Pelagianism nor Augustianism, nor to completely deny either.

the western church has a long history of thinking it can explain the profound, and in doing so ignoring alternate halves of the Bible. we have something to learn from our sister the East, which accepts that mystery exists, and simply embraces it as what it is: profundity.

that is hermeneutic.
let scripture say what it says, and when you cannot fathom it, don't deny it: humble yourself. it speaks of things too wonderful for you, and you should have every expectation that it does so.
it is after all, the word of omniscient, infinite God, as much higher than us as the utmost heavens are higher than the bottom of the sea.

Believing "both that He takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked and that He hardens hearts" is double-think rather than harmonizing Scripture (although I generally like both-and thinking/logic that is necessary for harmonization :^)--which is where I camp, although I do not claim to resolve the apparent mystery or contradiction completely. Have you seen my explanation or would you like for me to share it again at this time for your consideration?

 

[ChristRoseFromTheDead]

He hardens hearts and hides knowledge from people;

I would say that it's not so much that this is done according to his will as it is done according to how people react to him. In other words, God has a will and a plan, but he will act contrary to the current stage of that plan where circumstances permit, because his overall goal is mercy and eternal life

For example, Jesus healed the Roman centurion's servant because of his great faith, contrary to his mission to confirm the covenant with Israel. Likewise, the doggie woman who asked for some crumbs was rewarded for her great faith even though she wasn't of Israel.

Likewise, Boaz and Ruth were rewarded for their faith with a son who would become the ancestor of Christ, even though Ruth was from Moab and Moabites were forbidden by the law from entering the congregation of the lord forever

So IMO it's not so much that God wills to harden certain people as much as it is he gives to them what they want.

 

[GWH]

What would you like me to do or explain? I see the parables, but I don't see what you want me to do with them

Posts sometimes scroll quickly, but in #116 I shared that my intent is for us to conduct a systematic or thorough study of the parables of Jesus, so that we may essentially agree on a sufficiently correct understanding or doctrine concerning the purpose and function of parables in the ministry of Jesus, which means we should cover every parable before we are through.

If I may, I will go ahead and present the next three parables in MT 13:44-52, which seem to be a sort of trilogy of similes on the theme of "the kingdom of heaven" (KOH).

The first statement in v.44 is a simile comparing the KOH to a treasure hidden in a field. When a man discovered it, he sold everything he had and bought the field.

The second statement in v.45-46 is another simile comparing the KOH to a valuable pearl. A merchant sold everything he owned to buy it.

The third statement in v.47-48 says the KOH is like a fishing net. When the fishermen pulled it up on the shore, they kept the good fish and threw away the bad ones.

Jesus explained this passage by saying in v.49-50 that at the end of the age angels will separate the righteous from the wicked, who will be thrown into the blazing furnace where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

When his disciples said in v.51 that they understood him, Jesus concluded with a fourth simile, saying in v.52 that a teacher of the law who becomes a disciple in the KOH is like a homeowner who has both old and new treasures in his storeroom.

What does understanding this passage contribute to the doctrine of parables?

 

[ChristRoseFromTheDead]

What does understanding this passage contribute to the doctrine of parables?

Honestly I think the 3rd parable is in the wrong place in that sequence and needs to be the first because it is similar to the parable about the tares that precedes the 3 parables. Then verse 52 looking back to the two parables about hidden treasure makes sense because it pertains to a believing scribe who finds the hidden treasure of Christ in OT writings, which he knows by heart

 

[GWH]

i believe we should have such respect for scripture that we are never surprised that we find in it something we can't understand; that when this happens we should rejoice in having discovered treasure, rather than slaving to explain it away as the opposite of what it is.

such things are not contradictions. they are illumination of the glory and wisdom of God and our relative poverty and foolishness. they are for our patient instruction.

I agree that we should "respect" Scripture, and I am pleased that my initials also mean God's Word. I freely admit there are things in the Bible that I do not understand, including angelology and RV.

However, I know that by the time I was a senior in HS there was a lot I did not understand that I have come to learn, so I don't think we should be quick or content to plead ignorance rather than search the Scriptures for additional insights.

In this case, rather than blithely engaging in double-think or accusing Jesus of hating his enemies, I think we should see how Scripture can be harmonized.

 

[posthuman]

Believing "both that He takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked and that He hardens hearts" is double-think rather than harmonizing Scripture (although I generally like both-and thinking/logic that is necessary for harmonization :^)--which is where I camp, although I do not claim to resolve the apparent mystery or contradiction completely. Have you seen my explanation or would you like for me to share it again at this time for your consideration?

this is how i understand where we are in this discussion:


i see it as accepting that scripture is very clear about both things. therefore i accept both.

you see it as one thing you accept scripture saying, and the other thing, because you can't comprehend it, based on how you understand the first thing, you reject, even though scripture says it. and you try to justify your rejection of what it says by various means of making the scripture say the opposite of what it actually says.

i believe this to be very much, bad hermeneutic, and exactly not 'harmonization' - - imagining you have a tuba instead of an violin does not bring the violin into harmony with the fleugelhorn. what it does is ask a violinist to completely corrupt how their instrument is played. blowing into a violin is frankly nonsense.

instead the good conductor finds the tones where violins and fluegelhorns agree.

 

[posthuman]

what we must do is ask why God would harden an heart or hide knowledge from another.
not ask, how can we misread this so that it seems He never declared He did any such thing.

 

[PaulThomson]

PaulThomson said:
Which scripture says that satan is sin, rather than that satan is an unrepentant sinner?

Yes, in JN 8:44 Satan is described as the devil, the father of lies and a murderer.

And in MT 4 Satan tempts Jesus to sin, even by quoting and misapplying Scripture--which may be why he is described as an angel of (false) light in 2CR 11:14.

In RV 12:9 he deceives the whole world.

In JOB 1&2 Satan is described as the tormentor and tempter of Job.

So, there is no scripture you can cite that equates Satan with sin.

 

[PaulThomson]

some have indicated an interest in studying the doctrine of parables, so I will begin as follows:

The Parable of the Tenants (MT 21:33-46) - Jesus told a parable about a landowner who planted a vineyard and rented it to some tenants, but when he sent his servants to collect his fruit the tenants maltreated and killed them, so he sent his son, whom they also killed. "Therefore, when the owner of the vineyard comes, what will he do to those tenants?"

The disciples replied that "he will bring those wretches to a wretched end." Jesus then quoted the Scriptures, saying: "The stone the builders rejected has become the cornerstone... Anyone who falls on this stone will be broken to pieces; anyone on whom it falls will be crushed."

Therefore, the kingdom of God will be given to a people who will produce its fruit. When the chief priests and the Pharisees heard Jesus' parables, they knew he was talking about them, so they looked for a way to arrest him, but they were afraid of the people, because they believed he was a prophet."

What does this passage teach us about the doctrine of parables?

There does not seem to be any "doctrine of parables". What do you mean by "the doctrine of parables" ?

 

[PaulThomson]

He's the father of sin and he's the spirit of sin, so I think it's fair to say he embodies sin, or is sin, just like Christ is the righteousness of God.

Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it. John 8:44​

No. None of that equates satan with sin.

 

[GWH]

this is how i understand where we are in this discussion:


i see it as accepting that scripture is very clear about both things. therefore i accept both.

you see it as one thing you accept scripture saying, and the other thing, because you can't comprehend it, based on how you understand the first thing, you reject, even though scripture says it. and you try to justify your rejection of what it says by various means of making the scripture say the opposite of what it actually says.

i believe this to be very much, bad hermeneutic, and exactly not 'harmonization' - - imagining you have a tuba instead of an violin does not bring the violin into harmony with the fleugelhorn. what it does is ask a violinist to completely corrupt how their instrument is played. blowing into a violin is frankly nonsense.

instead the good conductor finds the tones where violins and fluegelhorns agree.

i see that you "accept both" that God "takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked and that He hardens hearts" and thus you believe double-think is better than harmonizing.

You think we must "ask why God would harden an heart or hide knowledge from another", but you do not answer that question.

My answer is based on teachings of Paul (TOP) such as the following:

TOP #25: All have sinned by breaking moral law but may be justified by God’s grace through faith in Christ’s redemption or atonement. [RM 3:9-26] The most familiar part of this passage is v. 23-24, “All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus.”

TOP #30: God demonstrates His love for sinners by means of Christ dying for the ungodly or atheists. [RM 5:6-11] This is called being “reconciled”.

TOP #32: God’s grace or salvation is provided to everyone who receives/accepts it. [RM 5:15-21] Paul does not explain how everyone may accept God’s gift.

Also 1TM 2:3-4, "God our Savior wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth." "All" would include whomever you think God hardens or hides the truth from.

And of course there is JN 3:16, "God so loved the world that He gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life."

I see two ways to harmonize Scriptures such as those I just cited with EX 10:1, "Then the Lord said to Moses, 'Go to Pharaoh, for I have hardened his heart and the heart of his officials so that I may perform these miraculous signs of mine among them... that you may know that I am the Lord.'"

1. God's hardening does not abrogate MFW in a way that prevents anyone from being saved, but rather by this means God tweaks the river of history so that it flows in accordance with His POS, causing someone to be stubborn/obstinate without condemning them to hell for that reason.

2. OT writers did not distinguish between God's intentional and permissive wills, so that IS 6:10 says, "Make the heart of this people calloused... otherwise they might... understand with their hearts and turn [repent] and be healed." Whereas when Jesus cites this passage in MT 13:15 he changes the wording to "For this people's heart has become calloused... otherwise they might... understand with their hearts and turn and I would heal them."

I accept this harmonization. And you?

 

[GWH]

There does not seem to be any "doctrine of parables". What do you mean by "the doctrine of parables" ?

"Doctrine" means teaching. Doctrine of any subject means "what GW teaches about _________", in this case parables. Thus, I am leading us in a study of the parables of Jesus, and we are about half way through presenting all of them. Would you like to present the next one?

I think it is the Parable of the Lost Sheep in MT 18:10-14. Then there will be the Parable of the Unmerciful Servant in MT 18:23-35.

 

[Jimbone]

This approach did not dawn on me until a few years ago, so perhaps I need to go first as an example. My two guiding Scriptures are these:

First: 1TM 2:3-4 - "God our savior wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth." This verse is in the same vein as RM 5:8, "God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us." MT 5:44&48 teaches that God even loves His enemies, which would include Satan.

Second: 2THS 1:6a - "God is just." This is stated also in RM 9:14, "Is God unjust? Not at all!" and in DT 32:4b, "...all His ways are just."
Justness = righteousness, so many other verses are in this vein. Explanations of God’s Word should not impugn God’s justice for all.

I mine these truths from the Scriptural veins to employ as the starting point of my understanding. What about y'all?

The starting point of my understanding was when He transformed me on 9-29-13 and resurrected my dead spirit and reonnected it to His Spirit to open my eyes and guide me to all truth. My conversion wasn't Bible + my choice = "Born Again" I did in fact do this, and even thought I was a Christian. Why wouldn't I? The pastor said it was so. But was not saved in Truth.

It was being Born Again = Reading His word and being transformed overnight by His power. When I was saved by Him for real, I didn't even realize what was taking place at the time and in my mind had lost faith God was even real at the time I was saved by Him.

That was when my belief began. It didn't happen the way we naturally think it would go.

 

[JohnDB]

The second statement in v.45-46 is another simile comparing the KOH to a valuable pearl. A merchant sold everything he owned to buy it

The fine pearl market has always been something of trouble. It has been absolutely full of scam artists and partial truths even 2,000 years ago just like it still is today. You can pay outrageous sums of $$ for real pearls and still not buy what you think you are getting.

Oysters, which produce the pearls, are an unclean Animal....just like pigs or shrimp....which is why some Jews don't deal in pearls. (Others have no compunction about the unclean pearls)

Pearls don't last forever like gold or diamonds. When they lose their luster/shine they are worthless again. Which is kinda odd that Jesus used pearls as a type of the KOH but....

I think that it's more about the snake pit of the pearl market that Jesus is referencing here. And indeed....from the outside in Christianity seems but simply one of many religions....of which will cost you everything.

Which is why some people look at those who become Christians as nuts.

 

[GWH]

The starting point of my understanding was when He transformed me on 9-29-13 and resurrected my dead spirit and reonnected it to His Spirit to open my eyes and guide me to all truth. My conversion wasn't Bible + my choice = "Born Again" I did in fact do this, and even thought I was a Christian. Why wouldn't I? The pastor said it was so. But was not saved in Truth.

It was being Born Again = Reading His word and being transformed overnight by His power. When I was saved by Him for real, I didn't even realize what was taking place at the time and in my mind had lost faith God was even real at the time I was saved by Him.

That was when my belief began. It didn't happen the way we naturally think it would go.

Conversion can be convoluted, and each Christian has a different testimony. Because I was raised according to God's Plan A (cf. 2TM 3:14-15), there never was a time that I did not accept Christ, although I did not "walk the aisle" and get baptized until I was nine. My doubts began when I encountered folks who demeaned my faith because I did not speak in tongues or have some sort of Damascus Road experience, but as I learned GW I was reassured that we walk by faith, not from miracle to miracle. Even Paul who experienced Christ miraculously on the road to Damascus realized this truth and wrote 2CR 5:7 to teach God's normative way of relating with folks.

 

[GWH]

The fine pearl market has always been something of trouble. It has been absolutely full of scam artists and partial truths even 2,000 years ago just like it still is today. You can pay outrageous sums of $$ for real pearls and still not buy what you think you are getting.

Oysters, which produce the pearls, are an unclean Animal....just like pigs or shrimp....which is why some Jews don't deal in pearls. (Others have no compunction about the unclean pearls)

Pearls don't last forever like gold or diamonds. When they lose their luster/shine they are worthless again. Which is kinda odd that Jesus used pearls as a type of the KOH but....

I think that it's more about the snake pit of the pearl market that Jesus is referencing here. And indeed....from the outside in Christianity seems but simply one of many religions....of which will cost you everything.

Which is why some people look at those who become Christians as nuts.

The parables make the point using various metaphors that the KOH is worth every sacrifice we might make, which was death by Jesus and the apostles, but nothing more than being called "nuts" in places that have been salted by NT teachings (so that sticks and stones do not break our bones :^)

 

[Jimbone]

Conversion can be convoluted, and each Christian has a different testimony. Because I was raised according to God's Plan A (cf. 2TM 3:14-15), there never was a time that I did not accept Christ, although I did not "walk the aisle" and get baptized until I was nine. My doubts began when I encountered folks who demeaned my faith because I did not speak in tongues or have some sort of Damascus Road experience, but as I learned GW I was reassured that we walk by faith, not from miracle to miracle. Even Paul who experienced Christ miraculously on the road to Damascus realized this truth and wrote 2CR 5:7 to teach God's normative way of relating with folks.

Yes. I couldn't agree more with each of our "conversions" are between us and God, so will be different for each of us. Complete same page on this.