Hermeneutics: Interpreting Scripture

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Jul 31, 2013
38,120
13,679
113
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.
 
Jul 31, 2013
38,120
13,679
113
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.
 
Jul 31, 2013
38,120
13,679
113
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!
 
Oct 19, 2024
2,201
530
113
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?
 
Nov 1, 2024
1,551
491
83
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.
 
Oct 19, 2024
2,201
530
113
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?
 
Nov 1, 2024
1,551
491
83
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
 
Oct 19, 2024
2,201
530
113
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

Senior Member
Jul 31, 2013
38,120
13,679
113
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

Senior Member
Jul 31, 2013
38,120
13,679
113
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.