Hermeneutics: Interpreting Scripture

[posthuman]

So, this text does not at all say that God intentionally withholds perception and understanding from anyone. It says that some suppress their nascent perception and understanding of parables because the parables message begins to challenge habitual behaviour they are unwilling to consider changing. even if changing will gain them forgiveness.

the text says that God's purpose in teaching with parables instead of plain speech is so that to those who have, more will be given, and to those who do not have, even what they have will be taken away.

a person who is committed to rejecting the gospel can just as quickly reject a clear message as they can one obscured in metaphorical language.

the fact that the grammar indicates blind continuing to be blind rather than becoming blind does not indicate anything whatsoever about volition on their part ((that's 100% eisegesis 0% exegesis)) and it certainly does not by any means indicate God is attempting to open their eyes but failing because their willpower is stronger than His efforts.

 

[GWH]

under what circumstances do people repent?
having no sin, or having sin?

All have sinned.

 

[posthuman]

All have sinned.

was the prerequisite to God's will that all repent, also His will, in this case?

 

[maxwel]

the purpose of teaching in parables is to selectively hide and reveal knowledge, .

Yeah, I don't think that's really up for debate.

There might be some debate on the underlying theological mechanics of that whole thing: whether or not the understanding of parables intersects with some degree of human choice or free will.
But I think the purpose for using parables is pretty clear in the text.

But hey, please don't let me get in the way of a long and circuitous argument.
: )

.

 

[GWH]

was the prerequisite to God's will that all repent, also His will, in this case?

Yeah, I don't think that's really up for debate.

There might be some debate on the underlying theological mechanics of that whole thing: whether or not the understanding of parables intersects with some degree of human choice or free will.
But I think the purpose for using parables is pretty clear in the text.

But hey, please don't let me get in the way of a long and circuitous argument.
: )

.

Max, I hope we are not arguing, and your input is quite welcome. I am trying to lead us in a systematic study of the parables of Jesus, not so much to learn the meaning of each, which is usually obvious, but rather to investigate the claim that Jesus intended to hide the meaning of some from some for some reason. (See Paul's post above #196 :^) I think we have a handful of parables left to consider before we can summarize our finding or arrive at a well-substantiated conclusion.

 

[maxwel]

Max, I hope we are not arguing, and your input is quite welcome. I am trying to lead us in a systematic study of the parables of Jesus, not so much to learn the meaning of each, which is usually obvious, but rather to investigate the claim that Jesus intended to hide the meaning of some from some for some reason. (See Paul's post above #196 :^) I think we have a handful of parables left to consider before we can summarize our finding or arrive at a well-substantiated conclusion.

It's great to discuss the parables; it's a great topic, with lots of great lessons.
We just need to maintain a baseline that these aren't an unknown quantity... since they been studied for 2,000 years.

You guys have a great weekend.
God Bless.

.

 

[posthuman]

Max, I hope we are not arguing, and your input is quite welcome. I am trying to lead us in a systematic study of the parables of Jesus, not so much to learn the meaning of each, which is usually obvious, but rather to investigate the claim that Jesus intended to hide the meaning of some from some for some reason. (See Paul's post above #196 :^) I think we have a handful of parables left to consider before we can summarize our finding or arrive at a well-substantiated conclusion.

i don't think searching the yard for ishtar eggs provides any kind of logical basis for concluding your mother did not intentionally hide ishtar eggs in the yard.

consider your potential outcomes, given your confirmation bias:

1. you don't find any ishtar eggs
   1. aha, you say, there are no hidden ishtar eggs
   2. nothing is proven. perhaps they are successfully hidden from you.
2. you find some ishtar eggs
   1. aha, you say, the ishtar eggs aren't hidden
   2. nothing is proven. perhaps they are not meant to be hidden from you, or perhaps you are good at ishtar egg seeking.

in any case we have the paramount fact, about which there is no dissension, that your mom literally told you she has hidden ishtar eggs in the yard, this being the entire reason you are out there looking for them in the first place, thereby invalidating the entire premise of your search being any kind of proof that she had not done so, barring the idea you believe your mother to have lied to you simply to get you out of her hair - - in which case, outcomes (1) and (2) listed above still apply, and about which your mom is sure to inform you straightaway the moment you go back inside to accuse her.

 

[posthuman]

you find some ishtar eggs

i mean, to me, it seems pretty obvious that the fact you had to go look for them in the yard, instead of waking up to an ishtar basket beside your pillow, is a dead giveaway that there is definitely what's known in the business as an 'hidden ishtar egg seeking event' going on.
the name kinda gives away the details.

 

[posthuman]

barring the idea you believe your mother to have lied to you simply to get you out of her hair - - in which case, outcomes (1) and (2) listed above still apply, and about which your mom is sure to inform you straightaway the moment you go back inside to accuse her.

statistically likely mom-responses, listed for reference, by case as delineated above:

1. go back and look some more.
2. did you find them all? go back and look some more.

 

[PaulThomson]

the text says that God's purpose in teaching with parables instead of plain speech is so that to those who have, more will be given, and to those who do not have, even what they have will be taken away.

a person who is committed to rejecting the gospel can just as quickly reject a clear message as they can one obscured in metaphorical language.

the fact that the grammar indicates blind continuing to be blind rather than becoming blind does not indicate anything whatsoever about volition on their part ((that's 100% eisegesis 0% exegesis)) and it certainly does not by any means indicate God is attempting to open their eyes but failing because their willpower is stronger than His efforts.

There is a form of torture where a persons eye-lids are held open and a bright light is shone into the eyes which they cannot reject. You are suggesting that because God has the power to perform such torture on those who reject the light He gives, He would do so, if He really wanted a person to submit to His light. That is not a biblical perspective IMHO. Love does not demand its own way (1 Cor 13). God is not failing His attempts to open peoples' eyes because their will power is stronger than His efforts. God has given us the volition to keep on looking at what His light is revealing until we clearly understand it, or to refuse to keep on looking at what His light is revealing. Love does not win by the use of force, but by persuasion.

Yes. "A person who is committed to rejecting the gospel can just as quickly reject a clear message as they can one obscured in metaphorical language."
But a person who is committed to rejecting the gospel is less likely to remain in a meeting to spend time arguing about the details of how a seed grows into wheat than they would be to stay to argue about the same information couched in intellectual truth claims presented in the form of asserted premises and conclusions.
The parables are not intended to hide the truth from those present in gatherings, but rather to avoid such gatherings degenerating into endless acrimonious intellectual debates about the truths the parables allegorise. Faced with mundane-sounding parables, truculent rebels leave the gathering, muttering complaints about the childish story-telling the ignorant unwashed masses are lapping up. The meeting is then comprised of thoughtful hungry seekers willing to listen and seriously consider the content of the teaching.

 

[PaulThomson]

the fact that the grammar indicates blind continuing to be blind rather than becoming blind does not indicate anything whatsoever about volition on their part ((that's 100% eisegesis 0% exegesis)) and it certainly does not by any means indicate God is attempting to open their eyes but failing because their willpower is stronger than His efforts.

That is not what the grammar indicates. it indicates that those who begin to see and hear stop seeing and hearing. It does not say that God stopped them seeing and hearing. It is quite in harmony with the grammar that SOME who started to see and perceive and hear and understand decided they did not want to see and perceive and hear and understand more clearly what they had begun to see and perceive and hear and understand. The text does not say God Himself intentionally stops anyone from seeing and perceiving and hearing and understanding.

 

[GWH]

Anyway, the next parable in line is the one about the tenants that I presented first, so skipping that one we come to the Parable of the Wedding Banquet in MT 22:1-14.

The KOH is like a king who sent his servants to tell those who had been invited that the banquet was ready for them to come, but they refused the invitation. The king sent servants to the invitees again, but some paid no attention and went to work in their fields or places of business, while the rest abused and killed the servant, so the king was enraged and sent his army to destroy the murderers. Then he told his servants to go to the street corners and invite anyone they found, both good and bad, and the wedding hall was filled with guests. However, the king noticed a man who was not wearing wedding clothes, whom he had bound and thrown outside, where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth. Jesus concluded with the teaching that "many are invited, but few are chosen". Then the Pharisees plotted to entrap Jesus.

Did the Pharisees understand the parable?

 

[posthuman]

The text does not say God Himself intentionally stops anyone from seeing and perceiving and hearing and understanding.

the text says He intentionally stopped teaching clearly in public and instead spoke only in parables so that it would be fulfilled what He had commanded the prophet long ago,

"Keep on hearing, but do not understand; ​

Keep on seeing, but do not perceive. ​

Make the heart of this people dull, ​

And their ears heavy, ​

And shut their eyes; ​

Lest they see with their eyes, ​

And hear with their ears, ​

And understand with their heart, ​

And return and be healed."​

Then the Pharisees plotted to entrap Jesus.

Did the Pharisees understand the parable?

clearly they did not: their actions make that plain.

 

[studier]

God is not failing His attempts to open peoples' eyes because their will power is stronger than His efforts. God has given us the volition to keep on looking at what His light is revealing until we clearly understand it, or to refuse to keep on looking at what His light is revealing. Love does not win by the use of force, but by persuasion.

Worthy of repeating.

 

[studier]

God is not failing His attempts to open peoples' eyes because their will power is stronger than His efforts. God has given us the volition to keep on looking at what His light is revealing until we clearly understand it, or to refuse to keep on looking at what His light is revealing. Love does not win by the use of force, but by persuasion.

it seems the point being discussed is whether God reaches a point with rejecters where He begins cooperating with their rejection and lowers the illumination for them. Grace for the humble...

 

[studier]

"Keep on hearing, but do not understand; Keep on seeing, but do not perceive. Make the heart of this people dull, And their ears heavy, And shut their eyes; Lest they see with their eyes, And hear with their ears, And understand with their heart, And return and be healed."

Isaiah6 sounds like a judgment to me. To you?

 

[posthuman]

it seems the point being discussed is whether God reaches a point with rejecters where He begins cooperating with their rejection and lowers the illumination for them. Grace for the humble...

the point being discussed is whether Isaiah 6:8-11, Matthew 13:10-17, Mark 4:10-12, John 12:37-40, Acts 28:25-28, Romans 11:7-10, Deuteronomy 29:4, Isaiah 29:9-10 and Proverbs 20:12 are true or not.

 

[posthuman]

Isaiah6 sounds like a judgment to me. To you?

naturally.
but does that make it untrue?

there are a couple here who are going to great lengths not to believe it is so.

 

[GWH]

Anyway, the next parable in line is the one about the tenants that I presented first, so skipping that one we come to the Parable of the Wedding Banquet in MT 22:1-14.

The KOH is like a king who sent his servants to tell those who had been invited that the banquet was ready for them to come, but they refused the invitation. The king sent servants to the invitees again, but some paid no attention and went to work in their fields or places of business, while the rest abused and killed the servant, so the king was enraged and sent his army to destroy the murderers. Then he told his servants to go to the street corners and invite anyone they found, both good and bad, and the wedding hall was filled with guests. However, the king noticed a man who was not wearing wedding clothes, whom he had bound and thrown outside, where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth. Jesus concluded with the teaching that "many are invited, but few are chosen". Then the Pharisees plotted to entrap Jesus.

Did the Pharisees understand the parable?

I think we are down to the last two parables in Matthew. The Parable of the Ten Virgins is found in MT 25:1-13.

Ten virgins took their lamps and went to meet the bridegroom as he came to the wedding banquet. Five of them were foolish and did not bring any oil with them, while five were wise and took oil in jars along with their lamps. They fell asleep as they waited for the bridegroom, who did not approach the rendezvous point until midnight. When neared the virgins were awakened and trimmed their lamps, but those of the foolish virgins were going out, so they asked the wise virgins for some of their oil but were refused lest there not be enough and told to go buy some. As the foolish virgins were on their way to get oil, the bridegroom arrived at the banquet hall and went in with the wise virgins who were ready with lit lamps, and the door was shut. Later the foolish virgins arrived and sought for the Lord to open the door, but he replied, "I don't know you." Jesus ended by saying, "Therefore keep watch, because you do not know the day or the hour."

Do we understand this parable?

 

[posthuman]

Worthy of repeating.

then the straightforward conclusion is that by teaching in parables rather than plain speech, God was not trying to open the heart, eyes or ears of those who are not His sheep, just as He said when asked why He stopped teaching in clear language and began speaking in public only in parables. that is explicitly not the purpose of speaking in parables, as God Himself explained in no uncertain terms.

when God 'tries' to do something it is impossible that He fails.

this is apparently very hard for some people to accept, tho it's written all over the scripture in many witnesses.

Matthew 11:25-26​

I thank You, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that You have hidden these things from the wise and prudent and have revealed them to babes. Even so, Father, for so it seemed good in Your sight.​

John 8:43​

Why do you not understand My speech? Because you are not able to listen to My word.​

​

John 10:6 ​

Jesus used this illustration, but they did not understand the things which He spoke to them.​

​

John 10:26 ​

But you do not believe, because you are not of My sheep, as I said to you.​