Hellacious Hermeneutics ... or "Why're we so serious about the Bible"?

[Clare73]

My comment was in regards to understanding the history of Jacob and Esau in the Bible and how God interacted with both brothers. The relationship between Jacob and Esau is an allegory pertaining to salvation, just as Abraham’s two sons, Galatians 4:22-30. Esau born of the flesh and Jacob born of the promise.

And the separation of Israel there, as well as the separation of Israel from (true) Israel in Ishmael and Isaac (Romans 9:6-7), also serve as a pattern/type of God's great NT separation of true Israel from unbelieving Israel (Romans 11:17-19).

However, both children had a relationship, children, land, inheritance and God made certain promises to both nations as both brothers were two separate nations. So it’s important to know their history as the Bible teaches.

However, your statement:
"The Bible provides an undeniable explanation why God chose Jacob over Esau, and why God loved Jacob and hated Esau."

unless you mean there God's sovereign choice alone, based on nothing either of them did in their life,

is contra-Biblical.

 

[TheWhat?]

Well, what's clear is, Paul is expounding from his understanding of the texts of his religion, which emphasizes God as the sovereign God of prophecy, without which, none of Paul's reasoning nor the theology based upon it has any credence.

And this also allows for the possibility that the "fallen" branches of Israel would be grafted back in (Romans 11).

Paul, as a believer, had a mind. That mind embodied an internal reasoning, informed by source material, history, the present state of the societies around him, and spirituality: the context of his reasoning.

 

[Clare73]

I have to disagree with that. It assumes Paul is cherry-picking.

It assumes no such thing, it is in complete agreement with all that Paul teaches.

That's fine if we want to assume that "Paul" here is a fraud or a person inventing a new religion, and needs only to pick one facet of OT scripture to support a point, for what purpose is not made clear, perhaps to lend credibility to reasoning which is not from scripture, or to render it to appear to be from scripture, when it is really not.

On the other hand, we can assume Paul was a genuine believer of an ancient faith, and acting as a kind of scholar of that faith he has digested the sacred texts of his religion, and is expounding from his comprehensive understanding of what they teach.

Or we can "assume" what the NT teaches:
that Paul was a genuine believer in a new faith, in which he was instructed by Jesus Christ personally (Galatians 2:11-12), and even caught up to the third heaven (throne of God) where he heard things man is not allowed to speak (2 Corinthians 12:1-8).
And then we can believe what the NT teaches rather than our own vain fancies.

The assumptions we can make about Paul and his belief system can dramatically alter the way we read Paul,

You bet!

Which is why we are to stay out of the foolsih assumption business and believe the plain simple text.

because it helps to establish context -- a point I always ran into friction about with the secular humanist interpreters, and christian interpreters.

There is no context nor passage with which Paul's plain and clear language above is not in agreement.

 

[TheWhat?]

It assumes no such thing, it is in complete agreement with all that Paul teaches.
.
Or we can "assume" what the NT teaches:
that Paul was a genuine believer in a new faith, in which he was instructed by Jesus Christ personally (Galatians 2:11-12), and even caught up to the third heaven (throne of God) where he heard things man is not allowed to speak (2 Corinthians 12:1-8).
And then we can believe what the NT teaches rather than our own vain fancies.

The assumptions we can make about Paul and his belief system can dramatically alter the way we read Paul,

You bet!

Which is why we are to stay out of the foolsih assumption business and believe the plain simple text.

There is no context nor passage with which Paul's plain and clear language above is not in agreement.

We all make assumptions. The thing to do is to be clear and concise, and examine our assumptions. They are often wrong.

 

[Fervent]

I have to admit what you are pointing out is true and is reason for much confusion. However, the Bible says we are taught by the Holy Spirit, not man. 1 Corinthians 2:13, Galatians 1:12. We will not understand the Bible based on our own intellect; we must be walking by the Spirit. If this is not understood there will be confusion. Also Peter warns about Paul’s writing being hard to understand, 2 Peter 3:16.

So we must be sure we are being led by the Spirit because that’s the only way to understand the Bible. Those without the Holy Spirit, their eyes have been blinded and they can’t discern its meaning.

Yes, we are taught by the Holy Spirit. But what we are taught is the same truth, yet most often those claiming to be "taught by the Holy Spirit" are using the claim as an excuse for a divergent teaching that they alone can fathom. If the Holy Spirit is truly teaching someone something, it will be recoverable by the community so that we may be taught together. Hermeneutics and Biblical interpretation are not a denial of the teaching of the Holy Spirit, they are how we confirm the spirit by which we are being taught comes from God. Hermeneutics also gives us ground for engaging with alternative interpretations and careful application and understanding of the hermeneutic we are engaged in prevents us from simply standing on our own opinion instead providing support that what we understand the Bible to mean is reasonably accurate.

 

[Clare73]

Well, what's clear is, Paul is expounding from his understanding of the texts of his religion, which emphasizes God as the sovereign God of prophecy, without which, none of Paul's reasoning nor the theology based upon it has any credence.

And this also allows for the possibility that the "fallen" branches of Israel would be grafted back in (Romans 11).

Paul, as a believer, had a mind. That mind embodied an internal reasoning, informed by source material, history, the present state of the societies around him, and spirituality: the context of his reasoning.

It ain't just "reasoning," pal. It's divine revelation from Jesus Christ.
personally (Galatians 2:11-12).
If we can't believe that, what can we believe?

Surely you didn't deliberately leave out the corpus of the whole thing: his revelation from Jesus Christ personally giving him the doctrine he presents in the NT, right?

It seems you are doing the very thing you say caused you to drop hermeneutics; i.e., putting analysis over faith, over Paul's direct revelation from Jesus Christ.
How did you ever end up there?

 

[TheWhat?]

Surely you didn't deliberately leave out the corpus of the whole thing: his revelation from Jesus Christ personally giving him the doctrine he presents in the NT.

Well, if Paul were anything like Muhammad or Joseph Smith, receiving something personally handed and dictated by angels, etc., we might not trust Paul's reasoning.

Paul experienced something -- although, he doesn't make it clear that he was the one caught up to God's throne. We are left to assume it was him.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I think I misunderstood you.

ok. No problem. It's water under the bridge and going out to sea ...

 

[biblelesson]

Their separation, as well as the separation of Ishmael and Isaac, also serve as a pattern/type (Romans 9:6-7) of God's great NT separation of true Israel from unbelieving Israel (Romans 11:17-19).

However, your statement:
"The Bible provides an undeniable explanation why God chose Jacob over Esau, and why God loved Jacob and hated Esau."

unless you mean there God's sovereign choice alone, based on nothing either of them did in their life,

is contra-Biblical.

However there is 1) an identification of the flesh and those under the flesh, and their behavior, compared to, 2) those of the promise, and their behavior being under the promise. Although it's God's sovereign choice to offer salvation freely, and for the purpose of saving the Gentile nations through their faith in Christ based on the faith covenant God made with Abraham, there is also a behavior that identifies the "difference" in the two, explained throughout the gospel, and especially looking at Jesus's teachings.

The behavior of Esau throughout the bible is considered that of the flesh, which God rejects. In looking at the behavior of Jacob, the bible identifies his character as that of the promise, which God accepts. The gospel warns us that we are to walk according to the spirit or the promise (Jacob/Isaac), and not according to flesh or the law (Esau/Ishmael/Hagar). So it is important to understand why God chooses one behavior over the other behavior.

God don't just chose to hate for the sake of hating, Malachi 1:2-3. Esau's behavior was a behavior that God rejected, and if Esau (Edomites) will be punished according to the flesh (an allegory), he will be punished for his own wrong, Malachi 1:4; not because God made him that way. It has been prophesied that God will destroy Esau (the nation of Esau) Amos 1:11, and therefore nothing can change this prophesy.

 

[Clare73]

We all make assumptions. The thing to do is to be clear and concise, and examine our assumptions. They are often wrong.

Non-responsive to my specific point.

 

[Clare73]

ok. No problem. It's water under the bridge and going out to sea ...

Beautiful analogy. . .may I borrow that one also?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

1Pe 3:18 because also Christ once for sin did suffer--righteous for unrighteous--that he might lead us to God, having been put to death indeed, in the flesh, and having been made alive in the spirit,
19 in which also to the spirits in prison having gone he did preach,
20 who sometime disbelieved, when once the long-suffering of God did wait, in days of Noah--an ark being preparing--in which few, that is, eight souls, were saved through water;
(YLT)

1Pe 3:18 For Christ also died for sins once for all, the just for the unjust, so that He might bring us to God, having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit;
19 in which also He went and made proclamation to the spirits now in prison,
20 who once were disobedient, when the patience of God kept waiting in the days of Noah, during the construction of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through the water.
(NAS95)

Thanks for providing the quotes of these verses, Misput!

With these quotes, the first thing we realize in a hermeneutical frame of awareness is that these verses have been chosen for inquiry by an individual person, an English speaking person who lives in the 21st century in what is likely a Westernized nation. And in this case, that person is yourself (and myself, as well). So, I would ask my first hermeneutical question, "What about these verses has drawn your interests and which aspects of them do you want us to analyze more closely? Are we to look at all of the themes within them, or just one specific idea among the rest?"

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Beautiful analogy. . .may I borrow that one also?

... sure. It's yours if you want it.

 

[Clare73]

However there is 1) an identification of the flesh and those under the flesh, and their behavior, compared to, 2) those of the promise, and their behavior being under the promise. Although it's God's sovereign choice to offer salvation freely, and for the purpose of saving the Gentile nations through their faith in Christ based on the faith covenant God made with Abraham, there is also a behavior that identifies the "difference" in the two, explained throughout the gospel, and especially looking at Jesus's teachings.

The behavior of Esau throughout the bible is considered that of the flesh, which God rejects. In looking at the behavior of Jacob, the bible identifies his character as that of the promise, which God accepts. The gospel warns us that we are to walk according to the spirit or the promise (Jacob/Isaac), and not according to flesh or the law (Esau/Ishmael/Hagar). So it is important to understand why God chooses one behavior over the other behavior.

And you know the NT teaches that none of the above have anything to do with God's sovereign choice of Jacob.

God don't just chose to hate for the sake of hating,

Don't rationalize the text because it offends you.
It's better to leave it unexplained in your own mind than to alter Scripture to make it suitable to you.

Malachi 1:2-3. Esau's behavior was a behavior that God rejected, and if Esau (Edomites) will be punished according to the flesh (an allegory), he will be punished for his own wrong, Malachi 1:4; not because God made him that way. It has been prophesied that God will destroy Esau (the nation of Esau) Amos 1:11, and therefore nothing can change this prophesy.

I think you are too intelligent to be warping Paul's meaning in Romans 9:10-12 to mean God's choice was based on somethong other than his sovereign choice alone.
And I suggest "love" should be understood more as "favoring," and "hate" understood more as "not favoring."
Just a suggestion, with no basis other than my suggestion.

 

[biblelesson]

And you know the NT teaches that none of the above have anything to do with God's sovereign choice of Jacob.
Don't rationalize the text because it offends you.
It's better to leave it unexplained in your own mind than to alter Scripture to make it suitable to you.
I think you are too intelligent to be warping Paul's meaning in Romans 9:10-12 to mean God's choice was based on somethong other than his sovereign choice alone.
And I suggest "love" should be understood more as "favoring," and "hate" understood more as "not favoring."
Just a suggestion, with no basis other than my suggestion.

You are not understanding, so I will leave it alone!

 

[hedrick]

And I suggest "love" should be understood more as "favoring," and "hate" understood more as "not favoring."
Just a suggestion, with no basis other than my suggestion.

Here's what the Word commentary says on the Malachi passage:

"It is best to take Malachi’s use of the terms “love” and “hate” in vv 2 and 3 as covenant language. When Yahweh says, “I have loved Jacob,” he means, “I chose Jacob,” and when he says, “I hated Esau,” he means, “I did not choose Esau.” J. M. Myers said, “Jacob was the chosen one; Esau the rejected one. The usual rendering of the word, san’e (=hate), is too strong here. As the antithetical parallelism appears to indicate, it is the equivalent of ‘not loved’ (=‘not chosen,’ “rejected”)” (Myers, World of the Restoration 97). This certainly is election language. “Loved” means chosen and “hated” means not chosen. But also there is probably an overtone of bitterness here directed at Edom. Edom’s origin is traced to Esau who was the older twin brother of Jacob. There was a special antipathy between Israel and Edom."

Paul is using the passage in a way that's consistent with this. The Esau story is not about the fate of one particular individual. It's about Israel and at least one group of Gentiles. That's how Paul uses it.

NT authors sometimes use exegesis that I wouldn't, consistent with 1st Cent. Jewish practice. But I don't think this is an example.

 

[Clare73]

Well, if Paul were anything like Muhammad or Joseph Smith, receiving something personally handed and dictated by angels, etc., we might not trust Paul's reasoning.

Paul experienced something -- although,
he doesn't make it clear that he was the one caught up to God's throne. We are left to assume it was him.

Contrare. . .

He makes it irrefutabley clear in his statement there that
"to keep me from becoming conceited because of these surpassingly great revelationd, there was given me a thorn in my flesh, a messenger of Satan to torment me."

Why do you resist Paul in light of what he clearly states there (v.7)?

I had you for better than that.

 

[Clare73]

You are not understanding, so I will leave it alone!

I understand your statements.

You do not answer the simple questions I present regarding those statements.

 

[Fervent]

You are not understanding, so I will leave it alone!

Just my 2 cents, I don't think the issue is a lack of understanding. Clare seems to comprehend your point, but the hermeneutic she is operating under doesn't really allow for nuance. What separates your position from hers is simply an approach that aims at creating a mechanical system of crisp doctrine and one that views the Bible more organically.

 

[biblelesson]

Yes, we are taught by the Holy Spirit. But what we are taught is the same truth, yet most often those claiming to be "taught by the Holy Spirit" are using the claim as an excuse for a divergent teaching that they alone can fathom. If the Holy Spirit is truly teaching someone something, it will be recoverable by the community so that we may be taught together. Hermeneutics and Biblical interpretation are not a denial of the teaching of the Holy Spirit, they are how we confirm the spirit by which we are being taught comes from God. Hermeneutics also gives us ground for engaging with alternative interpretations and careful application and understanding of the hermeneutic we are engaged in prevents us from simply standing on our own opinion instead providing support that what we understand the Bible to mean is reasonably accurate.

What you are saying is not biblical!

 

[TheWhat?]

Just my 2 cents, I don't think the issue is a lack of understanding. Clare seems to comprehend your point, but the hermeneutic she is operating under doesn't really allow for nuance. What separates your position from hers is simply an approach that aims at creating a mechanical system of crisp doctrine and one that views the Bible more organically.

It's as if the battle between scholastic rationalism and the mystics never ends...