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

spiritfilledjm said:

I just took an intro into Hermeneutics class for college. I've never really had much experience with it...at least not as in depth. It was interesting. It seemed like, though, that they take out the Holy Spirit from it all. We're looking at just what the words say, the original meanings of the Greek and Hebrew, context of where it was written to and all the other contexts that may affect the meaning of what the author themselves had intended when writing it.

I understand why it is a good idea, I just think that there should be a healthy balance. Hermeneutics seems to run the risk (though not intentionally) of nullifying scripture by arguing that it wasn't written to us which goes against 2 Timothy 3:16-17, and one of the basis for the argument of what made scripture, well...scripture.

Click to expand...

I just started reading this thread, so maybe others have said what I'm going to say: The fact they may not include the work of the Holy Spirit in with their Hermeneutic instructions doesn't exclude him by any means.

By far, MOST of Hermeneutics is just common sense. Almost all the same issues apply to anything you read, particularly if translated from another language and another society and time. Probably the main thing I have found from studying hermeneutics, and the least-followed thing I see, is the proscription against carelessness and laziness.

But one matter of hermeneutic philosophy includes the fact that, unlike other literary works, the Bible IS the work of God, and that the Holy Spirit IS involved in reading and interpreting it. But another, conversely, is that the human mind is good at fooling itself, and the work of the Spirit is in some ways subjective and other ways objective. It is too easy to interpret "what rings true" or "feels right" as truth.

Just a side comment: Probably the best way to follow/listen to the Spirit of God in interpreting Scripture is the habit of obedience and submission to Christ prior to the reading.

2PhiloVoid said:

Clare, when you read the statement above in the context of the rest of what I also wrote in post #170, what do you think I meant in saying this? Surely, you're not interpreting it to mean that I suppose that the mark of Cain is the dark skin that African peoples have, because I think most people here would realize that I'm referring to other people (i.e. other Christians) who have supposed this. I don't suppose this and, quite frankly, I have never committed the fallacy of having done so.

It's called the act of clarification, Clare. It's what people do when others who hear us or read us may misunderstand the first set of statements we've made; we then write a more extensive and intensive set of statements to help correct their misperception about what it is they think we orignally meant.

I am free to qualify and make clearer any statement I've previously stated. I do so all the time and, in fact, I expect other people to do the same.

The brass tack fact is: I've never, ever in my life associated the 'mark of Cain' or the 'Curse of Ham' with African peoples who have lived at any time in the history of humanity. Am I being clear enough now? If not, I'll revise yet again for even more clarity.

Click to expand...

I think I misunderstood you.

TheWhat? said:

I'll demonstrate.



Fair enough. I won't go so far as to claim that they intentionally distorted scripture, but they do leave us with instructions on such.

[Jhn 15:7-8 NKJV] 7 "If you abide in Me, and My words abide in you, you will ask what you desire, and it shall be done for you. 8 "By this My Father is glorified, that you bear much fruit; so you will be My disciples.

[Luk 12:11-12 NKJV] 11 "Now when they bring you to the synagogues and magistrates and authorities, do not worry about how or what you should answer, or what you should say. 12 "For the Holy Spirit will teach you in that very hour what you ought to say."

Acts chapter 7 comes to mind here.



It's an interesting theory. Of what value would this be to Jesus, the early believers, the author or reader?

Click to expand...

This post proves your username is appropriate. I can't make heads or tails of what you think those passages are saying(or what you are intending to convey in quoting them.)

The original audience would have understood a lot of this information implicitly, it would have been in the collective background of 1st century messianic expectations so the context would convey to them a more complete message of Jesus' identity and role from the testing period and His responses. Perhaps some would explicitly link it with a prophecy like Ezekiel 24, but even without that explicit link the signaling would be well understood and is lost to modern audiences.

When we see something or read something from our culture we know without thinking about it certain information. If there are parallel universe twins, they don't have to tell us the one with the goatee is evil. The culture is especially relevant in the narrative texts of the Bible, because the authors are relying on a "show, don't tell" sort of ethos, and so they pack the scenes with things that would have conveyed meaning to the readers initially and often have either different meanings or have lost their significance altogether. In rhetorical and persuasive works like the Pauline epistles, understanding the background allusions and historical references used is critical to drawing appropriate conclusions. To ancient audiences these things would simply be common and expected knowledge, but what is common and expected today is not the same. The phrase "Jacob have I loved and Esau have I hated" is a lot different beast when the history of Israel and Edom are understood.

2PhiloVoid said:

Alright. We can attempt some general discussion about how we can apply better exegesis and some hermeneutical mindfulness to 1 Peter 3:18-20.

So, first things first, misput---let's quote the needed verses, but as we seek to do so let's ask ourselves our first Hermeneutical type of question: Since you and I are speaking English and are operating culturally within that venue of human communication, which English version of the Bible do you think we should use in presenting our quote of these three verses? This is what hermeneutics prompts us to do, and we do this before we begin the act of exegesis. I have my own answer for this, but since I assume the act of interpreting the Bible is a group effort among those of us who are all being led by the Holy Spirit, I'd like to hear your answer before we proceed further and 'print' these verses for our next steps.

Click to expand...

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)

1 Timothy 6:20-21, KJV, “...avoid profane and vain babbling, and opposition to science falsely so called: 21 Which some professing have erred concerning the faith...”

Fervent said:

This post proves your username is appropriate. I can't make heads or tails of what you think those passages are saying(or what you are intending to convey in quoting them.)

The original audience would have understood a lot of this information implicitly, it would have been in the collective background of 1st century messianic expectations so the context would convey to them a more complete message of Jesus' identity and role from the testing period and His responses. Perhaps some would explicitly link it with a prophecy like Ezekiel 24, but even without that explicit link the signaling would be well understood and is lost to modern audiences.

When we see something or read something from our culture we know without thinking about it certain information. If there are parallel universe twins, they don't have to tell us the one with the goatee is evil. The culture is especially relevant in the narrative texts of the Bible, because the authors are relying on a "show, don't tell" sort of ethos, and so they pack the scenes with things that would have conveyed meaning to the readers initially and often have either different meanings or have lost their significance altogether. In rhetorical and persuasive works like the Pauline epistles, understanding the background allusions and historical references used is critical to drawing appropriate conclusions. To ancient audiences these things would simply be common and expected knowledge, but what is common and expected today is not the same. The phrase "Jacob have I loved and Esau have I hated" is a lot different beast when the history of Israel and Edom are understood.

Click to expand...

I just want to comment on you comment regarding Jacob and Esau being best understood if you know the history of Israel and Edom. I’m not sure if you mean the history outside the Bible.

However, the Bible provides the entire story/history about Jacob and Esau that history outside the Bible can do no justice to.

One issues is to understand how to read the Bible to where it teaches you what it is saying. “Precept upon precept, Here a little, there a little, line upon line...”

The Bible provides an undeniable explanation why God chose Jacob over Esau, and why God loved Jacob and hated Esau. There are many places in the Bible you can find the reason, but if you read Obadiah, you will get a good understanding. Esau took Jacob’s land and heritage. God was angry with Esau and said “even the grape gathers leave some grapes.” This means Esau took everything from Jacob/Israel (land, heritage, etc) when they went into captivity. They were among those that cast lots for what belonged to Israel.

biblelesson said:

I just want to comment on you comment regarding Jacob and Esau being best understood if you know the history of Israel and Edom. I’m not sure if you mean the history outside the Bible.

However, the Bible provides the entire story/history about Jacob and Esau that history outside the Bible can do no justice to.

One issues is to understand how to read the Bible to where it teaches you what it is saying. “Precept upon precept, Hear a little, there a little, line upon line...”

The Bible provides an undeniable explanation why God chose Jacob over Esau, and why God loved Jacob and hated Esau. There are many places in the Bible you can find the reason, but if you read Obadiah, you will get a good understanding. Esau took Jacob’s land and heritage. God was angry with Esau and said “even the grape gathers leave some grapes.” This means Esau took everything from Jacob/Israel (land, heritage, etc) when they went in it captivity. They were among those that cast cast lots for what belonged to Israel.

Click to expand...

I meant the history within the Bible, which the majority audience that originally received the letter to the Romans would have been intimately familiar with and most modern Christians are not, instead boiling it down to a commentary line that focuses purely on God's declaration to Rebekkah.

Mark Quayle said:

I just started reading this thread, so maybe others have said what I'm going to say: The fact they may not include the work of the Holy Spirit in with their Hermeneutic instructions doesn't exclude him by any means.

By far, MOST of Hermeneutics is just common sense. Almost all the same issues apply to anything you read, particularly if translated from another language and another society and time. Probably the main thing I have found from studying hermeneutics, and the least-followed thing I see, is the proscription against carelessness and laziness.

But one matter of hermeneutic philosophy includes the fact that, unlike other literary works, the Bible IS the work of God, and that the Holy Spirit IS involved in reading and interpreting it. But another, conversely, is that the human mind is good at fooling itself, and the work of the Spirit is in some ways subjective and other ways objective. It is too easy to interpret "what rings true" or "feels right" as truth.

Just a side comment: Probably the best way to follow/listen to the Spirit of God in interpreting Scripture is the habit of obedience and submission to Christ prior to the reading.

Click to expand...

Yes. We need to take God's word as seriously as He does. However, studying the Bible for the sake of it is not a good idea. Lord Jesus is God's Word, the revelation of God that is more complete than the written word.

Fervent said:

I meant the history within the Bible, which the majority audience that originally received the letter to the Romans would have been intimately familiar with and most modern Christians are not, instead boiling it down to a commentary line that focuses purely on God's declaration to Rebekkah.

Click to expand...

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.

biblelesson said:

I just want to comment on you comment regarding Jacob and Esau being best understood if you know the history of Israel and Edom. I’m not sure if you mean the history outside the Bible.

However, the Bible provides the entire story/history about Jacob and Esau that history outside the Bible can do no justice to.

One issues is to understand how to read the Bible to where it teaches you what it is saying. “Precept upon precept, Here a little, there a little, line upon line...”

Click to expand...

The Bible provides an undeniable explanation why God chose Jacob over Esau, and why God loved Jacob and hated Esau. There are many places in the Bible you can find the reason, but if you read Obadiah, you will get a good understanding. Esau took Jacob’s land and heritage. God was angry with Esau and said “even the grape gathers leave some grapes.” This means Esau took everything from Jacob/Israel (land, heritage, etc) when they went into captivity. They were among those that cast lots for what belonged to Israel.

Click to expand...

That explanation totally contradicts NT teaching in Romans 9:11-12: "Yet before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad--in order that God's purpose in election might stand: not by works but by him who calls--she was told, 'The older will serve the younger.' "

God elected Jacob for one reason only, his sovereign choice and will according to his plan. It had nothing to do with what either one of them ever did in their whole lives. It had only to do with God's sovereign call.

biblelesson said:

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

Click to expand...

Peter warns about Paul’s writing being hard to understand, 2 Peter 3:16.

Click to expand...

Yes, that would be things like Romans 3:28-31, or Romans 5:12-19, or Romans 9:6-24, but not Romans 9:10-12, that's not about failure to understand it, that's about failure to believe it.

Mark Quayle said:

I just started reading this thread, so maybe others have said what I'm going to say: The fact they may not include the work of the Holy Spirit in with their Hermeneutic instructions doesn't exclude him by any means.

By far, MOST of Hermeneutics is just common sense. Almost all the same issues apply to anything you read, particularly if translated from another language and another society and time. Probably the main thing I have found from studying hermeneutics, and the least-followed thing I see, is the proscription against carelessness and laziness.

But one matter of hermeneutic philosophy includes the fact that, unlike other literary works, the Bible IS the work of God, and that the Holy Spirit IS involved in reading and interpreting it. But another, conversely, is that

Click to expand...

the human mind is good at fooling itself, and the work of the Spirit is in some ways subjective and other ways objective. It is too easy to interpret "what rings true" or "feels right" as truth.

Click to expand...

Just a side comment: Probably the best way to follow/listen to the Spirit of God in interpreting Scripture is the habit of obedience and submission to Christ prior to the reading.

Click to expand...

Precisely!

Led by the Spirit in the NT means walking in obedience and submission so that you may be enlightened. There is no enlightenment apart from it.

All talk about being led by the Holy Spirit to understand Scripture is spurious apart from the obedient and submissive life.

Aussie Pete said:

Yes. We need to take God's word as seriously as He does. However, studying the Bible for the sake of it is not a good idea. Lord Jesus is God's Word, the revelation of God that is more complete than the written word.

Click to expand...

Apart from qualified assistance, it's not.

Clare73 said:

That explanation totally contradicts NT teaching in Romans 9:11-12: "Yet before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad--in order that God's purpose in election might stand: not by works but by him who calls--she was told, 'The older will serve the younger.' "

God elected Jacob for one reason only, his sovereign choice and will according to his plan. It had nothing to do with what either one of them ever did in their whole lives. It had only to do with God's sovereign call.

Click to expand...

This also fits into Paul's thought in his conclusion:

[Rom 9:30-32 NKJV] 30 What shall we say then? That Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness of faith; 31 but Israel, pursuing the law of righteousness, has not attained to the law of righteousness. 32 Why? Because [they did] not [seek it] by faith, but as it were, by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumbling stone.

Paul is expounding from scripture:

I think it's clear that in this context Paul is saying the choice is purely God's. But the context is God's overall plan to save everyone. Israel's falling away is temporary. In the end Israel and the Gentiles are saved (whether all individuals or not). Of course the fate of Esau himself isn't the point, nor was salvation even the issue in Genesis. Rather, it's a way of talking about the election of Israel. In Genesis, Jacob and Esau are eventually reconciled. While Paul doesn't return to Jacob and Esau, perhaps that's a parallel to the eventual inclusion of both Jews and Gentiles.

TheWhat? said:

This also fits into Paul's thought in his conclusion:

[Rom 9:30-32 NKJV] 30 What shall we say then? That Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness of faith; 31 but Israel, pursuing the law of righteousness, has not attained to the law of righteousness. 32 Why? Because [they did] not [seek it] by faith, but as it were, by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumbling stone.

Paul is expounding from scripture:

• Shortly after Esau and Jacob's births, a prophecy was given (Paul emphasizes foreordained purpose of God).
• Esau was blessed, but exchanged the blessing for a bowl of stew -- he did not believe in the efficacy of the blessing (Paul emphasizes that some stumbled at the stumbling stone).
• Jacob believed, and took the blessing (Paul emphasizes the success of those who attain to the righteousness of faith).

Click to expand...

Actually, it does not Biblically follow, when this is simply an assumption which the text actually states to the contrary, and gives the reason God chose Jacob:
"Before the twins were (even) born or had done anything good or bad--in order that God's purpose in election might stand--she was told. . ."

God chose Jacob for one reason only, for the purpose of his plan.

This is not about lack of understanding, this is about lack of belief.

Clare73 said:

That explanation totally contradicts NT teaching in Romans 9:11-12: "Yet before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad--in order that God's purpose in election might stand: not by works but by him who calls--she was told, 'The older will serve the younger.' "

God elected Jacob for one reason only, his sovereign choice and will according to his plan. It had nothing to do with what either one of them ever did in their whole lives. It had only to do with God's sovereign call.

Click to expand...

Amen. The theme is repeated throughout Biblical history and doctrine. Ask Job.

Clare73 said:

That explanation totally contradicts NT teaching in Romans 9:11-12: "Yet before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad--in order that God's purpose in election might stand: not by works but by him who calls--she was told, 'The older will serve the younger.' "

God elected Jacob for one reason only, his sovereign choice and will according to his plan. It had nothing to do with what either one of them ever did in their whole lives. It had only to do with God's sovereign call.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Clare73 said:

Actually, it does not Biblically follow, when this is simply an assumption which the text actually states to the contrary, and gives the reason God chose Jacob:
"Before the twins were (even) born or had done anything good or bad--in order that God's purpose in election might stand--she was told. . ."

God chose Jacob for one reason only, for the purpose of his plan.

This is not about lack of understanding, this is about lack of belief.

Click to expand...

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

The assumptions we can make about Paul and his belief system can dramatically alter the way we read Paul, because it helps to establish context -- a point I always ran into friction about with the secular humanist interpreters, and christian interpreters.

Clare73 said:

Led by the Spirit in the NT means walking in obedience and submission so that you may be enlightened. There is no enlightenment apart from it.

All talk about being led by the Holy Spirit to understand Scripture is spurious apart from the obedient and submissive life.

Click to expand...

Amen that, sister. "Apart from me you can do nothing" is not hyperbole.