Hermeneutics Meets the Road: Logic, Reason and the Tier 1 Basics

[Arial]

I suppose by defining hermeneutics as a 'science', by default, that would rule out any possibility of it being an art? (just asking)

False equivalency. It can be both and it is.

 

[makesends]

I suppose by defining hermeneutics as a 'science', by default, that would rule out any possibility of it being an art? (just asking)

Ha! No. Nor, FWIW, as someone once asked me, is there anywhere in Scripture that gives us "the rules" of interpretation. I would be lax not to mention that it does give us some good examples, though. The Rules are simply good reasoning, somewhat encoded, but practicality works out that each passage bears things in common and things different from others in what is needed to be brought to bear in exegesis. Look at the mess some of us make of Scripture by assuming that, "The Scriptural Means of Interpretation, (since it is taught in Scripture), is listening to the Spirit teach us." How many believers drive themselves crazy because 'the Spirit convicts them' of sin but they read that those who love God will obey God? "I'm only trying to be obedient to the Spirit!" has produced monsters and clowns.

This subject brings to mind the time I tried to teach practical electrical methods and code to someone with a, shall we say, hyperactive mind, though well-intended. I would make a statement, like, "We staple the Romex up here where the insulation hides it, but also because the NEC says it has to be at least an 1-1/4" above the bottom surface of the joist; the less of it visible, the better and neater the job, but the closer it is to the bottom of the joist the easier it will be for the next electrician or plumber to find it so he will avoid hitting it if he drills through the joist." The guy, staring at me with rapt attention and hardly even at what I'm showing him, interrupts me halfway through my explanation with a breathless, "The less it is visible, the better the job --got it!" And I'm thinking, No, Jack. You don't got it.​

​

Many Bible College students will learn THE RULES OF HERMENEUTICS and forget practicality. They will remember, "ONE MEANING, MANY APPLICATIONS" and struggle to force passages to that structure. They will think, "EITHER LITERAL OR SYMBOLIC", and miss whole points being made in a passage, by deciding which part is which, or by assuming that since the first phrase or section can't be literal that the second can't be either. I knew a guy who was stupid enough to be a constant danger to himself and to others on a construction crew but graduated Cum Laude from a well-known and accredited Bible College with a 4-year degree. He could industriously memorize word for word what he was told, but he did not, "Got it". He was the kind of fellow that "could make good use of the Windows Help Files". He may have become a great pastor, with a patient and wonderful heart, who loved God, but his use of Scripture would have to have been from the heart, thank God, and "not from the mind". I hope he didn't write books on Theology.​

 

[Oarknot]

I number these for reference to points of hermeneutic discussion/ instruction on exegesis—not to imply a sequence disconnect or paragraph division of any sort.

1)

I grant you that it does not disprove the intermediate state. BUT, if (said for the sake of argument) they do not experience it, and God does not see it as such, (which, granted, has yet to be proven), is there any actual passage of time in the afterlife?

2)

I do so to show the possibility that, including the intermediate state as a done fact, and no passage of time necessary for them, that upon death they may well indeed be issued 'immediately' into the resurrection, either at least in their experience, or even in the more solid fact of the eternal reality vs the perspective of this temporal vapor, to which we are 'currently' subjected.

3)

Perhaps you are right. I grant you it makes sense. But not being convinced of even that intermediate state, though I have no other explanation for what I read that sounds that way, besides a use of concepts assumed by the audience and not immediately denied by the speakers, (i.e. I grant my interjection there is indeed speculation—but with reason that is supported by tier 1 statements.

4)

I think it proper at this point to review, identifying exactly what the scriptural statements ARE concerning the afterlife and the intermediate state. Please be my guest, since it is your firm contention that indeed there is an intermediate state. Please forgive my inconsistency of expression.

4)

To the reader: We have in this discussion: Tier 1 statements to be delineated for you. Tier 2 conclusions drawn from those statements. Tier 3 conjectures as to Tier 1 statements impinging/related/relevant to this question, (and hopefully those Tier 1 statements (though there are very many, for which this format is not well-suited, will be delineated also). It may then appear to you that the application of those (Tier 3) conjectures need to be proven relevant. —And there is where I think our problems here lie, though both John and Arial and, perhaps, others may consider the problems elsewhere.​

I might point out that it appears the subject in question presumes "people" are in some form of either hell or what is commonly termed soul sleep after death. This alone needs to be unwrapped much further as there are other observations that can be brought to the fore for observations. Otherwise it's an argument from the law of excluded middle (LEM) and a logical fallacy to try to make it a yes or no, black or white hardline conclusion.

For example, no legitimate orthodox scholars have made a (legitimate) group orthodox conclusion that any named person is actually in hell now or in the future LoF. Some sects members are "allowed" to believe it, but it's not a lock in. Just as in the RCC there is a heterodox (not common but allowed) position that people are allowed to believe, which is every person could possibly qualify for at least purgatory, not straight to hell/LoF. Even orthodox officially condemned heretics can only be excoriated to the extent of turning them out of the assembly into the clutches of Satan in this present life and "potentially" the LoF, even with the caveat that they could change their ways and repent in this present life, but it's again not necessarily a lock in for hell/LoF. Rightfully so. This is generally agreed between the major branches of orthodoxy with the obviously generous room for debate for particulars which keeps the scholarly arguments for how many angels can dance on the head of a pin spinning. Soul sleep is a late comer in these pictures iirc.

Technically speaking all such claims are then purely speculative and not inclusive of other possible alternative conclusions. We could also technically claim that a similar observation arrives in reverse, that there is no specifically named person in heaven now, or in the future. The only technical occupant is Jesus. Even the thief on the cross with Jesus in paradise is not named. (yes, I know, a technicality.)

(I'm only a couple posts in so I'll get to post 12).

The technicality is then, presumption does not qualify as exegesis. In order to prove any person experiences anything post death, you have to have a name and multiple scripture witnesses for that name, for which there is none. And I consider that a blessing and good thing. People have proven they tend to bludgeon others with such conclusions to the demise of society.

Past the grave there's plenty of speculation to be had by all.

Any of us will have a very hard time trying to add locked in solid positions to what countless thousands of learned scholars have already spent a countless amount of time outlining in basics of faith, such as the Nicene creed. Even the Westminster confession is riddled with various flavors of presumption (imho.)

And even all of these scholars forgot to add the most basic item/tenant of faith to their various lists, which is to love our neighbors as ourselves. How come that didn't make the cut??? How can so many miss the so obvious?

There is no faith without love.

So debaters, you might consider first and foremost, how you measure the dead and dearly departed may very well be the measure that will be meted out to YOU.

 

[Oarknot]

If God is shown in Scripture by use of temporal language, sequences of his deeds described as temporal events, does that mean that he is subject to time?

But the story of the Rich Man and Lazarus --to me, anyway-- is simply a story, drawn on common thought or even based on a story the audience was familiar with. To me it is only a story, with a moral or two, and a few well-placed thoughts concerning the nature of arrogance and humility, and even including a veiled prophecy. It was not doctrinal instruction concerning the nature of the afterlife. I doubt very much several things in the story, such as a large gap between heaven and hell across which one can speak with Abraham.

While I agree that God does not ask more of our intellect and heart that what our understanding is capable of handling, there is plenty of reason to believe that our simplistic mindsets miss a LOT. In fact, I rather think we will laugh at ourselves for being as blind as we were, once we see HIM as he is.

I don't remember if it was on this site or CF, but there was a thread once on language in Heaven--what sort of thing it would be. While certainly I can't say what it will be like for us, to me there is reason to believe that for God to speak is to cause, and words do not represent things, but are the things themselves. I would be very much surprised if the difference between this temporal realm, and being with God face to face, was not at least that radically different.

It's interesting you bring this account up. You call it a story. Some consider it a parable as it is listed within a line of parables. But it is unique in that it contains a couple of named people, which then makes it potentially not a parable or simply a story. Abraham and Lazarus. Real named people. Were it simply a parable (falsely known as just a story) I might think Jesus would have not have had to insert a couple of imaginary story names posing as real characters who lived real lives and head real deaths and real after life experiences.

I might point out that parables in scripture are not just stories. They are ways of explaining very real but often empirically intangible facts. For example, my favorite parable contained in Mark 4 contains a very real, faith wise character, Satan. Even though we can't "see" Satan or empirically prove Satan exists, to deny Satan exists is technically a heresy.

The conclusion then is that parables are not just stories. They are real matters for people of faith.

Jesus, The Word made flesh, technically described Himself as...a Parable. And of course we know He Was/Is very real.

Scriptures available on request.

Just thought I'd toss this in to the ring.

 

[Oarknot]

I've always heard that people debate whether the Rich Man and Lazarus was a Parable or a real Account. If a real Account, sure, it's Linear...

Wouldn't Hades and Paradise have been the Old understanding of the Afterlife? I don't think Jesus was describing Heaven and Hell; but a way station. He was speaking their language; so to speak

We are provided a little clue in Hebrews about the state of the faithful, post death, that being "they" without "us" have not yet been perfected. This might indicate some things to some people.

Heb. 11:
39 And these all, having obtained a good report through faith, received not the promise:
40 God having provided some better thing for us, that they without us should not be made perfect.

So, yes, they are waiting...for us

Paul, all the days of his faith life, sought the promise, the resurrection of the Body in real time. The "manifestation" he spoke of in Romans 8. The loss of the temporal body state and the fullness of the eternal body state he spoke of in 1 Cor. 15.

I have spent 4 decades reconnoitering similarly with 1 basic question. What's stopping it? (It's a question that no one can answer because only God has that answer). When that question is answered, then the speculations will have no place left.

I heard it mentioned in this thread. We shall see Him as He Is for WE will be LIKE Him. I'm not seeing Him in the mirror yet.

But rumor has it He's inside the temple, already. It's a secret.

 

[Oarknot]

If time is a feature of creation (it is)

I will beep the little foul horn here. Time is not ticks on the 24 hour 60 second earth clock in scripture.

We are treated to many forms of how the term "time" is viewed in scripture. It's not solid.

We know that God experiences "time" in the "like" fashion described by Peter, which could be a day as a thousand years and vice versa, meaning He's not locked into any particular ticks on a clock, and can even make "time" stand still, which is quite a feat.

And we know that Satan experiences time. He has a short time for example, but that time has has extended from (some arguable point) past to present. That has been, so far, his "time."

And we know that mankind has ticks on a 24 hour earth clock, the sum of which is "our time." And referred collectively as times, plural as in the times of our collective generations. Whereas Satan has one generation, one time, singular, still currently in play.

Time, 3 different measures, but not limited to further enhancements. The first being, to God, not captured by it. Satan, definitely captured and limited, soon to be permanently evicted. And us...ticking away as we speak.

 

[makesends]

I will beep the little foul horn here. Time is not ticks on the 24 hour 60 second earth clock in scripture.

We are treated to many forms of how the term "time" is viewed in scripture. It's not solid.

We know that God experiences "time" in the "like" fashion described by Peter, which could be a day as a thousand years and vice versa, meaning He's not locked into any particular ticks on a clock, and can even make "time" stand still, which is quite a feat.

And we know that Satan experiences time. He has a short time for example, but that time has has extended from (some arguable point) past to present. That has been, so far, his "time."

And we know that mankind has ticks on a 24 hour earth clock, the sum of which is "our time." And referred collectively as times, plural as in the times of our collective generations. Whereas Satan has one generation, one time, singular, still currently in play.

Time, 3 different measures, but not limited to further enhancements. The first being, to God, not captured by it. Satan, definitely captured and limited, soon to be permanently evicted. And us...ticking away as we speak.

You rightly indicate that we are governed by time (of whatever sort), and that God is not. But would you say that God's deeds are governed by time?

If so, why? Because WE see them that way? Because that is how Scripture describes them?

Can we understand terminology that is NOT temporal?

 

[John Bauer]

I will beep the little foul horn here. Time is not ticks on the 24 hour 60 second earth clock in scripture.

Nobody, including me, has reduced “time” to ticks on a clock.

Time. Three different measures, …

And a feature of creation, as I said—whether created beings or created things.

 

[Oarknot]

You rightly indicate that we are governed by time (of whatever sort), and that God is not. But would you say that God's deeds are governed by time?

No. God's Words endure forever. He seems to weigh things our pretty seriously before speaking or acting. Isa. 40:8 (among others)

If so, why? Because WE see them that way? Because that is how Scripture describes them?

Can we understand terminology that is NOT temporal?

We will never comprehend God in full. Not possible.

 

[Oarknot]

Nobody, including me, has reduced “time” to ticks on a clock.



And a feature of creation, as I said—whether created beings or created things.

As far as we know, and limited to empirical creation, yes. We obviously don't have a full look at all the possible info, dimensions, etc.

Time is perceived in dramatically different ways, even in creation, by creatures.

So what exactly is "time?" It does tend to defy and evade complete capture in many ways, especially so in scripture.

Day and night are flexible terms.