Hail and Fire mingled with Blood

[Seth]

I don't have much of a problem with the idea of seeking out idiom meanings, but there are a few caveats to that method as well.

Matt 13:10-11
And the disciples came, and said unto Him, Why do you speak unto them in parables?  He answered and said unto them, "Because it is given unto YOU (the disciples) to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but unto them (the crowd) it is NOT given."

Parables are useful when the explanation is immediately given, because then you can see nuances of the teaching within the parable. The problem for the non-disciples is that Jesus never explained his parables to them, because "unto them it was not given." If you notice the pattern by which Jesus taught he would say "The kingdom of God is like this" then "the kingdom of God is like that." One after the other, but no explanation.

So, if I look to common knowledge of that time for an explanation, I might accidentally fall into the same understanding as those who crucified Christ. I may have no more understanding of what he was really talking about than they did.

For example, If "kick the bucket" was a common idiom for "die," and I didn't want to give my meaning to the larger crowd, I might use the phrase "kick the bucket" but not mean what they think I meant. The word "kick" might have a specific meaning and same with "bucket" so in that way, I might be talking about "life" while they think I mean "death."

If I take Romans 12:2 and understand that knowing the will of God requires a converted mind, if I arrive at the same understanding as those with unconverted minds, then I think that's a problem.

[WhiteWings]

Sometimes God explains exactly what he means directly in his own scripture. Actually he does that a lot.

Many who fully agree will have a (vastly) different interpretation of what God said. That summarizes my view   :friendstu:

[Seth]

True, but that doesn't matter...

God will show the truth in the end. He's always been in charge of that.

Whether or not sola scriptura interpretations are correct can be examined on how well they harmonize with the rest of scripture. That's a good way to test the interpretation.

[WhiteWings]

I don't have much of a problem with the idea of seeking out idiom meanings, but there are a few caveats to that method as well.

Likely more than a few. I didn't intend to promote it as a foolproof method because it isn't. It's just my opinion that it's better than no external references at all. And obviously if a certain source conflicts with the Bible, that source should be ignored.

Parables are useful when the explanation is immediately given, because then you can see nuances of the teaching within the parable. The problem for the non-disciples is that Jesus never explained his parables to them, because "unto them it was not given." If you notice the pattern by which Jesus taught he would say "The kingdom of God is like this" then "the kingdom of God is like that." One after the other, but no explanation.

So, if I look to common knowledge of that time for an explanation, I might accidentally fall into the same understanding as those who crucified Christ. I may have no more understanding of what he was really talking about than they did.

For example, If "kick the bucket" was a common idiom for "die," and I didn't want to give my meaning to the larger crowd, I might use the phrase "kick the bucket" but not mean what they think I meant. The word "kick" might have a specific meaning and same with "bucket" so in that way, I might be talking about "life" while they think I mean "death."

All true.
So there are 3 ways to handle problems:
a] Do nothing because we are (likely) not given to understand. --> End of many studies.
b] Sola Scripture --> Very often a dead end if the reader doesn't inject opinions on what it should mean. Simply because there are to many uncertainties to reach a Sola Scriptura conclusion.
c] External sources with the advantages I pointed out and the dangers you pointed out.

So, if I look to common knowledge of that time for an explanation, I might accidentally fall into the same understanding as those who crucified Christ.

I'm not sure about what to think about that Seth. Possibly Jesus was crucified because of misunderstandings as you said.
Maybe it was because they hated to lose their position of authority.

I may have no more understanding of what he was really talking about than they did.

We have far less 'feeling' for that society as those who lived in it. That's a big disadvantage for us.
OTOH We have access to the complete teaching most Jews merely heard fragments of Jesus teachings because He travelled a lot and many just heard part of His teaching that day.
:dontknow:

[Seth]

Yes, I think external sources are fine as well. Personally, since Jesus himself said that he had no intention for them to understand his message, and that such a thing reveals that the only reason they followed him was for physical miracles, I think discovering meaning from what God says a symbol means has great strength. The reason is because Jesus told the pharisees that they didn't know the scriptures, and that the scriptures were revealing the truth.

If they didn't know the scriptures, and they had practically memorized them, then how well did the rest of the people know them? Not at all either. Yet, they all knew their own idioms. That suggests to me that reading the Bible is not the same as knowing what it says, that a treasure trove of answers exist there and have not been understood by people who have intimate knowledge.

So, if I have a choice between "hail and fire" as being an idiom with a commonly known meaning, while knowing that none of the Jews understood the scripture, and the scripture makes a connection to "hail and fire" being God's voice, I lean to the scriptural understanding more than the common understanding.

I lean toward the notion that Jesus was hiding his mysteries in the scriptures, and didn't want a certain people knowing what they were. If he spoke in idioms so that they knew, Jesus would have been contradicting his purpose.

[Seth]

That's all just a long way of saying that if an idiom explanation contradicts a scriptural explanation, in such a way that the former causes disharmony to the rest of scripture, I will lean to the latter.

[WhiteWings]

Yes, I think external sources are fine as well. Personally, since Jesus himself said that he had no intention for them to understand his message,

While He said that I wonder how we should understand it. It sounds like: All I do is waste my breath while teaching.
I think that can't be the meaning. Maybe in during the years He lived; but also right now?

Jesus told the pharisees that they didn't know the scriptures, and that the scriptures were revealing the truth.

If they didn't know the scriptures, and they had practically memorized them, then how well did the rest of the people know them? Not at all either. Yet, they all knew their own idioms. That suggests to me that reading the Bible is not the same as knowing what it says,

I think it does, but mankind is very skilled at wrong interpretations.
Add to that the complete law they followed at that time was very flawed. It was God's law combined with truckloads of manmade laws to 'improve' Gods law. So assume some people during His ministry knew the law 100% and followed it 100%. But, say, 70% is manmade junk laws that at times even contradict God's laws. So they knew it all but their real problem was that the knew/followed more than what was good for them. And so by obeying the full law they drifted away from the real law. Does that make sense....? :doh:

So, if I have a choice between "hail and fire" as being an idiom with a commonly known meaning, while knowing that none of the Jews understood the scripture, and the scripture makes a connection to "hail and fire" being God's voice, I lean to the scriptural understanding more than the common understanding.

That should always be the case Seth. I just wonder if it's even possible to have full Scriptual understanding because our thoughts patterns are greatly influenced by education, society and other matters. It's not without reason ETs seem doom an gloom in every verse. Even the ones that make you cheer.

I lean toward the notion that Jesus was hiding his mysteries in the scriptures, and didn't want a certain people knowing what they were. If he spoke in idioms so that they knew, Jesus would have been contradicting his purpose.

But I think His purpose was that at some time all those nice idioms would be understood.

[WhiteWings]

That's all just a long way of saying that if an idiom explanation contradicts a scriptural explanation, in such a way that the former causes disharmony to the rest of scripture, I will lean to the latter.

That much I already wrote. Fill gaps not contradict.
BTW an idiom is Scripture too. It's interpretation hasn't to be.

[marie glen]

....all of life is a metaphor, but I think most would say it's also literal.. a great lesson this chewing on the fruit of knowing good from evil.. a very important lesson.. and what is the best teacher?

God's 'judgements'/wrath surely(?) is another way of saying consequences & results.. man cannot learn by metaphor alone (imo)

"hail and fire mingled with blood" -  is surely?? also Rev 13:13 which (imo) first occurred in 1945 (maN's splitting of the atom) then has been paused for some time while many are sealed on their foreheads,
Rev7:1+

{...imo, metaphor alone, will keep UR tiny/unaccepted, better to believe the Word then try to twist it unrecognizable only a very few could ever bend their heads around it.. "life is simple but man invents many inventions" Ecclesiastes}

:Chinscratch: Who can prevent God's will? He will have all to be reconciled.. same process for all, and summed up driven home in an intense (and very long, surely?) day of review/judgment

[Seth]

Yes, I think external sources are fine as well. Personally, since Jesus himself said that he had no intention for them to understand his message,

While He said that I wonder how we should understand it. It sounds like: All I do is waste my breath while teaching.
I think that can't be the meaning. Maybe in during the years He lived; but also right now?

I think you and I are pretty similar in understanding.

To answer your question, I think not necessarily right now. In fact, I think the reason Jesus had no intention of being understood had to do with this:

Matthew 10:27
There is NOTHING concealed that will not be disclosed, or hidden that will not be made known. What I tell you in the dark, speak in the daylight; what is whispered in your ear, proclaim from the roofs.

Jesus never had to hide anything if he didn't want to, but he definitely had a purpose in doing so. I believe that Jesus was doing this to give his disciples the gift of healing in a much deeper way than physical healing: spiritual healing.

Nothing is more frightening than the idea of being bound hand and foot and thrown into literal fire, but when a disciple like James comes along and says that the fire is representative of a life led by sin and the destruction therein (James 3:4-6), I think he is speaking in the daylight what Jesus spoke in the dark. Jesus never interpreted Gehenna that way. He never really explained it at all. But James gives us a direct interpretation which, while cause for warning, also releases all fear of physical fire. The warning is to not let our members (hands and feet etc) be defiled by sin.

Seeing that the Apostles are speaking in the daylight, what Jesus spoke in the dark, Maybe the best place to find idiom meanings would therefore be in the epistles, not necessarily the four gospels. The best people to explain Jesus' sayings, are his followers.

[sheila]

...feet that greatly love to wander from following Him..hands that repent not of their own works

  [that man creates idols to bow down to 'images'..the work of his hands..and does not glorify God for the

works of His[my own right arme will work salvation/Jesus sat at the right hand of God..after

doing the works of His Father for the redemption of all men]  Jesus is the right aarm of God and

the Holy spirit sits on His left...you will see God in between them...the true God Revealed of

  his son and the Holy spirit[thou shalt make no carven image of God to bow down to him]

  God reveals himself between the two cherubs...His right arm and left arm are the covering

cherubs..and one with Him to gather you into His bosom..and carry you close to His heart.......

  ...prodigal sons of Adam are hugged.....His son which was dead[all in Adam] are welcomed home


      they will not see unless the Son/Holy spirit open their eyes/ears..or the shroud[prince

  of this world that blinds them] is removed...........in order that the election depend on the will

of God and not man. He does this so that no flesh can boast.....thus harlots tax-collectors

sinners,and the worst of the sinners enter first[seeking the lost]  He chose the weakest

the despized..in order to put the strong and exalted to shame. so know this..


       

[Tom]

Yes, I think external sources are fine as well. Personally, since Jesus himself said that he had no intention for them to understand his message,

While He said that I wonder how we should understand it. It sounds like: All I do is waste my breath while teaching.
I think that can't be the meaning. Maybe in during the years He lived; but also right now?

I think you and I are pretty similar in understanding.

To answer your question, I think not necessarily right now. In fact, I think the reason Jesus had no intention of being understood had to do with this:

Matthew 10:27
There is NOTHING concealed that will not be disclosed, or hidden that will not be made known. What I tell you in the dark, speak in the daylight; what is whispered in your ear, proclaim from the roofs.

Jesus never had to hide anything if he didn't want to, but he definitely had a purpose in doing so. I believe that Jesus was doing this to give his disciples the gift of healing in a much deeper way than physical healing: spiritual healing.

Nothing is more frightening than the idea of being bound hand and foot and thrown into literal fire, but when a disciple like James comes along and says that the fire is representative of a life led by sin and the destruction therein (James 3:4-6), I think he is speaking in the daylight what Jesus spoke in the dark. Jesus never interpreted Gehenna that way. He never really explained it at all. But James gives us a direct interpretation which, while cause for warning, also releases all fear of physical fire. The warning is to not let our members (hands and feet etc) be defiled by sin.

Seeing that the Apostles are speaking in the daylight, what Jesus spoke in the dark, Maybe the best place to find idiom meanings would therefore be in the epistles, not necessarily the four gospels. The best people to explain Jesus' sayings, are his followers.

It is intentional mistranslation of Gehenna as hell that has distorted the concept of both. I don't believe the purpose of Gehenna is the fear of being thrown into "literal fire" alive. It is the disgrace of having one's corpse discarded there after execution. The "literal fire" is used to consume the rotting flesh.

"And it will come to be, as often as the new moon comes in its monthly time, And as often as the sabbath comes in its sabbath cycle, All flesh shall come to worship before Me, says Yahweh. And they will go forth and see the corpses of the mortals who transgressed against Me, For their worm shall not die, And their fire shall not be quenched, And they will become a repulsion to all flesh." (Isaiah 66:23,24)

"Gehenna, the valley of the son of Hinnom, just below the city of Jerusalem, where idolatrous worship was once carried on and where the city offal was burned, will once more become the incinerator for Jerusalem. In the kingdom it will consume the carcasses of criminals as well as the rubbish of the city. It should not be confounded with the unseen, or hades, which is often translated "hell", or with tartarus, similarly translated. Neither is it the lake of fire (Un.20:14), which follows the great white throne judgment for the wicked. Its operation is confined to the temporal judgments of the millennial kingdom. It does not fix ultimate destiny, for it disappears long before the consummation." (Concordant Commentary on the New Testament page 16)

[Seth]

It is intentional mistranslation of Gehenna as hell that has distorted the concept of both. I don't believe the purpose of Gehenna is the fear of being thrown into "literal fire" alive. It is the disgrace of having one's corpse discarded there after execution. The "literal fire" is used to consume the rotting flesh.

Yes, there is an intentional mistranslation which leads to a whole mess of doctrine. On the other hand, without that mistranslation, one can still come to the wrong ideas. Jesus never mentions Gehenna when he says that those who attend the wedding feast wearing the wrong robes will be bound hand and foot and thrown into the fire. We can make those connections in scripture, but Jesus never explains it himself and that is the point. The Apostles do explain it. The things that Peter and Paul wrote about God's wrath agree with James' interpretation as well.

To interpret Christ's words with an unconverted mind will never allow anyone to know the will of God (Romans 12:2). So, even without the mistranslation, the carnal mind can lead to false doctrine. This is why I don't go along with what either the Greek or the Jews understood in their own day. To me, it's more important to know what Jesus really meant rather than assuming what they would have understood.

1 Cor 2
6Howbeit WE speak wisdom among them that are perfect: yet not the wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of this world, that come to nought: 7But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory: 8Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.

[Tom]

I agree "it's more important to know what Jesus really meant rather than assuming what they would have understood." We just disagree on "what Jesus really meant."

[Seth]

I agree "it's more important to know what Jesus really meant rather than assuming what they would have understood." We just disagree on "what Jesus really meant."

I try to take what he meant from those who "spoke in the daylight" what Jesus "spoke in the dark," from those he gave his ministry to spread to the world.

[Tom]

Brother, I think there are as many interpretations of scripture as there students of scripture. I think everybody on this site has a unique perspective. It seems we all agree that Christ died for our sins, was resurrected, and reconciled all on earth and in the heavens to God. We're all ambassadors of conciliation, but we have some differences in our understanding of scripture. Some day I guess we'll all find out how accurate our knowledge of scripture was, but I think the important thing is to herald the word. Preach the evangel. Some things in scripture are obviously debatable regarding literal or figurative interpretation. I'm not here to tell anybody they're right or wrong because I think the only authority is God. We have the word of God to reveal truth to us, but everybody perceives things differently. You told me before that you have a different interpretation of Gehenna than I do. I accept that. There are other folks on this site who have different interpretations of some things than I do, and I accept that. I'm not looking for proselytes. I just come here to share holy spirit with my brothers and sisters with the full realization that we don't all agree on everything, but we have enough in common to fellowship together because at least we all agree that God is the savior of all mankind.

[Seth]

I don't have disagreement with anything you just said.  :iagree:

[rosered]

Brother, I think there are as many interpretations of scripture as there students of scripture. I think everybody on this site has a unique perspective. It seems we all agree that Christ died for our sins, was resurrected, and reconciled all on earth and in the heavens to God. We're all ambassadors of conciliation, but we have some differences in our understanding of scripture. Some day I guess we'll all find out how accurate our knowledge of scripture was, but I think the important thing is to herald the word. Preach the evangel. Some things in scripture are obviously debatable regarding literal or figurative interpretation. I'm not here to tell anybody they're right or wrong because I think the only authority is God. We have the word of God to reveal truth to us, but everybody perceives things differently. You told me before that you have a different interpretation of Gehenna than I do. I accept that. There are other folks on this site who have different interpretations of some things than I do, and I accept that. I'm not looking for proselytes. I just come here to share holy spirit with my brothers and sisters with the full realization that we don't all agree on everything, but we have enough in common to fellowship together because at least we all agree that God is the savior of all mankind.

  I gree with what your saying Tom  as well

  We only have our ''lot '' what gives us to walk out
  If it be walking in the Spiirt or walking in the flesh   it all still MUST be walked out,  to Know and understand  Gods  will and ways  for all of us  .   many are  called to suffer in  doing whats right or wrong  in His sight