Against modernist hermeneutics

[FSSL]

Hot/Cold (deeds) are contrasted with Lukewarm (no deeds).

A novel, private interpretation, considering:
a. others who go away from the accepted traditional interpretation make a distinction that to be cold is refreshing,

Perhaps on forums.

My interpretation of this passage is not novel. I am very conservative so as not to foist something on a passage, unnaturally. I do not try to force characteristics on "hot" and "cold." The point of the passage is NOT to define hot and cold. It is to focus on lukewarm.

The metaphors came from historical realities. There is nothing "liberal" about that. What IS liberal is trying to pin people down as to whether they are hot or cold as if these are categorically defined. It is call spiritualizing the text... the error of Origen.

Calling my interpretation "novel" demonstrates that you have not consulted the commentaries on this passage.

You make claims about hermeneutics and now this. I am not convinced you are as well-read as you would like the rest of us to imagine.

 

[bgwilkinson]

Hot/Cold (deeds) are contrasted with Lukewarm (no deeds).

A novel, private interpretation, considering:
a. others who go away from the accepted traditional interpretation make a distinction that to be cold is refreshing,

Perhaps on forums.

My interpretation of this passage is not novel. I am very conservative so as not to foist something on a passage, unnaturally. I do not try to force characteristics on "hot" and "cold." The point of the passage is NOT to define hot and cold. It is to focus on lukewarm.

The metaphors came from historical realities. There is nothing "liberal" about that. What IS liberal is trying to pin people down as to whether they are hot or cold as if these are categorically defined. It is call spiritualizing the text... the error of Origen.

Calling my interpretation "novel" demonstrates that you have not consulted the commentaries on this passage.

You make claims about hermeneutics and now this. I am not convinced you are as well-read as you would like the rest of us to imagine.

That was my thought exactly. Reminds me of other Google, Copy and Paste drive-bys

 

[FSSL]

For starts... here is a very accessible commentary...

"There is good reason why we should not try to take both of these words as if Christ meant I wish you were either spiritually cold (i.e., unsaved or hostile) or spiritually hot (i.e., alive and fervent). In the first place, it is inconceivable that Christ would wish that people were spiritually cold, or unsaved and hostile. Furthermore, the application of “hot” and “cold” to spiritual temperature, though familiar to us, would have been completely foreign to first-century Christians."

Expositors Bible Commentary, "Revelation" by Alan F. Johnson

 

[FSSL]

That was my thought exactly. Reminds me of other Google, Copy and Paste drive-bys

Yep! Google makes people look silly when they schlep their preconceived assumptions through the search field.

 

[Ransom]

I never said hot and cold were mentioned there.

You said, and I quote:

Again, when he says he wishes them to be hot or cold, it is the same as Elijah wishing them to follow Baal.

In other words: "This is that."

What I said, as you know, is that the choice is between two, a dichotomy, a polarisation, you cannot take middle ground.

That is true of 1 Kings 18. What you have not shown (and have thus far merely asserted) is that "lukewarm" in Rev. 3 is being used as a "middle ground." By contrast, as I have already demonstrated, Jesus' own words, taken at face value, indicate that "hot or cold" is one end of the spectrum, and "lukewarm" is the other.

 

[Ransom]

Do you realise that Elijah told the Israelites to serve Baal?

He did nothing of the kind. He said "if Baal [is God], then follow him" (1 Ki. 18:21) At no time did he affirm that Baal was indeed a true god or that they should serve him. It was a rebuke of their religious syncretism that saw them trying to serve both YHWH and Baal.

Elijah knew that Baal was nothing, and he knew what the outcome of his showdown with Baal's priests would be.

 

[Ransom]

A novel, private interpretation, considering:

Not novel at all, in fact.

In the Lord's description of this church, he condemns it for being "neither cold nor hot." He goes on to state, "I wish you were either one or the other!" (v. 15). He finds no reason to commend the people of the church; they are completely useless--neither like hot water (as in a comfortable bath) nor like cold water (as in a refreshing drink). Apart from insight growing out of archaeological studies, interpreters might seriously misconstrue the point. That is, we must interpret "hot" and "cold" in light of the historical context of Laodicea, which was located close to both hot springs (by Hierapolis) and a cold stream (by Colossae). Now both hot and cold water are desirable; both are useful for distinct purposes. But the spiritual state of this church more closely resembled the tepid lukewarm water that eventually flowed into Laodicean pipes. Neither hot nor cold, it was putrid and emetic. Jesus is not saying that active opposition to him (an incorrect interpretation of "cold") is better than being a lukewarm Christian.

William W. Klein, Craig L. Blomberg and Robert L. Hubbard, Jr., Introduction to Biblical Interpretation (Nashville: W Publishing Group, 1993), 176-77.

Note that my textbook is an "introduction" - in other words, this is something that a Bible-college freshman studying hermeneutics ought to understand.

What is "novel" is your assumption that "hot" and "cold" were metaphors for passion and antipathy for first-century Christians living in Asia Minor, just as they are for us. In fact, while zestos (hot) and psychros (cold) are normally used in ancient literature to describe water, they are very rarely used as metaphors to describe human beings (M. J. S. Rudwick and E. M. B. Green, "The Laodicean Lukewarmness," The Expository Times 69 no. 6 [March 1958], 176). Are you sure you are not arguing from anachronism?

 

[prophet]

How we get from that, that cold isn't enjoyable either, I have no idea.

That's eisogesis (the very thing your side accuses believers of doing), because water is never even mentioned in the passage.

No one drinks water hot.

I didn't mention water.

I am a believer.

You aren't making sense.

God used a *gasp*!!!! : metaphor.

First we have to grasp the earthly meaning, Nicodemus.
Somethings, like Tea, or Coffee, are enjoyable HOT OR COLD, but taste terrible, and lose nutritional value when they SIT AND BECOME ROOM TEMPERATURE.

The picture  ,here,  is the loss of usefulness after stagnation.

This church has stagnated in works.

Zeal is the catalyst that moves one from stagnation to action.

Hence, zeal is the cure to their apathy.

The factor being ignored, is God's express Will.

"I would that ye were...cold..."

English lesson:  Compound predicate adjective in this phrase.
The comparative conjunctions "either/ or", make the 2 things being compared equal.

So, unless some other factor is introduced, that subjugates cold to hot, we can rightly say that "cold" is " God's Will", from this passage.

Since there is no other factor, ....any interpretation that places hot unequal to cold is extra-biblical, and simply not substantial.

There is a contrast in this metaphor.
On one side is both hot and cold, equals.
On the other, lukewarm.

To contrast cold with hot, using only the English words in this passage, which I am wont to do, is to expose a lack of understanding of English grammar rules, and also a spiritual deafness, since He guides us into all truth.

I could care less what every Protestant who ever wrongly interpreted this said, they aren't the Oracle of God.

If we trample the earthly meaning, Nicodemus, how can we ever grasp the Heavenly?

Bump

Since BP didn't address this rebuttal, I am assuming it was overlooked.

 

[bibleprotector]

Bump

Since BP didn't address this rebuttal, I am assuming it was overlooked.

Wrong assumption.

 

[bibleprotector]

My interpretation of this passage is not novel.

Well, almost novel.

I am very conservative so as not to foist something on a passage, unnaturally.

I would not say you are fairly conservative at all in this. But if you define yourself as "very conservative", I must be utterly prosaic, retrogressive and a restorationist of former things.

I do not try to force characteristics on "hot" and "cold." The point of the passage is NOT to define hot and cold. It is to focus on lukewarm.

I am not forcing interpretation on "hot" and "cold", but doing proper exegesis, which is to start from Scripture and understand it. Whereas, your "non-forced" method really means having no meaning at all, i.e. to render the Scripture meaningless on the point of "hot" or "cold".

There is nothing "liberal" about that. What IS liberal is trying to pin people down as to whether they are hot or cold as if these are categorically defined. It is call spiritualizing the text... the error of Origen.

Your view is actually revisionist, because by saying that symbols should not be interpreted, you are therefore making the Word of God of none effect. And then you turn around and absurdly charge proper interpretation of symbolism as allegorising. Allegorising would be to read in meanings which are not present. Very clearly hot and cold have meanings which are present, i.e. works, hot works, cold works.

It is wrong to condemn or reject proper spiritualising also.

Calling my interpretation "novel" demonstrates that you have not consulted the commentaries on this passage.

I have consulted lots of commentaries, not all commentaries, and you have managed to pull an interpretation from a modern source. It is, by its very nature, "alternative", "avent garde", "new", "different", "unusual", "novel". Your quote just shows that you did not invent it in 2014.

You make claims about hermeneutics and now this. I am not convinced you are as well-read as you would like the rest of us to imagine.

I am convinced that what you imagine about me is not correct. And clearly, by the way, you are arguing for a modernist position, one which is not "very conservative".

 

[bibleprotector]

Do you realise that Elijah told the Israelites to serve Baal?

He did nothing of the kind. He said "if Baal [is God], then follow him" (1 Ki. 18:21) At no time did he affirm that Baal was indeed a true god or that they should serve him. It was a rebuke of their religious syncretism that saw them trying to serve both YHWH and Baal.

Elijah knew that Baal was nothing, and he knew what the outcome of his showdown with Baal's priests would be.

Apply what you said to Revelation 3:15, etc. It fits exactly. Well, except that word "YHWH", which is actually really a name for Baal. If you were proper, you would say, "Lord", or else if you want to use the divine name for God the Father, "JEHOVAH".

Once again, I can predict all the errors you will hold to. Next you will be siding with the error that says that "JEHOVAH" is the name for the whole Trinity, not just God the Father.

Those on your side are consistent in their beliefs.

 

[bibleprotector]

Note that my textbook is an "introduction" - in other words, this is something that a Bible-college freshman studying hermeneutics ought to understand.

Besides the obvious arrogance in that statement, you are in fact playing games: not only do different colleges/denominations adhere to different texts, the particular work that you are upholding is a modernist one. Of course I don't agree with that small "m" modernist view. So, I am not an "apprentice" in that system, but am clearly fighting against it. (See my various youtube videos against modernistic hermeneutics, and other information on my website.)

What is "novel" is your assumption that "hot" and "cold" were metaphors for passion and antipathy for first-century Christians living in Asia Minor, just as they are for us. In fact, while zestos (hot) and psychros (cold) are normally used in ancient literature to describe water, they are very rarely used as metaphors to describe human beings

You are demonstrating my point exactly:

The revisionary modernist view of reading in meaning into the past from a modern perspective onto what Greek words supposedly "really" mean. And the revisionary modernist view of reading into the past from a modern perspective by attempting to view the Scripture from a concocted "first century near eastern" mindset.

The quote above exemplifies everything exactly wrong and misguided in the modernist view, because it is assuming that we cannot rely on the Holy Ghost instructing on what hot and cold really mean today to us, in English.

 

[bibleprotector]

Expositors Bible Commentary, "Revelation" by Alan F. Johnson

Not novel because this comes from the ancient year of 1981 I presume?

 

[prophet]

Bump

Since BP didn't address this rebuttal, I am assuming it was overlooked.

Wrong assumption.

So, what reason do you have not addressing these thoughts?

 

[FSSL]

Expositors Bible Commentary, "Revelation" by Alan F. Johnson

Not novel because this comes from the ancient year of 1981 I presume?

You said novel, private interpretation. You can shift around the semantics. You have been shown to be wrong.

The fact that you think this interpretation is novel, private interpretation reveals that you are not well read on the subject. Hence all of this back and forth over something so insignificant (your spiritualizing of the text and my straightforward reading of the text.)

 

[prophet]

The problem in Laodicea, is stagnation.

A food or drink that is served Hot, if left on the table untouched, will eventually cool to room temperature.
Likewise, a food or drink served cold, would eventually warm up to room temperature.

Hot foods often contain solutes, colloids, fats  that are liquid at +100 deg. F, but solidify partially at 71deg F.
The consistency then is changed into a distasteful texture.

Cold drinks refresh.....enough said.
Let that drink be left to sit on the table, and it will no lnger refresh.

The Truth that hot and cold are equally contrasted to lukewarm, but not to each other, is the very basis for understanding the spiritual application.

It takes work to cool a drink.
It takes work to heat a drink

It takes no effort to bring a drink to room temperature.

"Spew" would not apply to most foods, but would to any drink.

And since drinks are commonly served cold, the application fits like a glove.

Cold and hot are good, they are indicative of work.

Lukewarm is bad, the result of work that has ceased.

The purpose of the passage was to address "lukewarm", not "cold".

I am always amazed at those who defend the AV, who seemingly cant understand it.

Of course, and I'll be alone here, as usual, but the reading of Protestant Commentaries would corrupt the interpretation of just about any passage, since Protestantism is corrupted by Rome.

 

[prophet]

Double post

 

[Ransom]

Apply what you said to Revelation 3:15, etc. It fits exactly.

Only if you assume that "hot" and "cold" are two positions that the Laodiceans are waffling between. You keep assuming this, but have not established it to be the case, therefore you are merely arguing in circles.

Well, except that word "YHWH", which is actually really a name for Baal. If you were proper, you would say, "Lord", or else if you want to use the divine name for God the Father, "JEHOVAH".

If you don't recognize the usual English transliteration of the Tetragrammaton, יהוה, you are even more of an ignoramus than I previously suspected.

Besides the obvious arrogance in that statement, you are in fact playing games: not only do different colleges/denominations adhere to different texts, the particular work that you are upholding is a modernist one.

Yeah, well, obviously the word "modernist" doesn't actually mean anything when you say it, beyond, "someone who does not agree with me, and how dare them, because I have an 'apostolic mandate' to spew whatever pseudo-theological sewage my little heart desires, and to perdition with the facts."

Your rhetoric is as empty as your bibliology.

 

[bibleprotector]

So, what reason do you have not addressing these thoughts?

I wasn't going to say, but what you write/wrote is like a scatter gun.

 

[bibleprotector]

Only if you assume that "hot" and "cold" are two positions that the Laodiceans are waffling between. You keep assuming this, but have not established it to be the case, therefore you are merely arguing in circles.

You claim that I have not established the case. And you say this, because you do not agree with what the Bible clearly states, and because you are unwilling to accept that I have established the case. Thus, my repeating of the correct view is called by you "circles".

If you don't recognize the usual English transliteration of the Tetragrammaton, יהוה, you are even more of an ignoramus than I previously suspected.

Of course I don't "recognise" error. "Who is blind, but my servant? or deaf, as my messenger that I sent? who is blind as he that is perfect, and blind as the LORD'S servant?" (Isa 42:19).

Your mocking of a believing view puts you in a dangerous place.

Your rhetoric is as empty as your bibliology.

Yours is built on sand, so all can see whose will stand and whose will fall.