IF GOD SO LOVED "EVERYONE", THEN WHY DID HE HATE ESAU?

[Eddie Ramos]

It seems like John 3:16 is by far the most widely memorized verse among people who know anything about the Bible because it speaks about God loving the world. While this verse may seem like "good news" to everyone who reads it, it does not stand alone from the rest of the scriptures. No verse does.

So, as most people are glad to memorize that verse, what happens when they come across a verse like this?:

Romans 9:13 (KJV) 13 As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.

Malachi 1:2-3 (KJV)
2 I have loved you, saith the LORD.
Yet ye say, Wherein hast thou loved us?
Was not Esau Jacob's brother? saith the LORD:
yet I loved Jacob,
3 And I hated Esau,
and laid his mountains and his heritage waste for the dragons of the wilderness.

Psalms 5:5 (KJV)
5 The foolish shall not stand in thy sight:
thou hatest all workers of iniquity.

Psalms 11:5 (KJV)
5 The LORD trieth the righteous:
but the wicked and him that loveth violence his soul hateth.

Psalms 5:6 (KJV)
6 Thou shalt destroy them that speak leasing:
the LORD will abhor the bloody and deceitful man.

How does John 3:16 look in light of these passages? Did God change? No, God does not change (Malachi 3:6). This teaches us that we can't just focus on John 3:16 and conclude that God's love for the world, in the giving of his Son, is actually not referring to every individual in the world (because there are passages that tell us about God hating others), but rather John 3:16 is referring to certain people within the world. These certain people are also known as God's beloved which means to be loved.

1 John 4:10-11 (KJV) 10 Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins. 11 Beloved, if God so loved us, we ought also to love one another.

The beloved are thise who were chosen for salvation, those who were called to be saints.

Romans 1:7 (KJV) 7 To all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ.

My question for this thread is: Can you see that the Bible, on one hand, speaks of God's love in conjunction with those whose sins were laid on Christ? And on the other hand, can you see that those who were hated, are those whose sins were not laid upon Christ? This is what it means to be hated. It means that you have to pay for your own sins by your own death.

[onewithhim]

Many misunderstand John 3:16 and take it to mean God has affection for every individual in the the world, but in reality it means that God has a principled love (agape) for every individual. This allows Him to act kindly even towards those individuals that he does not like.
....
His personal affection/friendship, is reserved for the faithful alone.

Putting aside these partially conflicting sentiments, the "Word of God" says he HATED Esau.

As has been brought to our attention many times......"hated" means "loved less" in many instances. Jehovah has love for everyone, but he cannot countenance behavior that shows that the doer hates him.

[Eddie Ramos]

Well the Bible has much to say on this matter.

Because the 'God' of the Bible is not a god at all and certainly not the God. He is a character made up by an ancient tribe of nomads to justify the tribe's conquests and to encourage the individuals of that tribe to obey laws the tribal leaders thought important for their survival and for the interests of the priesthood of the tribe. This is the function of all gods for all tribes.

Matthew 10:33 (KJV 1900)
But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven.

Trying to make sense of all this as if there really were a universal God of all is a fool's errand.

1 Corinthians 4:10 (KJV 1900)
We are fools for Christ’s sake, but ye are wise in Christ; we are weak, but ye are strong; ye are honourable, but we are despised.

There is no God, and if there were it would have NO resemblance whatsoever to this laughably anthropomorphic caricature presented in the Old Testament.

Psalm 14:1 (KJV 1900)
The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.
They are corrupt, they have done abominable works,
There is none that doeth good.

I am constantly astonished that anyone could believe in such a character. Really? You really believe this 'god' of the Bible (or Quran) actually exists?
[/size]

2 Corinthians 4:3–4 (KJV 1900)
But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost: 4 In whom the God of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.

[Eddie Ramos]

You're confusing the definition of a word with types and figures.

You said the Bible has its own dictionary and that sugkrino only has one meaning in the passages it is found in. I argued that there are words in the Bible that clearly have different meanings. Like probatan for “sheep”. At times it clearly speaks of the animal, at other times it speaks to Israelites that Jesus and the disciples are seeking to teach the truth of the kingdom about. So, why not with a word like sugkrino? Why must it always mean “compare”? It’s not because the Bible is its own dictionary and, therefore, it can only have one meaning. So, what’s the reason(s)?

I said the Bible IS its own dictionary, meaning, we can turn to it and look up each word and how God uses it throughout the Bible and learn (per the context) how God intends for that word to be understood throughout the Bible. The reason this is difficult to grasp is because it goes against the method you've adopted when approaching the Bible. But that takes us back to the root of the problem, in that you deny that God has placed any scripture that teaches the reader how God wants them to understand His Word, even though God expects and commands the reader to "rightly divide the Word of truth". And because you don't see the need to look in the scriptures for how God would have us to rightly divide the Word of Truth, you in turn have accepted a man-made hermeneutic. And I suspect that because you can't find any evidence in the scriptures to support the hermeneutic you've accepted, then no amount of scriptures I show you (and have showed you) will be acceptable to you, else if you acknowledged even one of them, then it means that the Bible does in fact offer a way for us to rightly divide the Word of Truth.

I have had no problems offering the scriptures I did throughout our conversation that show us how God has spoken the scriptures (in parables) and why he has done this, as well as the many other examples which God has laid down for us to follow. Yet none of them sufficed you. That's why I said that my only job was to share what the scriptures teach and to explain them as best as I am able, the rest is completely out of my hands.

So because I acknowledge the Bible as its own dictionary as well as its own commentary, then all I need to do to define a word is to rely on the scriptures themselves. Not lexicons, or Bible dictionaries, neither of which are inspired, no matter how educated the writers of those books are. So when we went over the example in 1 Corinthians 2:13, of "comparing spiritual things with spiritual". The Bible itself defines for us how to understand the Greek word translated in the KJV as "comparing" based on how God uses it elsewhere in His Word. And I gave you the same example using the word "draw" from John 6:44, which context made it difficult to fully understand how God intended for us to understand that particular word. So, we turn to the Bible to see how God uses that same Greek word throughout His Word and learned to define the obscure passages in light of the clearer contexts. But if we turn to Bible dictionaries, this Greek word is also given the definition of "compel", "coerce", "attract". Why would these be possible definitions of this Greek word provided by scholars? Because their own doctrinal position would prohibit them from saying that this Greek word in John 6:44, is a forceful pull in any way. That would violate their free will understanding, so they offer other possible meanings for this word to be applied in John 6:44. So, when a Bible student comes across John 6:44 and wants to know what this word means, they open up a Bible dictionary and they se that they have been given multiple options so they can choose the best one they think fits.

But when we let the Bible do what it was designed to do and define every word for us, then we are starting in a much better place and we cannot force our own definition upon any word because the bible will contradict it if we do. Like with the word "draw" in John 6:44 meaning "compel", "coerce" or "attract". It only has one meaning, and the Bible defines it for us, if we would but take the time and look.

So, the word "comparing" in 1 Corinthians 2:13 can't be translated as "interpreting" (ESV), or "explaining (NIV), or even as "combining" (NASB) because the way God uses that word throughout the Bible will not allow those meanings to be valid. And this word is much simpler to define since this Greek word is only used in one other passage.

2 Corinthians 10:12 (KJV 1900)
For we dare not make ourselves of the number, or compare ourselves with some that commend themselves: but they measuring themselves by themselves, and comparing themselves among themselves, are not wise.

As you can see, "explaining", "interpreting" nor "combining" will fit the context of the Bible. But none of what I said means anything if you're already set in your hermeneutic and are convinced that the Bible does not define it's own words, but rather scholars help us to understand the Biblical words. And that the bible has multiple meaning for the same word, like "sheep". And you then proceed to give examples like, the animals, the people of Israel. And I already answered this. I told you that there is a difference between definitions of a word and types and figures of a word. If you want to define this word, just type it into your concordance and you'll see that a sheep is an animal, and if it's multiple sheep, then it's also translated as "flock" or "cattle". That's the definition of a sheep and it wasn't very difficult to use the Bible to define. But now, when we ask, what does a sheep typify in the Bible? Then that becomes a whole other subject. As a sheep can typify people (Ps 100:3), it can typify the Lord Jesus Christ as an offering for sin (Lev 22:21), and so on. And these are just 2 examples of the spiritual picture of a sheep according to the Bible.

But even if it could only be translated “compare,” it still wouldn’t be justification for an allegorical approach. The context of the passage is about contrasting the power of Christianity with other worldviews; of the Spirit’s role in our faith and how salvation came about (Christ crucified), versus human attempts at persuasion. Where is it talking about allegory?

That's incorrect. The context is about words spoken. Let's read it again:

1 Corinthians 2:6–15 (KJV 1900)
Howbeit we speak wisdom among them that are perfect (the true believers): yet not the wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of this world, that come to nought: 7 But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory: (again, the context is about the spoken word (wisdom) of God (Ps 37:30)) 8 Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. (Had they understood the Word of God and who Christ truly was, they would not have crucified Christ. But it was not God's will that they understand this mystery, which is why he blinded them) 9 But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him. 10 But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God. 11 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God. 12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. 13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but (in words) which the Holy Ghost teacheth; (those who have been given the Spirit of God speak the things that are freely given to them of God. Not according to the words which man's wisdom teaches, but according tot he way the Holy Ghost teaches) (And the Holy Ghost teaches by...) comparing spiritual things with spiritual. 14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God (knowledge and wisdom of the deep things of God): for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they (God's Words) are spiritually discerned. 15 But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.

This is one passage of many where God teaches us that his Word is to be spiritually discerned by those who have been given the Spirit of God. The natural man cannot comprehend this because to him, comparing spiritual with spiritual is foolishness. And we can also let the Bible define for us what God means by using the word "spiritual".

But when it comes to his spiritual truth (which is the most important truth in the bible) God used those same literal, historical and moral truths of his word to conceal his spiritual truths. That is the whole purpose of parables.

Parables are meant to draw people into a deeper search for truth, seeking God’s guidance, yes. Our faith isn’t just information transfer. That’s different from your allegorical approach, though.

That is incorrect. Parables are meant to conceal spiritual truths. Therefore it's not meant to draw "people" (in general) into a deeper search for truth. Just God's true people. Those with the Spirit of God.

Matthew 13:10–11 (KJV 1900)
And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables? 11 He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.

You seem to have a problem accepting that the bible is full of spiritual truth, and yet we haven't even scratched the surface with biblical examples. Yet, I showed you how the physical, historical rock that let out actual water for the nation to drink from was concealing a greater, far more important spiritual (allegorical, if you'd like) truth. And this spiritual truth was hid for hundreds of years until God showed us what spiritual truth that one historical event was concealing. And he does it again and again, until God's people realize that God wants us to do this throughout the whole Bible. And when we do, lo and behold, we find the same spiritual thread which runs through the entire Bible. We fins some aspect of the gospel concealed within historical accounts, within the book of Proverbs (the book of Parables), within the Psalms, and within the entire Bible. All by using the examples God set for us to follow. But, your hermeneutic teaches that no one should look any further than what's clearly spelled out for us. Like, don't call something a parable, unless it specifically states that this is a parable. Which of course is not true. As we study the Bible, we learn that when God shows/teaches us something by holding us by the hand, that sooner or later he expects for us to finally grasp what he is teaching us.

Matthew 15:15–16 (KJV 1900)
Then answered Peter and said unto him, Declare unto us this parable. 16 And Jesus said, Are ye also yet without understanding?

Genesis is full of plays on words. In Genesis 6:14, Noah is told to kaphar (#3722, cover) the ark with kopher (#3724, ransom), which comes from kaphar. It makes sense to say a covering of the ark would be a way to refer to “pitch”. We don’t need kopher used to get the theory of atonement or ransom from the Bible. But I’m fine to say atonement and ransom go hand in hand.

But let’s assume your allegorical approach. Genesis 6:14 says “Make the ark and cover it inside and outside with pitch”. It’s the same pitch for both the outside and inside. It’s not mentioned twice. It’s not two different words. If anything, an allegorical approach here would be evidence against limited atonement.

So, are you saying that the atonement that covered the ark inside and out with a ransom is the same atonement? This would be the equivalent of saying that Christ died and covered the sins of those inside (8 souls) and outside the ark (the rest of the world). That would be like saying that since Christ is the door, it doesn't matter what side of the door we are on in order to be saved. But that's not how the atonement and ransom is to be understood, per the context of the Bible. The reason why it's only one word for atonement and one word for ransom on both sides of the ark is because God demands the same payment from everyone. What is that payment? It's death (Rom 6:23). Those on the inside of the ark had to enter through the door that was made (Gen 6:16). That door typifies Christ because the ark typifies atonement. The only way to be saved was to enter through the door and be inside the ark. This means that in order for those on the inside of the ark to be saved, that God's law of payment for sins had to be met by death, and Christ was their substitute. But those on the outside of the ark were all condemned. But condemned for what? For their own sins. So, while the ark saved some, it condemned the rest.

Hebrews 11:7 (KJV 1900)
By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house; by the which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith.

The world paid for their own sins by their own death. In other words, they atoned for their own sins by the ransom of their own death. This is why God described the covering of the ark the way he did. So, when we try and apply our own understanding to the scriptures, then the Bible itself will tell us that we are going in the wrong direction by contradicting our conclusion.

Here again, you're reinforcing your position that the Bible does not teach us proper hermeneutic, yet you understand and acknowledge that using a proper hermeneutic is vital to coming to truth, right? Yet, you're convinced that God hasn't provided his own method in his word. And so, you have adopted the one that suits you best, because when you apply that hermeneutic to the scriptures, you're satisfied with doctrine that it produces. If I'm incorrect about those statements, then feel free to correct me.

On what do you base this accusation about my motives? I don’t pick my approach based upon what doctrine I want to be true. I base it on what seems to have the most merit as an approach, whatever doctrines they lead to. Direct revelation is not the only way God speaks to us. As far as I know, God doesn’t directly answer this question anywhere.

I believe I already covered this earlier. But, whenever man becomes the final authority on biblical matters (like which hermeneutic to use), it will never lead to correct understanding of the deep things of God. I hope this helps.

[JehovahsWitness]

...whenever man becomes the final authority on biblical matters (like which hermeneutic to use), it will never lead to correct understanding of the deep things of God

This has to hold true for deciding whether something is a type or antytype as well. For example, following the principle of letting the bible interpret itself, we have no the right to ride high and free declaring everything allegorical or an antitypical.

There is no scripture that says everything in the bible has a type/antype, so to start from that premise is of itself breaking the first and fundemental rule of "letting the bible interpret itself".

WHEN IS TAR JUST ....TAR

Unless the bible indicates within its pages something is antypypical then we are to not to conclude it is. So for example, Noah was to cover the ark in tar/pitch. The context (ie the bible itself) clearly indicates the tar/pitch to be literal. As free as we are to draw lessons from the story as a whole, only the bible itself can tell us if the tar symbolises something else such as the ransom.

You or I might reason well tar covers and the word redemtion basically means covers, but that is human reasoning: where in the bible does any author link the tar of the ark to the ransom? Where is the scripture that says "just as the tar covered the ark, so the ransom covers our sins"? If the answer is nowhere, then the analysis is extrabiblical and has no place in true biblical understanding.

Can we not take the original Greek or Hebrew meaning of the word and draw the an allegorical link ourselves? No. The author of the bible alone has to be the one that authorizes when we do this or not.

For example Adam the first man was made out of dust. The Greek word for minister literally means “through dust,”. Can Adam thus be a symbol of a Christian ministers? Yes but only if the bible makes the link. If there is no scripture that does so, then... no!

Is the author not doing so if a word has the same basic meaning as another? No because all words have basic meanings and most of these basic meanings can be linked to another (different) word in some way. If the bible did this for every word it would be a much bigger book. And since it does not, letting the bible interpret itsrlf, neither can we. In short, every word "symbolizes something else" is a human not a biblical "rule".



CONCLUSION Many bible students have taken liberties with the notion of types and antitypes. They have equally used human thinking to decide if something is allegorical or not. The wise student of scripture lets the bible lead by letting scripture itself (not a lexicon or a dictionary) point to something being typical of an "antitype" or not.




JW


HERMENEUTICS (bible interpretation)

What does it mean to "let the bible interpret itself?
viewtopic.php?p=880438#p880438

How can you determine which parts of the bible are to be taken literally?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 95#p890395

Does everything in the bible have an antitype?
viewtopic.php?p=1112678#p1112678

How can we know which biblical interpretation is correct?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 38#p880438

To learn more please go to other posts related to...

THE BIBLE , HERMENEUTICS* and ... BIBLICAL LITERALISM

* bible interpretation

[Eddie Ramos]

...whenever man becomes the final authority on biblical matters (like which hermeneutic to use), it will never lead to correct understanding of the deep things of God

This has to hold true for deciding whether something is a type or antytype as well. For example, following the principle of letting the bible interpret itself, we have no the right to ride high and free declaring everything allegorical or an antitypical.

There is no scripture that says everything in the bible has a type/antype, so to start from that premise is of itself breaking the first and fundemental rule of "letting the bible interpret itself".

WHEN IS TAR JUST ....TAR

Unless the bible indicates within its pages something is antypypical then we are to not to conclude it is. So for example, Noah was to cover the ark in tar/pitch. The context (ie the bible itself) clearly indicates the tar/pitch to be literal. As free as we are to draw lessons from the story as a whole, only the bible itself can tell us if the tar symbolises something else such as the ransom.

You or I might reason well tar covers and the word redemtion basically means covers, but that is human reasoning: where in the bible does any author link the tar of the ark to the ransom? Where is the scripture that says "just as the tar covered the ark, so the ransom covers our sins"? If the answer is nowhere, then the analysis is extrabiblical and has no place in true biblical understanding.

Can we not take the original Greek or Hebrew meaning of the word and draw the an allegorical link ourselves? No. The author of the bible alone has to be the one that authorizes when we do this or not.

For example Adam the first man was made out of dust. The Greek word for minister literally means “through dust,”. Can Adam thus be a symbol of a Christian ministers? Yes but only if the bible makes the link. If there is no scripture that does so, then... no!

Is the author not doing so if a word has the same basic meaning as another? No because all words have basic meanings and most of these basic meanings can be linked to another (different) word in some way. If the bible did this for every word it would be a much bigger book. And since it does not, letting the bible interpret itsrlf, neither can we. In short, every word "symbolizes something else" is a human not a biblical "rule".



CONCLUSION Many bible students have taken liberties with the notion of types and antitypes. They have equally used human thinking to decide if something is allegorical or not. The wise student of scripture lets the bible lead by letting scripture itself (not a lexicon or a dictionary) point to something being typical of an "antitype" or not.

What you have done is to put forth biblical rules of interpretation with no biblical support. Yet, you have adopted this hermeneutic based on your own common sense or because the church you belong to will only allow this method. Either way, someone other than the Bible has become your authority in what a proper hermeneutic is to be. Regardless, I will address your points to see what the Bible has to say.

There is no scripture that says everything in the bible has a type/antype, so to start from that premise is of itself breaking the first and fundemental rule of "letting the bible interpret itself".

That is incorrect. The Bible itself tells us that Christ (The Word of God) did not speak without parables.

Matthew 13:34 (KJV) 34 All these things spake Jesus unto the multitude in parables; and without a parable spake he not unto them:

We are told that the express purpose of parables is to conceal truth. But by what means? By using common earthly language to hide truth. This is why even an actual literal historical account (which is all part of the Word of God) can be a historical parable.

The Bible is a spiritual book written in such a way as to conceal truth.

Romans 7:14 (KJV) 14 For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin.

Proverbs 25:2 (KJV)
2 It is the glory of God to conceal a thing (a WORD):
but the honour of kings is to search out a matter (a WORD).

WHEN IS TAR JUST ....TAR

Unless the bible indicates within its pages something is antypypical then we are to not to conclude it is. So for example, Noah was to cover the ark in tar/pitch. The context (ie the bible itself) clearly indicates the tar/pitch to be literal. As free as we are to draw lessons from the story as a whole, only the bible itself can tell us if the tar symbolises something else such as the ransom.

You or I might reason well tar covers and the word redemtion basically means covers, but that is human reasoning: where in the bible does any author link the tar of the ark to the ransom? Where is the scripture that says "just as the tar covered the ark, so the ransom covers our sins"? If the answer is nowhere, then the analysis is extrabiblical and has no place in true biblical understanding.

Can we not take the original Greek or Hebrew meaning of the word and draw the an allegorical link ourselves? No. The author of the bible alone has to be the one that authorizes when we do this or not.

Again, whoever came up with your rules of hermeneutic did not do so using the Bible as their authority, else they would have freely provided the proper scriptures as support. You are still free to do so if you'd like.

So, was tar just tar? Historically yes, Noah used some type of actual covering for the ark. But your rules prevent you from digging deeper fir the spiritual truth this account conceals. That is why to you, tar is just tar and there is nothing more for you to learn there.

But whoever came up with the notion that tar here typifies atonement with a ransom? God did, not me. This is understood when you realize that God had a word which he uses for tar in the Bible, yet that's not the word he used here. Instead he used the word "atonement" and "ransom" to describe its covering.

But this is meaningless to you because your hermeneutic will not allow you to even consider that as spiritual truth. Yet, it's right there for all to see. This verse is the only time God translated these Hebrew words as "pitch", and because we can look up these words in the original language, we can be sure what God is teaching us by deciding to use these specific words to describe the covering of the ark.

[JehovahsWitness]

...whenever man becomes the final authority on biblical matters (like which hermeneutic to use), it will never lead to correct understanding of the deep things of God

This has to hold true for deciding whether something is a type or antytype as well. For example, following the principle of letting the bible interpret itself, we have no the right to ride high and free declaring everything allegorical or an antitypical.

There is no scripture that says everything in the bible has a type/antype, so to start from that premise is of itself breaking the first and fundemental rule of "letting the bible interpret itself".

WHEN IS TAR JUST ....TAR

Unless the bible indicates within its pages something is antypypical then we are to not to conclude it is. So for example, Noah was to cover the ark in tar/pitch. The context (ie the bible itself) clearly indicates the tar/pitch to be literal. As free as we are to draw lessons from the story as a whole, only the bible itself can tell us if the tar symbolises something else such as the ransom.

You or I might reason well tar covers and the word redemtion basically means covers, but that is human reasoning: where in the bible does any author link the tar of the ark to the ransom? Where is the scripture that says "just as the tar covered the ark, so the ransom covers our sins"? If the answer is nowhere, then the analysis is extrabiblical and has no place in true biblical understanding.

Can we not take the original Greek or Hebrew meaning of the word and draw the an allegorical link ourselves? No. The author of the bible alone has to be the one that authorizes when we do this or not.

For example Adam the first man was made out of dust. The Greek word for minister literally means “through dust,”. Can Adam thus be a symbol of a Christian ministers? Yes but only if the bible makes the link. If there is no scripture that does so, then... no!

Is the author not doing so if a word has the same basic meaning as another? No because all words have basic meanings and most of these basic meanings can be linked to another (different) word in some way. If the bible did this for every word it would be a much bigger book. And since it does not, letting the bible interpret itsrlf, neither can we. In short, every word "symbolizes something else" is a human not a biblical "rule".



CONCLUSION Many bible students have taken liberties with the notion of types and antitypes. They have equally used human thinking to decide if something is allegorical or not. The wise student of scripture lets the bible lead by letting scripture itself (not a lexicon or a dictionary) point to something being typical of an "antitype" or not.

What you have done is to put forth biblical rules of interpretation with no biblical support.

The biblical,support for the above found at Psalms 119 verse 105 and John 17:17

...you have adopted this hermeneutic based on your own common sense or because the church you belong to will only allow this method.

I have adopted adopted this hermeneutic because what YOU said here makes sense in line with the holy spirit

I said the Bible IS its own dictionary, meaning, we can turn to it and look up each word and how God uses it throughout the Bible and learn (per the context) how God intends for that word to be understood throughout the Bible.

[2timothy316]

There is no scripture that says everything in the bible has a type/antype, so to start from that premise is of itself breaking the first and fundemental rule of "letting the bible interpret itself".

That is incorrect. The Bible itself tells us that Christ (The Word of God) did not speak without parables.

That is false, if you'd read just a little bit further in the Bible...

"Then after dismissing the crowds, he went into the house. His disciples came to him and said: “Explain to us the illustration of the weeds in the field.” - Matthew 13:36.
That is what Jesus did. He explained the illustration the verses that follow verse 36. He didn't give them another illustration, so no, Jesus ALWAYS speak in illustration. I don't think there is an illustration that Jesus doesn't plainly explain to others either aright after he gives the illustration or later on.

[Eddie Ramos]

There is no scripture that says everything in the bible has a type/antype, so to start from that premise is of itself breaking the first and fundemental rule of "letting the bible interpret itself".

That is incorrect. The Bible itself tells us that Christ (The Word of God) did not speak without parables.

That is false, if you'd read just a little bit further in the Bible...

"Then after dismissing the crowds, he went into the house. His disciples came to him and said: “Explain to us the illustration of the weeds in the field.” - Matthew 13:36.
That is what Jesus did. He explained the illustration the verses that follow verse 36. He didn't give them another illustration, so no, Jesus ALWAYS speak in illustration. I don't think there is an illustration that Jesus doesn't plainly explain to others either aright after he gives the illustration or later on.

Not sure how many times I should repeat myself, but when Christ (The Word of God) explains a parable, this teaches us that the Word of God, both, speaks in parables and interprets its own parables. In other words, the principle of Christ explaining what he said, is concealing the truth of how scriptures are to be interpreted, by going to the Word of God alone. So, the fact that Christ explained some parables to his disciples was done to teach us the only way by which parables could be understood.

Now, the natural mind concludes that if Christ spoke a parable and then later explained that parable, then that explanation must not be a parable, but it must me a crystal clear explanation in plain language. Well, I already posted the one scripture where the Bible tells us that Christ spoke plainly (Jn 11:14). Yet, even this verse, along with other explanations do not make null and void the passage that says, "without a parable Christ did not speak". So, when we finally understand this principle, then we can look at a passage like John 11:14 where Jesus says "plainly, Lazarus is dead". But this plain explanation is also concealing spiritual truth (just as the whole Bible is). This physically dead man who was already stinking because he had been dead for 4 days, was representing someone who was spiritually dead in his sins. And Christ's raising him from the dead also painted a spiritual picture of what salvation truly is, the raising of our dead soul to eternal life.

So now, let's take a look at the clarity of this parable that Jesus explained in plain language (as you're suggesting he did).

Matthew 13:36–42 (KJV 1900)
Then Jesus sent the multitude away, and went into the house: and his disciples came unto him, saying, Declare unto us the parable of the tares of the field. (Now, here's the plain language you're speaking of) 37 He answered and said unto them, He that soweth the good seed is the Son of man; 38 The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; (So, the plain language here so far is that Christ (the Son of man) planted those who are the children of the kingdom (the true children of God) throughout the world. Let me know if this is incorrect); but the tares are the children of the wicked one; 39 The enemy that sowed them is the devil (And here, the plain language would be that the Devil planted his own children among the true children of God throughout the world, and these children of the Devil, on the surface look like the children of God, because tares look very similar to wheat) (In other words, so far we have God planting his own children in the world and we have the Devil planting his own children in the world. Is that what's being plainly stated here?); the harvest is the end of the world (Ok, is the end of the world the very last day of this earth's existence or is it before the very last day? Doesn't seem very plain to me.); and the reapers are the angels (Ok, this should be an easy one right? Because we know that angels are the ministering spirits that the Bible talks about that people have made images of with giant wings and white robes. Are these those angels which Christ is referring to? Or is it the true children of God because they're also called angels? Again, doesn't seem very plain to me, but maybe you can just show just how easy this al is to understand since Christ explained his parable here). 40 As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire (This must be a literal fire since Christ doesn't state otherwise. Do you agree?); so shall it be in the end of this world. 41 The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity (what is to be done once by the angels once all these sinners are literally gathered together? Well, the next sentence seems to give us the plain answer); 42 And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth (Oh, they're all going to be thrown into a furnace, but this would have to be a very huge furnace).

My apologies for the sarcasm here, but I just wanted you to see that anyone can claim that Jesus did not always speak in parables because that is what they desperately want to believe while ignoring the scriptures that declares other wise. But while this declaration is being made (that he didn't always speak in parables) no effort is made to try and show just how "clear" the explanations are, because when the explanations are read, they are still concealing spiritual truth. And that's the exact purpose of parables. Everything that the Bible declares has to agree as one cohesive truth. We can't nullify one scripture in order to satisfy our "common sense logic". Therefore since the scriptures declare that Jesus (the Word of God) did not speak without parables, then we have to carry that truth whenever we read the Word of God and understand what the purpose of parables is.

[2timothy316]

So, the fact that Christ explained some parables....

Show one illustration that Jesus doesn't explain.

[Eddie Ramos]

So, the fact that Christ explained some parables....

Show one illustration that Jesus doesn't explain.

Ok, I'll bite.

Matthew 13:31-34
Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is like to a grain of mustard seed, which a man took, and sowed in his field: Which indeed is the least of all seeds: but when it is grown, it is the greatest among herbs, and becometh a tree, so that the birds of the air come and lodge in the branches thereof. Another parable spake he unto them; The kingdom of heaven is like unto leaven, which a woman took, and hid in three measures of meal, till the whole was leavened. All these things spake Jesus unto the multitude in parables; and without a parable spake he not unto them: