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.

[2timothy316]

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:

Using their knowledge of farming and baking is the explanation of the Kingdom of the Heavens. In this case the parable is the explanation.
"And he went on to say: “With what can we compare the Kingdom of God, or with what illustration can we explain it?" (Mark 4:30-32)

"With many illustrations of that sort he spoke the word to them, to the extent that they were able to listen. Indeed, without an illustration he would not speak to them, but he would explain all things privately to his disciples." - Mark 4:33, 34

He didn't explain some but ALL. Or is Mark 4:33, 34 a lie?

[The Tanager]

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.

I’m sorry for confusingly using “has” and “is” interchangeably (as I did write “is its own dictionary” later in that paragraph). I agree that the Biblical context is a main factor in how a term is to be translated. So, I don’t see how this concept goes against my method.

You are inconsistent if you agree some words have multiple meanings in the Biblical usage. I used “sheep” as an example here and you say that’s a type/figure difference. There are other words we could point to that have multiple meanings. Shamayim (“heaven”) can Biblically refer to all the parts of creation that aren’t the “earth” (Gen 1:1), it refers more specifically to the environment within which the birds fly (Gen 1:20), it can refer to the dwelling place of God, which isn’t just where the birds fly (2 Chron 32:20). Erets (“earth”) means our planet (Gen 1:2), the dry land as opposed to the water (Gen 1:10), referring to all people of the earth (Gen 11:1). These aren’t types and figures, but multiple meanings. If you disagree with that, please explain why.

If you agree, then inconsistency in itself isn’t bad, if there is a good reason for it. Not all words have to have multiple meanings, of course. So, we look at sugkrino. Why think it is a Biblical word that can only have one meaning? Because 1 of 2 verses uses it that way? That would only be rational support if all words only have one meaning. They don’t.

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 am completely open to scripture that directly teaches between hermeneutics. I don’t see any that do, but show me one that does and I’ll follow it. You’ve seemed to offer two lines of Biblical support for your hermeneutic.

(1) You’ve talked about parables. I agree some of the Bible is in parable form. Those parables don’t assert “everything in the Bible is a parable”. If they do, then please offer that parable. I doubt you believe Matthew 13:34 is talking about everything Jesus ever said being a parable. What about when he taught about his crucifixion and resurrection? That was speaking in a parable?

(2) You’ve offered two other passages. I responded with a detailed analysis of the immediate context that seems to show you are taking those passages out of context. This response of “no amount of scriptures I show you will be acceptable” is a cop out. It’s useless rhetoric based on nothing I’ve shown you. I’m very open to hearing your further support. Thankfully, you give it later in this post.

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

In verse 4, Paul says his message wasn’t about the words spoken, but the demonstration of the Spirit and power. It’s not about our words and formulations, but the truth behind them. The truth being Jesus and Him crucified (v. 2). Our faith is in God’s power (v. 5), Christ, a Person, not an approach. The mystery God prepared for us (v. 7) is Jesus’ incarnation, death, and resurrection, not an allegorical approach. Non-Christians had seen, heard, and put their heart into an allegorical approach before, so this can’t be what Paul is talking about (v. 9).

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".

I have no problem with what you’ve written here. The problem is that you equate “allegorical” with “spiritual”. Where does the Bible equate allegorical with spiritual?

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.

I wholeheartedly agree the Bible is full of spiritual truth. I contest that it is full of allegorical truth in every passage. Even if it is full of allegorical truth, human wisdom could lead to misinterpretations of the passage. The allegorical approach has led to a variety of gospels being read into the Bible. The point of 1 Cor 2 is that we are to always follow the Spirit, not the learn the Spirit’s approach and then run off on our own with it

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.

You said the “inside and out with ransom” of Gen 6:14 refers to two different deaths, (1) Christ for his people and (2) everyone else for themselves. For it to allegorically refer to two different deaths, it would need to be two different pitches. But that doesn’t fit with our view that Christ’s death only covers for the sins of those who are in Him. Neither of us believe in universalism. This is a danger of the allegorical approach; some details need to be ignored, glossed over, twisted a bit to fit what one wants it to be teaching.

You even run into a problem with all of those in the ark necessarily being spiritually saved. Yes, they were saved from the flood, but we immediately get the trouble with Ham. He doesn't seem to be portrayed as one of the elect.

[JehovahsWitness]

You are inconsistent if you agree some words have multiple meanings in the Biblical usage.

That is the point, since most words have a double meaning, (and nearly anything in scripture can be considered a type of something) what is the criteria by which we indulge or refrain? If we are being guided by scripture surely we must let scripture point to a multiple meaning and not see faces in every cloud because we can.

I'm also having trouble with the idea that the understanding of an antitype lies in the root meaning of the word rather than the meaning of the word itself (in whatever language). This would mean then that a bible reader, reading a well translated bible in his native tongue without access to a concordance or bible dictionary, could never find spiritual truth. The book alone would not be enough... that cannot be right (2 Tim 3:16)

[The Tanager]

You are inconsistent if you agree some words have multiple meanings in the Biblical usage.

That is the point, since most words have a double meaning, (and nearly anything in scripture can be considered a type of something) what is the criteria by which we indulge or refrain? If we are being guided by scripture surely we must let scripture point to a multiple meaning and not see faces in every cloud because we can.

I'm also having trouble with the idea that the understanding of an antitype lies in the root meaning of the word rather than the meaning of the word itself (in whatever language). This would mean then that a bible reader, reading a well translated bible in his native tongue without access to a concordance or bible dictionary, could never find spiritual truth. The book alone would not be enough... that cannot be right (2 Tim 3:16)

Just to make sure my meaning is clear, I don't think one is inconsistent in seeing that Biblical words often have multiple meanings in different contexts. I think eddie ramos is being inconsistent by saying sugkrino could only ever have the meaning of "compare" in a Biblical text. I have agreed with what you have been saying in response to eddie ramos in your posts.

[JehovahsWitness]

Just to make sure my meaning is clear, I don't think one is inconsistent in seeing that Biblical words often have multiple meanings in different contexts. I think eddie ramos is being inconsistent by saying sugkrino could only ever have the meaning of "compare" in a Biblical text. I have agreed with what you have been saying in response to eddie ramos in your posts.

Okay fair enough; I misunderstood what inconsistency you were refering to was. I haven't read everythng in the thread (sorry) but the general idea of everything symbolizing something else is interesting to me, as we, Jehovah's Witnesses, have had to discipline ourselves in this regard.

[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:

Using their knowledge of farming and baking is the explanation of the Kingdom of the Heavens. In this case the parable is the explanation.
"And he went on to say: “With what can we compare the Kingdom of God, or with what illustration can we explain it?" (Mark 4:30-32)

"With many illustrations of that sort he spoke the word to them, to the extent that they were able to listen. Indeed, without an illustration he would not speak to them, but he would explain all things privately to his disciples." - Mark 4:33, 34

He didn't explain some but ALL. Or is Mark 4:33, 34 a lie?

So you ask me to give you just one example of a parable Jesus spoke to which he didn't provide an explanation for and I gave you 2 in the same paragraph. And there are many more like it. Then you explain the parable (which Jesus never did) by telling us that the parable is the explanation because Jesus intended to use their knowledge of farming and baking. That's not at all the case.

You are ignoring the purpose for speaking in parables to the multitudes in the first place. It was so they could not understand, so why would Jesus speak a parable "using their knowledge of farming and baking" by which they could understand the parable?

Matthew 13:10–11 (KJV 1900)
And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them (the multitudes) 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.

Now, let's address Mark 4:33. The question is not, did Christ in fact explain all parables to his disciples? Mark 4:33 does in fact say that Christ did explain all things to his disciples, but as we read the gospels, we can see that he actually didn't explain actually every single parable he spoke, because he always spoke in parables (this verse is still going ignored). Here are a few examples of Jesus not explaining what he said (at least we have no record of it in the scriptures).

Matthew 16:6–12 (KJV 1900)
Then Jesus said unto them, Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees. 7 And they reasoned among themselves, saying, It is because we have taken no bread. 8 Which when Jesus perceived, he said unto them, O ye of little faith, why reason ye among yourselves, because ye have brought no bread? 9 Do ye not yet understand, neither remember the five loaves of the five thousand, and how many baskets ye took up? 10 Neither the seven loaves of the four thousand, and how many baskets ye took up? 11 How is it that ye do not understand that I spake it not to you concerning bread, that ye should beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees? 12 Then understood they how that he bade them not beware of the leaven of bread, but of the doctrine of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees.

In this parable, Jesus warned his disciples about the leaven of the Pharisees and they associated the word "leaven" with "bread" (which of us wouldn't have?). So, he tells them that he's not talking about physical bread, but the leaven of the Pharisees. Never once did he mention doctrine, yet somehow they "understood" that the meaning of the parable had to do with doctrine.

Here's another:

John 6:48–61 (KJV 1900)
I am that bread of life. 49 Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead. 50 This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die. 51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world. 52 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat? 53 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. 54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. 56 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him. 57 As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me. 58 This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever. 59 These things said he in the synagogue, as he taught in Capernaum.
60 Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it? 61 When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you?

So, the fact that Jesus did not in fact explain all things to his disciples, has us still having to contend with the scripture you brought up in Mark 4:33. And the solution is found when we realize that Jesus is the Word of God and his disciples represent all those who believe they are true children of God, but most aren't. The one's that aren't, get offended at the truth of the scriptures, but the ones who are true children of God, do not. And while Jesus did not explain all things to his disciples in the scriptures, he does in fact do so to his disciples (his true children) through the course of history especially after the scriptures were completed. And he does this when we have the Spirit of God and follow the Bible's own hermeneutic. So, just like the scriptures teach us, the Word of God does not speak without parables, and Mark 4:33 is no exception. Your mistake is taking what seems to be plainly written to you as plain and simple language, while ignoring the truth Matt 13:34.

Jesus Christ is the Word of God, this means that the Word of God was spoken by God (Jesus Christ) in parables because the word of God did not speak without parables.

[Eddie Ramos]

You are inconsistent if you agree some words have multiple meanings in the Biblical usage. I used “sheep” as an example here and you say that’s a type/figure difference. There are other words we could point to that have multiple meanings. Shamayim (“heaven”) can Biblically refer to all the parts of creation that aren’t the “earth” (Gen 1:1), it refers more specifically to the environment within which the birds fly (Gen 1:20), it can refer to the dwelling place of God, which isn’t just where the birds fly (2 Chron 32:20). Erets (“earth”) means our planet (Gen 1:2), the dry land as opposed to the water (Gen 1:10), referring to all people of the earth (Gen 11:1). These aren’t types and figures, but multiple meanings. If you disagree with that, please explain why.

If you agree, then inconsistency in itself isn’t bad, if there is a good reason for it. Not all words have to have multiple meanings, of course. So, we look at sugkrino. Why think it is a Biblical word that can only have one meaning? Because 1 of 2 verses uses it that way? That would only be rational support if all words only have one meaning. They don’t.

Again, when you study types and figures in the scriptures, it is evident that they can be used to typify more than one thing. To claim "inconsistency" because definitions don't follow the same suit, is to assume they must do so in order for it to satisfy our own logical way of doing things. But the Bible is not like any other book. God has written it a completely different way than what we would assume to be logical. So, the inconsistency claim, isn't supported by the scriptures at all. I mean when 99% of the scriptures associate the serpent with everything that's evil, it's "inconsistent" to suggest that God would associate himself with it even once, yet he does.

John 3:14 (KJV 1900)
And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up:

So, we have to set our logic aside when we approach the scriptures because reasoning with ourselves always leads to a wrong conclusion. Rather, we have to trust in God's Word and not to lean on our own understanding.

Now, you gave a good example here by using the word "heavens" as meaning multiple things (the earth's atmosphere, outer space, or where God dwells (the third heaven). And that is correct, so perhaps I should clarify my position. When I said that there is one meaning for a word God has given, I meant that there is one general meaning. Let's take a look at the word "heaven" (šāmayim). This word is most commonly translated as "heaven" and on occasion, it's translated as "air". Here is the first time the KJV does it:

Genesis 1:26 (KJV 1900)
And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

Although this word is mostly translated as "heaven", on occasion the translators chose a different word to fit the context as they saw fit. Sometimes they did a good job and chose a similar word, but sometimes they did a poor job (even poorer with modern translations) and chose a word that completely opposes the general meaning of the word. And the general meaning of the word is derived by how God uses that word throughout the scriptures. So, we can read Gen 1:26 to say, "the fowl of the heavens" and have the same understanding. So, air was a proper translation given the context. But in a place where we are given a word that is used only 3 times in the Bible, this definition comes much easier. The word "sygkrinō " from 1 Cor 2:13 translated as "comparing", are all set in contexts that do just that, they compare. 1 Corinthians 2:13 is where the fundamental principle of comparing the Bible with the Bible in order to come to truth (hermeneutic) is taught. Else, where did you derive that principle from?

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.

But you have to keep in mind that translations are done by well meaning people, but are still led to choose a word here and there that satisfies their doctrinal position, but it is the Bible student's job to correct any such errors.

I am completely open to scripture that directly teaches between hermeneutics. I don’t see any that do, but show me one that does and I’ll follow it. You’ve seemed to offer two lines of Biblical support for your hermeneutic.

(1) You’ve talked about parables. I agree some of the Bible is in parable form. Those parables don’t assert “everything in the Bible is a parable”. If they do, then please offer that parable. I doubt you believe Matthew 13:34 is talking about everything Jesus ever said being a parable. What about when he taught about his crucifixion and resurrection? That was speaking in a parable?

(2) You’ve offered two other passages. I responded with a detailed analysis of the immediate context that seems to show you are taking those passages out of context. This response of “no amount of scriptures I show you will be acceptable” is a cop out. It’s useless rhetoric based on nothing I’ve shown you. I’m very open to hearing your further support. Thankfully, you give it later in this post.

(1) Why do you doubt what I've been claiming this whole time, that Matthew 13:34 is talking about everything Jesus ever said being a parable? It absolutely is. Not only the letters in red (which is a whole other problem) but the Bible itself because the whole Bible are the words of Jesus, hence the name, the Word of God. What about his crucifixion and resurrection? Well, you're asking about something that is much more difficult to understand for someone who takes the Bible at face value, but I will explain anyway. Let's take Jesus' words always being in parables one step further. Not only did everything Christ verbally spoke was in the form of parables, but also everything that he did and everything that was done in the scriptures as a whole because, essentially, the whole Bible was spoken by God to be written down. But, let's focus specifically on the things Jesus historically did himself as a man while on earth.

When Jesus healed someone, all many people see is that Jesus was just showing his power to prove that who he was. But in every diverse miracle of healing he did, it always pointed to the spiritual truth of the gospel of salvation. Being physically healed pointed to salvation which is spiritual healing.

Matthew 9:1–6 (KJV 1900)
And he entered into a ship, and passed over, and came into his own city. 2 And, behold, they brought to him a man sick of the palsy, lying on a bed: and Jesus seeing their faith said unto the sick of the palsy; Son, be of good cheer; thy sins be forgiven thee. 3 And, behold, certain of the scribes said within themselves, This man blasphemeth. 4 And Jesus knowing their thoughts said, Wherefore think ye evil in your hearts? 5 For whether is easier, to say, Thy sins be forgiven thee; or to say, Arise, and walk? 6 But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins, (then saith he to the sick of the palsy,) Arise, take up thy bed, and go unto thine house.

Understanding this helps us to understand this next passage::

Mark 4:11 (KJV 1900)
And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all [these] things are done in parables:

If you look up this passage in your interlinear, you'll notice that the word "these" is not in the original text. Thus, this should read, "all things are done in parables". This means that not only healings, or miracles, but also his crucifixion and resurrection. That doesn't mean that they didn't actually take place because historically they most certainly did. But parables are designed to conceal spiritual truth. And the truth his earthly crucifixion and resurrection is teaching us is that that wasn't the time he actually paid for sins. That was a demonstration (a parable) of the time when he actually did pay for sins by dying and raising again, and that was at the point of the world's foundation. Now, this in itself is a huge topic we can discuss, but this truth is understood by the many contradictions that we face in the bible if we hold to payment for sins having taken place at the cross. This is information that God has unsealed during this time of the end (Daniel 12:8-10).

In verse 4, Paul says his message wasn’t about the words spoken, but the demonstration of the Spirit and power. It’s not about our words and formulations, but the truth behind them. The truth being Jesus and Him crucified (v. 2). Our faith is in God’s power (v. 5), Christ, a Person, not an approach. The mystery God prepared for us (v. 7) is Jesus’ incarnation, death, and resurrection, not an allegorical approach. Non-Christians had seen, heard, and put their heart into an allegorical approach before, so this can’t be what Paul is talking about (v. 9).

That's not what verse 4 says, please reread.

1 Corinthians 2:4 (KJV 1900)
And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man’s wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power:

The whole context is about whose words they are speaking with. It's not with enticing words of man's wisdom. They aren't speaking with words from the wisdom of men. But what is being spoken is in demonstration of the Spirit and power.
Verse 6, "we speak..."
Verse 7, "we speak..."
verse 8, "for had they known it..." (Known what? The truth of the scriptures of who Christ was)
verse 9, "nor ear heard..."
verse 10, "but God had revealed them unto us..." (revealed what? The truth of the scriptures)
Verse 13, "Which things also we speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual". (Speak what things, (vs 12) the things freely given to us through the spirit of God).
Vs 14, "they are spiritually discerned" (What is? The spoken word).

The spoken word and understanding of it through the spirit is what the whole context is about.

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".

I have no problem with what you’ve written here. The problem is that you equate “allegorical” with “spiritual”. Where does the Bible equate allegorical with spiritual?

I wholeheartedly agree the Bible is full of spiritual truth. I contest that it is full of allegorical truth in every passage. Even if it is full of allegorical truth, human wisdom could lead to misinterpretations of the passage. The allegorical approach has led to a variety of gospels being read into the Bible. The point of 1 Cor 2 is that we are to always follow the Spirit, not the learn the Spirit’s approach and then run off on our own with it

When we look up the word "spiritual" (Strong's G4152), we notice that it's always translated as "spiritual", that's because it comes from the word "Spirit". And when we look up the examples of how God uses the word "spiritual" in regards to Biblical understanding, we see that he refers to the law (the whole Bible) as "spiritual" (Rom 7:14). We see that the Holy Ghost teaches by comparing "spiritual with spiritual" (1 Cor 2:13). And then we see God using this very same word to teach us about historical events and what spiritual truth they were hiding (1 Cor 10:3-4). I explained this to you earlier about the rock and the water in the wilderness. It was an actual historical event that concealed a spiritual truth. And then we notice that the bible admonishes us to be filled with spiritual understanding (Col 1:9). Now, whether you want to refer to something as spiritual or as an allegory, it's the same thing as far as the Bible is concerned. I use the word "spiritual" because the Bible uses that word more than the word "allegory". But both use historical accounts which conceal spiritual (allegorical) truth.

Galatians 4:21–24 (KJV 1900)
Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law? 22 For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman. 23 But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise. 24 Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.

And as I stated before, God does this enough times that we understand that everything in the Bible has spiritual truth concealed within every passage.

You said the “inside and out with ransom” of Gen 6:14 refers to two different deaths, (1) Christ for his people and (2) everyone else for themselves. For it to allegorically refer to two different deaths, it would need to be two different pitches. But that doesn’t fit with our view that Christ’s death only covers for the sins of those who are in Him. Neither of us believe in universalism. This is a danger of the allegorical approach; some details need to be ignored, glossed over, twisted a bit to fit what one wants it to be teaching.

You even run into a problem with all of those in the ark necessarily being spiritually saved. Yes, they were saved from the flood, but we immediately get the trouble with Ham. He doesn't seem to be portrayed as one of the elect.

Again, you are superimposing what it should be in order to satisfy your understanding of the pitch when you say, "For it to allegorically refer to two different deaths, it would need to be two different pitches". The "pitch" is the payment that the law requires. There is only one law for mankind for sin. The wages of sin is death. Death is the ransom to be paid. The pitch typifies the ransom that was paid, required by one and the same law, which is death. For you to say, "that doesn’t fit with our view", is to acknowledge that you are interpreting this passage based on what view you hold to be true rather on what is true in itself. As I said before, if you believe that Christ is that pitch that was on both sides of the ark, then that means he was the ransom for all mankind. That means that he paid for their sins with his death. And yet the whole world (but 8) died condemned for their sins. The context itself teaches us that the world paid for their own sins with their own death.

Lastly, the 8 souls in the ark represent the elect who were saved by Christ dying on their behalf for their sins. What their true spiritual condition was, is another matter. Sometimes God discloses that and sometimes he doesn't. For example, do you agree that David is a type and figure of Christ? Yet, no where does the Bible directly make that connection, does it? But even though he was a type and figure of Christ, he wasn't always. Like when we was committing adultery. So, by this we learn that what something typifies in the Bible is determined by the context, and different contexts can have different types for the same person.
For example, Ham, in the account of the flood, he was a picture of the elect of God saved from their sins while God was judging the world. But after they exited the ark, he saw his father's nakedness and went and told his brothers. His 2 brothers, in turn, covered his nakedness. Now, Ham is a picture of the unsaved of the world.

Matthew 25:41–46 (KJV 1900)
Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels: 42 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink: 43 I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not. 44 Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee? 45 Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me. 46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.

This is how God has written his book.

[JehovahsWitness]

Sometimes God discloses that and sometimes he doesn't. For example, do you agree that David is a type and figure of Christ?

I do not agree. David prophecied about the Christ but if the Bible does not disclose him as a type...then he was not.

... no where does the Bible directly make that connection, does it?

Then doing so would be man-made dogma and going beyond the written word if God.

[Eddie Ramos]

Sometimes God discloses that and sometimes he doesn't. For example, do you agree that David is a type and figure of Christ?

I do not agree. David prophecied about the Christ but if the Bible does not disclose him as a type...then he was not.

The Bible certainly makes the connection, what I meant by what I said was that no where does the Bible say the words, "David is a type of Christ ". And thus is what most people want to see spelled out before they can make that connection. But if you don't agree that David was a type of Christ, then you would be in disagreement with the very website you promote, of which I took the following clip from:

DAVID

(Daʹvid) [probably, Beloved].

In the New World Translation the name occurs 1,079 times in the Hebrew Scriptures, including 75 times in superscriptions of 73 psalms, and 59 times in the Christian Greek Scriptures. Of all Hebrew Scripture personages, only Moses and Abraham are mentioned more frequently by Christian Bible writers. In the 1,138 places where the name David occurs, reference is to but one individual, the second king of Israel, or the one of whom David, at times, served as a pictorial type: “Jesus Christ, son of David.”​—Mt 1:1.

... no where does the Bible directly make that connection, does it?

Then doing so would be man-made dogma and going beyond the written word if God.

Yes, the Bible makes that connection in so many ways. But again, for those who want it spelled out, they are missing out on an abundance of biblical truth.

[JehovahsWitness]

But if you don't agree that David was a type of Christ, then you would be in disagreement with the very website you promote, of which I took the following clip from:

My mistake: I bow to the Watchtower writers greater reasearch; the point remains however that they established the pattern directly from scripture ; note the following : "Through Ezekiel, Jehovah speaks of the Messianic Shepherd as “my servant David.”​—Eze 34:23, 24; 37:24, 25" - Insight on the Scriptures Vol I, p. 591 paragraph 1

EZEKIEL 34:23, 24

I will raise up one shepherd over them,+ my servant David,+ and he will feed them. He himself will feed them and become their shepherd. And I, Jehovah, will become their God,+ and my servant David a chieftain among them.+ I myself, Jehovah, have spoken

EZEKIEL 37:24, 25
New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures (Study Edition)
24 “‘“My servant David will be their king,+ and they will all have one shepherd.+ They will walk in my judicial decisions and carefully observe my statutes

So there the bible directly gives us liscence by specifically calling the Messiah David to use the later as a type. Not by saying David means beloved in the original language and YHWH declared he loved Jesus so that must be be a type, but by an explicit scripture that calls the coming One "David".

I admit it, I was wrong, it happens. The Jehovah's Witness writers are right.

... no where does the Bible directly make that connection, does it?

See scriptures above.


CONCLUSION : If your point is that one can establish types without specific (as in a clear link without the need to know the original Greek or Hebrew of a word) to the antitype you are still wrong.


JW



RELATED POSTS

How do we know when to draw a scriptural type and when to refrain?
viewtopic.php?p=1113005#p1113005