Results 1 - 4 of 4
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Plain or Intended Meaning? | 1 Pet 2:24 | mark d seyler | 165882 | ||
Hi Atdcross, Lets look at this verse. Jesus is talking about the cost of discipleship in this passage, and He makes that most remarkable statement, "if anyone comes to Me and does not hate his father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, yes, and his own life also, he cannot be My disciple." Many make the mistake of thinking that when God speaks of hating, as a recommended action, that He means the same thing we mean when we talk about hating. When we talk about hate, our hate is composed of anger, contempt, critical judgment (not in a good way), ill will, and generally is a reaction to our being treated in some way that we don't like. There is also that "hatred" which is simply a strong dislike, "I hate ollieberry pie". But what does God mean when He talks about hatred? Look at Luke 16:13. No one can serve two masters, Jesus said. He will love one, and hate the other. But Jesus is not talking about affections here. Love (agapeo) is not so much about feeling, but it is about devotion. Try a word study of how agape is used. We all know that we can have two masters without "hating" (emotionally) one of them, but we can only be totally devoted to one of them. We cannot be totally devoted to both, that is a contradiction of terms. Next go to Romans 9:12 it was said to her, "The older shall serve the younger." 13 As it is written, "Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated." "as it is written, Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated." Here God equates loving Jacob and hating Esau with giving favor to Jacob, and not to Esau. We say love and hate, and we generally are using these words as feelings words. The Bible has words for the emotions as well, stergo is familial love, phileo is affectionate love. Agapeo is to devote yourself to the object of that "love". When Jesus said that if you didn't hate your family, and even your own life, this is not emotional hatred, it is to not place them over Him, the one we "agapes". If you do a word study of this verse, I believe you will find this meaning of "hate" is entirely Biblical. To answer your question, I would say that Jesus meant exactly what He said, although, in this instance, our English translation does not convey the meaning as fully as it might. Love in Christ, Mark |
||||||
2 | Plain or Intended Meaning? | 1 Pet 2:24 | atdcross | 165922 | ||
Not being a scholar of the language, allow me to explain my point of view, which does not necessarily disagree with your view except in your definition of hatred as "a strong dislike" or "not emotional hatred." It seems a correct understanding of this verse may center on the word translated "hate". Robertson: "Hateth...An old and very strong verb...to hate, detest. The orientals use strong language..." (Word Pictures). Evans: "This may be an example of the Semitic expression of preference," however, "it may also express Luke's rigorous outlook" (Saint Luke). Liefeld: "It is important to understand the ancient Near Eastern expression without blunting its force" (Expositor's Bible Commentary). The word translated "hate" is the same used in Matt 5:43; 24:10; Luke 6:22,27; John 3:20; 7:7; 15:23; Rom 9:13; Rev 2:6,15 (cf. Young, Strong). Vine: "to hate...(a) of malicious and unjustifiable feelings...(c) of relative preference..." (Dictionary) Lenski: "Instead of leaving [the Greek word] in its true sense 'to hate' it is generally reduced, even 'watered down till the point is gone'." (St. Luke's Gospel; his further remarks are quite interesting, which is somewhat a different perspective than what we are discussing but it makes good sense to me). The point is that, according to above references, Luke chose to use a very strong Greek word (as it seems the English translation rightly conveys) to express Jesus' teaching. I concede that Luke's readers may have recognized that the verse spoke of preference but that just proves the point; they knew not to take it literally. There was an intended meaning in the word "hate" other than as stated. Therefore, it seems, Luke did not intend for his readers to understand Jesus "exactly" from what was stated via the normal meaning of the Greek word "hate" but some other meaning is intended. A mere conjecture is offered with reference to Jesus' use of the Aramaic since I do not know what word he used (only because I don't know Aramaic). However, if it was equivalent to the strength of the Greek word, the same can be said: Jesus knew exactly what he was saying but exactly what he meant was something different from what was exactly stated. The fact that his hearers readily knew he took the word to mean something other than what its literal meaning might suggest only supports this view. Please note, Mark, with all due respect, you apprehended the text not on the basis of the word itself but on the basis of (1) a form of teaching understood within the culture; (2) other relevant verses that bring light Luke's understanding of Jesus' statement; (3) in relation to other texts about the command to love, which I am not against doing. However, as far as I can tell, you did not come to understand what Jesus meant by the "plain reading" of the word "hate," which is, as Robertson states, in Greek is a "very strong verb...to hate, detest." One last point. Again, I think we make the Western mistake of dichotomizing persons, a thing it seems unheard of in the Eastern world like "emotional" hatred; if one "hated" or "loved" it was understood as being done with one's whole person. I hope I explained my point clearly. |
||||||
3 | Plain or Intended Meaning? | 1 Pet 2:24 | mark d seyler | 165925 | ||
Hi Atdcross, I would simply ask you to examine all the uses of the words in question in this passage throughout the New Testament, and see it the definitions as you have offered will actually work in those usages. I do not think that they will. The simplest example, not to speak anything against any of these scholars who have had much greater education than I have, but to define hate as "unjustifiable, malicious feelings" is to accuse God of wrongdoing for "hating" Esau. And that cannot be correct. I am not saying that Jesus spoke other than what he meant, I am saying that how we understand some of the words used is different than how they understood them then. My suggestion, to learn what these writers meant when they used a particular word, is to examine every occurrance in the Bible of that word. Determine what the meaning is within its context, find the common thread that connects them all, and you will be able to infer the meaning. I understand what you are saying about the oriental frame of reference, however, that does not as such determine the meanings of words, but rather how they are used. You can detest, abhor, "hate" as we think of it, someone, in feeling, thought, word, and deed. You can also disfavor, demote, subjugate, disapprove someone in feeling, thought, word, and deed. One is visceral, and one is willful. This is willful. If we are to say that, for instance, miseo is defined according to what you have said, even thought that definition does not work eveywhere it is used, that those instances actually mean something other than what the word means, we are left with the task of determining what it actually means. And who is to do that? You? Me? The guy down the street? If we approach scripture that way, we will all come up with something different, and we will remove the objective meaning from the Bible, and it will be no better for us than reading Dr. Seuss. Now, I like Dr. Seuss, but we already have him, and what we need is the Bible, telling US what IT means. If we simply come to the text prepared to receive whatever it offers, and carefully and thouroughly study it, it will reveal itself without conflict, without inconsistencies, and without having to redefine words to fit difficult passages. By the way, you may want to check out "The Language of Jesus", by Douglas Hamp. He presents a very strong case from Biblical, historical, and literary sources that the Jews spoke Hebrew as their primary language until 130 AD. This simply backs up what the Bible already says, that they spoke Hebrew, although this is changed in many Bibles to be Aramaic to match the modern belief. Oh well... Love in Christ, Mark |
||||||
4 | Plain or Intended Meaning? | 1 Pet 2:24 | atdcross | 166681 | ||
You’re correct I would be accusing God of wrongdoing but only if “hate” is used by Luke according to it’s usual and primary definition as defined by such scholars as Robertson. In any case, have you read the rest of Vine’s as I cited it? Also, see my citation of Evans and Liefeld. In Luke, Jesus did not mean that one is to literally hate their parents; he is saying something other than how the definition of the word is normally understood. Maybe I’m not making myself clear. In some respects, it seems to me that we are not really disagreeing with each other. I think the misunderstanding lies in my saying that the Greek word for “hate” is defined in a very strong way, whereas you’re saying, as defined, it can also mean something less strong. If my understanding is correct, in the former, I consider it the normal usage, it’s literal meaning; while, for the latter, I see it not as the definition of the word itself, but a “playing” with the word to emphasize a point. Maybe this is something akin to what Kalos refres to when he cites, “the culture gap gives you…idioms”. It any case, it may not be that we disagree but more rather that I am unable to properly explain myself having not been educated in a college or seminary. If you read “Israel’s Divine Healer” by Dr. Michael L. Brown, I’ll certainly read the book you have suggested. Let me know if it's a deal. |
||||||