The Meat Of The Word

[JLB]

I would use the words "is displeased with me" rather than "hates me," but I know what you mean.

That’s because you understand….

 

[for_his_glory]

No, it's hate. Just like Esau. But if we pay attention, that Divine Hatred is really to the tempter that operates in everyone

God did not hate Esau as the word hate is in the same sense as God saying if we do not hate father, mother sister or brother we can not be none of His own. It means putting God first above all else. God was sore displeased with Esau in his deception of selling his birthright, Genesis 25. God said He also created evil and this is what fell upon Esau as we read in Malachi 1:2-5.

Isaiah 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

The word translated "evil" is from a Hebrew word kelalah that means adversary, affliction, calamity, distress and misery. This is what God has created and puts on those who He has cursed for their rebellion against Him so they know "I AM" in all sovereignty, Deuteronomy 27:11-26.

Exodus Chapter 7-11 is a witness of the "Great I AM" and what God brought forth in His affliction, calamity, distress and misery on Pharaoh and the Egyptians.

God gave Pharaoh and the Egyptians a chance to repent and turn back to Him, but they rejected God.

 

[for_his_glory]

Thank you Hidden In Him as this is a very important topic that hardly ever comes up.

In simplicity I see the milk of the word being that of the basic teachings we begin with on salvation at the time we first accepted Jesus as Lord and Savior. From that time forth we begin to read the scriptures, but with very little knowledge at first like that of a baby that can only drink milk as they are not ready for solid food yet. The more we study we then start eating soft foods of the word being those things we can understand. The more we feed on brings us to a place of being hungry for more as we always want more. When we are ready for the meat of the word being the hidden mysteries revealed to us then it becomes meat that we feast on like a glutton as the Holy Spirit starts to reveal the deeper Spiritual meanings and we can not seem to get enough.

It's baby steps until we reach maturity, from milk to meat as we are always learning everyday as no one could ever exhaust all the teachings contained in the scriptures.

 

[smaller]

God did not hate Esau

We will have to see differently again.

God does factually hate evil, and likewise hates evil present within anyone. Yes, it's hate. Not "love less than"

Even more, God does perform retributive or retribution evil, as it suits Him

I certainly appreciate all the dancing that goes on about these subjects, trying to claim hate is not hate and evil is not evil, but so not buying the stories

 

[for_his_glory]

We will have to see differently again.

God does factually hate evil, and likewise hates evil present within anyone. Yes, it's hate. Not "love less than"

Even more, God does perform retributive or retribution evil, as it suits Him

I certainly appreciate all the dancing that goes on about these subjects, trying to claim hate is not hate and evil is not evil, but so not buying the stories

Let me ask you a question. Do you have any internal evil?

 

[smaller]

Let me ask you a question. Do you have any internal evil?

I'll make the same statement that Paul did, in Romans 7:21

 

[Hidden In Him]

I suppose the basis for this thread is (Heb. 5:11-6:2). There, maturity is a factor. (5:14). And that maturity has been obtained through their actual use of the Word so that they have the ability to discern good and evil.

Hello Stranger, and greetings.

I do agree that maturity and growth comes through consuming greater amounts of the word, and that may be the most important thing to be gleaned from the whole teaching. The question is what constitutes the teaching that is harder to "chew on" so to speak, and harder to digest. Ones needs teeth to eat meat, and that in and of itself suggests a stage of growth in the life of a child.

There is no one doctrine that is the meat of the Word. And there is no one doctrine that is the milk of the Word. The entire Bible has the milk of the Word. The entire Bible has the meat of the Word.

Curious then: What teachings do you consider milk and what do you consider meat? Specifically, I mean.

Paul is saying by this time they should have matured enough to be teachers. (Heb. 5:12)

That's correct. It's why I'm curious what you think the meat should be. He appears to categorize the milk as the first principles (baptisms, laying on of hands, repentance from dead works, etc.)

12 For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you again the first principles of the oracles of God. And you have come to need milk and not solid food. 13 For everyone who partakes only of milk is unskilled in the word of righteousness, for he is a babe. (Hebrews 5:12-13)

Paul's statement in (1 Cor. 2:2) is often spoken with tremendous vocal authority from the pulpit, to emphasize ones dedication to God and Christ. I'm sure I have spoken it myself. "For I determined not to know any thing among you save Jesus Christ, and him crucified." But this is actually an indictment against the Corinthians. Due to their carnality which means babes, (3:1), that is all they could be given. Jesus Christ crucified.

Good point. I think they had issues with pride (as the text itself suggests), and this is why he had to keep his focus on our humility in light of the sacrifice of Christ, and not become "puffed up" with knowledge or about whose "disciple" we might be (1 Corinthians 1).

 

[Hidden In Him]

God did not hate Esau as the word hate is in the same sense as God saying if we do not hate father, mother sister or brother we can not be none of His own. It means putting God first above all else.

I did a study one time on how the word "hate" carried a slightly different connotation in Biblical language. It was used of how Jacob loved Rebecca but "hated" Leah. I've always doubted he would have slept with Leah much if he truly hated her, especially given that scripture suggests she was the less attractive of the two. I don't think he would have been under any obligation, since she was not the wife he asked for to begin with anyway. I came to take the word as therefore being used in the sense of "disdain," which appears to be the same sense as used in Matthew 10:37:

“If anyone comes to Me and does not hate his father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, yes, and his own soul also, he cannot be My disciple." (Luke 14:26)

The word translated here "soul" is psyche, which many translate as "life" in this passage. But in context He is referring to souls throughout: The souls of their fathers, their mothers, sisters, and brothers, and hence their own souls as well.

Now does one "hate" his own soul? That's the contention of Smaller. I can't say as I truly "hate" my entire soul; there are parts of me that I think are of value. But I do disdain those parts of me prone to sin. Likewise, I don't hate my family, but I have disdained some of them for continuing to live for themselves, and not dedicate themselves or their lives to serving Christ.

I'd have to do a more thorough study of the use of the word in ancient cultures to be certain, but it is something I have held to personally when reading those verses.

 

[jaybo]

I'll make the same statement that Paul did, in Romans 7:21

If you keep reading to chapter 8 you'll understand that in Romans 7 Paul was describing his state before he became a Christian (born again filled with the Spirit).

"There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus For the law of the life-giving Spirit in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and death." Romans 8:1-2

 

[Hidden In Him]

In simplicity I see the milk of the word being that of the basic teachings we begin with on salvation at the time we first accepted Jesus as Lord and Savior. From that time forth we begin to read the scriptures, but with very little knowledge at first like that of a baby that can only drink milk as they are not ready for solid food yet. The more we study we then start eating soft foods of the word being those things we can understand. The more we feed on brings us to a place of being hungry for more as we always want more. When we are ready for the meat of the word being the hidden mysteries revealed to us then it becomes meat that we feast on like a glutton as the Holy Spirit starts to reveal the deeper Spiritual meanings and we can not seem to get enough.

Amen. In reading this, I was reminded of how Paul told the Thessalonians that he loved them like a father, and like a nursemaid cherishing her children and being gentle with them rather than heavy-handed as an apostle. I would think he wouldn't have told them they were going to suffer affliction for Christ's sake on Day 1. I think that as someone who was gentle with them and wanted them to grow a little before he gave them some stronger teachings, he would have let them rejoice in the good news for awhile first. After all, if our eyes have not been trained to become fixed on the reward we have in the next life first, what would encourage us and motivate us to be willing to suffer and if necessary die for our faith in the here and now?

It all stands to reason for me that the message of suffering for Christ was a more advanced teaching, shared with the new born only after they had fully tasted that the Lord was good.

 

[for_his_glory]

I did a study one time on how the word "hate" carried a slightly different connotation in Biblical language. It was used of how Jacob loved Rebecca but "hated" Leah. I've always doubted he would have slept with Leah much if he truly hated her, especially given that scripture suggests she was the less attractive of the two. I don't think he would have been under any obligation, since she was not the wife he asked for to begin with anyway. I came to take the word as therefore being used in the sense of "disdain," which appears to be the same sense as used in Matthew 10:37:

“If anyone comes to Me and does not hate his father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, yes, and his own soul also, he cannot be My disciple." (Luke 14:26)

The word translated here "soul" is psyche, which many translate as "life" in this passage. But in context He is referring to souls throughout: The souls of their fathers, their mothers, sisters, and brothers, and hence their own souls as well.

Now does one "hate" his own soul? That's the contention of Smaller. I can't say as I truly "hate" my entire soul; there are parts of me that I think are of value. But I do disdain those parts of me prone to sin. Likewise, I don't hate my family, but I have disdained some of them for continuing to live for themselves, and not dedicate themselves or their lives to serving Christ.

I'd have to do a more thorough study of the use of the word in ancient cultures to be certain, but it is something I have held to personally when reading those verses.

When God commands us to honor our father and mother then why would he turn around and tell us to hate them by how we understand the the opposite of hate being love. Disdain is what God meant when it was written He hated Esau as He was disappointed in Esau for his dishonesty.

 

[for_his_glory]

We will have to see differently again.

God does factually hate evil, and likewise hates evil present within anyone. Yes, it's hate. Not "love less than"

Even more, God does perform retributive or retribution evil, as it suits Him

I certainly appreciate all the dancing that goes on about these subjects, trying to claim hate is not hate and evil is not evil, but so not buying the stories

No one has ever said God did not hate evil as He created the type of evil that befalls man who have an evil heart. I explained this in post #22, but you would rather believe the doctrines that Calvinism teaches.

 

[for_his_glory]

1Peter 2:1 Wherefore laying aside all malice, and all guile, and hypocrisies, and envies, and all evil speakings,
1Peter 2:2 As newborn babes, desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby:
1Peter 2:3 If so be ye have tasted that the Lord is gracious.

This is where we begin to grow in our salvation as we only see the word with a carnal mind until we mature or grow in the Spiritual teachings as the one on milk still has a carnal understanding.

1Co 3:1 And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, even as unto babes in Christ.
1Co 3:2 I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither yet now are ye able.
1Co 3:3 For ye are yet carnal: for whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men?
1Co 3:4 For while one saith, I am of Paul; and another, I am of Apollos; are ye not carnal?
1Co 3:5 Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but ministers by whom ye believed, even as the Lord gave to every man?

Notice in the above verse I highlighted as this is why we have so much division that brings strife with it into the forums. Many that are a Christian, for even a very long period of time, only have a carnal understanding as they have no Spiritual understanding into the deeper (meat) mysteries of the word of God. They use logic that only feeds the flesh, but no Spiritual food for the belly that allows them to grow Spiritually.

 

[jaybo]

I did a study one time on how the word "hate" carried a slightly different connotation in Biblical language. It was used of how Jacob loved Rebecca but "hated" Leah. I've always doubted he would have slept with Leah much if he truly hated her, especially given that scripture suggests she was the less attractive of the two. I don't think he would have been under any obligation, since she was not the wife he asked for to begin with anyway. I came to take the word as therefore being used in the sense of "disdain," which appears to be the same sense as used in Matthew 10:37:

“If anyone comes to Me and does not hate his father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, yes, and his own soul also, he cannot be My disciple." (Luke 14:26)

The word translated here "soul" is psyche, which many translate as "life" in this passage. But in context He is referring to souls throughout: The souls of their fathers, their mothers, sisters, and brothers, and hence their own souls as well.

Now does one "hate" his own soul? That's the contention of Smaller. I can't say as I truly "hate" my entire soul; there are parts of me that I think are of value. But I do disdain those parts of me prone to sin. Likewise, I don't hate my family, but I have disdained some of them for continuing to live for themselves, and not dedicate themselves or their lives to serving Christ.

I'd have to do a more thorough study of the use of the word in ancient cultures to be certain, but it is something I have held to personally when reading those verses.

Perhaps in the KJV (and some others) the word is translated "hate" -- as in "And when the Lord saw that Leah was hated, he opened her womb: but Rachel was barren." Genesis 29:31 -- but modern translations have it as "When the Lord saw that Leah was not loved, he enabled her to conceive, but Rachel remained childless" (NIV), "When the Lord saw that Leah was unloved, he opened her womb; but Rachel was barren." (NRSV), "Now the Lord saw that Leah was unloved, and He opened her womb, but Rachel was unable to have children.: (NASB); "When the Lord saw that Leah was unloved, he enabled her to become pregnant while Rachel remained childless." (NET).

Clearly the translators of the newer translations don't think that "hate", with all its connotations, is appropriate in this context.

 

[for_his_glory]

Perhaps in the KJV (and some others) the word is translated "hate" -- as in "And when the Lord saw that Leah was hated, he opened her womb: but Rachel was barren." Genesis 29:31 -- but modern translations have it as "When the Lord saw that Leah was not loved, he enabled her to conceive, but Rachel remained childless" (NIV), "When the Lord saw that Leah was unloved, he opened her womb; but Rachel was barren." (NRSV), "Now the Lord saw that Leah was unloved, and He opened her womb, but Rachel was unable to have children.: (NASB); "When the Lord saw that Leah was unloved, he enabled her to become pregnant while Rachel remained childless." (NET).

Clearly the translators of the newer translations don't think that "hate", with all its connotations, is appropriate in this context.

One thing about modern translations is that they lose the original meaning of certain words and how they were used within the full context of scripture.

Just my

 

[jaybo]

One thing about modern translations is that they lose the original meaning of certain words and how they were used within the full context of scripture.

Just my

The translators who have produced modern versions of the Bible are experts in their field, using the best available texts, both Biblical and secular, as well as having a great understanding of the culture of the times and what the words meant to the original hearers.

So your basis for saying the above is..?

Just my

 

[for_his_glory]

The translators who have produced modern versions of the Bible are experts in their field, using the best available texts, both Biblical and secular, as well as having a great understanding of the culture of the times and what the words meant to the original hearers.

So your basis for saying the above is..?

Just my

By how each newer translations bring division over one single English word that has various types of meanings taking away from the meaning of the original manuscripts written in Hebrew and Greek.

 

[Hidden In Him]

1Peter 2:1 Wherefore laying aside all malice, and all guile, and hypocrisies, and envies, and all evil speakings,
1Peter 2:2 As newborn babes, desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby:
1Peter 2:3 If so be ye have tasted that the Lord is gracious.

This is where we begin to grow in our salvation as we only see the word with a carnal mind until we mature or grow in the Spiritual teachings as the one on milk still has a carnal understanding.

This is an excellent post. I could also go into 1 Peter and 1 Corinthians to show how both letters dealt with our faith being proven like gold tried in the fires of sufferings. The 1st Peter passage is readily apparent; the 1st Corinthians passage takes a little more explaining, but it's there, beginning with how he discusses what the Gentiles were seeking (i.e. wisdom) verses what the Jews were (signs of God's power and endorsement). What Paul was saying was that both were essentially trying to figure out how a perfect kingdom could be stablished in the earth. For the Greeks it would be through wise leadership and governmental structure (hence all the debates over it), and for the Jews it was matter of who the Messiah would be, since he would have all the backing of God's supernatural power behind him.

Paul's argument was that Christ was both the wisdom AND power of God, but the overarching question here was who would set up the perfect government, and for Christians Paul answered it in Chapter 2 as follows:

6 However, we speak wisdom among those who are mature, yet not the wisdom of this age, nor of the rulers of this age, who are coming to nothing. 7 But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, the hidden wisdom which God ordained before the ages for our glory, 8 which none of the rulers of this age knew; for had they known, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. 9 But as it is written: “Eye has not seen, nor ear heard, nor have entered into the heart of man the things which God has prepared for those who love Him.” (1 Corinthians 2:6-9)

I believe Paul here was referring to the prophesies in Daniel concerning the time of the end when God's kingdom would finally be established, and how after the righteous suffered at the hands of the Antichrist, they would be given the kingdoms of the earth:

He (the Antichrist) shall speak pompous words against the Most High, and shall persecute the saints of the Most High, and intend to change times and law. Then the saints shall be given into his hand for a time, and times, and half a time. 26 But the court shall sit, and they shall take away his dominion, to consume and destroy it forever. 27 Then the kingdom and dominion, and the greatness of the kingdoms under the whole heaven, shall be given to the people, the saints of the Most High. His kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and all dominions shall serve and obey Him. (Daniel 7:25-27)

This, then, was the wisdom "none of the rulers knew," for it they had known the kingdom of God and the kingdoms of this earth would be inherited by those who were willing to suffer for Christ, and be obedient unto death just as Christ was, they would neither have crucified the Lord of glory nor His servants for that matter. But as Paul said elsewhere:

4 we ourselves boast of you among the churches of God for your patience and faith in all your persecutions and afflictions that you endure, 5 which is manifest evidence of the righteous judgment of God, that you may be counted worthy of the kingdom of God, for which you also suffer; 6 since it is a righteous thing with God to repay with affliction those who afflict you, 7 and to give you who are afflicted rest with us when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with His mighty angels, 8 in flaming fire taking vengeance on those who do not know God, and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. (2 Thessalonians 1:4-8)

 

[for_his_glory]

Nicodemus comes to my mind as one with a carnal mind of knowledge, but yet could not understand the earthly or the Spiritual things Jesus was trying to teach him that is written in John chapter 3.

John 3:10 Jesus answered and said unto him, Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things?

Sounds familiar with many Pastors today that only preach from a carnal mind as they truly have not been called or anointed by the Holy Spirit to preach the word.

 

[jaybo]

By how each newer translations bring division over one single English word that has various types of meanings taking away from the meaning of the original manuscripts written in Hebrew and Greek.

Many years ago, when I was an undergraduate, I learned the phrase "language is culture". => It is impossible to translate the earliest manuscripts, written in a society that existed thousands of years ago, into a word-for-word Bible that would mean anything to those of us living today. <= There are several reasons...

1) Ancient Hebrew, Aramaic, and Koine Greek are languages that are very different than English, whether the early 17th Century or the early 21st Century. Not only are there vocabulary differences, there are word tenses and idioms that translate very poorly. For example, if we said "it's raining cats and dogs" (as it often does in South Carolina), someone from another culture would think we were insane. The same principle applies to the early manuscripts.

2) I don't think too many of us are shepherds keeping watch over our flocks, putting them in and releasing them from "sheepfolds". Nor have many of us sacrificed animals on altars or fought battles with chariots and spears. When Jesus said "I am the good shepherd", how many of us really understand this? For example, John 10:11-18 says "“I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep. The hired hand is not the shepherd and does not own the sheep. So when he sees the wolf coming, he abandons the sheep and runs away. Then the wolf attacks the flock and scatters it. The man runs away because he is a hired hand and cares nothing for the sheep." How many of us can actually identify with this scenario? The difference in our cultures is extreme! It takes a skilled translator to convey the meaning of Scripture to our modern minds, which should be the translators' goal.

It is impossible to create a word-for-word translation. Additionally, the King James translation was created for a society that no longer exists. We don't live in early 17th Century England, so the language used is at least partially foreign to us. We are two steps removed from the Biblical times and from the early English culture. We need modern translations to convey the words and meaning of the ancient texts to our 21st Century minds. Fortunately, there are several that are excellent.

Luke 14:8-11 (KJV)...
8 When thou art bidden of any man to a wedding, sit not down in the highest room; lest a more honourable man than thou be bidden of him;

9 And he that bade thee and him come and say to thee, Give this man place; and thou begin with shame to take the lowest room.

10 But when thou art bidden, go and sit down in the lowest room; that when he that bade thee cometh, he may say unto thee, Friend, go up higher: then shalt thou have worship in the presence of them that sit at meat with thee.

11 For whosoever exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted.

Luke 14:8-11 (NIV), " “When someone invites you to a wedding feast, do not take the place of honor, for a person more distinguished than you may have been invited. If so, the host who invited both of you will come and say to you, ‘Give this person your seat.’ Then, humiliated, you will have to take the least important place. But when you are invited, take the lowest place, so that when your host comes, he will say to you, ‘Friend, move up to a better place.’ Then you will be honored in the presence of all the other guests. For all those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted.”

Which is more understandable? And more importantly, which is more accurate? a) There were no separate "rooms"; the banquets actually took place in a single room. b) Nobody sat at the banquet table; people reclined. c) "Give this man place; and thou begin with shame to take the lowest room." What does "give this man place" mean? Was it so crowded? d) "thou begin with shame to take the lowest room" Again, there were no separate "rooms" And how does one "take" a room? e) Friend, go up higher: then shalt thou have worship in the presence of them that sit at meat with thee." What on Earth does "then shalt thou have worship in the presence of them that sit at meat with thee" mean? They weren't worshiping, and how does someone "sit at meat"?

Don't you see how much clearer the NIV translation is?? "Do not take the place of honor" (in the room) ... give this person your seat". "But when you are invited, take the lowest place, so that when your host comes, he will say to you, ‘Friend, move up to a better place.’ [at the banquet table] " "Then you will be honored in the presence of all the other guests." The situation described is much more accurately translated into our language and culture in the modern version. And of course this is just one example.

We do not "sit at meat" and "have worship"; we sit at the banquet table and have a celebratory feast.

There are of course many, many other places in the KJV (and other historic translations) where the meaning is obfuscated. We need the translation that best conveys the language and meaning of the Biblical cultures to our modern minds. There is absolutely no need to re-translate early 17th Century Englyshe into 21st Century English. Many people do so, using the archaic language to put their own personal interpretation on what the Bible means.

Guess whom I trust!