Did Jesus die for everyone and if he did does this mean everyone can be saved
A good question. One that I have been considering for the last few years. I was reading the final chapters of the book of Revelation today. I noticed the 12 gates and the 11 usages of this word for gates in the last two chapters of the bible. I have very good bible study software and was able to examine this very quickly while I am in the midst of a heavy business/work schedule. Revelations chapter 21 begins with,
Rev 21:1-8
21:1 Now I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away. Also there was no more sea. 2 Then I, John, saw the holy city, New Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. 3 And I heard a loud voice from heaven saying, "Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and He will dwell with them, and they shall be His people. God Himself will be with them and be their God. 4 And God will wipe away every tear from their eyes; there shall be no more death, nor sorrow, nor crying. There shall be no more pain, for the former things have passed away." 5 Then He who sat on the throne said, "Behold, I make all things new." And He said to me, "Write, for these words are true and faithful." 6 And He said to me, "It is done! I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End. I will give of the fountain of the water of life freely to him who thirsts. 7 He who overcomes shall inherit all things, and I will be his God and he shall be My son. 8 But the cowardly, unbelieving, abominable, murderers, sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars shall have their part in the lake which burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death."
NKJV
From this it looks like the followers and people that know, respect and/or love Jesus Christ are inside what the writer of this book calls the new Jerusalem. Outside of the new Jerusalem it looks like the other people are cowardly, unbelieving, abominable, murderers, etc. We have the truthful and loving people inside the New Jerusalem and the liars outside of the new Jerusalem in what is called the lake with fire and brimstone. I don't think the lake of fire will be pleasant for them with the state that they are in. However, I do not think this is all about torture. For example, one of the 12 usages of the Greek word for "burns" pertains to what John the Baptist experienced. Here is the verse,
John 5:35-36
35 He was a burning (Kaioo, which is the same Greek word as in used in Rev. 21:8) and a shining light: and ye were willing for a season to rejoice in his light.
36 But I have greater witness than that of John: for the works which the Father hath given me to finish, the same works that I do, bear witness of me, that the Father hath sent me.
KJV
From the Thayer's lexicon, see the partial, but exact quote below. The word for burning can be used as a light showing the right way.
NT:2545
with puri added, Heb 12:18; Rev 8:8; 21:8;
in figurative discourse luchnos kaiomenos, a light showing the right way
Then there is the word used for fire used in Rev. 21:8, In Greek it is the word pur which is Strong's number 4442. This is the same Greek word as is used 75 times in the New Testament. Here are 4 of the usages quoted below. Remember, these 4 usages below are the same Greek word that is used in Revelation 21:8 and should help our understanding of what really will go on in the Lake of fire.
Acts 2:3-4
3 And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire (pur), and it sat upon each of them.
4 And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.
KJV
1 Cor 3:13-15
13 Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire (pur); and the fire (pur) shall try every man's work of what sort it is.
14 If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward.
15 If any man's work shall be burned (this Greek word is used 5 times in the book of Revelation), he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire (pur).
KJV
So it looks like when we gain more knowledge by seeing how the Greek words in Revelation 21:8 are used elsewhere in the New Testament, we realize that the lake of Fire, could have a cleansing affect on those who are in it. In addition to the discomfort and troubles they may experience. But then people today experience trouble and discomfort and hopefully can overcome at least some of it in their lifetime and hopefully learn and grow from the experience. So to sum things up the lake of Fire could be a lake of purification for those who are in it.
Getting back to the 12 gates and 11 usages of this Greek word. Try reading the last two chapters of the book of Revelation and think about what is written. Then ask yourself the question, why would God use the word gates if no one was able to pass through the gates into the holy city, the new Jerusalem? If no one outside the gates was ever allowed to walk inside then why even have gates? Why not instead have a barb wire fence or a 12 foot wide brick wall. Of course, it does clearly say that no one that was an evil liar would be allowed to enter the gates to the new Jerusalem. But what if the cleansing affect of the lake of fire purified the sinful nature of the people outside the gates? Then would they be allowed to walk inside one of the 12 gates to the new Jerusalem?
13 Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire (pur); and the fire (pur) shall try every man's work of what sort it is.
14 If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward.
15 If any man's work shall be burned (this Greek word is used 5 times in the book of Revelation), he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire (pur).
KJV
Very interesting passage.
I have a few questions.
"the day" shall declare it. What day? why so vague? There are many "the days".. further, we are talking about reward.. but is the context REALLY some kind of judgement day, and day of reward? Why do we have to force some kind of PRIVATE INTERPRETATION that this is during a time of judgement after some kind of "gathering together"?
The fire.. shall try every man's work of what sort it is..
fire? I've had some of my work "burned" in this world. Not some time in the distant or not so distant future..
I've had everything I ever thought I've believed melt away once.. in the heat of whatever it was..
You know. The greeks reward was a very small garland, woven of olive leaves.. I have a couple of those, figuratively speaking. They are friggin PAPER.
very interesting..
The only thing untouched by the fire in this lifetime.. is my love for two individuals, and their love for me..
I didn't mean to derail this thread. It seemed to me that death is one of the things "the idiom of permission" is used to excuse God of responisbility for. I also have a couple of other ideas, that can relate to the idiom of permission, but I'll start new threads for them, too. Thanks!
Steve, you mentioned you have some sophisticated Bible search software. It is programmable to search for idioms? Does it know about figures of speech and in particular the idiom of permission, and if so, what results does it show?
Steve, you mentioned you have some sophisticated Bible search software. It is programmable to search for idioms? Does it know about figures of speech and in particular the idiom of permission, and if so, what results does it show?
One of the verses Bullinger cites as containing this idiom -- of how the Hebrews sometimes used active verbs to express "not the doing of the thing, but the permission of the thing which the agent is said to do" -- provides a simple and clear example:
Acts 13:29. —“"When they [i.e., the rulers, verse 27] had fulfilled all that was written of him, they took him down from the tree, and laid him in a sepulcher."
Well, the rulers did no such thing. The rulers did not take Jesus Christ down from the tree, nor did the rulers lay Jesus Christ in a sepulcher. What they did was permit Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus to do these things.
That is indeed clear, but I'm not sure it's a valid example of the idiom.
The pronoun 'they' of verse 29 does indeed refer back to verse 27, but the subject there is not 'the rulers' as Bullinger states but is instead 'they that dwell at Jerusalem, and their rulers'. With the definition of 'they' properly understood to include both the rulers and they that dwell at Jerusalem, verse 29 contains no idiomatic speech but a mere statement of fact.
Part of my difficulty in understanding this idiom has been that Bullinger, as its primary advocate, did not explain it with solid examples of its occurrences in scripture, nor did he provide sufficient cultural examples of its usage. Unfortunately, his shortcomings in this particular effort proved quite useful to TWI leadership, who took advantage of Bullinger's vagaries and made more of their own.
Outside of Waydom and mini-me Waydom (splinter groups), has anybody ever heard of the "idiom of permission"? If yes - in the sense promoted by VPW? Bullinger has an article on it which VPW has picked up on (plagiarized from someone else's work), of course, but apart from that?
Anybody out there who has a degree in English Lit or is a grammar teacher who can shed any light?
I got into a discussion with my church's "vicar theologian" (a highly educated man, with real research papers to his name) - suggested something could be this "idiom of permission" - he gave me that pained, patient "what planet are you from?" look that Wayfers become all too familiar with when speaking with "church" people.
So just wondering...
I was looking for the same thing when I came across your post. I know it's 5 years old, but if you are still interested I found a web site that cites people all the way back to the 1st century. There are about 2 dozen other references. I have to look at it more, but right off hand it just might sway me towards the validity of the idiom.
There may well be such an idiom. Or is it just - irony?
However, I'd suspect that VPW used it more than it warranted, to give himself permission to re-work scriptures to give his own slant, or to give himself permission to do something that's definitely prohibited.
I'm almost sure it's not by anybody from the way. This page lists contributors and I know none of them, but maybe I'm wrong: https://characterofgod.org/contributors/
It's by Steve Fontenot. Again, I don't think it is from the way, but maybe you recognize something that would link it to them. In the second paragraph of the "Conclusion" he references a James Macknight (1721-1800) and D. R. Dugan. I've not been able to verify either.
I'm still working on it. I have been for some time now. There are lots of things the Way said that I wasn't totally convinced of. This subject is one of them.
Thanks for that, rrobs. Your link was slightly incorrect (https stated twice). If others here choose to follow up, here's a better link - I've pointed this to their home page, as there are items there that might be of interest:
The "I create evil" article contains a number of references and quotes from sources, academics, from decades if not centuries ago. If this "idiom of permission" was understood then, how come the knowledge got lost? Buried, perhaps in AV [KJV] English, which at times was a little political. There are a number of articles from older commentators. Some of these look as though they might be a good read.
One of the articles is quite a long essay which also may be of interest. Here's the link to that:
The author of this document quotes a number of different versions of the Bible, including easy-read type versions, which in this case appear more accurate (as in "I will let [some event] happen").
Thanks again for the link.
Like you, I don't think any of the contributors has Way connections at all.
Thanks for that, rrobs. Your link was slightly incorrect (https stated twice). If others here choose to follow up, here's a better link - I've pointed this to their home page, as there are items there that might be of interest:
The "I create evil" article contains a number of references and quotes from sources, academics, from decades if not centuries ago. If this "idiom of permission" was understood then, how come the knowledge got lost? Buried, perhaps in AV [KJV] English, which at times was a little political. There are a number of articles from older commentators. Some of these look as though they might be a good read.
One of the articles is quite a long essay which also may be of interest. Here's the link to that:
The author of this document quotes a number of different versions of the Bible, including easy-read type versions, which in this case appear more accurate (as in "I will let [some event] happen").
Thanks again for the link.
Like you, I don't think any of the contributors has Way connections at all.
I totally agree that such an important topic ought to be more widely known, and yet it seems to be somewhat obscure. I emailed 3 Jewish websites and asked them about the Idiom. I've received one reply and he hadn't heard of the "official" idiom, but he did understand the basic idea. This is what he said:
"I think it is closer to having been given the gift of “choice.” Yahweh does not give permission for wickedness, or for acts outside of the scientific or natural inclination for His created beings, but may not prevent bad things from occurring it if it results or accomplishes His will or plan. Yahweh from the beginning has given his “intellectual” created creatures the gift to choose (however, sometimes this choice may be very limited). He has placed into all His creatures either programmed intelligence that provides the basics for the necessities of life and reproduction (like found in most mammals) or the gift of choice, or intelligence and intellect that is not limited as can be found in the Adam-kind (man-kind) mammals."
It makes sense, but I have to mull on that before coming to a conclusion.
I downloaded it some ago and started to go through it. I forgot I had it, so it may be time to pick it up again. It seemed pretty good. He quotes Bullinger a half dozen times or so. I don't buy everything Bullinger says, but neither do I discount it. I liked some of those older references on the topic although none of them specifically mentioned "the Jewish idiom of permission."
This could be one of those things I'll have to wait for his return before knowing for sure. There are many others, to be sure. I hope he comes soon!
If I hear from any of those other Jewish sites, I'll let you know.
Maybe it is a figure of speech in Hebrew or Aramaic or Latin or some other language - but not in English?
This could very well be the case. Modern English evolved during a time of moving away from the absolute rule of monarchs, and possibly away from language like this.
***
This topic is very interesting.
Fiction is a genuine device we allow all human authors to engage in. I’m not upset at all by the idea that Job might be figurative.
Here’s how I always looked at the scene in Job.I see it as Satan coming to ridicule God over Job’s negative believing. However, God steps up for Job though even before Satan begins, and later limits how much Satan is permitted to hurt Job.
[6] Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them.[7] And the LORD said unto Satan, Whence comest thou? Then Satan answered the LORD, and said, From going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it.[8] And the LORD said unto Satan, Hast thou considered my servant Job, that there is none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil?
God's first mention of Job is positive.
[9] Then Satan answered the LORD, and said, Doth Job fear God for nought? [10] Hast not thou made an hedge about him, and about his house, and about all that he hath on every side? thou hast blessed the work of his hands, and his substance is increased in the land. [11] But put forth thine hand now, and touch all that he hath, and he will curse thee to thy face.
Accusation against Job.
[12] And the LORD said unto Satan, Behold, all that he hath is in thy power; only upon himself put not forth thine hand. So Satan went forth from the presence of the LORD.
“Behold, all that he hath is in thy power;”-God simply notes (“Behold”) that a power shift has taken place. God is not handing it over here, just noting that it has already been handed over. Job’s continual, daily fear allowed this. Satan came to God knowing this.
“…only upon himself put not forth thine hand.”- God is quick to limit that power shift, and NOT permit Satan from killing Job. Job’s fear was about his kids, not himself.
The notion that Job was guilty of "negative believing" is Wierwillian fantasy, utterly absent from the Book of Job unless you want to make the wailing cries of a man who lost his family into doctrine.
And it was so, when the days of their feasting were gone about, that Job sent and sanctified them, and rose up early in the morning, and offered burnt offerings according to the number of them all: for Job said, It may be that my sons have sinned, and cursed God in their hearts. Thus did Job continually.
There's a reason this line is placed so prominently at the beginning.
There is nothing in that verse or context that indicates this is a negative trait. Rather, it is included in a list of POSITIVE traits about Job, to show just how devoted he was to God.
To turn that into a display of fear on Job's part is a Wierwillian lie. The text does not support that interpretation. You have to inject a negative meaning into what the author of Job was indicating as a positive trait.
And it was so, when the days of their feasting were gone about, that Job sent and sanctified them, and rose up early in the morning, and offered burnt offerings according to the number of them all: for Job said, It may be that my sons have sinned, and cursed God in their hearts. Thus did Job continually.
There's a reason this line is placed so prominently at the beginning.
So the moral of your God-breathed VPW interpreted story is that if you pray for your children when they don't need it they may die?
There is nothing in that verse or context that indicates this is a negative trait. Rather, it is included in a list of POSITIVE traits about Job, to show just how devoted he was to God.
To turn that into a display of fear on Job's part is a Wierwillian lie. The text does not support that interpretation. You have to inject a negative meaning into what the author of Job was indicating as a positive trait.
Raf from a straightforward unbiased reading that is not tainted by prior doctrine I fail to see how you could interpret, or take this any other way than you just explained it. I concur.
There is nothing in that verse or context that indicates this is a negative trait. Rather, it is included in a list of POSITIVE traits about Job, to show just how devoted he was to God.
To turn that into a display of fear on Job's part is a Wierwillian lie. The text does not support that interpretation. You have to inject a negative meaning into what the author of Job was indicating as a positive trait.
Rad, I didn't know that!! Thanks for the information!!
Kenneth Hagan Ministries in Tulsa teaches the idiom of permission too, but personally I am not buying it. If God is good then "good" will sometimes mean He reins down judgement on bad people.
I don't think I can agree with you that God will rain down judgment on bad people: he wants all to be saved and to come to a knowledge of Him. Many times, good things happen to bad people (at least in the short term - maybe days, years or decades), and bad things happen to good people. We can learn fortitude from such. But that's tangential to any "idiom of permission" - if such exists.
Maybe I will ask on one of the many Jewish websites that there are - Chabad, maybe.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
22
19
16
19
Popular Days
Mar 15
14
Mar 19
11
Nov 8
10
Mar 14
9
Top Posters In This Topic
Raf 22 posts
WordWolf 19 posts
Ham 16 posts
Twinky 19 posts
Popular Days
Mar 15 2012
14 posts
Mar 19 2012
11 posts
Nov 8 2023
10 posts
Mar 14 2012
9 posts
Popular Posts
Raf
1. "Sadly, I cannot get this man to accept the notion that the Bible really is the word of God." Ok, let's start there. The Bible never calls itself the Word of God. That's part of the problem ri
Raf
I've read a lot of chapters in a lot of books. Some have more than 1,000 pages. Some have fewer. The fact that someone wrote a chapter in a book that documents a phenomenon he has identified is no gua
WordWolf
That's pretty much the same principle we see in effect when Gideon's discussed. He overthrew Baal's altar, and when people protested, he complained that BAAL should protest, since BAAL is the one who
Posted Images
Mark Sanguinetti
A good question. One that I have been considering for the last few years. I was reading the final chapters of the book of Revelation today. I noticed the 12 gates and the 11 usages of this word for gates in the last two chapters of the bible. I have very good bible study software and was able to examine this very quickly while I am in the midst of a heavy business/work schedule. Revelations chapter 21 begins with,
From this it looks like the followers and people that know, respect and/or love Jesus Christ are inside what the writer of this book calls the new Jerusalem. Outside of the new Jerusalem it looks like the other people are cowardly, unbelieving, abominable, murderers, etc. We have the truthful and loving people inside the New Jerusalem and the liars outside of the new Jerusalem in what is called the lake with fire and brimstone. I don't think the lake of fire will be pleasant for them with the state that they are in. However, I do not think this is all about torture. For example, one of the 12 usages of the Greek word for "burns" pertains to what John the Baptist experienced. Here is the verse,
From the Thayer's lexicon, see the partial, but exact quote below. The word for burning can be used as a light showing the right way.
Then there is the word used for fire used in Rev. 21:8, In Greek it is the word pur which is Strong's number 4442. This is the same Greek word as is used 75 times in the New Testament. Here are 4 of the usages quoted below. Remember, these 4 usages below are the same Greek word that is used in Revelation 21:8 and should help our understanding of what really will go on in the Lake of fire.
So it looks like when we gain more knowledge by seeing how the Greek words in Revelation 21:8 are used elsewhere in the New Testament, we realize that the lake of Fire, could have a cleansing affect on those who are in it. In addition to the discomfort and troubles they may experience. But then people today experience trouble and discomfort and hopefully can overcome at least some of it in their lifetime and hopefully learn and grow from the experience. So to sum things up the lake of Fire could be a lake of purification for those who are in it.
Getting back to the 12 gates and 11 usages of this Greek word. Try reading the last two chapters of the book of Revelation and think about what is written. Then ask yourself the question, why would God use the word gates if no one was able to pass through the gates into the holy city, the new Jerusalem? If no one outside the gates was ever allowed to walk inside then why even have gates? Why not instead have a barb wire fence or a 12 foot wide brick wall. Of course, it does clearly say that no one that was an evil liar would be allowed to enter the gates to the new Jerusalem. But what if the cleansing affect of the lake of fire purified the sinful nature of the people outside the gates? Then would they be allowed to walk inside one of the 12 gates to the new Jerusalem?
Something to think about and consider.
Edited by Mark SanguinettiLink to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
Very interesting passage.
I have a few questions.
"the day" shall declare it. What day? why so vague? There are many "the days".. further, we are talking about reward.. but is the context REALLY some kind of judgement day, and day of reward? Why do we have to force some kind of PRIVATE INTERPRETATION that this is during a time of judgement after some kind of "gathering together"?
The fire.. shall try every man's work of what sort it is..
fire? I've had some of my work "burned" in this world. Not some time in the distant or not so distant future..
I've had everything I ever thought I've believed melt away once.. in the heat of whatever it was..
You know. The greeks reward was a very small garland, woven of olive leaves.. I have a couple of those, figuratively speaking. They are friggin PAPER.
very interesting..
The only thing untouched by the fire in this lifetime.. is my love for two individuals, and their love for me..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Mark,
before you posted all that,
did you consider the idea of maybe honoring the requests of a few posters
and maybe starting a new thread to avoid completely derailing this one?
With the way you posted stuff in quotes like that,
it's harder to cut/paste what you just wrote into a new thread.....
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
How does my last post fit in with the idiom of permission..
well.. maybe it can't find a home, anywhere else..
What MIGHT be relevant. The idiom of permission, might be an attempt to explain the unexplainable.
It's a crutch.. sometimes I'd rather leave some matters unexplainable. Why have security in one's beliefs, when one can fly..
Now The Squirrel stands back.. carry on as you wish.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
I didn't mean to derail this thread. It seemed to me that death is one of the things "the idiom of permission" is used to excuse God of responisbility for. I also have a couple of other ideas, that can relate to the idiom of permission, but I'll start new threads for them, too. Thanks!
Love,
Steve
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Twinky
Steve, you mentioned you have some sophisticated Bible search software. It is programmable to search for idioms? Does it know about figures of speech and in particular the idiom of permission, and if so, what results does it show?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
Here's a link to Blue Letter Bible:
My link
I haven't explored all of its features yet. Knock yourself out, Twinky!
Love,
Steve
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OperaBuff
One of the verses Bullinger cites as containing this idiom -- of how the Hebrews sometimes used active verbs to express "not the doing of the thing, but the permission of the thing which the agent is said to do" -- provides a simple and clear example:
Acts 13:29. —“"When they [i.e., the rulers, verse 27] had fulfilled all that was written of him, they took him down from the tree, and laid him in a sepulcher."
Well, the rulers did no such thing. The rulers did not take Jesus Christ down from the tree, nor did the rulers lay Jesus Christ in a sepulcher. What they did was permit Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus to do these things.
That is indeed clear, but I'm not sure it's a valid example of the idiom.
The pronoun 'they' of verse 29 does indeed refer back to verse 27, but the subject there is not 'the rulers' as Bullinger states but is instead 'they that dwell at Jerusalem, and their rulers'. With the definition of 'they' properly understood to include both the rulers and they that dwell at Jerusalem, verse 29 contains no idiomatic speech but a mere statement of fact.
Part of my difficulty in understanding this idiom has been that Bullinger, as its primary advocate, did not explain it with solid examples of its occurrences in scripture, nor did he provide sufficient cultural examples of its usage. Unfortunately, his shortcomings in this particular effort proved quite useful to TWI leadership, who took advantage of Bullinger's vagaries and made more of their own.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
This is the *coolest* post I've seen here..
give me some time friend.. I'll try to catch up.
:)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rrobs
I was looking for the same thing when I came across your post. I know it's 5 years old, but if you are still interested I found a web site that cites people all the way back to the 1st century. There are about 2 dozen other references. I have to look at it more, but right off hand it just might sway me towards the validity of the idiom.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Twinky
Check it out. Let me know if it's worthwhile.
There may well be such an idiom. Or is it just - irony?
However, I'd suspect that VPW used it more than it warranted, to give himself permission to re-work scriptures to give his own slant, or to give himself permission to do something that's definitely prohibited.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rrobs
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Twinky
Thanks for that, rrobs. Your link was slightly incorrect (https stated twice). If others here choose to follow up, here's a better link - I've pointed this to their home page, as there are items there that might be of interest:
https://characterofgod.org/
The "I create evil" article contains a number of references and quotes from sources, academics, from decades if not centuries ago. If this "idiom of permission" was understood then, how come the knowledge got lost? Buried, perhaps in AV [KJV] English, which at times was a little political. There are a number of articles from older commentators. Some of these look as though they might be a good read.
One of the articles is quite a long essay which also may be of interest. Here's the link to that:
http://characterofgod.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/Interpreting-Hebrew-Causative-Verbs-Permissively.pdf
The author of this document quotes a number of different versions of the Bible, including easy-read type versions, which in this case appear more accurate (as in "I will let [some event] happen").
Thanks again for the link.
Like you, I don't think any of the contributors has Way connections at all.
Edited by TwinkySpelling
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rrobs
I totally agree that such an important topic ought to be more widely known, and yet it seems to be somewhat obscure. I emailed 3 Jewish websites and asked them about the Idiom. I've received one reply and he hadn't heard of the "official" idiom, but he did understand the basic idea. This is what he said:
"I think it is closer to having been given the gift of “choice.” Yahweh does not give permission for wickedness, or for acts outside of the scientific or natural inclination for His created beings, but may not prevent bad things from occurring it if it results or accomplishes His will or plan. Yahweh from the beginning has given his “intellectual” created creatures the gift to choose (however, sometimes this choice may be very limited). He has placed into all His creatures either programmed intelligence that provides the basics for the necessities of life and reproduction (like found in most mammals) or the gift of choice, or intelligence and intellect that is not limited as can be found in the Adam-kind (man-kind) mammals."
It makes sense, but I have to mull on that before coming to a conclusion.
There is a Kindle book (for free) written by the same author of that document to which you refereed: "https://www.amazon.com/Said-that-which-Only-Permits-ebook/dp/B019FX575K/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1467675426&sr=1-3&keywords=troy+edwards - nav-subnav#nav-subnav."
I downloaded it some ago and started to go through it. I forgot I had it, so it may be time to pick it up again. It seemed pretty good. He quotes Bullinger a half dozen times or so. I don't buy everything Bullinger says, but neither do I discount it. I liked some of those older references on the topic although none of them specifically mentioned "the Jewish idiom of permission."
This could be one of those things I'll have to wait for his return before knowing for sure. There are many others, to be sure. I hope he comes soon!
If I hear from any of those other Jewish sites, I'll let you know.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
This could very well be the case. Modern English evolved during a time of moving away from the absolute rule of monarchs, and possibly away from language like this.
***
This topic is very interesting.
Fiction is a genuine device we allow all human authors to engage in. I’m not upset at all by the idea that Job might be figurative.
Here’s how I always looked at the scene in Job. I see it as Satan coming to ridicule God over Job’s negative believing. However, God steps up for Job though even before Satan begins, and later limits how much Satan is permitted to hurt Job.[6] Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them.[7] And the LORD said unto Satan, Whence comest thou? Then Satan answered the LORD, and said, From going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it.[8] And the LORD said unto Satan, Hast thou considered my servant Job, that there is none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil?
God's first mention of Job is positive.[9] Then Satan answered the LORD, and said, Doth Job fear God for nought? [10] Hast not thou made an hedge about him, and about his house, and about all that he hath on every side? thou hast blessed the work of his hands, and his substance is increased in the land. [11] But put forth thine hand now, and touch all that he hath, and he will curse thee to thy face.
Accusation against Job.[12] And the LORD said unto Satan, Behold, all that he hath is in thy power; only upon himself put not forth thine hand. So Satan went forth from the presence of the LORD.
“Behold, all that he hath is in thy power;” - God simply notes (“Behold”) that a power shift has taken place. God is not handing it over here, just noting that it has already been handed over. Job’s continual, daily fear allowed this. Satan came to God knowing this.
“…only upon himself put not forth thine hand.” - God is quick to limit that power shift, and NOT permit Satan from killing Job. Job’s fear was about his kids, not himself.Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
The notion that Job was guilty of "negative believing" is Wierwillian fantasy, utterly absent from the Book of Job unless you want to make the wailing cries of a man who lost his family into doctrine.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Job 1:5 NIV
And it was so, when the days of their feasting were gone about, that Job sent and sanctified them, and rose up early in the morning, and offered burnt offerings according to the number of them all: for Job said, It may be that my sons have sinned, and cursed God in their hearts. Thus did Job continually.
There's a reason this line is placed so prominently at the beginning.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
There is nothing in that verse or context that indicates this is a negative trait. Rather, it is included in a list of POSITIVE traits about Job, to show just how devoted he was to God.
To turn that into a display of fear on Job's part is a Wierwillian lie. The text does not support that interpretation. You have to inject a negative meaning into what the author of Job was indicating as a positive trait.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
So the moral of your God-breathed VPW interpreted story is that if you pray for your children when they don't need it they may die?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
Raf from a straightforward unbiased reading that is not tainted by prior doctrine I fail to see how you could interpret, or take this any other way than you just explained it. I concur.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Mark your calendars, everyone:
March 5, 2019 is the Second Annual Chockfull Agreed With Raf Day!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Grace Valerie Claire
Rad, I didn't know that!! Thanks for the information!!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bill Rotach
Kenneth Hagan Ministries in Tulsa teaches the idiom of permission too, but personally I am not buying it. If God is good then "good" will sometimes mean He reins down judgement on bad people.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Twinky
Hi, Bill, and welcome.
I found this article in Keith Hagin's website. It covers the relevant section of Job: https://www.rhema.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2246:quit-blaming-god&catid=236:2014-april&Itemid=813 but it doesn't really cover what I meant, and a search in his website using only the word "idiom" brings up nothing at all that's useful.
I don't think I can agree with you that God will rain down judgment on bad people: he wants all to be saved and to come to a knowledge of Him. Many times, good things happen to bad people (at least in the short term - maybe days, years or decades), and bad things happen to good people. We can learn fortitude from such. But that's tangential to any "idiom of permission" - if such exists.
Maybe I will ask on one of the many Jewish websites that there are - Chabad, maybe.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.