PDA

View Full Version : Shadow hermeneutic



bjones
12-09-2007, 02:36 PM
One of the things that attracted me to this site was the way you link phrases from one part of the Bible to another.

In the shadow hermeneutic, not only do you observe the link or pattern, but you transfer context.

Here is a simple example.

Jesus said that we are to let out light shine before men, then later that we should not let our left hand know what our right hand is doing.

This is used as an apparent contradiction by some, and as an excuse for all kinds of invention by others.

But We are told that when the sheep and goats get separated, the sheep go to the right and the goats go to the left. From this we derive that the right is the heavenly side, and the left is the earthly side.

Now we move the context back to the original problem. Don't let your earthly side know what your heavenly side is doing. Or in other words, you should do the good works that God created for you from the beginning, and you should do them publicly to glorify God. But do not let your ego get involved, claiming glory that belongs to God, thus robbing yourself of the spiritual rewards.

In this thread, I am not so much interested in speaking about right and left as I am in the legitimacy of the method for transferring context across links.

What do you all think? Thanks.

Richard Amiel McGough
12-09-2007, 04:03 PM
One of the things that attracted me to this site was the way you link phrases from one part of the Bible to another.

In the shadow hermeneutic, not only do you observe the link or pattern, but you transfer context.

Here is a simple example.

Jesus said that we are to let out light shine before men, then later that we should not let our left hand know what our right hand is doing.

This is used as an apparent contradiction by some, and as an excuse for all kinds of invention by others.

But We are told that when the sheep and goats get separated, the sheep go to the right and the goats go to the left. From this we derive that the right is the heavenly side, and the left is the earthly side.

Now we move the context back to the original problem. Don't let your earthly side know what your heavenly side is doing. Or in other words, you should do the good works that God created for you from the beginning, and you should do them publicly to glorify God. But do not let your ego get involved, claiming glory that belongs to God, thus robbing yourself of the spiritual rewards.

In this thread, I am not so much interested in speaking about right and left as I am in the legitimacy of the method for transferring context across links.

What do you all think? Thanks.
Hummm .... very interesting. You method is defnitely worth exploring.

Now in the example you gave, you bascially asked "what does the left/right polarity signify in Scripture?" and you answered that question by inferring from a single passage that left is "earthly" and right is "heavenly." But how do you know that is the correct interpretation? The thing that strikes me is that "left" is associated with sin and right with "righteousness." Indeed, the Latin word for "left" is "sinistra" and the Hebrew word is "samal" (whence the demon of the "left" evil path of pop occultism named Samael).

Now the meaning of "heavenly" vs. "earthly" is very different than "good" vs. "evil" though there is a certain overlap. So the first job in the "shadow hermeneutic" would be to expand the semantic basis to allow for a variety of meaning.

But as for the method itself. I'm not sure I understand that you are introducing a new "method" here. It seems to me like we are just discerning the symbolic range of meanings of symbols such as "right/left" and then applying them in contexts where the meaning is not obviously intended.

Is that pretty much it? Or is there a feature I did not grasp?

Now one comment: The idea of applying a symbolic meaning to right and left in the "don't let your right hand know what your left hand is doing" seems like it might not be appropriate. It feels like we are adding meaning to the text that God did not intend. Is there any way to confirm the meanings that you suggest? If not, they sorta feel like a game of "connect the dots between the stars" - every person would come up with their own constellations.

Richard

bjones
12-09-2007, 04:41 PM
I consider a shadow "verified" when it is supported by two or three "witness" verses.

I consider a shadow "valid" when every it has been verified in every scripture where it occurs.

Verification is next to impossible to complete, but one failure dooms all.

The most ardent skeptic must admit that these are tough rules to play by, and that the hermeneutic is destined to fail, short of the miraculous.

Having said that, my proposal of a shadow may be in error and is subject to correction by the scriptures. After all, I am a novice at this. Originally I thought the rod was the power of God, but with later scriptures found it to be the power of God in discipline. I'm still not sure if camels are judges or patriarchs.

So my confidence in a shadow is based on verification and the percentage of applicable scriptures that have been checked.

In the shadows there is only a subtle difference between "good and evil" and "earthly and heavenly'. It is so subtle that indeed I could have said don't let your evil side rob your good side. The nature of original sin is in the choice of the earthly over the heavenly.

But they way to handle this is not to compare one method of interpretation with another, nor one interpretation to another, but to test it for internal consistency. Something about mixing new wine and... ;)

If it is not consistent, then it fails as it has been proposed.

These three verify the shadow:
So Abraham went right and Lot chose left.
Joseph gave the heavenly blessing through the right hand
Ec 10:2 A wise man’s heart is at his right hand; but a fool’s heart at his left.


Then we examine all the others to see if there is anything that contradicts the proposed shadow:
Jud 3:21 And Ehud put forth his left hand, and took the dagger from his right thigh, and thrust it into his belly:
He sinfully accomplished God's will


Jud 7:20 And the three companies blew the trumpets, and brake the pitchers, and held the lamps in their left hands, and the trumpets in their right hands to blow withal: and they cried, The sword of the LORD, and of Gideon.
Lights in the dark (earthly), proclaiming a heavenly message.


Job 23:9 On the left hand, where he doth work, but I cannot behold him: he hideth himself on the right hand, that I cannot see him:
He works on earth but is hidden in the spirit.


Isa 9:20 And he shall snatch on the right hand, and be hungry; and he shall eat on the left hand, and they shall not be satisfied: they shall eat every man the flesh of his own arm:
If the heavenly "bread" word is taken, you will eat in the flesh and never be satisfied.


Jon 4:11 And should not I spare Nineveh, that great city, wherein are more than sixscore thousand persons that cannot discern between their right hand and their left hand; and also much cattle?
They could not discern "good and evil" "earthly and heavenly"


Even after examining these, humility admits that we may not have even known about all the verses that speak to the issue, so we still don't say it is valid.

Is there scriptural evidence against it?

Thanks.

bjones
12-09-2007, 04:48 PM
Technically I think sheep and goats and

Ec 10:2 A wise man’s heart is at his right hand; but a fool’s heart at his left.

Are the defining witnesses, and the others are illuminated by them.

Richard Amiel McGough
12-09-2007, 05:05 PM
I consider a shadow "verified" when it is supported by two or three "witness" verses.

OK - But how about when a different set of witnesses give a different meaning?

For example, water can represent the Spirit or the Word.

How can we ignore either?


I consider a shadow "valid" when every it has been verified in every scripture where it occurs.

Verification is next to impossible to complete, but one failure dooms all.

That seems too stringent a rule. I don't think that matches what God has done in Scripture.


The most ardent skeptic must admit that these are tough rules to play by, and that the hermeneutic is destined to fail, short of the miraculous.

Well, the real problem is that your hemeneutic deals with meanings, and meanings are not subject to scientific quantification, so it seems like your project presses too much meaning into the text. But we'll see ... I don't want to judge prematurely.


Having said that, my proposal of a shadow may be in error and is subject to correction by the scriptures. After all, I am a novice at this. Originally I thought the rod was the power of God, but with later scriptures found it to be the power of God in discipline. I'm still not sure if camels are judges or patriarchs.

That is a good example of what I mean. God certainly uses the image of a Rod for his rulership, His word, discipline, and other things. I really do think it is wrong to press every occurrence of "rod" into one meaning.

And as for every occurrence of "Camel" having a symbolic meaning, I am quite convinced in my own mind of that such an idea is false.


So my confidence in a shadow is based on verification and the percentage of applicable scriptures that have been checked.

In the shadows there is only a subtle difference between "good and evil" and "earthly and heavenly'. It is so subtle that indeed I could have said don't let your evil side rob your good side. The nature of original sin is in the choice of the earthly over the heavenly.

But how do we determine when something is intended in the text vs. when we are reading it in there ourselves? And what value has this "hermeneutic" if all it does is make unverifiable "connections." What do we gain by it?


But they way to handle this is not to compare one method of interpretation with another, nor one interpretation to another, but to test it for internal consistency. Something about mixing new wine and... ;)

If it is not consistent, then it fails as it has been proposed.

Why did you choose consistency as the "holy grail" of this hermeneutic? The Bible itself does not appear to our human minds to be entirely consistent. If it were, then we wouldn't have all these discussions. It seems very clear to me that God wanted there to be some ambiguity in the Bible. If this is the case, then it seems that your hermeneutic might be contrary to the Bible by design.


These three verify the shadow:
So Abraham went right and Lot chose left.
Joseph gave the heavenly blessing through the right hand
Ec 10:2 A wise man’s heart is at his right hand; but a fool’s heart at his left.

I think all commentators would agree with the symbolic meaning of the "right/left" dichotomy in the Bible.


Then we examine all the others to see if there is anything that contradicts the proposed shadow:
Jud 3:21 And Ehud put forth his left hand, and took the dagger from his right thigh, and thrust it into his belly:
He sinfully accomplished God's will

A question just struck me ... what is the right/left dichotomy a "shadow" of? I mean, the Temple was a shadow of Christ, which means that Christ is the reality that the shodow bore witness to. What is the reality between the "right/left" shadow? It seems like maybe "shadow" isn't the best term here. The right/left dichotomy seems more like a symbol than a shadow. That should probably be discussed.


Jud 7:20 And the three companies blew the trumpets, and brake the pitchers, and held the lamps in their left hands, and the trumpets in their right hands to blow withal: and they cried, The sword of the LORD, and of Gideon.
Lights in the dark (earthly), proclaiming a heavenly message.

This feels like a child's game. If the image were reversed, you'd obviously have said that Lights in the heaven make perfect sense! It gives me no sense of "confirmation" at all.


Job 23:9 On the left hand, where he doth work, but I cannot behold him: he hideth himself on the right hand, that I cannot see him:
He works on earth but is hidden in the spirit.

Isa 9:20 And he shall snatch on the right hand, and be hungry; and he shall eat on the left hand, and they shall not be satisfied: they shall eat every man the flesh of his own arm:
If the heavenly "bread" word is taken, you will eat in the flesh and never be satisfied.


Jon 4:11 And should not I spare Nineveh, that great city, wherein are more than sixscore thousand persons that cannot discern between their right hand and their left hand; and also much cattle?
They could not discern "good and evil" "earthly and heavenly"


Even after examining these, humility admits that we may not have even known about all the verses that speak to the issue, so we still don't say it is valid.

Is there scriptural evidence against it?

Thanks.
Well, those "confirmations" don't move me much. But thanks for sharing.

Richard

bjones
12-09-2007, 05:24 PM
OK - But how about when a different set of witnesses give a different meaning?

For example, water can represent the Spirit or the Word.

How can we ignore either?

Here you are comparing the results of one interpretation method with the presumed results of this one. Not fair.

What are the defining scriptures for saying that water is the Spirit?


That seems too stringent a rule. I don't think that matches what God has done in Scripture.

that's a prejudgement, I have posted more than 30 diagrams outlining shadows in Genesis that correlate comletely with those I have found in Exodus, Leviticus and Matthew, as well as many others.


That is a good example of what I mean. God certainly uses the image of a Rod for his rulership, His word, discipline, and other things. I really do think it is wrong to press every occurrence of "rod" into one meaning.

And as for every occurrence of "Camel" having a symbolic meaning, I am quite convinced in my own mind of that such an idea is false.

I appreciate your skepticism. I continued to be marveled by it as I see new shadows daily.


What do we gain by it?

The story of Tamar tells us that Jeus had a prostitute in his lineage. The shadow of the story is a wonderful shadow of how Christ fulfills the Leverate law and gives the details of his birth.


Why did you choose consistency as the "holy grail" of this hermeneutic?

As soon as it is not consistent it has no value in my mind, you cannot distinguish between God breathed and man made.


I think all commentators would agree with the symbolic meaning of the "right/left" dichotomy in the Bible.

I chose an easy one to show the methodology. One that is more difficult or controversial would distract from the discussion.


This feels like a child's game. If the image were reversed, you'd obviously have said that Lights in the heaven make perfect sense! It gives me no sense of "confirmation" at all.

I would not use this passage as a confirming passage either, but we must ensure that it does not conflict with the proposed shadow.

The defining scriptures are Ec 10:2 and Matt 25:33

The others are illuminated by the definition.

bjones
12-09-2007, 05:53 PM
Is the rule too stringent, or not stringent enough.

I checked. There are no scriptures where there are lights in the heavens. I am not allowed to make stuff up. They must have scriptural witnesses. The closest is lights in the firmament. But they rule with the lesser light in the dark. And the firmament is Christ. And it is a firm thing between the waters, so it is not a heaven.

The stars are the church, and they are in the dark places. In Heb stars are in the sky, but it doesn't say the day sky or the night, presumably it is the night.

Richard Amiel McGough
12-09-2007, 06:32 PM
What are the defining scriptures for saying that water is the Spirit?

Isaiah 44:3 For I will pour water upon him that is thirsty, and floods upon the dry ground: I will pour my spirit upon thy seed, and my blessing upon thine offspring:

John 3:5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

John 7:38-39 38 He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water. 39 (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)




That seems too stringent a rule. I don't think that matches what God has done in Scripture.

that's a prejudgement, I have posted more than 30 diagrams outlining shadows in Genesis that correlate comletely with those I have found in Exodus, Leviticus and Matthew, as well as many others.

Its not a prejudgment. It's a judgment based on many years of reading the Bible.

When I say you rule is too stringent, I mean that I have judged on the basis of what I have seen in the Bible concerning symbols with more than one meaning, like water as Spirit or Word. Like water and sword as manna as Word, etc. Its seem to me that there are lots of overlaps.


The story of Tamar tells us that Jeus had a prostitute in his lineage. The shadow of the story is a wonderful shadow of how Christ fulfills the Leverate law and gives the details of his birth.

I don't know what you mean by "gives details of his birth." Are you saying that you have derived new factual knowledge about the "details of his birth from your method?"



Why did you choose consistency as the "holy grail" of this hermeneutic?
As soon as it is not consistent it has no value in my mind, you cannot distinguish between God breathed and man made.

But if you assumption is wrong, and God didn't choose to write His Book in accordance with that rule you made up ...


I would not use this passage as a confirming passage either, but we must ensure that it does not conflict with the proposed shadow.

The defining scriptures are Ec 10:2 and Matt 25:33

The others are illuminated by the definition.
How do you discern between "defining Scriptures" and "illuminated" Scriptures?

bjones
12-09-2007, 07:01 PM
This has gotten distracted from the original post. Can you move context across a link?

It seems to me like we are just discerning the symbolic range of meanings of symbols such as "right/left" and then applying them in contexts where the meaning is not obviously intended.


I'm not sure if this was a yes or no.

-----

To indulge the off topic a bit:

God was so intimately involved in history that:
a town was named Timnath (the appointment)
a law was given requiring that a brother give his deceased brother and heir
a daughter-in-law lost two husbands without an heir
a father-in-law denied her his third son
the daughter-in-law played the harlot to her father-in-law
she was promised a goat
she asked for assurance for the goat
she was given three items as an assurance: rod, ring, bracelet
she had twins their names mean "breaking forth" and "the sunrise"
God was so involved in the life of the author that the author recorded this odd transaction without really knowing why it was important. But God used the history, and the author, to paint a picture of the birth of His own Son such that:

Tamar:Mary made herself available near the appointment:the appointed time
Tamar:Mary was promised a goat:scape goat "for he shall save his people from their sins."
When Tamar:Mary asked for assurance of the promise, she was given three things:
Rod: "The power of God will overshadow you"
Signet ring: "He shall be called the Son of God"
Bracelets: Do not be afraid to take Mary your wife (in Numbers an empty vessel without bracelets is unclean. Mary was not unclean, and Judah was told "there was no prostitute here"
Tamar:Mary conceived , not by her legitimate husband, but by his father Judah:God
Tamar:Mary was going to be killed:divorced until the father was identified.
Afterwards she was honored.
Tamar:Mary had twins: God-man
their names mean "breaking forth" and "the sunrise" ::dayspring
Phares:Jesus though born to Tamar:Mary first, was really the second breach:second man


The Tamar shadow has nothing to do with the Tamar history, yet it is a wonderful prophecy of the birth of Christ. It would be impossible to see this shadow prior to the time of Christ.

I didn't make the rules.. I will explain where they came from in due time. But the fact that you think they would be impossible to keep stacks the deck against me. Which is fair. You should check it out. But at least let it play out.

I claim to be merely an observer who correlates stuff. If my correlations are invention, then the shadows mean nothing.