Does Scripture have a legitimate esoteric sense?

[Bernie]

I believe it does, and the Bible's deeper truths are found here.

Esotericism is traditionally not thought of as being compatible with reason, but I believe the esoteric, properly considered, is quite rational.

There is a large segment in Christianity armed with garlic and holy water, looking for evil, heretical vampires to kill. The topic of esotericism is one which often brings out the vampire hunters. I'm not interested in a rock-throwing contest with this crowd. Rather, I'd like to know if anyone is interested in intelligent dialog about a subject that seems much maligned and misunderstood.

Any takers? If so definitions will be in order in next post....

[Hail Mary]

I believe it does, and the Bible's deeper truths are found here.

That would certainly be the Gnostic view of scripture. Is that where you're going with this?

[technomage]

I believe it does, and the Bible's deeper truths are found here.

Esotericism is traditionally not thought of as being compatible with reason, but I believe the esoteric, properly considered, is quite rational.

There is a large segment in Christianity armed with garlic and holy water, looking for evil, heretical vampires to kill. The topic of esotericism is one which often brings out the vampire hunters. I'm not interested in a rock-throwing contest with this crowd. Rather, I'd like to know if anyone is interested in intelligent dialog about a subject that seems much maligned and misunderstood.

Any takers? If so definitions will be in order in next post....

Christian scriptures have several esoteric "senses"--depending upon the reader. Yet I find that most esoteric readings have far more in common with the sensibilities of the reader than the intent of the authors.

However, please don't read that as a condemnation of esotericism in general, or Christian esotericism. I myself am an esotericist. But I would encourage you to make a distinction between modern sensibilities and the author's intent.

[Bernie]

Hello ave maria,

No, I'm not a gnostic in the popular sense of the word. I'm fairly moderate to conservative in my religious beliefs (first 18 years Catholic, next 22 years evangelical protestant, last 12 years denominationally unconnected esotericist). I tend to disdain modern mysticism/gnosticism and stand in agreement with A Cup of Mystery's observation of such, "...most esoteric readings have far more in common with the sensibilities of the reader than the intent of the authors."

Cup, as to your statement, "I would encourage you to make a distinction between modern sensibilities and the author's intent", I think author intent certainly has its place, but is necessarily on the low end of significance in a consideration of esoteric meaning from a Christian viewpoint. The notion of esoteric meaning implies [for me, anyway] that the meaning in Scripture is controlled not by the authors, but by God in two major senses...
1) interpretation by the Bible authors of what they were shown personally (minor sense)
2) meaning woven into the whole of Scripture which, while it necessarily transcends author intent (as a whole is greater than its parts), yet should logically and epistemically harmonize and be in agreement with all the various parts (major sense).

I believe the process I've been working on the last twelve years, which I call Rational Esotericism (RE), meets this challenge. RE is actually a rearrangement of a number of traditional concepts into a logically coherent interpretive scheme in which the esoteric sense of Scripture--essentially a combination of philosophical dualism (thing and attribute) with theological dualisms (good/evil and body/spirit)--arises naturally.

Need to define "esoteric", which I don't have time for at the moment. Modern dictionaries don't do the word justice, tending to more emotional definitions than a serious inquiry into why some meaning is esoteric. Comments?

[technomage]

Cup, as to your statement, "I would encourage you to make a distinction between modern sensibilities and the author's intent", I think author intent certainly has its place, but is necessarily on the low end of significance in a consideration of esoteric meaning from a Christian viewpoint. The notion of esoteric meaning implies [for me, anyway] that the meaning in Scripture is controlled not by the authors, but by God in two major senses...
1) interpretation by the Bible authors of what they were shown personally (minor sense)
2) meaning woven into the whole of Scripture which, while it necessarily transcends author intent (as a whole is greater than its parts), yet should logically and epistemically harmonize and be in agreement with all the various parts (major sense).

Hmmm ... I will admit that I have some trouble connecting the Christian concepts of "divine inspiration" with a lessened emphasis on author intent: the distinction you've made makes it sound as though sometimes the author didn't understand what they were writing ... or, at least, didn't understand the esoteric implications.

[Anoetos]

Re: esotericism...

What matrix would one press scripture through in order to glean the esoteric meaning of a given passage?

Or, in other words, as with allegory and extra-biblical typology, how does one determine whether one's esoteric rendering is objectively true?

[seer]

I believe it does, and the Bible's deeper truths are found here.

Esotericism is traditionally not thought of as being compatible with reason, but I believe the esoteric, properly considered, is quite rational.

There is a large segment in Christianity armed with garlic and holy water, looking for evil, heretical vampires to kill. The topic of esotericism is one which often brings out the vampire hunters. I'm not interested in a rock-throwing contest with this crowd. Rather, I'd like to know if anyone is interested in intelligent dialog about a subject that seems much maligned and misunderstood.

Any takers? If so definitions will be in order in next post....

Does this mean that we can read anything into scripture we wish? Isn't that what will happen?

[Bernie]

Hello Cup,

YOU: "the distinction you've made makes it sound as though sometimes the author didn't understand what they were writing ... or, at least, didn't understand the esoteric implications."

Yes, but this is not a new idea. Take typology, for example. I can't imagine that the author of Numbers had any inkling that Moses would serve as a type of Christ, standing as intercessor for God's chosen (chapter 14, for example). The unbeliever may say the "seeing" of Moses as this type is a distinction made by later observers of historical data. I believe that God who orchestrates history wove types into Scripture for us to find.

Good questions, Anoetos. There is no magic formula for interpreting any given passage. But interpreting all Scripture, both Testaments, through dualistic filters brings forth a surprisingly consistent rendering of the meaning which lies beyond the literal. The teachings of Christ are particularly esoteric in nature. I've heard many Christians deny that figurative language is spiritual. I believe it is nothing but spiritual, but the groundwork hasn't been laid yet to properly defend this notion

For a quick example of the rationally esoteric, I mentioned in another thread here a few days ago that when Jesus taught about sheep and goats and wheat and tares--and when He, Peter and Paul made the contradistinction between "flesh" and "spirit", for that matter--two opposite natures are being considered (theological dualism of good/evil). To which do these opposites apply? (second theological dualism, spirit/body) and finally, how do these apply (philosophical dualism, thing/attribute)?

The literal demands sheep/goats, wheat/tares be defined as individuals (things or particulars). The esoteric meaning can be seen by moving the significance from particular to the realm of universals (attributes) -- here, goats and sheep, wheat and tares, become elements within each individual, in much the same sense one looking more closely at the body finds first limbs (parts of the whole), then molecules, then atoms, etc. This use of dualisms as an interpretive method raises a logical and consistent pattern which can be seen throughout the Bible.

Interestingly, the common literal interpretation, which forces the above [sheep/wheat and goats/tares] on individuals [particulars] runs into real trouble in proper placement of the theological dualisms in considering flesh/spirit. The common teaching that one's spirit is wholly born in a single, instantaneous event--which has been fostered for many centuries--breaks down epistemically and becomes inconsistent when considering the philosophical part of the equation. In other words, to apply a wholly cleansed condition to spirit when evil yet exists in the one allegedly purged defies experience and common sense, since evil is traced causatively in the fall from spirit to flesh. But am jumping too far ahead here.....

Seer asked, "Does this mean that we can read anything into scripture we wish? Isn't that what will happen?"

No. Those gnostics who place their own personal experience ahead of Scripture seem to often violate objective standards of truth, like saying their own feeling is that homosexuality is not an evil when Scripture states that it is. What makes this interesting is that are contexts in which certain sins, including homosexuality, are not wrong, or more accurately are covered by the blood of Christ. If you stop and think about it, we all (Christians) sin and stumble in various and sundry ways but can rightfully claim Christ's blood while yet in one certain sin or another. But this is another topic altogether...

To go back several centuries, to understand the "why" of esoteric meaning, Plato, Aristotle and in Christianity, the Scholastics, understood that truth exists in two types, descriptive [which applies to matter] and the prescriptive [that which prescribes normative standards, "oughts" and "out nots". Legalites often compare the letter of the law with the spirit of the law, which is at least an allusion to the distinction between the prescriptive and descriptive. This understanding of truth existing as two types seems largely lost on most Christianity today.

It's the nature of prescriptive truth that much of it is hidden. I believe that prescriptive truth is spiritual truth in that spirit + matter [brain, mostly] = intellect resulting in intellectual power. i.e., the ability to abstract is thus a spiritual power. It follows that figurative language--being an purely intellectual operation--has a relationship to the esoteric because it is, as conceptual, an intellectual/spiritual activity. By contrast, hiddenness in descriptive truth usually amounts merely to one's lack of having all the facts. Two plus two might not equal four in the eyes of someone until a graphic presentation using apples is demonstrated, which has a tendency to validate higher mathematics in that person's eyes. The nature of discovery of descriptive truth is very different than the precriptive.

Here's an exerpt from an article on the meaning of esoteric I wrote recently for a website on RE I haven't yet had time to get up and running....

"Because the word “esoteric” refers to and is often defined as “something hidden”, the dictionary definition as that which is understood by a limited number of people raises an immediate question: what is the nature of meaning that causes us to call it “esoteric”, that information can be hidden from one group of people and not another?
No thinking Christian can deny that spiritual language and meaning possess the attribute of being in some sense concealed. Paul stated this quite clearly when he penned, “But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God; for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised” (1Cor 2:14). Few would argue that the natural man, in the sense Paul intends here, has literally no understanding of moral matters whatever. Rather, the apostle speaks to a property within spiritual truth which is hidden by nature—by our own defective spiritual nature.
Some Christians note that Scripture says the Christian is led by the Holy Spirit to all spiritual knowledge (Jn 14:26) on the one hand, while conceding on the other that no one understands literally all spiritual mysteries. This again raises the question: What is it that is hidden about spiritual truth?"

This is a starting point, anyway.

[7thangel]

I believe it does, and the Bible's deeper truths are found here.

Many of us knew that before Christ, "the mystery of the kingdom was not revealed." And when christ came, he clearly said to a group of people, "Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables:" Unfortunately, the commond approach of teachers and evangelists is that "all" will be able to understand, clear indication of the ignorance of what they are endeavouring. The fact is that the unsaved were blind and will always be blind. And that saying that "to know' is only given to the elect justifiably imply that the Scripture is esoteric.

Esotericism is traditionally not thought of as being compatible with reason, but I believe the esoteric, properly considered, is quite rational.

I guess, it depends who the esoterics are, and how others understand about the Bible's esotericism.

[Bernie]

Hi 7thangel,

You make a point that few seem to realize: because prescriptive language is by nature spiritual language, any spiritual truth one group of people has been blessed to know (internally and intuitively, and seldom [if ever] perfectly--we see through a glass dimly, as Paul says) always raises suspicion in the eyes of those who don't "see". This involves the natural power of prescriptive truth, which reacts in the mind from the darkness yet existent in spirit as tension and resistance. The Jews of His day killed Christ literally because He told them the truth...prescriptive truth they could not bear to hear.

Everyone is an esotericist in some sense, regarding some truths. The doctrinal battles we Christians fight with one another is a representation of a broad mixture of knowing and not-knowing. I think of this as the product of what I call the "fragmented spirit", which simply means that inner change (sanctification) is gradual and fragmental. Rather than the either/or we usually think of in the new birth, human spirit is enlivened a bit at a time, producing the attribute of multiplicity regarding one's awakening/rebirth. We don't get truth all at once, and the process for gaining possession of prescriptive/spiritual truth is spiritual death and rebirth....what many call regeneration.

A close connection can be seen between Old and New Testaments in the rational esoteric sense. WHat I said in an earlier post about sheep/goats as constituent parts rather than individual people holds just as true in the OT. For example, look at Ezek 21:2-5:

2 "Son of man, set your face toward Jerusalem, and speak against the sanctuaries, and prophesy against the land of Israel;
3 and say to the land of Israel, ‘Thus says the LORD, "Behold, I am against you; and I shall draw My sword out of its sheath and cut off from you the righteous and the wicked.
4 "Because I shall cut off from you the righteous and the wicked, therefore My sword shall go forth from its sheath against all flesh from south to north.
5 "Thus all flesh will know that I, the LORD, have drawn My sword out of its sheath. It will not return to its sheath again."‘

Again, changing the focus from particular and literal to general and esoteric, God is speaking through Ezekiel to the inner workings [spirit] of "all flesh". We're talking spiritual surgery, cutting off the righteous from the wicked: portions within the spirit of each, not individual people. Test this throughout the Bible, most especially the OT prophets and the teachings of Jesus. There is an amazing agreement in principles and message throughout when one looks past the literal.

In fact, once this simple process of interpreting the Bible according to the framework God designed the entire universe in (dualistic structure), using very orthodox and traditional principles, the war between Arminianism and Calvinism vanishes. Rational Esotericism is able to put to rest this 400+ year old standoff.

I agree with you, too, that too many Christian teachers make incorrect presuppositions about what to do with the treasure of the gospel, trying to force feed those who haven't yet been cleansed to "hear" certain truths. On the other hand, sowing seed isn't bad, either, even when it's done badly. The seed may well lay dormant for a time on ground that will one day be made fertile.