Quote:
Originally Posted by Evangelical
You're using the term rule again, when I only ever stated it as a biblical principle, and I don't recall there ever being a rule about it in the LC. I presume you know the difference between rules and principles. I think if we reject the numerology, then we've thrown away a large chunk of Divine inspiration away in my view. The numbers are important. For example, if the bible said Jesus prayed 1000 times in the Garden of Gethsemane, it implies he was really desperate for an answer. Praying once only, might imply he was not much in agony. Just by changing the number we can change the implied meaning.
|
I think you misunderstand the primary meaning of numerology in the Bible. It is not there as a driver of doctrine or practice, but as a means of expressing other principles — not the numbers.
For example, it has been noticed that many of the early genealogies grouped things into something like 10 generations from x to y, then 10 more form y to z. But if you look at other genealogies, there are actually more than 10 between two of the points. The general thought is that there was some kind of meaning in the number 10 to the writers (and readers) of the times for which this kind of historical account is not given in the way that we would think of giving a history in modern times.
If there is intended for the two references to Jesus' specific prayer in the garden being 3 times, it was making reference to what the number 3 was supposed to stand in for. But the meaning was not necessarily about how many times prayer was given, but a statement that it was considered thoroughly prayed, or something else. And that does not imply that everything must have been prayed thoroughly (or whatever the principle was intended to imply) just because it has been done 3 times. If that were true, then it would have been of sufficient importance to make a comment about it as something important for all prayers about anything.
I have not been much on numerology since I understand it as being not about regulating of things, but of telling something that might not otherwise be part of the narrative. So I cannot say what the number 3 is supposed to represent. But as an example, if it is primarily a umber of completion (as understood by Jews of the time) then saying that Jesus prayed a particular prayer 3 times would possible indicate that he had completed praying for it — prayed for it thoroughly. But there is nothing in that statement that means that it is three times of praying that makes it thorough or complete. It is because it is said that it was 3 times that it is saying his prayer was complete.
Why were there letter to "the seven churches in Asia"? Because there were 7 churches in Asia? Actually there were more. Given the descriptions in the seven letters, the contents could have been split up into more to arrive at a different number. And there was surely something to say about the others. But the content of the 7 was sufficient for the purposes of the writing, and the number 7 has meaning. But it is not that there are actually only 7 churches in Asia. Or that it could not have been written in a different way. There may be something within the numerological constructs for which 7 was meaningful here. It doesn't define the number of churches. It didn't define the number of possible variations on problems in the church. It tells a story in a way that meant more than the sum of its words because the number 7 was included. But that number did not change the meaning of any of the other words.
You say you have gleaned a principle from Jesus praying 3 times. If so, what is it? A principle would be like saying, "in general, where there is smoke, there is fire." But it is not a rule. Still, you would probably look for the fire if you saw smoke. But just because over the course of a very few hours Jesus prayed a certain short prayer three times, I cannot find anything that suggests that, as a principle, we should only pray for something three times. And if the result of praying more is that it is almost surely a vain prayer (which you have at least implied is the likely result) then it looks more like a rule than a principle.
The recording in scripture using the number 3 has implications about the prayer that Jesus made. But there is nothing that washes that over all prayer as a principle. You say it is a principle, but you cannot establish that it really is. You just keep repeating it as if saying it enough times will make everyone agree with you. And that if we agree, then it must be true.
But the crux of your "principle" is just one more regulation to put on people "in principle" that is beyond what the scripture reveals. It does not reveal a principle about praying 3 times for things. Rather is says that Jesus prayed three times about this one thing. Not everything he prayed for. And in disagreement with his tale about the woman returning over and over to the courts for justice. It is the lack of constancy of praying 3 times, coupled with the charge to persevere that makes the4 claim of such a principle hardly worth the effort to write it down or speak it. It is not there. Yet you are fighting for it.
And that is so much of the legacy of the LRC. Much ado about nothing.