I have called the title by an acronym to admit that this area of controversy is old and divisive. I derive my views on this from group study, and not individual research. Inasmuch as the Bible certifies the authority of elders, a qualified elder led the discussion, in presence of other elders.
MDR stands for M(arriage D(ivorce) and R(emarriage.) I have set precedent for the practice of using abstract "constructs," to give shape and context to verse by verse study. Earlier constructs are the Holy Spirit, and Perfection. The construct is given in my own words, the verses later investigated exhaustively. I will take license here to plagiarize God's wisdom so that I can be disagreed with, and not commit the moral blackmail of commandeering his authority with his wisdom.
Consider that it is governmentally legal to divorce in many contexts. God is on record as saying "I hate divorce." However, if you divorce for whatever divorceable reason you divorce, the Lord does not withhold the option of remaining single the rest of your life. There will be spiritual consequences, [we may investigate them if it seems to be short enough,] but the act and behavior does not mathematically eliminate one from salvation.
Under the old testament, God directed Moses to authorize divorce. Mt 19:
[3] The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?
[4] And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
[5] And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?
[6] Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
[7] They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?
[8] He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.
[9] And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.
Points worth noting explicitly are: 1. Marriage is instituted by God from the Garden of Eden, not a recent Governmental gambit of any earthly nation. 2. Remarriage can result in adultery.
In Mt 5:
[31] It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement:
[32] But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.
...in the middle of the Sermon on the Mount, pretty much hard on the heels of the beatitudes, Jesus denotes the party that bears the brunt of the blame. The man that divorces his wife "causes her to commit adultery." If infidelity on her part is taken for granted after divorce, she is viewed as a weaker vessel, not exempt from condemnation. He also specifies the exception to the rule: Except it be for fornication. We have only recently (last entry) observed that fornication is a misunderstood word; some people enlarge it to include masturbation. I'll specify, and you may research it. Fornication INCLUDES adultery, and any immorality committed out of wedlock; heterosexual indiscretions, bestiality, and various homosexualities. It would be wrong to say it was committed "outside the body," 1 Cor 6:
[18] Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body.
...denotes that God regards fornication to be different from all other sins in being against one's own body. Please see previous entry for any questions about fornication with regard to masturbation.
How do we establish the conditions that govern the emotionally embroiling exception? The clear winner for elegance (in the mathematical sense of that term,) is careful attention to the term "bound." Ro 7:
[2] For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband.
[3] So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man.
...and 1 Cor 7:
[25] Now concerning virgins I have no commandment of the Lord: yet I give my judgment, as one that hath obtained mercy of the Lord to be faithful.
[26] I suppose therefore that this is good for the present distress, I say, that it is good for a man so to be.
[27] Art thou bound unto a wife? seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife.
[28] But and if thou marry, thou hast not sinned; and if a virgin marry, she hath not sinned. Nevertheless such shall have trouble in the flesh: but I spare you.
[29] But this I say, brethren, the time is short: it remaineth, that both they that have wives be as though they had none;
...the Apostle Paul works within the confines of the same construct "bound." To be explicit, the Corinthian passage was written to a congregation of the Lord's Church that was weak at the time, and the admonition is specific to the time frame before Jerusalem fell in 70 CE. [In this world of woes, Christians won the battle to set convention back in the Julian and Gregorian days. More recently we have lost, and it is incumbent on us to keep "Christian Era," alive, while it fights a competitive battle with the more Politically Correct "Common Era."] The salient point is that the covenant of marriage lasts while the husband lives. It ends on his death and she is bound to him first, with all exceptions applying accordingly.
Premarital indiscretions are not sufficient basis for divorce: the Mt 19:9 exception does not contradict 1 Cor 7:
[36] But if any man think that he behaveth himself uncomely toward his virgin, if she pass the flower of her age, and need so require, let him do what he will, he sinneth not: let them marry.
...never mind the obvious paradox in making a covenant with a person who is willing to be forthcoming about premarital indiscretions but cannot obtain actual commitment from a potentially innocent party who is willing to make the vow.
Baptism does not reset the MDR clock; 1 Cor 7:
[10] And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband:
[11] But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife.
[12] But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away.
[13] And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him.
[14] For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.
[15] But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace.
[16] For what knowest thou, O wife, whether thou shalt save thy husband? or how knowest thou, O man, whether thou shalt save thy wife?
...Paul is addressing the circumstance of newly converted souls [and such were some of you.] Bottom line verse 15: If the unbelieving depart, let him depart. The believer is not bound [obligated] to follow them around and "render due benevolence," if the spouse does not choose to serve the Lord.
The marriage vow is a subset of vows; a unique case. The marriage vow traditionally ends on death alone. We have talked about the consequences of broken vows in general in "Have we trials and temptations." To generalize, it is important to have a clear ending condition on a vow, in order to avoid bad consequence when it is no longer pertinent. Ending conditions that cause careful consideration without being prohibitive are: shaving the head; a tattoo below the panty line or drawers; shaving the pubic area which would correctly be observable only by the spouse. Since it is an oath that calls on God as witness and arbiter, attention should be given to choosing and obeying the wording. There are traditional ones as pump primers, but I wouldn't want to use a Vegas special.
In invoking the exception of (by application) adultery (but not excluding homosexuality and bestiality,) Christians will use evidence that can be presented to witnesses, not rumor and innuendo.
Please research the Lord's word exhaustively for your own benefit, and "work out your own salvation in fear and trembling." per Phil 2:12. The great temptation for Church goers, in context of this topic, is to judge eternal outcomes before the Lord has had a chance to weigh in. Dis-fellowship [what the Catholics call ex-communication,] is not irreversible or indicative of final salvation status. It is for a purpose and is a disciplinary measure of last resort. I personally distinguish it from obedience to the Ro 16:
[17] Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.
[18] For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple.
...admonition to mark those who cause envy and strife. I estimate that "marking," is a command that can be implemented brotherhood wide, and not limited to a single congregation.
I hope I haven't overlooked any really obvious point. I'll reiterate that [although I am not sure,] I expect to be notified on email of comments. Comments will inform future postings and be visible to other readers. I am open to discussion about content on email if you know it, and the posting can be modified to better reflect God's axioms as dictated to Bible authors.
Saturday, December 27, 2008
What about divorced people: what should they do?
I find that lessons pertaining to masturbation are not commonly taught. These are my thoughts on the matter, and I thought these thoughts could profitably be addressed to our youth.
1st. There is no command "Thou shalt not masturbate." It being the case that the Lord is silent on the topic, it might be considered downright impertinent of anyone to inquire into the matter, much less instruct us on the topic. However, there are those who see it as a mark of hypocrisy, and the impossibility of obeying the Lord's commands. We need to be able to answer these deceitful attackers from the Lord's word with real confidence.
2nd. The example given by Jesus of the woman caught in adultery is not relevant to the discussion. Surely the man without sin can be asked to cast the first stone. Christ said neither do I condemn thee, go thy way and sin no more. However, adultery was still wrong. To tell a young Christian "no one is casting any stones at you, go thy way and transgress your conscience with a clear conscience" is a rather confused signal.
3rd. By Col 3:17 it is not enough that there should be no command not to masturbate, one must have godly authority for one's activities. How is this then accomplished?
3:[ 17] And whatsoever ye do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God and the Father by him.
It follows that 1 Cor 6:18 should come under consideration. Flee fornication! How is this accomplished? There is no shortage of people who say: Masturbation cannot be accomplished without lust, and lust is adultery, therefore masturbation is fornication, adultery, and go thy way and sin as you see fit... just don't feel guilty! Lust is lust, but masturbation is just not adultery!
1 Cor 6:[18] Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that commiteth fornication sinneth against his own body.
If Lust is the problem, consider Jas 1: [13] Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man:
[14] But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.
[15] Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.
Here we see the progression of how sin becomes reality. Lust when it is conceived brings forth Sin. Sin when it is finished brings forth spiritual death. We should maintain that fornication is the completion of sin, not the conception of lust.
What of those persons who, whether from malice or mistake equate fornication WITH masturbation? Consider Mt 19: [9] And I say unto you, whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.
Is it the case that one can justify scriptural divorce for masturbation? That would be a perverse conscience indeed. I would contend that when the temptation is upon one to fornicate, masturbation serves to implement the decision to flee fornication.
This should not be confused with the argument that one MUST masturbate to flee fornication, or that this is the ONLY way to flee fornication. Fleeing fornication rigorously satisfies Col 3:17, but it is curious that when we think of Jas 4:7, we almost surely think of desisting from the practice.
Jas 4:[7] Submit yourselves therefore to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you
Should one make this an immoderate practice? Pr 31:3, has application here as well. The next verse has the context of alcohol abuse, the addictive quality of which is mirrored by masturbation. Just as we flee fornication as best we know how, we do not drink with the goal of getting drunk. Being drunken is a sin, but drinking is not condemned. Don't get drunk, and don't give your strength unto women, nor thy ways to that which destroyeth kings. We should certainly not fall to the conclusion that if we do not masturbate, we are not properly fleeing fornication. When you make the effort to quit, you learn a valuable lesson about addictive behavior. Later on, the memory of struggles in this area can inform your thoughts on how difficult it might be to stop smoking, or drug use.
Pr 31:[3] Give not thy strength unto women, nor thy ways to that which destroyeth kings
I wanted to resolve lingering doubts that one can keep the Lord's word sincerely with a pure heart. Finally, I wanted to re-enforce a strong foundation that the Lord's word is indeed word by word inspired, and does not contradict itself in the specific mechanics.
Masturbation does not entail hypocrisy. If it did, I could prove that you hate all Christians.
Masturbation is hypocrisy;
All Christians have masturbated;
All Christians are hypocrites.
You hate hypocrites;
You hate all Christians.
1st. There is no command "Thou shalt not masturbate." It being the case that the Lord is silent on the topic, it might be considered downright impertinent of anyone to inquire into the matter, much less instruct us on the topic. However, there are those who see it as a mark of hypocrisy, and the impossibility of obeying the Lord's commands. We need to be able to answer these deceitful attackers from the Lord's word with real confidence.
2nd. The example given by Jesus of the woman caught in adultery is not relevant to the discussion. Surely the man without sin can be asked to cast the first stone. Christ said neither do I condemn thee, go thy way and sin no more. However, adultery was still wrong. To tell a young Christian "no one is casting any stones at you, go thy way and transgress your conscience with a clear conscience" is a rather confused signal.
3rd. By Col 3:17 it is not enough that there should be no command not to masturbate, one must have godly authority for one's activities. How is this then accomplished?
3:[ 17] And whatsoever ye do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God and the Father by him.
It follows that 1 Cor 6:18 should come under consideration. Flee fornication! How is this accomplished? There is no shortage of people who say: Masturbation cannot be accomplished without lust, and lust is adultery, therefore masturbation is fornication, adultery, and go thy way and sin as you see fit... just don't feel guilty! Lust is lust, but masturbation is just not adultery!
1 Cor 6:[18] Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that commiteth fornication sinneth against his own body.
If Lust is the problem, consider Jas 1: [13] Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man:
[14] But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.
[15] Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.
Here we see the progression of how sin becomes reality. Lust when it is conceived brings forth Sin. Sin when it is finished brings forth spiritual death. We should maintain that fornication is the completion of sin, not the conception of lust.
What of those persons who, whether from malice or mistake equate fornication WITH masturbation? Consider Mt 19: [9] And I say unto you, whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.
Is it the case that one can justify scriptural divorce for masturbation? That would be a perverse conscience indeed. I would contend that when the temptation is upon one to fornicate, masturbation serves to implement the decision to flee fornication.
This should not be confused with the argument that one MUST masturbate to flee fornication, or that this is the ONLY way to flee fornication. Fleeing fornication rigorously satisfies Col 3:17, but it is curious that when we think of Jas 4:7, we almost surely think of desisting from the practice.
Jas 4:[7] Submit yourselves therefore to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you
Should one make this an immoderate practice? Pr 31:3, has application here as well. The next verse has the context of alcohol abuse, the addictive quality of which is mirrored by masturbation. Just as we flee fornication as best we know how, we do not drink with the goal of getting drunk. Being drunken is a sin, but drinking is not condemned. Don't get drunk, and don't give your strength unto women, nor thy ways to that which destroyeth kings. We should certainly not fall to the conclusion that if we do not masturbate, we are not properly fleeing fornication. When you make the effort to quit, you learn a valuable lesson about addictive behavior. Later on, the memory of struggles in this area can inform your thoughts on how difficult it might be to stop smoking, or drug use.
Pr 31:[3] Give not thy strength unto women, nor thy ways to that which destroyeth kings
I wanted to resolve lingering doubts that one can keep the Lord's word sincerely with a pure heart. Finally, I wanted to re-enforce a strong foundation that the Lord's word is indeed word by word inspired, and does not contradict itself in the specific mechanics.
Masturbation does not entail hypocrisy. If it did, I could prove that you hate all Christians.
Masturbation is hypocrisy;
All Christians have masturbated;
All Christians are hypocrites.
You hate hypocrites;
You hate all Christians.
Have we trials and temptations:
In the entry for David and Bathsheba, we observed in passing EZ 13:
[17] Likewise, thou son of man, set thy face against the daughters of thy people, which prophesy out of their own heart; and prophesy thou against them,
[18] And say, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Woe to the women that sew pillows to all armholes, and make kerchiefs upon the head of every stature to hunt souls! Will ye hunt the souls of my people, and will ye save the souls alive that come unto you?
[19] And will ye pollute me among my people for handfuls of barley and for pieces of bread, to slay the souls that should not die, and to save the souls alive that should not live, by your lying to my people that hear your lies?
[20] Wherefore thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I am against your pillows, wherewith ye there hunt the souls to make them fly, and I will tear them from your arms, and will let the souls go, even the souls that ye hunt to make them fly.
[21] Your kerchiefs also will I tear, and deliver my people out of your hand, and they shall be no more in your hand to be hunted; and ye shall know that I am the LORD.
[22] Because with lies ye have made the heart of the righteous sad, whom I have not made sad; and strengthened the hands of the wicked, that he should not return from his wicked way, by promising him life:
[23] Therefore ye shall see no more vanity, nor divine divinations: for I will deliver my people out of your hand: and ye shall know that I am the LORD.
When people grieve the truth it is God himself who CANNOT lie making them sad, not the hapless messenger. If we are sad because we have been lied to, it “cometh of evil.” Considering the number of true things there are in the world to be sad about, it is interesting to learn that political campaign managers are not alone in the universe in making people sad with lies. I would like to take this opportunity to talk about one application of lies to sorrow, in the context of sex.
In Turkey, the custom is to demonstrate conclusively that the newlywed woman has been found a virgin. To do so, they customarily hang the bloody sheets out for public observation. It is no surprise that more than one chicken has made the ultimate sacrifice on a marriage night to honor tradition even there, but why? We know from simple observation that there is more than one way to lose your virginity. Gymnasts typically rupture the hymen at a young age when doing the splits. The American Frontier is littered with accounts of women rupturing the hymen while riding astride on horseback. In fact, this is the oldest reason for confusion that I know. In Africa, competitive running has led to the premature loss of many a woman's virginity. Even as simple a thing as the insertion of a digit at an early age from intemperate appetite can account for its untimely demise. To the great good fortune of the Turks, their elders do not practice the Middle Eastern custom of clitoral circumcision, but other Islamic cultures are not so lucky. Contrast this with the French, who regard a gap at the confluence of the thighs to be a mark of femininity, a marked difference from the masculine gonads; an indicator of interest and aptitude.
I have departed from decorum to establish that there is a common motive for a woman to attempt deceit on her marriage night. This accounts for the disagreement in stories as to the pain involved etc. What of the godly husband under these circumstances? In times of good behavior, he is expected to be ignorant of deceit. If he is not, his own morals are suspect. My own experience here is that of a male of the species, but it shone some light on a reciprocal application. I had a girlfriend in college who did not turn back at any time from inquiring very specifically as to the entirety of my sexual history, without any exceptions, even the loss of my virginity. This may have been extremely rude (I haven't named her,) but it pointed to her deep distrust of those who had lied to her, and her desire to establish with certainty that I would negotiate in good faith for any marriage contract. I suppose that in the context of an engagement, it is not wrong for a boy to likewise inquire. The Lord has been arguably silent on the subject.
How does this bear on EZ 13? If a man does not inquire with specific intent, his wife will likely bring it up by logical inference after the first year or so of marriage. His world will be assailed by doubts that, “she must have lied to me about being a virgin.” The realization of this would come slowly and with much confusion. Grieving the truth can in no wise be as harmful as grieving the lie, but it should not be overlooked as legitimate grief. An abortion is the most extreme example, and it brings a sorrow of regret that a wife should be able to confide in her husband, not try to bear it alone.
There is another 5% to 20% of the population that endure statutory abuse. Those among this demographic are not always from the un-churched. When this problem besets a Christian youth, the discussion of “Honor thy father and mother,” becomes charged with conflict and strife. I also had a confidant who shared details from this situation with me before she married.
The idea is for you to learn from her mistakes and wisdom begins at the fear of the Lord. Only perfect love discharges that obligation, we cannot argue otherwise.
Leaving a discussion of the causes aside, I will address the scenario from scripture as best I may. For purposes of this discussion we will call that married profligate Jezebel. Jezebel is engaging in adultery on an ongoing basis, without getting caught. How could this have started? We know that this could have started with as small a consideration as disobeying 1 Cor 7:
[5] Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency.
Geographical separation on a business trip would be one example of how this could develop. Military service is another illustration and calls for our prayers on the behalf of their Christian spouses, particularly in time of war (“that your prayers be not hindered.”)
If defrauding one another began that way, its first observable consequence (as opposed to spiritual consequence,) would have been adultery. While adultery is ALWAYS wrong all the time, the spiritual fallout is not as well discussed as it might be. Ecc 5:
[5] Better is it that thou shouldest not vow, than that thou shouldest vow and not pay.
[6] Suffer not thy mouth to cause thy flesh to sin; neither say thou before the angel, that it was an error: wherefore [why] should God be angry at thy voice, and destroy the work of thine hands?
Here we see by necessary inference that if we break a vow, God becomes angry at even our prayers, and destroys the work of our hands. Isa 59:2 talks about another example of God not hearing prayer. The normal Christian mistake to make is that God will be angry for ever. I will affirm the opinion that he is not, from Ps 30:5 and Isa 54:8. Here I am not prepared to illustrate any spiritual system of measurement, but we can know without doubting that God does not call eternity a moment. I had a dictionary once that defined a moment as 17 minutes. My point here is that it might be as long as the rest of my life, but it might be as short as a year or two. Whatever the case, it is not eternal.
My next point comes from 2 Tim 3:
[1] This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come.
[2] For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy,
[3] Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good,
[4] Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;
[5] Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.
[6] For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts,
[7] Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.
I think this is where the College/University slang “creeping” comes from. I speculate that such a situation could develop from a Christian father in a leadership position making unethical advances toward his daughter. The daughter would be inclined to do almost anything to preserve her father's reputation as she matured and he repented. Those who attempt to lead such individuals captive, do so by pretending to know more than they can prove. They blackmail the girl with threats that they will spread stories about her daddy if she does not extend them sexual favors. Under these circumstances, if temptation hit her cunningly, she might step foot on a slippery slope of immorality that would be hard to arrest unaided.
2 Tim 2:
[24] And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient,
[25] In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth;
[26] And that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil, who are taken captive by him at his will.
I once had to refer to myself as a prisoner of war of Satan, behind enemy lines without a uniform. The implication of having no uniform is that one may be executed summarily as a spy. In this theory, we are suggesting that Jezebel was a long term captive. She is indicted by the passage about Cane:
Heb 12:
[15] Looking diligently lest any man fail of the grace of God; lest any root of bitterness springing up trouble you, and thereby many be defiled;
[16] Lest there be any fornicator, or profane person, as Esau, who for one morsel of meat sold his birthright.
[17] For ye know how that afterward, when he would have inherited the blessing, he was rejected: for he found no place of repentance, though he sought it carefully with tears.
[The blue highlighting notices bitterness. I use the illustration that wine left standing out overnight turns to vinegar. By analogy, Anger allowed to linger past sundown turns to bitterness. Col 3:
[19] Husbands, love your wives, and be not bitter against them.
...comments on that as well.
Why could someone arrive at the estate where they cannot repent? Consider 1 Tim 4:
[1] Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;
[2] Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;
[3] Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.
I can’t remember if it was Don, or Tom, but the illustration that a bad nerve process of a burn might generate confused, yet still painful, sensation instead of numbness was helpful to me.
Further commentary on this worst case scenario is available at Heb 6:
[4] For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost,
[5] And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come,
[6] If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they (who/m) crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.
We should not overlook 1 Pet 3:
[7] Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with them according to knowledge, giving honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered.
As a weaker vessel, biblically there should be latitude assigned accordingly. [See also Ecc 7:26-29.] In my life, when a friend embarks upon an endeavor that brings censure or disrepute in the near term, I apply the rule “Give latitude in proportion to character,” and back their play in the same way. Despite this mitigating consideration, God made women as well as men, and they are not exempt from eternal condemnation.
How should we treat a person in this circumstance? Lk 16:
[1] And he said also unto his disciples, There was a certain rich man, which had a steward; and the same was accused unto him that he had wasted his goods.
[2] And he called him, and said unto him, How is it that I hear this of thee? give an account of thy stewardship; for thou mayest be no longer steward.
[3] Then the steward said within himself, What shall I do? for my lord taketh away from me the stewardship: I cannot dig; to beg I am ashamed.
[4] I am resolved what to do, that, when I am put out of the stewardship, they may receive me into their houses.
[5] So he called every one of his lord's debtors unto him, and said unto the first, How much owest thou unto my lord?
[6] And he said, An hundred measures of oil. And he said unto him, Take thy bill, and sit down quickly, and write fifty.
[7] Then said he to another, And how much owest thou? And he said, An hundred measures of wheat. And he said unto him, Take thy bill, and write fourscore.
[8] And the lord commended the unjust steward, because he had done wisely: for the children of this world are in their generation wiser than the children of light.
[9] And I say unto you, Make to yourselves friends of the mammon of unrighteousness; that, when ye fail, they may receive you into everlasting habitations.
[10] He that is faithful in that which is least is faithful also in much: and he that is unjust in the least is unjust also in much.
[11] If therefore ye have not been faithful in the unrighteous mammon, who will commit to your trust the true riches?
If a person is making friends of this world with unrighteous mammon, this passage may find drastic application. It IS however, a practical application of 1 Cor 5:
[5] To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.
I have a personal appreciation for the baseball legend Yogi Berra. He is famous for having said, “It ain’t over ‘til it’s over.” This alludes to the biblical concept of hope. What he did not say was “It’s NEVER over.” While we are playing with baseball analogies, I’ll throw in another one. A game is nine innings long unless it is called on account of rain. During those nine innings, most games are decided without a problem. On those occasions when a game goes into extra innings, I consider that the team with the most endurance wins. I argumentation and spiritual life there might be a parallel. I can make all the necessary and requisite arguments in a particular arena for nine innings. If it goes into extra innings, it becomes a battle of the wits. I use this as a measuring stick to apply Pr 26:
[4] Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.
[5] Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit.
I think the wise man gave the verses ordinal value.
Going back to Jezebel: I think she embarked upon that long perverted road by misapplication of Eph 6:
[1] Children, obey your parents in the Lord: for this is right.
[2] Honour thy father and mother; (which is the first commandment with promise;)
[3] That it may be well with thee, and thou mayest live long on the earth.
The simplest way to point out her mistake (and one of which I am not personally free) is to contrast it with the statement: Perfect children honor perfect parents perfectly.
God does not cease to agape us when we go astray, but it doesn’t make him rejoice. I think in Heaven we will be incapable of grief because we have seen perfect justice done on judgment day by the righteous judge.)
[17] Likewise, thou son of man, set thy face against the daughters of thy people, which prophesy out of their own heart; and prophesy thou against them,
[18] And say, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Woe to the women that sew pillows to all armholes, and make kerchiefs upon the head of every stature to hunt souls! Will ye hunt the souls of my people, and will ye save the souls alive that come unto you?
[19] And will ye pollute me among my people for handfuls of barley and for pieces of bread, to slay the souls that should not die, and to save the souls alive that should not live, by your lying to my people that hear your lies?
[20] Wherefore thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I am against your pillows, wherewith ye there hunt the souls to make them fly, and I will tear them from your arms, and will let the souls go, even the souls that ye hunt to make them fly.
[21] Your kerchiefs also will I tear, and deliver my people out of your hand, and they shall be no more in your hand to be hunted; and ye shall know that I am the LORD.
[22] Because with lies ye have made the heart of the righteous sad, whom I have not made sad; and strengthened the hands of the wicked, that he should not return from his wicked way, by promising him life:
[23] Therefore ye shall see no more vanity, nor divine divinations: for I will deliver my people out of your hand: and ye shall know that I am the LORD.
When people grieve the truth it is God himself who CANNOT lie making them sad, not the hapless messenger. If we are sad because we have been lied to, it “cometh of evil.” Considering the number of true things there are in the world to be sad about, it is interesting to learn that political campaign managers are not alone in the universe in making people sad with lies. I would like to take this opportunity to talk about one application of lies to sorrow, in the context of sex.
In Turkey, the custom is to demonstrate conclusively that the newlywed woman has been found a virgin. To do so, they customarily hang the bloody sheets out for public observation. It is no surprise that more than one chicken has made the ultimate sacrifice on a marriage night to honor tradition even there, but why? We know from simple observation that there is more than one way to lose your virginity. Gymnasts typically rupture the hymen at a young age when doing the splits. The American Frontier is littered with accounts of women rupturing the hymen while riding astride on horseback. In fact, this is the oldest reason for confusion that I know. In Africa, competitive running has led to the premature loss of many a woman's virginity. Even as simple a thing as the insertion of a digit at an early age from intemperate appetite can account for its untimely demise. To the great good fortune of the Turks, their elders do not practice the Middle Eastern custom of clitoral circumcision, but other Islamic cultures are not so lucky. Contrast this with the French, who regard a gap at the confluence of the thighs to be a mark of femininity, a marked difference from the masculine gonads; an indicator of interest and aptitude.
I have departed from decorum to establish that there is a common motive for a woman to attempt deceit on her marriage night. This accounts for the disagreement in stories as to the pain involved etc. What of the godly husband under these circumstances? In times of good behavior, he is expected to be ignorant of deceit. If he is not, his own morals are suspect. My own experience here is that of a male of the species, but it shone some light on a reciprocal application. I had a girlfriend in college who did not turn back at any time from inquiring very specifically as to the entirety of my sexual history, without any exceptions, even the loss of my virginity. This may have been extremely rude (I haven't named her,) but it pointed to her deep distrust of those who had lied to her, and her desire to establish with certainty that I would negotiate in good faith for any marriage contract. I suppose that in the context of an engagement, it is not wrong for a boy to likewise inquire. The Lord has been arguably silent on the subject.
How does this bear on EZ 13? If a man does not inquire with specific intent, his wife will likely bring it up by logical inference after the first year or so of marriage. His world will be assailed by doubts that, “she must have lied to me about being a virgin.” The realization of this would come slowly and with much confusion. Grieving the truth can in no wise be as harmful as grieving the lie, but it should not be overlooked as legitimate grief. An abortion is the most extreme example, and it brings a sorrow of regret that a wife should be able to confide in her husband, not try to bear it alone.
There is another 5% to 20% of the population that endure statutory abuse. Those among this demographic are not always from the un-churched. When this problem besets a Christian youth, the discussion of “Honor thy father and mother,” becomes charged with conflict and strife. I also had a confidant who shared details from this situation with me before she married.
The idea is for you to learn from her mistakes and wisdom begins at the fear of the Lord. Only perfect love discharges that obligation, we cannot argue otherwise.
Leaving a discussion of the causes aside, I will address the scenario from scripture as best I may. For purposes of this discussion we will call that married profligate Jezebel. Jezebel is engaging in adultery on an ongoing basis, without getting caught. How could this have started? We know that this could have started with as small a consideration as disobeying 1 Cor 7:
[5] Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency.
Geographical separation on a business trip would be one example of how this could develop. Military service is another illustration and calls for our prayers on the behalf of their Christian spouses, particularly in time of war (“that your prayers be not hindered.”)
If defrauding one another began that way, its first observable consequence (as opposed to spiritual consequence,) would have been adultery. While adultery is ALWAYS wrong all the time, the spiritual fallout is not as well discussed as it might be. Ecc 5:
[5] Better is it that thou shouldest not vow, than that thou shouldest vow and not pay.
[6] Suffer not thy mouth to cause thy flesh to sin; neither say thou before the angel, that it was an error: wherefore [why] should God be angry at thy voice, and destroy the work of thine hands?
Here we see by necessary inference that if we break a vow, God becomes angry at even our prayers, and destroys the work of our hands. Isa 59:2 talks about another example of God not hearing prayer. The normal Christian mistake to make is that God will be angry for ever. I will affirm the opinion that he is not, from Ps 30:5 and Isa 54:8. Here I am not prepared to illustrate any spiritual system of measurement, but we can know without doubting that God does not call eternity a moment. I had a dictionary once that defined a moment as 17 minutes. My point here is that it might be as long as the rest of my life, but it might be as short as a year or two. Whatever the case, it is not eternal.
My next point comes from 2 Tim 3:
[1] This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come.
[2] For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy,
[3] Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good,
[4] Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;
[5] Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.
[6] For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts,
[7] Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.
I think this is where the College/University slang “creeping” comes from. I speculate that such a situation could develop from a Christian father in a leadership position making unethical advances toward his daughter. The daughter would be inclined to do almost anything to preserve her father's reputation as she matured and he repented. Those who attempt to lead such individuals captive, do so by pretending to know more than they can prove. They blackmail the girl with threats that they will spread stories about her daddy if she does not extend them sexual favors. Under these circumstances, if temptation hit her cunningly, she might step foot on a slippery slope of immorality that would be hard to arrest unaided.
2 Tim 2:
[24] And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient,
[25] In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth;
[26] And that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil, who are taken captive by him at his will.
I once had to refer to myself as a prisoner of war of Satan, behind enemy lines without a uniform. The implication of having no uniform is that one may be executed summarily as a spy. In this theory, we are suggesting that Jezebel was a long term captive. She is indicted by the passage about Cane:
Heb 12:
[15] Looking diligently lest any man fail of the grace of God; lest any root of bitterness springing up trouble you, and thereby many be defiled;
[16] Lest there be any fornicator, or profane person, as Esau, who for one morsel of meat sold his birthright.
[17] For ye know how that afterward, when he would have inherited the blessing, he was rejected: for he found no place of repentance, though he sought it carefully with tears.
[The blue highlighting notices bitterness. I use the illustration that wine left standing out overnight turns to vinegar. By analogy, Anger allowed to linger past sundown turns to bitterness. Col 3:
[19] Husbands, love your wives, and be not bitter against them.
...comments on that as well.
Why could someone arrive at the estate where they cannot repent? Consider 1 Tim 4:
[1] Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;
[2] Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;
[3] Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.
I can’t remember if it was Don, or Tom, but the illustration that a bad nerve process of a burn might generate confused, yet still painful, sensation instead of numbness was helpful to me.
Further commentary on this worst case scenario is available at Heb 6:
[4] For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost,
[5] And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come,
[6] If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they (who/m) crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.
We should not overlook 1 Pet 3:
[7] Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with them according to knowledge, giving honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered.
As a weaker vessel, biblically there should be latitude assigned accordingly. [See also Ecc 7:26-29.] In my life, when a friend embarks upon an endeavor that brings censure or disrepute in the near term, I apply the rule “Give latitude in proportion to character,” and back their play in the same way. Despite this mitigating consideration, God made women as well as men, and they are not exempt from eternal condemnation.
How should we treat a person in this circumstance? Lk 16:
[1] And he said also unto his disciples, There was a certain rich man, which had a steward; and the same was accused unto him that he had wasted his goods.
[2] And he called him, and said unto him, How is it that I hear this of thee? give an account of thy stewardship; for thou mayest be no longer steward.
[3] Then the steward said within himself, What shall I do? for my lord taketh away from me the stewardship: I cannot dig; to beg I am ashamed.
[4] I am resolved what to do, that, when I am put out of the stewardship, they may receive me into their houses.
[5] So he called every one of his lord's debtors unto him, and said unto the first, How much owest thou unto my lord?
[6] And he said, An hundred measures of oil. And he said unto him, Take thy bill, and sit down quickly, and write fifty.
[7] Then said he to another, And how much owest thou? And he said, An hundred measures of wheat. And he said unto him, Take thy bill, and write fourscore.
[8] And the lord commended the unjust steward, because he had done wisely: for the children of this world are in their generation wiser than the children of light.
[9] And I say unto you, Make to yourselves friends of the mammon of unrighteousness; that, when ye fail, they may receive you into everlasting habitations.
[10] He that is faithful in that which is least is faithful also in much: and he that is unjust in the least is unjust also in much.
[11] If therefore ye have not been faithful in the unrighteous mammon, who will commit to your trust the true riches?
If a person is making friends of this world with unrighteous mammon, this passage may find drastic application. It IS however, a practical application of 1 Cor 5:
[5] To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.
I have a personal appreciation for the baseball legend Yogi Berra. He is famous for having said, “It ain’t over ‘til it’s over.” This alludes to the biblical concept of hope. What he did not say was “It’s NEVER over.” While we are playing with baseball analogies, I’ll throw in another one. A game is nine innings long unless it is called on account of rain. During those nine innings, most games are decided without a problem. On those occasions when a game goes into extra innings, I consider that the team with the most endurance wins. I argumentation and spiritual life there might be a parallel. I can make all the necessary and requisite arguments in a particular arena for nine innings. If it goes into extra innings, it becomes a battle of the wits. I use this as a measuring stick to apply Pr 26:
[4] Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.
[5] Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit.
I think the wise man gave the verses ordinal value.
Going back to Jezebel: I think she embarked upon that long perverted road by misapplication of Eph 6:
[1] Children, obey your parents in the Lord: for this is right.
[2] Honour thy father and mother; (which is the first commandment with promise;)
[3] That it may be well with thee, and thou mayest live long on the earth.
The simplest way to point out her mistake (and one of which I am not personally free) is to contrast it with the statement: Perfect children honor perfect parents perfectly.
God does not cease to agape us when we go astray, but it doesn’t make him rejoice. I think in Heaven we will be incapable of grief because we have seen perfect justice done on judgment day by the righteous judge.)
Thursday, December 11, 2008
The Unbridled Pursuit of Excellence
We closed the previous article with the observation that (at times) obedience to God’s law can be confusing. So much so, that even though we have no clue how to accomplish it, we choose that if we could we would, and consent to the law of God. When we consent to the law of God, we accord him the consent of the governed and deny Satan that justification.
The whole chapter of Romans Seven is open to abuse, and it is not my intention to try to creatively "continue in sin that Grace may abound.” Nevertheless, the alternative cannot be said to be less than challenging.
Very few of us use the word “perfection,” in a spiritual context, without alluding to "sinless perfection," or just plain “sinlessness.” We know axiomatically that this is not possible because we are men, and by deductive reasoning from Ro 3:
[23] For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
We have sinned and cannot become guiltless again.
In many cases, the word “perfect” is defined as being unattainable. My dictionary has about 21 definitions, some being the verb form. Rather than appeal to some particular one of them, I would like to assert that most commonly, people want to bind on that term the idea of "It cannot be found fault with." In this vernacular usage, Pythagoras' own proof of his theorem would fail (be found fault with,) by being difficult to understand, while most others would fail (be found fault with,) by being longer than the shortest one. Mathematicians avoid this discussion altogether, by inventing their own usage of the term "elegant." The prototypical perfect individual, (Jesus Christ,) was found fault with at almost every turn.
Establishing that the definition of "perfection" is muddy water, we could ask the question, “Is there a unifying theme to the usage of the word ‘perfect’ in scripture?” My favored course of intellectual action is to let the Lord define his own term from context. "Perfect" is certainly not un-attainable in scripture. In the OT, exactly 5 people are called "perfect." Noah Gen 6:9, David I Ki 11:4, Job Job 1:1, Asa 1 ki 15:14, and Hezekiah 2 Ki 20:3. By observing that the exhaustive total was exactly five and no more, we should understand that whatever accomplishment this should represent, it is exceptional.
In the New Testament, it is not surprising to see that Christ was perfect Heb 2:10, 5:9. However, we shouldn’t stop there. While we are looking at the word, we can observe some other things: The old law [that as we have just seen could indeed be kept,] was defined as glorious (2 Cor 3:7,8) Despite being called glorious, the Old Testament law could not make one "perfect as pertaining to conscience." Heb 9:9, 10:1.
How did Old Testament (OT) persons obtain perfection if old law couldn’t do it? Gal 3:
[6] Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.
[7] Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham.
[8] And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed.
[9] So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham.
[10] For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.
[11] But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith.
[12] And the law is not of faith: but, The man that doeth them shall live in them.
Abraham lived before the dispensation of the Old Testament by Moses, and here we have under discussion the confirmation of Abraham’s salvation. Noah lived before Abraham, and was likewise subject to some other system of valuation than the Old Testament law, yet he was called (arguably) by some definition “perfect.”
Having suggested by example that this should be a "do-able" proposition, we have a good bit more on the subject:
Commonly, the people who do not choose to "follow after," (Phil 3:12,) will point to the example usually called "The rich young ruler." Mt 19:
[16] And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?
[17] And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.
[18] He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness,
[19] Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
[20] The young man saith unto him, All these things have I kept from my youth up: what lack I yet?
[21] Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me.
[22] But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful: for he had great possessions.
[23] Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven.
[24] And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.
[25] When his disciples heard it, they were exceedingly amazed, saying, Who then can be saved?
[26] But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.
These people zone in on vs 25, "who then can be saved?" and usually follow with 1 Pet 4:18.
[18] And if the righteous scarcely be saved, where shall the ungodly and the sinner appear?
They take the "meritorious works" attitude alluded to by those who oppose baptism, and say, "If you by some measure think you are perfect, you must necessarily be concluding that you can reasonably demand salvation, having no more need for forgiveness of sins."
Those alert to the paradox of self reference will also appeal to Job 9:20,21
[20] If I justify myself, mine own mouth shall condemn me: if I say, I am perfect, it shall also prove me perverse.
[21] Though I were perfect, yet would I not know my soul: I would despise my life.
The argument is that pride would destroy perfection if it ever became aware of itself, for example.
In rebuttal I would appeal to Hezekiah in 2 Ki 20:1-3, and Isa 38:1-3
[1] In those days was Hezekiah sick unto death. And Isaiah the prophet the son of Amoz came unto him, and said unto him, Thus saith the LORD, Set thine house in order: for thou shalt die, and not live.
[2] Then Hezekiah turned his face toward the wall, and prayed unto the LORD,
[3] And said, Remember now, O LORD, I beseech thee, how I have walked before thee in truth and with a perfect heart, and have done that which is good in thy sight. And Hezekiah wept sore.
Here we see Hezekiah made supplication on the basis that he had walked before God with a perfect heart, and God granted his request. I know that if I was not 9 feet tall, and I prayed to God, "Because I am 9 feet tall, please bestow %T% on me," I don't know how he could grant a request based on such a preposterous premise. Hezekiah was arguably defined by the term, or God would not have honored his request.
Despite the use of the superlative term, the story is not one of success but of downfall. By Job’s argument, Hezekiah was destroyed by sentient pride of that very accomplishment. I’ll not fail to observe that there is a competing argument to be made that Job was speaking only of his personal experience, and that perfection would be incomplete without commensurate humility.
2 Tim 3:16,17
[16] All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
[17] That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.
Scripture was given with a motive/purpose, and equal to the phrase "throughly furnished unto all good works," is the term "perfect." Arguably "perfect" implies "throughly furnished" as a product or sub-set.
So we see that Mt 5:48 "Be ye therefore perfect, even as your father in heaven is perfect," is not a command issued without any means of accomplishment, like a governmental "un-funded mandate."
For a closer definition of the term, we should look at Lk 6:40
[40] The disciple is not above his master: but every one that is perfect shall be as his master.
To get a time frame on when this might happen, 1 Jno 4:
[17] Herein is our love made perfect, that we may have boldness in the day of judgment: because as he is, so are we in this world.
"in this world," is not at some abstract future date in eternity. In Eph 4:11-15
[11] And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;
[12] For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:
[13] Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ:
[14] That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;
[15] But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ:
We are given a little more info on just how high this bar might be: vs 13: to the [equal?] amount of the measurement of the contents of Christ, then vs 15, we "grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ."
By two measures, sinlessness would be a separate concept: Ro 3:
[23] For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
Ro 5:
[12] Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
There is one sinless one, and his name is Jesus, his title is Christ. This being the case, Noah, Job, Asa, Hezekiah, and David [who were all called perfect] (and perfected in some way that was not by the Old law - Heb 9:9 and 10:1 as seen above,) had all five sinned. Noah did so pretty spectacularly with his daughters, if memory serves. It also enumerates in 2 Chron 25:1,2 that "doing that which is right," is not by itself perfection.
[1] Amaziah was twenty and five years old when he began to reign, and he reigned twenty and nine years in Jerusalem. And his mother's name was Jehoaddan of Jerusalem.
[2] And he did that which was right in the sight of the LORD, but not with a perfect heart.
Those verses would count as the first measure - you can be perfect, and not be sinless. In the second measure: You could be sinless, but be made perfect in some other way. Heb 2:
[10] For it became him, for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings.
Heb 5:
[9] And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;
Christ started out sinless, and never failed in this, but he was independently made perfect. A similar observation is in Heb 5:
[8] Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered;
He learned obedience. He was probably always obedient in action, but he learned obedience as a spiritual characteristic. It's worth asking yourself, how on earth was the concept of obedience in even one of its elements or aspects new to Christ? The nearest constructive observation that I can make about that is in Ps 119:
[97] O how love I thy law! it is my meditation all the day.
[98] Thou through thy commandments hast made me wiser than mine enemies: for they are ever with me.
[99] I have more understanding than all my teachers: for thy testimonies are my meditation.
[100] I understand more than the ancients, because I keep thy precepts.
[101] I have refrained my feet from every evil way, that I might keep thy word.
[102] I have not departed from thy judgments: for thou hast taught me.
[103] How sweet are thy words unto my taste! yea, sweeter than honey to my mouth!
[104] Through thy precepts I get understanding: therefore I hate every false way.
[105] Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path.
[106] I have sworn, and I will perform it, that I will keep thy righteous judgments.
Of these examples, the one uppermost in my mind at the moment is vs 100 - because I keep thy precepts, I understand more than the ancients. Notable here is the fact that obedience came FIRST, THEN understanding. Normally we would call this "blind obedience," and the world uses the term as a pejorative. In vs 102, David identifies his teacher, and we should seek a similar claim, considering the parenthetical comment in Jno 6:
[45] It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.
Speaking of NT Christians (right?) he states that "they shall all be taught of God." I suppose that Christ was too, and by the same pathway. By that same powerful token, it should gladly be received that if our example learned obedience, by some means, we cannot by any righteous argument turn aside from that self same path-way. The a-priori assumption people make (and I found out, because I discovered that I had been making it,) is that he already knew all this, and was just going thru a technical exercise by demonstrating it.
Winding down, let us also consider Paul. You may correct my chronology from other knowledge, but cursorily, it would look as though Phil 3:
[9] And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith:
[10] That I may know him, and the power of his resurrection, and the fellowship of his sufferings, being made conformable unto his death;
[11] If by any means I might attain unto the resurrection of the dead.
[12] Not as though I had already attained, either were already perfect: but I follow after, if that I may apprehend that for which also I am apprehended of Christ Jesus.
….was written before 2 Tim 4:
[6] For I am now ready to be offered, and the time of my departure is at hand.
[7] I have fought a good fight, I have finished my course, I have kept the faith:
[8] Henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, shall give me at that day: and not to me only, but unto all them also that love his appearing.
During that finite non-null time frame, what was the status of Paul's salvation? I choose not to doubt that God would have received him into the ranks of the saved righteous at any point during that time, as he grew and flourished spiritually.
Reviewing then, we have talked about some things that perfection is not; we have talked about some things that help define the term; and we have suggested that something properly defined as “perfection,” is attainable.
It is left until now to ask ourselves exactly how we could resolve all conflicting aspects of the various verses in the bible that treat on the subject. I will simply posit a construct, and leave it to a diligent audience to contemplate.
Consider a cylinder with pie shaped divisions. The cylinder in this illustration would be analogous to the Christian heart, with each division holding some spiritually measurable content of the several spiritual qualities; joy, peace, patience, grace, hope, faith etc. I can illustrate the cylinder in several states. It could have only some of the pie shaped compartments with non-null contents. It could have all compartments containing something, but not all necessarily equal. They might all be non-null, equal and not full. I suppose that they could all be full equally to the brim.
This illustration would give a context to a passage like 2 Pet 1:
[5] And beside this, giving all diligence, add to your faith virtue; and to virtue knowledge;
[6] And to knowledge temperance; and to temperance patience; and to patience godliness;
[7] And to godliness brotherly kindness; and to brotherly kindness charity.
[8] For if these things be in you, and abound, they make you that ye shall neither be barren nor unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ.
An incomplete list of heart qualities might be found in Gal 5:
[22] But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,
[23] Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.
…known to be incomplete by verses like 2 Pet 3:
[18] But grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and for ever. Amen.
…as well as the 2 Pet 1 passage. I could optimistically suggest that this unites us together in fighting a common misconception. I can only hope it will be so well received. In addressing others (it is appropriate in spiritual matters to make self-application first,) I have endeavored to apply the principle embodied in the phrase “control the heart first, the action will follow.” Pessimistically, I cannot responsibly omit to observe the old adage, ”easy come, easy go.” A thing, even if it an idea is more valued when it is purchased with great effort. There are those who by lax application or indifferent spiritual goals do not want to know. Knowing something like this puts the onus on a Christian to contribute an effort that seeks to meet a higher standard. Any such standard should be met and measured intrinsically, rather than externally.
Knowing that something can be done, somehow, by some means, is actually an avenue of advancement in its own right. For example, the Russians were the first country to put a satellite in orbit. Until then, the United States did not try in the same way, because it was largely thought that it might be impossible. Turn this to a discussion of the Lord’s word. IF he said something like “Thou shalt demonstrate ‘Space Travel’,” it would be my job as his obedient servant to figure out how. The fact that there is a command like that is a major clue that it can be done. I do not look into the Lord’s law, and say, “Well, I don’t know how to demonstrate ‘space travel,’ so I will content myself with aeronautics.” If I cannot answer another person on the day he or she challenges that command, this should not make me doubt my decision that all God’s commands are possible. I presume an answer will be possible in future and so proceed.
In conclusion let’s consider the analogy of a game of pool. The story is told of a famous physicist going into a pool hall after work with his colleagues, and sitting down to relax and talk foolishness. His friend challenged him to a game of pool. His response was “Look, we make truly complex calculations on the nature of matter every day. How can something some mundane as pool be worthwhile? The collisions are reasonably elastic, the rebound from the rails can be calculated, and the trigonometry of the actual shots is elementary.” So his friend picked an (by comparison) ignorant bystander, and asked the physicist to submit himself to a competitive game of pool. The physicist drew the lines on the felt in chalk, and made determinations before every shot. You can easily imagine who actually won. The point is that the study of God’s law in the abstract could be compared to the contemplation of the physics of pool. Within the confines of 2 Tim 2:
[5] And if a man also strive for masteries, yet is he not crowned, except he strive lawfully.
…a baptized believer with an IQ of 90, can visit the sick, feed the hungry, and in his own right confront the vices of pride and the love of money, and (as he gets experience, and decides to eradicate various weaknesses in his own heart,) he may surpass me 10 times over. So knowing God’s law, and meditating in it should not be considered the end of the commandment. Ps 1:
[1] Blessed is the man that walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly, nor standeth in the way of sinners, nor sitteth in the seat of the scornful.
[2] But his delight is in the law of the LORD; and in his law doth he meditate day and night.
…implies that if one does contemplate God’s law, the blessing that starts vs 1 will apply. It’s not a simple “either/or” proposition. But not all students of the rule book of football are setting themselves up as referees: some of them are still players.
When I approach someone initially with a question in my mind as to their interest on the issue, I make a practice of asking them about what they mean by the term “Hope.” If they identify that there is no way, and hope is a long shot I generally add time for study. When a person says, “You know: if there is to be any hope, there must be SOME WAY to obey adequately,” then is the time I contemplate introducing them to this discussion. On that note, I’ll take my leave of you.
The whole chapter of Romans Seven is open to abuse, and it is not my intention to try to creatively "continue in sin that Grace may abound.” Nevertheless, the alternative cannot be said to be less than challenging.
Very few of us use the word “perfection,” in a spiritual context, without alluding to "sinless perfection," or just plain “sinlessness.” We know axiomatically that this is not possible because we are men, and by deductive reasoning from Ro 3:
[23] For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
We have sinned and cannot become guiltless again.
In many cases, the word “perfect” is defined as being unattainable. My dictionary has about 21 definitions, some being the verb form. Rather than appeal to some particular one of them, I would like to assert that most commonly, people want to bind on that term the idea of "It cannot be found fault with." In this vernacular usage, Pythagoras' own proof of his theorem would fail (be found fault with,) by being difficult to understand, while most others would fail (be found fault with,) by being longer than the shortest one. Mathematicians avoid this discussion altogether, by inventing their own usage of the term "elegant." The prototypical perfect individual, (Jesus Christ,) was found fault with at almost every turn.
Establishing that the definition of "perfection" is muddy water, we could ask the question, “Is there a unifying theme to the usage of the word ‘perfect’ in scripture?” My favored course of intellectual action is to let the Lord define his own term from context. "Perfect" is certainly not un-attainable in scripture. In the OT, exactly 5 people are called "perfect." Noah Gen 6:9, David I Ki 11:4, Job Job 1:1, Asa 1 ki 15:14, and Hezekiah 2 Ki 20:3. By observing that the exhaustive total was exactly five and no more, we should understand that whatever accomplishment this should represent, it is exceptional.
In the New Testament, it is not surprising to see that Christ was perfect Heb 2:10, 5:9. However, we shouldn’t stop there. While we are looking at the word, we can observe some other things: The old law [that as we have just seen could indeed be kept,] was defined as glorious (2 Cor 3:7,8) Despite being called glorious, the Old Testament law could not make one "perfect as pertaining to conscience." Heb 9:9, 10:1.
How did Old Testament (OT) persons obtain perfection if old law couldn’t do it? Gal 3:
[6] Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.
[7] Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham.
[8] And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed.
[9] So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham.
[10] For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.
[11] But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith.
[12] And the law is not of faith: but, The man that doeth them shall live in them.
Abraham lived before the dispensation of the Old Testament by Moses, and here we have under discussion the confirmation of Abraham’s salvation. Noah lived before Abraham, and was likewise subject to some other system of valuation than the Old Testament law, yet he was called (arguably) by some definition “perfect.”
Having suggested by example that this should be a "do-able" proposition, we have a good bit more on the subject:
Commonly, the people who do not choose to "follow after," (Phil 3:12,) will point to the example usually called "The rich young ruler." Mt 19:
[16] And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?
[17] And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.
[18] He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness,
[19] Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
[20] The young man saith unto him, All these things have I kept from my youth up: what lack I yet?
[21] Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me.
[22] But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful: for he had great possessions.
[23] Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven.
[24] And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.
[25] When his disciples heard it, they were exceedingly amazed, saying, Who then can be saved?
[26] But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.
These people zone in on vs 25, "who then can be saved?" and usually follow with 1 Pet 4:18.
[18] And if the righteous scarcely be saved, where shall the ungodly and the sinner appear?
They take the "meritorious works" attitude alluded to by those who oppose baptism, and say, "If you by some measure think you are perfect, you must necessarily be concluding that you can reasonably demand salvation, having no more need for forgiveness of sins."
Those alert to the paradox of self reference will also appeal to Job 9:20,21
[20] If I justify myself, mine own mouth shall condemn me: if I say, I am perfect, it shall also prove me perverse.
[21] Though I were perfect, yet would I not know my soul: I would despise my life.
The argument is that pride would destroy perfection if it ever became aware of itself, for example.
In rebuttal I would appeal to Hezekiah in 2 Ki 20:1-3, and Isa 38:1-3
[1] In those days was Hezekiah sick unto death. And Isaiah the prophet the son of Amoz came unto him, and said unto him, Thus saith the LORD, Set thine house in order: for thou shalt die, and not live.
[2] Then Hezekiah turned his face toward the wall, and prayed unto the LORD,
[3] And said, Remember now, O LORD, I beseech thee, how I have walked before thee in truth and with a perfect heart, and have done that which is good in thy sight. And Hezekiah wept sore.
Here we see Hezekiah made supplication on the basis that he had walked before God with a perfect heart, and God granted his request. I know that if I was not 9 feet tall, and I prayed to God, "Because I am 9 feet tall, please bestow %T% on me," I don't know how he could grant a request based on such a preposterous premise. Hezekiah was arguably defined by the term, or God would not have honored his request.
Despite the use of the superlative term, the story is not one of success but of downfall. By Job’s argument, Hezekiah was destroyed by sentient pride of that very accomplishment. I’ll not fail to observe that there is a competing argument to be made that Job was speaking only of his personal experience, and that perfection would be incomplete without commensurate humility.
2 Tim 3:16,17
[16] All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
[17] That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.
Scripture was given with a motive/purpose, and equal to the phrase "throughly furnished unto all good works," is the term "perfect." Arguably "perfect" implies "throughly furnished" as a product or sub-set.
So we see that Mt 5:48 "Be ye therefore perfect, even as your father in heaven is perfect," is not a command issued without any means of accomplishment, like a governmental "un-funded mandate."
For a closer definition of the term, we should look at Lk 6:40
[40] The disciple is not above his master: but every one that is perfect shall be as his master.
To get a time frame on when this might happen, 1 Jno 4:
[17] Herein is our love made perfect, that we may have boldness in the day of judgment: because as he is, so are we in this world.
"in this world," is not at some abstract future date in eternity. In Eph 4:11-15
[11] And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;
[12] For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:
[13] Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ:
[14] That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;
[15] But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ:
We are given a little more info on just how high this bar might be: vs 13: to the [equal?] amount of the measurement of the contents of Christ, then vs 15, we "grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ."
By two measures, sinlessness would be a separate concept: Ro 3:
[23] For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
Ro 5:
[12] Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
There is one sinless one, and his name is Jesus, his title is Christ. This being the case, Noah, Job, Asa, Hezekiah, and David [who were all called perfect] (and perfected in some way that was not by the Old law - Heb 9:9 and 10:1 as seen above,) had all five sinned. Noah did so pretty spectacularly with his daughters, if memory serves. It also enumerates in 2 Chron 25:1,2 that "doing that which is right," is not by itself perfection.
[1] Amaziah was twenty and five years old when he began to reign, and he reigned twenty and nine years in Jerusalem. And his mother's name was Jehoaddan of Jerusalem.
[2] And he did that which was right in the sight of the LORD, but not with a perfect heart.
Those verses would count as the first measure - you can be perfect, and not be sinless. In the second measure: You could be sinless, but be made perfect in some other way. Heb 2:
[10] For it became him, for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings.
Heb 5:
[9] And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;
Christ started out sinless, and never failed in this, but he was independently made perfect. A similar observation is in Heb 5:
[8] Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered;
He learned obedience. He was probably always obedient in action, but he learned obedience as a spiritual characteristic. It's worth asking yourself, how on earth was the concept of obedience in even one of its elements or aspects new to Christ? The nearest constructive observation that I can make about that is in Ps 119:
[97] O how love I thy law! it is my meditation all the day.
[98] Thou through thy commandments hast made me wiser than mine enemies: for they are ever with me.
[99] I have more understanding than all my teachers: for thy testimonies are my meditation.
[100] I understand more than the ancients, because I keep thy precepts.
[101] I have refrained my feet from every evil way, that I might keep thy word.
[102] I have not departed from thy judgments: for thou hast taught me.
[103] How sweet are thy words unto my taste! yea, sweeter than honey to my mouth!
[104] Through thy precepts I get understanding: therefore I hate every false way.
[105] Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path.
[106] I have sworn, and I will perform it, that I will keep thy righteous judgments.
Of these examples, the one uppermost in my mind at the moment is vs 100 - because I keep thy precepts, I understand more than the ancients. Notable here is the fact that obedience came FIRST, THEN understanding. Normally we would call this "blind obedience," and the world uses the term as a pejorative. In vs 102, David identifies his teacher, and we should seek a similar claim, considering the parenthetical comment in Jno 6:
[45] It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.
Speaking of NT Christians (right?) he states that "they shall all be taught of God." I suppose that Christ was too, and by the same pathway. By that same powerful token, it should gladly be received that if our example learned obedience, by some means, we cannot by any righteous argument turn aside from that self same path-way. The a-priori assumption people make (and I found out, because I discovered that I had been making it,) is that he already knew all this, and was just going thru a technical exercise by demonstrating it.
Winding down, let us also consider Paul. You may correct my chronology from other knowledge, but cursorily, it would look as though Phil 3:
[9] And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith:
[10] That I may know him, and the power of his resurrection, and the fellowship of his sufferings, being made conformable unto his death;
[11] If by any means I might attain unto the resurrection of the dead.
[12] Not as though I had already attained, either were already perfect: but I follow after, if that I may apprehend that for which also I am apprehended of Christ Jesus.
….was written before 2 Tim 4:
[6] For I am now ready to be offered, and the time of my departure is at hand.
[7] I have fought a good fight, I have finished my course, I have kept the faith:
[8] Henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, shall give me at that day: and not to me only, but unto all them also that love his appearing.
During that finite non-null time frame, what was the status of Paul's salvation? I choose not to doubt that God would have received him into the ranks of the saved righteous at any point during that time, as he grew and flourished spiritually.
Reviewing then, we have talked about some things that perfection is not; we have talked about some things that help define the term; and we have suggested that something properly defined as “perfection,” is attainable.
It is left until now to ask ourselves exactly how we could resolve all conflicting aspects of the various verses in the bible that treat on the subject. I will simply posit a construct, and leave it to a diligent audience to contemplate.
Consider a cylinder with pie shaped divisions. The cylinder in this illustration would be analogous to the Christian heart, with each division holding some spiritually measurable content of the several spiritual qualities; joy, peace, patience, grace, hope, faith etc. I can illustrate the cylinder in several states. It could have only some of the pie shaped compartments with non-null contents. It could have all compartments containing something, but not all necessarily equal. They might all be non-null, equal and not full. I suppose that they could all be full equally to the brim.
This illustration would give a context to a passage like 2 Pet 1:
[5] And beside this, giving all diligence, add to your faith virtue; and to virtue knowledge;
[6] And to knowledge temperance; and to temperance patience; and to patience godliness;
[7] And to godliness brotherly kindness; and to brotherly kindness charity.
[8] For if these things be in you, and abound, they make you that ye shall neither be barren nor unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ.
An incomplete list of heart qualities might be found in Gal 5:
[22] But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,
[23] Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.
…known to be incomplete by verses like 2 Pet 3:
[18] But grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and for ever. Amen.
…as well as the 2 Pet 1 passage. I could optimistically suggest that this unites us together in fighting a common misconception. I can only hope it will be so well received. In addressing others (it is appropriate in spiritual matters to make self-application first,) I have endeavored to apply the principle embodied in the phrase “control the heart first, the action will follow.” Pessimistically, I cannot responsibly omit to observe the old adage, ”easy come, easy go.” A thing, even if it an idea is more valued when it is purchased with great effort. There are those who by lax application or indifferent spiritual goals do not want to know. Knowing something like this puts the onus on a Christian to contribute an effort that seeks to meet a higher standard. Any such standard should be met and measured intrinsically, rather than externally.
Knowing that something can be done, somehow, by some means, is actually an avenue of advancement in its own right. For example, the Russians were the first country to put a satellite in orbit. Until then, the United States did not try in the same way, because it was largely thought that it might be impossible. Turn this to a discussion of the Lord’s word. IF he said something like “Thou shalt demonstrate ‘Space Travel’,” it would be my job as his obedient servant to figure out how. The fact that there is a command like that is a major clue that it can be done. I do not look into the Lord’s law, and say, “Well, I don’t know how to demonstrate ‘space travel,’ so I will content myself with aeronautics.” If I cannot answer another person on the day he or she challenges that command, this should not make me doubt my decision that all God’s commands are possible. I presume an answer will be possible in future and so proceed.
In conclusion let’s consider the analogy of a game of pool. The story is told of a famous physicist going into a pool hall after work with his colleagues, and sitting down to relax and talk foolishness. His friend challenged him to a game of pool. His response was “Look, we make truly complex calculations on the nature of matter every day. How can something some mundane as pool be worthwhile? The collisions are reasonably elastic, the rebound from the rails can be calculated, and the trigonometry of the actual shots is elementary.” So his friend picked an (by comparison) ignorant bystander, and asked the physicist to submit himself to a competitive game of pool. The physicist drew the lines on the felt in chalk, and made determinations before every shot. You can easily imagine who actually won. The point is that the study of God’s law in the abstract could be compared to the contemplation of the physics of pool. Within the confines of 2 Tim 2:
[5] And if a man also strive for masteries, yet is he not crowned, except he strive lawfully.
…a baptized believer with an IQ of 90, can visit the sick, feed the hungry, and in his own right confront the vices of pride and the love of money, and (as he gets experience, and decides to eradicate various weaknesses in his own heart,) he may surpass me 10 times over. So knowing God’s law, and meditating in it should not be considered the end of the commandment. Ps 1:
[1] Blessed is the man that walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly, nor standeth in the way of sinners, nor sitteth in the seat of the scornful.
[2] But his delight is in the law of the LORD; and in his law doth he meditate day and night.
…implies that if one does contemplate God’s law, the blessing that starts vs 1 will apply. It’s not a simple “either/or” proposition. But not all students of the rule book of football are setting themselves up as referees: some of them are still players.
When I approach someone initially with a question in my mind as to their interest on the issue, I make a practice of asking them about what they mean by the term “Hope.” If they identify that there is no way, and hope is a long shot I generally add time for study. When a person says, “You know: if there is to be any hope, there must be SOME WAY to obey adequately,” then is the time I contemplate introducing them to this discussion. On that note, I’ll take my leave of you.
A biblical treatment on Slavery
In previous posts, we have talked about “Reductio Ad Absurdum,” and taking evil to extremes in Satanism. To recap, you might use the ctrl-F feature in your browser to search “cannot do good,” in the Satanist article, and re-read that paragraph. This is Biblically observed in Jno 8:
[34] Jesus answered them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin.
By looking at the Greek, we see that this word “servant” is directly translated from the Greek word “slave.” The apostle Paul addresses the discussion in Ro 6:
[16] Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?
[17] But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you.
[18] Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness.
.
.
.
[20] For when ye were the servants of sin, ye were free from righteousness.
By stepping back mentally for a moment to observe a trend, we may observe here that both righteousness and sin tend toward extremes. While the English allows for some leeway, the Greek is almost totalitarian about it. I used to think that this meant that the Bible did not speak against slavery. Since Christians were going to be slaves of righteousness, and sinners were going to be slaves of sin, slavery was not that bad, and the manifestation of it in society was merely an extension of spiritual law. This harmonized with a pacifist background and the decision that I would submit to slavery rather than commit the violence of fighting in a war. In point of fact, the Apostle Paul DOES speak against slavery, in 2 Cor 3:
17] Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.
This leads to two questions.
- How can we both be a servant/slave of righteousness and enjoy any kind of liberty.
- Why didn’t Paul free slaves, since he had the authority as an Apostle to literally order Christian brethren to free at least their own slaves, whether they were brethren or not.
I will deal with the second question first. Paul was a Roman citizen (Acts 2:25,26.) The Roman government used slavery as a form of dominion. As such, IF Paul had advocated against slavery by spiritual authority THEN he would have been opposing the Roman government outside the developed system for advocating change in law. Since God did not put him in a position to unilaterally rule against slavery as a practice, fair application could not lead Paul to order some people to free their slaves and not others. Self consistently with the surprising fact that Paul spoke against slavery in
[10] I beseech thee for my son Onesimus, whom I have begotten in my bonds:
[11] Which in time past was to thee unprofitable, but now profitable to thee and to me:
[12] Whom I have sent again: thou therefore receive him, that is, mine own bowels:
[13] Whom I would have retained with me, that in thy stead he might have ministered unto me in the bonds of the gospel:
[14] But without thy mind would I do nothing; that thy benefit should not be as it were of necessity, but willingly.
[15] For perhaps he therefore departed for a season, that thou shouldest receive him for ever;
[16] Not now as a servant, but above a servant, a brother beloved, specially to me, but how much more unto thee, both in the flesh, and in the Lord?
[17] If thou count me therefore a partner, receive him as myself.
[18] If he hath wronged thee, or oweth thee ought, put that on mine account;
[19] I Paul have written it with mine own hand, I will repay it: albeit I do not say to thee how thou owest unto me even thine own self besides.
[20] Yea, brother, let me have joy of thee in the Lord: refresh my bowels in the Lord.
The next verse might be used to imply that there was in fact an imperative. This is improbable, because the same advocate was here returning a runaway slave to his master. It might be interesting to learn exactly what Roman law had to say about the situation. If there was no command, then there was indeed choice on Philemon’s part. This finds no abstract discord from the statement “…where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty;” it simply allows that the Roman government was not universally imbued with the Spirit of the Lord.
This leads into a similar “synthesis,” in the discussion of being a servant/slave of righteousness. By choosing freedom from sin we choose righteousness and (as righteousness is taken to the extreme,) there is not license for sin anymore. This leads an extremist Christian to the unbridled pursuit of excellence in spiritual life.
What truly can be said to represent excellence in Christianity? We “KNOW” that nobody is perfect. Jesus was perfect, but he was an exception to the rule of sin itself. This is most commonly observed in Ro 7:
[14] For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin.
[15] For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do
[16] If then I do that which I would not, I consent unto the law that it is good.
[17] Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.
[18] For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not.
[19] For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do.
[20] Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.
You will notice that I put the word “KNOW” in quotes. I hope to raise a doubt as to this point, by questioning the popular conception of the definition of the word “perfect,” in my next article. I would like to close with the parting observation that although Paul is very conflicted in the Romans 7 passage, he does not neglect to observe freedom of choice in vs 18, “to will is present with me;”
Monday, December 8, 2008
What is the Gospel?
For anyone who has been checking this blog for updates, I’ll apologize for a nine month delay of silence. For those “catching up,” in future, I’ll simply observe for posterity that there have been some trying times. The topic of today’s discussion is the question, “What, exactly, is the Gospel?” We call the first four books of the bible “The Gospels,” and they truly tell the biographical story of Jesus’ time on earth. However, a biography doesn’t really define a term. The term might be simply a proper noun like the Hadith of Muhammad.
The Christian cannot fail to infer that the word “Gospel,” is intended to have special meaning, because at the very end of the book of Mark it is used in a special context. The occasion was that of Christ’s final leave taking of his apostles. By combining information from more than one account we can form a more complete picture of the circumstances. In Acts chapter one verse two, we establish that the time we will now discuss was “the day in which he (Jesus Christ) was taken up.” Verse [3] To whom also he shewed himself alive after his passion (the biblical word for his death, and the reason for the name of the movie,) by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days (time frame from resurrection to departure,) and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God: In the verses that follow, Luke abbreviates the story of the closing days of Christ’s stay on earth AFTER his resurrection.
[6] When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?
[7] And he said unto them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power.
[8] But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.
[9] And when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight.
[10] And while they looked stedfastly toward heaven as he went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel;
[11] Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven.
[12] Then returned they unto Jerusalem from the mount called Olivet, which is from Jerusalem a sabbath day's journey.
Mark’s account of the same time frame (also abbreviated,) picks up in Chapter 16: [9] Now when Jesus was risen early the first day of the week (part of a technical argument that he fulfilled prophecy,) he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had cast seven devils.
[10] And she went and told them that had been with him, as they mourned and wept.
[11] And they, when they had heard that he was alive, and had been seen of her, believed not.
[12] After that he appeared in another form unto two of them, as they walked, and went into the country.
[13] And they went and told it unto the residue: neither believed they them.
[14] Afterward he appeared unto the eleven (Judas Iscariot – the twelfth apostle had committed suicide,) as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen.
[15] And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.
[16] He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
.
.
.
[19] So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God.
The word from the original (coinae dialect) Greek that is translated “Gospel,” is to me, as to most people truly “all Greek.” There is a reference work called a concordance. Of these, a notable man named Strong developed one for the Bible that solves this problem creatively for those so inclined. Instead of an alphabetized dictionary of the Greek script, he numbered the words numerically. By plugging in the word “Gospel” in the appropriate field, we find a listing of all occurrences of the word Gospel in the New Testament (the Old Testament was written in Hebrew.) Since the number exceeds a convenient count, the list is broken up into four groups, each linked at the very bottom of the list. By tediously going through the whole list, we establish that the word is either 2098 or 2097 in almost every occurrence. For later reference, this is one of the simpler words to study, since it has few homophones, homonyms, and synonyms. By returning to the original main link, putting the bullet in “Greek,” instead of the default “Hebrew,” we can search 2097 in another field. What we can learn from the resulting search is that the word 2097 (and in this case conveniently collected relevant results,) is that this word 2097, is Gospel -> 2097/2098 (English to Greek,) but 2097 -> declare, bring glad tidings, bring good tidings, show glad tidings AND Gospel, in the Greek to English direction. Despite this daunting amount of data, looking to the left of the double hyphen, we can still be confident of the dictionary definition of this one Greek word. It is “to announce good news ("evangelize") especially the gospel.” All that to say this: The traditional definition of the word is “Good News.”
At this point, I want to make a parenthetical observation. As such, the following paragraphs will stand alone and not modify the discussion we have underway. They are intended to settle any hypothetical nerves, and restore confidence that we can know what the Bible says. I cannot indent due to formatting limitations, but I will specify when we return to the substance of the narrative. The English we read is a translation from the original language. By verifying from outside sources, we find that Jesus himself was in a similar situation. He had access to the Old Testament in Hebrew, but quoted and memorized from a translation of his own day into his native Aramaic called the Septuagint. Despite the fact that this was a translation, he used it rather rigorously. As the inspired son of God, I need to specify that he was in a more certain position to torture an analogy than we are. That being noted, he used it with astonishing confidence. By way of observation, we can first note that in Jno 10:35…
[34] Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?
[35] If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;
[36] Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?
…his own parenthetical comment was that “the scripture cannot be broken.” There are two places where we can go to establish that Christ put nothing less than complete faith in the text.
From there, we turn our attention to Mt 22:
[31] But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying,
[32] I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living.
[33] And when the multitude heard this, they were astonished at his doctrine.
On this occasion Jesus was arguing with a sect (or unique group) of the Jews called Sadducees. From context they were arguing that there was no resurrection from the dead (the preceding verse giving an interesting observation on the traditional phrase used in marriage vows “’til death do us part.”) Jesus’ argument that Abraham, Isaac and Jacob had eternal souls hinged on the tense of the verb “to be,” as used in the text. He implied that if the Patriarchs were dead “like the little dog rover (dead all over,)” then the text ought rightfully to read “I WAS the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.” The English word “astonished,” has meaning here, and denotes that the multitude understood something that was surprising from the boldness of the position. They could not have been surprised if they had not understood; if they had not understood they would have been mystified.
Jesus Christ was not alone in being able to argue syntactics. The apostle Paul turned right around and did the same thing in Gal chapter three. Picking up in verse
[11] But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live (be justified) by faith.
[12] And the law (Old Testament covenant made with Israel,) is not of faith: but, The man that doeth them shall live in them.
[13] Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:
[14] That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.
[15] Brethren, I speak after the manner of men; Though it be but a man's covenant, yet if it be confirmed, no man disannulleth, or addeth thereto.
[16] Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made (direct quote from Old Testament.) He saith not, And to seeds (plural,) as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed(singular,) which is Christ.
[17] And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of (by) God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.
[18] For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise: but God gave it to Abraham by promise.
[19] Wherefore then serveth the (Old Testament) law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.
[20] Now a mediator is not a mediator of one, but God is one.
[21] Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law.
[22] But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.
This passage is pretty thick with semiotic argumentation. What I have done is lifted exactly one of them out of the text for observation. On that point, Paul is arguing that the promise God made to Abraham and to his seed meant “Abraham and Christ,” NOT “Abraham and all his descendants.”
For clarity I have italicized the narrative of the discussion, and underlined that Paul was not calling on some kind of moral superiority, but rather regarded something about the discussion to be demeaning. I’ll conclude by supplying that “the promise by faith…given to all them that believe,” was forgiveness. The blue text in verse eleven shows that the Old Testament was given for a reason independent of faith, and was not independently sufficient for “justification.” I might profit from a more intensive study of that word. Use Jas 2:24 to understand that while faith was required for justification, it was not sufficient in and of itself, and I hope I have answered more questions than I have raised.
Returning then to the discussion of the word Gospel: It means “Good News” but of all the various themes and stories of the New Testament, which one can we say distills the essence of the relevant newsflash? As Christians we cannot ignore the responsibility of deciding what it is, because of I Pet 3: [15] But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of (for) the hope that is in you with meekness and fear: What is the hope that is in us? We hope for salvation from spiritual death and associated punishment in Hell. How can we even begin to hope for this when Ro 6: [23] For the wages of sin is (spiritual) death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. True, God has given us the promise of eternal life “through” Jesus Christ our Lord, but how was it delivered? Since Jesus paid our debt of sin on the cross, New Testament Christians have something that Old Testament Jews did not have: namely FORGIVENESS. (Heb 10: [4] For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.) For further study, contemplate that the sins of Old Testament Jews were rolled forward chronologically by blood sacrifice using a principle embodied in the term “scapegoat.” I hope that anyone reading this will find the Gospel to be abridged synoptically in the sentence “In the New Testament, we now have forgiveness of sins.” This is important when approaching the Jew or the Atheist, but it should not be overlooked in approaching the Muslim as well. The Quoran has no precedent for forgiveness, making the Islamic religion one of works and penance; a constant effort to compensate for bad deeds with good. If the Muslim has any desire for forgiveness he arguably will find this a very attractive quality of Christianity. I will stipulate that the best place to begin presenting the New Testament to a Muslim is the book of Luke (starting at Chapter One, verse One,) because the story of Zacharias (the father of John the Baptist – Jesus’ cousin,) has a parallel in the life of Muhammad.
In closing, let’s review how this forgiveness is acquired. In Mk 16: [15] And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.
[16] He that believeth (faith) and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
We have just established what exactly should be the content of the message preached. The Gospel is the good news that men can now have forgiveness of sins. The meaning of verse 16 is best illuminated using tautology. The first clause can be restated: IF faith AND baptized THEN saved. The contrapositive to this statement is: IF NOT saved THEN (either) NOT faith OR NOT baptized (by DeMorgan’s Laws.) Since the second clause takes a different form, logically it can be said to contain new information. It can be restated: IF NOT faith THEN NOT saved. If you build a truth table, you can find out that most people stumble by trying to argue what is called the converse in the technical sense. This is properly stated: IF saved THEN [(both) faith AND baptized (and nothing else at all.)] By rule of logic, the converse is not implied from the statement. By reviewing other scriptures, this is confirmed by the observation that Grace and Hope (among other less specific things,) are also involved in salvation. If the verse read “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; he that does not believe and is not baptized shall be damned,” then we would be able from rules of logic to conclude that Grace is not necessary for salvation. I personally have always found the agreement in logic of biblical statements to be remarkable, and a good reason to conclude that it was intelligently written.
I hope to come back soon with more “stuff.” I’ve been getting ideas and writing them down. The “Great white bull,” makes it hard to get started sometimes, but “God willing and the creek don’t rise,” there will be more to come soon. L8r.
The Christian cannot fail to infer that the word “Gospel,” is intended to have special meaning, because at the very end of the book of Mark it is used in a special context. The occasion was that of Christ’s final leave taking of his apostles. By combining information from more than one account we can form a more complete picture of the circumstances. In Acts chapter one verse two, we establish that the time we will now discuss was “the day in which he (Jesus Christ) was taken up.” Verse [3] To whom also he shewed himself alive after his passion (the biblical word for his death, and the reason for the name of the movie,) by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days (time frame from resurrection to departure,) and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God: In the verses that follow, Luke abbreviates the story of the closing days of Christ’s stay on earth AFTER his resurrection.
[6] When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?
[7] And he said unto them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power.
[8] But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.
[9] And when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight.
[10] And while they looked stedfastly toward heaven as he went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel;
[11] Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven.
[12] Then returned they unto Jerusalem from the mount called Olivet, which is from Jerusalem a sabbath day's journey.
Mark’s account of the same time frame (also abbreviated,) picks up in Chapter 16: [9] Now when Jesus was risen early the first day of the week (part of a technical argument that he fulfilled prophecy,) he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had cast seven devils.
[10] And she went and told them that had been with him, as they mourned and wept.
[11] And they, when they had heard that he was alive, and had been seen of her, believed not.
[12] After that he appeared in another form unto two of them, as they walked, and went into the country.
[13] And they went and told it unto the residue: neither believed they them.
[14] Afterward he appeared unto the eleven (Judas Iscariot – the twelfth apostle had committed suicide,) as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen.
[15] And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.
[16] He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
.
.
.
[19] So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God.
The word from the original (coinae dialect) Greek that is translated “Gospel,” is to me, as to most people truly “all Greek.” There is a reference work called a concordance. Of these, a notable man named Strong developed one for the Bible that solves this problem creatively for those so inclined. Instead of an alphabetized dictionary of the Greek script, he numbered the words numerically. By plugging in the word “Gospel” in the appropriate field, we find a listing of all occurrences of the word Gospel in the New Testament (the Old Testament was written in Hebrew.) Since the number exceeds a convenient count, the list is broken up into four groups, each linked at the very bottom of the list. By tediously going through the whole list, we establish that the word is either 2098 or 2097 in almost every occurrence. For later reference, this is one of the simpler words to study, since it has few homophones, homonyms, and synonyms. By returning to the original main link, putting the bullet in “Greek,” instead of the default “Hebrew,” we can search 2097 in another field. What we can learn from the resulting search is that the word 2097 (and in this case conveniently collected relevant results,) is that this word 2097, is Gospel -> 2097/2098 (English to Greek,) but 2097 -> declare, bring glad tidings, bring good tidings, show glad tidings AND Gospel, in the Greek to English direction. Despite this daunting amount of data, looking to the left of the double hyphen, we can still be confident of the dictionary definition of this one Greek word. It is “to announce good news ("evangelize") especially the gospel.” All that to say this: The traditional definition of the word is “Good News.”
At this point, I want to make a parenthetical observation. As such, the following paragraphs will stand alone and not modify the discussion we have underway. They are intended to settle any hypothetical nerves, and restore confidence that we can know what the Bible says. I cannot indent due to formatting limitations, but I will specify when we return to the substance of the narrative. The English we read is a translation from the original language. By verifying from outside sources, we find that Jesus himself was in a similar situation. He had access to the Old Testament in Hebrew, but quoted and memorized from a translation of his own day into his native Aramaic called the Septuagint. Despite the fact that this was a translation, he used it rather rigorously. As the inspired son of God, I need to specify that he was in a more certain position to torture an analogy than we are. That being noted, he used it with astonishing confidence. By way of observation, we can first note that in Jno 10:35…
[34] Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?
[35] If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;
[36] Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?
…his own parenthetical comment was that “the scripture cannot be broken.” There are two places where we can go to establish that Christ put nothing less than complete faith in the text.
From there, we turn our attention to Mt 22:
[31] But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying,
[32] I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living.
[33] And when the multitude heard this, they were astonished at his doctrine.
On this occasion Jesus was arguing with a sect (or unique group) of the Jews called Sadducees. From context they were arguing that there was no resurrection from the dead (the preceding verse giving an interesting observation on the traditional phrase used in marriage vows “’til death do us part.”) Jesus’ argument that Abraham, Isaac and Jacob had eternal souls hinged on the tense of the verb “to be,” as used in the text. He implied that if the Patriarchs were dead “like the little dog rover (dead all over,)” then the text ought rightfully to read “I WAS the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.” The English word “astonished,” has meaning here, and denotes that the multitude understood something that was surprising from the boldness of the position. They could not have been surprised if they had not understood; if they had not understood they would have been mystified.
Jesus Christ was not alone in being able to argue syntactics. The apostle Paul turned right around and did the same thing in Gal chapter three. Picking up in verse
[11] But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live (be justified) by faith.
[12] And the law (Old Testament covenant made with Israel,) is not of faith: but, The man that doeth them shall live in them.
[13] Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:
[14] That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.
[15] Brethren, I speak after the manner of men; Though it be but a man's covenant, yet if it be confirmed, no man disannulleth, or addeth thereto.
[16] Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made (direct quote from Old Testament.) He saith not, And to seeds (plural,) as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed(singular,) which is Christ.
[17] And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of (by) God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.
[18] For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise: but God gave it to Abraham by promise.
[19] Wherefore then serveth the (Old Testament) law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.
[20] Now a mediator is not a mediator of one, but God is one.
[21] Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law.
[22] But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.
This passage is pretty thick with semiotic argumentation. What I have done is lifted exactly one of them out of the text for observation. On that point, Paul is arguing that the promise God made to Abraham and to his seed meant “Abraham and Christ,” NOT “Abraham and all his descendants.”
For clarity I have italicized the narrative of the discussion, and underlined that Paul was not calling on some kind of moral superiority, but rather regarded something about the discussion to be demeaning. I’ll conclude by supplying that “the promise by faith…given to all them that believe,” was forgiveness. The blue text in verse eleven shows that the Old Testament was given for a reason independent of faith, and was not independently sufficient for “justification.” I might profit from a more intensive study of that word. Use Jas 2:24 to understand that while faith was required for justification, it was not sufficient in and of itself, and I hope I have answered more questions than I have raised.
Returning then to the discussion of the word Gospel: It means “Good News” but of all the various themes and stories of the New Testament, which one can we say distills the essence of the relevant newsflash? As Christians we cannot ignore the responsibility of deciding what it is, because of I Pet 3: [15] But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of (for) the hope that is in you with meekness and fear: What is the hope that is in us? We hope for salvation from spiritual death and associated punishment in Hell. How can we even begin to hope for this when Ro 6: [23] For the wages of sin is (spiritual) death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. True, God has given us the promise of eternal life “through” Jesus Christ our Lord, but how was it delivered? Since Jesus paid our debt of sin on the cross, New Testament Christians have something that Old Testament Jews did not have: namely FORGIVENESS. (Heb 10: [4] For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.) For further study, contemplate that the sins of Old Testament Jews were rolled forward chronologically by blood sacrifice using a principle embodied in the term “scapegoat.” I hope that anyone reading this will find the Gospel to be abridged synoptically in the sentence “In the New Testament, we now have forgiveness of sins.” This is important when approaching the Jew or the Atheist, but it should not be overlooked in approaching the Muslim as well. The Quoran has no precedent for forgiveness, making the Islamic religion one of works and penance; a constant effort to compensate for bad deeds with good. If the Muslim has any desire for forgiveness he arguably will find this a very attractive quality of Christianity. I will stipulate that the best place to begin presenting the New Testament to a Muslim is the book of Luke (starting at Chapter One, verse One,) because the story of Zacharias (the father of John the Baptist – Jesus’ cousin,) has a parallel in the life of Muhammad.
In closing, let’s review how this forgiveness is acquired. In Mk 16: [15] And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.
[16] He that believeth (faith) and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
We have just established what exactly should be the content of the message preached. The Gospel is the good news that men can now have forgiveness of sins. The meaning of verse 16 is best illuminated using tautology. The first clause can be restated: IF faith AND baptized THEN saved. The contrapositive to this statement is: IF NOT saved THEN (either) NOT faith OR NOT baptized (by DeMorgan’s Laws.) Since the second clause takes a different form, logically it can be said to contain new information. It can be restated: IF NOT faith THEN NOT saved. If you build a truth table, you can find out that most people stumble by trying to argue what is called the converse in the technical sense. This is properly stated: IF saved THEN [(both) faith AND baptized (and nothing else at all.)] By rule of logic, the converse is not implied from the statement. By reviewing other scriptures, this is confirmed by the observation that Grace and Hope (among other less specific things,) are also involved in salvation. If the verse read “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; he that does not believe and is not baptized shall be damned,” then we would be able from rules of logic to conclude that Grace is not necessary for salvation. I personally have always found the agreement in logic of biblical statements to be remarkable, and a good reason to conclude that it was intelligently written.
I hope to come back soon with more “stuff.” I’ve been getting ideas and writing them down. The “Great white bull,” makes it hard to get started sometimes, but “God willing and the creek don’t rise,” there will be more to come soon. L8r.
Wednesday, March 26, 2008
David and Bathsheba
King David was already King when he stumbled in the matter of Bathsheba. He waited a long time to be crowned… how long I can’t recall.
Pr 13: [12] Hope deferred maketh the heart sick: but when the desire cometh, it is a tree of life.
Yet during all that time of trial, he did not stray during hardship. He served Saul in a way that returned good for evil
Mt 7: [12] Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.
…not evil for good
1 Sam 25: [21] Now David had said, Surely in vain have I kept all that this fellow hath in the wilderness, so that nothing was missed of all that pertained unto him: and he hath requited me evil for good.
Pr 17: [13] Whoso rewardeth evil for good, evil shall not depart from his house.
Despite this stellar track record, David departed from his pursuit of spiritual excellence in the matter of Uriah and Bathsheba.
1 Ki 15: [5] Because David did that which was right in the eyes of the LORD, and turned not aside from any thing that he commanded him all the days of his life, save only in the matter of Uriah the Hittite.
When he did stray, the God of Israel took the time to correct him with a personal messenger:
2 Sam 12: [1] And the LORD sent Nathan unto David. And he came unto him, and said unto him, There were two men in one city; the one rich, and the other poor.
[2] The rich man had exceeding many flocks and herds:
[3] But the poor man had nothing, save one little ewe lamb, which he had bought and nourished up: and it grew up together with him, and with his children; it did eat of his own meat, and drank of his own cup, and lay in his bosom, and was unto him as a daughter.
[4] And there came a traveller unto the rich man, and he spared to take of his own flock and of his own herd, to dress for the wayfaring man that was come unto him; but took the poor man's lamb, and dressed it for the man that was come to him.
[5] And David's anger was greatly kindled against the man; and he said to Nathan, As the LORD liveth, the man that hath done this thing shall surely die:
[6] And he shall restore the lamb fourfold, because he did this thing, and because he had no pity.
[7] And Nathan said to David, Thou art the man. Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, I anointed thee king over Israel, and I delivered thee out of the hand of Saul;
[8] And I gave thee thy master's house, and thy master's wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things.
[9] Wherefore hast thou despised the commandment of the LORD, to do evil in his sight? thou hast killed Uriah the Hittite with the sword, and hast taken his wife to be thy wife, and hast slain him with the sword of the children of Ammon.
[10] Now therefore the sword shall never depart from thine house; because thou hast despised me, and hast taken the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be thy wife.
[11] Thus saith the LORD, Behold, I will raise up evil against thee out of thine own house, and I will take thy wives before thine eyes, and give them unto thy neighbour, and he shall lie with thy wives in the sight of this sun.
[12] For thou didst it secretly: but I will do this thing before all
[13] And David said unto Nathan, I have sinned against the LORD. And Nathan said unto David, The LORD also hath put away thy sin; thou shalt not die.
[14] Howbeit, because by this deed thou hast given great occasion to the enemies of the LORD to blaspheme, the child also that is born unto thee shall surely die.
[15] And Nathan departed unto his house. And the LORD struck the child that Uriah's wife bare unto David, and it was very sick.
David’s punishment was going to be severe, even if he had not lost Solomon’s older brother. This evidently was more than he knew how to accept without petition for mercy.
[16] David therefore besought God for the child; and David fasted, and went in, and lay all night upon the earth.
[17] And the elders of his house arose, and went to him, to raise him up from the earth: but he would not, neither did he eat bread with them.
[18] And it came to pass on the seventh day, that the child died. And the servants of David feared to tell him that the child was dead: for they said, Behold, while the child was yet alive, we spake unto him, and he would not hearken unto our voice: how will he then vex himself, if we tell him that the child is dead?
[19] But when David saw that his servants whispered, David perceived that the child was dead: therefore David said unto his servants, Is the child dead? And they said, He is dead.
[20] Then David arose from the earth, and washed, and anointed himself, and changed his apparel, and came into the house of the LORD, and worshipped: then he came to his own house; and when he required, they set bread before him, and he did eat.
[21] Then said his servants unto him, What thing is this that thou hast done? thou didst fast and weep for the child, while it was alive; but when the child was dead, thou didst rise and eat bread.
[22] And he said, While the child was yet alive, I fasted and wept: for I said, Who can tell whether GOD will be gracious to me, that the child may live?
[23] But now he is dead, wherefore should I fast? can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he shall not return to me.
Here David entreated God while he might have shown mercy, but when he did not, he accepted God’s punishment without further complaint. In verse 23, David did not say he was not contrite, but that he understood that he would see the child in heaven; death was not an eternal separation. It is interesting to observe that God speaks of the affair in terms of “the matter of Uriah the Hittite,” not “the matter of adultery,” or “Bathsheba.” If he had not killed Uriah, his sin would have been less egregious while still a sin. In
Ps 51: [1] Have mercy upon me, O God, according to thy lovingkindness: according unto the multitude of thy tender mercies blot out my transgressions.
[2] Wash me throughly from mine iniquity, and cleanse me from my sin.
[3] For I acknowledge my transgressions: and my sin is ever before me.
[4] Against thee, thee only, have I sinned, and done this evil in thy sight: that thou mightest be justified when thou speakest, and be clear when thou judgest.
David here saw that his sin was primarily against his maker.
[5] Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.
[6] Behold, thou desirest truth in the inward parts: and in the hidden part thou shalt make me to know wisdom.
[7] Purge me with hyssop, and I shall be clean: wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow.
[8] Make me to hear joy and gladness; that the bones which thou hast broken may rejoice.
[9] Hide thy face from my sins, and blot out all mine iniquities.
Hyssop was some pretty potent stuff as I recall from reading, but not necessarily pleasant in its application.
Pr 17: [22] A merry heart doeth good like a medicine: but a broken spirit drieth the bones.
Since we know from Proverbs that a broken spirit dries the bones, it is understood that by referring to his bones being broken, David is confessing a sincerely broken spirit.
Ps 51:[10] Create in me a clean heart, O God; and renew a right spirit within me.
[11] Cast me not away from thy presence; and take not thy holy spirit from me.
[12] Restore unto me the joy of thy salvation; and uphold me with thy free spirit.
[13] Then will I teach transgressors thy ways; and sinners shall be converted unto thee.
[14] Deliver me from bloodguiltiness, O God, thou God of my salvation: and my tongue shall sing aloud of thy righteousness.
[15] O Lord, open thou my lips; and my mouth shall shew forth thy praise.
[16] For thou desirest not sacrifice; else would I give it: thou delightest not in burnt offering.
[17] The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit: a broken and a contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not despise.
In verse 17, he speaks by inspiration that God will not despise a broken and contrite heart. God’s incentive is in verse13, and David’s request is in verse 12.
Ezekiel may shed some light on what was going on at the time of David.
Ez 13: [18] And say, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Woe to the women that sew pillows to all armholes, and make kerchiefs upon the head of every stature to hunt souls! Will ye hunt the souls of my people, and will ye save the souls alive that come unto you?
[19] And will ye pollute me among my people for handfuls of barley and for pieces of bread, to slay the souls that should not die, and to save the souls alive that should not live, by your lying to my people that hear your lies?
[20] Wherefore thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I am against your pillows, wherewith ye there hunt the souls to make them fly, and I will tear them from your arms, and will let the souls go, even the souls that ye hunt to make them fly.
[21] Your kerchiefs also will I tear, and deliver my people out of your hand, and they shall be no more in your hand to be hunted; and ye shall know that I am the LORD.
[22] Because with lies ye have made the heart of the righteous sad, whom I have not made sad; and strengthened the hands of the wicked, that he should not return from his wicked way, by promising him life:
[23] Therefore ye shall see no more vanity, nor divine divinations: for I will deliver my people out of your hand: and ye shall know that I am the LORD.
I hesitate to highlight or explain; verse 18 is (as all scripture,) “…of no private interpretation,” (2 Pet 1: [20] Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.) That being said, I am not sure what all should be said about these women, or what they should have done. The persons who make the righteous sad with lies are the ones who I see as accursed. I speculate that this is the kind of environment in which David found himself at the time of his transgression with Bathsheba. God did not overlook it, but he afterward said of Solomon that…
1 Ki 11: [4] For it came to pass, when Solomon was old, that his wives turned away his heart after other gods: and his heart was not perfect with the LORD his God, as was the heart of David his father.
David was forgiven, but paid a terrible price. He is one of five notables in the Old Testament that God called perfect by his own definition. No
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)