We as Christians are commanded: Jno 7:
[24] Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment.
This implies that we who read the Bible, from New Testament times until now, are capable (like Adam and Eve) of distinguishing between good and evil. To judge something it is necessary first to observe it. To observe good and evil, we look to the passage Eph 5:
[10] Proving what is acceptable unto the Lord.
[11] And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them.
[12] For it is a shame even to speak of those things which are done of them in secret.
[13] But all things that are reproved are made manifest by the light: for whatsoever doth make manifest is light.
Zoning in on the light aspect, we see that when something is made manifest, it is because of a light source. I expect this is what Christ meant when he said Jno 8:
[12] Then spake Jesus again unto them, saying, I am the light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life.
After noting that his audience proceeded to address potential paradox from the statement itself (specifically a paradox deriving from self-reference,) we observe that he did not neglect to reprove such evil as he observed. Under these circumstances, it is actually peculiar that Christ actually enjoyed popularity at one time. We know that he was hated by Jno 15:
[17] These things I command you, that ye love one another.
[18] If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you.
[19] If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you.
Without chasing after the cause of this reaction, what leads me to observe that this discontent ever wintered? Without demanding too much of credulity, we should agree that his Jewish brethren thought he should fulfill prophecy by becoming a king in Jno 6:
[15] When Jesus therefore perceived that they would come and take him by force, to make him a king, he departed again into a mountain himself alone.
Why didn't he consent? Jesus' own opinion of this is recorded from his crucifixion trial as follows: Jno 18:
[36] Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.
As an aside, we take a moment to conclude an expected characteristic of an earthly kingdom: its adherents are expected to defend it with violence if necessary. National Security for the Nation of Israel was not absent from consideration. God commented on the subject later by observing 1 Cor 2:
[7] But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory:
[8] Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.
To be faithful to the truth, I think we should agree that IF the death of Christ was for National Security interests, the timing must be suspect... the Nation was destroyed soon after anyway. I speculate that this problem with security derived from Christ substituting his own priorities over those of his leaders with regard to this matter of "making evil manifest," in order to rebuke it. When it is in the National interest to expose evil, all unite to do so. However, just as exposing it is needed for Government, it is occasionally necessary to conceal it. On these occasions, a patriot turns to other pursuits. A good rule of thumb for this would be informed by the passage: Pr 11:
[12] He that is void of wisdom despiseth his neighbour: but a man of understanding holdeth his peace.
[13] A talebearer revealeth secrets: but he that is of a faithful spirit concealeth the matter.
Under these conditions, it is predictable that evil minions will invoke National Security interests until they destroy it from crying wolf.
If wrath turns to bitterness overnight, like wine turns to vinegar when left exposed to air, we should be glad to note that in Rev 14:
[10] The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb:
...God will be broaching fresh his canned recriminations... they will not be stale.
Until that day, we know that bitterness is not all we know on earth, Pr 14:
[10] The heart knoweth his own bitterness; and a stranger doth not intermeddle with his joy.
In a parallel argument, all foretastes of glory (Heb 6:4) are not alone on earth either; on earth, no matter how bad consequences get, no matter how hyssopy the chastening of the Lord, Hell will be worse. On those days, I consider well and argue: If Hell will be worse, this is my incentive not to go there.
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
Monday, January 19, 2009
What is a "program of hatred?"
We find that when God loves us he corrects us: Heb 12:
[5] And ye have forgotten the exhortation which speaketh unto you as unto children, My son, despise not thou the chastening of the Lord, nor faint when thou art rebuked of him:
[6] For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth.
Satan is not so faithful. When our brethren correct us harshly, rather than with kindness, we need to look at the example of David Ps 141:
[5] Let the righteous smite me; it shall be a kindness: and let him reprove me; it shall be an excellent oil, which shall not break my head: for yet my prayer also shall be in their calamities.
This is a contrast to the observation of his son that Pr 12:
[10] A righteous man regardeth the life of his beast: but the tender mercies of the wicked are cruel.
Rather than try to evaluate individuals on the quality of their correction, consider groups of people like Americans or Psychologists to test this rule.
We see then that to refuse correction is an available way to show hatred. I'll cite rule 4 of the "Nine Satanic Statements," web site: churchofsatan.com. I do not link, because the website doesn't lend itself to specific references... individuals have to search from home page. I assist the Satanists badly in propogating their sentiments, by observing that "d" comes before "s" in the alphabet, and telling friends of "The nine statements of deceit," and the "Eleven rules of selfishness."
If we choose to use the refusal to correct to demonstrate hatred, we may fall to a temptation the author can confess. Being a child in my father's house, I was at liberty to obey him, and refuse any offer at correction. This potential "program of hatred," is also available to the wife in a family. Since Adam's responsibility has not been much limited by requirements of feedback, it might look like the father in the family is under too heavy a burden of responsibility. His children are required to obey 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;)
and husbands are required to overlook offenses of the wife to the exent that they love them in the face of bitterness Col 3:
[18] Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as it is fit in the Lord.
[19] Husbands, love your wives, and be not bitter against them.
Consider that even though the father and husband may be getting limited feedback if he chooses not to listen, it is he himself issuing directives and instructions. For the loving wife, the avenue of feedback goes through 1 Cor 14:
[35] And if they (women) will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.
The verse that precedes this by a little bit is also instructive: 1 Cor 14:
[33] For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.
Let's review 1 Cor 13, and renew our commitment to love.
[5] And ye have forgotten the exhortation which speaketh unto you as unto children, My son, despise not thou the chastening of the Lord, nor faint when thou art rebuked of him:
[6] For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth.
Satan is not so faithful. When our brethren correct us harshly, rather than with kindness, we need to look at the example of David Ps 141:
[5] Let the righteous smite me; it shall be a kindness: and let him reprove me; it shall be an excellent oil, which shall not break my head: for yet my prayer also shall be in their calamities.
This is a contrast to the observation of his son that Pr 12:
[10] A righteous man regardeth the life of his beast: but the tender mercies of the wicked are cruel.
Rather than try to evaluate individuals on the quality of their correction, consider groups of people like Americans or Psychologists to test this rule.
We see then that to refuse correction is an available way to show hatred. I'll cite rule 4 of the "Nine Satanic Statements," web site: churchofsatan.com. I do not link, because the website doesn't lend itself to specific references... individuals have to search from home page. I assist the Satanists badly in propogating their sentiments, by observing that "d" comes before "s" in the alphabet, and telling friends of "The nine statements of deceit," and the "Eleven rules of selfishness."
If we choose to use the refusal to correct to demonstrate hatred, we may fall to a temptation the author can confess. Being a child in my father's house, I was at liberty to obey him, and refuse any offer at correction. This potential "program of hatred," is also available to the wife in a family. Since Adam's responsibility has not been much limited by requirements of feedback, it might look like the father in the family is under too heavy a burden of responsibility. His children are required to obey 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;)
and husbands are required to overlook offenses of the wife to the exent that they love them in the face of bitterness Col 3:
[18] Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as it is fit in the Lord.
[19] Husbands, love your wives, and be not bitter against them.
Consider that even though the father and husband may be getting limited feedback if he chooses not to listen, it is he himself issuing directives and instructions. For the loving wife, the avenue of feedback goes through 1 Cor 14:
[35] And if they (women) will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.
The verse that precedes this by a little bit is also instructive: 1 Cor 14:
[33] For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.
Let's review 1 Cor 13, and renew our commitment to love.
Why we should act to do good.
Paul, the Apostle author was tempted with Pride. 2 Cor 12:
[6] For though I would desire to glory, I shall not be a fool; for I will say the truth: but now I forbear, lest any man should think of me above that which he seeth me to be, or that he heareth of me.
[7] And lest I should be exalted above measure through the abundance of the revelations, there was given to me a thorn in the flesh, the messenger of Satan to buffet me, lest I should be exalted above measure.
As such, he was documenting a certain humility when he observed in 1 Cor 9:
[27] But I keep under my body, and bring it into subjection: lest that by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway.
...that he could be a spiritual castaway. We know that Jas 1:
[27] Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.
As we have seen before this means that a person of 90 IQ has an equal chance of getting into heaven with the Apostle Paul. God honored Paul with the authorship of a generous fraction of the Bible. Did God write it well enough? We have observed this very blog to choose verses out from many different books in various orders. To resolve this apparent contradiction, we investigate our usage of text books. We have two kinds: What we commonly call textbooks, and reference works we more commonly call Manuals. These are each organized differently, and when an experienced practitioner of the field of study represented refers to either, he will rarely make a practice of reading either by chapter. This does not exempt students from the practice. (Why we should read the Bible.) As noted in the link, the Bible spends a good portion of its time on warnings. If God says "Don't do something," we want to be aware of it. However, if we stopped all actions or work to avoid offense, we might actually be excusing laziness. I can imagine a friend telling me,"I was at a job one time, and we researched a new way of chopping wood. We stood in just the right place, and used the ax at just the right angle, until all the chips fell in a pile just where we wanted them." We all know the expression to which I am alluding. How does God introduce the same discussion? Consider Pr 14:
[22] Do they not err that devise evil? but mercy and truth shall be to them that devise good.
We have seen before that Evil people don't really want to go to heaven, but what more can be known from this verse? We have investigated Grace, and I will suggest that God's favor is the reason that mercy and truth are extended to those devising good when they too err. Does this save us from consequence? Just as sin causes guilt and confession brings consequence, ill advised efforts at good are not without their repercussions. There is another verse we know quite well that reads (Ro 6:1)
[1] What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?
In Romans five, Paul is engaged in making another point, that is forgiveness comes because of Grace, but the point is equally pertinent to this discussion; we should not use potential forgiveness as license. On those occasions that we are in error and our brethren observe us, we hope for kind correction. It should however, still our tongue if we cannot tell them how to obey God better than they have done, once we take their trials and temptations into account. If we keep in mind that each works out his own salvation (Phil 2:12)
[12] Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.
...we should be equally aware of the passage that says in 1 Cor 3:
[12] Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble;
[13] Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is.
[14] If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward.
[15] If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.
I hope to address correction in my next post.
[6] For though I would desire to glory, I shall not be a fool; for I will say the truth: but now I forbear, lest any man should think of me above that which he seeth me to be, or that he heareth of me.
[7] And lest I should be exalted above measure through the abundance of the revelations, there was given to me a thorn in the flesh, the messenger of Satan to buffet me, lest I should be exalted above measure.
As such, he was documenting a certain humility when he observed in 1 Cor 9:
[27] But I keep under my body, and bring it into subjection: lest that by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway.
...that he could be a spiritual castaway. We know that Jas 1:
[27] Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.
As we have seen before
[22] Do they not err that devise evil? but mercy and truth shall be to them that devise good.
We have seen before that Evil people don't really want to go to heaven, but what more can be known from this verse? We have investigated Grace, and I will suggest that God's favor is the reason that mercy and truth are extended to those devising good when they too err. Does this save us from consequence? Just as sin causes guilt and confession brings consequence, ill advised efforts at good are not without their repercussions. There is another verse we know quite well that reads (Ro 6:1)
[1] What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?
In Romans five, Paul is engaged in making another point, that is forgiveness comes because of Grace, but the point is equally pertinent to this discussion; we should not use potential forgiveness as license. On those occasions that we are in error and our brethren observe us, we hope for kind correction. It should however, still our tongue if we cannot tell them how to obey God better than they have done, once we take their trials and temptations into account. If we keep in mind that each works out his own salvation (Phil 2:12)
[12] Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.
...we should be equally aware of the passage that says in 1 Cor 3:
[12] Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble;
[13] Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is.
[14] If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward.
[15] If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.
I hope to address correction in my next post.
Thursday, January 15, 2009
The Divine Right of Kings:
We have observed before that Heaven is a kingdom. In that regard, God is its Monarch. We have heard it said, "All power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." God is the sole exception to this worldly rule. Despite the fact that Heaven is going to be a kingdom, we find that on earth, kingdoms are a form of government much subject to abuse. For a kingdom to prosper it needs a wise and good King and tyrants find few checks and balances to obstruct them in a kingdom. Historically, the kingdom was not always an earthly construct. God first used Patriarchy to relate to mankind, then what I have humorously termed "Judiciocracy." The children of Israel themselves knew Monarchy, but God was their king, and they were not satisfied with his delegates. In Judges 17:
[6] In those days there was no king in Israel, but every man did that which was right in his own eyes.
...we see that there was actually no physical king. This is in line with the New Testament pattern that Christ invoked when he said in Jno 18:
[36] Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.
... that his servants would defend him on a national basis if he was an earthly king over a physical kingdom. God made a special relationship with the children of Israel because of their forefather Abraham, and he gave them laws accordingly to teach them spiritual lessons that he did not teach the "nations 'round about" them. We know from 1 Sam 8:
[5] And said unto him, Behold, thou art old, and thy sons walk not in thy ways: now make us a king to judge us like all the nations.
... that the nations the children of Israel observed around them had kingdoms, but that they regarded these Monarchs as serving in a Judicial capacity. God did not make himself difficult of entreaty, but rather explained to Samuel that it wasn't him, it was them, in verse
[7] And the LORD said unto Samuel, Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee: for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them. God showed that, whether by prescience or by foresight (due to observation of these surrounding nations,) he knew what was coming down the pike, and gratified them anyway:
[8] (God continues,) According to all the works which they have done since the day that I brought them up out of Egypt even unto this day, wherewith they have forsaken me, and served other gods, so do they also unto thee. (Subtext: Samuel, ever since I brought them out of Egypt we have had an on-again off-again relationship, and now they'll treat you just like they treated me!)
[9] Now therefore hearken unto their voice: howbeit yet protest solemnly unto them, and shew them the manner of the king that shall reign over them.
[10] And Samuel told all the words of the LORD unto the people that asked of him a king.
[11] And he said, This will be the manner of the king that shall reign over you: He will take your sons, and appoint them for himself, for his chariots, and to be his horsemen; and some shall run before his chariots.
[12] And he will appoint him captains over thousands, and captains over fifties; and will set them to ear his ground, and to reap his harvest, and to make his instruments of war, and instruments of his chariots.
[13] And he will take your daughters to be confectionaries, and to be cooks, and to be bakers.
[14] And he will take your fields, and your vineyards, and your oliveyards, even the best of them, and give them to his servants.
[15] And he will take the tenth of your seed, and of your vineyards, and give to his officers, and to his servants.
[16] And he will take your menservants, and your maidservants, and your goodliest young men, and your asses, and put them to his work.
[17] He will take the tenth of your sheep: and ye shall be his servants.
[18] And ye shall cry out in that day because of your king which ye shall have chosen you; and the LORD will not hear you in that day.
[19] Nevertheless the people refused to obey the voice of Samuel; and they said, Nay; but we will have a king over us;
[20] That we also may be like all the nations; and that our king may judge us, and go out before us, and fight our battles.
[21] And Samuel heard all the words of the people, and he rehearsed them in the ears of the LORD.
[22] And the LORD said to Samuel, Hearken unto their voice, and make them a king. And Samuel said unto the men of Israel, Go ye every man unto his city.
Thereafter, the anticipated problems did not indict God for negligence. Despite the observed fact that God did not attempt too recommend a Monarch who could be tempted with evil, all we have in the Bible is the story that Kingdoms didn't work out, not an explanation of why this should or should not be. This is a recurring theme in the Bible and King David observed it 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.
He knew before Paul of the New Testament, that the old law was glorious (2 Cor 3:
[7] But if the ministration of death, written and engraven in stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not stedfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance; which glory was to be done away:
[8] How shall not the ministration of the spirit be rather glorious?)
We all know the cliché that goes "Easy Come, Easy Go!" By this we mean that achievements that do not entail effort are not much valued in our hearts (Pr 13:
[11] Wealth gotten by vanity shall be diminished: but he that gathereth by labour shall increase.)
By the same rule, lesson learned too easily do not "stick." Combine that with the lesson that we obtain favor with God by suffering for his cause (1 Pet 2:20,) and we see that he has our best interest at heart in a wear out, rather than rust out arrangement on earth. This is echoed by other applications of teaching, most notably in Martial Arts. Rather than hold a student back in a helpless state of weakness, the teacher gives the student a set of rules under which the student is to abide, and then sets him a task or subjects him to adversity. Instead of allowing himself to break the rules, the talented martial artist abides under law, but in the process learns to investigate perspectives and viewpoints he might never have inspected without a limiting influence. Having observed the rule to apply outside a spiritual context, it is only left to observe that King David was fascinated by the Old Testament law in this way, and New Testament Apostle Paul, who had access to both found little to choose between them: Ps 19:[7] The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul...
[6] In those days there was no king in Israel, but every man did that which was right in his own eyes.
...we see that there was actually no physical king. This is in line with the New Testament pattern that Christ invoked when he said in Jno 18:
[36] Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.
... that his servants would defend him on a national basis if he was an earthly king over a physical kingdom. God made a special relationship with the children of Israel because of their forefather Abraham, and he gave them laws accordingly to teach them spiritual lessons that he did not teach the "nations 'round about" them. We know from 1 Sam 8:
[5] And said unto him, Behold, thou art old, and thy sons walk not in thy ways: now make us a king to judge us like all the nations.
... that the nations the children of Israel observed around them had kingdoms, but that they regarded these Monarchs as serving in a Judicial capacity. God did not make himself difficult of entreaty, but rather explained to Samuel that it wasn't him, it was them, in verse
[7] And the LORD said unto Samuel, Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee: for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them. God showed that, whether by prescience or by foresight (due to observation of these surrounding nations,) he knew what was coming down the pike, and gratified them anyway:
[8] (God continues,) According to all the works which they have done since the day that I brought them up out of Egypt even unto this day, wherewith they have forsaken me, and served other gods, so do they also unto thee. (Subtext: Samuel, ever since I brought them out of Egypt we have had an on-again off-again relationship, and now they'll treat you just like they treated me!)
[9] Now therefore hearken unto their voice: howbeit yet protest solemnly unto them, and shew them the manner of the king that shall reign over them.
[10] And Samuel told all the words of the LORD unto the people that asked of him a king.
[11] And he said, This will be the manner of the king that shall reign over you: He will take your sons, and appoint them for himself, for his chariots, and to be his horsemen; and some shall run before his chariots.
[12] And he will appoint him captains over thousands, and captains over fifties; and will set them to ear his ground, and to reap his harvest, and to make his instruments of war, and instruments of his chariots.
[13] And he will take your daughters to be confectionaries, and to be cooks, and to be bakers.
[14] And he will take your fields, and your vineyards, and your oliveyards, even the best of them, and give them to his servants.
[15] And he will take the tenth of your seed, and of your vineyards, and give to his officers, and to his servants.
[16] And he will take your menservants, and your maidservants, and your goodliest young men, and your asses, and put them to his work.
[17] He will take the tenth of your sheep: and ye shall be his servants.
[18] And ye shall cry out in that day because of your king which ye shall have chosen you; and the LORD will not hear you in that day.
[19] Nevertheless the people refused to obey the voice of Samuel; and they said, Nay; but we will have a king over us;
[20] That we also may be like all the nations; and that our king may judge us, and go out before us, and fight our battles.
[21] And Samuel heard all the words of the people, and he rehearsed them in the ears of the LORD.
[22] And the LORD said to Samuel, Hearken unto their voice, and make them a king. And Samuel said unto the men of Israel, Go ye every man unto his city.
Thereafter, the anticipated problems did not indict God for negligence. Despite the observed fact that God did not attempt too recommend a Monarch who could be tempted with evil, all we have in the Bible is the story that Kingdoms didn't work out, not an explanation of why this should or should not be. This is a recurring theme in the Bible and King David observed it 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.
He knew before Paul of the New Testament, that the old law was glorious (2 Cor 3:
[7] But if the ministration of death, written and engraven in stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not stedfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance; which glory was to be done away:
[8] How shall not the ministration of the spirit be rather glorious?)
We all know the cliché that goes "Easy Come, Easy Go!" By this we mean that achievements that do not entail effort are not much valued in our hearts (Pr 13:
[11] Wealth gotten by vanity shall be diminished: but he that gathereth by labour shall increase.)
By the same rule, lesson learned too easily do not "stick." Combine that with the lesson that we obtain favor with God by suffering for his cause (1 Pet 2:20,) and we see that he has our best interest at heart in a wear out, rather than rust out arrangement on earth. This is echoed by other applications of teaching, most notably in Martial Arts. Rather than hold a student back in a helpless state of weakness, the teacher gives the student a set of rules under which the student is to abide, and then sets him a task or subjects him to adversity. Instead of allowing himself to break the rules, the talented martial artist abides under law, but in the process learns to investigate perspectives and viewpoints he might never have inspected without a limiting influence. Having observed the rule to apply outside a spiritual context, it is only left to observe that King David was fascinated by the Old Testament law in this way, and New Testament Apostle Paul, who had access to both found little to choose between them: Ps 19:[7] The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul...
Monday, January 12, 2009
The importance of giving God "something to hang his hat on."
In this world we live in, we can guess that Satan, in his capacity as Judgment Day Attorney General will bring a case before God, with Christ in the capacity of Council for the Defense. For his part, Christ himself did not judge eternal outcomes before Judgment day. In Jno 12:
[44] Jesus cried and said, He that believeth on me, believeth not on me, but on him that sent me.
[45] And he that seeth me seeth him that sent me.
[46] I am come a light into the world, that whosoever believeth on me should not abide in darkness.
[47] And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world.
[48] He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day.
Any hypocrisy Christ can be accused of was probably taken care of before his crucifixion, and his accuser was none other than our own. Just as the US Government did not become a criminal by issuing the first Law, Christ, in cooperation with God did not become a sinner by giving us his word. His word was a light. I use the rule of thumb to call something light, provided by Eph 5:
[10] Proving what is acceptable unto the Lord.
[11] And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them.
[12] For it is a shame even to speak of those things which are done of them in secret.
[13] But all things that are reproved are made manifest by the light: for whatsoever doth make manifest is light.
Here we get the rule that Christians are engaged in proving. We are to prove "what is acceptable unto the Lord." In pursuit of this, works of darkness may be a temptation, and light is "whatsoever doth make manifest." In 1 Cor 4:
[3] But with me it is a very small thing that I should be judged of you, or of man's judgment: yea, I judge not mine own self.
[4] For I know nothing by myself; yet am I not hereby justified: but he that judgeth me is the Lord.
[5] Therefore judge nothing before the time, until the Lord come, who both will bring to light the hidden things of darkness, and will make manifest the counsels of the hearts: and then shall every man have praise of God.
... Paul adds to the discussion by showing the content and environment in which this light operates. It is important not to lose sight of another aspect of Christian responsibility, that of reproving these "unfruitful works of darkness." When they embarked upon this discussion in New Testament times, James observed in a letter (that in modern times would be called an "open letter,") Jas 2:
[4] Are ye not then partial in yourselves, and are become judges of evil thoughts?
that Christians could become subject to the failing of "judges of evil thoughts." (The Jas 2:1-9 context is worth an independent investigation, but I'll try to shoot that rabbit later.) How are we to distinguish between "evil thoughts," which we are not to judge, and those things that we ARE supposed to judge, even if they do not bear on eternal outcomes which (author affirms to believe) we should leave to God. The answer to that question comes from Christ himself in Matthew 12. In context of the lesson that men's words show BOTH where their treasure is AND what is in their hearts in most abundance, he said: Mt 12:
[37] For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned.
I expect that on Judgment day, Satan, the accuser, will be forced by God himself to show cause for his accusations from words and actions, not just thoughts. This would explain the passage: Pr 18:
[20] A man's belly shall be satisfied with the fruit of his mouth; and with the increase of his lips shall he be filled.
[21] Death and life are in the power of the tongue: and they that love it shall eat the fruit thereof.
AND Pr 10:
[31] The mouth of the just bringeth forth wisdom: but the froward tongue shall be cut out.
[32] The lips of the righteous know what is acceptable: but the mouth of the wicked speaketh frowardness.
Considering, then, that we may be called upon to demonstrate obedience on that day, the example of the woman healed on the way to resurrect Dorcas is instructive. Mt 9:
[20] And, behold, a woman, which was diseased with an issue of blood twelve years, came behind him, and touched the hem of his garment:
[21] For she said within herself, If I may but touch his garment, I shall be whole.
[22] But Jesus turned him about, and when he saw her, he said, Daughter, be of good comfort; thy faith hath made thee whole. And the woman was made whole from that hour.
Here we see that the unnamed woman was healed by touching the hem of Jesus' garment. In looking at his example it is trivial to observe that, before she touched his garment she was still infirm, but after she touched garment she was whole. Despite this obvious situation, Jesus attributed Faith as the reason for her healing. Instead of being a contradiction that Jesus did not know what was going on here, we should instead conclude that this shows the truth of yet another passage: Jas 2:
[19] Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.
[20] But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?
[21] Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?
[22] Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?
[23] And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God.
[24] Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.
[25] Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent them out another way?
[26] For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.
Here we see a further qualification of what we should call Faith. Consider the devils in verse 19. They are in a position to KNOW that God exists. Not only do they believe, they also fear the Lord and TREMBLE! Despite this, their evil actions in the spirit realm lead them to be in need of a lake of fire prepared to destroy the spiritual body made in power and might such that, (in 2 Pet 2:) Peter argues:
[11] Whereas angels, which are greater in power and might, bring not railing accusation against them before the Lord.
that this place of eternal destruction will be worse than all things yet understood for the human soul. (See at Mt 25:41.)
To be clear, the Apostles were given power over unclean spirits (Mk 6:7,) and so are potentially in possession of more authority power and spiritual construction material than the devils and evil spirits. Despite this, the place prepared is manufactured to the standards noted above, not any lower bar. Because of this, no matter how "bad" the chastening of the Lord EVER gets for me, I always try to keep sight of the fact that, no matter HOW BAD things get on Earth, Hell is going to be worse, and that is my incentive NOT TO GO THERE! Glory divine is not the only thing we can actually have a foretaste of.
Leaving aside my dangling preposition, what did this lead Paul to observe? 1 Cor 9:
[27] But I keep under my body, and bring it into subjection: lest that by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway.
By observing that he himself could still end up a spiritual castaway, Paul documented the humility of a student. What should we conclude then? There is an egalitarian quality to salvation that leads us to observe the following: There could be a janitor at the local High School who has a 90 IQ. He visits three people in prison on a repeating basis (like once a month or so,) he buys a meal for hitchhikers when he picks them up, and he makes sure that he collects his used tennis shoes and clothing for redistribution to those who cannot otherwise provide. We all know that this fulfils qualifications like "...visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world." Despite the obvious environmentalist and humanitarian credentials this gives him, what makes him different from the worldly competition at Salvation Army? I think the difference lies in motive and intent: If he is properly obeying Mt 5:
[16] Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.
...he has the glory of his heavenly father in his sights. To those with more ability, the parable of the talents is commended to your attention (Mt 25:14-30 - don't neglect the last verse.) In exerting ourselves to devise good this way, a fruitful area of endeavor is the arena (the Latin word is "circus,") of teaching. We all had high school Algebra and had to learn that a fraction divided by a fraction is just the same as a fraction multiplied by the inverse of the other fraction. What I want to draw to your attention in the present discussion is this: If you ever try to tutor someone esle in that algebra discussion (many parents will relate immediately,) you will find that repeated application of the activity of teaching, clarifies your thinking. After your thinking is clear on the subject, teaching itself, is far less frightful. Despite this, we know our efforts are not universally received with thanksgiving; Christ had the same problem. If we teach an honest heart, that person is saved from the lake of fire we spoke of before. If they disagree, we have not left them unchanged. Before God, on that day of eternal judgment they are convicted on the indictment brought by Satan: You HAD your chance. As teachers, let us try to take more of the approach of Christ (to persuade,) and not start off with the accusative perspective of "The people ALL have evil hearts, it's just my luck before God I have to obey the same command as Ezekiel." I'll try to stop with one last "lick," with the two-edged sword: Jonah certainly needed an attitude adjustment. Despite that, I don't expect to see a prophet God cites for purposes of example in the lake of fire. In closing then, let's use this as an encouraging example: On judgment day I don't want God to just have "something to hang his hat on!" I want him to have a whole hat rack.
[44] Jesus cried and said, He that believeth on me, believeth not on me, but on him that sent me.
[45] And he that seeth me seeth him that sent me.
[46] I am come a light into the world, that whosoever believeth on me should not abide in darkness.
[47] And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world.
[48] He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day.
Any hypocrisy Christ can be accused of was probably taken care of before his crucifixion, and his accuser was none other than our own. Just as the US Government did not become a criminal by issuing the first Law, Christ, in cooperation with God did not become a sinner by giving us his word. His word was a light. I use the rule of thumb to call something light, provided by Eph 5:
[10] Proving what is acceptable unto the Lord.
[11] And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them.
[12] For it is a shame even to speak of those things which are done of them in secret.
[13] But all things that are reproved are made manifest by the light: for whatsoever doth make manifest is light.
Here we get the rule that Christians are engaged in proving. We are to prove "what is acceptable unto the Lord." In pursuit of this, works of darkness may be a temptation, and light is "whatsoever doth make manifest." In 1 Cor 4:
[3] But with me it is a very small thing that I should be judged of you, or of man's judgment: yea, I judge not mine own self.
[4] For I know nothing by myself; yet am I not hereby justified: but he that judgeth me is the Lord.
[5] Therefore judge nothing before the time, until the Lord come, who both will bring to light the hidden things of darkness, and will make manifest the counsels of the hearts: and then shall every man have praise of God.
... Paul adds to the discussion by showing the content and environment in which this light operates. It is important not to lose sight of another aspect of Christian responsibility, that of reproving these "unfruitful works of darkness." When they embarked upon this discussion in New Testament times, James observed in a letter (that in modern times would be called an "open letter,") Jas 2:
[4] Are ye not then partial in yourselves, and are become judges of evil thoughts?
that Christians could become subject to the failing of "judges of evil thoughts." (The Jas 2:1-9 context is worth an independent investigation, but I'll try to shoot that rabbit later.) How are we to distinguish between "evil thoughts," which we are not to judge, and those things that we ARE supposed to judge, even if they do not bear on eternal outcomes which (author affirms to believe) we should leave to God. The answer to that question comes from Christ himself in Matthew 12. In context of the lesson that men's words show BOTH where their treasure is AND what is in their hearts in most abundance, he said: Mt 12:
[37] For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned.
I expect that on Judgment day, Satan, the accuser, will be forced by God himself to show cause for his accusations from words and actions, not just thoughts. This would explain the passage: Pr 18:
[20] A man's belly shall be satisfied with the fruit of his mouth; and with the increase of his lips shall he be filled.
[21] Death and life are in the power of the tongue: and they that love it shall eat the fruit thereof.
AND Pr 10:
[31] The mouth of the just bringeth forth wisdom: but the froward tongue shall be cut out.
[32] The lips of the righteous know what is acceptable: but the mouth of the wicked speaketh frowardness.
Considering, then, that we may be called upon to demonstrate obedience on that day, the example of the woman healed on the way to resurrect Dorcas is instructive. Mt 9:
[20] And, behold, a woman, which was diseased with an issue of blood twelve years, came behind him, and touched the hem of his garment:
[21] For she said within herself, If I may but touch his garment, I shall be whole.
[22] But Jesus turned him about, and when he saw her, he said, Daughter, be of good comfort; thy faith hath made thee whole. And the woman was made whole from that hour.
Here we see that the unnamed woman was healed by touching the hem of Jesus' garment. In looking at his example it is trivial to observe that, before she touched his garment she was still infirm, but after she touched garment she was whole. Despite this obvious situation, Jesus attributed Faith as the reason for her healing. Instead of being a contradiction that Jesus did not know what was going on here, we should instead conclude that this shows the truth of yet another passage: Jas 2:
[19] Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.
[20] But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?
[21] Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?
[22] Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?
[23] And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God.
[24] Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.
[25] Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent them out another way?
[26] For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.
Here we see a further qualification of what we should call Faith. Consider the devils in verse 19. They are in a position to KNOW that God exists. Not only do they believe, they also fear the Lord and TREMBLE! Despite this, their evil actions in the spirit realm lead them to be in need of a lake of fire prepared to destroy the spiritual body made in power and might such that, (in 2 Pet 2:) Peter argues:
[11] Whereas angels, which are greater in power and might, bring not railing accusation against them before the Lord.
that this place of eternal destruction will be worse than all things yet understood for the human soul. (See at Mt 25:41.)
To be clear, the Apostles were given power over unclean spirits (Mk 6:7,) and so are potentially in possession of more authority power and spiritual construction material than the devils and evil spirits. Despite this, the place prepared is manufactured to the standards noted above, not any lower bar. Because of this, no matter how "bad" the chastening of the Lord EVER gets for me, I always try to keep sight of the fact that, no matter HOW BAD things get on Earth, Hell is going to be worse, and that is my incentive NOT TO GO THERE! Glory divine is not the only thing we can actually have a foretaste of.
Leaving aside my dangling preposition, what did this lead Paul to observe? 1 Cor 9:
[27] But I keep under my body, and bring it into subjection: lest that by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway.
By observing that he himself could still end up a spiritual castaway, Paul documented the humility of a student. What should we conclude then? There is an egalitarian quality to salvation that leads us to observe the following: There could be a janitor at the local High School who has a 90 IQ. He visits three people in prison on a repeating basis (like once a month or so,) he buys a meal for hitchhikers when he picks them up, and he makes sure that he collects his used tennis shoes and clothing for redistribution to those who cannot otherwise provide. We all know that this fulfils qualifications like "...visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world." Despite the obvious environmentalist and humanitarian credentials this gives him, what makes him different from the worldly competition at Salvation Army? I think the difference lies in motive and intent: If he is properly obeying Mt 5:
[16] Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.
...he has the glory of his heavenly father in his sights. To those with more ability, the parable of the talents is commended to your attention (Mt 25:14-30 - don't neglect the last verse.) In exerting ourselves to devise good this way, a fruitful area of endeavor is the arena (the Latin word is "circus,") of teaching. We all had high school Algebra and had to learn that a fraction divided by a fraction is just the same as a fraction multiplied by the inverse of the other fraction. What I want to draw to your attention in the present discussion is this: If you ever try to tutor someone esle in that algebra discussion (many parents will relate immediately,) you will find that repeated application of the activity of teaching, clarifies your thinking. After your thinking is clear on the subject, teaching itself, is far less frightful. Despite this, we know our efforts are not universally received with thanksgiving; Christ had the same problem. If we teach an honest heart, that person is saved from the lake of fire we spoke of before. If they disagree, we have not left them unchanged. Before God, on that day of eternal judgment they are convicted on the indictment brought by Satan: You HAD your chance. As teachers, let us try to take more of the approach of Christ (to persuade,) and not start off with the accusative perspective of "The people ALL have evil hearts, it's just my luck before God I have to obey the same command as Ezekiel." I'll try to stop with one last "lick," with the two-edged sword: Jonah certainly needed an attitude adjustment. Despite that, I don't expect to see a prophet God cites for purposes of example in the lake of fire. In closing then, let's use this as an encouraging example: On judgment day I don't want God to just have "something to hang his hat on!" I want him to have a whole hat rack.
Saturday, December 27, 2008
How does God view Remarriage? MDR
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)