Don
Active 2007–2011
Tag Cloud
bgk,
The Bible cannot contradict itself, but our (mis)understanding of what it says can.
If you take the verses of Matthew on divorce out of context (pericope and cultural) Jesus says divorce for only adultery. Some teachers teach this is the only Biblical reason. If you take the verses of Mark and Luke out of context, there is no exception given. Some teachers teach there is NO Biblical reason for divorce. If you take the verses of Paul in 1 Cor out of context, then he does not mention any exception for adultery but gives abandonment by an unbeliever as a reason. I have not see any teachers teach only this, but they say it does not apply to believers.
But there was a cultural matrix that these teaching were made in, and if you do not know what Jews and Greeks thought in the 1st century, it is easy to make a hash of these verses. And I have read many teachers who do just that. And condemnation in the body of Christ and legalism is the result and I do not like that.
If you do not want to put Gen 1 with Gen 2 in terms of what was allowed to eat and what was not, then how can you put ANY verses from any books of the Bible together? Your atomistic interpretation strategy in the limit means very few conclusions can be made about anything. But very few people read any books that way.
I agree it is a challenge to integrate the 3 origins stories in Gen and that faithful people can arrive at some different answers. But that is different than saying the 3 stories are just separate.
On Jesus and Paul on divorce, I recommend http://www.instone-brewer.com. If you do not know the 1st century context, it is almost certain the relevant verses will be misunderstood. To answer your specific point/question, Jesus is responding to one question about the meaning of Deu 24:1 when tended toward license and Paul is responding to an entirely different question from some at Corinth that tended to legalism. They are each answering different questions. Think of a rower in a river, if you get too close to one shore, someone might shout, “Go left!” and if you get to close to the other shore another might shout, “Go right!”. These 2 commands just SEEM to contradict each other, but do not when the full context is understood.
The consequences of their sins were different also, the man’s is worded very similarly to the serpent’s, while the woman’s is not. We are supposed to notice these details.
It might be that bgk has not heard this before, as many do not teach it so hearing it the first time may sound strange.
This is what the man should have done, as I see it. He knew the right answer.
I use an argument from silence in my marriage and divorce class, in discussing what Jesus did NOT say and what any Jew of the time assumed, but then go on to show what Paul said about it. An argument from silence is a very weak form of argument.
God could have written more. What God inspired is enough for our faith.
What I do not want to do is read into the text something (even a tiny thing) that is not there. I want to be able to point out that others do this as appropriate, but I do not want to do it. I agree we can rule out her being a liar. Einstein once divided by zero, so anyone can be mistaken.
NET Gen 3:2 The woman said to the serpent, “We may eat of the fruit from the trees of the orchard;
Gen 3:3 but concerning the fruit of the tree that is in the middle of the orchard God said, ‘You must not eat from it, and you must not touch it, or else you will die.’ ”
God says the man listened to the woman and that was 1 of the 2 reasons the ground was cursed and this is the only place she spoke, so this is where he should have not just listened or else there is more she spoke that is not recorded.
I agree with your analysis given what the woman said God said IS what God said. And I also admit I want this to be the case. But, as I see it, it is also possible she is simply mistaken.
There is also a lot LESS to Genesis than people have been told.
For some reason it seems that some people do not see all the implications of Jesus being Messiah, which is both savior and Lord and some also mix the 2 up. Being a savior is a serving function and being Lord is a leading function, in the Kingdom everyone is called to be a servant and some are called to be leaders, by the exemplary serving as one of the criteria. Our flesh wants to reverse this process, see the disciples on who will be first.
It is like the grace and truth paradigm, we need both, but grace goes first; likewise, serving goes first.
That is a nice insight about fruit inspectors, for most fruits, the seeds are hidden.
We do know that the woman was deceived, the key part about being deceived is that one believes something true that is false or false that is true. As far as I can tell so far in my studies, we are not told exactly what this incorrect information was. So I still see it as possible that the woman was mistaken, that is, her statement about God saying not to touch the fruit was mistaken.
If she cannot touch it and the seed in the fruit is hidden, how would she know whether it had seed or not?
Ishah (woman) coming out of ish (man) is a wordplay, as “ah” is a normal hebrew way of feminizing something, so the man is saying that she is a female man, like him in many ways but unlike him in her femaleness.
The whole sentence is also a “Wowie Zowie” statement, recall the man had gone thru all the animals naming them and not finding a partner. When he finally sees her, “Wowie Zowie” was appropriate.
Grudem does have a large influence, this is why it is important to point out the contradictions and too large inferences and other mistakes he makes. However, I find it hard to read very far at one sitting, I need to limit myself. Some things are so crazy I confess my response is a guffaw, but many other things are simply sad and I go “No, no, no, no, no, you do not need to see it that way! And why would you WANT to see it that way?”
But not too big for God!
I did not realize there was a large cost factor.
One thing that MAY be a factor with him is he does deal with heretics and nonbelievers of various sorts, so “adding one more to the pile” might seem an easy thing to do and even make it easier on him in his analysis, but we should not do this. That is, he is not making distinctions that he should make.
I can see how it would be nice for you if she was there, she might be a moderating influence. And I can see why you might want your “protector,” he might be a moderating influence also. And this is in line with taking 2 or 3. And having his pastor there can also be very useful in various ways.
My take is Timothy knew what Paul meant, but we are not Timothy. Timothy was the spiritual son of Paul, which meant they had a LARGE shared context, when such happens today one can communicate in a shorthand way.
My working hypothesis is Paul used Paul-Timothy shortcuts and Ephesian terms in faithful ways, but this challenges us today. It is arrogance to claim we know more than we do.
When Ananias and Saphira were called to account, they were separate, even in the case of both sinning.
I believe in a one-flesh union also, but I see it meaning less than you I guess.
Wow! Great news!
I do not see any particular reason why Matt’s wife should be or not be at your meeting. If she wanted to be, that would be fine and if she does not want to be, that would be fine.
P.S. Both the man and the woman were named Adam by God, Gen 5:2. So she did have a name, but this can be confusing as the names are the same.
Cheryl,
I agree with what you wrote, except for one tweak, the name Eve was given later, so I use the terms “the man” and “the woman”. Yes, many call it the story of Adam and Eve, but that is just tradition.
Given that historic (original) Baptists held to soul liberty, this recent idea is a loss of an historic Baptist principle.
From m-w.com
mitigating
1: to cause to become less harsh or hostile : mollify
Mitigating in this case means the woman was deceived AND THEN SHE RECOGNIZED she was deceived. She is acting redemptively. The man is the opposite, he knows better and still did it and INSTEAD of blaming the serpent, he blames the woman and then God.
In other words, in their current situation, there is hope for the woman to do better next time (if there would ever be a next time or similar time), but not so much for the man, as his view of what happened means he is likely stuck.
What both said are true, both are trying to lessen their responsibility.
However, the woman is blaming the deceiver for being deceived.
This is a mitigating situation.
The man is blaming a deceived person when he himself was not deceived and them blaming God! This is NOT a mitigating situation and it is totally whacked to blame God. We are to see the man as a rebel, the woman is not a rebel.
I do not see that any Biblical prohibition needs to be repeated, many are but it is not required. What I do see is the need for 2 or 3 witnesses for a legal judgment, it cannot be just one. So to determine if Jesus was Messiah, his own witness does not count in a legal sense.
The quote seems negative (if not seen as a hint/pointer to the Psalm), but the Psalm goes from negative to positive; that is the point. Mahaney and co. missed what Jesus was doing cuz they thought like Greeks and not Hebrews, which is easy for us Greek thinkers to do.
Jesus is doing a remez/hint/hyperlink to Ps 22. You need to read the whole psalm to see what he is doing, not just the quick ref.
P.S. As an egal, I will admit (as needed) that I am making choices also, it is just that I try to make them along the lines of the principles of love, justice and freedom.
For example, on Phoebe and diakonos, I assert that the non-egals are CHOOSING to interpret the relevant verses that way. In their view, they are making the ONLY faithful choice, the others are MUCH less possible and break their existing paradigm so are to be rejected. So they need more awareness of the choice they are making, as they make it so effortlessly they do not even realize they are making it. Once they see they are making a choice and there are other possible choices, then their position crumbles.
2Co 6:14 Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. For what partnership has righteousness with lawlessness? Or what fellowship has light with darkness?
2Co 6:15 What accord has Christ with Belial? Or what portion does a believer share with an unbeliever?
2Co 6:16 What agreement has the temple of God with idols? For we are the temple of the living God; as God said, “I will make my dwelling among them and walk among them, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.
2Co 6:17 Therefore go out from their midst, and be separate from them, says the Lord, and touch no unclean thing; then I will welcome you,
2Co 6:18 and I will be a father to you, and you shall be sons and daughters to me, says the Lord Almighty.”
Here we see that there ARE those we are to separate from, namely unbelievers, just realize there is a limit beyond which you cannot go.
But the non-egals are losing and they know they are losing, so one response is to rachet up the rhetoric. This is why they try to connect egal with liberalism; they say if you do not agree with us, the bogeyman will come and get you, where the bogeyman can be any number of things. And if you really do believe that a bogeyman is coming, it only makes sense to warn others.