Sins of rebellion
Rejection of God—
Disobeying God, not trusting in him, denying God or Jesus or the gospel, idolatry.
Opposite—Love of God, submission to God, faith in Jesus, boldness.
Ephesians 5:5-6; Matthew 7:21-27; Deuteronomy 5:8; Matthew 6:24; Matthew 10:32-33.
Rejection of authorities—
Disobeying God-ordained authorities (even if they are evil), as long as they do not directly oppose God’s command.
Opposite: Submission even to evil authorities.
I Peter 2:13-14; Titus 3:1; Matthew 5:39-42.
Rejection of God’s people—
Disobeying the elders of God’s people; refusing to meet with God’s people; refusing to assist God’s people; divisiveness.
Opposite: Considering others as better than yourself.
Hebrews 13:17; I Corinthians 10:9-10; Hebrews 10:24; I John 3:17; Jude 1:19.
Sins where we replace ourselves for God
Hostility—
Murder, slander, insults, excessive force, threats.
Opposite: Gentleness, meekness, long-suffering.
Genesis 4:3-8; Matthew 5:21-24; Mark 3:1-5; James 4:1-3; Ephesians 4:26-30; Galatians 5:14-22.
Arrogance—
Thinking of yourself as better than you are.
Opposite: Humility.
Luke 14:11; Matthew 23:12; Philippians 2:3.
Grasping for power or authority.
Opposite: Lowering yourself for the sake of others.
Luke 22:24-27; Mark 10:42-45.
Sins where we replace material things for God
Greed—
Desiring and striving for what does not belong to you; idleness, envy, theft.
Opposite: Giving freely to those who have need.
Luke 12:13-21; Matt 6:19-24; James 4:2; I Thessalonians 3:10-11; Ephesians 4:28.
Service for money—
Focusing on money or the things that money buys as what will give you peace.
Opposite: Giving your money away to those who have need.
Matthew 6:24; Luke 12:33.
Hoarding—
Keeping any excess for yourself when someone else needs it.
Opposite: Giving your excess possessions away to those who have need.
Luke 16:20-25; I John 3:16-18.
Drunkenness/drug abuse—
Seeking a substance that will ultimately harm others.
Opposite: being filled with the Holy Spirit.
I Corinthians 6:10; Matthew 24:49; Ephesians 5:18.
Orgies, course jesting—
Participating in entertainment that encourages greed, violence, the degradation of others, or sexual immorality.
Opposite: Rejoicing in the salvation and spirit of God.
Luke 21:34; I Corinthians 10:5-8; Ephesians 5:4.
Sins where we replace other powers for God
False religions.
Opposite: Worshiping and serving the God of Jesus Christ.
Exodus 20:2-3; Deuteronomy 8:19-20.
False teachings.
Opposite: Submitting to the teaching of Jesus alone.
II John 1:7-10; I Timothy 6:3-6.
Occultism.
Opposite: Seeking our strength and power from the God of Jesus alone.
Deuteronomy 18:10-12; Galatians 5:20; Revelation 21:8.
Nationalism.
Opposite: Seeking salvation and security from God and his ways alone.
Isaiah 31:1-5; Matthew 22:21.
Other sins that are an indication of some rebellion against God
Unfaithfulness—
False witness, not keeping promises, lying, divorce (except if your spouse commits adultery)
Opposite: Speaking what is true, not going back on your word.
Matthew 5:37; Colossians 3:9; Exodus 20:16; Matthew 5:31; Matthew 5:27-28.
Hatred –
Murder, unforgiveness, false separation, divisiveness, not giving to those in need.
Opposite: Loving your neighbor as yourself
Matthew 5:21-22; Ephesians 4:26-27,31; Mark 7:21-22; Romans 14:4; I John 3:15-17.
Gossip—
Speaking negatively about others without their consent.
Opposite: Speaking the truth in love.
Ephesians 4:31; I Peter 2:1.
Sexual immorality—
Having sex with anyone apart from your spouse; sexual speech or imaginings about someone who is not your spouse. Homosexuality, bestiality, incest.
Opposite: Purity, monogamy.
Leviticus 18; I Thessalonians 4:3; Mark 7:21-22.
Causing others to sin.
Opposite: Encouraging others to love and good deeds.
Matthew 18:6.
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
Thursday, March 13, 2008
Proof for God's Existance
There are many proofs that God exists as well, from Aristotle on. But both the proofs and non-proofs are pointless in my opinion.
I have a friend named Brent. He’s pretty tall, balding and has huge feet. Let’s say we had a disagreement whether Brent exists. I could tell you about him, I could talk about how I met him, etc, but none of these are proofs.
I could prove that there is the possibility that Brent exists, but that isn’t proof he does, in fact, exist. For instance, because I could imagine Brent doesn’t mean that he does, in fact, exist. It just means that it is possible he exists. I could even point to his children that say he exists and fathered them, but that isn’t proof, in and of itself.
My only proof is that I have met Brent, experienced his personality, saw him and I can show the gifts he gave me. None of this is proof for anyone else that he exists, but it is more than sufficient for me, because I am the one with a relationship with him.
You can see where I’m going with this. If God exists, the only real proof for God is experiencing God personally. I think the agruments for the existance/non-existance of God is just silly. Either you know him or you dont.
If you want to know someone, you go up, attempt to approach them and see what happens after that. It’s the same with God. No one can intellectualize someone into belief. But I can introduce you to Brent, and after you meet him, you’d know what I was talking about.
Steve K
I have a friend named Brent. He’s pretty tall, balding and has huge feet. Let’s say we had a disagreement whether Brent exists. I could tell you about him, I could talk about how I met him, etc, but none of these are proofs.
I could prove that there is the possibility that Brent exists, but that isn’t proof he does, in fact, exist. For instance, because I could imagine Brent doesn’t mean that he does, in fact, exist. It just means that it is possible he exists. I could even point to his children that say he exists and fathered them, but that isn’t proof, in and of itself.
My only proof is that I have met Brent, experienced his personality, saw him and I can show the gifts he gave me. None of this is proof for anyone else that he exists, but it is more than sufficient for me, because I am the one with a relationship with him.
You can see where I’m going with this. If God exists, the only real proof for God is experiencing God personally. I think the agruments for the existance/non-existance of God is just silly. Either you know him or you dont.
If you want to know someone, you go up, attempt to approach them and see what happens after that. It’s the same with God. No one can intellectualize someone into belief. But I can introduce you to Brent, and after you meet him, you’d know what I was talking about.
Steve K
Discussion about Turn The Other Cheek
To understand the principle Jesus is getting at, we must understand both the summary that He gives as well as all the examples:
Summary: "Do not resist an evil one"
The significant term here is "resist". It is used in different contexts, but often in the context of rebelling against an authority. Thus, it might be translated as "do not rebel" or "do not stand against the authority". It is used in this way in Ephesians 6 when we are told to "stand against" or "resist" the devil. Thus, we are told in one place to resist, but in another place not to. Of course, this fits Jesus' example who did not resist arrest, but constantly resisted Satan and the demonic authorities.
Examples:
Whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also.
In the ancient world it is a common punishment for an authority to slap his underlings. Masters slapped slaves, fathers slapped children, guards slapped prisoners and magistrates slapped (or had slapped) anyone who was under their authority in a court situation. To "turn the other cheek" is to offer oneself to be slapped more. In the context of an authority, a single slap would be considered acceptable, even a just punishment. But if one was slapped again, it would be oppression and an acceptable situation for an appeal. Jesus, in the trial before Annas, was actually questioning the justice of being slapped at all. This is what the turning the other cheek is doing as well, questioning the righteous judgement of the authority. If they give into it and slap you again, they have proved their unrighteousness.
If anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, let him have your coat also.
Those whom were owed were considered the authority over those who were in debt. The one who is owed had the right to throw the other into prison (see Matt 18). According to the law, there were strict guidelines as to how much a debtee could receive from a debtor. The debtee could not put the debtor into danger, by, for instance, taking his coat overnight (Exodus 22:26-27). Should a debtee take too much so as to threaten the life of the debtor, then the debtor can cry out to God and God would judge the debtee. Thus, inviting a debtee to take one's only covering is to invite the debtee to display his unrighteousness and so be judged.
Whoever forces you to go one mile, go with him two.
In the ancient world, a Roman soldier had the right to "volunteer" any non-citizen of Rome to carry his pack for a mile. But the law is strict about it being only one mile. Should the Roman insist upon two miles, then he would be judged. This is offering a soldier to do injustice according to the law and so be judged by the law.
Give to him who asks of you,
and do not turn away from him who wants to borrow from you.
Roman soldiers could also take possessions from non-citizens. These possessions are to be "borrowed", but often they never came back.
All of these examples are legal oppressions. A magistrate has the right to slap. A debtee has the right to take clothes from the debtor. The soldier has the right to have one carry his pack or to take the possessions of a non-citizen. These are all oppressions and they ar all legal, according to human law. The point here is to not only accept the legal oppression, but to go extra in creating a super-legal situation. The law covers a single slap, a coat, a single mile. But Jesus is saying that the oppression must be obvious, beyond recognition.
Why? Because if we resist the evil authority for the legal oppressions, then we are rebellious and we will deserve what punishments we get. But if we are in a place where we are being punished to the extreme and we don't deserve it, then God will step in. God is interested in justice and will step in if injustice is done. So Jesus is recommending creating a situation of obvious oppression to which we may appeal to God (as stated in Exodus 22), and God will step in, take away the oppressor and give us justice (Luke 18:1-7, and Mark 12:1-9)
Steve K
steve, your posting has been very interesting.
and i think that it makes sense, actually
but i have a couple questions for you, if you would continue posting, please
i understand your posting to mean that this mostly applies only to unequals, cop/offender, judge/defendant, parent/child, etc.
where if i complain because he did something that he is legally allowed to do, that is resisting
but if i give him the opportunity to prove that he is unrighteous by taking me up on my offer, then i can appeal to God and he will defend me because i have been unjustly treated?
that sounds like baiting someone so that i can turn around and blame him for doing wrong
so this doesnt particularly mean equals need to turn the other cheek?
as in, a mugger wants my purse, i'm not obligated to give it to him, because he is my equal.
i can see, tho, that offering him more than he asked for, would prove that he was unrighteous.
i think the biggest question i have tho, is the one that keeps floating around md
if your wife/daughter is being attacked, are you being resistant when you try to protect her?
if you see a stranger being attacked by someone on the street, are you being resistant when you try to assist that stranger?
that is the one that i can't quite get thru my head, the one that i still struggle with, in regards to non resistance as it is commonly taught.
if a policeman was accusing you of speeding, which he has every right to do, do you try to talk your way out of it, or do you accept it, pay the fine (thereby turning the other cheek), and ask God for justice?
please continue steve, i'm intrigued by what you have to say.
i'm not sure what i think about the "baiting," but maybe that's not what you meant to be gotten out of your posting."(i) don't try hard enough to earn the right to complain."
justme
I'm going to answer the easiest questions first:
Your conclusions that this only relates to authorities and not to equals is correct. The use of the term "resist" and the contexts all have to do with authority/underling relationship, not with a peer relationship.
The peer relationship is spoken of in the next of Jesus statments in Matthew 5, "Love your enemies." That is how you relate to one who is your peer and abuses you. If someone mugs you, you have every right to run away. No reason to "turn the other cheek" because they aren't an authority. You don't have to accept abuse from them in any way. Actually, it doesn't do you any good apart from being accepting humility in general. But it's along the lines of flogging oneself. Just not necessary.
But the policeman, we have to accept the fine or whatever. I don't think getting a speeding ticket is a great example, because we broke the law and now we have to pay for it. That's simple submitting to authorities.
But paying taxes is submitting to authorities. And if the authorities use those taxes to oppress me or my people-- such as the police attacking my homeless folks with my taxes-- then I have the right to cry out for an appeal. Or if I do all the policeman asks me to and they beat me, then I have the right to ask for an appeal.
As far as protecting one's family from an attack or whatever, that goes under the "love your enemies" catagory, which I would be happy to discuss seperately, but the issues are really different.
Now comes the hard part. Is what Jesus talking about really "baiting"? Well, kinda. I don't know that Jesus is really saying for us to tell the cops, "Go ahead, pop me one, see if you've got the guts" kinda thing. In other words, goading them into oppression. But I do think he is talking about openly providing the opportunity to be oppressed. If you think about it, this is exactly what He Himself did. He pushed them, openly insulted them (Matt 23), told Judas to go ahead and betray him, and stayed right where he knew they would find him. He didn't allow his disciples to fight back and either spoke or didn't speak at exactly the right points to make his case worse. He was innocent, but he created a context that if they were going to think the worst about him, they could. He created a situation for him to be oppressed. They had to follow through, and they did, readily. But if he had said the right thing before Pilate, the crucifixion never would have happened. But, of course, the crucifixion had to happen. And he did what he needed to make sure it did.
Even so, there are times that authorities are so unjust or corrupt that they need replacing. And in those times we can set ourselves as the scapegoat, so God will enact his Psalm 82 privilage and take out the oppressive authority. This is the same kind of thing we see in I Peter and in Revelation.
Okay, I'd better stop.
Steve K
By the way, I don't want you to think that I came up with this idea about the non-resistance passage on my own. It was William Higgins, a professor of Mennonite History and Theology that worked out this exegesis and he and I argued about it for a year before I was convinced he was right. He is now a pastor of a Mennonite church in Southcentral PA.
Steve K
no
please don't stop
its quite intriguing to consider that authority/underling is the focus here
that defending self against an equal is a different can of worms altogether, (and therefore, no need to address here the protecting of one's family as i suggested)
when you say you have the right to ask for an appeal, are you talking about an appeal to other earthly authorities, or an appeal to God?
but this idea of baiting
i can't quite grasp my brain around it just yet
that sounds really passive aggressive to me.
that sounds as if i have a beef with someone, so i deliberately bait them into oppressing me, so that i can get rid of them.
please, continue
in fact, i think i'm going to sit back and listen to you discuss it with a few others
i'll pop up with more questions, i'm sure.
just me
I am finding this discussion interesting.
There is another meaning, that also fits into what Jesus said. 'Slapping' someone in many cultures was a form of insult. Thus 'when insulted, don't insult back'.142Thy righteousness is an everlasting righteousness, and thy law is the truth.
von
Now I am wondering . . . thought maybe you (Steve K) or someone here might have some insight . . .
How do we decide when to simply suffer the injustice, and when we have a case of "We ought to obey God rather than man" as Peter and the apostles did?
Also a note - I see that we are allowing others to demonstrate their unrighteousness. This is not because they'll "get what is coming to them" now, but because we are leaving it to God to judge them. Am I correct? Or is there a benefit for ourselves in eternity as well?
Hopenafuture
Very thoughtful posts, so far. I think that Stevek's point of view is excellent if we were literal pilgrims and strangers, not residents of a wealthy developed country with laws to protect us from conscription, slavery, etc. How does this passage apply to North American Mennonites who populate the world's wealthiest 2%?“The Bible contains six admonishments to homosexuals and 362 admonishments to heterosexuals. That doesn't mean that God doesn't love heterosexuals. It's just that they need more supervision.”
Lavner A King
To Von:
I think that it is clear that the slap IS an insult. To slap a person on the right cheek with the right hand (in the ancient mideast one would never touch another person with the left hand) is a backhanded slap. Thus it is destroying one's dignity and honor. This is worse than simple pain. To dishonor another person is a greater oppression than death. This is why the gospels don't even talk about Jesus pain or the amount of blood he shed (as opposed to the movie, The Passion), but rather the amount of indignities he suffered. Because those sufferings were more pertanent to the oppression Jesus was enduring than nails and blood.
Steve K
To Hopenafuture:
For your first question, I think that the passage you quoted in Acts 5 explains the process really well.
The apostles were brought before the Sanhedrin, led by the high priest, who voted to kill Jesus. Peter and the apostles very impolitely began to proclaim that God vindicated Jesus by resurrected him, in the face of the Sanhedrin's verdict. Jesus when he died, however, begged God to forgive them of the sin for they did not know what they did. So God, through Peter and the others, offered the Sanhedrin another chance to get right with Him and to repent of their sin. However, in the face of the apostles court testimony that Jesus was risen from the dead, they denied it and commanded them to shut up about Jesus.
There are two kinds of submission to human authority that we can do righteously. One is to just do what the human authority says. That is most common. But there are times when what our human authority says is opposed to God's clear command. So the apostles did what God commanded-- which we should ALWAYS do-- and then accepted the punishment of the Sanhedrien without complaint.
In fact, after the elders beat all the apostles with whips 40 minus 1 times, they went home celebrating because they "were considered worthy to suffer for the name." (Even as Jesus said they should in Matt 5:11-12) Thus, if we follow the teaching of Jesus faithfully, we WILL get in trouble with the authorities in some way. We must obey God in the most gentle, loving way we can and then accept the consequences the authorities give us, joyfully.
It is interesting what the apostles prayed in the midst of this incident, which might relate to your other question. In the middle of Acts 4, the apostles prayed Psalm 2, "why do the nations rage against Your king?" which they applied to the Sanhedrin and Herod. The leaders of Jerusalem have become Gentiles in the sight of the apostles and they are praying that way. But they pray no curse upon them. They just pray for God to do justice, and-- most importantly-- they prayed for boldness to do God's will, no matter what threats they received (not that I think they really needed the boldness, given their recent speeches, but God heard their prayer and sent them the Spirit anyway).
The apostles' understanding of non-resistance then is:
a. To do God's will
b. To be persecuted by the authorities for doing God's will
c. To willingly accept whatever punishment the authorities give them
d. To recognize God's blessing upon us for suffering for Jesus' name
e. To rejoice in that blessing
f. To recognize that God has already set aside the oppressive authorities
g. To recognize that Jesus is the true King of His people
h. To not pray cursings
i. To pray for justice
j. To pray for the ability to be more faithful to God.
Steve K
Summary: "Do not resist an evil one"
The significant term here is "resist". It is used in different contexts, but often in the context of rebelling against an authority. Thus, it might be translated as "do not rebel" or "do not stand against the authority". It is used in this way in Ephesians 6 when we are told to "stand against" or "resist" the devil. Thus, we are told in one place to resist, but in another place not to. Of course, this fits Jesus' example who did not resist arrest, but constantly resisted Satan and the demonic authorities.
Examples:
Whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also.
In the ancient world it is a common punishment for an authority to slap his underlings. Masters slapped slaves, fathers slapped children, guards slapped prisoners and magistrates slapped (or had slapped) anyone who was under their authority in a court situation. To "turn the other cheek" is to offer oneself to be slapped more. In the context of an authority, a single slap would be considered acceptable, even a just punishment. But if one was slapped again, it would be oppression and an acceptable situation for an appeal. Jesus, in the trial before Annas, was actually questioning the justice of being slapped at all. This is what the turning the other cheek is doing as well, questioning the righteous judgement of the authority. If they give into it and slap you again, they have proved their unrighteousness.
If anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, let him have your coat also.
Those whom were owed were considered the authority over those who were in debt. The one who is owed had the right to throw the other into prison (see Matt 18). According to the law, there were strict guidelines as to how much a debtee could receive from a debtor. The debtee could not put the debtor into danger, by, for instance, taking his coat overnight (Exodus 22:26-27). Should a debtee take too much so as to threaten the life of the debtor, then the debtor can cry out to God and God would judge the debtee. Thus, inviting a debtee to take one's only covering is to invite the debtee to display his unrighteousness and so be judged.
Whoever forces you to go one mile, go with him two.
In the ancient world, a Roman soldier had the right to "volunteer" any non-citizen of Rome to carry his pack for a mile. But the law is strict about it being only one mile. Should the Roman insist upon two miles, then he would be judged. This is offering a soldier to do injustice according to the law and so be judged by the law.
Give to him who asks of you,
and do not turn away from him who wants to borrow from you.
Roman soldiers could also take possessions from non-citizens. These possessions are to be "borrowed", but often they never came back.
All of these examples are legal oppressions. A magistrate has the right to slap. A debtee has the right to take clothes from the debtor. The soldier has the right to have one carry his pack or to take the possessions of a non-citizen. These are all oppressions and they ar all legal, according to human law. The point here is to not only accept the legal oppression, but to go extra in creating a super-legal situation. The law covers a single slap, a coat, a single mile. But Jesus is saying that the oppression must be obvious, beyond recognition.
Why? Because if we resist the evil authority for the legal oppressions, then we are rebellious and we will deserve what punishments we get. But if we are in a place where we are being punished to the extreme and we don't deserve it, then God will step in. God is interested in justice and will step in if injustice is done. So Jesus is recommending creating a situation of obvious oppression to which we may appeal to God (as stated in Exodus 22), and God will step in, take away the oppressor and give us justice (Luke 18:1-7, and Mark 12:1-9)
Steve K
steve, your posting has been very interesting.
and i think that it makes sense, actually
but i have a couple questions for you, if you would continue posting, please
i understand your posting to mean that this mostly applies only to unequals, cop/offender, judge/defendant, parent/child, etc.
where if i complain because he did something that he is legally allowed to do, that is resisting
but if i give him the opportunity to prove that he is unrighteous by taking me up on my offer, then i can appeal to God and he will defend me because i have been unjustly treated?
that sounds like baiting someone so that i can turn around and blame him for doing wrong
so this doesnt particularly mean equals need to turn the other cheek?
as in, a mugger wants my purse, i'm not obligated to give it to him, because he is my equal.
i can see, tho, that offering him more than he asked for, would prove that he was unrighteous.
i think the biggest question i have tho, is the one that keeps floating around md
if your wife/daughter is being attacked, are you being resistant when you try to protect her?
if you see a stranger being attacked by someone on the street, are you being resistant when you try to assist that stranger?
that is the one that i can't quite get thru my head, the one that i still struggle with, in regards to non resistance as it is commonly taught.
if a policeman was accusing you of speeding, which he has every right to do, do you try to talk your way out of it, or do you accept it, pay the fine (thereby turning the other cheek), and ask God for justice?
please continue steve, i'm intrigued by what you have to say.
i'm not sure what i think about the "baiting," but maybe that's not what you meant to be gotten out of your posting."(i) don't try hard enough to earn the right to complain."
justme
I'm going to answer the easiest questions first:
Your conclusions that this only relates to authorities and not to equals is correct. The use of the term "resist" and the contexts all have to do with authority/underling relationship, not with a peer relationship.
The peer relationship is spoken of in the next of Jesus statments in Matthew 5, "Love your enemies." That is how you relate to one who is your peer and abuses you. If someone mugs you, you have every right to run away. No reason to "turn the other cheek" because they aren't an authority. You don't have to accept abuse from them in any way. Actually, it doesn't do you any good apart from being accepting humility in general. But it's along the lines of flogging oneself. Just not necessary.
But the policeman, we have to accept the fine or whatever. I don't think getting a speeding ticket is a great example, because we broke the law and now we have to pay for it. That's simple submitting to authorities.
But paying taxes is submitting to authorities. And if the authorities use those taxes to oppress me or my people-- such as the police attacking my homeless folks with my taxes-- then I have the right to cry out for an appeal. Or if I do all the policeman asks me to and they beat me, then I have the right to ask for an appeal.
As far as protecting one's family from an attack or whatever, that goes under the "love your enemies" catagory, which I would be happy to discuss seperately, but the issues are really different.
Now comes the hard part. Is what Jesus talking about really "baiting"? Well, kinda. I don't know that Jesus is really saying for us to tell the cops, "Go ahead, pop me one, see if you've got the guts" kinda thing. In other words, goading them into oppression. But I do think he is talking about openly providing the opportunity to be oppressed. If you think about it, this is exactly what He Himself did. He pushed them, openly insulted them (Matt 23), told Judas to go ahead and betray him, and stayed right where he knew they would find him. He didn't allow his disciples to fight back and either spoke or didn't speak at exactly the right points to make his case worse. He was innocent, but he created a context that if they were going to think the worst about him, they could. He created a situation for him to be oppressed. They had to follow through, and they did, readily. But if he had said the right thing before Pilate, the crucifixion never would have happened. But, of course, the crucifixion had to happen. And he did what he needed to make sure it did.
Even so, there are times that authorities are so unjust or corrupt that they need replacing. And in those times we can set ourselves as the scapegoat, so God will enact his Psalm 82 privilage and take out the oppressive authority. This is the same kind of thing we see in I Peter and in Revelation.
Okay, I'd better stop.
Steve K
By the way, I don't want you to think that I came up with this idea about the non-resistance passage on my own. It was William Higgins, a professor of Mennonite History and Theology that worked out this exegesis and he and I argued about it for a year before I was convinced he was right. He is now a pastor of a Mennonite church in Southcentral PA.
Steve K
no
please don't stop
its quite intriguing to consider that authority/underling is the focus here
that defending self against an equal is a different can of worms altogether, (and therefore, no need to address here the protecting of one's family as i suggested)
when you say you have the right to ask for an appeal, are you talking about an appeal to other earthly authorities, or an appeal to God?
but this idea of baiting
i can't quite grasp my brain around it just yet
that sounds really passive aggressive to me.
that sounds as if i have a beef with someone, so i deliberately bait them into oppressing me, so that i can get rid of them.
please, continue
in fact, i think i'm going to sit back and listen to you discuss it with a few others
i'll pop up with more questions, i'm sure.
just me
I am finding this discussion interesting.
There is another meaning, that also fits into what Jesus said. 'Slapping' someone in many cultures was a form of insult. Thus 'when insulted, don't insult back'.142Thy righteousness is an everlasting righteousness, and thy law is the truth.
von
Now I am wondering . . . thought maybe you (Steve K) or someone here might have some insight . . .
How do we decide when to simply suffer the injustice, and when we have a case of "We ought to obey God rather than man" as Peter and the apostles did?
Also a note - I see that we are allowing others to demonstrate their unrighteousness. This is not because they'll "get what is coming to them" now, but because we are leaving it to God to judge them. Am I correct? Or is there a benefit for ourselves in eternity as well?
Hopenafuture
Very thoughtful posts, so far. I think that Stevek's point of view is excellent if we were literal pilgrims and strangers, not residents of a wealthy developed country with laws to protect us from conscription, slavery, etc. How does this passage apply to North American Mennonites who populate the world's wealthiest 2%?“The Bible contains six admonishments to homosexuals and 362 admonishments to heterosexuals. That doesn't mean that God doesn't love heterosexuals. It's just that they need more supervision.”
Lavner A King
To Von:
I think that it is clear that the slap IS an insult. To slap a person on the right cheek with the right hand (in the ancient mideast one would never touch another person with the left hand) is a backhanded slap. Thus it is destroying one's dignity and honor. This is worse than simple pain. To dishonor another person is a greater oppression than death. This is why the gospels don't even talk about Jesus pain or the amount of blood he shed (as opposed to the movie, The Passion), but rather the amount of indignities he suffered. Because those sufferings were more pertanent to the oppression Jesus was enduring than nails and blood.
Steve K
To Hopenafuture:
For your first question, I think that the passage you quoted in Acts 5 explains the process really well.
The apostles were brought before the Sanhedrin, led by the high priest, who voted to kill Jesus. Peter and the apostles very impolitely began to proclaim that God vindicated Jesus by resurrected him, in the face of the Sanhedrin's verdict. Jesus when he died, however, begged God to forgive them of the sin for they did not know what they did. So God, through Peter and the others, offered the Sanhedrin another chance to get right with Him and to repent of their sin. However, in the face of the apostles court testimony that Jesus was risen from the dead, they denied it and commanded them to shut up about Jesus.
There are two kinds of submission to human authority that we can do righteously. One is to just do what the human authority says. That is most common. But there are times when what our human authority says is opposed to God's clear command. So the apostles did what God commanded-- which we should ALWAYS do-- and then accepted the punishment of the Sanhedrien without complaint.
In fact, after the elders beat all the apostles with whips 40 minus 1 times, they went home celebrating because they "were considered worthy to suffer for the name." (Even as Jesus said they should in Matt 5:11-12) Thus, if we follow the teaching of Jesus faithfully, we WILL get in trouble with the authorities in some way. We must obey God in the most gentle, loving way we can and then accept the consequences the authorities give us, joyfully.
It is interesting what the apostles prayed in the midst of this incident, which might relate to your other question. In the middle of Acts 4, the apostles prayed Psalm 2, "why do the nations rage against Your king?" which they applied to the Sanhedrin and Herod. The leaders of Jerusalem have become Gentiles in the sight of the apostles and they are praying that way. But they pray no curse upon them. They just pray for God to do justice, and-- most importantly-- they prayed for boldness to do God's will, no matter what threats they received (not that I think they really needed the boldness, given their recent speeches, but God heard their prayer and sent them the Spirit anyway).
The apostles' understanding of non-resistance then is:
a. To do God's will
b. To be persecuted by the authorities for doing God's will
c. To willingly accept whatever punishment the authorities give them
d. To recognize God's blessing upon us for suffering for Jesus' name
e. To rejoice in that blessing
f. To recognize that God has already set aside the oppressive authorities
g. To recognize that Jesus is the true King of His people
h. To not pray cursings
i. To pray for justice
j. To pray for the ability to be more faithful to God.
Steve K
Eye Of The Needle-- Mark 10
Now, I want to warn you that I am using my own translation of the Greek text, which is an extremely literal translation, and there will be a couple points of the Greek I will explain. But it should, for the most part, agree with the KJV in meaning. I am using the text in Mark 10:
And as he came out on the way, a man running to him and kneeling before him and asked him, "Good teacher, what should I do in order to possess eternal life?" But Jesus said to him, "Why tell me "good"? No one is good except God. You know the commands: "Don't murder," "Don't cheat on your spouse," "Don't steal," "Don't commit perjury," "Don't defraud," "Honor your father and mother."" But he said to him, "Teacher, all these I have kept from my youth." But looking straight at him, Jesus loved him and said to him, "One thing you have need of: Go, sell what you have and give to the poor and you will have treasure in heaven, and coming, follow me." But, being downcast at these words, he went away saddened, for he was having many possessions.
Jesus was at first irritated with the man because He thought he was a brown noser by calling him "good". So Jesus rejected his title as flattery. Then Jesus tells him what he could hear from any street-corner preacher-- do the ten commandment. This doesn't negate what Jesus was saying, but this is why Jesus didn't give him the full answer at first.
When the man shows that he understands that following the commands isn't enough, then Jesus "loved" him and He decided to give him the full answer-- He had to sell all he had, give the proceeds to the poor. After doing this, then the man would have "treasure in heaven." This is code for Jesus-- giving to the poor equates having treasure in heaven. This confirms Psalm 41 and Proverbs 19 that says that a man who gives to the poor God will have blessings in storage for him when he is in need. This also is confirmed by Luke 12:32-34, where inheriting the kingdom is equal to giving to the poor is equal to treasure in heaven. We have that same equation here, where treasue in heaven is equated to being saved which is equal to the kingdom of God. Following Jesus is the same as having the kingdom of God, because being with Jesus is being in the kingdom.
The man was saddened, outright depressed, because of how difficult it is to get rid of possessions when you have so many. BTW, there is a tradition that says that this man is actually Joseph, called Barnabas, who in Acts 4 finally did surrender all of his possessions.
And, looking around, Jesus said to his disciples, "How difficult it is for those with many possessions to enter the kingdom of God." The disciples were shocked at his words. But Jesus again answering, said to them, "Children, how difficult it is to enter the kingdom of God. It is easier for a camel to go through they eye of the needle than for the rich to enter the kingdom of God." And they were all the more astonished, saying to themselves, "Then who is able to be saved?” Looking straight at them, Jesus said, "For men this is impossible, but not for God, for everything is possible for God."
Seeing the man's sadness, Jesus is recognizing how difficult it is for some people to enter God's kingdom. In his second statment, of the proposition, He does talk specifically about wealthy people, but He is admitting that it is just difficult in general for anyone to enter into God's kingdom. But He does emphasize the difficulty of wealth, and not just in this passage-- Matt 6:24; Luke 12; Luke 16; Luke 6:24-- all these passages speak of the difficulty for wealthy people to enter into God's kingdom.
Why is it so difficult? Well, different passages mention differnt things, but in this passage the emphasis is on possessions. The word for the "wealthy" is literally in Greek-- "those who have possessions". Or, to put it in technical terms, "people who've got stuff". So the specific kind of wealth Jesus is talking about is possessions. This fits with what Jesus says elsewhere, namely Luke 14:33-- "No one can be my disciple unless he surrenders all of his possessions." And the parable of the bigger barns in Luke 12, the person can either prepare for his retirement or he can be prepared for his death. And his attachment to his possessions kept him from being ready for death.
No wonder the disciples were shocked. Because they themselves had so many possessions-- Peter had a boat and a house! And the answer Jesus gives to possessions is to get rid of them-- sell them!
"Peter began to say to him, "Behold, we have left everything and are following you." Jesus said, "Truly I say to you, there is no one who has left house or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or fields for my sake and for the sake of the gospel, but wouldn't receive a hundred fold now in this time-- houses and brothers and sisters and mothers and children and farms, with persecutions, and in the coming age, eternal life. But many who are first will be last and those who are last, first."
So Peter tries to excuse himself. He says, "Lord, we haven't sold everything, but we left it behind. And we are following you, just like you told that man. So, can we be saved?" Jesus' response is illuminating. He says, "It is true, Peter, you haven't sold everything, but you left it. You have no use of your possessions. Your boat is rotting on the shore and you are sleeping in the fields with me instead of in your house with your wife. Because of your willingness to surrender everything for Me, then hundreds will share with you what they have in this age and you will obtain eternal life-- the kingdom of God."
So what is Jesus saying?
a. That possessions are dangerous. They separate us from God and from God's kingdom. One of the greatest dangers of our life in God is stuff.
b. That it is a requirement to be a disciple to be rid of our possessions.
c. That there are many ways to be rid of our possessions. In Scripture, we have three main examples:
1. Selling our stuff and then giving the proceeds to the poor.
2. Leaving our stuff for others to steal it or to rot.
3. Continually providing our stuff to the needy, as they need it.
The third example isn't in the Mark 10 passage, but we do have a number of examples of it--
Matthew 10-- The one who welcomes (read, provides hospitality) to a prophet will recieve a prophets reward.
Matthew 25-- The sheep are those who provided hospitality to Jesus' brothers
Philemon was one who had a wealthy household, but hosted the church and any poor believer who was passing through, staying in his town.
Prisca and Lydia also hosted churches in their homes, providing hospitality.
I John says that providing one's resources to the needy is displaying one's knowledge of God's love
So what does all this mean for us possession-glutted Westerners?
a. We need to recognize that we all have a lot of stuff. And every time we get rid of our stuff, we get more.
b. We need to take seriously Jesus' command to get rid of our stuff.
c. At least one point, we need to get rid of our stuff. All of it, if possible, without endangering our family.
d. Even Jesus recognized that we would accumulate more stuff. That's not a problem, as long as we keep a couple things clear in our minds:
-The stuff isn't ours, it's Jesus'
-The stuff is given to us to build God's kingdom, not our own
- God's kingdom is built by us giving stuff away, especially to those in need (Luke 12:33)
-We need not fear giving away even what we need because God will provide for us.
Jesus' message on the birds of the air and the flowers of the field is, in both places given, in the context of giving our possessions to the poor (Matthew 6 and Luke 12). As Christians, we should be living lifestyles of surrender to the poor, all the time. In this way, we keep the Demon Stuff from stripping away the blessing of God's kingdom.
"The Servant of Charity must go to bed each night so tired from work that he will think that he has been beaten." -Louis Guanella
And as he came out on the way, a man running to him and kneeling before him and asked him, "Good teacher, what should I do in order to possess eternal life?" But Jesus said to him, "Why tell me "good"? No one is good except God. You know the commands: "Don't murder," "Don't cheat on your spouse," "Don't steal," "Don't commit perjury," "Don't defraud," "Honor your father and mother."" But he said to him, "Teacher, all these I have kept from my youth." But looking straight at him, Jesus loved him and said to him, "One thing you have need of: Go, sell what you have and give to the poor and you will have treasure in heaven, and coming, follow me." But, being downcast at these words, he went away saddened, for he was having many possessions.
Jesus was at first irritated with the man because He thought he was a brown noser by calling him "good". So Jesus rejected his title as flattery. Then Jesus tells him what he could hear from any street-corner preacher-- do the ten commandment. This doesn't negate what Jesus was saying, but this is why Jesus didn't give him the full answer at first.
When the man shows that he understands that following the commands isn't enough, then Jesus "loved" him and He decided to give him the full answer-- He had to sell all he had, give the proceeds to the poor. After doing this, then the man would have "treasure in heaven." This is code for Jesus-- giving to the poor equates having treasure in heaven. This confirms Psalm 41 and Proverbs 19 that says that a man who gives to the poor God will have blessings in storage for him when he is in need. This also is confirmed by Luke 12:32-34, where inheriting the kingdom is equal to giving to the poor is equal to treasure in heaven. We have that same equation here, where treasue in heaven is equated to being saved which is equal to the kingdom of God. Following Jesus is the same as having the kingdom of God, because being with Jesus is being in the kingdom.
The man was saddened, outright depressed, because of how difficult it is to get rid of possessions when you have so many. BTW, there is a tradition that says that this man is actually Joseph, called Barnabas, who in Acts 4 finally did surrender all of his possessions.
And, looking around, Jesus said to his disciples, "How difficult it is for those with many possessions to enter the kingdom of God." The disciples were shocked at his words. But Jesus again answering, said to them, "Children, how difficult it is to enter the kingdom of God. It is easier for a camel to go through they eye of the needle than for the rich to enter the kingdom of God." And they were all the more astonished, saying to themselves, "Then who is able to be saved?” Looking straight at them, Jesus said, "For men this is impossible, but not for God, for everything is possible for God."
Seeing the man's sadness, Jesus is recognizing how difficult it is for some people to enter God's kingdom. In his second statment, of the proposition, He does talk specifically about wealthy people, but He is admitting that it is just difficult in general for anyone to enter into God's kingdom. But He does emphasize the difficulty of wealth, and not just in this passage-- Matt 6:24; Luke 12; Luke 16; Luke 6:24-- all these passages speak of the difficulty for wealthy people to enter into God's kingdom.
Why is it so difficult? Well, different passages mention differnt things, but in this passage the emphasis is on possessions. The word for the "wealthy" is literally in Greek-- "those who have possessions". Or, to put it in technical terms, "people who've got stuff". So the specific kind of wealth Jesus is talking about is possessions. This fits with what Jesus says elsewhere, namely Luke 14:33-- "No one can be my disciple unless he surrenders all of his possessions." And the parable of the bigger barns in Luke 12, the person can either prepare for his retirement or he can be prepared for his death. And his attachment to his possessions kept him from being ready for death.
No wonder the disciples were shocked. Because they themselves had so many possessions-- Peter had a boat and a house! And the answer Jesus gives to possessions is to get rid of them-- sell them!
"Peter began to say to him, "Behold, we have left everything and are following you." Jesus said, "Truly I say to you, there is no one who has left house or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or fields for my sake and for the sake of the gospel, but wouldn't receive a hundred fold now in this time-- houses and brothers and sisters and mothers and children and farms, with persecutions, and in the coming age, eternal life. But many who are first will be last and those who are last, first."
So Peter tries to excuse himself. He says, "Lord, we haven't sold everything, but we left it behind. And we are following you, just like you told that man. So, can we be saved?" Jesus' response is illuminating. He says, "It is true, Peter, you haven't sold everything, but you left it. You have no use of your possessions. Your boat is rotting on the shore and you are sleeping in the fields with me instead of in your house with your wife. Because of your willingness to surrender everything for Me, then hundreds will share with you what they have in this age and you will obtain eternal life-- the kingdom of God."
So what is Jesus saying?
a. That possessions are dangerous. They separate us from God and from God's kingdom. One of the greatest dangers of our life in God is stuff.
b. That it is a requirement to be a disciple to be rid of our possessions.
c. That there are many ways to be rid of our possessions. In Scripture, we have three main examples:
1. Selling our stuff and then giving the proceeds to the poor.
2. Leaving our stuff for others to steal it or to rot.
3. Continually providing our stuff to the needy, as they need it.
The third example isn't in the Mark 10 passage, but we do have a number of examples of it--
Matthew 10-- The one who welcomes (read, provides hospitality) to a prophet will recieve a prophets reward.
Matthew 25-- The sheep are those who provided hospitality to Jesus' brothers
Philemon was one who had a wealthy household, but hosted the church and any poor believer who was passing through, staying in his town.
Prisca and Lydia also hosted churches in their homes, providing hospitality.
I John says that providing one's resources to the needy is displaying one's knowledge of God's love
So what does all this mean for us possession-glutted Westerners?
a. We need to recognize that we all have a lot of stuff. And every time we get rid of our stuff, we get more.
b. We need to take seriously Jesus' command to get rid of our stuff.
c. At least one point, we need to get rid of our stuff. All of it, if possible, without endangering our family.
d. Even Jesus recognized that we would accumulate more stuff. That's not a problem, as long as we keep a couple things clear in our minds:
-The stuff isn't ours, it's Jesus'
-The stuff is given to us to build God's kingdom, not our own
- God's kingdom is built by us giving stuff away, especially to those in need (Luke 12:33)
-We need not fear giving away even what we need because God will provide for us.
Jesus' message on the birds of the air and the flowers of the field is, in both places given, in the context of giving our possessions to the poor (Matthew 6 and Luke 12). As Christians, we should be living lifestyles of surrender to the poor, all the time. In this way, we keep the Demon Stuff from stripping away the blessing of God's kingdom.
"The Servant of Charity must go to bed each night so tired from work that he will think that he has been beaten." -Louis Guanella
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)