Discuss difficult texts! learn, teach,and gain new insights!

[tall73]

I enjoy reading the Bible, and most of it is quite clear. But occassionally I come across texts that are a challenge. Some I figure out. Some I still wonder about. So I figured I would list some here for folks to take a stab at. Maybe someone else has the answer!

Feel free to post texts you wonder about and together we can figure them out.

Remember, keep it respectful. There may be some texts where we list some possibilities. The idea is to weigh the evidence, and try to see which one is closest to what the text indicates. This may mean that we will disagree at points. That is fine.


A few to start off with....


1. In Galatians Paul's major burden is to warn the Galatians that they have turned to legalism, and away from Christ. In his appeal he makes the following odd statement

GAL 2:17 "If, while we seek to be justified in Christ, it becomes evident that we ourselves are sinners, does that mean that Christ promotes sin? Absolutely not! 18 If I rebuild what I destroyed, I prove that I am a lawbreaker. 19 For through the law I died to the law so that I might live for God. 20 I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. 21 I do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing!"

The part that is confusing is vs. 17-18. What is it that Paul destroyed and rebuilt? A few guesses, the church? (being the object of his sin of murder?) The law?

Neither of these really seems to fit.


KJV has a slightly different take on 17-18

Gal 2:17 But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, is therefore Christ the minister of sin? God forbid.
Gal 2:18 For if I build again the things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor.

Here it seems to say that he makes himself a transgressor, rather than reveals himself to be (already is, just revealed).

Here you could almost say that the solution is

If I rebuild the ceremonial law? Legalistic understanding?
It fits slightly better, but not sure.

The verb in question is a compound verb, sunistemi, istemi, stand, sun with, compound form = stand with, to exibit, to introduce etc. This seems to better fit the idea in the NIV.



2.

1JN 5:13 I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God so that you may know that you have eternal life. 14 This is the confidence we have in approaching God: that if we ask anything according to his will, he hears us. 15 And if we know that he hears us--whatever we ask--we know that we have what we asked of him.

1JN 5:16 If anyone sees his brother commit a sin that does not lead to death, he should pray and God will give him life. I refer to those whose sin does not lead to death. There is a sin that leads to death. I am not saying that he should pray about that. 17 All wrongdoing is sin, and there is sin that does not lead to death.

I did a paper on this one and still have my doubts

This is a complex one. The problematic vs. are 16-17. Any answer has to match with the rest of the book, and the internal facts of the text. Here are the factors that need to go into any explanation:

A. doesn't all sin lead to death? (Romans 6:23, etc.)
B. how does John use the term brother? (Christians? All men? Excluding the false teachers who left the community, as explained earlier in the book?)
C. What sin leads to death, and which does not? And since he assumes they can tell the difference, how can we tell? Is it a specific sin or type of sin? Is it a sin that is not repented of? (And if so how would you know?) Is it a sin by a certain type of person? Is it a minor sin (some even read into this the Catholic distinction of venial and mortal sin).
D. Is there a time when we should NOT pray for someone? How would we know when that is?
E. Clearly vs. 16-17 is an example of the principle in 13-15. That God will give us whatever we ask, in accordance with His will. But does this imply we can we gain forgiveness for someone else? Or simply that we can help them have repentance?

Some possible answers

A. Sin that leads to death is the sin against the Holy Spirit–they no longer hear God. He might have in mind those false teachers, anti-christs, who left the community, and who seemed to be genuine but were not. So in this case brother would be one who professes Christ. But how would you know if they had committed this sin? Because they left? Shouldn't we pray for them because we do not know the heart?

B. A sin that does not lead to death is one repented of. This is the only one that seems logically true by biblical standards, but it has some problems. How would you know? Perhaps if they were living in open sin that would make sense. But then shouldn't you pray for them all the more? And why would you pray for them if they already repented?

C. a sin that does not lead to death...not a serious one? But then, again, why wouldn't you pray for a more serious one.

Other ideas? Try to cover all the bases in your explanation.


3.

JN 11:4 When he heard this, Jesus said, "This sickness will not end in death. No, it is for God's glory so that God's Son may be glorified through it." 5 Jesus loved Martha and her sister and Lazarus. 6 Yet when he heard that Lazarus was sick, he stayed where he was two more days.

JN 11:7 Then he said to his disciples, "Let us go back to Judea."

JN 11:8 "But Rabbi," they said, "a short while ago the Jews tried to stone you, and yet you are going back there?"

JN 11:9 Jesus answered, "Are there not twelve hours of daylight? A man who walks by day will not stumble, for he sees by this world's light. 10 It is when he walks by night that he stumbles, for he has no light."

JN 11:11 After he had said this, he went on to tell them, "Our friend Lazarus has fallen asleep; but I am going there to wake him up."

JN 11:12 His disciples replied, "Lord, if he sleeps, he will get better." 13 Jesus had been speaking of his death, but his disciples thought he meant natural sleep.

JN 11:14 So then he told them plainly, "Lazarus is dead, 15 and for your sake I am glad I was not there, so that you may believe. But let us go to him."

JN 11:16 Then Thomas (called Didymus) said to the rest of the disciples, "Let us also go, that we may die with him."

There are a couple of related confusing points here.

First is in verse 9. What does Jesus mean by the statement that there are 12 hours of daylight, etc. My first inclination is that He knows from the Father when He should do what, so He is in no danger. He is walking in the light that His father gave Him. In this case the statement by Thomas in vs. 16 would be sarcastic "let us go and die" and expressing doubt.

The other interpretation that is possible is that Jesus is saying His time is coming up in which He will die, but that is what God has revealed. Then Thomas' statement would be one of self-sacrifice and faith.

Any idea which one makes more sense?



Throw some possibilities out there! And post your own. It is always great to see new insights.

 

[payattention]

If those same statements had been made in contemporary society we would not see a need to find some "hidden meaning" in them. Paul's statement that he would prove himself to be a transgressor if he built again the things he destroyed does not need to be fleshed out. It does not matter what the thing is, the only reason for destroying it would be because it was thought to be unnecessary. To then return and rebuild it after destroying it would prove that the act of destruction was arbitrary. That is all Paul was saying. This is the result of making the Bible to be what it never claimed to be and it only leads to further confusion.

 

[tall73]

Sorry, still not following you. I don't believe Paul said random things that his audience was not meant to understand.

And if he meant it in a general way, how did they understand it? You might have the answer,but if you do, I am not getting it.

I agree that the natural sense is the most correct unless some specific reason exists to go against it. But frankly, I don't see that the literal sense makes any sense at all in this passage to me. I am missing information that is needed to complete his illustration.

If we don't know what it was that he destroyed or rebuilt, we don't know why he used it as an illustration. So we assume

a. they understood it
b. it has some objective meaning that relates to Christ not promoting sin.

it might be we have no access to its meaning today. But either way it doesn't hurt to ask.

I am not looking for some deep, hidden spiritual meaning after the manner of Origin or Clement, etc. In fact, your statement in quotes implies that

a. you think I said hidden, which I didn't
b. you are referring to a type of hermneneutic that looks for deep mysteries hidden from the uninitiated.

I am not advocating the latter at all. I just don't get what he is saying. It might be quite obvious to someone, which is why I am asking!

As it turns out my hermeneutic is to examine the plain meaning of the author with the following in mind:

1. We are not the original audience. The text must be understood from their viewpoint.

2. Some genres or idoms, etc. may necessitate symbolic language, hyperbole etc.

3. The context dictates the meaning of unclear passages--the immediate context first, then the chapter, rest of the book, then those by the same author, and finally all of Scripture.

The problem is, I am not finding enough in the context of this passage to clue us in.

 

[payattention]

Sorry, still not following you. I don't believe Paul said random things that his audience was not meant to understand.

And if he meant it in a general way, how did they understand it? You might have the answer,but if you do, I am not getting it.

It was an illustration. That is why he said "if." It did not matter what the thing was. To build again something you had destroyed said a lot about your character. That is all he meant and that is what they understood. It was not random.

 

[tall73]

Yeah, I know it was an illustration. But what does it say about your character to destroy then build?

It would seem to indicate that he is a good guy. (he rebuilt what he destroyed, fixing the damage) So why does he conclude from it that he is a lawbreaker? Or is it simply saying that at a later date he admitted he was a lawbreaker BY rebuilding? Again, it makes no sense if you don't know what it is.


I am not trying to be difficult. Most things are fairly obvious in Galatians. But this one is not clicking with me.

 

[woobadooba]

Well, since there is no agreement on this question, how about a new one?

This one is very popular with atheists: The problem of evil

"all things were made through Him and without Him was not anything made that was made."

Here's how the syllogism works:

God created all things. Evil is a thing. Therefore, God created evil.

So, where does the problem lie with this line of reasoning?

 

[tall73]

woobadooba, how about,

God created all things through Christ. That includes free will. God did not make evil. He made beings capable of choosing evil.

I am not sure that evil is properly a thing. It is more of an ethical concept.

Now a different question which deals with that, are ethics logically antecedant to God. Ie...is God moral because it is the good thing to do. Or is He moral, and that BECOMES the right thing to do because He is God.

But of course, these are more properly philosophy questions rather than textual ones. But if you must, post away!

I seem to recall reading a text that might go along with the devil's advocate view...will get back to ya on that . Besides, especially in the OT we see God taking responsability for everything ultimately, and therefore at times people crediting to God things that we wonder if He did or Satan. But since He allows it in His providence, they attribute it to Him.


One other note: any question can be addressed at any time. So we don't retire them. Just answer the ones you want to answer.

 

[woobadooba]

I am not sure that evil is properly a thing. It is more of an ethical concept.

And this is what most people fail to see, that evil really isn't a thing, but a concept.

Take a doughnut hole for example. Is it a thing, or a concept? The reason why there is a doughnut hole is because there is an absence of doughnut.

And so it is the same with evil, its opposite being good. Evil is an absence of good.

Hence, it is a concept, not a thing. Therefore, the syllogism, God made all things. Evil is a thing. Therefore, God created evil. Is flawed in that it states that evil is a thing, but it isn't a thing. It is a concept that denotes the idea of being an absence of Good.

Thus God didn't create evil.

I know it isn't one of those difficult texts, but it is a question that concerns a lot of people. For, most people don't understand that there is a battle between good and evil. They assume that God causes it all, but that just isn't so.

Evil exists not because God caused it or created it, but because His created beings, meaning humanity, have chosen to separate themselves from Him.

And of course it was this way with Satan too.

 

[payattention]

Yeah, I know it was an illustration. But what does it say about your character to destroy then build?

It would seem to indicate that he is a good guy. (he rebuilt what he destroyed, fixing the damage) So why does he conclude from it that he is a lawbreaker? Or is it simply saying that at a later date he admitted he was a lawbreaker BY rebuilding? Again, it makes no sense if you don't know what it is.


I am not trying to be difficult. Most things are fairly obvious in Galatians. But this one is not clicking with me.

This is good. He is speaking of deliberate, planned destruction, not something that happened accidentally. A law breaker is not just someone who breaks a law but someone who operates irrationally or arbitrarily. This is because reason is the first law of the universe.

 

[payattention]

And this is what most people fail to see, that evil really isn't a thing, but a concept.

Take a doughnut hole for example. Is it a thing, or a concept? The reason why there is a doughnut hole is because there is an absence of doughnut.

And so it is the same with evil, its opposite being good. Evil is an absence of good.

In the same way that darkness is the absence of light. We can make electric light but not electric darkness. But atheists are not the only people who gave a problem with the nature of evil. Most Christians do. I usually demonstrate it with the following questions after we agree that we have both good and evil in the universe.

1. What kind of universe would we have if we only got rid of all the evil in the universe? They correctly say we would have a good universe.

2. What kind of universe would we have if we only got rid of all the good in the universe? Most say an evil universe and the others waver.

The fact is that the answer to both questions is the same. Whenever you have no disagreement then all is good. Evil is the opposite of what is accepted. If everybody agreed on what we now call evil it would become the new good. So, not only is evil not a thing, good is relative.

 

[woobadooba]

In the same way that darkness is the absence of light. We can make electric light but not electric darkness. But atheists are not the only people who gave a problem with the nature of evil. Most Christians do. I usually demonstrate it with the following questions after we agree that we have both good and evil in the universe.

1. What kind of universe would we have if we only got rid of all the evil in the universe? They correctly say we would have a good universe.

2. What kind of universe would we have if we only got rid of all the good in the universe? Most say an evil universe and the others waver.

The fact is that the answer to both questions is the same. Whenever you have no disagreement then all is good. Evil is the opposite of what is accepted. If everybody agreed on what we now call evil it would become the new good. So, not only is evil not a thing, good is relative.

Yes, but then you might run into another problem, such as, if good were relative, then it necessarily follows that evil is relative--being the opposite of good. Hence, both evil and good are relative, and are therefore equal. Thus this is where the yin and yang dillemma dawns from, which indicates that both good and evil are good.

You see, when you equate them as such that they are both relative, it would necessarily follow that if you were to apply them to a deity that deity would be both good and evil. Hence, God would be deemed to be both good and evil.

Now, in terms of taste you would have a point. But someone wouldn't say "Yuck, this tastes evil!" He would say that it tastes bad. So it would be either good or bad in terms of taste.

But in terms of good and evil it must be absolute. But then we run into another problem. How can evil be absolute? And that is why it is best to say that it isn't absolute, it is just quite simply the absence of good.

And so this is what we are left with: God is good. Good is absolute. Therefore, God is absolute!

We must understand that anything that is evil or bad is only so because it lack goodness. Even when we look at taste, it is hard to believe that if everything were pure and unadulterated by sin, that we would use words like bad or evil, for such words would have no place in a society where there was only good.

 

[payattention]

Yes, but then you might run into another problem, such as, if good were relative, then it necessarily follows that evil is relative--being the opposite of good. Hence, both evil and good are relative, and are therefore equal. Thus this is where the yin and yang dillemma dawns from, which indicates that both good and evil are good.

This does not follow. Evil is always relative because it is the opposite of good but not relative in the presence of good as if good were absent. Because God is eternal He decides what good is. But it is the relative nature of God that allows God to wink in the time of ignorance. So that evil is only good where the good is not known, not when it is known.

 

[woobadooba]

This does not follow. Evil is always relative because it is the opposite of good but not relative in the presence of good as if good were absent. Because God is eternal He decides what good is. But it is the relative nature of God that allows God to wink in the time of ignorance. So that evil is only good where the good is not known, not when it is known.

God isn't relative. He is absolute. Just because He winks at a wrong that doesn't make Him relative. It's His absolute love and mercy that winks!

Do you know what relative truth is? Relative truth is truth that is defined by one's own perspective. So when you say good is relative you are saying that good is a matter of taste rather than principle.

Now, I had mentioned to you already that we can say something is good, or that something tastes good, and in that sense good would be relative.

But when we speak of goodness insofar as it relates to the nature of God, we are speaking of something that is absolute. So evil, being the opposite of good, can't be absolute, for if it were, then which would be stronger, good or evil? Neither! They would be the same. Hence, God would be both good and evil.

Do you believe God is evil? Of course not. He must be good, for that is His nature, and since God didn't create evil, for evil is a concept and not a thing, it necessarily follows that evil is the absence of Good.

So remember, in matters of taste good is relative. But in matters of morality, good is absolute.

And since God is absolute, God is good.

If you say God is relative you are actually saying that God isn't absolute, and if God isn't absolute, then He isn't God.

 

[payattention]

God isn't relative. He is absolute. Just because He winks at a wrong that doesn't make Him relative. It's His absolute love and mercy that winks!

You may need to edit that post. I did not say God was relative. I said that He decides what is good. That makes Him absolute.

 

[woobadooba]

You may need to edit that post. I did not say God was relative. I said that He decides what is good. That makes Him absolute.

This is what you said, "But it is the relative nature of God that allows God to wink in the time of ignorance."

Now, either God's nature is relative or absolute. If God absolute it necessarily follows that His nature is absolute since His nature is His essence.

So, I didn't misrepresent what you said. I just showed you the logical conclusion of it.

I just want to add something more, to say that God decides what is good is to say that He really doesn't know what is good prior to the fact. God doesn't decide, He makes the rule, and the rule is an emanation of His essence, which is good.

 

[payattention]

You may need to edit that post. I did not say God was relative. I said that He decides what is good. That makes Him absolute.

I wondered where you got the idea from that I said God was relative. I just noted a type in my post. After establishing that God was absolute and good was relative I then said "It is the relative nature of God that allows God to wink . . ." instead of "It is the relative nature of good that allows God to wink . . ."

I won't make any comment about analysis. LOL

 

[woobadooba]

I wondered where you got the idea from that I said God was relative. I just noted a type in my post. After establishing that God was absolute and good was relative I then said "It is the relative nature of God that allows God to wink . . ." instead of "It is the relative nature of good that allows God to wink . . ."

I won't make any comment about analysis. LOL

I just added something more to my post if you care to read it. Post #15

But again, when you say the relative nature of good, you are still showing me that you missed my point.

Here it is again. God is absolute. God is good. Therefore, good is absolute.

You see, when you say good is relative, once again you say God is relative since God is good.

I presented a very interesting argument to you in another post, in that I said if it weren't for sin, there would be no such thing as something other than good. So even in taste there would be no such thing as bad taste, for all things would taste good.

It is the absence of good that makes things taste bad.

Hence, good is absolute, bad is relative, and evil just is because it is the absence of good. It is neither relative or absolute.

 

[payattention]

I just added something more to my post if you care to read it. Post #15

But again, when you say the relative nature of good, you are still showing me that you missed my point.

Here it is again. God is absolute. God is good. Therefore, good is absolute.

You see, when you say good is relative, once again you say God is relative since God is good.

I presented a very interesting argument to you in another post, in that I said if it weren't for sin, there would be no such thing as something other than good. So even in taste there would be no such thing as bad taste, for all things would taste good.

It is the absence of good that makes things taste bad.

Hence, good is absolute, bad is relative, and evil just is because it is the absence of good. It is neither relative or absolute.

If good were not relative then those who are acting contrary to the will of God would be guilty of evil regardless of their ignorance. The fact that God winks in the face of ignorance indicates that their actions are reckoned to be good relative to their state of knowledge. Consequently, we are judged on the basis of what know not on the basis of what we do.

God is not good. God defines good. God is absolute; good is relative.

 

[payattention]

I just want to add something more, to say that God decides what is good is to say that He really doesn't know what is good prior to the fact. God doesn't decide, He makes the rule, and the rule is an emanation of His essence, which is good.

This contradicts something you said earlier. In the absence of sin classification as good is unnecessary. It is the presence of evil, a departure from a harmonious relationship with God, that makes necessary to define the dividing line. God is. That is all.

 

[woobadooba]

payattention]If good were not relative then those who are acting contrary to the will of God would be guilty of evil regardless of their ignorance. The fact that God winks in the face of ignorance indicates that their actions are reckoned to be good relative to their state of knowledge. Consequently, we are judged on the basis of what know not on the basis of what we do.

I can't believe what I am reading! Just because God winks that doesn't lesson the severity of the sin! God forgive the sinner, but never the sin. God hates sin.

And no action that is contrary to the will of God is good.

God is not good. God defines good. God is absolute; good is relative.

This is a frightening thought, God is not good? That is contrary to what the Bible says, "And Jesus said to him, "Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone." Lk. 18:19

Again! God is absolute. God is good. Good is absolute.

Be careful when you philosophize!