He Gets Us campaign

[Clare73]

Philemon 1 NIV

The instruction to Philemon isn't an exception, but the rule for us all always, and for them in the 1rst century too!
8 Therefore, although in Christ I could be bold and order you to do what you ought to do, 9 yet I prefer to appeal to you on the basis of love. It is as none other than Paul—an old man and now also a prisoner of Christ Jesus— 10 that I appeal to you for my son Onesimus, b who became my son while I was in chains. 11 Formerly he was useless to you, but now he has become useful both to you and to me.

12 I am sending him—who is my very heart—back to you. 13 I would have liked to keep him with me so that he could take your place in helping me while I am in chains for the gospel. 14 But I did not want to do anything without your consent, so that any favor you do would not seem forced but would be voluntary. 15 Perhaps the reason he was separated from you for a little while was that you might have him back forever— 16 no longer as a slave, but better than a slave, as a dear brother. He is very dear to me but even dearer to you, both as a fellow man and as a brother in the Lord.
17 So if you consider me a partner, welcome him as you would welcome me.

What he "ought to do" according to v. 17 is to "welcome Onesimus" as a brother, not punishing him for stealing and running away as a slave, as he had the legal right to do, and for which theft Paul was willing to personally make up to Philemon.
It's not about freeing him from slavery, it's about freeing him from punishment.

Such rewriting of Scripture. . .

If Philemon had not done as Paul asked (and never repented of that sinful refusal to treat Onesimus well....) then Philemon would have gone to perish in the lake of fire. Hell.
But we can expect that instead Philemon did just what Paul asked me to do, from love.
Here's an interesting seeming outcome: Onesimus (Greek: Ὀνήσιμος, translit. Onēsimos, meaning "useful"; died c. 68 AD, according to Catholic tradition),[1] also called Onesimus of Byzantium and The Holy Apostle Onesimus in the Eastern Orthodox Church,[2] was probably a slave[3] to Philemon of Colossae, a man of Christian faith. He may also be the same Onesimus named by Ignatius of Antioch (died c. 107) as bishop in Ephesus[4] which would put Onesimus's death closer to 95. If so, Onesimus went from slave to brother to bishop.
Onesimus - Wikipedia

We can learn: Christ simply ended what modern people think of as slavery in Matthew 7:12 for all who are true believers!

We can learn: servitude is not incompatible with Christian liberty,
and you couldn't be farther from NT apostolic teaching authoritative to the church on this.

Christ did not end slavery in Mt 7:12, for "doing unto others. . ." does not include breaking the law regarding slave ownership, as is clearly seen in:
Eph 6:5: "Slaves, obey your masters with respect and fear and sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ. . ."

1 Ti 6:1: "All who are under the yoke of slavery should consider their masters worthy of full respect, so that God's name and our teaching will not be slandered. Those who have believing masters are not to show less respect for them because they are brothers (they are still to be regarded as your legal master). Instead they are to serve them even better, because those (masters) who benefit from their service are believers, and dear to them. These are things you are to teach and urge upon them."

Tit 2:9: "Teach slaves to be subject to their masters in everything, to try to please them, not to talk back to them, and not to steal from them, but to show that they can be fully trusted, so that in every way they will make the teaching about God and our Savior attractive."

1 Pe 2:18: "Slaves, submit to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and considerate but to those who are harsh. . .if you suffer for doing good and you endure it, this is commendable before God. To this you were called, because Christ suffered for you, leaving you an example, that you should follow in his steps. . .when they hurled their insults at him, he did not retaliate; when he suffered, he made no threats. Instead, he entrusted himself to him who judges justly."

Way too much rewriting of Scripture by you which is contrary to the Scriptures above.

As previously stated in post #248:
While slavery--like poverty, sickness and disability--is undesirable and is to be avoided if possible (1 Co 7:21), it is not immoral and is ordained by God (Ex 21:20-21), as are poverty (1 Sa 2:7, Mk 14:7), sickness (Dt 32:39) and disability (Ex 4:11, Jn 9:2-3) which are just as undesirable.

You have created your own personal doctrine contrary to clear NT apostolic teaching presented above, thereby disqualifying you to discuss this NT doctrine with me.

 

[Clare73]

Sister Clare, I do declare ... ...!!! Please put that shovel down. Not for my sake, but for yours.

Not understanding your meaning. . .

 

[RDKirk]

What he "ought to do" according to v. 17 is to "welcome Onesimus" as a brother, not punishing him for stealing and running away as a slave, as he had the legal right to do, and for which theft Paul was willing to personally make up to Philemon.
It's not about freeing him from slavery, it's about freeing him from punishment.

What part of "not as a slave" is so hard to understand?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

He thinks its bizarre for people to love each other? Wow. It was just a commercial. This guy is reading his own views into the commercial to virtue signal. He really accentuates "white people". If this commercial didn't influence anyone then why are these people using the ad to increase their own profits? Perhaps that was the underlying motivation, to actually provoke the Christian viewers and bilk their grievances and "outrage" for profit. Disingenuous religious manipulation is not a new concept. While I can admire his mission work, isn't it all in vain if he's in it for the donations?

It would seem so. He does seem rather habituated to citing "white people" in contrast to other ethnic groupings. Personally, I don't support any supposed Christian missions work that is tinged with possible racism, tribalism, denominationalism or national triumphalism.

I wish I hadn't heard that guy say he was affiliated with Baptists. I was baptized and saved long ago in a Baptist church that no longer exists. I may do it again like my dad did recently. He seemed very inspired afterwards.

Well, to be fair, I think Spencer Smith is an "Independent Baptist," which isn't quite the same as identifying as, say, a Southern Baptist. I'm sure there are a few good Baptist churches around if you want to get baptized at some point. I was baptized many years ago in a Southern Baptist church, and I have no qualms about sharing that bit about myself. But at the same time, I've never identified myself as a "Baptist" and I don't put too much stock in any one denomination alone.

You do you with the Lord as you feel you need to do. And be blessed in that!

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Not understanding your meaning. . .

My meaning is that you need to be very, very careful in identifying yourself as a Christian who is --- where the written Word is concerned --- "more akin to pre-NT believers." What even is a "pre-NT believer" in your view?

That made up term is, itself, open to all kinds of misinterpretations, and just saying it doesn't actually prove or explain that you have some sort of more solidly "Israelite/Jewish" understanding of Scripture than any other Christian here does.


That's all I'm saying, Sister Clare.

 

[Clare73]

What part of "not as a slave" is so hard to understand?

I would ask the same, what part of the NT context (post #301) is so hard to understand?

And I would answer your question with: Context shows that his meaning is "not as (just) a slave, but (also) as a brother."

 

[HarleyER]

I think you make some really good points here. I think people talk a lot of big game about the Bible but when it comes to practical applications - I don't think they have a clue.

The most important thing is to love God. Christ is the vine, we are the branches. We will only bear fruit through our love of Him. But we don't have to worry about our fruit. It is a promise of Christ that we will bear fruit, to His glory.

 

[Clare73]

My meaning is that you need to be very, very careful in identifying yourself as a Christian who--- where the written Word is concerned --- "more akin to pre-NT believers." What even is a "pre-NT believer" in your view?

I am referring there to the OT view of the Scriptures, to the view held by Jesus regarding them, who believed

the OT was the word of God (Mt 15:6, Lk 5:1, 11:28, Jn 10:35) in every detail,
that every jot and tittle of the Law (the OT word for the Scriptures) was the very truth of God vested with the authority of God and backed by the power of God (Mt 5:17-19).
To emphasize that the OT was the infallible (wholly trustworthy and reliable), inerrant (wholly true) word of God, Jesus used his regular formula for solemn assertion ("Truly, truly I say to you") when he stated "until heaven and earth disappear, not one tittle (smallest stroke of the writing pen) will by any means disappear from the Law/Scriptures" (Mt 5:18, Lk 16:17).
He treated arguments from Scripture as having clinching force. When he said, "It is written," that was final. There was no appeal against Scripture, for "the Scripture cannot be broken." (Mt 4:4, 7, 10, Jn 10:35). God's Word holds good forever.
He constantly scolded the Jews for their ignorance and neglect of Scripture: "Are you not in error because you do not know the Scriptures?" "Have you not read. . .?" "Go and learn what this means. . ." (Mk 12:24, Mt 12:3, 5, 19:4, 21:16, 42, 9:13)
Likewise, Jesus himself submitted to the OT as the Word of God.
He lived a life of obedience to Scripture (Lk 4:17-21, Mt 8:16-17, 11:2-5),
and then he died in obedience to Scripture (Lk 18:31, Mk 8:31, 9:31, 10:33-34, Mt 26:24, Lk 22:37, Mt 26:53-54, 55-56).
When he arose, he explained who he was by the Scriptures (Lk 24:44-47, 27).
He presented himself to the Jews as the fulfiller of Scripture (Jn 5:39-40, 46-47).
And in asserting to the Jews that the OT bore divine authoritative witness to him, he thereby bore divine authoritative witness to it.
Belief in the authority and truth of the OT was the foundation of Jesus' whole ministry.

Is that your view of the Scriptures, for it is mine.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I am referring there to the OT view of the Scriptures, to the view held by Jesus regarding them, who believed

the OT was the word of God (Mt 15:6, Lk 5:1, 11:28, Jn 10:35) in every detail,
that every jot and tittle of the Law (the OT word for the Scriptures) was the very truth of God vested with the authority of God and backed by the power of God (Mt 5:17-19).
To emphasize that the OT was the infallible (wholly trustworthy and reliable), inerrant (wholly true) word of God, Jesus used his regular formula for solemn assertion ("Truly, truly I say to you") when he stated "until heaven and earth disappear, not one tittle (smallest stroke of the writing pen) will by any means disappear from the Law/Scriptures (Mt 5:18, Lk 16:17).
He treated arguments from Scripture as having clinching force. When he said, "It is written," that was final. There was no appeal against Scripture, for "the Scripture cannot be broken." (Mt 4:4, 7, 10, Jn 10:35). God's Word holds good forever.
He constantly scolded the Jews for their ignorance and neglect of Scripture: "Are you not in error because you do not know the Scriptures?" "Have you not read. . .?" "Go and learn what this means. . ." (Mk 12:24, Mt 12:3, 5, 19:4, 21:16, 42, 9:13)
Likewise, Jesus himself submitted to the OT as the Word of God.
He lived a life of obedience to Scripture (Lk 4:17-21, Mt 8:16-17, 11:2-5),
and then he died in obedience to Scripture (Lk 18:31, Mk 8:31, 9:31, 10:33-34, Mt 26:24, Lk 22:37, Mt 26:53-54, 55-56).
When he arose, he explained who he was by the Scriptures (Lk 24:44-47, 27).
He presented himself to the Jews as the fulfiller of Scripture (Jn 5:39-40, 46-47).
And in asserting to the Jews that the OT bore divine authoritative witness to him, he thereby bore divine authoritative witness to it.
Belief in the authority and truth of the OT was the foundation of Jesus' whole ministry.

Is that your view of the Scriptures, for it is mine

That depends.

Do you think Jesus, Paul, Peter, and other early disciples, believed that the "Curse of Ham" directly referred to dark-skinned African people?

 

[Clare73]

That depends.

Do you think Jesus, Paul, Peter, and other early disciples, believed that the "Curse of Ham" directly referred to dark-skinned African people?

Only if such is stated in Scripture.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Only if such is stated in Scripture.

And since you, like me, are knowledgeable about Scripture, would you say that "such is stated in Scripture"?

Either a "yes" or "no" will do for an answer here...

 

[Clare73]

And since you, like me, are knowledgeable about Scripture, would you say that "such is stated in Scripture"?

Either a "yes" or "no" will do for an answer here...

Can't give a yes or no without looking it up, and I'm too lazy to do that now.

But right off the top of my head, I don't recall any such thing.

And post 308?

 

[ralliann]

Or, you could be neither leftwing liberal progressive nor rightwing conservative and just trying to be like Jesus. All of who He was and modeled for us, and not just the part that aligns with a political philosophy. Wouldn’t that be novel.

The really odd part when people assume as they are in this thread is that when you look at who is backing He Gets Us, the major known donors are conservatives. A link to CNN talking about David Green, Hobby Lobby founder. I’ll quote a piece of it. I find it a sad indicator of the times we are in that the message of Jesus’ love immediately makes people think progressive and not gospel focused.

“While donors who support “He Gets Us” can choose to remain anonymous, Hobby Lobby co-founder David Green claims to be a big contributor to the campaign’s multi-million-dollar coffers. Hobby Lobby has famously been at the center of several legal controversies, including the support of anti-LGBTQ legislation and a successful years-long legal fight that eventually led to the Supreme Court allowing companies to deny medical coverage for contraception on the basis of religious beliefs.”

https://www.cnn.com/2023/02/11/us/he-gets-us-super-bowl-commercials-cec/index.html

Jesus disciples baptized the repentant.
Mr 1:4 John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.
Lu 3:3 And he came into all the country about Jordan, preaching the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins;
Lu 24:47 And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.
Ac 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
It is not a new thing. So, I don't get what the real difference is.

 

[RDKirk]

I would ask the same, what part of the NT context (post #301) is so hard to understand?

And I would answer your question with: Context shows that his meaning is "not as (just) a slave, but (also) as a brother."

You added words to the scripture. The "just" and "also" totally change the meaning...and ARE NOT THERE.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I am referring there to the OT view of the Scriptures, to the view held by Jesus regarding them, who believed

the OT was the word of God (Mt 15:6, Lk 5:1, 11:28, Jn 10:35) in every detail,
that every jot and tittle of the Law (the OT word for the Scriptures) was the very truth of God vested with the authority of God and backed by the power of God (Mt 5:17-19).
To emphasize that the OT was the infallible (wholly trustworthy and reliable), inerrant (wholly true) word of God, Jesus used his regular formula for solemn assertion ("Truly, truly I say to you") when he stated "until heaven and earth disappear, not one tittle (smallest stroke of the writing pen) will by any means disappear from the Law/Scriptures" (Mt 5:18, Lk 16:17).
He treated arguments from Scripture as having clinching force. When he said, "It is written," that was final. There was no appeal against Scripture, for "the Scripture cannot be broken." (Mt 4:4, 7, 10, Jn 10:35). God's Word holds good forever.
He constantly scolded the Jews for their ignorance and neglect of Scripture: "Are you not in error because you do not know the Scriptures?" "Have you not read. . .?" "Go and learn what this means. . ." (Mk 12:24, Mt 12:3, 5, 19:4, 21:16, 42, 9:13)
Likewise, Jesus himself submitted to the OT as the Word of God.
He lived a life of obedience to Scripture (Lk 4:17-21, Mt 8:16-17, 11:2-5),
and then he died in obedience to Scripture (Lk 18:31, Mk 8:31, 9:31, 10:33-34, Mt 26:24, Lk 22:37, Mt 26:53-54, 55-56).
When he arose, he explained who he was by the Scriptures (Lk 24:44-47, 27).
He presented himself to the Jews as the fulfiller of Scripture (Jn 5:39-40, 46-47).
And in asserting to the Jews that the OT bore divine authoritative witness to him, he thereby bore divine authoritative witness to it.
Belief in the authority and truth of the OT was the foundation of Jesus' whole ministry.

Is that your view of the Scriptures, for it is mine.

Honestly, no, that's not my view of Scripture. Not that it wouldn't be nice if everything lined up conceptually between the Old Testament, the New Testament and actual history in perfect sync, as it is represented to do by the New Testament writers. No, I wish I could see it as you do. In fact, I could only wish that understanding and thereby believing the Bible was that easy. Maybe you have a special intensity of faith that I don't have, Clare?

Keep in mind, though, that on whatever points you and I may disagree or interpret differently, in the end analysis, the difference found in my view of the Bible from yours doesn't mean I think it loses its essentially sublime and sacred authority. More importantly, I follow Jesus because I think "He Gets Us," even though I have to work hard to overcome my skeptical and existential tendencies of mind, hence one of the reasons I'm a philosopher and not a pastor.

 

[Clare73]

You added words to the scripture. The "just" and "also" totally change the meaning...and ARE NOT THERE.

1 Ti 6:1: "All who are under the yoke of slavery should consider their masters worthy of full respect, so that God's name and our teaching will not be slandered. Those who have believing masters are not to show less respect for them because they are brothers (they are still to be regarded as your legal master). Instead they are to serve them even better, because those (masters) who benefit from their service are believers, and dear to them. These are things you are to teach and urge upon them."

They are not "just" your brother, they are "also" your master.

 

[Clare73]

Honestly, no, that's not my view of Scripture. Not that it wouldn't be nice if everything lined up conceptually between the Old Testament, the New Testament and actual history in perfect sync, as it is represented to do by the New Testament writers.

They line up for me in light of all Scripture understood in light of itself.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

They line up for me in light of all Scripture understood in light of itself.

Ok. If you perceive that they do line up, then I'm not going to try to argue you 'out' of your chosen interpretative position. As always, I'm glad you're a Christian and I'll just go on record by saying that my own view of Christian Theology doesn't need the idea of an inerrant, infallible Bible to somehow make it "authoritative." I also don't feel the need to urge others to see things the way I do, although .... if they request to study with me from my Christian sources, they're welcome to do so.

 

[Clare73]

I am referring there to the OT view of the Scriptures, to the view held by Jesus regarding them, who believed

the OT was the word of God (Mt 15:6, Lk 5:1, 11:28, Jn 10:35) in every detail,
that every jot and tittle of the Law (the OT word for the Scriptures) was the very truth of God vested with the authority of God and backed by the power of God (Mt 5:17-19).

To emphasize that the OT was the infallible (wholly trustworthy and reliable), inerrant (wholly true) word of God, Jesus used his regular formula for solemn assertion ("Truly, truly I say to you") when he stated "until heaven and earth disappear, not one tittle (smallest stroke of the writing pen) will by any means disappear from the Law/Scriptures" (Mt 5:18, Lk 16:17).
He treated arguments from Scripture as having clinching force. When he said, "It is written," that was final. There was no appeal against Scripture, for "the Scripture cannot be broken." (Mt 4:4, 7, 10, Jn 10:35). God's Word holds good forever.
He constantly scolded the Jews for their ignorance and neglect of Scripture: "Are you not in error because you do not know the Scriptures?" "Have you not read. . .?" "Go and learn what this means. . ." (Mk 12:24, Mt 12:3, 5, 19:4, 21:16, 42, 9:13)

Likewise, Jesus himself submitted to the OT as the Word of God.
He lived a life of obedience to Scripture (Lk 4:17-21, Mt 8:16-17, 11:2-5),
and then he died in obedience to Scripture (Lk 18:31, Mk 8:31, 9:31, 10:33-34, Mt 26:24, Lk 22:37, Mt 26:53-54, 55-56).
When he arose, he explained who he was by the Scriptures (Lk 24:44-47, 27).
He presented himself to the Jews as the fulfiller of Scripture (Jn 5:39-40, 46-47).

And in asserting to the Jews that the OT bore divine authoritative witness to him, he thereby bore divine authoritative witness to it.
Belief in the authority and truth of the OT was the foundation of Jesus' whole ministry.

Is that your view of the Scriptures, for it is mine.

Ok. If you perceive that they do line up, then I'm not going to try to argue you 'out' of your chosen interpretative position. As always, I'm glad you're a Christian and I'll just go on record by saying that my own view of Christian Theology doesn't need the idea of an inerrant, infallible Bible to somehow make it "authoritative." I also don't feel the need to urge others to see things the way I do, although .... if they request to study with me from my Christian sources, they're welcome to do so.

I choose to view Scripture as Jesus viewed it, for the simple reason that it is the way Jesus viewed it.

 

[ralliann]

I see merit in what both of you guys are saying. While the NT doesn't explicitly condemn slavery, it taught that violence and oppression were wrong. Semantics again. There's a type of slavery that's brutal and oppressive and then there's a more moderate type of slavery that would be more along the lines of voluntary indentured servitude.

Yes, and the Egyptians were judged for their cruel slavery.