He Gets Us campaign

[RDKirk]

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.

Paul spoke to Christians. Some were Christian slaves of pagan masters. Some were Christian masters. His instructions to the two groups were necessarily different.

To the Christian slaves, he could only instruct them to obey their masters as unto Christ. It was not his intention to initiate another Spartacus-like slave rebellion. That had occurred less than 100 years earlier, and the Romans certainly hadn't forgotten it.

Paul could instruct the Christian masters, however, that in Christ they were slaves equal to those they had considered their property ("...in Him there is no favoritism"). This changes the relationship completely. The "slaves" of Christian masters were not their property, but their responsibility....and Jesus would hold them terrifyingly accountable for the spiritual and physical well-being of those people.

 

[Rose_bud]

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.

Hi there

Hope you are good.

I'd like to offer a different perspective on God ordaining poverty in light of the verse you quoted Mark 14:7

Jesus was not ordaining poverty, He was emphasizing that the woman was prioritizing Him. As this opportunity to be generous to Him in this way wouldn't present itself again, as He would shortly be crucified. He said, there would always be an opportunity to do good for the poor. Implying that they should... based on Deuteronomy 15:11b and the 3rd yearly tithes to those on the margins, Deuteronomy 14:28-29.

Deuteronomy was given to Israel after they were slaves in Egypt and this to the generation who survived the wilderness.

He chose them and they made a covenant with Him that they would respond to Him and each other in a certain way. They were to be a set apart people, who lived in a certain way. Demonstrating to the nations around them how to live with their God and each other. But Moses also knew that they wouldn't be faithful to God or each other. Deuteronomy 31.

The Israelites were called to a justice and kindness toward each other that was foreign to their neighbors.
They were to be generous to each other like their God, who was generous.

Things were not suddenly perfect because they made a covenant with God. They were still living in an ancient fallen world, but here was an opportunity to act differently regardless of this context and God would have helped them, had they believed.

I suppose the question is does God still require us to be a different kind of people in our context? Should we help the poor or did God ordain poverty? Since our covenant with Him is better, maybe just maybe we should be more generous and kinder...

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Hi there

Hope you are good.

I'd like to offer a different perspective on God ordaining poverty in light of the verse you quoted Mark 14:7

Jesus was not ordaining poverty, He was emphasizing that the woman was prioritizing Him. As this opportunity to be generous to Him in this way wouldn't present itself again, as He would shortly be crucified. He said, there would always be an opportunity to do good for the poor. Implying that they should... based on Deuteronomy 15:11b and the 3rd yearly tithes to those on the margins, Deuteronomy 14:28-29.

Deuteronomy was given to Israel after they were slaves in Egypt and this to the generation who survived the wilderness.

He chose them and they made a covenant with Him that they would respond to Him and each other in a certain way. They were to be a set apart people, who lived in a certain way. Demonstrating to the nations around them how to live with their God and each other. But Moses also knew that they wouldn't be faithful to God or each other. Deuteronomy 31.

The Israelites were called to a justice and kindness toward each other that was foreign to their neighbors.
They were to be generous to each other like their God, who was generous.

Things were not suddenly perfect because they made a covenant with God. They were still living in an ancient fallen world, but here was an opportunity to act differently regardless of this context and God would have helped them, had they believed.

I suppose the question is does God still require us to be a different kind of people in our context? Should we help the poor or did God ordain poverty? Since our covenant with Him is better, maybe just maybe we should be more generous and kinder...

... I was wondering how long it would take before I finally saw someone around here "Get It." Well done.

 

[RDKirk]

Hi there

Hope you are good.

I'd like to offer a different perspective on God ordaining poverty in light of the verse you quoted Mark 14:7

Jesus was not ordaining poverty, He was emphasizing that the woman was prioritizing Him. As this opportunity to be generous to Him in this way wouldn't present itself again, as He would shortly be crucified. He said, there would always be an opportunity to do good for the poor. Implying that they should... based on Deuteronomy 15:11b and the 3rd yearly tithes to those on the margins, Deuteronomy 14:28-29.

Deuteronomy was given to Israel after they were slaves in Egypt and this to the generation who survived the wilderness.

He chose them and they made a covenant with Him that they would respond to Him and each other in a certain way. They were to be a set apart people, who lived in a certain way. Demonstrating to the nations around them how to live with their God and each other. But Moses also knew that they wouldn't be faithful to God or each other. Deuteronomy 31.

The Israelites were called to a justice and kindness toward each other that was foreign to their neighbors.
They were to be generous to each other like their God, who was generous.

Things were not suddenly perfect because they made a covenant with God. They were still living in an ancient fallen world, but here was an opportunity to act differently regardless of this context and God would have helped them, had they believed.

I suppose the question is does God still require us to be a different kind of people in our context? Should we help the poor or did God ordain poverty? Since our covenant with Him is better, maybe just maybe we should be more generous and kinder...

I generally agree with what you have said, but I would disagree with this use of "ordain" (which I know you did not use yourself).

To ordain means: 2. order or decree (something) officially. "Equal punishment was ordained for the two crimes."

God did not command that there be poverty or sickness or murder or war. He did not order or decree that they happen. God allowed the Fall, and poverty, sickness, murder, war...these are all natural consequences of the Fall. They are what naturally happens when humans operate in the nature of the flesh.

Let's say we have a congregation like the early congregation in Jerusalem right after they got their Greek/Gentile issue settled and they were a fully Acts 2/Acts 4 congregation making sure there was no unmet need among them. Did God ordain that there must be poverty and sickness among them anyway? Certainly not. Otherwise, why did James bother instructing the congregations to pray for healing and give to those among them who were poor?

The consequences of the Fall that can be assuaged within the Body of Christ by agape love ought to be so. The gospels ring with that truth. In fact, the OT does as well. There should have not been anyone in the Promised Land suffering from poverty. At worst, that person would have been a debt servant (through his own failures, generally...see Proverbs) under relatively benign conditions with freedom from any level of debt in seven years or less.

 

[Clare73]

Paul spoke to Christians. Some were Christian slaves of pagan masters. Some were Christian masters. His instructions to the two groups were necessarily different.
To the Christian slaves, he could only instruct them to obey their masters as unto Christ. It was not his intention to initiate another Spartacus-like slave rebellion. That had occurred less than 100 years earlier, and the Romans certainly hadn't forgotten it.
Paul could instruct the Christian masters, however, that in Christ they were slaves equal to those they had considered their property ("...in Him there is no favoritism"). This changes the relationship completely. The "slaves" of Christian masters were not their property, but their responsibility....and Jesus would hold them terrifyingly accountable for the spiritual and physical well-being of those people.

That is nowhere stated in the NT.

See post #316.

 

[RDKirk]

That is nowhere stated in the NT.

See post #316.

I've pointed out the scriptural references.

For some reason you insist on arguing that Jesus justifies chattel slavery. You're going to have to carry that weight.

 

[Clare73]

I've pointed out the scriptural references.

For some reason you insist on arguing that Jesus justifies chattel slavery. You're going to have to carry that weight

And for some reason the word of God uses God-ordained "abominable" slavery (Lev 25:44-46) as a type of our relationship to Christ (Ro 1:1, 6:16, 19, 1 Co 7:21-23, 2 Co 4:5, Php 1:1, 1 Pe 2:16, 2 Pe 1:1, Jude 1).

The NT views it somewhat differently than you do. . .imagine that!

See posts #217 and #316.

 

[Clare73]

Hi there

Hope you are good.
I'd like to offer a different perspective on God ordaining poverty in light of the verse you quoted Mark 14:7
Jesus was not ordaining poverty,

Agreed. . .Jesus did not "ordain" poverty. Poverty is the natural consequences of some circumstances, which circumstances are ordained by God in his laws of nature. God being the author of natural consequences, he is the ordainer of poverty, sickness and disability.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

That is nowhere stated in the NT.

See post #316.

... it's also not stated anywhere in the NT that Roman Slavery should be thought of as an equivalent form of servitude, or a legitimate replacement, to Old Testament slavery and servitude.

 

[Rose_bud]

Agreed. . .Jesus did not "ordain" poverty. Poverty is the natural consequences of some circumstances, which circumstances are ordained by God in his laws of nature. God being the author of natural consequences, he is the ordainer of poverty, sickness and disability.

Hey there, hope you good. For my understanding as this appears very circular...
Are you saying Jesus did not 'ordain/decree/order' poverty. But through a roundabout way God is actually the ordainer of poverty?.

 

[QvQ]

Are you saying Jesus did not 'ordain/decree/order' poverty. But through a roundabout way God is actually the ordainer of poverty.

Poverty is a condition in the natural world. It is a fact. It was a fact and it will remain a fact.
Jesus spoke about the poverty of other people. We are to care and share.

What is most interesting is our own poverty.
Christ said we were to have faith, that all things would be added unto us.

So what we really need to share is the Gospel, to give men faith.
I personally don't need anyone to share or care. I have faith in God and God provides.

When Christ fed the multitudes He was not advocating for social justice or free food.
He also was not "rich man" giving to designated "poor folks."
He was preaching the Gospel.

 

[Clare73]

... it's also not stated anywhere in the NT that Roman Slavery should be thought of as an equivalent form of servitude, or a legitimate replacement, to Old Testament slavery and servitude.

NT Roman slavery is the reference point for the following NT teaching to believing Gentiles (as well as Jews) on slavery.

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."

 

[Halbhh]

Exactly. And you'll find that you never stop learning and growing. The best way to understand about the grace of God is to understand one's sinfulness.

Yes!

So, when we see people from groups we've personally become a bit alienated from, such as for example (maybe not for you or me, but sometimes for some)... consider (as one of the examples in the super bowl advertisement) where someone is loving towards an illegal immigrant from the southern border for example...then at that moment God might bless us with guilt if we deserve guilt, and we have a chance to repent, so that we stop seeing them as unworthy of love, and start loving them, with actions that come from love. For a lost person, they can suddenly want to repent and turn to Christ, because the ad clearly conveys that this teaching to love all others is from Christ.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

NT Roman slavery is the reference point for the following NT teaching on slavery:

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."

And? Am I suppose to think that the mere fact that Paul and Peter told their followers to "submit" somehow carries with it the unsaid insinuation that Roman Slavery is legitimate?

No, that's a false attribution, Clare. All these verses say at face value is "submit," and we then have to do the VERY DIFFICULT WORK of applying exegesis and hermeneutics to these statements and ask "why submit"?

I think the answer isn't to infer that Roman Slavery is/was legitimate, but rather to infer that order and love are to be central in the faith of any one Christian, whether he/she is a slave or a free person, because it is God who will change, or even overthrow, the Roman Power. It is not for Christians to do; it is not an option for them. (Although, avoiding slavery in the 1st century was an option for Christians of that time, if they could manage it).

So, if you want to perhaps say that God "ordained" Roman slavery as an outcome of God allowing the Beasts of the book of Daniel to have their way in the World (ala along the lines of how Josephus claimed to interpret the presence of the Roman Empire in the World, even over and above Israel in the 1st century), and that they were here to stay until God wipes them away, then we're dealing with a different denotation of that word, "ordained," one that carries a different meaning from what we normally think of when used in church.

 

[Halbhh]

We can learn: servitude is not incompatible with Christ liberty,

100% right (and I'll quickly mention I know like the back of my hand all the various slavery verses, how many were told to remain slaves (so that they could show Christ to their masters), and only later were many told to (paraphrasing) 'seek your freedom as you can' (you know the passage?) -- I know every last verse on this.....so I'm glad you've pinpointed what you felt I got wrong!

I want to write well and clearly, not causing confusion.

When I wrote how Christ ends 'slavery' (for which there are many verses, not just 1 or 2) -- you might have thought I was mistakenly referring to the good-rightful 'slavery' to Christ and to serving one another...that I'd accidentally thrown everything into one category, and thrown the baby out with the bath water.

So, I think I get it now.

What I meant to pinpoint above when I wrote "slavery" was the wrongful kind.

I meant the cruel and evil brutalizing of people in what is usually called 'slavery' as most people think of the word.

Modern examples: enslavement into forced prostitution (often with rapes), enslavement of helpless people with brutal actions to instill fear (including killings of some), sweat shops based on tricking people into endless labor for little or no pay.....

Or even just taking advantage of people in a less obviously vicious way but still a harmful way like underpaying them when one can easily pay them fairly for their work -- that kind of wrongful slavery... that's the kind of slavery Christ ended for believers.

And Christ ended all involuntary slavery for believers in the sense that a believer is not allowed to enslave others against their will, but must truly love others, obeying the rule of Matthew 7:12 fully.

So, when I ask a brother or sister in my church to do something, so that they are a 'servant' to me, and obey "serve one another" -- that's not the kind of 'slavery' being talked about above, see.

 

[Clare73]

NT Roman slavery is the reference point for the following NT teaching to believing Gentiles (as well as Jews) on slavery.

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."

And? Am I suppose to think that the mere fact that Paul and Peter told their followers to "submit" somehow carries with it the unsaid insinuation that Roman Slavery is legitimate?

Surely you are more Biblically informed than that.

Submit because it is the law of the land (Ro 13:-2).

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Surely you are more Biblically informed than that.

Submit because it is the law of the land (Ro 13:-2).

Surely, you're more historically informed than that. Sometimes in the 1st century, the "Law of the Land" told Christians to reject Jesus Christ as Lord and affirm Caesar as the ONLY LORD, or else lose their lives.

Do you think Christians should have obeyed the authorities of Rome and "submitted" in that case simply because the authorities said to do so?

You don't seem to be knowledgeable about the nature of the laws and ideologies of the Romans, Clare. You might want to study up a little.

 

[Clare73]

NT Roman slavery is the reference point for the following NT teaching to believing Gentiles (as well as Jews) on slavery.

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."

100% right (and I'll quickly mention I know like the back of my hand all the various slavery verses, how many were told to remain slaves (so that they could show Christ to their masters), and only later were many told to (paraphrasing) 'seek your freedom as you can' (you know the passage?) -- I know every last verse on this.....so I'm glad you've pinpointed what you felt I got wrong!

I want to write well and clearly, not causing confusion.

When I wrote how Christ ends 'slavery' (for which there are many verses, not just 1 or 2) -- you might have thought I was mistakenly referring to the good-rightful 'slavery' to Christ and to serving one another...that I'd accidentally thrown everything into one category, and thrown the baby out with the bath water.

So, I think I get it now.

What I meant to pinpoint above when I wrote "slavery" was the wrongful kind.

I meant the cruel and evil brutalizing of people in what is usually called 'slavery' as most people think of the word.

Modern examples: enslavement into forced prostitution (often with rapes), enslavement of helpless people with brutal actions to instill fear (including killings of some), sweat shops based on tricking people into endless labor for little or no pay.....

Or even just taking advantage of people in a less obviously vicious way but still a harmful way like underpaying them when one can easily pay them fairly for their work -- that kind of wrongful slavery... that's the kind of slavery Christ ended for believers.

And Christ ended all involuntary slavery for believers in the sense that a believer is not allowed to enslave others against their will, but must truly love others, obeying the rule of Matthew 7:12 fully.

So, when I ask a brother or sister in my church to do something, so that they are a 'servant' to me, and obey "serve one another" -- that's not the kind of 'slavery' being talked about above, see.

Thanks. . .I was referring to the slavery to which the NT was referring.

 

[Clare73]

Surely, you're more historically informed than that. Sometimes in the 1st century, the "Law of the Land" told Christians to reject Jesus Christ as Lord and affirm Caesar as the ONLY LORD, or else lose their lives.

Do you think Christians should have obeyed the authorities of Rome and "submitted" in that case simply because the authorities said to do so?

You don't seem to be knowledgeable about the nature of the laws and ideologies of the Romans, Clare. You might want to study up a little.

What a coincidence!

I was thinking that about your understanding of the NT, where we are to obey the law of the land except where it causes us to personally sin.

 

[Rose_bud]

Poverty is a condition in the natural world. It is a fact. It was a fact and it will remain a fact.
Jesus spoke about the poverty of other people. We are to care and share.

What is most interesting is our own poverty.
Christ said we were to have faith, that all things would be added unto us.

So what we really need to share is the Gospel, to give men faith.
I personally don't need anyone to share or care. I have faith in God and God provides.

When Christ fed the multitudes He was not advocating for social justice or free food.
He also was not "rich man" giving to designated "poor folks."
He was preaching the Gospel.

Hey there

On this I agree, we are to care and share. And what is surely most interesting is our own poverty. And for some poverty is a lack of money, but for me poverty is a lot more than money. Its a lack in healthy relationships, a lack in anything that supports a persons complete well-being... their shalom.

This lack started as the previous poster pointed out -- the day our ancient fore-fathers rebelled against Gods command (fall), had they stayed in that relationship their well-being would have been secured. But they failed, missing the target - sin. So my understanding - poverty is rooted in sin. Adam and Eve sinned against God, but they also sinned against each other... first symptom... the blame game... no its her, no its him, and subtly even God (the women YOU gave me)…

Throughout the Bible we see the progressive revelation of this God addressing this very problem sin.. the failure of not loving God and the failure of not loving each other.

We see Him calling one man Abraham and calls him to this Genesis 18:19 For I have chosen him, that he may command his children and his household after him to keep the way of the LORD by doing righteousness and justice, so that the LORD may bring to Abraham what he has promised him.

From that man, a nation comes to whom God is faithful and with whom God covenants requiring the same ... be faithful, do righteousness and justice (the law was given to them in their context so that the above may be lived out to God but also each other)... we know they failed because the prophets called them out on it... it wasn't just idolatry the prophets addressed but the above...you did not look out for the poor, the widows the orphans, faulty weights etc, etc

The only one that succeeded in this we know was JESUS, because he died for our failures, he died for our sin...

So to me a narrow view of sin, results in narrow view of the gospel. So what are we saying the gospel is? What is the good new of this kingdom...?

To answer your question on what was Jesus doing, He IS the good news... He demonstrated this by signs, by word and by deed.