He Gets Us campaign

[HarleyER]

Thank you HarleyER, for your thoughtful response.



I'm glad that we agree that we don't just cut and paste OT passages, without considering the context.



Good to know that I misunderstood, and that you don't believe that slavery is a means to address poverty. I can understand why you would consider slavery in the OT as to be an illustration of Gods care, when compared to the OT context and compared to the existing laws of their time. As for NT, Paul to had his difficulty with the Greco-Roman law, and once more the law of Christ was counter-cultural and had to be exercised with wisdom. He appeals to Philemon that Onesimus was to be regarded as a brother to Paul and Philemon, not a slave, they all were fellow-slaves of God. He alone had ownership of there lives.



I think you misunderstood me here, I was never implying that we "volunteer" to be slaves of God, rather we yield and surrender our lives in response to the call which you rightly pointed out. But rather I stated this as an illustration of the slave that chooses to remain a slave because of love (Deut 15:16). If you read some of my other posts you would understand I don't believe in a works salvation.



Agree, He calls us to love Him and love others...

Thanks so much. Yes I did misunderstand. Thanks for your insights.

 

[HarleyER]

Ok, Clare. Before we get too far down the road in talking past each other, let's bring this discussion up to shore. I'm tired of rowing.

The main point I'm attempting to get to is that: A number of Biblical scholars think Paul was quoting/citing a verse from Deuteronomy as a command to move the Corinthians to temporarily ex-communicate the man who was having the incestuous relationship. The catch is, though, that the verse in Deuteronomy always carries the connotation of the death penalty, not a mere conditional ex-communication.

So, why didn't Paul tell the Corinthians to kill the man since THAT is what the Law of Moses required? They didn't, and Paul didn't want them to. Why?

And just in case anyone else here is wondering if what I'm saying is correct, they can look at various Bible commentaries to see that what I'm saying is indeed the case. Two of my references here are:

Keener, Craig S. The IVP bible background commentary: New Testament. InterVarsity Press, 2014.​

​

Mays, James L. "Harper's Bible Commentary." (1991).​

And for those who want to see the evidence, here's a link to the various places from Deuteronomy where Paul cites to the Corinthians the following formula of denunciation: "So you shall eliminate the evil from among you." (1 Corinthians 5:13)

BibleGateway - Keyword Search: you shall eliminate

www.biblegateway.com

Sorry to butt into this conversation and I have not been following it. If memory serves me correctly, only the Roman authorities had the right to issue the death penalty. So, even if Paul would have stated to murder the bum, they wouldn't legally be able to do so.

But, without a doubt, there was a modification of laws and punishments. For example, there is no commandment in the New Testament to honor the Sabbath. However, what the example of Paul and the Corinthian man does show is that while punishment for breaking OT laws might have changed, moral responsibilities before God does not change. In fact, there are a number of principles in the OT that shows us what God think is right living and what is not. For example:

Leviticus 6 Then the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, 2 “When a person sins and acts unfaithfully against the Lord, and disavows the rightful claim of his neighbor regarding a deposit or a security entrusted to him, or regarding robbery, or he has extorted from his neighbor, 3 or has found what was lost and lied about it and sworn falsely, so that he sins regarding any of the things that people do; 4 then it shall be, when he sins and becomes guilty, that he shall restore what he took by robbery or acquired by extortion, or the deposit which was entrusted to him, or the lost property which he found, 5 or anything about which he swore falsely; he shall make restitution for it in full and add to it a fifth more. ​

The principle is there, if someone gives a person something to hold in trust, and he breaks that trust, then he should be responsible for what he has been entrusted with. The Scriptures states what the punishment was back then. I'm sure we would have a different view of what the punishment should be from the early church. But the principle is that this is sinful and wrong, and should be punished.

Paul worked within the Roman law while also providing church discipline. Back then, there was only one church to go to. Nowadays they would just pick up and go to the church down the street.

But that doesn't excuse the sin nor does it mean the OT is irrelevant or wrong. The Scriptures are progressive revelation. One doesn't throw out the baby with the bathwater.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Even in Israel, God commanded that any period of slavery would end within seven years, unless it was voluntary. Where in the world outside Israel (and even within Israel in its later years) has that been true so that one can say today that slavery is ordained by God and not immoral?

So there ya go! There are God's directives concerning slavery. To abuse those directives, such as is common among slavers, is what is wrong. Not slavery in and of itself in every form, context or situation. You yourself have shown it.

 

[RDKirk]

So there ya go! There are God's directives concerning slavery. To abuse those directives, such as is common among slavers, is what is wrong. Not slavery in and of itself in every form, context or situation. You yourself have shown it.

What I myself have said is that among His beliers, God permitted limited debt slavery. And His permission was so restrictive as to make it hardly worthwhile, except really as a charitable move.

For instance, God required wealthy Jews to give unsecured loans to poorer Jews...without consideration of the imminence of the next Jubilee. EVery loan had a seven-year payoff. There was no profit in Mosaic Law slavery. And as defined by Paul, there was no profit in Christian slavery. If you must treat your slave like an equal, "slavery" is just responsibility.

Because we know--you know it, I know it--that no form of slavery practiced by man is practiced in God's manner, it's really rather a lie to preach that God condones slavery. The condition God condones is no situation that man has ever produced and called "slavery."

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Sorry to butt into this conversation and I have not been following it. If memory serves me correctly, only the Roman authorities had the right to issue the death penalty. So, even if Paul would have stated to murder the bum, they wouldn't legally be able to do so.

But, without a doubt, there was a modification of laws and punishments. For example, there is no commandment in the New Testament to honor the Sabbath. However, what the example of Paul and the Corinthian man does show is that while punishment for breaking OT laws might have changed, moral responsibilities before God does not change. In fact, there are a number of principles in the OT that shows us what God think is right living and what is not. For example:

Leviticus 6 Then the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, 2 “When a person sins and acts unfaithfully against the Lord, and disavows the rightful claim of his neighbor regarding a deposit or a security entrusted to him, or regarding robbery, or he has extorted from his neighbor, 3 or has found what was lost and lied about it and sworn falsely, so that he sins regarding any of the things that people do; 4 then it shall be, when he sins and becomes guilty, that he shall restore what he took by robbery or acquired by extortion, or the deposit which was entrusted to him, or the lost property which he found, 5 or anything about which he swore falsely; he shall make restitution for it in full and add to it a fifth more. ​

The principle is there, if someone gives a person something to hold in trust, and he breaks that trust, then he should be responsible for what he has been entrusted with. The Scriptures states what the punishment was back then. I'm sure we would have a different view of what the punishment should be from the early church. But the principle is that this is sinful and wrong, and should be punished.

Paul worked within the Roman law while also providing church discipline. Back then, there was only one church to go to. Nowadays they would just pick up and go to the church down the street.

But that doesn't excuse the sin nor does it mean the OT is irrelevant or wrong. The Scriptures are progressive revelation. One doesn't throw out the baby with the bathwater.

Well, yeah. I think I agree with what you're saying on a general level. But the point I want to emphasize, and where I differ, is that I don't think Paul changed the application of Deuteronomic penalities for the reason that he wanted to somehow "fit in the application" within the Roman Law.

No, I think he knew that upon the inauguration of the New Covenenant brought by Christ, there was also a New Temper of Mercy, Grace, Compassion and Love supervening in the social praxis of the People of God. ... and to some extent, I'm sure that his role in the martydom of Stephen played into his changed hermeneutical application of Old Testament Scripture as well. Paul knew he was wrong for that and, thereby, developed a better, more socially aware and moral, conscience. ... because "Paul GOT IT."

This meant that Christians, themselves, WOULD NOT (should not) be putting each other to death like the Israelites of Old did when sin reared its head within the church. No, the death penalty, if it could be resorted to, was left to the authority of The State (the Roman state in the case of Paul and the Corinthians). Or to God.

So, yeah. We Christians can apply discipline to each other (in the right measures, in the right ways, at the right times), but we're not to be using the Law of Moses in a literal way and impose capital punishments upon each other. Those are to be left to God and the State.

And why? ....................................... because somewhere in the psychological mess of Mammon we encounter, "HE GETS US!"

Jesus knows how difficult it is for each of us to bear up under all of the confusion, the deception, the politics, the daily pressures of life, our weaknesses, our social and/or familial conflicts, our pain, our poverty and our doubts ... and He wants His Church to be His body of ministry of beneficence, not just a preaching platform.

 

[HarleyER]

Well, yeah. I think I agree with what you're saying on a general level. But the point I want to emphasize, and where I differ, is that I don't think Paul changed the application of Deuteronomic penalities for the reason that he wanted to somehow "fit in the application" within the Roman Law.

No, I think he knew that upon the inauguration of the New Covenenant brought by Christ, there was also a New Temper of Mercy, Grace, Compassion and Love supervening in the social praxis of the People of God. ... and to some extent, I'm sure that his role in the martydom of Stephen played into his changed hermeneutical application of Old Testament Scripture as well. Paul knew he was wrong for that and, thereby, developed a better, more socially aware and moral, conscience. ... because "Paul GOT IT."

This meant that Christians, themselves, WOULD NOT (should not be) be putting each other to death like the Israelites of Old did when sin reared its head within the church. No, the death penalty, if it could be resorted to, was left to the authority of The State (the Roman state in the case of Paul and the Corinthians).

So, yeah. We Christians can apply discipline to each other (in the right measures, in the right ways, at the right times), but we're not to be using the Law of Moses in a literal way and impose capital punishments upon each other. Those are to be left to God and the State.

And why? ....................................... because somewhere in the psychological mess of Mammon we encounter, "HE GETS US!"

Jesus knows how difficult it is for each of us to bear up under all of the confusion, the deception, the politics, the daily pressures of life, our weaknesses, our social and/or familial conflicts, our pain, our poverty and our doubts ... and He wants His Church to be His body of ministry of beneficence, not just a preaching platform.

That seems to me to be a lot of assumptions.

Israel, coming out of Egypt, was under the "kingship" (if you will) of God. God gave them rules and regulations. By any standards, they were tough rules and regulations but that is simply because God doesn't mess around and wanted to show us that we can't live by the law. We need His grace and mercy. Society devolved. Israel eventually rejected God as king under Samuel and instead opted for an earthly Israelite king (1 Samuel 8). Again, society devolved. Eventually, Israel rejected their own king when they cried, "We have no king but Caesar". (John 19:15) Ironically, God had the last say in the matter when He had Pilate place a sign above our dying Savior, "King of the Jews".

I say all of this to show how authority and laws moved from God to men. We don't use the laws of Moses because the law simply shows that WE WON'T LIVE UP TO GOD'S LAW.

So here we are, governed by the laws of men. Peter and Paul tells us that we must be subject to these laws (except when it balantly conflict with God's direct commands). But, like everything men do, laws become corrupt. When Absolom murder his brother, David wrongly pardon Absolom and allowed him back into the kingdom. This "compassion" David showed, and failure to follow the law, started a chain reaction that practically destroyed David's kingdom. If David had another similar case before him like Absolom, he would have treated the cases differently. It would have been more compassionate for society to have executed Absolom. But this wouldn't have been viewed as David being compassionate-especially since Absolom was so popular.

David's behavior serves as an example to us. Changes in society over time wasn't and isn't based upon social conscience and compassion. All men's ways are tainted with self serving intentions. People are evil and when given the opportunity, apart from God, they will manifest this in a variety of ways. Men, by themselves, are not compassionate, at least the way God views compassion. And when men make laws that move farther away from the scriptures, they show less and less compassion.

So now our laws have devolve to such a point that if we live in California one can steal up to $1000 dollars and not be charged with a crime. Or we can murder people and get three or four years (maybe). Or even let people skip the legal immigration process and flow into the country. All under the umbella of compassion. And, sadly, many so called "Christian" organizations support all this claiming to be so compassionate. If you disagree with their position your not compassionate.

It's a bunch of hogwash and poor theology.

Acts 26:20 but continually proclaimed to those in Damascus first, and in Jerusalem, and then all the region of Judea, and even to the Gentiles, that 1) they are to repent and 2) turn to God, 3) performing deeds consistent with repentance.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

That seems to me to be a lot of assumptions.

Israel, coming out of Egypt, was under the "kingship" (if you will) of God. God gave them rules and regulations. By any standards, they were tough rules and regulations but that is simply because God doesn't mess around and wanted to show us that we can't live by the law. We need His grace and mercy. Society devolved. Israel eventually rejected God as king under Samuel and instead opted for an earthly Israelite king (1 Samuel 8). Again, society devolved. Eventually, Israel rejected their own king when they cried, "We have no king but Caesar". (John 19:15) Ironically, God had the last say in the matter when He had Pilate place a sign above our dying Savior, "King of the Jews".

I say all of this to show how authority and laws moved from God to men. We don't use the laws of Moses because the law simply shows that WE WON'T LIVE UP TO GOD'S LAW.

So here we are, governed by the laws of men. Peter and Paul tells us that we must be subject to these laws (except when it balantly conflict with God's direct commands). But, like everything men do, laws become corrupt. When Absolom murder his brother, David wrongly pardon Absolom and allowed him back into the kingdom. This "compassion" David showed, and failure to follow the law, started a chain reaction that practically destroyed David's kingdom. If David had another similar case before him like Absolom, he would have treated the cases differently. It would have been more compassionate for society to have executed Absolom. But this wouldn't have been viewed as David being compassionate-especially since Absolom was so popular.

David's behavior serves as an example to us. Changes in society over time wasn't and isn't based upon social conscience and compassion. All men's ways are tainted with self serving intentions. People are evil and when given the opportunity, apart from God, they will manifest this in a variety of ways. Men, by themselves, are not compassionate, at least the way God views compassion. And when men make laws that move farther away from the scriptures, they show less and less compassion.

So now our laws have devolve to such a point that if we live in California one can steal up to $1000 dollars and not be charged with a crime. Or we can murder people and get three or four years (maybe). Or even let people skip the legal immigration process and flow into the country. All under the umbella of compassion. And, sadly, many so called "Christian" organizations support all this claiming to be so compassionate. If you disagree with their position your not compassionate.

It's a bunch of hogwash and poor theology.

Acts 26:20 but continually proclaimed to those in Damascus first, and in Jerusalem, and then all the region of Judea, and even to the Gentiles, that 1) they are to repent and 2) turn to God, 3) performing deeds consistent with repentance.

So, let me get this straight. You're going to merely show up, simply wave-away and dismiss all that I said in my post to which you're supposedly responding, claim that it's full of a "lot of assumptions," then proceed to add your own selectively angled (and not quite altogether coherent) argument about where "hogwash and poor theology" lies, hinting that mine is somehow "poor" too.

I think you need to expand beyond your reading of Doctor Quinn's Systematic Theology, Harley.

There's a lot more out there to engage than that myopic kool-aid.

 

[Clare73]

Ok, Clare. Before we get too far down the road in talking past each other, let's bring this discussion up to shore. I'm tired of rowing.

The main point I'm attempting to get to is that: A number of Biblical scholars think Paul was quoting/citing a verse from Deuteronomy as a command to move the Corinthians to temporarily ex-communicate the man who was having the incestuous relationship. The catch is, though, that the verse in Deuteronomy always carries the connotation of the death penalty, not a mere conditional ex-communication.

The sense of the verse in NT context is not about motivating the church, but is to give the Biblical authority for removing them from the body for public sin, as in idolatry.

 

[Clare73]

How could slavery continue to be acceptable in light of Romans 13:1-14?

Lev 25:42-46, Ro 13:1-7, Eph 6:5, 1 Ti 6:1, Tit 2:9, 1 Pe 2:18.

See post #386.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

The sense of the verse in NT context is not to motivate the church, but to give the Biblical authority for removing them from the body for public sin, as in idolatry.

Paul used his Deuteronomic reference to support his own authority as an apostle. The Corinthian Christians should have been motivated to act upon his admonition.

Instead, they had a tendency to talk back, a propensity that sounds all too familiar.

 

[QvQ]

Paul used his Deuteronomic reference to support his own authority as an apostle. The Corinthian Christians should have been motivated to act upon his admonition.

I don't see any reference to the Holy Spirit.

The authority of Christ is God and through the Holy Spirit, Paul was authorized.

Acts 9:15 But the Lord said unto him, Go thy way: for he is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel:

 

[RDKirk]

That seems to me to be a lot of assumptions.

Israel, coming out of Egypt, was under the "kingship" (if you will) of God. God gave them rules and regulations. By any standards, they were tough rules and regulations but that is simply because God doesn't mess around and wanted to show us that we can't live by the law. We need His grace and mercy. Society devolved. Israel eventually rejected God as king under Samuel and instead opted for an earthly Israelite king (1 Samuel 8). Again, society devolved. Eventually, Israel rejected their own king when they cried, "We have no king but Caesar". (John 19:15) Ironically, God had the last say in the matter when He had Pilate place a sign above our dying Savior, "King of the Jews".

The Mosaic Law was given to a gang of miscreants so difficult to handle that at various times both God and Moses threw up their hands and had to console one another. They were too barbarous to stand up to the real requirements Jesus has for his people, their hearts were too hard, thus they were given a lesser covenant that required lesser performance from them...not meeting the standards of the Messianic Covenant that Jesus would testate at a later and better time.

The Mosaic Law was not physically difficult to keep.

if you obey the LORD your God and keep his commands and decrees that are written in this Book of the Law and turn to the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul. Now what I am commanding you today is not too difficult for you or beyond your reach.

It is not up in heaven, so that you have to ask, “Who will ascend into heaven to get it and proclaim it to us so we may obey it?” Nor is it beyond the sea, so that you have to ask, “Who will cross the sea to get it and proclaim it to us so we may obey it?” No, the word is very near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart so you may obey it. --Deuteronomy 30

There was no question that the Pharisees and even the rich young ruler were able to keep all the commandments...physically. Where they failed was understanding and obeying the "weightier matters, " that is, the spiritual commands that the physical laws pointed to.

 

[Mark Quayle]

What I myself have said is that among His beliers, God permitted limited debt slavery. And His permission was so restrictive as to make it hardly worthwhile, except really as a charitable move.

For instance, God required wealthy Jews to give unsecured loans to poorer Jews...without consideration of the imminence of the next Jubilee. EVery loan had a seven-year payoff. There was no profit in Mosaic Law slavery. And as defined by Paul, there was no profit in Christian slavery. If you must treat your slave like an equal, "slavery" is just responsibility.

Because we know--you know it, I know it--that no form of slavery practiced by man is practiced in God's manner, it's really rather a lie to preach that God condones slavery. The condition God condones is no situation that man has ever produced and called "slavery."

I don't make blanket statements either way: God doesn't "condone slavery", nor does he condemn all slavery.

BTW, you simply don't know that 'The condition God condones is no situation that man has ever produced and called "slavery."'

 

[RDKirk]

I don't make blanket statements either way: God doesn't "condone slavery", nor does he condemn all slavery.

BTW, you simply don't know that, 'The condition God condones is no situation that man has ever produced and called "slavery."'

There are plenty of known examples of slavery by men that don't fit God's conditions. Can you name any historical or current exceptions that did or do?

 

[HarleyER]

So, let me get this straight. You're going to merely show up, simply wave-away and dismiss all that I said in my post to which you're supposedly responding, claim that it's full of a "lot of assumptions," then proceed to add your own selectively angled (and not quite altogether coherent) argument about where "hogwash and poor theology" lies, hinting that mine is somehow "poor" too.

I think you need to expand beyond your reading of Doctor Quinn's Systematic Theology, Harley.

There's a lot more out there to engage than that myopic kool-aid.

Well, that's quite a thoughtful response. I suppose my discussion may seem a bit incoherent when you have a selective view of Scripture. I would suggest you expand beyond your reading of Hallmark's Love Systematic Theology.

 

[Mark Quayle]

There are plenty of known examples of slavery by men that don't fit God's conditions. Can you name any historical or current exceptions that did or do?

Does it matter that I lack the motivation to try to find specific examples?

But, that the provision is made for a man to willingly be one would seem to imply that it did happen.

 

[Clare73]

Does it matter that I lack the motivation to try to find specific examples?

But, that the provision is made for a man to willingly be one would seem to imply that it did happen.

Yes, it did happen.

Anywhere you see bondservant, it was voluntary slavery.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Well, that's quite a thoughtful response. I suppose my discussion may seem a bit incoherent when you have a selective view of Scripture. I would suggest you expand beyond your reading of Hallmark's Love Systematic Theology.

OH, you got me! There's not an ounce of fire or brimstone in my theology. Was it the Ghost Rider avatar that gave it away?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I don't see any reference to the Holy Spirit.

The authority of Christ is God and through the Holy Spirit, Paul was authorized.

Acts 9:15 But the Lord said unto him, Go thy way: for he is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel:

I do. Look again. But next time, pay attention to contexts. They mean everything.

 

[RDKirk]

Does it matter that I lack the motivation to try to find specific examples?

You suggested that they existed, so, yes, it does matter if you can't come up with any examples...while you know we have examples of the converse.

But, that the provision is made for a man to willingly be one would seem to imply that it did happen.

The fact that God dictated a law certainly does not imply that man, particularly as a society, ever willingly complied.

In fact...just the opposite. Man's natural reaction to God's command is disobedience.

Nevertheless, I would not have known what sin was had it not been for the law. For I would not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said, “You shall not covet. ”But sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, produced in me every kind of coveting. For apart from the law, sin was dead.

Once I was alive apart from the law; but when the commandment came, sin sprang to life and I died. I found that the very commandment that was intended to bring life actually brought death. For sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, deceived me, and through the commandment put me to death. -- Romans 7