Why Did Christ say This? (1 of 2)

Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by asterisktom, Oct 3, 2014.

  1. asterisktom

    asterisktom
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2007
    Messages:
    2,284
    Likes Received:
    20
    Crypto-Sequiturs of Christ

    Non-sequiturs are responses to a previous comment that does not seem to follow logically to the topic being discussed. They are often both illogical and nonsensical. As Christians, we know that every word from Christ, seeing that He is God, is pure, Proverbs 30:5. Jesus Christ - unlike us - never gave random responses.

    Yet we have several statements from Christ that do indeed seem - and to His enemies were in fact treated as - non-sequiturs. Those of us, however, who know and reverence our Lord know that every word from Jesus Christ certainly has purpose. That is why we can call these mysterious responses or actions crypto-sequiturs; there is a connection, but not one that is immediately apparent. Other statements of Christ did seem to be logically connected but were actually, as far as His intended application, still hidden from His hearers. So Crypto-sequitur refers to responses that either seemed unconnected, or that were connected, but applied in a spiritual and totally unforeseen way.

    Below are three of these crypto-sequiturs of Christ. The first two are fairly easy to understand, but the last one requires more careful examination to get to the application:

    1. “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up."
    John 2:15-21 (We backtrack a bit in order to pick up the context):

    15. When He had made a whip of cords, He drove them all out of the temple, with the sheep and the oxen, and poured out the changers’ money and overturned the tables.
    16. And He said to those who sold doves, “Take these things away! Do not make My Father’s house a house of merchandise!”
    17. Then His disciples remembered that it was written, “Zeal for Your house has eaten Me up.”
    18. So the Jews answered and said to Him, “What sign do You show to us, since You do these things?”
    19. Jesus answered and said to them, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.”
    20. Then the Jews said, “It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and will You raise it up in three days?”
    21. But He was speaking of the temple of His body.

    This is an obvious example to start with, seeing that the text itself unlocks for us Christ's intended application. The hostile Jews in this confrontation, having just seen Him (from their viewpoint) violate the sanctity of their temple, when they heard Christ's words in verse 19 thought naturally of the physical temple. But He intended to draw their attention to the real and spiritual temple, His own Body - the Church of the Living God, a spiritual house of which this earlier structure was mere preparation.

    To the Jews, Christ's answer was a non-sequitur, as their hostile response clearly shows.


    2. “Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and the Sadducees."
    Matthew 16:5-12. Here is another fairly straightforward example, seeing that the key to understanding it is given at the very end.

    5. Now when His disciples had come to the other side, they had forgotten to take bread.
    6. Then Jesus said to them, “Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and the Sadducees.”
    7. And they reasoned among themselves, saying, “It is because we have taken no bread.”
    8. But Jesus, being aware of it, said to them, “O you of little faith, why do you reason among yourselves because you have brought no bread?
    9. Do you not yet understand, or remember the five loaves of the five thousand and how many baskets you took up?
    10. Nor the seven loaves of the four thousand and how many large baskets you took up?
    11. How is it you do not understand that I did not speak to you concerning bread?—but to beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees.”
    12. Then they understood that He did not tell them to beware of the leaven of bread, but of the doctrine of the Pharisees and Sadducees.


    We tend to be hard on the disciples for their slowness in understanding what Christ meant here, but we have the benefit of the explanation. We most certainly would have made our own share of blunders in understanding that all pupils make on their way to becoming actual students of the things of God.


     
  2. asterisktom

    asterisktom
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2007
    Messages:
    2,284
    Likes Received:
    20
    Why Did Christ Say This? (2 of 2)

    3. “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery..."

    Luke 16:14-18. This verse 18 in itself seems very clear, but what is odd - at first sight, at least - is the place we find this verse. Consider the whole context:

    14. Now the Pharisees, who were lovers of money, also heard all these things, and they derided Him.
    15. And He said to them, “You are those who justify yourselves before men, but God knows your hearts. For what is highly esteemed among men is an abomination in the sight of God.
    16. “The law and the prophets were until John. Since that time the kingdom of God has been preached, and everyone is pressing into it.
    17. And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for one tittle of the law to fail.
    18. “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced from her husband commits adultery.

    Does verse 18 have any connection to the previous passage? For that matter, does it have any connection to the verses that follow afterward? Either way, it seems to be an orphan; the idea of divorce and remarriage not fitting anywhere else in the context of which this verse is in the middle. Many commentators have picked up on this incongruity - and then proceeded to find some way to make the fit. A few even suggest that the verse has no place here, but was added by an unskillful later redactor.

    It is true that God's commands and restrictions concerning verse are an example of the law mentioned in verse 17, yet the incongruity and question remains: Why just single this one command out?

    I believe that Christ, once again, is speaking spiritually - just as He did of the temple and of leaven in the previous examples. I believe that He is speaking of spiritual divorce in this passage, not a physical, personal one. A good cross-reference, I believe, is Romans 7:1-6:

    1. Or do you not know, brethren (for I speak to those who know the law), that the law has dominion over a man as long as he lives?
    2. For the woman who has a husband is bound by the law to her husband as long as he lives. But if the husband dies, she is released from the law of her husband.
    3. So then if, while her husband lives, she marries another man, she will be called an adulteress; but if her husband dies, she is free from that law, so that she is no adulteress, though she has married another man.
    4. Therefore, my brethren, you also have become dead to the law through the body of Christ, that you may be married to another—to Him who was raised from the dead, that we should bear fruit to God.
    5. For when we were in the flesh, the sinful passions which were aroused by the law were at work in our members to bear fruit to death.
    6. But now we have been delivered from the law, having died to what we were held by, so that we should serve in the newness of the Spirit and not in the oldness of the letter.


    In these last two passages, Romans and Luke, we have identical terms: Law, divorce, wife, adultery. I believe that the application is the same in both, both referring to spiritual adultery.

    Paul told the Roman Jews that they were married to the Law, and that their marriage was for life. We have been set free from the law by death. It was literally "till death do us part". That is exactly what happened; death - Christ's death on the cross - is what killed the believing Jews - and us. New life in Christ means first that the old life - as the old wife - died. That first marriage was a tough, exacting one. There was no satisfying the requirements of that marriage. Thank God that all things are new and old things are passed away!

    Now, both Jesus and Paul warn against the absolute sin of living the new life with the old wife: Law. According to Jesus every "jot and tittle" of the Law must be followed. According to Paul we are "adulteresses" if we try to live as if we were married to Christ yet still serving under the "dominion" of that old slave-driving first wife.

    But once the demands of the Law are past, through death, Hebrews 9:16-17, the new life of the New Covenant come into effect. To try to live the new life the old way is adultery - and futile. To recognize the death of all that is the key to wholeheartedly living the new life.

    There are several passages like the above, which do not seem to neatly follow from the previous context. I believe too many run too readily to commentaries and study Bibles. There is a place for these, but they should not be the first thing we consult. A better course would be to first study out the passages yourself, mixing prayer with perseverance, knowing that, just as God is one, so is His Word. It is in these seeming discrepancies that we often find most welcome and encouraging treasures.
     
  3. plain_n_simple

    plain_n_simple
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2011
    Messages:
    1,887
    Likes Received:
    5
    Great post
     
  4. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    14,081
    Likes Received:
    204
    Why stop at verse 21???? Read verse 22:


    17 And his disciples remembered that it was written, The zeal of thine house hath eaten me up.
    18 Then answered the Jews and said unto him, What sign shewest thou unto us, seeing that thou doest these things?

    19 Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.
    20 Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days?
    21 But he spake of the temple of his body.
    22 When therefore he was risen from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this unto them; and they believed the scripture, and the word which Jesus had said.


    If you are trying to suggest that this does not refer to the literal resurrection of the physical body of Jesus Christ you are simply teaching absolute falsehoods! The gates of hades SHALL NEVER prevail against His church (Mt. 16:18) but the body in this context was "destroyed" and then raised up after three days.

    Note that both verse 17 and verse 22 refer to what the Disciples "remembered" after his resurrection and it is scripture about the resurrection of his physical human body not the church as John later testifies:

    Joh 20:9 For as yet they knew not the scripture, that he must rise again from the dead.


    The response of Christ in verses 19-21 is in direct response to the question by the Scribes and Pharisees in verse 18. Hence, so much for your argument about non-sequitur as verses 19-21 are placed within a logical contextual reference point which your interpretation not only denies but perverts. You are interpreting Christ's words equally as erroneous as his enemies rather than the interpretation the writer (John) gives for the precise reason to avoid that kind of false interpretation (vv. 21-22). The "body" in verse 21 is the one needing "resurrection" in verse 22 as both verse 21 and 22 go together as John's explanation of Christ's words. The "church" is not even mentioned in the entire context and yet you feel free to eisgetically insert it to support your own twisted false doctrine that you have been attempting to pass off on this forum.

    For the life of me, I don't understand why this board puts up your absolute heretical teachings about the resurrection of Jesus Christ and the saints?????
     
    #4 The Biblicist, Oct 4, 2014
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 4, 2014
  5. asterisktom

    asterisktom
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2007
    Messages:
    2,284
    Likes Received:
    20
    Whoa. Sit down. Take a pill. Who is doubting that He was talking about His rising physically from he dead? Certainly not me.

    I didn't quote it because that was not my point. My point is that they did not understand.
     
    #5 asterisktom, Oct 4, 2014
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 4, 2014
  6. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    14,081
    Likes Received:
    204
    Yeah right! How do you account for your own interpretation which reads:

    This is an obvious example to start with, seeing that the text itself unlocks for us Christ's intended application. The hostile Jews in this confrontation, having just seen Him (from their viewpoint) violate the sanctity of their temple, when they heard Christ's words in verse 19 thought naturally of the physical temple. But He intended to draw their attention to the real and spiritual temple, His own Body - the Church of the Living God, a spiritual house of which this earlier structure was mere preparation.

    You explicitly say that the intent of what they "thought naturally of the physical temple. BUT HE INTENDED to draw their attention to the real spiritual temple, His own body - THE CHURCH OF THE LIVING GOD, a SPIRITUAL HOUSE....."

    That is just plain nonsense and the common interpretation of those who deny the resurrection of his PHYSICAL body from the grave. His PHYSICAL body is not "the church of the living God, a spiritual house" as the "church of the Living God" the gates of hades cannot "destroy" as Jesus asserts "destroy this body." You are denying this passage refers to precisely what John the inspired writer interprets it to apply to and that is his PHYSICAL HUMAN BODY - vv. 21-22

    Furthermore this is not an example of "Non-sequiturs are responses to a previous comment that does not seem to follow logically to the topic being discussed" in regard to the BIBLICAL CONTEXT. You may argue it is in the mind of the listeners (Jews) but the Biblical context provides a clear purpose for the statement and clear application.
     
  7. quantumfaith

    quantumfaith
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2010
    Messages:
    6,890
    Likes Received:
    0
    I often disagree with Tom, but on this (and many other things) I don't know enough to contribute and agree or disagree). But let me say this CLEARLY.

    I don't know how this board puts up with your arrogance.
     
  8. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    14,081
    Likes Received:
    204
    It seems that is the only kind of response people like you have when they cannot dispute intelligently the issues that I set forth. You can't deny what I said so attack the messenger. That tells a lot about you not me. If you confess you don't know enough to respond to the issues being discussed perhaps keeping your own mouth shut might be wisdom on your part. Think about it!

    This man denies the physical resurrection of saints, look at his past posts. Don't be so naive. HE DENIES THAT 1 CORINTHIANS 15 teaches a PHYSICAL BODILY RESURRECTION! That is pure heresy as the fundementals of the faith is "the resurrection OF THE DEAD" - Heb. 6:2. The gates of hell "SHALL NEVER PREVAIL AGAINST the church. This man is a heretic pure and simple as he is denying a fundemental of the faith just like a JW except he applies it to the SPIRITUAL BODY of Christ - the church.
     
    #8 The Biblicist, Oct 4, 2014
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 4, 2014
  9. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    14,081
    Likes Received:
    204
    Last time I checked the Watch Tower Jehovah Witnesses organization was considsered a "cult." One reason is they deny fundementals of the faith. The obvious one they deny is the doctrine of God. However, another essential article of the faith is "the resurrection OF THE DEAD" which they also deny.

    Indeed, they interpret John 2:18-21 precisely and almost exactly as does the author of this thread. They interpret 1 Corinthians 15 and the resurrected "body" as a "spiritual" body almost exactly as the author of this thread. Both the author of this thread and J.W's deny the physical bodily resurrection of the saint but rather teach that a "spiritual" body is something other than what went down "dead" in the grave and therefore both deny the "resurrection OF THE DEAD." The very term "resurrection" means to "rise up and you cannot "rise up" what never went down! This is a fundemental of the faith and to deny it is to deny the gospel of Jesus Christ and his victory over sin as physical death of the physical body is one vital aspect of the VICTORY OF DEATH over us. To deny the PHYSICAL BODILY resurrection of the saint is to repudiate the "hope" of the gospel. It is as worse a heresy as denying the Trinity, the virgin birth or any other fundemental essential of the faith.
     
  10. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    14,081
    Likes Received:
    204
    42 So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption:
    43 It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power:
    44 It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body.

    There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body - and the difference is between "IT" being sown versus being raised.

    Notice the same pronoun and it is singular not plural. The whole passage is dealing with "the body" in the singular or GENERIC SENSE as ALL DIED IN ADAM - v. 21.

    The physical body goes down in the gave because it is sown in corruption. The same "it" that goes down in the grave is raised up out of the grave in incorruption.

    The physical body goes down in the grave in dishonor. The same "it" that goes down in the grave is raised in power.

    The physical body goes down in the grave as a natural sown body. The same "it" that goes down in the grave comes up out of the grave a spiritual body = a body raised in incorruption, in power without the indwelling principle of sin that dominates it unto death - instead it is a man completely dominated under the Spirit - spiritual.

    The JW position is that "spiritual" means "a phantom" or a body like angels with organic composition but can appear to be human. They attempt to ignorantly use the phrase "flesh and bone" cannot inherit the kingdom of heaven without realizing this is a common metaphor used in scriptures consistently to refer to the NATURAL UNGLORIFIED state of man (the body sown in corruption, without power, without honor but under the ruling principle of sin that brings it to death) and does not refer to literal flesh and literal one as literal flesh and literal bone are incapable of revealing the gospel truth (Mt. 16:17)

    This is a fundamental truth that only cults and heretics deny which Paul calls "false witnesses" and says that if the physical body of Christ and/or the saint does not rise again out of the grave then our faith is in vain and we are still in our sins. Nothing can be more fundamental to our faith than this truth. The author of this thread denies this fundamental truth.
     
    #10 The Biblicist, Oct 4, 2014
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 4, 2014
  11. quantumfaith

    quantumfaith
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2010
    Messages:
    6,890
    Likes Received:
    0
    The truth is painfully piercing isn't it sir. As far as general intelligence, I would be happy to go against you. You perhaps overlooked my disclaimer which preceded my observational truth.
     
  12. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    14,081
    Likes Received:
    204
    Look, I could care less if you think you are Einstein. This man is a heretic and the evidence is there if you want to dispute that. I will stick with the issues and let you worry about your ego.
     
  13. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    14,081
    Likes Received:
    204

    Here again are the evidences that no one seemingly wants to even try to dispute, not even the author of this thread. Rather, it is far easier to simply ignore the evidences that scripture clearly identifies those who oppose these fundamentals to be "false witnesses" and if the shoe fits wear it, if it does not then provide a sound exegetical basis to demonstrate why such a person with such a position is not a "false witnesses" or heretics just as JW's who take the exact same position and use the very same interpretative approach, as that position is a denial of the faith, a repudiation of the gospel hope.
     
  14. asterisktom

    asterisktom
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2007
    Messages:
    2,284
    Likes Received:
    20
    1. You are misquoting Paul. No surprise here.
    2. You are maligning and smearing me as a JW. JWs do not believe in a physical resurrection of Christ, or that He is God. I do. They are not Christian. I am.

    Experience has taught me to waste much typing to someone who already shows an inability to think clearly.

    Edit: I have no idea why there is a green smiley in my post.
     
    #14 asterisktom, Oct 4, 2014
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 4, 2014
  15. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    14,081
    Likes Received:
    204
    You make unsupported accusations that are simply not true to fact, and no surprise there!

    1. First, I NEVER said you were a JW anywhere at anytime - that is simply another falsehood. I said you share the same interpretation as the JW and I limited to exactly two specific texts (Jn 2:18-22; 1 Cor. 15 and the word "spiritual" and "flesh and blood") - get your facts right.

    2. Second, you have denied that 1 Corinthians 15 teaches bodily resurrection of the saint. Do I need to quote you in the 1 Corinthian 15 thread to prove it?? Paul says those who do what you are doing are "false witnesses."

    3. Third, you have no exegetical based response to the Biblical text and interpretation I provided. Just a smear job accusation that has no basis whatsoever! You simply accuse me of misquoting Paul but do not back up your accusation with anything but pure accusation. I provided not merely context but interpretation that you dare not even address and it is obvious why you dare not address it.

    4. Finally, my experience with you on this subject is that you are exegetically incapable of dealing with evidence presented contrary to your theories and so you simply make empty accusations, excuses and personal attacks and then run as fast as your little feet can carry you.
     
    #15 The Biblicist, Oct 4, 2014
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 4, 2014
  16. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    14,081
    Likes Received:
    204
    Here again is contextual based response that our friend dares not directly address.
     
  17. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    14,081
    Likes Received:
    204
    Here again is a contextual based response that our friend dares not directly address.
     
  18. asterisktom

    asterisktom
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2007
    Messages:
    2,284
    Likes Received:
    20
    I started to make a detailed response to you, bib, but decided that there is just too much to correct in your posts. You don't even understand plain English. Either that or you have a selective filter that kicks in when it is convenient. At any rate I am done with talking to you.

    I have lots to do today, writing included, and I am not going to waste time on someone with such poor reading skills and rude manners. I have plenty of people I can argue with, so - if I must argue - I choose to at least narrow it down to those who can follow threads of logic and - on this board - scriptural inference.

    The next post from you won't even be seen by me.
     
  19. quantumfaith

    quantumfaith
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2010
    Messages:
    6,890
    Likes Received:
    0
    YOU wish to make a point to me about ego....that is absurd hypocrisy.
     
  20. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    14,081
    Likes Received:
    204
    You have to be kidding???? Here you go again making accusations you don't substantiate or can substantiate, just another smear job. This is your normal response when YOU can't respond intelligently to plain English. I set forth the contextual based evidence that exposes your errors in clear readable English that anyone can understand, and that is the real problem for you - anyone can understand what I said. Fine, I will let the readers judge who really is incapable here as they can read plain English.
     
    #20 The Biblicist, Oct 5, 2014
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 5, 2014

Share This Page

Loading...