Yea, Hath God Said...?

Discussion in '2000-02 Archive' started by Aaron, Apr 26, 2002.

  1. Aaron

    Aaron
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2000
    Messages:
    15,680
    Likes Received:
    241
    When God said, "Thou shalt not commit adultery," did He really mean not even to lust?

    When God said, "Thou shalt not kill," does that really prohibit anger as well?

    Jesus seemed to think so.

    When God said, "But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it," did He really mean don't even touch it?

    Certainly.

    Yet, when it comes to many of our own indulgences, we deny God's righteous requirements which are understood though unexpressed.

    The "Women working outside the home..." thread inspired this new topic.

    [ April 26, 2002, 10:58 PM: Message edited by: Aaron ]
     
  2. Clint Kritzer

    Clint Kritzer
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2001
    Messages:
    7,739
    Likes Received:
    4
    I'm not sure where exactly you're coming from Aaron. You are an enigma within a conundrum. :D However, a few points should be addressed in your initial post.

    Yes He did. The 10th commandmant against covetousness covers that rather well.
    No, it does not. Our Lord displayed anger. A review of the cleansing of the temple may offer some insight into righteous anger.
    Well, maybe He did, but the only reference we have of God saying not to touch the tree is found in satan's words in verse 3:3 of Genesis. That's a rather shaky ground upon which to build a hypothesis.
    Perhaps the other members may know what you're saying here but to me, it is a mystery. Please enlighten.
    Perhaps you should post on it.
     
  3. Siegfried

    Siegfried
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    689
    Likes Received:
    0
    Good post, Clint.

    Aaron, you seem to suggest that we know things that God doesn't want us to do even though He didn't say anything about them.

    That sounds to me as though you are adding to the Word of God. You have some pipeline of revelation that I don't have.

    If your conscience tells you that you need to avoid certain practices that Scripture does not specifically address, then you need to avoid them. But don't impose your conscience on the rest of Christianity. Romans 14 is pretty plain about that.
     
  4. Clint Kritzer

    Clint Kritzer
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2001
    Messages:
    7,739
    Likes Received:
    4
    Actually, I got to thinking about it and referenced Genesis again. It was actually EVE who added to God's directive about touching the tree of knowledge during her conversation with satan. Some scholars reference this quote as an indication that satan's poisonous influence was beginning to work on the woman.
     
  5. Aaron

    Aaron
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2000
    Messages:
    15,680
    Likes Received:
    241
    So, in other words, I was not responsible to keep my mind off of women as long as the Law only said "Thou shalt not commit adultery"?

    I was perfectly justified to harber anger against my brother and to revile him as long as the Law only said, "Thou shalt not kill"?

    Eve here does not add to God's words at all. She understands the full scope of the Prohibition as Matthew Henry said:
    I am aware of the common wresting here to think otherwise.

    When the teacher says, "No talking," we know that means to be quiet in actions as well as words. It is only the unruly, mischievous schoolboy who would protest his punishment for laughing out loud by attempting to hold the teacher to his exact words. "You didn't say 'no laughing.'"

    But that we are accountable to the implicit assertions of Scripture is plainly evident in Matthew 22:
     
  6. Optional

    Optional
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2001
    Messages:
    478
    Likes Received:
    0
    Aaron,
    Let me be the first to thank you for adding to that already gigantic tome on legalism. It is now thicker than my Bible.
     
  7. Clint Kritzer

    Clint Kritzer
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2001
    Messages:
    7,739
    Likes Received:
    4
    Aaron -

    What do you make of the statement of Christ cited in John 14:2 when He says, "if it were not so, I would have told you" ?

    There are many other groups that feel that the scriptures were not implicit enough in what they said:

    The Mormons

    The Jehovah's Witnesses

    The Catholics

    The Muslims

    Jim Jones

    David Koresch

    Charlie Manson


    Whenever Christ disputed the legalists of His time, he used existing scriptures.
    He also used written scripture to dispute and rebuke satan during His temptation in the desert, Matthew, chapter 4.

    He also used scripture when He cleansed the temple, Luke 19:46.
     
  8. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    Had Eve done what she said, everything would have been fine. The issue was not the particular wording of the command (eat vs. touch). The issue is that Eve didn't do either. It seems that those most vocal about the precise wording of passages that portray standards are most often straining out gnats while swallowing camels. (I am not referring to anyone here). Eve did not obey God, no matter what God said.

    Incidentally, I do not think that Eve added to God's words in any way that compromised God's intent.
     
  9. Clint Kritzer

    Clint Kritzer
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2001
    Messages:
    7,739
    Likes Received:
    4
    It is also interesting that the Matthew 22 passage that was cited starts in the middle of the quote. The scripture begins with:
    Back to Matthew Henry's commentary, this is what he has to say concerning this passage in verse 29:
     
  10. tyndale1946

    tyndale1946
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2001
    Messages:
    6,179
    Likes Received:
    226
    Thou shalt not Kill... Let me ask all of you a question... I was in Vietnam in 1965-1966 and was with the Tank division. Though I never saw the damage that our tank did I still saw the bodies. Yet the word of God says, Thou shalt not kill!

    Yeah hath God said?... Yet in the bible we have many instances of Gods people killing another race of people and many times God was the one that gave the command. What about the story of the Amalakites? Did not God say to kill every man, woman and child?... Sure he did but one man was spared who was a king and the king ended up killing the one who spared him.

    If I was to come to your house and wanted to do your family bodily harm would not any man on this board protect his family?... Anyone who wouldn't is a fool...but... What about the scripture Thou shalt not kill!... What about the scripture in the New Testament... Love your enemies!... If a person comes to my house intending me bodily harm is he my friend?... But if I kill him how does that convey my love to him?

    We know that the intent of man heart is evil and thats all it is bent towards. Paul said When the commandment came sin revived and I died. Yet we know according to his own mouth he felt he was carrying out the will of God according to his belief before the Damascus road. He also said we are counted daily as sheep for the slaughter. Have you ever noticed that people don't know who the devil is until they know who Christ is. Once they are brought to this realization then the real battle begins. Then we know we are a two-fold creature and find ourself on our knees. Thou shalt not kill... Yet if the truth be know we killed the Son Of God!... Who here has bloodless hands?... Not anyone here!... Thank God for forgiveness!... Forgive them Father, they know not what they do!... Brother Glen [​IMG]

    [ April 27, 2002, 01:50 PM: Message edited by: tyndale1946 ]
     
  11. Clint Kritzer

    Clint Kritzer
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2001
    Messages:
    7,739
    Likes Received:
    4
    Indeed, Brother Glen, the New Tesatment leaves the instructions on war rather ambiguous. You are quite correct that warfare is very prominent in the Old Testament. That is the scripture on which we can build that philosophy.

    However, Christ also instructed His disciples to purchase a sword in Luke 22:36. I would also cite Revelation 19:11.

    There IS scripture to back warfare and the inherent violence of it.
     
  12. Optional

    Optional
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2001
    Messages:
    478
    Likes Received:
    0
    I came back to further involve myself in this thread now that I have some time, but Clint has done an outstanding job. I am thankful this board has such a good defender of the W(w)ord for a mod.
    Come on folks - legalism is the largest stumbling block for Christians. Let's stick to scripture as Jesus did.
     
  13. Aaron

    Aaron
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2000
    Messages:
    15,680
    Likes Received:
    241
    Clint. I'm not sure you're catching my drift. I am not saying the Scriptures are not explicit. Of course they are. My point is that they are also implicit.

    In other words, there are things that are understood that are not necessarily stated. No where does the Old Testament explicitly mention a Resurrection of the Dead. The Resurrection is implied, though. And even though the Sadducees did not consider any document outside the Five Books of Moses to be inspired, Jesus showed them plainly that the Resurrection is implicit in the statement, "I am the God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob."

    My reason for bringing this up was to answer the irrational demands of those who insist on some straightforward maxim in the Scriptures before they accept the proof of what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God.

    You yourself demanded that Molly provide some kind of verbatim from the Bible to say that it is "best" for mothers to stay at home with their children, but how can anyone come away from the Scriptures with any other thought?

    Anyway, I'm at the factory and my time is up. I'll elaborate further another time. [​IMG]
     
  14. Helen

    Helen
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/Helen2.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2001
    Messages:
    11,703
    Likes Received:
    1
    Reading the thread, a couple of things entered my mind.

    Job said: "I have made a covenant with my eyes not to look lustfully at a girl."

    And this may be the crux of the matter: we cannot always help what we see, but we can help what we stare at! We cannot help the rogue thoughts that can occasionally enter the mind, but we can control what we think about -- what we contemplate and concentrate on.

    The core of the argument stems from the condition of a person's heart. Paul stated clearly that every thought must be taken captive to Christ. (2 Corinthians 10:5) Christ stated that it is out of the heart the mouth speaks and actions are motivated. God judges the heart.

    The point of the commandment about adultery and lusting can be seen in Hebrews 13:4: Marriage should be honored by all, and the marriage bed kept pure, for God will judge the adulterer and all the sexually immoral.

    And the point of being a Christian is to become conformed more and more to the image of Christ Himself. Marriage on earth is a picture of the relationship of the believer to Christ, as part of the body of Christ. The relationship is intimate, trusting, open, and absolutely faithful. The more we can present this picture in our marriages here on earth, the more anyone questioning will be able to see the relevance of the Christian life.

    Now, about killing. The word in the Hebrew in the commandment does NOT mean simple killing. The KJV made a horrid error in translating it as such. The word specifically refers to the premeditated killing of another human being. This is why the vast majority of other translations word the commandment "You shall not murder."

    The reaction of anger to an injustice is a proper reaction. However to concentrate on that anger, and to therefore BE angry on an ongoing basis is commiting mental murder of the person being concentrated on. The sad thing is that the killing is taking place in the heart of the person nursing his anger! Consequences always come back on those doing wrong.

    In all these things, think of it this way, as a picture: your brain is like a cup. If it is full of one thing it cannot hold another. If your thoughts are filled with Christ then you cannot hold onto anger or lust or anything at all like that. If your thoughts are filled with anger, however, how can they also hold Christ? If you are indulging yourself in lusting, after anything or anyone, there is no time or room for Christ in your 'brain cup'.

    All the commandments really do have to do with real love. Loving God and loving our fellow man. Not by way of emotion, but by way of commited care -- and that takes thought and energy and time. So what are you doing with the gifts you have been given? How are you using them?

    Or did you bury them?

    (the 'you' here is quite generic and not to be taken personally, please!)
     
  15. Clint Kritzer

    Clint Kritzer
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2001
    Messages:
    7,739
    Likes Received:
    4
    I would also accept a string of scriptures within context that pointed to a logical conclusion. It is not fair for someone to say that something is God's Will with no scriptural backing but rather just opinion. This is pure conjecture, not doctrine.

    Aaron, if you feel that women should stay at home, I invite you to post on that thread. However, the fact of the matter is, the side that has asserted that women are permitted to work and that noone else has a right to judge them for it have cited scripture. Therefore, the burden of rebuttal lies on the side saying that it is NOT permissable and that judgement is allowed to refute with scripture ... any scripture in context.

    I don't think that I have missed your point at all. The instructions of the Bible are either defendable or non-existent on any given issue. I can see no room for middle ground.
     
  16. Clint Kritzer

    Clint Kritzer
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2001
    Messages:
    7,739
    Likes Received:
    4
    Daniel 12
    2 And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.

    Job 19
    26 And though after my skin worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God:

    Ezekial 37
    5 Thus saith the Lord GOD unto these bones; Behold, I will cause breath to enter into you, and ye shall live:
    6 And I will lay sinews upon you, and will bring up flesh upon you, and cover you with skin, and put breath in you, and ye shall live; and ye shall know that I am the LORD.
     
  17. Aaron

    Aaron
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2000
    Messages:
    15,680
    Likes Received:
    241
    Clint,

    It's break time. Don't have a lot of it.

    Just to let you know that when discussing the issue with an Israeli metalurgist at my workplace, all your verses were presented to him. He neatly explained alternate readings and was very persuasive.

    Guess which verse stumped him? It was not any of which you quoted. It was the verse Jesus quoted.

    Anyway, the point in this topic is that the implicit commands are just as weighty, and we are just as accountable to them as to the explicit ones; and that the demand for a verbatim endorsement or prohibition is an irrational demand.

    I'll deal with your objections one by one when I get home.

    :D
     
  18. Aaron

    Aaron
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2000
    Messages:
    15,680
    Likes Received:
    241
    But Christ said the issue of lust is implicit in the Seventh Commandment. Christ did not have the Tenth Commandment in mind when he countered the centuries of rabbinical tradition.

    And so the answer is, "Yes, the commandment against adultery includes the adultery in our minds, wills and emotions as well."

    Clint, it does prohibit unrighteous anger, correct?

    Yes, of course it does. Christ said so.

    I have already posted Henry's commentary. Here is Calvin's: When she says, God has forbidden them to eat or to touch, some suppose the second word to be added for the purpose of charging God with too great severity, because he prohibited them even from the touch. But I rather understand that she hitherto remained in obedience, and expressed her pious disposition by anxiously observing the precept of God.

    That is how the spiritual mind sees God's commands. They see them as "exceeding broad," Psalm 119:96.

    So as the great Baptist expositor, A.W. Pink observed in his commentary on the Sermon on the Mount: The first commandment brought forward by Christ on this occasion was the sixth of the Decalogue: "Thou shalt not kill." All that the Pharisee's understood by this law was a prohibition of the act of murder; but our Lord insisted that the commandment in its true import prohibited not only the overt act but every evil working of the heart and mind which led to it, such as unjust anger, with contempt and provoking language. Such an interpretation should not stand in need of any argument. The spiritual mind would rightly reason from such a law: if He who desireth truth in the inward parts (Psalm 51) condemns murder, then it is evident we must abstain from all that might lead to that culmination of wickedness; and so it would be discovered that "Thou shalt not kill" really signifies "Thou shalt not hate."

    And so I say again, the disposition that rigidly adheres to only the explicit, "literal" meaning to the exclusion of all other related notions is not a spiritual attitude, but a carnal attitude.

    Yea, God hath said, "Thou shalt not hate."

    [ April 27, 2002, 10:33 PM: Message edited by: Aaron ]
     
  19. ChristianCynic

    ChristianCynic
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/cc2.jpg>

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2001
    Messages:
    927
    Likes Received:
    0
    Then the LORD God took the man and put him into the garden of Eden to cultivate it and keep it (Genesis 2:15).

    Is it implied here that the man kept and cultivated the whole garden, incuding the part which had the tree from which he could not eat? You can hire a gardener and tell him to prune your peach tree, but not to eat any peaches.

    Implications can be taken a long way in this matter and many others. Jesus said "A good tree produces good fruit." Since this 'tree of knowledge' did not produce good fruit, but fruit which led to the evils in the word, then by implication, God plants bad trees right in the middle of a dandy little abode.
     
  20. Clint Kritzer

    Clint Kritzer
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2001
    Messages:
    7,739
    Likes Received:
    4
    That's wonderful, Aaron, that you can support those ideas with scripture and commentary, whether it is debatable or not. At least the commentary that you presented offers a passage from Psalms. That is EXACTLY what I was asking anyone to do on the working women's thread.

    You have to be able to back your assertions with scripture if you are rebuking a fellow Christian. That's the bottom line.

    Acts 5
    29 Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men.
     

Share This Page

Loading...