Posted on 12/03/2014 10:23:22 AM PST by NKP_Vet
I learn so much from your posts!
Me too. Bless God!
Thanks and great research links.
And Satan also causes people to misquote scripture. It does NOT say that Satan or demons believe ON Jesus. It says they believe THAT there is one God.
James 2:19 Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.
Acts 16:31 And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.
HUGE difference.
Galatians 5:12
No. As the context explains, the Judaizers viewed the Gospel as "Jesus is the fulfillment of the Law, so now everyone can do the Law". And, they taught that every male had to be circumcised. Not just Jews, but all Gentiles. Paul is so disgusted with their errant theology, their spurious doctrine, that he hopes they cut themselves off. Bad doctrine is that serious to Paul.
But, what exactly does all of this have to do with the hermeneutic argument?
Great words...thank you.
Not much.
Not as much as this absolutist statement here:
Jesus is not, repeat not, exaggerating for effect. He is stating the absolute requirement of the Law for a man to be righteous in and of himself.
‘I.e.: the words “without a cause” appear in no Greek ms. I have known all along that they did not appear in any of the oldest, best, most complete and definitive mss. I finally decided to check exactly what ms they do appear in. Turns out, none.’
“Which is more a wish versus a fact.”
Daniel, how is this not ascribing a motive to me? I.e.: you say I wrote that because I wished it were true rather than because I thought it to be a fact. Indeed, what you’re saying is that I dishonestly substituted a wish for a fact. That disappoints me. I had started to like the RL forum for the very reason that I don’t get informed by others of my motives here. That is a welcome change from most forums.
As with most assigned motives, yours is incorrect. I would never say or post something simply because I wished it were true, and certainly not if I knew my wish was at variance with the facts.
I did, however, make a mistake. I assumed the online version of the New American Standard Bible was the same as the printed version. It seemed like a safe assumption but it was false. The online version omits some of the footnotes contained in the printed format. Apologies to you and to anyone & everyone affected by this error. It was not made intentionally.
The footnote in question [i.e.: the one omitted in the online version] concerns the disputed text. (One of the reasons students of Greek and of the Bible often use the NASB is precisely because whenever there is a disputed text it is documented in the footnotes.) Now that I have my hardcover NASB in front of me, as opposed to the online version, I note that there is such a documentation. It reads:
“Some mss. insert here: without cause”
So there are ‘some’ mss that include that qualifier. If the best and most reliable included it, the NASB would show those words as part of the text, rather than as a footnote. So I stand by my assertion that the best mss do not include those words.
But for the sake of the argument, assume that the very best Greek mss do include ‘without cause’. This only qualifies being “angry” with a brother. It doesn’t apply to saying ‘You fool.” It doesn’t even apply to calling a brother ‘a worthless person.’ It applies only to being angry, i.e.: being angry ‘without cause.’ [Note that in the NASB translation, saying to a brother ‘you fool’ is a separate sentence altogether. It does not fall into the same statement as the one re: anger.]
Also, much has been made of the fact that Matt. 5:21 supposedly proscribes ‘killing.’ The NASB translated the verse/word as:
“You have heard it said ‘You shall not commit murder’.” etc.
It is not ‘killing’ that is proscribed; it is murder.
As to the fact that God is permitted, by virtue of His sovereignty and omniscience, to do some things that we, His finite and mortal creations are proscribed from doing, I can’t argue it any better than I have. But it does seem resumptuous to argue that we are like mini-gods, able to exercise our limited intellects, imperfect morality and highly imperfect judgments in exactly the same way as does the Almighty God. Rather, just as the vessel cannot emulate the Potter who forms it, the creatures must accept that in some areas the Creator’s rights and prerogatives exceed our own. I have no motivation to argue it further, however. Once a person’s mind is made up to a certain degree, there’s not much that can be done.
For anyone curious about the NSAB, here is a short but informative article about it. If you want accuracy in translation, it is simply superb.
“The New American Standard Bible (NASB or NAS), completed in 1971, is widely regarded as one of the most literally translated of 20th-century English Bible translations. According to the NASB’s preface, the translators had a “Fourfold Aim” in this work:
These publications shall be true to the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek.
They shall be grammatically correct.
They shall be understandable.
They shall give the Lord Jesus Christ His proper place, the place which the Word gives Him; therefore, no work will ever be personalized.
Seeing the need for a literal, modern translation of the English Bible, the translators sought to produce a contemporary English Bible while maintaining a word-for-word translation style. In cases where word-for-word literalness was determined to be unacceptable for modern readers, changes were made in the direction of more current idioms. In such instances, the more literal renderings were indicated in footnotes.
In 1995, the Lockman Foundation reissued the NASB text as the NASB Updated Edition. The removing or replacing literal renderings of antiquated phrases and words, and many conjunctions, the current edition is slightly less literal than the original. It has introduced inclusive language in about 85 places. The NASB remains, however, the most literal version of the English Bible commonly used in churches today. It is commonly used in many Christian colleges and seminaries for in-depth study, because of its strict adherence to the original languages.
http://www.biblestudytools.com/nas/
Here is a question for you. If Jesus’ words were absolutely literal, why only one “eye”? Why only one “hand”? What sin can you commit with only one eye [unless you have only one to begin with]? What sin can you commit with only one “hand”?
The Greek has plurals. Jesus could either have said, ‘Pluck both eyes out,” or “cut both hands off,” or He could have said, ‘Start by plucking/cutting one out/off, and if that doesn’t work, pluck out/amputate the remaining one.’ That is, if it is totally literal.
I agree with you that Jesus is making this a direly urgent matter. But the literal argument fails to address the fact that He didn’t use plurals. For example, if viewing pornography is a problem, plucking out an eye won’t cure it. One could still view the offending images with the remaining eye.
It appears that you believe I am simply arguing for a "literal" interpretation. But, if that were the case, (as you said), "Why only one eye?" Good point.
My point, however, was the hermeneutic, not the interpretation. That is, if at this point in the story line of the Bible, Jesus is teaching the Jews the true weight of the Law, then all of the demands He pointed to were "literal" demands of the Law...but directed at the Jew. If a man looks on a woman, you have committed adultery (broken the Law). If you get angry with your brother, you have committed murder (broken the Law). Even the so-called "Golden Rule" ends with "...for this is the Law and the Prophets", not "...for this is good Christian living." Each layer of demand He expounded was intended to bear upon the Jew to the point of them admitting, "This is impossible!" And, then like the rich, young ruler, "What is impossible with man is possible with God."
If we Gentiles are not grafted into the picture until the blood was shed (according to Paul in Eph. 2), then none of the "teaching" Jesus set out in Matt, Mark, Luke & John was directed at us...any more than the teaching of Isaiah was directed at us. And, there is an enormous difference between being directed at us and being beneficial for us. One tells us what to do, the other tells us what was being done. Did that help?
So, I am forbidden to advise or counsel a man as to what God has said about him? Am I therefore forbidden to agree with God when He calls a man a fool? Am I likewise forbidden to advise him that if he does not know Christ that he is lost and on his way to eternal suffering, because Jesus said to “judge not?”
Set aside for the moment the question of whether Jesus was speaking only to Jews or not. There was an earlier contention that these commands were not to be taken as exaggerations. What is the alternative? Isn’t it literalism? If so, then it is quite legitimate to ask how the literal interpretation works, or fails to.
Iow, if plucking out a single eye or cutting off a single hand resolves nothing, the commands are to no purpose. One cannot address a problem by not addressing it. As mentioned, a single eye can sin quite well on its own—or at least its owner can. Plucking out one eye wouldn’t resolve anything.
What I’m saying is, even if, theoretically, one were to stipulate that the commands were specifically addressed to Jews under the Law only, they still make no sense. The Jew, if he took the commands literally, would be able to figure out that the remaining eye or remaining hand could go right on sinning. So the Jew would conclude that Jesus was instructing him/her to maim themselves to no purpose. Such a conclusion would lead less to despair than to confusion.
What kind of advise or counsel can you not give to a person without literally saying, “You fool”? Are you unable to advise a person that he or she is lost without Christ unless you are able to say, “You fool” in the process?
advise = advice
Well, it is impossible to set aside the issue of who He is speaking. But, if you can ACCEPT that He is speaking to Jews, teaching the weight of the Law, literally, then it follows that these are absolutely NOT exaggerations.
Of course, plucking out a single eye does nothing. That is what He is getting at...but it is what a self-righteous man would do if he failed. Cutting off one hand does nothing...but it is what a self-righteous man would do if he failed. But read the layers of pressure He adds to enlarge the reach of Law to men who believe they can do it. Even the so-called Lord's Prayer actually ends with "if you do not forgive, then you will NOT BE FORGIVEN." This is no exaggeration, yet clearly not the Gospel of Grace Paul describes. So what is it? The demands of the Law upon the real problem, the heart...if you want to do this yourself, then do it perfectly (Matt 5:48)...again, no exaggeration.
But, man cannot, will not do it. Because the heart is broken beyond repair. Notice, He does not mean the "heart muscle" (ultra literal), but uses the heart (literal) as a description of the center of a person's existence...it is that part which is actually broken. Thus the ultimate end (for the elect) is that Christ must intervene and infuse a righteousness (not belonging to man) into the spirit of the man. If He does not act, there is nothing, absolutely nothing that the man may do (or can do, or will do) that will help his state.
This situation is further compounded with difficulty insofar as only the elect are permitted to see (understand) what He is getting at. "Confusion and despair" are exactly the fruits granted to the rest of mankind. This is not a "free will" universe, as many might wish (Rom. 9). Recall, He is sending a spirit of stupor, a deluding influence over the great majority of mankind (Thess.).
‘Of course, plucking out a single eye does nothing. That is what He is getting at...but it is what a self-righteous man would do if he failed. Cutting off one hand does nothing...but it is what a self-righteous man would do if he failed.’
Not sure you are right here. Do you have any actual evidence that self-righteous people, if they failed, resorted to eye-plucking and hand-chopping? [I.e.: their own eye or their own hand, not to be confused with the sadism practiced by the self-righteous of Islam, never upon themselves but upon those who have no choice.]
There have always been self-righteous people in religious communities. The Jews had no lack, down through the ages. Surely in all that time a few self-righteous Jews admitted failure. Yet there is no record or indication anywhere that any of them plucked out an eye or chopped off a hand. It would appear, historically, as if the command/practice was introduced in the Sermon on the Mount, and did not exist prior to that time.
Or put another way, if no self-righteous Jew ever resorted to eye-plucking or hand-chopping, then the command once again makes no sense. You say so yourself:
“’Of course, plucking out a single eye does nothing. That is what He is getting at”
You know, after I wrote that I suspected you may take it that way. I do not mean "self-righteous" as in, the fellow is so self-righteous. I meant it as in, the Pharisees were under the impression that the Law was intended to teach a man how to be righteous by his efforts and anyone who really, really applies themselves will by the effort make themselves acceptable to God...self-made righteousness.
Jesus is removing all possibilities of this happening by filling the Law so full that Jews would say, "Wait just a damn minute here, Bud. Who do you think you are to talk to us this way?" Now we are getting somewhere. And, if one follows the story line, this is precisely why they wanted Him crucified. What sounded nice at first soon became so burdensome that the people despised Him. His "version" of the Law was impossibly harsh (cannot create self-made righteousness) and the PEOPLE (not simply the Pharisees and Saducees) hated this condemnation. Of course they would not pluck an eye out...but it was necessary if you wished to make yourself self-righteous. And, yes, it still would not fix the problem, so of course it sounded excessive.
Thank you for that response. Agree that the nuances of this discussion are fairly subtle/discreet. But in an effort to stick to the point, allow me to recall the beginning. Jesus gave a command. Oddly, the command concerned only one of two eyes, and one of two hands. I.e.: Jesus offered a solution that, had it been literally applied/practiced, would not have solved the problem.
That is the point that caught my interest, and the one, if possible, to stick to in this discussion. Namely, if this command was no exaggeration, then it was intended literally. But I’m not ready to concede that I’m more literal or legalistic than Jesus’ Pharisaical listeners. They were a class of their own, in terms of literality and legalism. I could aspire to compete with them if I wanted to, which I don’t.
So what I’m saying is, their reaction to Jesus’ command would not be, “Wait just a damn minute here, Bud. Who do you think you are to talk to us this way?”
It would be, ‘Can’t you count? There are two eyes and two hands. What good would it do to dispose of one of either? The sinning could go merrily on its way with the one remaining, in either case.’
If that makes sense?
Did it again.
“I could aspire to compete with them if I wanted to, which I don’t.”
Should be:
“I could not aspire to compete with them if I wanted to, which I don’t.
If that makes sense?"
Absolutely. And, I must say I rarely find someone as willing to engage in a good dialogue over nuances/subtleties as you have been. Thank you.
Now, to the point. Yes, you are correct. It is possible someone might respond, "Can't you count?" Thinking that such an act would not really solve the problem when two are available. They may even think, as you astutely noted, "And, that still wouldn't solve the problem!" These responses are perhaps more developed that the basic, "Wait a minute, this is too difficult to accept."
It does, however, begin to lead one in the same direction as the "basic" response. Recall how the rich young ruler began with , "What do I do to go to heaven?" Jesus began with, "Well, just do the commandments." Response, "Oh, I have already done those." Sure, Bob (Peter later notes no one has ever done them Acts 15). But, instead of chiding him, Jesus simply says, "Oh, alright, here is another thing...just sell everything, give the money to the poor, and follow me." Well, that might be three more things, but you get the idea. The point was, Jesus was going to continue to lay upon the man "things to do" until the response was despair. Thus, the answer to the disciples "What is impossible with man is possible with God."
If a man said, "Ha Ha on you, Jesus, I still have one eye.", Jesus would respond, "Okay, when that one fouls up, you know the drill." This is of course not in the text. But, taken as a developing story, this hermeneutic does not do damage to the text as does the addition of qualifiers that make the commands "doable". Especially when it comes to Matt. 5:48.
I'll have to leave now, but if you have additional thoughts, have at it. Grace to you.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.