Biblical inconsistency?

OSV.com ^ | 07-25-18 | Msgr. Charles Pope

[Salvation]

Biblical inconsistency? Jesus does not negate himself but rather gives different teachings on following the commandments

Msgr. Charles Pope

7/25/2018

Question: In Matthew 5:19, Jesus rails against relaxing or changing even the least of the commandments, and yet verse 19 also says that if one does, “[he] will be called least in the kingdom of heaven.” It seems the consequences should be “losing” the kingdom of heaven if Jesus is consistent with what follows in verse 20. Can you explain the seeming inconsistency? — Jim Flynn, via email

Answer: Two different teachings are being made here, hence it is not a matter of consistency.

In verse 19, the operative teaching is that while unrepented mortal sin excludes one from the kingdom of God, not all violations of the law are mortal. Even the Ten Commandments, while indicating grave sin in themselves admit of lighter matter.

For example, regarding the Seventh Commandment, stealing a large amount or something essential or irreplaceable is usually a mortal sin. However, taking something small or insignificant, while a sin, may not be a mortal sin that excludes one from the kingdom of God. Thus, if the Lord were to adopt your word, the condemnation might be too sweeping. It does not follow that if someone breaks the least of the commandments they necessarily lose the kingdom of God.

Further, you will note that there is a kind of parallelism or play of words at work here. The Lord is saying, in effect: “If you break even the least of my teachings, I am going to call you the least!” Preachers often use such sayings in order to be memorable.

For example, consider the following word stitch: “Say what you mean, and mean what you say. But don’t say it mean.” The word “mean” unites all three phrases, but in each case a slightly different sense of the word “mean” is used.

Here, the Lord is not only being careful not to imply that even small infractions would land us in hell, but he is also being artful, resourceful and memorable by his use of a parallelism.

As for verse 20, we encounter a different teaching: “I tell you, unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will not enter into the kingdom of heaven.”

Here we are dealing with the problem of minimalism. Though the Pharisees fancied themselves meticulous observers of the law, they were very minimalist in their application of it. Jesus said they were hypocrites because they followed exacting laws about small things, such as tithing, but neglected weightier matters of the law, such as justice and mercy (cf. Mt 23:23). It is one thing to pay tithes; this is good and required. But neglecting the poor and failing to feed and teach them is far more important to God.

Jesus will develop this teaching against minimalism in the verses that follow in the Sermon on the Mount. For example, he will teach that it is not enough to avoid murder; the command requires we let God banish vengeful hatred from our hearts. It is not enough to avoid acts of adultery; we must allow God to give us chaste minds and hearts. It is not enough to avoid excessive retaliation; we ought to avoid retaliation altogether.

Therefore, the message of verse 20 is a call to exceed the minimalist notions of the law. Grace equips us for more, and we are expected to attain more by that grace. The old law could not save. Only the “new law” of grace can save or make us sufficiently holy to enter heaven.

Thus verse 19 speaks of little things, verse 20 of weightier things.

[ealgeone]

Sounds a lot like liberal thinking.

[imardmd1]

If this refers to 1 Corinthians 6:19-20, proper grammatical hermeneutics tell us that the body (singular) in view is the whole local assembly of Christians at Corinth (your, 2nd person plural): ". . . a^{(being anarthrous, not "the")} temple^(singular) of The Holy Ghost in you^{(dative, plural)}, which^{(referring to the body as singular)} ye_have^{(verb, 2nd person plural)} from God, and ye_are^{(verb, 2nd person plural)} not ^yourown^{selves (reflexive pronoun, plural)}? For ye_are_bought-with^{(verb, aorist tense, passive voice, 2nd person plural)} a price^(anarthrous), therefore glorify The God in the body^{(articulate, singular)} of_you^{-all(genitive, plural)}. and in The Spirit^{(articulate, singular)} of^{pertaining to}_you^{-all(genitive, plural)}, which^{same ones (body, Spirit)} are^{each (verb, 3rd person singular)} of^{belonging to} The God^{(articulate, genitive, singular)}."

I am not picking on you, MHGinTN; just a supportive correction to a verse that is very commonly misinterpreted as referring to an individual. The individual's possession of the indwelling Holy Spirit arguably does not make him/her a temple of the Spirit; rather, a residence of Him in a stone which congregated with other like-Indwelt stones, when gathered in The Name of The Christ, is assembled into a Temple of the Spirit for the purpose of worshipping The God in The Spirit.

I hope this makes sense to you. It is not a criticism, just an observation not meant to hurt the esteemed companionship with you in the Lord.

[metmom]

No.

The church, the body of Christ, existed long before Roman Catholicism came into being.

And you are evading again, and changing the subject because I proved you wrong again.

[imardmd1]

Amniotic fluid.

I do not think so, MM. the water referred to is figurative, not literal, and comes from Ephesians 5:26. Taking it out of context, but completely agreeable to it:

"That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, . . ."

"It" referring to the church, each unit/quantum/individual who, being washed with the written and preached water of the Word (the faith-giving Gospel) believes and is made acceptable for a new birth in the Spirit, for without the washing of the Word (the Gospel) unto regeneration, as written to Titus also by Paul:

"Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost; . . ." (Titus 3:5)

Jesus is not disputing with Nicodemus' rationalization of being literally born of the flesh, except by equating that being born of the Spirit requires the lost person be bathed in the amniotic fluid of God's Word as the new spiritual being is gestated with the knowledge of God in Christ without which the person cannot reach the new birth.

"Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his^God's seed^{Word, Ps.126:5-6, Mt. 13:8,23)} remaineth in him^{the person in whom the new soul is being prepared for birth into eternal life in the Spirit)}: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God^{by the faith generated through the washing of the Word}" (1 John 3:9 AV; my superscripted syntax and interpretation).

Let's not confuse the reader with the literal "amniotic fluid" (mis)interpretation. Pretty obviously, no literally born infant can be saved by literal application of literal water and thus by it receive the gift of eternal life without further intervention of God when the babe is not yet held intellectually accountable. Baptizing such infants is wholly ridiculous and asinine.

But baptizing a new-born spiritual infant into a life of discipleship accompanied by a personal admission of culpability, profession of saving and obedient faith, and willingness to receive the ritual of induction, is entirely the only legitimate form of literal use of water in salvation-related ceremony.

[imardmd1]

No.

[imardmd1]

I like this "Moral in cognizant" phrase. I will try to remember it so I can use it in the kind of explanation you are doing here. Newborn infants are not at all morally cognizant even of their wrath of not being fed on demand, and thus cannot profess a saving faith that is a prerequisite to be water-baptized.

"For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law^{(of which one is not morally in cognizant)}" (Rom. 5:13; my superscripted interpretation).

The newborn infant is not yet self-aware, hence not morally in cognizant. But when reaction to the word "NO" comes, then comes cognizance, eh?

[imardmd1]

Versus whose other legitimate opinion?

Yours?

/s

[metmom]

OK.

Anyway, what it gets down to is that *water* doesn’t necessarily mean baptism and if Jesus had meant baptism He would have said it instead of using terms that could be so easily be misunderstood. It isn’t like Jesus didn’t know what the word baptize was all about.

But some people will grab any verse out of context if they think they can use it to support their doctrine, instead of building the doctrine on the Word.

anything but faith for some folks.

Just as long as they can contribute somehow and not have to trust God alone.

[imardmd1]

nobamnomore: How can you criticize annulment process when protestants don’t care how many times you’re married, nor whether you ever confess adultery, or ever stop doing it.

metmom: Why do you post misrepresentations of non-Catholic thinking? If that's what you've been told, someone lied to you.

I'm with you, MM. I was saved at the age of 34, on May 24, 1971, and have always been non-Catholic in my heritage. I was once a Methodist (Protestant) until my salvation, whence I am no longer clinging to Protestantism, just became a Christian. Maritally, I was then separated in Sept. 1971, divorced in June 1972, and I have not been remarried. That's over 46 years, and it is because I firmly do not believe in remarriage adultery. The person who has taught me in the Word personally for about 26 of those years has written on this, and here is the link to what the Bible says about it:

THE SIN OF REMARRIAGE ADULTERY
(click here)

This paper was primarily written to instruct evangelical pastors in premarital or marital counseling of couples who were laboring under the presumption that the "exception clauses" of Matthew 5:32 and 19:9 meant that if you got or were given man's divorce decree, one was then permitted by God's law and blessing to be remarried without spiritual consequences. That is a bad, rally bad interpretation not held by truly Biblical counselors. And the Roman Catholic "annullment" is not a genuine Scriptural answer to it, either.

Let the person parted from their marriage mate take a very careful note of this. From my standpoint, though putatively attracted to someone who might ignorantly embark on a remarriage venture, through sincere consideration of their welfare I would not inflict on them the burden of consequences that would result. Nor would I endanger my intimate, ewternal relationship with my God and His Son merely to attempt to satisfy a desire for marital intimacy which could only be temporary, in the end.

One who tries to dignify his standing on the basis of some imagined Protestant marriage ethic is very much mistaken. A true, solid Biblical understanding ought to intimidate him/her if his doctrine is Catholic on this issue.

[metmom]

Breaking of marriage vows is breaking of marriage vows, no matter what someone decides to call it.

And I have not been in any christian church that would sanction such a move by any couple, even if they claim they never meant to keep their marriage vows in the first place.

Then again, good, thorough pre-marital counseling should weed out such.

[imardmd1]

He would have said it instead of using terms that could be so easily be misunderstood.

My perception is based on the idea that, in terms pf progressive revelation, Jesus was looking ahead to terms that would be concepts that were hidden in the Old Testament, but revealed in the New, in portions that were yet to be written (which from the Cross viewpoint was all of it).

But thanks for your patience with me when I get down in the weeds to try to discover what supports a healthy and fruitful crop of new believers.

With sincere respect and appreciation for your diligence and dedication to the Great Commission.

[imardmd1]

And I have not been in any christian church that would sanction such a move by any couple, even if they claim they never meant to keep their marriage vows in the first place.

But, MM, you must admit that there are many non-Catholic Christ-professing ministers that will marry couples of which one or both partners have been divorced. In most cases the outstanding excuse is that the one divorced was the one offended by an extramarital copulation of their previous partner, hence giving them a reason for obtaining a decree of divorce.

They then lean on the "exclusion clause" found in Matthew 5:32 and 19:9 as reading that they then have the Biblical excuse for divorcing because of adultery, following that later they are completely and doctrinally free to remarry. Many ministers not only agree but supply such a wrong excuse. And some non-Catholic ministers do not even take this demurring stance on the matter. They just make sure that both have a valid divorce from man's point of view, then go ahead and remarry the two, claiming that God will bless the union, especialy if they will become "good church members" (which they cannot, since they continue as examples of ongoing sin).

Then there is the case where some couple have finally realized that they are going against Biblical principles through the counseling of another informed Christian or wise pastor. So there they are, truly saved and really married and truly repentant for their status. But then if they get the idea that they can both confess their sin, have it forgiven by God according to their understanding of John 1:9, be thoroughly cleansed (right to this point) . . . and then just go merrily along their way continuing cohabiting in marriage, they are yet still wrong, and reinitiating something they were forbidden by Christ to continue! And even then some of the careful Biblicists will say "OK" when it is NOT. The only solution Scripturally possible is for them to remain faithful in supporting each other, but to cease cohabiting or copulating. And if there are children, to support them in every way necessary for their development.

And the sum of these misadventures in the non-Catholic sphere is just what nobamacare is complaining about.

No Catholic priest will perform a church-sanctioned marriage if one of the couple (let alone both!) has a divorce decree from man's courts. And nobamacare is right, though a bit overboard, on the point he/she was trying to make.

Which is one reason why I took the time to use the reply to you to write out the long explanation. The other reason is, of course, to help others to avoid some of the excruciating pain that it has taken me to find out the truth of it.

[daniel1212]

I The newborn infant is not yet self-aware, hence not morally in cognizant. But when reaction to the word "NO" comes, then comes cognizance, eh?

Well, there is an age of accountability,

For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings. (Isaiah 7:16)

Moreover your little ones, which ye said should be a prey, and your children, which in that day had no knowledge between good and evil, they shall go in thither, and unto them will I give it, and they shall possess it. (Deuteronomy 1:39)

As in giving $, "it is accepted according to that a man hath, and not according to that he hath not," (2 Corinthians 8:12) accountability is according to light and grace given, which is why concerning those who were given light and grace via the apostle's preaching and healing, "it shall be more tolerable in that day for Sodom, than for that city. (Luke 10:12)

For "we are sure that the judgment of God is according to truth," (Romans 2:2) with those who know and do not do being judged more harshly. "But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more." (Luke 12:48)

And if those who are ignorant see less punishment, having less light they disobeyed, those who are not only ignorant of what is lawful vs sinful, but do not even have any ability to morally reason, and feel no guilt, can hardly be condemned based on what Adam did and the nature they inherited.

Yet as unclean by nature it seems they must be redeemed by Christ on His account. I see no "sacrament" for this, and requiring baptism for them would at least exclude tge aborted, but I presume that the same Christ who admonished, "Suffer little children [paidion] to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God, (Luke 18:16) makes these innocents accepted in the Beloved. Speculative theology.

However, baptism represents the faith choice made in conversion, being buried as one who die, and raised to walk in newness of life.

[imardmd1]

Yes, thank you for digging out these extra illuminating passages. Of course, there is for most a point of development of a child where accountability comes into play; and The God, being Judge of All, knows when that is. I suppose that from the range of intellectual ability, there may be (I would say "are") some who will never reach that stage. However, I also believe that we owe it to our get to begin child evangelism from the cradle onward.

From Romans 2 we know that for the peoples to whom the Gospel has not yet been carried, there is yet a trace of good versus evil brought down to all descended from the tribes dispersed after the Babel tower episode, a knowledge lodged in ones heart, however the scheme of values is twisted, to which each must answer to God for his response to the light given, as you say.

[MHGinTN]

Nice try

[imardmd1]

J. N. Darby in his "Synopsis of the New Restament":

The Lord explains Himself. Two things were necessary — to be born of water, and of the Spirit. Water cleanses. And, spiritually, in his affections, heart, conscience, thoughts, actions, etc., man lives, and in practice is morally purified, through the application, by the power of the Spirit, of the word of God, which judges all things, and works in us livingly new thoughts and affections. This is the water; it is withal the death of the flesh. The true water which cleanses in a christian way came forth from the side of a dead Christ. He came by water and blood, in the power of cleansing and of expiation. He sanctifies the assembly by cleansing it through the washing of water by the word. "Ye are clean through the word which I have spoken unto you." It is therefore the mighty word of God which, since man must be born again in the principle and source of his moral being, judges, as being death, all that is of the flesh.

To repeat, the "water" in this verse is not the literal water of sprinkling, pouring, or immersion baptism. One can be saved without being water-baptized. The purpose of the use of water in the immersion baptism is not for salvation/new birth, It is for induction into the Kingdom of Heaven, not for the participoation in the Kingdom of God which should have already been effected.

Nor is it speaking of two different births, which the "amniotic fluid" theory demands, and though one experiences it, immersion in that water does not allow one to see or enter the Kingdom of God.

No, the verse speaks of the two stages of one new birth (1Jn. 3:9), for one cannot be saved, born anew in the spirit, regenerated, without a knowledge of the elements of The Faith, which comes by hearing the preached Word of God, of which one symbol is "living water."

That is, for Jesus to say "Unless a human is born of water and spirit he is not able to enter The Kingdom of The God" it is clear that the two elements in combination are involved in the new birth. They cannot be separated (Tit. 3:5). One cannot be born in the spirit without the faith endowed by being cleaned by the Spirit who through the preached Word convinces one of sin, of righteousness, and of judgment, and of the need to confess and repent of one's sin. And on the other hand, once the gift of faith comes, one is compelled to exercise it and thus be born anew in the Spirit.

This does not leave any room for another interpretation consistent with the rest of Scripture.

In relation to this, what does it mean to you that only a little while later, Jesus spoke to the Samaritan woman making the promise:

"But whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life" (Jn. 4:14 AV).

Is that literal water, or is water here not symbolic of the Word of God integrated with and controlled by God's Spirit in the new man regenerated by the faith resulting from the informing and cleansing Word of God?

[ravenwolf]

Which as a characteristic is because it is such who are true believers,

---

I have no argument with what you said or quoted, but the parable of the sheep and goats makes it a little clearer to me
and it was clear to James which is why he said faith with with out works is dead.

Many people will brag that they are saved by faith and not works and have taken out the word Grace so they are crediting them selves with faith, it is still me, me ,me.

By the way some people talk it would appear to new believers that they actually have a license to sin.

Jesus said the only ones who would enter heaven are the ones who does his will, sin is the transgression of the law or Gods will.

So any one bragging that they can sin all they want and still be saved are really saying that Jesus did not know what he was talking about.

At the same time i think we need to get away from technicalities when we start trying to define sin.

[editor-surveyor]

.
Reading from the Greek translation of Matthew is the chief error.

The Greek translations from the Hebrew were mostly done by Pharisee scribes, who had no particular desire to deliver truth, since they had no respect for it.
.

[MHGinTN]

Jesus said water AND THE SPIRIT to Nic, as recorded in John 3.

[ravenwolf]

These are people relying on their works, not their faith.

---

These people are trying to show what great faith they have to make themselves great in the eyes of others,
Jesus saw them as phonies.

And you are right, James and Paul had no disagreement as Paul was talking about the works of the law and James was talking about the works of faith, however Paul is hard for most people to understand.