There was a whole long thread back in 2000 on, essentially, problems with a literalistic approach to the Golden Rule. In fact one memorable line (I think it was Czarcasm who came up with it) was “I would not want to be the recipient of the attentions of a masochist who took the Golden Rule literally.”
Probably it’s best read with an implied “if you were in their shoes” – i.e., if you were the person they are, how would you like to be treated? Like any other moral imperative, it results in absurdities when read legalistically and applied to outré situations. A suicidal follower of the Golden Rule has no moral duty to kill me, for example.
As for the interesting question in the first paragraph, which I think was intended by you to point out an absurdity, consider: for two gay men, yes, it would mean exactly that. For a heterosexual couple (or two Lesbians), revise it to “oral sex” to account for the differences in genitalia: If you would wish to be fellated, be prepared to perform cunnilingus on your partner.
The “negative Golden Rule” which you cite has an equally old provenance in human moral teaching – but the positive version adds a requirement the negative version lacks.
I’m coming on a little late in this debate, and this one may have already been proposed, but it bears repeating. Concerning the three requirements of God (of man), The prophet Micah puts it in a very neat capsule:
Micah 6:8 He hath shewed thee, O man, what is good; and what doth the LORD require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?
(KJV)
This response will probably bring forth the ire of Polycarp (who I commend for having the courage to raise this issue), and others who believe the four accounts of Jesus life, and what he said in those accounts, are for the direct obedience of the church of the present dispensation.
If one distinguishes universal principles (universals) from doctrine for a particular economy (dispensation) in scripture, understanding can be added to knowledge.
To **“love thy neighbor as thyself,” ** is a universal in the Bible. Jesus was not the first nor the last to command this. The commandment was originally written by Moses into the Law (Lev. 19:18), and later repeated by both Paul and James (Rom. 13:9; Gal. 5:14; James 2:8)
The question is: how does one go about loving his neighbor? Jesus, in Luke 10, uses the story of the good Samaritan as an illustration of how to do this. He saved the poor Jew (the Jews and the Samaritans were enemies) who had been robbed and left for dead on the wayside. He’s saying more here than just, "love thy neighbor; he’s saying, love even your neighbors who are your enemies. He puts this in a direct commandment in Matt. 5:44. Paul says the same thing in Romans 12:19-21, with even more specific admonitions of how to do this.
The division comes at this point. Whereas Jesus shows loving your neighbor/enemy as helping him out in his calamity, which is a universal, on the other hand he instructs his disciples, in a particular, not to go **"into the way of the Gentiles, or any city of the Samaritans, but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel, and as you go, preach, saying, “The kingdom of heaven is at hand. Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dad, cast out devils: freely ye have received, freely give. Provide neither gold, nor silver, nor brass in your purses, nor scrip for your journey, neither two coats, neither shoes…” ** (Matt. 10:5-9)
This isn’t symbolic language. These are direct marching orders for the obedience of faith to these twelve men he is addressing here. The question is: is this for the obedience of the church of the present dispensation?
When one makes the blanket statement, as many have, that Jesus came to instruct us as to the way in which we should live, do they mean to include the above (and the multitude of other extreme demands he made of his followers) in this statement? Are we (Christians) all supposed to be running about (after we have disavowed ourselves of all our worldly possessions/ties) trying to find “the lost sheep of the house of Israel,” so that we can tell them “the kingdom of heaven is at hand?” Wouldn’t a discerning mind (someone who is truly seeking to know the truth about all this, and not just looking for another reason to slam dunk it) wonder about this? I would think so.
The first step toward understanding scripture and what it says to you, particularly, is to start asking, what, when, where, who and–most importantly–why?
The instructions, doctrine and promises to the church (the body of Christ), for the direct obedience of faith, are not in the four gospels–they’re in the 13 epistles of the Apostle Paul. It is there that one will find out what Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection produced for us in the world, and how God desires us to respond to it.
JMS, I think you’re not only approaching the Bible too literally, you’re also bringing your own conclusions to the text rather than deriving them from it.
I really see no problem at all (and no basis for any doctrine) in Jesus’ instruction to his 12 disciples to limit themselves to the house of Israel. As for why, who know? Maybe it was logistics, maybe it was a desire that the house of Israel should put its iwn house in order before reaching out to others. But any suggestion that Jesus was driven by some kind of dogma whereby the Gentiles must wait until Paul came along is unacceptable to me based on the central message of the Bible (not least Jesus’ own recorded words).
I really see no benefit that can be gained from chopping up the Bible, indeed, the message of Judeo-Christianity, in this way. Michel Foucault, the French philosopher, who had many interesting insights into such concrete things as mental illness and the penal system, had a similar blind spot with his obsession with dividing up eras into convenient bits (similar to your “dispensations”, though he called them “disjunctures”, or some such). Apparently, as one century ended and a new one began, entirely new eras were born.
It’s a load of gibberish and should be regarded as such. We need to rightly divide the scriptures, and a good starting point is to make sure that the effect of what we say, and of what we do, is to edify others. To build them up, give them hope (to go with the faith and love); not to confuse them.
It’s very convenient to say that Jesus’s direct teachings and the way he lived his life is no longer for the present dispensation. It absolves modern Christians from having to give up their comfortable lives and lifestyles and become one of the poor, to heal and help the sick and dying regardless of how disgusting or inconvenient their diseases or personalities, to turn the other cheek even when threatened. It’s MUCH easier to skate onto the Worship-Jesus highway and coast for the rest of your life, secure in the knowledge that you’ve accepted Christ into your heart and you’re going to Heaven, regardless of how you actually treat anyone else, right?
From what I’ve seen of what he’s said, that’s not quite fair to JMS’s views. However, I’ve been loath to challenge him on that inherent problem with dispensationalism, and I’d like to ask him to address your post in full, explaining exactly where he’s coming from with regard to Jesus’s teachings and how he relates them to Paul’s. He mentioned in passing that they were “foundational” and that Paul’s were “practical expansions of them.” (The latter quote is a paraphrase, because I don’t have his exact wording from a now-buried thread; I remember “foundational” as the word he used.)
So, JMS – it’s very relevant to the topic of my OP; would you be so kind as to get into it here?
Actually, Poly, JMS’s post was just a jumping-off point for mine, rather than the direct antecedent. My post outlined one of the major problems I have with modern “cultural” Christianity, the phenomenon of “saved in the suburbs”. And, of course, it’s a long-running theme for me, critiquing the faith as an outsider, as you know.
Though I’d be happy to see JMS’s response, as well.
As a man “posing as a Somdomite” ;), you might be interested in the Scriptural definition of the Sin of Sodom:
Strange it doesn’t directly reference homosexuality, but rather the building up of creature comforts and the failure to address the needs of others less fortunate.
Hmmmm…
Perhaps God has a different idea about Sodomy than the lawbooks?
The command to “rightly divide…the word of truth” (2 Tim. 2:15) was given by Paul.
The phrase “rightly divide” is translated from the Greek, “Orthotomeo,” which means, literally, “to dissect” (Strong’s #3718). It’s the same word in both the TR and Nestle’s.
the word dispensation (oikonomia), occurs four times in the Bible, all in Paul’s letters. If it wasn’t meant to be invoked why is it in there?
The benefit one gains from dividing the Bible is the same benefit one derives from employing scientific analysis: understanding. Like, “the whole is the sum of its parts.” Like, why do medical students carve (“chop up”) up cadavers?
I’m not talking about dividing up the Bible into eras; I’m talking about dividing it up into messages. Like, what is the message, who is the dispenser of the message, to whom is it being dispensed, and to what purpose?
Who did Jesus say he came for? “I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel” (Matt. 15:24). If that’s what he said, why would you want to argue with it? Why can’t you just let it stand? It’s clear to me why he said this. There are at least 20 passages in the four gospels where he says he came to fulfil the scriptures. Since the only scriptures they had at that time were the law and the prophets, that tells me he came to fulfil that which was prophesied of: the New Testament/Covenant. If you’ll look in Jeremiah 31, you’ll find that this convenant is to/with Israel, so this statement about him coming for them, and sending his disciples to them exclusively fits. Look, I know he came for me too. I know he died for me too. But I don’t know that from the four gospels; I know it from Paul, the apostle of the Gentiles.
You talk about edifying people; showing them love. How, pray tell, could one be edified by language like, “Its a load of gibberish?” That’s really a “loving” statement. Or with generalizations like, “you take the Bible too literally.” Or implying that I am confusing other people with what I say. If you are really interested in edifying me, be specific and site corroborating scripture to back up your points.
Complementary to the passage from Ezekiel is the passage from Jude, which refers to sexual aspect of the sin of Sodom, originally referenced in the source text in Genesis 18-19.
The Jude passage is best rendered literally (so as to avoid the interpretative flavouring of words such as “perversion” that are used in many versions of the Bible to paraphrase or summarise the Greek).
Here’s the text in question in context. Jude is concerned about bad elements who have infiltrated the church.
Jude 4-7:
“For certain men have crept in, those who were written about long ago for this judgement, impious men, those who make a pretext for wantonness of our God and deny our only master and Lord Jesus Christ. My purpose is to remind you, who once knew all things, that the Lord who saved a people out of the land of Egypt in the second place destroyed those who did not believe. And the angels that did not keep their authority but deserted their own habitation, he has kept for judgement of the great day in everlasting bonds under gloom. Just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, in like manner to these people committing fornication and going away after different flesh, are set forth as an example undergoing punishment of eternal fire.”
It isn’t entirely clear whether the sexual aspect of the sin of the people of Sodom and Gomorrah was wanting to have sex with angels (who were male, of course), with males, or with females, specifically Lot’s daughters, or a general depravity whereby they had lost all self control and nothing was off limits.
Here is the New International Version of part of the passage in Genesis 19 (verses 1-6) that all the later authors (including the authors or Ezekiel and Jude) are referencing:
Of course, God was already pretty pissed off with the inhabitants of this region for their appalling behaviour before this incident happened. Lot’s brother Abraham had been bargaining with God, progressively lowering the threshold for saving the cities from 50 good people to ten.
Oikonomia is a word notoriously difficult to translate accurately, but I have to say, JMS, that it has definitely been hijacked by you Dispensationalists. It is, of course, the origin of the English “economy” and “economics” – and is used by the Eastern Orthodox to describe the tempering of rules with mercy that describes appropriate pastoral activity. It is sometimes translated as “administration,” with echoes of the oikumenh, the Known World as equivalent to the Roman Empire and carrying a connotation of God’s (merciful) authority over all things, analogous to Christ’s use of “Kingdom.” That it specifically means “dispensation” in all its Scriptural uses is something eisegetically read into it by Dispensationalists.
Leaper, first off, that was in the old testament. A lot of Jesus’ purpose was to condense the old ways into these easy to understand rules: Love God and everybody else.
Does that mean we don’t have to follow the 10 commandments? No way. Look at them. They all fall into one of the requirements that poly mentioned.
But it’s important for Christians to realize that the 10 commandments are commandments for us to follow ourselves. They are not laws written down by God for us to enforce on others.
For simplicity’s sake, love God and everybody else, and you’re going to heaven.
[QUOTE=Polycarp]
Oikonomia is a word notoriously difficult to translate accurately, but I have to say, **JMS**, that it has definitely been hijacked by you Dispensationalists. It is, of course, the origin of the English "economy" and "economics" -- and is used by the Eastern Orthodox to describe the tempering of rules with mercy that describes appropriate pastoral activity. It is sometimes translated as "administration," with echoes of the oikumenh, the Known World as equivalent to the Roman Empire and carrying a connotation of God's (merciful) authority over all things, analogous to Christ's use of "Kingdom." That it specifically means "dispensation" in all its Scriptural uses is something eisegetically read into it by Dispensationalists.
[/QUOTE]
I think you’re the hijacker here. Consider the word “steward.” What is a steward? A steward is someone who is in charge of the goods, and a dispenser of those goods. The word steward(s) occurs 11 times in the NT, and in all but one usage it is translated from the Greek “Oikonomos”, as in “Oikonomia”. In every dispensation (Oikonomia), there is a dispenser (oikonomos). You’re right; this is where our modern word economy comes from. An economy is simply a system of dispensing the goods. In a capitalist economy the goods are dispensed by the market; in a communist economy, by the state, etc.
In the Bible the “goods” being dispensed is the message/doctrine for the obedience of faith. In every dispensation God chooses a dispenser, e.g., for “the Law”: Moses; “the kingdom”: Jesus and the 12 disciples; “Grace:” Paul. You want to change the word to economy, knock yourself out. You want to call the steward an adminsistrator–go head on–it won’t change the meaning one bit.
The Orthodox Church has been using oikonomia in the senses I suggest since definitely the time of Basil of Caesarea, and probably a good deal before that.
All the older translations do not use dispensation as the translation of the term.
The point of this thread was to suggest that if you choose to call yourself Christian, the instructions of Christ as to proper behavior are meaningful – as against a facile “take Jesus as your Lord and Savior, and whoosh-bang, you’re saved and can look down on all them sinners!”
You’ve wandered in with a theology you hold to, which I’m trying awfully hard not to shred into small pieces and make papier mache of, despite the fact I loathe it, which effectively puts Jesus’s teachings into a “well, they don’t apply to us” category.
I hesitate to respond, not merely because these sorts of debates seem so trivial, not merely because they usually have no effect in terms of causing either of the participants to rethink their belief system, but also because of the irony of arguing over a phrase which occurs in the context of the following injunction: “avoid disputing about words, which does no good, but only ruins the hearers” (1 Timothy 2: 14).
However, since there’s a chance that others are still eavesdropping, I’d like to add this insight. The Greek word which you translate (following Strong) as “dissect” more literally means to “cut straight”, where the word straight is well known to all of us, since it’s come into the language in such words as orthodoxy. In essence, I think it is much more likely that Paul was urging Timothy (note that this injunction was addressed to him specifically, unlike the one to avoid disputing about words, which was a command for Timothy to pass on to those in his charge) to keep telling it like it was (especially about the resurrection, which some people in Timothy’s assembly were saying had already passed - verses 17-18). Paul was an original Straight Doper, you might say.
The justification for basing your idea of dispensationalism on this text does not exist. Moreover, the connection between oikonomia and orthotomeo is so weak as to be virtually non-existent. Hence, at least in part, my belief that you are confusing people.
As for the gibberish comment, I was referring to Foucault’s idea of disjunctures, periods discretely divided along entirely arbitrary lines (e.g. the dawning of a new century). It smacks of mysticism to me; that’s why I call the notion gibberish. However, it is true that I see your thought processes with regard to dispensationalism as following a similar error, so, if you want me to come “bold on record”, I would say that your ideas are gibberish too.
Once again, you only have to consider the passage in context to gain an understanding of what Jesus was getting at. Jesus had gone away to Tyre for a little R&R. He’s tracked down by a woman (a Canaanite woman) who addresses him as “Lord” and “Son of David” and tells him that her daughter is severely possessed by a demon. He doesn’t respond to her. His disciples beg him to send her away because she won’t stop hassling them. Jesus answers them: “I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel”. She came and knelt before him (we don’t know whether she heard his house of Israel comment or not) and asked him “Lord, help me”. He then told her that it wasn’t fair to take the children’s bread and throw it to the dogs. (Did he really think Canaanites were dogs? The same man who said that whoever believed in him would have eternal life [John 3:15]) She agreed with Jesus (“Yes, Lord”). Or at least she appeared to. For she immediately added, “yet even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their master’s table”.
Now, what does Jesus say in response to this - “Not until Paul turns up, you don’t, lady!”? No, he says this: “Woman, great is your faith! Be it done for you as you desire.” And her daughter was healed instantly.
In reading the Bible, we need two things above all else - certainly above a knowledge of Greek and Hebrew: a willingness to read in context, and sympathetic understanding. By the latter, I mean the willingness to go back in our mind to the days when the incidents occurred and the stories were written down. When reading the Bible as a Christian, I believe that we also need to be humble. Not like Uriah Heap, but with true humility, that which is able to appreciate the understanding we already have and that which we have yet to gain.
[QUOTE=roger thornhill]
I hesitate to respond, not merely because these sorts of debates seem so trivial, not merely because they usually have no effect in terms of causing either of the participants to rethink their belief system, but also because of the irony of arguing over a phrase which occurs in the context of the following injunction: "avoid disputing about words, which does no good, but only ruins the hearers" (1 Timothy 2: 14).
However, since there's a chance that others are still eavesdropping......,
Exactly. I don’t think you and I are ever going to agree on much of anything, and here is why: I don’t believe in reading between the lines of Scripture, and you obviously do. I believe the words mean exactly what they say. I’m not the one disputing about it. I believe the command to divide the word of truth means to do just that. Divide, dissect, cut, slice, chop; I see no difference here. I quoted the Greek merely to show that it supports this.
Now that we know to divide, should our goal not be to proceed with doing it “rightly?” And, since it is Paul who issues the commandment, would it not stand to reason that we should look to him on how to go about this? Please note that just before the commandment to Timothy in verse 15, he tells him in verse 7 to: "consider what I say; and the Lord give thee understanding in all things."
Indeed, it is the Lord (Jesus) who is always the source of true understanding, and he has chosen to do it through his human emissaries, one of which happens to be Paul.
Agreed. Mods.? Do you find the debate about dispensationalism sufficiently compelling, or will my request as OP that the thread be closed because it’s been well and truly hijacked be honored?
:smack: