1 Corinthians 5:3 (Paul)
"For my part, even though I am not physically present, I am with you in spirit. As one who is present with you in this way, I have already passed judgment in the name of our Lord Jesus on the one who has been doing this."
In 1 Corinthians 5:3, Paul explicitly contradicts himself, and Jesus, regarding the judgement of others. In many other cases he appears to implicitly contradict himself regarding judgement as well. While he does mention that he is judging in the name of Jesus, would Jesus or The Holy Spirit direct you to break a commandment? There have been many throughout history who have said they are killing or torturing or stealing or even raping in the name of Jesus, and I cannot imagine Jesus condoning these actions either. If this rings true, why would these commandments be held in different regard than one Jesus gave himself, regarding not judging? Would not all instances of judgement in the epistles be called into question then, based on Jesus' clear commandment, that was presented without exception?
Due to this very basic contradiction, from a pure logic/linguistic perspective, either Paul or Jesus is incorrect on this topic. Because Paul is completely predicated on Jesus, only two choices remain: acknowledge Paul's words are fallible, at least in part, or quit any claim at direct logical reasoning behind your faith. I can appreciate the position of taking something on faith without proof or logic, I have done it and still do to this day with Jesus, in certain areas I have yet to understand. From a legal perspective, however, if a position is to hold up in court, proof is required to fully stake a particular claim. If one is unwilling to either defend or examine their beliefs then they have set aside the ability to challenge another's claim entirely. This would be the case until such time that they are willing to examine their own beliefs further. As a Christian, strong in my faith, I would hope to help anyone find support for their position by providing verses or encouraging them to study The Bible further. Personally I will even assess baseless "Churchisms" (claims which have taken hold in the church without direct root in The Bible) from time to time, just to reinforce my own faith and try to gain a better understanding of how these views were first planted if not by the words of God or Jesus. This example of Paul's incorrect logic is demonstrated explicitly in at least one other instance:
Hebrews 9:27 (Paul)
"Just as people are destined to die once, and after that to face judgment,"
Hebrews 11:5 (Paul)
"By faith Enoch was taken from this life, so that he did not experience death: 'He could not be found, because God had taken him away.' For before he was taken, he was commended as one who pleased God."
John 3:16
"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life."
John 8:51 (Jesus)
"'Very truly I tell you, whoever obeys my word will never see death.'"
The issue with claiming an absolute (that people are destined to die once- claiming that something always happens or claiming that something never happens) is that any exception invalidates the claim. In this case Paul makes such a statement but then several chapters later references the exception that invalidates his words, the deathless life of Enoch. Also, Jesus indicates that we will never see death if we follow his words. One might make the claim here that Enoch was returned like Elijah, to die later, one might also make the claim that never seeing death and never dying are two different things. I have personally considered each of these singular tightrope paths, but most Christians I have spoken with do not consider such singular paths as possibilities. Unless such paths are what one clings to, the only other options here is to acknowledge Paul's words were incorrect, or once more place faith entirely on Paul's words, but without logical proof. Until such proof is gained, one has no basis for refuting any other claims like this one which sites both the words of Jesus and an event (Enoch) in the Bible.
A man can misspeak, a man can change his mind, a man can even quit a claim he once made in writing, in my opinion; this is not a test with no eraser, it is an examination of one's own faith which can be ever strengthened and ever grows. The issue I have is not that Paul made these errors, as all men are fallible save Jesus (and that is because he was only speaking at The Father's command (John 12:49 "For I did not speak on my own, but the Father who sent me commanded me to say all that I have spoken.")). The issue I have is that Paul's words are taken as gospel, which is to use a phrase to say they are taken as infallible, and the church teaches them as presumably on par with the words and actions of Jesus, which is actual gospel. The even deeper issue I have is that many churches will, perhaps inadvertantly, place Paul's words of judgement and restriction above Jesus' words of love. This feels like the work of the enemy, once more shifting the hearts of those that follow Jesus away from having a heart for God, this time using The Bible itself to do so. It is far easier to teach rules and restrictions and judgement than it is to teach love and mercy beyond reason, and so man, who is fallible, clings strongly to these rules, and justify them, even in direct contradiction to the words and heart of Jesus, whom they follow. This condition of callousness is referenced several times in Scripture, and is a repeating event throughout human history.
Matthew 15:8-9 (Isaiah 29:13)
"These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. They worship me in vain; their teachings are merely human rules.'"
Matthew 13:13-15 (Isaiah 6:9-10)
"'This is why I speak to them in parables:
"Though seeing, they do not see;
though hearing, they do not hear or understand."
In them is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah:
"You will be ever hearing but never understanding;
you will be ever seeing but never perceiving.
For this people’s heart has become calloused;
they hardly hear with their ears,
and they have closed their eyes.
Otherwise they might see with their eyes,
hear with their ears,
understand with their hearts
and turn, and I would heal them."'"
It could well be that Paul's words are very carefully constructed to be true, and will ultimately be vindicated through such singular paths as I describe, but what is certain is that how the church has largely interpreted them, judging each other and those not in the church is incorrect.
I believe that the authors were divinely inspired and/or divinely supported, where indicated as such. I believe that the prophets were messengers for God, simply stating what they were told to say by God. So the difference between a man of God, a man filled with The Holy Spirit, and a prophet is significant. A man of God, from what I can gather, seems to have the ability to craft reality with his words. It is as if God agrees with what he has said, thus developing the story further. This can be seen with Moses, Joshua, David, etc. Even when these men sin, God remains faithful. We have a distinct advantage in already possessing the context of Jesus when reviewing The Old Testament. There are a number of verses in Psalms, for example, where David curses or hates his enemies, which we know that Jesus would not condone, but interestingly it seems that many of David's words meant for his enemies manifest in the life of Jesus. One example is Psalm 139:21 "Do I not hate those who hate you, LORD, and abhor those who are in rebellion against you?" While this is not the perfect example because it is a question and could therefore have multiple answers (Yes or no), there are many other examples where David, in anger, asks God to destroy his enemies, utterly, in a variety of ways, in one instance including their families Psalms 109:10 "May his children be wandering beggars; may they be driven from their ruined homes." David's words here were not in line with Jesus' heart or even with the spirit of The Law, if not the direct letter (Deuteronomy 24:16 "Parents are not to be put to death for their children, nor children put to death for their parents; each will die for their own sin.") God still supported David because David was his anointed one.
There is also at least one instance where a man was filled with The Holy Spirit (Technically The Spirit of The Lord, if there is a difference there, I am unsure) in The Old Testament.
Judges 11:29-31
"Then the Spirit of the Lord came on Jephthah. He crossed Gilead and Manasseh, passed through Mizpah of Gilead, and from there he advanced against the Ammonites. And Jephthah made a vow to the Lord: 'If you give the Ammonites into my hands, whatever comes out of the door of my house to meet me when I return in triumph from the Ammonites will be the Lord’s, and I will sacrifice it as a burnt offering.'"
The result of this battle was in Jephthah's favor, God was with him, but the vow would not be considered in line with Jesus' heart or Jesus' words.
Matthew 5:34-37
"'But I tell you, do not swear an oath at all: either by heaven, for it is God’s throne; or by the earth, for it is his footstool; or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the Great King. And do not swear by your head, for you cannot make even one hair white or black. All you need to say is simply "Yes" or "No"; anything beyond this comes from the evil one.'"
So it is clear that while The Holy Spirit (or Spirit of The Lord) may fill someone, that Spirit does not possess someone. Their words are still their own in these cases, but The Spirit guides them for a purpose, even if that purpose is not clear/direct/explicit (for more on my interpretation of this vow's purpose, read my post "Get a Good Lawyer"). This is to say that what a man says or even tells you to do, even while filled with The Holy Spirit, can be incorrect, it is a different state than that of the prophets or of Moses passing along the message of The Law. Paul was filled by The Holy Spirit when he wrote the epistles. Is it possible that much of what he said was meant to be assessed and tested by faith and through study of the Law, Scriptures, and Gospel so that those that believe in Christ would have to choose to believe Christ over some of the things Paul indicated were required?
What I suggest is not something that most Christians do not already do; the vast majority of churches I have seen do not follow Paul's words to the letter, as is.
1 Corinthians 11:13-16
"Judge for yourselves: Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him, but that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For long hair is given to her as a covering. If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice—nor do the churches of God."
1 Corinthians 14:34-38
"Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church. Or did the word of God originate with you? Or are you the only people it has reached? If anyone thinks they are a prophet or otherwise gifted by the Spirit, let them acknowledge that what I am writing to you is the Lord’s command. But if anyone ignores this, they will themselves be ignored."
1 Timothy 5:9-15
"No widow may be put on the list of widows unless she is over sixty, has been faithful to her husband, and is well known for her good deeds, such as bringing up children, showing hospitality, washing the feet of the Lord’s people, helping those in trouble and devoting herself to all kinds of good deeds.
As for younger widows, do not put them on such a list. For when their sensual desires overcome their dedication to Christ, they want to marry. Thus they bring judgment on themselves, because they have broken their first pledge. Besides, they get into the habit of being idle and going about from house to house. And not only do they become idlers, but also busybodies who talk nonsense, saying things they ought not to. So I counsel younger widows to marry, to have children, to manage their homes and to give the enemy no opportunity for slander. Some have in fact already turned away to follow Satan."
If churches allow women's Bible studies, or to speak in church at all, and do not require them to cover their heads, both of which Paul explicitly states that if not done will result in dire penalties (being kicked out of the church or being ignored (presumably by the church) altogether), then those churches already do not follow the words of Paul literally. If one picks and chooses what they will follow of Paul's message, the question is on what basis is this assessment done? Personally I assess Paul's words by Jesus' words. I assess everything in the Bible by Jesus' heart, and if something in The Law or Scriptures seems to be at odds, I analyze it in this vein until a solution (often one of those singular paths I reference) is found. In this way my faith is deepened and strengthened; in this way my assumptions regarding The Bible ("Churchisms") erode away and the actual structure of God's plan is revealed; in this way when I am challenged on a particular belief, I can defend myself with Scripture, and not strictly based on what the church has taught me, as the teachings of the church may be flawed.
I do not disregard Paul. Paul presents many interesting spiritual constructs which I consider; Paul references Scripture in many interesting ways that I use to deepen my faith; Paul speaks well of the love of Christ and when doing so reinforces what I believe is coming next. However, many of Paul's words have not withstood the test of time, which is to say that when examined in good faith by churches, many of his messages regarding slaves, women, etc. have been disregarded already. By contrast, Jesus' words have not tarnished, nor will they:
Matthew 24:35
"'Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away.'"
Luke 21:33
"'Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away.'"
I think the difference in my approach from that of others is that I have recognized honestly that I have personally assessed the words of Paul, not taking them as gospel, and I have analyzed deeply why this might be the case, and even the intention, for the epistles. Personally I cannot let an issue pressed upon my heart by The Holy Spirit go unexamined. If I notice what I believe is at odds with itself, I pull apart the structure underlying the beliefs until a firm solution is found. I do not want to let any belief of mine that I have been called to examine by The Holy Spirit fall into the realm of "strictly based on faith", when I can tell that what I have currently assessed of my own faith is illogical by its own merits (lacking integrity). I feel that doing so would leave me defenseless against the enemy, when an aggressive attack is levied in place of a test of faith. I feel that leaving beliefs unexamined will lead to them being burned away in the fire, per Isaiah 48:10-11
"See, I have refined you, though not as silver;
I have tested you in the furnace of affliction.
For my own sake, for my own sake, I do this.
How can I let myself be defamed?
I will not yield my glory to another."
If burned away entirely, it is possible that something might jeopardize the entire structure of my belief in a way that I cannot foresee. For these reasons I test my beliefs when called to, before they are tested for me through attack by one who will not be so forgiving. For these reasons I have examined my approach on Paul's words, and have assessed them as such.
On authority, Romans 13:1 says "Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God."
What if one is called by their government to disobey God? This could be in a variety of ways, readily apparent in this day and age, but what if the government commands you to murder someone, for example? The answer seems clear, I would hope, that a Christian obeys God and in doing so disobeys the government, but how does that reconcile with obeying the authority, as indicated by this verse? While many allowances and excuses can be made, based on human logic, for why either the verse is meant to be less explicit than its wording suggests, or for even why murder would be acceptable, the letter of what is written simply says to obey. Now God establishes governments for a variety of reasons, and not so they will be obeyed by the church without assessment or consideration of God's word. Jesus provided wisdom on the concept of authority:
Matthew 22:21
"...'So give back to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.'"
Matthew 6:24
“No one can serve two masters. Either you will hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to the one and despise the other..."
Once more, while Jesus did not say "disobey the government" he certainly did not say "obey the government." It seems Jesus presents an image where we are to support where we can, where it does not conflict with what God requires of us, and we are to serve God alone. As such all verses in the epistles that do not mesh with Jesus' sentiment regarding authority cannot be assumed to be correct, and as such it seems we are to resist evil in the government, especially when commanded to obey a contradictory order to what God has told us to do, resisting in ways that are in line with Jesus' words and heart, as well.
Also, regarding both authority and women, when reading about masters and slaves I considered that the best approach for a master to take would be to free their slave, assuming this freedom would not mean the slave's demise. Once a master recognizes that they have harmed another through enslaving them, their own brother or sister in Christ, it seems they should seek a way to rectify that situation as eagerly as possible to make their brother or sister free. That was the approach I saw as most fitting with Jesus' heart anyway, and felt best to me. Then I read
1 Timothy 2:11-12
"A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet."
And also 1 Peter 3:7 (this is Peter writing, not Paul)
"Husbands, in the same way be considerate as you live with your wives, and treat them with respect as the weaker partner and as heirs with you of the gracious gift of life, so that nothing will hinder your prayers."
I realized (thankfully) that my assessment of slaves, according to these letters, would also apply to my soulmate. I am not looking for "full submission" or a "weaker partner." I want my partner to be eternal, and as such she must be on the same footing with me always, but from her own unique perspective. A woman should not be commanded to submit, both a man and woman are bound by love to submit often, challenge when needed, and always support. If "full submission" was what was commanded in The Bible and what was intended, then I am glad we took this time to learn love in freedom of each other. For a slave cannot but agree with their master, nor can one in full submission choose to disagree, and a structure built on compulsory agreement is not anywhere near as sound or as beautiful as one where disagreement is possible. While the end result may likely end up looking quite similar, as agreement is quite likely for those specifically made by God for each other, the approach or courtship into love is critical; true love cannot be entered into in a compulsory way, even if in and of itself true love is certainly binding. If any disagree with me on this point, I suggest you take it up with your soulmate, what business is it of mine, save with my own?
Comments
Post a Comment