What Does the New Testament Say About Binary Thinking?

Check out today's episode

I have recently finished reading the New Testament and I am collecting my thoughts about what I read in this series of posts. Today I am writing about what the New Testament says about Binary Thinking. Other entries in this series:

1. Slavery
2. The Apocalypse
3. Women
4. Violence
5. Sexuality
6. Obedience
7. Fear
8. Blasphemy
9. Wealth

This is a topic that has bothered me since I started reading the bible, but I never really know how to categorize it. I have called it binary thinking here, alternative ideas for labeling are "black and white" and "all or nothing". Unfortunately, since I have trouble categorizing it, and my reasons for keeping track of verses was not well formed until fairly recently, I'm pretty sure I have missed quite a number of verses that would fit quite nicely into this post. But don't worry, I have enough material to make my point, I just am pretty sure there are many more verses out there that support this argument.

A perfect example of this type of thinking is the idea that people are either good or bad. In reality people are complicated, everyone does some good things and some bad things. But this is not the picture we get from the bible, it likes to break people up into nice, neat groups. People are either good or bad, righteous or evil. In Luke 6:43-45, Jesus tells us that good trees bear good fruit and bad trees bear bad fruit. The message being that good people have a good heart and bad people a bad heart. There is no room here for a complicated person, just a caricature that we might find in a poor work of fiction. Another example is in 1 Timothy 1:9, where Paul says that the law is laid down for the lawless, but not for good people. Again, we are dividing people into 2 groups, those who need the law because they are so evil, and those who are good to the point that they will know how to behave with no instruction. 

Another example of this type of binary thinking is with the idea that all crimes are equally bad. This is put simply in James 2:10 where it says that anyone who breaks any one portion of the law is held accountable for all of it. The obvious implication here is that a little white lie is just as bad as murder or rape. Although this is the most extreme example that comes right to mind for me, there is an even more egregious version of this in the bible itself. What is a more mild crime than a little white lie? A thought-crime! 1 John 3:15 makes the bold statement that hate is equally bad as murder. Apparently in the eyes of God, thinking bad thoughts of someone is equal to taking their life. Matthew 5:21-22 says this as well, although in addition to murder and hate, it includes calling someone a fool in it's list of crimes which all result in the same punishment of an eternity in hell.

The final example of this type of thinking I want to discuss is the idea that if you are not a follower of God you are evil, and if you are then you are blameless. Usually this is simply expressed as anyone not in our religion is bad. Ephesians 4:17-19, Philippians 3:18-19, 1 Timothy 1:4, 1 Timothy 4:1, 1 Timothy 4:7, 1 Timothy 6:3-4, and Titus 1:12-13 put it simply and say that anyone who isn't a Christian is evil. 1 Peter 4:3 makes a similar statement by saying that all gentiles engage in sex and drinking, which are bad things. Titus 1:10, 14, 16 and Titus 1:11 get a little more specific by targeting Jews, but it is the same message, non-Christians are bad people. 1 John 5:18 takes the opposite side of the ridiculous argument and says that Christians do not sin. But this binary way of thinking is perfectly exemplified in Colossians 1:21-22 where it is talking about the same people on both sides of it. When referring to people who used to be non-Christians but eventually joined the flock, it says that they used to be evil, but now they are holy. Of course this is the only conclusion we can draw given the pieces we have in front of us, but it is funny to see it spelled out in front of us like this. Are we really supposed to think they changed that much here? They are the same people, but they went from evil to good in one shot? No, as with most things in life, we all live on a spectrum.  There may be some people out there who are cartoonishly good or evil, but most of us live somewhere in between.

8% of Irish Catholics are Atheists

Last summer I was listening to a podcast (can't remember which one) and it was mentioned that 8% of Irish Catholics don't believe in God. I assumed I misheard things as that sounds completely crazy to me, but I made a note to look it up later and then forgot about it until I found the note earlier this week. After a quick google search, I arrived at the following news story which confirms that 8% of Irish Catholics do not believe in God.

The article references a survey and has a ton of interesting numbers. In addition to 8% actually being atheists, 15% "do not believe that Jesus is the son of God", so they are not Christians. I find it strange that these people even call themselves catholic. I'm sure it is for the social aspect, in the same way that many Jews are culturally Jewish but don't really believe any of the supernatural stuff. I wonder what labels they would find acceptable, culturally catholic, catholic atheist? Would they be offended by such labels? It's a shame the article didn't go into more detail on this, I would love to see an in depth interview with one of these people.

3 John: Ancient Church Politics

Listen to the podcast below (or right click this link for the mp3 file) 

Podcast Powered By Podbean

Let's take a look at the wikipedia page. The wikipedia page on previous books of John said that all 4 were likely written by the same person, but this one says that is maybe not so. It says 2 & 3 John are similar and likely written by John the Presbyter, but a fourth century council of Rome said he should be distinguished from John the Evangelist who wrote the other 2 books. The dating of the writing is also all over the place, ranging from 60 to 115.

Greeting (v. 1-4)

John is apparently writing to someone named Gaius. He is happy to hear that Gaius is a strong believer.

Support and Opposition (v. 5-12)

John gives praise to Gaius for doing good and sending some brothers out to spread the word of God. John wants to support these people who have been sent out, but complains that Diotrephes is trying to stop his efforts from within the church.

So basically he is trying to get support from the church for his guys, but someone else within the church doesn't want to help them. This is just some ancient church politics, why is this in the bible?

This is great, I glanced through Guzik's commentary, and found this gem.

Diotrephes not only failed to receive John and the other apostles, but he also spoke against them. His malicious gossip against the apostles showed what kind of man he really was.

So the complain is that Diotrephes was speaking against John, this is proof that he was a bad guy. Isn't that exactly what John is doing to him?

Be good, don't be evil.

Nice vacuous statement there.

Final Greetings (v. 13-15)

I have a lot to say but wish to do it face to face.

For the overview post (If you think I should add or remove stuff from this list please let me know, I think it would make good conversation)

Bad:

3 John 9 Petty bickering between church leaders

"I have written something to the church, but Diotrephes, who likes to put himself first, does not acknowledge our authority."

2 John: Hate masquerading as love

Listen to the podcast below (or right click this link for the mp3 file) 

Podcast Powered By Podbean

As usual, with a new book I start by looking at the wikipedia page. With respect to authorship, it says that the language is similar to 3 John so they are likely to have been written by the same person, and in fact the traditional view is that all 4 book supposedly written by John were in fact written by the same person.

The beginning and end of this book mention a lady, which are typically interpreted to mean the church. Another view is that it is addressed to a specific lady named Kyria, however that seems to not be terribly popular.

Greeting (v. 1-3)

Basically just a greeting to "the elect lady and her children", which again, according to the wikipedia page is about the church and the congregation.

Walking in Truth and Love (v. 4-11)

The most important commandment is to love one another and John is happy that he sees many people following this commandment.

This sounds pretty good. Also, from the language used here, I think it is pretty likely that the interpretation of the lady being the church and the children being the congregation makes the most sense.

Many deceivers have gone out into the world who do not preach that Christ has come in the flesh. Be careful listening to them so you don't lose your reward. Whoever is with God has both the father and the son, if anyone comes without this message, do not invite them into your house or give them any greeting, for whoever greets him takes part in their wicked works.

So much for the message of spreading love. If someone disagrees with your religion, you are supposed to shun them. Terrible. It's really amazing to me that this is an obvious message of hate but it claims to be a message of love. It reminds me of people who want freedom of speech, but only for those who agree with them. We don't need to protect speech that is popular, in the same way you don't have to tell people to love those who they already love.

This should be fun, let's see how the Christian commentaries try to get out of this, obviously terrible, message. Let's start with Guzik. He starts by saying that it is not talking about shunning them altogether, but just having no religious connection to them. We should not let them speak in the church. On the other hand, he quotes Boice who points out that giving them hospitality is helping them spread their false words, and therefore we shouldn't do it. He also says that 

John means greets in a much more involved context than our own. In that culture, it meant to show hospitality and give aid.

 but then he follows it up with

Yet, for the weak or unskilled believer, it is best if they do not even greet (in the sense of speaking to) those who promote a false Jesus (like the Mormons or Jehovah’s Witnesses).

Seems that he is just trying to have it both ways.

Ray Steadman says that Christians are not supposed to simply slam the door in the face of any non-Christian, they should accept the strangers into their homes, but make the theological differences clear. This certainly sounds better, but it doesn't seem to mesh very well with the command to not even give them a greeting. He further says that if you continue to let them into your home you are endorsing their doctrine. So I guess in his mind you should help them out but only for a short time.

Gill doesn't even try to justify it. He says

their ministry should not be attended on in the church, or house of God; and they should not be entertained in private houses, and much less caressed

He goes on to say that you shouldn't even bid them God speed, going on to explain

The meaning is, that with such no familiar conversation should be had, lest any encouragement should be given them; or it should induce a suspicion in the minds of other saints, that they are in the same sentiments; or it should tend to make others think favourably of them, and be a snare and a stumbling block to weak Christians.

One more comment here, the bit about the reward. I have seen a lot of talk about morality lately, but if your entire reason for doing things is for personal reward then it isn't really about morality, just selfishness on a longer timescale.

Final Greetings (v. 12-13)

I have much to say but would rather do it in person.

Sounds good, doesn't help us though.

For the overview post (If you think I should add or remove stuff from this list please let me know, I think it would make good conversation)

Bad:

2 John 5,10-11 Love those who agree with you, hate those who don't

"love one another"

"If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house or give him any greeting, for whoever greets him takes part in his wicked works."

1 John 5: Christians don't Sin

Listen to the podcast below (or right click this link for the mp3 file) 

Podcast Powered By Podbean

Overcoming the World (v. 1-5)

Everyone who believes Jesus is the Christ is born of God.
Everyone who loves the father loves whoever is born of Christ.
Therefore, anyone who loves God and obeys his commandments loves the children of God.

Well, if you believe the 2 premises the conclusion logically follows. It seems to say that everyone who loves God also loves all Christians. This is simply not born out in reality, there are certainly different groups of Christians that hate each other.

God's commandments are not burdensome.

Depending on which commandments you are talking about, I would argue that this isn't true. The kosher laws certainly do seem to be a pain in the ass. If we want to look at the 10 commandments, what about the fact that we aren't supposed to covet? That is not only a burden, I would argue it is impossible. If my neighbor has better stuff than I do, how can I help that I wish I had better stuff as well?

I don't want to go into the details on this one, but I looked at Guzik's take here, he starts with the following statement "Some Christians feel very burdened by the commandments of God, yet John insists that they are not burdensome." He then continues on for 4 paragraph explaining how it is not burdensome if you love God enough.

Everyone who has been born of God overcomes the world, this is a victory of our faith.

I'm not exactly sure what overcoming the world means. Given that 'the world' is often talked of as the source of all evil, I'm guessing that overcoming the world has to do with being 'Godly' while being surrounded by worldly things. It is absolutely silly to say that every Christian succeeds in this. Furthermore, even if I'm misunderstanding what 'overcoming the world' means, it is still an outrageous statement, no matter what, there are some Christians out there who will have failed. Unless of course you throw in a no true Scotsman fallacy.

Guzik says "The idea that anything born of God could be defeated by this world was strange to John and it should be strange to us." Whether or not it is strange, it seems to happen.

Testimony Concerning the Son of God (v. 6-12)

Jesus came not just in water but also in blood, and the spirit testifies that this is the truth.

I'm not sure what this means exactly, but him coming in blood I'm guessing is referring to the fact that he came physically, and not just spiritually.

"Through the centuries, there have been many different ideas about exactly what John meant by this phrase. “This is the most perplexing passage in the Epistle and one of the most perplexing in the New Testament.” (Plummer, cited in Boice)" At least I'm not alone :)

The testimony of god is greater than the testimony of men.

But where is the testimony of God? Even the bible is written by men, and not by God, so at best this testimony is second hand. Furthermore, just yesterday we learned that no one has ever seen God, so how can I be expected to trust them that they are giving me testimony from God?

Whoever does not believe in the testimony from God concerning Jesus is a liar.

This actually kinda pisses me off. It's one thing to say I'm wrong, I don't have a problem with that, but to call me a liar is bullshit. To call me a liar here implies that I in fact know that Jesus is real, but I am intentionally suppressing that knowledge. That is wrong, I do not believe in Jesus, no part of me deep down believes in Jesus. This type of thinking is the height of arrogance, they are so sure their position is correct, they think everyone else knows it is correct and they are all lying to themselves. I see this kind of crap regularly from Christians, it's ridiculous. 

After looking at a few commentaries, it appears that it is not saying you are a liar, but that you are calling God a liar. I am going to just say this translation is shit, I parsed the pronouns incorrectly, Gill points out that another translation says "hath made God himself a liar" instead of "Whoever does not believe God has made him a liar". Fair enough, so instead of John calling me a liar, he says I'm calling God a liar. Although I guess he's talking about Jews of the time, and I guess they were saying John was wrong, and he retaliated by calling them liars.

That You May Know (v. 13-21)

If we ask anything of Jesus he will hear it.

I find it interesting that he doesn't go as far as saying that he will grant it, just that he will hear it. Seems to be a touch of backpedaling from what was written before.

If you see a brother committing a sin that doesn't lead to death, ask God to give him life. Some sins lead to death, we shouldn't pray for that.

If the sin doesn't lead to death, why do we need to ask God to give life? As for the sins leading to death, why are we saying not to pray for that? Is there an expectation that we would pray for those sins? The wording is confusing. In fact, this whole chapter uses pronouns poorly, it is hard to tell what is really meant.

Everyone born of God does not keep on sinning.

Again, it says that Christians don't sin.

The whole world lies in the power of the evil one.

Why would an omnipotent God allow such a thing?

For the overview post (If you think I should add or remove stuff from this list please let me know, I think it would make good conversation)

Bad:

1 John 5:10 If you don't believe in Jesus you make God a liar

"...Whoever does not believe God has made him a liar, because he has not believed in the testimony that God has borne concerning his Son."

1 John 5:18 Christians don't sin

"We know that everyone who has been born of God does not keep on sinning, but he who was born of God protects him, and the evil one does not touch him."

1 John 5:19 Satan has power over the whole world

"We know that we are from God, and the whole world lies in the power of the evil one."

1 John 2: Faith without works is a lie

Listen to the podcast below (or right click this link for the mp3 file) 

Podcast Powered By Podbean

Christ Our Advocate (v. 1-6)

I am writing this so that you won't sin, but even if you do Jesus is a great advocate for you if you know him. If you say you know him but do not keep his commandments you are a liar. But if you do know him and keep the commandments then the love of God is working in you.

This actually seems to settle the faith versus works discussion we had before. Some versus seem to say that faith is all that matter, others say that works are important. This one ties them together saying that if you truly have faith then you would do the works, and if someone doesn't do works it is evidence to us that they don't really have faith. This is essentially the argument I have heard come from various religious people, but this is the first time I recall seeing it actually in the bible.

The New Commandment (v. 7-14)

I'm not writing you a new commandment, but and old commandment that you already had from the beginning. Also, I am writing a new commandment. The darkness is passing away and the light is shining.

What? I guess the idea is that it is the same old ideas but a new twist on it?

Guzik says that the sense that is is old is that it has been preached to these people during their whole lives. That seems like a pretty crappy explanation to me. Gill seems to say it has been written on people's hearts all along (even Adam) and therefore isn't new. This makes a little more sense, but I still don't think it's great. Seems like they are just trying to have it both ways.

Do Not Love the World (v. 15-17)

 Do not love the world or the things in the world, because God isn't in that stuff. Do not love the desires of the flesh or take pride in possessions, they will pass away with the world. But whoever loves God will abide forever.

Same old message, bad things come from the world. Again, the problem here is that God created the world, so ultimately God is responsible for the evil things as well. The other thing that is interesting here, is that it says not to love the world or the things in the world. On the surface this would seem to be saying that we should only love God and not love anything in the world, although I suppose we could also love "godly" things in the world, such as the church. At any rate, it seems quite open to interpretation, and I think it is poorly written at best.

Guzik spends quite a bit of time talking about this, but basically it comes down to "the world" being bad things. Specifically, he says "it is the community of sinful humanity that is united in rebellion against God." Is this a reasonable interpretation of "the world"? I suppose if you must carve things up as "things for God" and "things against God" then one might call the things against God "the world", except that plenty of things that are for God are in the world, so it seems somewhat silly to me.


Oh, and one last thing, it is talking about things that are bad, so of course one of two examples given is sexuality "desires of the flesh". 

Warning Concerning Antichrists (v. 18-27)

There are many antichrists, anyone who denies the father and the son is an antichrist. We know it is the last hour because so many antichrists have come.

They seem to be equating antichrist with nonbeliever, or perhaps apostate, but at any rate, they have said that many antichrists have come, and therefore we know the end is near.

The fact that the Christians seem to have no good answer to this is telling. Guzik says that "we should regard ourselves as being in the last few minutes", which is absolutely absurd thousands of years later. Gill at least tries a little harder. He first discusses what is doesn't mean (the last hour of the Jewish state, the last hour of the gospel dispensation, or the last hour of the actual world itself). But if it isn't the last hour of those thing, what is it the last hour of? Clearly it is "the last hour of the apostolic age. All the apostles were now dead, John was the last of them". At least this is an answer, unlike what Guzik had to offer, but seriously? Is the compelling to anyone? I think it is much more likely that they thought the end of the world was near.

If you deny the son, you also deny the father.

This is a direct challenge to Jews if I am reading it correctly. It seems to be saying that not accepting Jesus means you are rejecting God as well.

This last bit I didn't notice until I recorded the podcast, but verse 27 is pretty anti-intellectual.

v27 "...you have no need that anyone should teach you. But as his anointing teaches you about everything, and is true, and is no lie..."

Basically the message here seems to be that you get everything you need from the bible, and you have no need to learn anything from anyone else. I can't help but think of evolution.

Guzik tries to whitewash this by saying that the holy spirit has given us what we need to learn the truth. But he goes on to say "This is not to say that teachers are unnecessary, because one of the resources for knowing the truth is the reminder given by teachers like John." If teachers are still good, then why does the bible say "no need that anyone should teach you" and "his anointing teaches you about everything"?

Children of God (v. 28-29)

You should follow Jesus, so that when he returns you can be confident in your righteousness and not shrink away.

This message sure does seem to lose some punch a few thousand years later.

For the overview post (If you think I should add or remove stuff from this list please let me know, I think it would make good conversation)

Good:

1 John 2:4 If you really have faith you will do works

"Whoever says "I know him" but does not keep his commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in him"

Bad:

1 John 2:16 the world is evil, sex is bad

"For all that is in the world--the desires of the flesh and the desires of the eyes and pride in possessions--is not from the Father but is from the world."

1 John 2:18 It is the last hour

"Children, it is the last hour, and as you have heard that antichrist is coming, so now many antichrists have come. Therefore we know that it is the last hour."

1 John 2:23 You can't worship God without Jesus

"No one who denies the Son has the Father. Whoever confesses the Son has the Father also."

1 John 2:27 You don't need teachers, you get everything you need to know from Jesus

"But the anointing that you received from him abides in you, and you have no need that anyone should teach you. But as his anointing teaches you about everything, and is true, and is no lie--just as it has taught you, abide in him."