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 Love. Other entries in this series:
An extremely common thing I hear from Christians is that the bible is all about love. God is love and the bible encourages us to love one another, love your enemies (Matthew 5:44) is very often quoted. It seems that there are a great many such verses, so lets dig in. We can start with verses that simply say that love is a good thing (Romans 12:9-21, 1 Corinthians 13:1-3, Galatians 5:22-23, Ephesians 4:1-2, Philippians 1:9, Colossians 3:12-15, 1 Timothy 6:11, Titus 2:2, 2 Timothy 2:22, 1 Peter 3:8-9, Revelation 2:19) and that we should love one another (John 13:34, Romans 13:9, Galatians 5:14, James 2:8, 1 John 3:17). 1 Timothy 1:5 tells us that loves comes from a pure heart and good conscience, I'm not sure about that, but it sounds nice. 1 Peter 4:8 tells us that love can repair rifts caused by sin, that also sound nice. Ephesians 5:1-2 tells us to use Jesus as an example to love one another, and 1 John 3:18 takes things a step farther and tells us that talk is cheap and that we should show love with our actions. This is probably the best we have seen so far, it is a shame it is not a more common message, I'm guessing that many Christians would argue that this is implied with the rest of the verses. I disagree with that assessment (it should be explicit more often) but I'm glad that it is their takeaway.
We now have a great many verses that tell us that love is good and that we should love one another. This is good, but it isn't the whole story. 2 John5,10-11 give us 2 sides of the same coin, while verse 5 says we should love one another, verse 10-11 says that we should turn away anyone who doesn't agree with your religious ideas. This certainly doesn't seem very loving to me at all. Furthermore, in Hebrews 8:9 we see this same attitude from God himself, he has no concern for people who didn't keep his covenant, certainly he doesn't love them right? If he's not even concerned with them he doesn't love them.
But that is just the beginning, if we look at some of the other things from the New Testament we can see plenty of examples that don't really demonstrate this love. Just look at my articles on slavery and women, the way we are instructed to act towards slaves and women in the bible does not sound like love to me. We are supposed to lead people with fear, and the people are supposed to obey. It's very important for people to suffer, and if your family doesn't agree with you about religion you are supposed to ditch them. None of this stuff sound loving to me. What if we look at God himself? He's violent, if you don't follow him he'll torture you for all of eternity, and yet sometimes he will remove your free will and not even allow you to follow him. He wants you to follow him without good reason, and if you say something bad about him he will never forgive you for it. Is the God of described in the New Testament a God of love? I would say no. He tells us he is a God of love, but he shows us that he is a monster.
The lamb broke the 7th seal and there was silence in heaven for a half hour.
Seems like this half hour of silence has some significance, but I can only guess at what it is...so I will. Maybe it is that everyone stops everything to watch to see what will happen, like a moment where everyone is fixated on a single thing and the room is silent, except this is such a huge event that moment drags out...for a half hour. Another guess, it is like a moment of silence when someone dies, except it is the whole world, so it stretches out way longer than normal. I did pretty good on this one, Guzik seems to agree with my guesses. (And again, I'll use him as a source for the Christian commentary today unless otherwise stated)
Then seven angels are given trumpets, and another angel is given a censer. They burn a bunch of incense on a golden altar in front of the throne, and put fire in the censer and throw it down at the earth. It causes thunder, lightning and earthquakes.
It's on! The Seven Trumpets (v. 6-13)
The first angel blows his trumpet, hail and fire were mixed with blood and thrown upon the earth. A third of the earth and a third of the trees were burned up. All grass was burned up.
Whoa!
The second angel blows his trumpet and something like a great mountain on fire fell into the sea. A third of the sea became blood, a third of the sea creatures died, and a third of the ships were destroyed.
I find the phrase "something like a great mountain" very interesting. It would seem to indicate that John is describing something that he can best identify as a mountain, but he knows is not actually a mountain. It seems to me to indicate to me that he is trying to be as accurate as possible, so if you ever want to argue that when he says X it was really Y, you have to be arguing that he was wrong, and thought it was really X. For example, when he says that a star fell from the sky, you can safely argue that he thought it was a star but it was really an asteroid. When he says he saw a creature with six wings, I would argue he's telling us what he thinks he saw.
The third angel blows his trumpet and a great star (named wormwood) fell from heaven blazing like a torch. It fell on a third of the rivers and on the springs of water. A third of the water became wormwood and people died from the water because it was bitter.
Isn't wormwood what absinthe is made of? That stuff makes you hallucinate. Maybe that explains this whole thing.
The fourth angel blows his trumpet and a third of the sun, moon, and stars were struck so that a third of their light would be darkened. So a third of the day and a third of the night would be kept from shining.
How the hell do you darken a third of the sun?
Then John looked overhead and saw an eagle crying woe to people on the earth.
Wait, so eagles can talk? Also, they can fly above heaven?
What did we learn today? I usually use this space to isolate verses which I will put in the overview, but today I pretty much just want to reference the entire reading. God is a violent monster. He's raining destruction down on people on such a massive scale it is hard to imagine. How anyone can call him a loving God is beyond me. I suppose if people can spin noah's flood to be a good thing they will be able to do the same here, but I just don't see it.
To the Church in Ephesus (v. 1-7)
The angel instructs John to write a letter to the angel of the church of Ephesus about what Jesus has to say to them. He focused on the stars and lampstands.
I find it strange that the letter starts off this way. Maybe it just wants to remind us that the words are from Jesus and not from John himself. The letter is also addressed to the angel of the church of Ephesus, not to the church leadership or the people themselves. I have no idea what the significance of this is (maybe it doesn't matter at all), but it seemed like it might be important.
Jesus likes that the Ephesians
toil with patient endurance
can't bear with evil people
have tested false apostles
have no grown weary
hate the works of the Nicolaitans
Jesus doesn't like that they
have abandoned love they had at first
have abandoned the works they did at first
He instructs them to remember from whey the have fallen and repent. He then says that anyone who can hear should listen to the spirit of the churches, and promises the tree of life to the one who conquers.
From Guzik's commentary: "The church today, like the Ephesian church then, must vigorously test those who claim to be messengers from God". Sounds like a good idea, I'd love to know how such tests would done.
If we first focus on the things that Jesus likes, it seems pretty good. Removing evil seems like a worthy goal. Patience is also good. If we assume that the Nicolaitans do evil works, then this all seems fine. The things Jesus doesn't like are harder to analyze as it is pretty vague, what does it mean that they have abandoned love? And what works did they abandon? My best guess at this message is that they are doing good getting rid of evil, but they are focused too much on it and completely ignoring the good things. If that is the case, the message here is to work against the bad things in life, but don't focus so much of your attention on it that you lose track of the good things. If this interpretation is correct, then I would argue that this message is good. I'm curious to see what the Christian commentaries have to say about this. According to Guzik the whole 'first love' thing is about a love for Jesus or God. As far as I can tell, he writes a lot but doesn't say much. And apparently the first works were spending time in his word, praying, getting together with other Christians, and telling people about Jesus. So the message of this chapter is basically that they are doing a good job attacking evil people, but not spending enough time worshiping God. I'm unimpressed. If there are any Christians reading this, I hope it is clear that I am trying my best to put as good of a spin on this reading as I can. I'm trying to find a good message buried in here and give the writing the benefit of the doubt as much as I can. Here I tried to interpret this as nicely as possible and tried to find a message of balance between attacking enemies of god and loving your neighbors, but no, the message is to love God...awesome. Oh yeah, there is that whole "tree of life to the one who conquers" thing. What is that about? I guess it is running on the assumption that the one who listens to God will be the conqueror and therefore the correct person will win and get the eternal life. But it does read as if you gain life for conquering, not for being good or following Jesus or something. To the Church in Smyrna (v. 8-11)
To the angel in Smyrna, write the words "of the first and last, who died and came to life"
Okay, so the point is that he is focusing on different aspects of the vision from chapter 1 I guess.
I know you have dealt with much tribulation, and you are in poverty (although you are rich). And there are blasphemers around you who claim to be Jews but are really working for Satan. They are about to throw you in jail and you will be tested. Be faithful until death and you will receive the crown of life. The one who conquers will not be hurt by the second death.
This one pretty much reads all bad to me. It actually is a great example of what is wrong with pascal's wager. One of the premises of that particular apologetic is that there is no cost to accepting the faith, and potentially infinite reward. What are the believers being asked of here? To give up their life for Jesus. Hold fast even until death, don't worry you will get a good afterlife for it. Of course, if there is no afterlife you have just wasted the one life you get. I don't know what the second death is supposed to mean.
To the Church in Pergamum (v. 12-17)
This time we are focusing on the two-edged sword coming out of Jesus' mouth. Jesus is happy that even though they dwell near Satan's throne, they hold fast to the name of Jesus. But some hold to the teachings of Balaam and Balak which is a stumbling block for my followers, who might be tricked into eating sacrificed food or engaging in sexual immorality. If you follow the teachings of the Nicolaitans, repent or I will war against you with the sword from my mouth.
So basically, the message is "follow me or I will kill you", great loving God you got there. Guzik argues that the message here is "A difficult environment never justifies compromise. It is easy for a church in such difficulty to justify this compromise in the name of “we need all the help we can get.” But no church needs that kind of help." Ruling out compromise certainly seems like a dangerous thing to do, although I suppose there are certain issues that I wouldn't budge on. Still, there is a difference between "don't compromise with those people" and "don't compromise with those people, don't worry about it though, I'll kill them"
It ends by saying if you conquer then you will get some hidden manna, and a white stone with a new name written on it so that no one knows except the one who receives it.
What!? Guzik explains the white stone: "In the ancient world, the use of a white stone had many associations. A white stone could be a ticket to a banquet, a sign of friendship, evidence of having been counted, or as a sign of acquittal in a court of law. Jesus may have any one of these meanings in mind, but at the very least we know that it has the assurance of blessing." To the Church in Thyatira (v. 18-29)
This time we are focusing on the fire eyes and bronze feet of Jesus. Their love, faith, service and patient endurance are good.
love, service, patience, and endurance are applauded here which is good, but of course so is faith.
But the tolerate the woman Jezebel, who teaches my servants to practice sexual immorality and eat sacrificed food. I gave her a chance to repent, but she wouldn't, so I will throw her onto a sickbed, throw anyone who has sex with her into great tribulation unless they repent of her works, and I will strike her children dead.
So basically, sex is bad, awesome. Also, what is the deal with killing her children? What did they do wrong? Apparently throwing her onto a sickbed probably means that he made her sick. (Guzik) As to the striking her children dead, apparently in the other translation used by Guzik it says "I will kill her children with death", and so the gives the following quote “All men die, but all are not killed with death . . . Oh, it is a woeful thing to be killed with death.” (Trapp). This reads like a bad joke to me, am I missing something here, or did Guzik?
I will give to each of you according to your works.
Unless your mom is a prostitute, then you will die.
If you don't know the ways of the devil and come out a conqueror I will give you authority over nations.
"But I have this against you, that you have abandoned the love you had at first [for God]. Remember therefore from where you have fallen; repent, and do the works you did at first [worshipping God]. If not, I will come to you and remove your lampstand from its place, unless you repent."
"Do not fear what you are about to suffer. Behold, the devil is about to throw some of you into prison, that you may be tested, and for ten days you will have tribulation. Be faithful unto death, and I will give you the crown of life."
"But I have a few things against you: you have some there who hold the teaching of Balaam, who taught Balak to put a stumbling block before the sons of Israel, so that they might eat food sacrificed to idols and practice sexual immorality."
"But I have this against you, that you tolerate that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess and is teaching and seducing my servants to practice sexual immorality and to eat food sacrificed to idols. I gave her time to repent, but she refuses to repent of her sexual immorality. Behold, I will throw her onto a sickbed, and those who commit adultery with her I will throw into great tribulation, unless they repent of her works"
Revelation 2:23 God will kill you if your mother is a prostitute
"So also you have some who hold the teaching of the Nicolaitans. Therefore repent. If not, I will come to you soon and war against them with the sword of my mouth."
Revelation 2:23 God will kill you if your mother is a prostitute
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 John5,10-11 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."
Test the Spirits (v. 1-6)
There are many spirits out there, you need to test them to see which are from God. Every spirit that confesses Jesus has come in the flesh is from God, and every spirit that does not is not from God.
First, I thought we were not supposed to test God,
Luke 4:12 And Jesus answered him, "It is said, 'You shall not put the Lord your God to the test.'"
okay, I know this is a spirit from God, and not God or Jesus directly, but it feels the same to me. Think of it from the perspective of a random guy, he needs to decide who to believe. Some dude claims to be Jesus, he is not allowed to test Jesus because that is testing God and not allowed. Of course there are false prophets, so if a false prophet claims to be Jesus our random guy is just fucked because if his first thought is that it might be Jesus, he is not allowed to test him. But if it is a spirit, he is supposed to test him? It just seems inconsistent to me. Second thought, this seems like a pretty easy test for an impostor spirit to pass. All he has to do is claim that Jesus came in the flesh, then he can tell you anything else he wants. We better hope none of those spirits ever get their ethereal hands on a bible. God Is Love (v. 7-21)
Anyone who loves was born of God, and anyone who does not love does not know God.
I love my wife, does that mean I know God? Guzik says that every display of love doesn't have to be from a Christian, but our capacity to love comes from God because we were created in his image.
v18 "There is no fear in love, but perfect love casts out fear. For fear has to do with punishment, and whoever fears has not been perfected in love."
But I thought God wanted us to fear him. For example, recently in 1 Peter 1 we saw that God wants to rule us through fear. If you want more examples, a quick google search reveals many examples. Now, this is an item for my summary, as I want to be able to reference it later to put as contrast to other verses which say fear is a good thing, but do I count this item as good? I don't think it's good, love doesn't cast out fear, you can love something and still have fear in regards to it, for example, you could love someone and be afraid for their safety. Ask any parent whose kid is doing something dangerous. If anything, there is an argument that this would be bad, as it might make people think they don't really have love as they still have fear. I think I'll just put it as "interesting" Guzik has an explanation for this, which I want to quote here
What about the many passages of Scripture, Old and New Testament (such as Ecclesiastes 12:13 and 1 Peter 2:17), which tell us we should fear God? The fear John writes of here is not the appropriate reverence we should all have of God, but the kind of fear which involves torment - that agonizing kind of fear which robs our soul of all joy and confidence before God. It is the fear that is the opposite of boldness in the day of judgment.
Basically, his explanation is that we are talking about different kinds of fear, this is a translation issue. So I decided to take a look at the lexicon. The current verse (1 John 4:18) uses phobos, which is "panic, flight, fear, the causing of fear, terror". This is the kind of fear we should not have according to Guzik's interpretation. If we look at 1 Peter 2:17 we get phobeisthe, which is "to put to flight, to terrify, frighten", which doesn't read as that much different to me. And wouldn't you know, it also says that the origin of phobeisthe is phobos, I think there is a pretty good argument that we are talking about the same kind of fear.
[note: added after I recorded the podcast as I noticed this during recording]
This seems like a pretty obvious contradiction, my understanding is that Moses talked to God, didn't God tell him what to write for the part of the old testament that he wrote? And certainly Moses talked to God when he went up the mountain to get the 10 commandments, right? Guzik claims that no one has seen God because he is invisible. He then addresses the complaint I had with the following quote from Boice:
The Old Testament theophanies, including the apparently contradictory statement in Exodus 24:10, did not involve the full revelation of God as He is in Himself but only a suggestion of what He is in forms that a human being could understand.
Basically, the claim is that anywhere it says they saw God, they didn't really see God, they saw the avatar of God which isn't quite the same as seeing God. This is utter nonsense as far as I am concerned. The bible says plainly that they saw God, not that they saw a facsimile of God, but they saw God. If you want to say that they thought they saw the real God but they didn't actually see God, fine, but you have to admit that you are just making stuff up to reconcile some obviously contradictory verses. Otherwise, cite an actual source.
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 4:1 Don't believe everything you hear "Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world." Interesting 1 John 4:18 Love casts out fear "There is no fear in love, but perfect love casts out fear. For fear has to do with punishment, and whoever fears has not been perfected in love."
Children of God [cont.] (v. 1-10)
We are children of God and we shall be like Jesus because Jesus is pure and we purify ourselves in him. If you sin you are with the devil, if you know Jesus you will not keep on sinning. By this is it evident who is of God and who is of the devil.
Didn't we just learn in 1 John 1 that we are all sinners? That anyone who says they are not a sinner is a liar? Now this says that if you are with God you are no longer a sinner. It follows logically that no one is with God. Guzik tries to explain this with grammar. He argues that in 1 John the grammar indicates occasional acts of sin, whereas the grammar here indicates living a life of sin. Let's examine this, for the verse here, it says "keeps on sinning", I suppose this could go either way, but it feels to me like it is saying that there is never a point in which you stop sinning altogether. What does it mean to say no one who abides in Jesus keeps on sinning? It sounds to me like it is saying once you are with Jesus you never sin again. What about 1 John 1:8? It says "If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us." I suppose his argument works here, if everyone has a little sin now and then, then they can't say they have no sin. Given the source material, I think he has done the best that can be done, but it looks to me that we have contradictory messages here. I guess you just have to judge for yourself. Jamieson, Fausset & Brown say that we are talking about the ideal of a Christian. They say "Not that 'whosoever is betrayed into sins has never seen nor known God'; but in so far as sin exists, in that degree the spiritual intuition and knowledge of God do not exist in him." So their argument is that as far as you sin, that much you don't know God. As far as I read it, this goes pretty contrary to what the actual book says. Furthermore, we have seen plenty of times in the bible where all sins are equated, if you lie you deserve hell just as much as if you murdered. With this in mind, I think this way to justify the verse falls flat. Love One Another (v. 11-24)
You should love your brother, not hate him. Cain hated Abel because his deeds were righteous so he killed him. Everyone who hates his brother is a murderer.
Whoa, let's stop right there. Hate and murder are the same thing? I know you are making a Cain and Abel analogy here, but hate and murder are quite far apart. Here is Guzik's take on this: "To hate our brother is to murder him in our hearts. Though we may not carry out the action (through cowardice or fear of punishment), we wish that person dead. Or, by ignoring another person, we may treat them as if they were dead. Hatred can be shown passively or actively." I could not disagree with this more, and honestly, the fact that he would read this passage and then have this take-away demonstrates the negative impact reading the bible could have on someone who is so invested in it being correct. I've hated people, I've never wanted to kill anyone, to say that I have murdered someone in my heart is absolutely ludicrous. To imply that I have only not killed those people because I am a coward or that I fear punishment is also quite silly.
v13 "Do not be surprised, brothers, that the world hates you."
Jesus laid his life down for us, we should be willing to do the same for our brothers. If you have worldly goods and are able to help someone out who is in need, and you refuse, how is it possible that God's love abides in your heart. Don't just talk about loving your brothers, let your deeds speak for you.
You should help people out who are in need, this I can get behind.
Sometimes your heart might condemn you, but God is greater than your heart. If you keep the commandment to believe in Jesus, then God is in you.
Had a bit of trouble summarizing that paragraph, but basically it seems to be saying that you might sometimes want things that you are not supposed to want, but with God you can overcome your impulses. Guzik says that "our heart condemns us before God" is about us feeling like we aren't really worthy of God, and the part about God being greater than our hearts is that we shouldn't take those feelings too seriously, because God is with us even though we have those feelings.
If we keep God happy with us, he will give us whatever we ask for.
We are back to faith I guess, this is basically the thing that Jesus talked about, if you really believe then you can move a mountain with a prayer. What nonsense. But even if we assume that moving a mountain is hyperbolic talk from Jesus, here we are still saying that we can get whatever we want if we really believe. I would argue there are plenty of believers who have cancer and really believe that prayer will heal them, and yet God doesn't cure their cancer.
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 3:17 Love each other and help those in need "But if anyone has the world's goods and sees his brother in need, yet closes his heart against him, how does God's love abide in him?" 1 John 3:18 Talk is cheap, show love with your actions "Little children, let us not love in word or talk but in deed and in truth." Bad: 1 John 3:6 If you sin you can't be with God "No one who abides in him keeps on sinning; no one who keeps on sinning has either seen him or known him." 1 John 3:13 Persecution complex "Do not be surprised, brothers, that the world hates you."
1 John 3:15 Murder and hate are the same "Everyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him." 1 John 3:22 God will give us whatever we ask for "and whatever we ask we receive from him, because we keep his commandments and do what pleases him"
Stewards of God's Grace (v. 1-11)
Jesus suffered and so should you, for if you suffer in the flesh you will cease from sin and you will live the rest of your live for the will of God rather than for human passions.
Here we go again, suffering for sufferings sake. Jesus suffered so you should too, what the hell kind of message is that? Futhermore, what does this even mean? From v1 "for whoever has suffered in the flesh has ceased from sin". does suffering in the flesh not mean what it sounds like? Because I'm pretty sure that every suffers in some manner. Some people have chronic pain and suffer all the time, is it impossible for them to sin? Guzik argues that we are talking about suffering for Jesus' sake. If you suffer persecution for the sake of Jesus, it will change your outlook on sin. He also quotes Grudem who said "Whoever has suffered for doing right, and has still gone on obeying God in spite of the suffering it involved, has made a clear break with sin." I don't see any reason to think this is true. I guess it falls back to the definition of "suffer for Jesus" and we are open to the no true Scotsman fallacy, but I find it hard to believe that suffering for Jesus would keep your from sinning forever.
We are passed the time of doing what the gentiles what to do (living in sensuality, passions, drunkenness, orgies, drinking parties, and lawless idolatry). When you do not join them they will malign you.
So much wrong in so little space. First, he is implying that all outsiders do these things all the time. Second, he's saying that sex and alcohol are inherently bad. Taken to extreme they can cause some problems, but they can be very good things. And why would they malign you for not joining in? Sometimes people can be a bit pushy trying to get everyone in the party to have a good time, but I don't think they'd malign them. I suppose people would argue that times were different back then.
They will be judged by Jesus, who judges the living and the dead. The gospel is preached to even the dead, so that even though they have already been judged in the flesh, they might live in the spirit as God does.
This is interesting, the gospel is preached to the dead as well. They are talking about dead people who were judged, it sounds like they were judged poorly (last verse we were talking about people who died in the great flood) and yet there is the hope that they will live as spirits the way God wants. Where are these spirits? I think it's pretty obvious that the view of the afterlife from these people is much different from what we think of today. Clearly you can't be Godly if you are being tortured in hell, and if you are in heaven you are already being Godly. I'm guessing their image of the afterlife is more like Sheol. I honestly tried really hard to find an answer to this in the Christian commentaries. Guzik said nothing useful, I looked at Gill's and came across a wall of text. If you scroll down to verse 6, there is just a huge paragraph which seems to go on and on about all of the groups of dead who this verse does not apply to. I could try reading it again to better parse it, but fuck it, this particular chapter of the bible has be doing enough of that already.
The end is near, so before that happens you should continue to love each other and be hospitable to each other. You all have gifts, use them to help one another.
This is generally a message of generosity, which is good, but it is also saying the end is near, which was obviously incorrect. Guzik says that if you believe that you live in the last days, then it is appropriate that you should give yourself over to prayer. However, he hilariously ignores the fact that 2000 years have passed and the end has not come. Gill talks about a few different ways to interpret this, from the perspective of a single person, the end is death. It could be various states, or the world, or the universe. He said those could be said to be "at hand" because "because that was the last time, and the last dispensation of things", so I guess he's saying that God has come down directly for the last time so any time after that counts as "at hand", seems very shaky to me. But then Gill gives everything away by saying the following:
whereas they knew not the exact time when it would be, they frequently spoke of it as near, in order to stir up the saints to the more diligent discharge of duty, and fervent exercise of grace
And that is really the whole damn point, isn't it? The religious leaders of the time were talking about the apocalypse to manipulate people, and the same thing happens even today.
Love one another earnestly, as it covers a multitude of sins.
This confuses me somewhat, I like that the message is to love one another, that's good. But reasons are important, and it seems to be saying that you should do it to cover up sins, which love is good at doing apparently. I suppose another interpretation could be that the covering of sins is the rationale for giving the instruction and keeping the idea in our heads, but we shouldn't love each other because it covers sins. I'm not really sure how much I like that explanation, but it is all I can think of, and it is the only way I can reconcile loving earnestly and "because it covers sins". Guzik's take on this is that love will heal wounds caused by sins. For example, if I have sinned and caused a rift between us, love has the power to heal that rift. I actually like that interpretation.
Show genuine hospitality to one another and use your personal gifts to help one another.
This sounds good.
Suffering as a Christian (v. 12-19)
Rejoice if you share Christ's suffering, but none of your should suffer for doing bad things. "If you are insulted for the name of Christ, you are blessed, because the spirit of glory and God rests upon you"
This is the same old thing, suffering itself is talked about as a good thing. You are blessed if you suffer for Christ. I am fine with putting yourself in danger of suffering for the sake of Christ. And if those people wind up suffering they have done a great thing by risking danger for their morals. But the fact that they actually had to suffer should be seen as a bad thing. Necessary perhaps, but the actual suffering should not be a positive.
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: 4:8 Love has the power to repair rifts caused by sin "Above all, keep loving one another earnestly, since love covers a multitude of sins." 4:9-10 Help each other out "Show hospitality to one another without grumbling. As each has received a gift, use it to serve one another..." Bad: 4:1,13 suffering (for Christ?) makes you sin free "...for whoever has suffered in the flesh has ceased from sin" "But rejoice insofar as you share Christ's sufferings..." 4:3 Sex is bad, drinking is bad, and all non-Christians do it "For the time that is past suffices for doing what the Gentiles want to do, living in sensuality, passions, drunkenness, orgies, drinking parties, and lawless idolatry." 4:7 the end is near! "The end of all things is at hand..."
The Sin of Partiality (v. 1-13) The big point of this section is that you should treat people the same no matter their station in life. You should not treat the rich guy well and the poor guy like crap.
This is a good message, don't prejudge people based on their appearance, give everyone the same chances.
But then a few verses later, it says that rich people are blasphemers.
It contradicts itself almost immediately. It says we shouldn't be partial, but then it follows that up by saying how terrible rich people are.
You should love your neighbor as yourself.
There we go, more good stuff.
If you break any bit of the law you become accountable for all of it.
And again, the good stuff is followed up by nonsense. If you break one law it is the same as if you had broken any other, or all others I suppose. I've complained about this before, but equating all laws is moronic, lying and murder are equally bad? I'd just like to point out that under this logic, if your child bakes you a pie that tastes terrible and asks if you like it, it is equally bad for you to tell them it tastes good or to stab them in the face. Guzik triest to argue here that the point is you are not allowed to pick and choose which parts of the law you want to follow, you can't say "I like God’s command against murder, so I’ll keep that one. But I don’t like His command against adultery, so I will disregard it." I disagree with his assertion, look at the verse, it says "if you fail in one point", that doesn't suggest to me that you have decided to ignore the rule, that suggests you tried to keep it and were unable.
Since you have also broken the law, have mercy on other people who have broken the law, for mercy triumphs over judgement.
This is interesting, it would appear that the whole point of telling us that have all broken the law is so that we can have mercy on other people who have broken the law. That's nice, and mercy is good when appropriate, but there are times when judgement is necessary. Just having a blanket statement that you should show mercy is bad. It makes me think of the whole catholic church molestation problem, those priests should not be getting the kind of mercy they are getting from the church, they should be judged, severely. Mercy sounds great when you are talking about someone who stole a loaf of bread to feed his family, but sometimes it is not appropriate. Faith Without Works is Dead (v. 14-26)
James argues that works are necessary to make faith matter. He compares having faith but doing no works to telling a starving person "Go in peace, be warm and filled" but giving them no food. He then uses examples from the old testament to justify the assertion.
James and Paul seem to be on different pages here. Didn't Jesus abolish the old law and make it so that faith is now all that matters? That being said, should I put this in the good pile? It is saying people should do good things after all, I mean it says you should have faith also, which I don't like, but at least it also says you should do good works...I guess I'll put this as a good item.
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: 2:3-4 Don't treat poor people worse than you treat rich people. "if you pay attention to the one who wears the fine clothing and say, "You sit here in a good place,"while you say to the poor man, "You stand over there," or, "Sit down at my feet," have you not then made distinctions among yourselves and become judges with evil thoughts?" 2:8 Love your neighbor "If you really fulfill the royal law according to the Scripture, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself," you are doing well." 2:14 Do good works, faith is not enough "What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him?" Bad: 2:7 Rich people are blasphemers "Are [rich people] not the ones who blaspheme the honorable name by which you were called?" 2:10 All crimes are equal "For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become accountable for all of it."
Jesus, High Priest of a Better Covenant (v. 1-13)
Jesus is the high priest, presiding from heaven where things are perfect and God-made rather than on Earth where things are man-made. The old priests served only a shadow of the heavenly things, where Jesus actually serves us from heaven. The covenant of Jesus is superior to the old covenant as it is enacted upon better promises, for if the old covenant had been faultless there would have been no reason to look for a better one.
So the message here is 'my new religion is better than your old religion'. I don't have anything to add here.
The old testament is quoted (although I'm assuming the quote isn't quite right, as this seems to be the norm) for evidence that the old covenant is imperfect. v8 mentions that new covenants will be established with the houses of Israel and Judah.
That is actually interesting, if God mentioned that he would establish new covenants back in the OT it does seem to imply an imperfection with the old covenant. I wonder what the actual intention of those original verses was.
v.9 God declares that the descendants of the people leaving Egypt didn't continue the covenant, so God shows no concern for them.
So much for a God who cares about everyone. How could this possibly be an all loving God? I looked through a handful of commentaries here but no one really addressed this issue. They either ignored it completely or focused on some nuance in the translation. Even giving the benefit of the doubt as much as I could imagine, I still think this point comes through. God decided if they weren't going to pay attention to him, he would ignore them right back. Really doesn't sound like a loving God to me.
God's covenant with Israel is that he will write his law on their hearts and minds. In speaking of the new covenant he makes the old one obsolete.
This idea is something I see a lot when arguing with people about morality. If God is necessary for morality how can atheists be moral? Well, you have God's law written on your heart! Guzik says that this means that the new covenant features transforming someone from the inside out instead of through application of external laws. I actually like this interpretation. I'm not sure I completely agree with the interpretation though from the text itself. If God is writing his law into your brain he is still applying an external law, he's just using mind control to do it.
v.12 "I will be merciful toward their iniquities, and I will remember their sins no more"
I'm not really sure what to make of this. I guess the key here is to answer the question of who is being referred to here. One reading makes it sound like everyone, because God is writing his law on their hearts. Perhaps we are talking about everyone in Israel, as we are talking about the house of Israel. I would guess the most reasonable interpretation though, would be all Christians, because those are the people whose sins are forgiven. But this declaration seems to be coupled with the idea of God's law being written on your heart and mind, so does that mean that only Christians have his law written on their heart?
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: 8:9 God does not love everyone "...For they did not continue in my covenant, and so I showed no concern for them, declares the Lord."
