Assuming Assumptions without making an ASS of U or ME

In recent exchanges with FB friends regarding origins and doctrine, it struck me how very much a basic assumption affects everything that follows the very first presupposition.

Here I should like to look at a few assumptions and consider what difference it would make in our conclusions if we started from a different base.  I will also try to sketch out why I think my 'assumption" hold water, or why the "traditional" one does not.

If I knew what I was doing I would do a graphic with an assumption printed in a circle and a backwards arrow pointing to another assumption that would come before that and another one before that etc, to form a complete cycle of several assumptions all of which lead to the following premise and doctrine.

So for this exercise and blog, I don't know which to start with and what order to deal with them.

How about:

1. When God said: 

"But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." Genesis 2:17

The assumption:   This referred to a physical death. 

2. Based on an assumption that There was no physical death before "the Fall".

3. Based on an assumption that when it says:

"And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good." Genesis 1:12

and
"And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day."
Genesis 1:31

That that meant perfection and no decay or death.

4 Based on an assumption that the world was not more than 144 hours and no bacteria or fruit flies had been necessary to build nutrients into the soil or followed what we know as "natural life cycles". That meant there was no time for anything to die physically.

5. Based on an assumption that death is evil and a result of sin.

6. Based on the verse that says:
"Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:" Romans 5:12


7. Based on an assumption that death means physical death because of:
"But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." Genesis 2:17

8 Then we jump to:
"For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now." Romans 8:22

Where because we have made all the above assumptions we extend this "groaning to animals" and count them as part of the creation that Paul is writing about and is awaiting 'redemption'.  of "OUR BODY".

And we conclude triumphantly that.
"Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:" Romans 5:12

Now to think this through using just the text and word studies.

Perhaps to begin with to clarify the meaning of "good" or "very good".

I am using an online version of Strong's Concordance and the numbering system and "dictionary" to explain the words rather than my having to type everything out.
This then is the entry for "Good" as used in Genesis 1 through 3 and beyond and applies to both "God saw and said it was "good" and then very good and even of the knowledge of "good" and evil.

What is significant here is that "good" does NOT suggest perfection, and I can't imagine anything coming from the hand of God as being "good" even if we referring to the first moment of conception even though it is not a perfect or complete fetus, nor of saying the newborn was not "good" although it was not perfect or complete as a 2 year old, or 20, or 80.  Likewise why would we rule out a decaying or dying plant by thinking it "not good" or a creature that has come to a natural end not "good" when the command was given to "multiply and fill the earth and if there was no death there would be very quickly overpopulation?

Strong's entry:

Strong's Number:   02896    Original Word bwj Transliterated Word Towb  Definition adj good, pleasant, agreeable pleasant, agreeable (to the senses) pleasant (to the higher nature) good, excellent (of its kind) good, rich, valuable in estimation good, appropriate, becoming better (comparative) glad, happy, prosperous (of man's sensuous nature) good understanding (of man's intellectual nature) good, kind, benign good, right (ethical) n m a good thing, benefit, welfare welfare, prosperity, happiness good things (collective) good, benefit moral good n f welfare, benefit, good things welfare, prosperity, happiness good things (collective) bounty Now if my premise that "good" does not mean "perfect" and would NOT rule out Physical death, any yet the Hebrew word for death does suggest "death" but does not specify physical or some other kind.  So now I have to search the text itself. If the word of God was accurate and he says "in the day you eat thereof you will die, and they were not stricken by lightning or the earth swallowing them up, (as were Uzzah and others) and Adam lived until he was 930 years old.  Therefore my first conclusion is that either God was not telling the truth, or he did not mean 24 hours or he did not mean physical death. Next I look to the rest of the Scripture to see what attitude if any is expressed by the Old Testament persons.  I do not see any inference anywhere that they attributed their natural death to Adam's sin.  In fact they considered their natural death as being their "release" to be gathered to their "fathers".  The ONLY connection to death and sinning is the premature death that is attributed to Capital Punishment wherein the crime is also termed a "sin" but it is on the individual basis. Death by war is NOT considered to be the result of the sin of Adam, but because of national defense.  Accidental death I don't think is considered in the OT because nothing would be interpreted as "accidental" until we come to the New Testament when the tower of Siloam fell on some and Jesus said it was NOT because they were greater sinners. My  premise, once I reject the idea of physical death being a result of the "Fall", I find a great number of reasons to accept that the "death" that Adam experienced "in the day he ate thereof" was Spiritual.  MY ASSUMPTION is that the purpose of the Genesis account was to show the Hebrews their special relationship with God.  Physical death was no "big deal to them". What they are about to be shown with the the giving of the 10 commandments and the Levitical system was how they might approach God at the spriritual level and be "reconciled" to him through the offerings of sacrifices offered "by faith". None of the rituals or types ever suggested that their coming to the Tabernacle would negate the physical death that was common to all creation.  Thus the day of AT-ONE-MENT was the SPIRITUAL reconciliation of a people who had "died" or been separated from their very LIFE because of their Spiritual "rebellion". This now makes a solid connection with everything the New Testament speaks of as our Spiritual separation or being dead in our trespass and sin, and of Jesus being come to RECONCILE us to God.  Here we do get the reference: And so it is written: "The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit." 1 Corinthians 15:45 Every reference in the NT to LIFE is the contrast of a Spirit alive to the spirit dead and separated. Reconciliation does not speak of an animated body but a relationship.  A creature made "in the image of God" is one who can communicate with God who is "Spirit".  But his sin separates him (ie he is dead) but Christ make the sinner who "walks by Faith" alive. IF my premise is correct that the "sin of adam" did not result in physical death then there is also no reason to suggest that natural death in the animal kingdom is any reason for them to be counted as that which is "groaning" and awaiting some "new" order.  Nothing in Romans 8 leading up to this verse or these verses suggests that Paul or any other believer was thinking of animal or plant creation.  Paul elsewhere refers to PEOPLE being made a New Creation. The earlier  verses in Romans 8 are talking about the Spirit indwelling the believer and emphasizes the difference between spiritual death. So notice that Romans 8, while NOT talking about animals it does mention the carnally minded.  It is the old joke that there are only two kinds of people in the world and while we say the Irish and those who wish they were or however you want to put the twist on it, Paul is saying that there are those of us who are of the "Firstfruit" of the Spirit and if we are groaning waiting for the day when we are delivered from the encumbrance of the body and we already have the experience of the Spirit, just imagine how the "rest of the HUMAN creation" are groaning. And what is the redemption of the body? NOT the taking on of flesh and dwelling on earth, even a "new" earth, but rather that fantastic "spiritual" heavenly being described in 1 Corinthians 15. Assumptions of a physical death coming ONLY after the Fall, means that we come to think of death as being a punishment because of Adam's sin and we think that this is the 'enemy' to be destroyed.  But if the death that will be destroyed is not the physical but the Spiritual separation, then physical death is really the friend that lets us "put off the mortal flesh" and put on the unencumbered Spirit of 1 Cor. 15.  Now while there is no condemnation to them who are in Christ Jesus while living on earth, there there will be NO separation between myself and my Saviour.  I will see him face to face and I shall be as he is.  Death where is your sting and grave where is your victory because the Spiritual barriers are done away with. And if physical death, natural disasters, normal life and death cycles were part of all things natural from the beginning, then we do not ask "why me" when death or suffering comes our way, we say instead "Why not me?" and we turn our attention to God, not to have us escape these thing, these trials which are common to all mankind, but rather we fine that God is our strength and refuge that sees us through them all. This really is what the trusting adam (male and female) had been experiencing for as long as they had been "walking by faith" and being dependent on their Father (Matthew 6) but what they had given up when they wanted to do it "independently' and "my way".  Once they had to face life "on their own" they discovered the knowledge of good and evil, ie, Reality, good and heavy slogging.  Just like the rebellious adolescent who learn what it is like to face life without mom and dad to be there for them. OH yes. Twisting Scripture to suggest that having to return to the dust (adamah) from which the adam came is proof that physical death was the result of sin, is to read into the passage (because of an assumption) that which is not there.  The curse was to the land and for adam it meant that he would labour all his days "by the sweat of his brow".  But physical death was part of the big picture from the beginning and the difference was that things were going to be a bit less of being on easy street, (or figuratively--- being in the garden). Jesus emphasized the trust relationship that has always existed with nature when he contrasted our "worry" with the birds and creatures and the lilies of the field that allowed God to provide for them.

WHY I CANNOT ACCEPT OR BELIEVE THAT THE "SONS OF GOD" OF GENESIS 6:2 ARE "FALLEN ANGELS" OR THAT THE GIANTS OF GENESIS 6:4 ARE DEMIGODS OR THE OFFSPRING OF DEMONS

Three principles of biblical interpretation are as follows:

1.     No doctrine can be built from one passage that would contradict doctrines established in the rest of Scripture.

2.     When common sense gives the sense no other sense should be looked for or it will end in nonsense.

3.     Always interpret the passage in context or you will end up with a pretext.

A.  CONTRADICTION OF SCRIPTURE

1. Textually.

a.  God is SPIRIT.  John 4:24

Until the incarnation there is no record of God "becoming flesh"  and "tabernacling among us".  Any earthly presence was a manifestation or appearance.  "the Voice of God walking in the garden", or the voice from the burning bush, or passing by on Mount Zion, or in the cloud, etc.

b. God's angels are Spirits:  Hebrews 1:13,14.

There is no record of them every taking on flesh, but again only appearing in a form to which man could relate.  And then "disappearing" once the message is delivered.

c. Angels, being "spirit" and living forever are not concerned with sex, and humans, in the resurrection are "like them" and will not be "married or given in marriage". Luke 20:34-36 and Matthew 22:30

d. Compare the whole matter of the "heavenly body" or "spiritual" as in 1 Corinthians 15:42-56.

e. There are no texts in the Old Testament to suggest that any demons or demigods did any supernormal acts that would be expected if they existed.  There are in fact no records of demons at all. (Apart from the "lying spirits" that spoke through false prophets and they, we are told, came from the Lord, as did the "evil spirit" that came upon King Saul. So obviously they are not "fallen angels" or demons at all.)   

2. Logically.

a. If there were fallen angels, they would still be "spirit beings".  If a spirit being could impregnate a human, then the conception of Jesus by the Holy Spirit when he came upon Mary would have no significance.  Any number of humans could thus carry the offspring of "elohim". 

b. If they were spirits indwelling humans, then the sperm would be human and there would be no super race or demi gods.

c. In the New Testament any demon activity was always acknowledged to be only as they "demonized" a human or an animal. And they were subject to the limitations of that body as to time and space. They may have demonstrated a fierce strength but that is not unusual today even in ordinary people when there is a special need.  So regular muscles  empowered by powerful emotion can produce these results.  But that does not make them demigods, or superpowers. 

B. SONS OF GOD

1. In Job 1:6 and 2:1

a. Note first of all that this takes place "in heaven" or before the LORD.  Note also that Satan should be rendered not as a proper name but simply as a title so that it reads "the Adversary" This is a court of heaven as it were and when these "sons of God" and the Adversary "present themselves" or "stood" before God it was a "servants".  The Adversary is not "cast out" and the "sons of God" are not "fallen". As God's "ministering spirits" they are they to do his bidding.  The Adversary appears as the witness for the prosecution and God deliberately singles out Job as his exhibit A of what one can do when they are totally committed to the LORD.  To get the rest of the story, (and lesson of Job) going, GOD gives the Adversary permission to bring natural disasters upon Job's family.  And when it comes to "controlling nature" or bringing disease (boils) it is only as God has "sanctioned" it and the Adversary is permitted to do so.

b. Compare the same situation when Paul writes in 2 Corinthians 12:7 that the "thorn in the flesh" was a messenger of the Adversary, lest he should be exalted, and that in his appeal to God to have it removed God's answer confirms that it is his will that he should retain the thorn.  ie. it was "from God" in the same way that Job's trials were "from God" but delivered by the Adversary.  Therefore they hardly qualify to be considered "cast out of heaven" or a fallen angel.  (And certainly not incarnated in any human form!)      

2.Elsewhere:

1. a. In Luke 3:38 it says that Adam was (the son of) God. 

When we read in Genesis 1: 26-27 that God made man (adam) in his own image it has to mean that adam (and Adam) is a son of God. There is nothing to indicate that he was an angel, fallen or otherwise, or anything "spirit". In fact very much the other, he was formed of the "clay". 

b. In the NT those who "recieve Jesus" become "sons of God".  Their bodies don't change, they are still humans. 

Peacemakers are blessed and recognized as "sons of God" Again they are very much ordinary humans...in the flesh.

c. The word translated "sons" can also be translated "daughters" or "children" or "grandchildren", and just about any other word you can think of that suggests an offspring no matter how many generations removed from the original parent.  It also applies to branches and boughs, kids, calves, etc. etc.

d.  So "sons of God" and "daughters of men" really does not have to signify anything more than "human descendants".  The men are traced to God as was Adam, and the women, as daughter of "men" is really daughters of adam.  And see Gen. 5:2 where KJV says "male and female created he them; and blessed them and called their name Adam in the day they were created."

e. other application of "sons".  without implying a literal descent "sons of the living God" "sons of thunder", "son of Zion", "sons of the prophets", and the teachers of the Law whom Jesus said were of their "father" the devil.

C. GIANTS

1. Here there is no reason to capitalize the Hebrew word or make it a proper name.  KJV recognizes this and simply calls them "giants".  And it doesn't signify anything more than that they were "Large" in some way.  Figuratively or physically.  Only here and in Numbers 13:33 are they referred to by the word nefeel (as far as I can see) and later descendants of Anak are referred to as rapha, and again it implies nothing more than they were "tall". 

There is nothing to indicate that they had any superpowers or characteristics of demi gods.  Only that the spies felt like grasshoppers and were afraid of  them, but when it came time for battle, they were defeated by the Israelites as God fought for them. 

IF one gives credence to a Canaanite mythology that these were the offspring of fallen angels, it would be to buy into a pagan twist.  One could even make reference to "the Nephilim" in allusion to the myth, without attributing to them any semi-divine or demigod status in the same way that one might refer to a very tall, strong or athletic woman (in olden times when one did not have to worry about being politically correct) as an amazon, without implying that you thought she was a direct descendant from a mythical race of female warriors. 

D. FALLEN ANGELS or DEMONS or EVIL SPIRITS

Someone has appealed to Jude to suppose that fallen angels, vs. 6 supposedly were somehow present and being referred to in vs. 7 connected with Sodom and Gomorha, but there is nothing in this to suggest any such thing.  Rather you will see that Jude is writing a warning to the recipient that they need to "earnestly contend for the faith" and know that the ones who are come into them "unawares" are going to face judgment and from verse 5 on to 8 he is giving a list of those who in the past have faced judgement.

He could have done it with "bullets" to highlight it as being item by item:

* the people he saved out of Egypt he destroyed in the wilderness because of their unbelief

*the angels that didn't mind their own business he put into chains under darkness

*Sodom and Gomorrah he destroyed as an example of what would come to others.

So he will do with these filthy dreamers that defile the flesh and speak evil of dignitaries.

In the OT the reference to an "evil spirit" that comes upon Saul does not indicate any form of "demon" or fallen angel.  Spirit can be as benign as "the mind" or breath, or wind, and "evil" can be simply "troubled" or "heavy".  In any case in Saul's case it says this "heavy mind" or evil spirit came upon him "From the LORD" after the HOLY Spirit had been taken from him.  It could have been as simple as "depression" or maybe even "paranoia" which would be very likely, if you knew you had once had close fellowship with the Lord, and because of your own pride and disobedience you were now cut off. Especially when you knew a young "upstart" was getting the glory you once had.  The  "troubled mind" was not "cast out" as one would do with a demon, but would be (temporarily) lifted or "left him" when David played the harp. 

The anti-Christ which is NOT mentioned in Revelation anywhere but rather in John's epistles were men, ordinary humans already present when the epistles were being written and they were those who (under the influence of demons gave forth the doctrines of demons) and denied that Jesus was the anointed Messiah, and that he had the Father to Son relationship that he claimed.  To deny that Jesus the Messiah had come in the flesh was to be of the spirit of the antichrist.  To do so is to be a deceiver.  But note again there is no indication that these are demons or demigods produced by fallen angels and humans.  They were just plain, ordinary humans who chose to follow a lie, and did not "obey his commands".  They were liars and the truth was not in them.  (1 John 2: 4, 18-23 etc.

I found this note about Nephilim in a Dictionary of Bible and Religion'

I do not suggest it is correct that it was a mistake that it was left in the Scriptures accidentally, but the point of it being contrary to the rest of the Bible and therefore needing a different understanding or interpretation (as I offer and accommodate in my reference to "amazons")

 If one has not bought into the myth beforehand that the sons of God were fallen angels, then there would be no need to make "giants" anything more than "giants",  in the same way we would not make tsawraf into a proper name and speak of the Tsawraf when all we meant were "goldsmiths".  A giant was nothing more than a tall person, and what could be expected when genes are passed on from one generation to another if parents had a DNA that gave them extra height. 

NEPHILIM. Giants or semidivine beings produced by intercourse between human females (“the daughters of men”) and divine or angelic beings (the sons of God”), according to ancient Canaanite mythology.  The Nephilim resemble, in concept the mythical heroes, half-man, half-God, found in ancient Greek mythology.  Such mythical figures appear in the OT, but only briefly.  Genesis 6:4 speaks of the giants in the earth or Nephelim, and refers to their mixed parentage.  Later in Numbers 13:33 the Israelite spies sent into Canaan reported the strength of the Canaanites by saying they looked like the Nephilim or giants.

There is no way to reconcile the concept of Nephilim, and of intercourse between angels and human beings, with the beliefs about God in the rest of Genesis.  Genesis 6:4 must represent a fragment of a longer account of an ancient myth that escaped removal from the text by the Priestly redactors (or editors) at the time of the Exile and after (586 B.C.)  The concept of heavenly beings engaging human beings sexually belongs to ancient non-Hebrew mythology and, throughout history, to the occult, that is, the incubi (demons), who, superstition holds, visit men and women by night. 

J.C. 

John Charles Cooper, Prof. of religion; chairman Dept. of Philosophy & Religion. Susquahanna University, Selinsgrove, Pennsylvania.

The Dictionary of Bible and Religion.  William H. Gentz Gen. Ed.  Abingdon Press, 1986, Nashville, Tennessee.

The Lord's Prayer: Refuge

The Lord's Prayer: Lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil

REFUGE

And lead us not into temptation, But deliver us from the evil one.

It is strange that the NIV and the Amplified, (and KJV) translate this as “Lead us not into temptation”, when we have such a clear word in James 1:13 that we are not to say when he is tempted that “I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempts he any man:...”.

Vincent in his “Word studies in the New Testament” says: “Temptation. It is a mistake to define this word as only solicitation to evil. It means trial of any kind, without reference to its moral quality. Thus, Gen,.xxii.1 (Sept.) “God did tempt Abraham;” “This he said to prove him” (John vi:6); Paul and Timothy assayed to go to Bithynia'.” etc.

The TEV translates this as “Do not bring us to hard testing.” and the NEB says “And do not bring us to the test.”

But before I had these “support texts or translations, I had the “outline” that understood that what Jesus was telling the disciples was that whether for those trials that come suddenly upon me (which MIGHT cause me to give in to the pressures) or whether by the cunning devices of Satan (the Evil One) working on my lusts (according to James 1:14) I was to be seeking the Refuge of the Father.

In other words the prayer is “Father, shelter me from those testings that are too big for me to bear ALONE, (or remind me that I cannot bear them alone,) and keep me from the design and craftiness of the devil.” Or with 1 Corinthians 10:13, in mind, again with the misleading translation of “no temptation” as “solicitation to evil”, that may cause us to miss the real promise altogether. If it means instead, “Let no testing come in which I will be overloaded and “fail the test”, but rather, in casting myself upon the Father, as seeing Him as my refuge and STRENGTH every “trial” or hard testing, and including every “solicitation to evil” will have with it the way of escape.” By rendering the Greek in Matthew 6:13, and 1 Corinthians 10:13 to be ONLY this “solicitation to evil” then we put outside the phrase “such as is common to man”, the testings and hardships and anxieties tha t Jesus understood we would face DAILY and to which we would need to come to the Father DAILY as to our Refuge and Deliverer.

Someone once said that what we face are trials or tests. (Not temptations.) When with God's help we do not “give in” whether in dismay, or defeat or unbelief or whatever, then it has been the idea of “assaying” the ore. It has proven it to be “gold”. And the “proof” is not so much for the Lord's sake perhaps as for ours. If God “tested” Abraham as mentioned above or if He “tests” us, it is not because He does not ALREADY know what we will do, but rather it shows us what we CAN do when we are trusting the Lord and obeying Him, and relying on His strength. It is only when we “fail” the tests that we can then say Satan tempted us. So here is the new thought that I am articulating in my own mind on this day (Sept. 23, 2007). Could it be that what we think of as a “temptation” to do wrong, is often not a temptation as such at all... to begin with? Rather it is a test or “hard test” or trial, which CAN come from God, and the temptation that comes from Satan is “Here is your chance to show how strong, or clever, or independent you really are and you don't need to call on God, or the Spirit to manage.” To what extent could we say this was true of Satan's “temptations” of Jesus in the wilderness? We say that in every case Jesus countered Satan's temptations by quoting the Word. But in every case the appeal was to His “human nature” or “flesh” (except that in His case, he could have “used” His divine powers to satisfy”) but Jesus' defeat of Satan was NOT by His divine power, but rather by His overcoming Satan by casting Himself on the Father; that is, the Strength the Father provided Him (and provides us) through the Word.

How can I illustrate this to myself? Could I say that finding a wallet sitting on a table with no one around is a test, not a temptation? I know what would be right, and I know what would be wrong. Is this a temptation from Satan or a test from God? The temptation may come if Satan says, “No one is here to see and no one will ever know it is YOU that found it.” Relying only on the flesh, and some clever arguments like “Look how God is providing” or “it is better that I found it than someone else” etc. etc. I could give in and in doing so I will have “sinned”. On the other hand, relying on what I know to be right, and allowing the Spirit to lead me I can contact the owner and return the wallet, (and all its contents) and I will have “passed the test” or “proven” to myself and to any “witnesses” that God is my Refuge and Strength and He could/did “provide the way of escape.” Likewise when the trial or testing is a heavy burden. Do I let the load get me down or do I trust him moment by moment to let him give me His Strength in my weakness and we come through it together?

I suspect that if we master this part of the prayer, “Lead us not into temptation” we will find the rest of the prayer being fulfilled much easier also. “And deliver us from evil” or “deliver us from the Evil one.” Easier because to know God the Father as our Refuge from the overwhelming trials of life or the subtleties of the enemy of our soul, or the evil of the world around us, is a matter of Trust. If we have proven Him faithful in one area of deliverance, we know He is faithful in all.

So then, the Lord's Prayer is NOT meant to lead us to vain repetition. We don't have to say the same memorized words over and over again. But Jesus did recognize that we needed to be reminded DAILY of these things and to come to the Father DAILY in right relationship, and reverence, dependent always on the revelation of Himself to us, in us, and though us. Our physical refreshment is only as He provides for us our DAILY needs. WE need and receive our restoration from Him only as we accept our responsibility to forgive others. And we are saved from our burdens and the enemy of our soul or “the world, the flesh and the devil” only as we take our refuge in him.
'For, HIS is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory forever. Amen! 

The Lord's Prayer:  Restoration and Responsibility

		Debts?! What debts? ("Restoration" and "Responsibility") RESTORATION Forgive us our debts ... or Forgive us our sins. In this phrase we come to a distinct difference between the Matthew account and the Luke account, according to the Greek words used, but less so perhaps in the meaning. In Matthew it appears that the word is used of accounting, and speaks of “something owed, a due, a fault, a debt,” and the “debtor” in the next part is speaking of the person as a delinquent, or transgressor, and a “sinner”. In Luke's account the word is the one we have all heard about as in the falling short of the (archery) target and missing the prize. In both cases it is an acknowledgment that we are in need of restoration and we are coming to the Father for forgiveness. Keeping the accounting image in mind of the Matthew version it is as if we are “in God's bad books” and we are asking to have the slate wiped clean. (I just realized how archaic this reference to the slate being wiped clean really is. I HAVE used a slate and slate pencil.  I guess a better phrase would be the debt is recorded on the spreadsheet and we are asking God to hit "Delete" not just the entry but the whole file.) And this important aspect is that it is a daily situation as surely as was the request for daily bread. In the context of the sermon on the mount, and the “extra” sense that we have already seen when Jesus contrasts the “you have heard it said, but I say” we get a further revelation of just how much for which we need forgiveness. It is not for the gross sins and transgressions of “the law” per se, but it is all the areas where we “come up short”. This comes out more clearly I think in the next phrase when we acknowledge our RESPONSIBILITY to extend to our “debtors” the same kind of forgiveness that we are seeking from the Father. It should really be a frightening realization that our forgiveness is dependent on our forgiving. We like to think our forgiveness is completely covered by Grace and our confession of our sin, but Matthew 6: 15, shows clearly that our forgiveness is conditional.   RESPONSIBILITY “...As we also have forgiven our debtors.” OR “For we also forgive everyone who sins against us.” This confession and profession on our part fixes us with the responsibility that Jesus was teaching his disciples. Not only in Matthew 6:15 but again in Matthew 7:1&2 and following. The same judgment you use on others will be the judgment used on you. And with the measure you use it will be measured to you. And then in Matthew 18 when Peter is asking how often he should forgive his brother, Jesus' reply is basically a reworking of the same principle. How often do YOU want to be forgiven? Taking up the idea of this debt/debtor and the going beyond the letter or legal “sin” and going rather to the moral obligations, of “what do I owe?” or “what am I owed?”, I think Matthew's record lets us come to another aspect of our responsibility. And that is, while Luke might frame the request and the forgiveness of others to the sin committed according to the law, the “as we forgive our debtors” covers those who may be innocent of any transgression against us but whom we may “perceive” to owe us something. If we think they “owe us one” we must forgive them. We cannot expect that they will ever “make it right” with us. They may not even be aware that we expected something of them that they failed to deliver. And isn't that the kind of forgiveness we need from the Lord as well? It is the arrogance of the self righteous that can say, “All these laws I have kept from my youth” and perhaps even be truthful, but oh how horribly in debt we are to His mercy and Grace for all the Love and Worship he is due, and all that we have withheld. Every slight, every “but-you-never-covered-this” or “you-didn't-take-notice-when-I-did-this-for-you” or “boy,-do-you-owe-me-for-this” attitude that I hold against any individual or organization, these are the things that could do me in. And these are the debts that I must forgive, and these are the kinds of debts I must acknowledge before the Lord if I want to know the restoration and cleansing of His forgiveness, and in turn that I must extend to all those who I feel have “sinned against me”. And, as the above mentioned passages indicate, this is not optional. And it is not once and for all, but daily, continually. Your name Hallowed,--- moment by moment. Your Kingdom Come, --- moment by moment. My Daily Bread, --- moment by moment. My being Forgiven, --- moment by moment. My Forgiving Others, --- moment by moment. My abiding in his Refuge to escape the onslaughts of the world, the flesh and the devil, --- moment by moment.

The Lord's Prayer:  REFRESHMENT

“Give us this day our daily bread.”

Or

“Give us today the food we need.”

The best place to start this study so as to catch all the really deep implications of what Jesus must have intended for the disciples to be asking is with a word study of “bread” and “daily”. According to Strong's Concordance, the Greek word translated “bread” means “bread”! And the Greek word translated “daily” means “subsistence” i.e. Needful or “daily. (or possibly the ensuing day or night, so “following” or “next”.

With this great revelation, now put the request into the context of the Sermon on the Mount, and the reality of the context of their setting.

Did the disciples have refrigeration? Could they hoard their resources and put by for a month or so? Were they “gainfully employed” and free to run to market at any time? To whom were they coming and in what relationship?

In Matthew 6:25-34 how much is to be “spiritualized” so that somehow bread/food is to mean a portion of Jesus or “the word” or some such? Is the mention here of clothes to be understood as “spiritually clothed in righteousness” and “drink” to mean as Jesus implied else where, my food and drink is to do the Father's will? (See John 4:32-34) Why complicate the message? Jesus knew the need of his disciples and told them that in their relationship with the Father, (or the King) they should come to him with the very real and practical daily needs that they have, and trust him to supply. Everything about the kingdom message was to be in relationship and trust. To set priorities and to be about doing God's will, and He would provide. No mention of wealth, or extras. Just the food needed for this day.

It recognizes their dependence on God, and it recognized that it was moment by moment. It is the theme of abiding. And it is continued in the next phrase as well. How often would they need to come to God for “food”? How often would they need to come to the Father for forgiveness? How often would they need to “forgive them who have debts against us”?

It is only in our affluence that we could construe that this petition or plea has some metaphysical implication. It is not asking for cash or money. It is not asking for corporate funding. It is intensely personal. And if there is a place for “plural” as in “our daily bread” it was because they were a small band, each of whom were in the same place of dependency and were committed to sharing whatever they had. It would be in the same sense of a family praying together for their daily bread.

That reminder to myself is what is significant to the prayer. I ask for the daily bread so that I remind myself that it is daily, it is sustenance, and it is from the Father, who delights to hear from us, to have us state clearly what we perceive to be our needs, and then to trust him to deliver... as He determines. 

CREED: AN INTRODUCTION TO CREEDS AND BELIEFS AND SPECIFICALLY TO "MY' CREED AS SET FORTH IN THE APOSTLES' CREED AS I UNDERSTAND IT

In some musings that came before this series I was thinking about what people believe or say they believe and it caused me to move in this direction:


I believe in_________. So what?
I think we should be able to ask that of every truth I, or anyone else postulates. The "so what" meaning simply, OK based on this belief, what are the practical consequences?” 

 

 

I BELIEVE

 

I ended the last entry with the statement that what one declares as their belief should be followed with a "So what?" question. Meaning that a belief, or a declared belief is only of value when it carries with it consequences of behaviour or attitude that would be different if the belief were different. But that does not mean that 2 persons of quite differing beliefs could not do the same thing, nor that 2 persons with the same belief would do the same thing. But it might mean that I, with a differing belief would do things differently. (Do you beg to differ?) So I want to take a Creed that I have professed is MY creed and look at it line by line or phrase by phrase, asking myself "So what?". So what should that mean in my attitude? What should it mean in my behaviour? And what should it mean as far as others' expectations of me?

Whether I begin with the historic and orthodox Christian Creed which begins with "I believe in God the Father", or just a statement of observation, such as "I believe it will reach 20 degrees today", I will have set expectations for whatever is to follow.
Of necessity the phrase "I believe" does two or three things. The word "Creed" comes from "credo" which means "I believe", and "I believe" immediately sets the boundaries and responsibilities. I am confessing that quite apart from anyone else, that which follows expresses my position and as such it is I, and I alone, that have to answer for behaviour or attitude that is either consistent or inconsistent with that declaration.
Secondly, I am stating that this is a "belief" and whether what follows is true or false, I have come to the conclusion, perhaps by a multitude of influences, to rest in the conviction that it is true, and will serve my purposes until some other information, or circumstances show it to be false or needing an amendment.
And by declaring, to an individual, or the world, that this is my belief, I am inviting a degree of scrutiny, and response, positive or negative, that if I am not prepared to defend what follows, I should have kept silent. (Of course when my actions say so loudly what I believe, it is hard to "hide" my creed no matter how few words are used.)
This then is the path I am about to strike out on over the next several entries and to which I will invite the most vigorous of comment, debate, challenge or whatever... while at the same time throwing down the gauntlet to know what the respondent believes and how the same or different creed may or may not result in similar or dissimilar acts (or attitudes.)

CREED: I Believe IN GOD

(Important to read previous blog for introductory thoughts on belief …stated in first person singular etc.)

In this part I want to move forward to look at the next phrase "IN GOD", but that means an additional defining of the use of the word "Believe".
Whereas I said before "I am stating that this is a "belief" and whether what follows is true or false, I have come to the conclusion, perhaps by a multitude of influences, to rest in the conviction that it is true, and will serve my purposes until some other information, or circumstances show it to be false or needing an amendment." 
Now by adding "IN GOD" I am saying that belief is more than just an acknowledgment of "facts" real or assumed, and implies a Trust or Commitment that differs from saying I believe "THAT GOD". And when I said that a "belief will serve my purposes until some other information or circumstances show it to be false" I think it is illustrated in a child's declaration that he or she "Believes in Santa Claus". As long as they do believe IN SANTA CLAUS, "he" seems to justify their belief. i.e. "Santa" keeps delivering the gifts, and the "believer" shows some evidence of trying to be good, to earn Santa's gifts, or the "believer" continues to present his "wish list", in expectation of the big day. But once he starts accessing various clues, his "belief" wavers and then is either replaced with a new belief system, i.e. "I can depend on my folks to meet my wants" or a rejection of any kind of belief except cynicism.
So for this installment, I concentrate on how saying I believe IN something, in this case "God", means I not only acknowledge the existence of some force or being, but that I TRUST this one to do certain things. 
This is not an original illustration but it serves the purpose. As long as I stand observing a chair, and take note that it appears by its design, material and workmanship to be structurally sound, I believe THAT it will hold me up. I trust, or believe IN it when I commit my total weight to it, and accept the consequences. Until the act of commitment, initially and continual, is carried out, all other profession of "belief" is empty. 
Having then declared, verbally and/or in actions, that I trust someone or something, I now proceed to proclaim what or who that something is. 
Again, now is the time to be reminded that there is no point in saying "I BELIEVE IN" anything unless I can also answer "So what?".
And specifically if I say I believe in God, I must answer what the implications are. First of all there must be a definition of what I mean by "God". Much of the rest of the Apostles' Creed tells that, but it might also be beneficial to state what I do NOT mean by God. I do not mean some "Divine" spirit that is in me and will with proper nurture and thinking let me become a god, or God. So, by "God" I mean an entity outside and beyond my self.
Secondly, I do not mean a caricature of God as imagined by so many biblically ignorant who either see God as some benevolent old man off in the distance uninterested in his creation, or a thundering judge waiting to zap anyone who transgresses, or any multitude of misrepresentations that seem to abound in the modern mind.
Although I intended in the original that the next installment(s) would look at the implications of believing in "God (1)the Father (2)Almighty, (3) Maker of Heaven and Earth." I had to insert a part 2 to answer a question posed by a reader.

CREED: I BELIEVE IN GOD (addendum)
After I posted the original of my last entry “I believe in God” someone asked me for a “reason”. This is what I came up with.

WHAT EVIDENCE GIVES ME CAUSE TO BELIEVE IN GOD?
1. I don't have enough faith NOT to.
I probably have a false understanding of evolutionary theory, but if it is correct to suggest that at some point in the distant past something, a big bang or otherwise, caused energy to go forth, and over eons of time substances, gasses, chemicals, elements or whatever, formed a primordial ooze out of which two somethings (or one something) began to "live" and all this without any "Causal" intelligence or "design" and that this new living thing, happened upon a system (while still only a single unit) to reproduce itself before "dying", meaning it had also in that span of time from the first spark have in place, having "evolved" all the mechanics of respiration, and nourishment. And I am talking here of only a plant like cell or whatever is smaller than that, not even daring to mention the complexities of the simplest "animal" cell.
I'm sorry, but to believe all this happened without First Cause, takes more faith in chance than I can muster.
So I concluded, "for the sake of argument" that a god exists to be the "First Cause"
2. Then I assume that the First Cause had a reason for bringing this thing (Creation) into being. Quite possibly several reasons, but the one that interests me, is the human race.
3. If this First Cause is more than an impersonal "Force" and in fact has "created" man in His image, and intended to communicate with the created, then I assume He will set about informing his creation about himself, and stating what his reason for creating man is.
4. I would then think that a record of His attempt at communication might possibly exist, and I could look at oral and written records through history and in every known culture past and present to see what exists and how they compare and/ or differ.
5. And once I had gotten to this stage I would try to apply the same criteria as to the trustworthiness and authenticity of the record as I would to any current news story, or to the existence of any historical (or mythical) personage, known to man.
6. And having been convinced that the claims made on behalf of this "god" were backed up by experience, I would go on "believing" until my experience showed me I was misinformed. 
7. A negative answer. "Whereas many people wonder, upon hearing that someone committed suicide 'Why did they do that?' I wonder why anyone who is not a believer does NOT commit suicide. "If that's all there is...?"

Coming back to the chair. Sure I "see" the chair, but why should seeing it make me a believer, if I didn't first of all have some knowledge, a little here, a little there, that taught me that interconnecting rods at right angles, perpendicularly and horizontally reinforced, with a suitably flat surface approximately 18 to 20 inches off the floor, would hold up a mass between 145 to 200 pounds?
One exercises "faith" every moment one breathes, and some of it based on some extremely "weird" assumptions, (for instance- that airplanes should take off, and stay airborne) but yet the same one finds it difficult to believe something as "rational" that a perfectly designed item came into being without a designer, or that an intelligent creature evolved intelligence without an intelligent "stimulator".

I am NOT a theologian, and I am NOT a scientist. But I am convinced, to use a book title from a well known "philosopher" of a few years back, that of God: "He is there, and He is not Silent". 
I am NOT trying to argue anyone into any position, I am sincerely trying to answer the question as to WHY *I* Believe, and I think I am giving MY reasons rather than what someone else says should be the "right" answer.

CREED: I Believe… IN GOD THE FATHER 

One of my e-mail signatures is "Serving Jesus Christ and those who are His by Redemption and/or Creation.
This all flows out of my belief that GOD is "The Father".
(And in the act of Creation as one God, performed the work, with Jesus, making man "in our image".) 
First, to be a Father means to have at least one child. This is defined very specifically later when the Creed states that [I believe in] "Jesus Christ His only Son, our Lord".
This sets out the conviction of the Trinity, the eternal Father, who of necessity must have an eternal child, and specifically Jesus, the "pre-incarnate only begotten son". This establishes personhood and personality, and relational completeness. God, as a triune "person" is Personal and complete without any need for creation. But we come back to this as we go on to speak in the creed, specifically of Jesus and the Holy Spirit.
But when I say "I believe in God the Father, (Almighty, maker of heaven and earth)" I am also declaring that He is the "Father" of all creation, and specifically of mankind. Hence I am, as far as the So What? question is concerned, counting myself, as a finite created being, to be related to all other humans throughout all of history and in all corners of the globe. I am a brother to them by virtue of having the same Father, as I am physically descended from Adam. 
Then, in confessing Him to be the Father in the Biblical, and Christian context, I am speaking of the more "personalized" sense that "To as many as received Him, He gave the power (authority) to become the "sons of God", different than Jesus THE Son of God, but different also than those who are "sons" (children) because they are created "in His image". Hence I am a spiritual descendant of Jesus, (the second Adam.) 
So when I come to identify my "purpose" in the e-mail signature as one who is "Serving Him and His" or as I have posted in my workplace "Serving Him - Serving You" I am reminding myself, and proclaiming to those who may take notice, that I am aware of a twofold responsibility.
One, because He is My Father, both by Creation and by having redeemed me through the Sacrifice of Jesus, then I serve Him when I serve anyone, in any measure, because they are His, and I am related to them on two levels. Some only because they are created in His image, and some because in addition to the "common brotherhood" of man, I am also a brother "In Christ", as a "close relation'.
If I rightly understand "family relationships" I must understand that these "siblings" "in the flesh" and/or "in the faith", are my brothers and sisters, no matter how weird or wonderful their behaviour, AND no matter how much I agree or disagree with their particular views. 
This declared belief on my part, as far as the "So what" question is concerned should mean very specific responsibilities in my "social" conduct, or even, or maybe especially, my political commitments. 
Saying in the Creed, "I believe in God the FATHER" and the responsibility that places on me, of necessity" must catch up with me when I come to pray "Our Father... forgive us our debts as we forgive those who trespass against us", or any of the other entreaties I make therein.
But the God I confess is not just the "Father" but the "Father Almighty, Maker of Heaven and Earth"! 
So What?
I'll meditate on that in the next entry.

CREED: I BELIEVE IN GOD THE FATHER ALMIGHTY

According to the copy of the Apostle's Creed that I have before me, the punctuation of the next phrase is as follows: "I believe in God the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth;"
That is a little different than if it were written "I believe in God the Father, Almighty maker of heaven and earth, or a couple of other nuances if the commas were placed elsewhere, but for the sake of presentation I will disregard the possible puncuations and just comment on a couple of the implications as to the "So what?" in my subsequent behaviour. 
First, I need to be reminded and remind any reader that the purpose of the Creed's formation was twofold. One, it stood to summarize the basic beliefs of the early Christians. Two, it declared what was false about other "creeds". 
Having said this, I need now to look at the term Almighty, or "God the Father Almighty". When I was younger, maybe in my teens, or maybe as late as my "theological hair splitting" early adulthood, it was thought particularly clever to pose the following question: "Could God make a rock so big that He could not lift it?" The implication being of course, was his Almighty-ness limited either in the power to "create" or in His power to "move" what He created? Maybe it is of the same substance as "Which came first the chicken or the egg?" But the proper answer I think takes into the account the twofold purpose of the creed. The question, "Could God make a rock so big...etc. " comes from one who holds the same kind of view of God as the idolaters of the Roman and Greek world had. Their gods were only superhuman humans cavorting and larking about in various jealousies and contests, and various roles. The Creed declares our God, or God the Father in whom we believe, is not like these gods. He is ALL MIGHTY. There are no other gods, and He is not limited in Power or Strength, but only by His own character. Therefore, the answer to "Could He make...etc" is the same as "Could God Lie?" "Could He tolerate sin?" So, NO, He could not and would not set about any task as "small" as that- of showing off. To whom would He show off? Who would be impressed? How would such an act further the eternal purposes that He has in mind, either for this world and the human race or any other creature in the universe? 
On the other hand when I state He is the Almighty Father, the maker of heaven and earth, I am declaring that because there is no on more Mighty, then there is no one or no thing that can prevent His will from being done, and nothing that He bids me to do, that will be impossible for me to accomplish. The same "power" that made heaven and earth, by the word of His mouth, is also there to do whatever else needs to be done. And that applies equally to Old Testament "miracles", or a virgin birth, or Resurrection, or making "new creatures" out of fallen wretched sinners. 
The implications and ramifications are now endless, and while I could keep on spelling them out, the end "So what?" for me is simply this: If I really DO believe in such a God, such a Father, such an Almighty, such a Maker of heaven and earth, why do I not obey any command that comes from Him? Why do I not avail myself of that self same "power" to live a life set aside to His service? Why do I not tell every downcast soul, that such a One waits to enfold them into His Kingdom and Family; that such an Almighty One can meet their every need?

That I believe He is the Maker of heaven and earth, should open up a completely other topic, but the framers of the creed didn't think it necessary to expand on that. They may not have been faced with evolutionary theories, but they did have "myths" equally bizarre to confront. But whether the discussion would have revolved around Zeus or Prometheus, (or Dr seuss) or any other explanation of the mechanics of matter, the writers of the creed could state categorically, that it is God, that He is Almighty and that He created the heavens and the earth. Everything else brought to the discussion is secondary. The "how" doesn't matter, when it comes to living the Christian life. It may matter in coming to a "scientific" theory, a cohesive explanation that accounts for some of the observed contradictions in the relationships of atomic particles or whatever, but when scientists can't agree, why should I worry?(*1) So I believe in God the Father Almighty, and because I believe, I can act, and must act, in a way that is completely different than one who does not believe in any god, or who believes in a multiplicity of lesser gods, or even a god who is somehow equal to even one other god. My God is ALL MIGHTY, and He is MY Father, and He is OUR Father; by adoption and in a special relationship through Jesus, and to all of mankind through Creation.

Next installment "And in Jesus Christ His only Son, our Lord:"

*1. 2005 celebrated 100 years since Einstein's declaration of the theory of relativity and Scientists believe they are now further away than ever from an unified field theory of the universe. Just mention quantum physics and "String" theory and see where they go.