Results 1 - 7 of 7
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Submissive or Suppressed Wills | Luke 22:42 | mark d seyler | 166473 | ||
Dear Doc, I thought your two numbered points well said and entirely on the mark (so to speak!). I agree with you completely on those points. Looking at the suffering of Jesus in the garden, when I consider it in light of Hebrews Heb 12 3 For consider Him who endured such hostility from sinners against Himself, lest you become weary and discouraged in your souls. 4 You have not yet resisted to bloodshed, striving against sin. I can see a connection to our striving against sin. The writer of Hebrews is urging us to lay aside our sin, and run our race. Lest we become weary (enduring the attack of our old nature), look to Jesus, Who endured the hostility of from sinners against Himself. When Jesus prayed in the garden, “Father, if it be your will, take this cup away from me”, I believe that Jesus was praying the Father remove the element of suffering that He would experience. Mark 10 38 But Jesus said to them, "You do not know what you ask. Are you able to drink the cup that I drink, and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with?" 39 They said to Him, "We are able." So Jesus said to them, "You will indeed drink the cup that I drink, and with the baptism I am baptized with you will be baptized; Jesus was not, I think, praying that He would not have to die. “For this cause I came into the world,” He said. I do not think that He wished to avoid paying the price to redeem us. That He would have to bear the guilt of our sins, and endure the righteous wrath of His Father as if He had committed them, this was what He came here to do. This was our redemption. Praise His Name forever!!! The disciples clearly would not partake of these things, these which were for our atonement, but they would suffer and die, with beatings and executions. This was the cup that they would drink, and this was the cup that Jesus prayed would pass from Him. Just as a man jerks his hand back from the flame, and flinches before the crushing blow, we seek to avoid pain and injury . I can only imagine the resolve that Jesus had to have, to march willingly into the hands His demonically driven tormentors. It was, for instance, the Jews who were not to whip a man more than 40 lashes. The Romans had no such prohibition. They would continue until you confessed. And at this time before the actual suffering, knowing what He would suffer, we see Him exerting this extreme effort to remain obedient to the Father. Whether it is our old nature that we are struggling to overcome, or just the natural psychological and physiological responses which God included in our make-up, to protect us in particular situations, and yet must be mastered to be obedient in all situations, we are to strive as did Jesus. Regarding such terms as “suppression” and “submission” of the will, yes, they do sound somewhat technical. I understand them to make a technical distinction between passive and active action. I feel this has a place in discussing what part is us, and what part is God, and also describing the dynamic between old and new natures. I would not have any difficulty using different vocabulary which you wish to use, so long as it expresses the same concepts. Also remember, the heart as the center man is also a metaphor. To the degree that we define that center as some combination of emotion, intellect, personality, and such will affect how we relate the Bible’s teaching to our lives, and to understanding how we function. I sense a new discussion coming up. :-) I am interested in any thoughts you wish to share! Love in Christ, Mark |
||||||
2 | Submissive or Suppressed Wills | Luke 22:42 | DocTrinsograce | 166500 | ||
Dear Brother Mark, You wrote, "Also remember, the heart as the center man is also a metaphor." (Did you mean inner man?) Actually, the use of the word heart in Scripture is not a metaphor. It is a label. It sounds like a metaphor to modern ears because we think of the heart as an organ in the body. Of course the ancients also knew of this organ and even something of how it functioned. But they thought that it was the seat of consciousness for the human being. We've inherited some of these notions in English, as well, when you consider the alternate meanings of the word that are in common use today. All the etymology aside, the writers of the Bible used heart as a label for that part of man that is invisible, the real essential person. The heart includes: The mind; i.e, the thoughts,? ?beliefs,? ?understandings,? ?memories,? ?judgments,? ?conscience,? ?and discernment (Matthew 13:15; Romans 1:21; Mark 2:6; Luke 24:38; 1 Kings 3:12; 1 Timothy 1:5). The affections; i.e., the longings,? ?desires,? ?feelings,? ?imaginations,? ?and emotions (Psalm 20:4; Ecclesiastes 7:9; Deuteronomy 28:47; 1 Samuel 1:8; Isaiah 35:4; Joshua 14:8; James 3:14; Ecclesiastes 11:9; Psalm 73:7; Hebrews 12:3). The place where the will operates; i.e., the part of the inner person that chooses or determines what actions to take (Deuteronomy 30:19; Joshua 24:15; Isaiah 7:15; Deuteronomy 23:15-16; Psalm 25:12), (It is interesting to note that all three of the above are said to be in operation in Moses in the passage of Hebrews 11:24-27. That's significant because it gives us a Hebraic perspective.) The heart of man is diseased ?(?Genesis? ?6:5?; ?8:21?; ?Psalm? ?51:5?; ?Ecclesiastes? ?9:3?; ?Matthew? ?15:19?; ?Romans? ?7:24-25?), and ?essentially unknowable to himself (Jeremiah 17:9), but completely understood by God (1 Samuel 16:7; 1 Chronicles 28:9; 2 Chronicles 6:30; Psalm 44:21; 139:2; Jeremiah 17:10; John 2:24-25; Acts 1:24; Revelation 2:23). The Word of God can both diagnose the disease as well as offer the prognosis (Hebrews 4:12). In Him, Doc PS Slightly off topic... but... you wrote, "I can only imagine the resolve that Jesus had to have, to march willingly into the hands His demonically driven tormentors." (sic) I know that the devil is mentioned in the influence of Judas, but where are we told that the other men involved in the Crucifiction of Christ were under demonic influence? |
||||||
3 | Submissive or Suppressed Wills | Luke 22:42 | mark d seyler | 166505 | ||
Hi Doc, Good stuff! When I wrote "center man", I meant "center of man". Ok, metaphor, label, when you say that the "writers of the Bible used heart as a label for that part of man that is invisible", yet meanwhile acknowledging that they were aware of the organ and it's funtion, is this not a metaphor? To call an invisible part by the name of the visible? And did they not also consider the gut to also be the seat of some of those invisible things as well? And are their not several passages that make similar statements about the "gut" as the heart? Anyway, no matter. . . But that goes towards why I elected to write "center of man" (or at least, attempted to write!), to get away from the descriptive word that had a greater meaning to the ancients, as we tend to use "heart" as referring to the seat of our emotions only, and not bringing in the rest of the many things you listed as being part of this "essential person". That was my main purpose in this point, was to include in our discussion of this topic all the elements that the ancients would have included. I found your list to be comprehensive, and I appreciate your work towards compiling it. Regarding the demonic influence present at the crucifixion, this is the logical meaning of the reference in 1 Cor 2:8. I would be more specific and factual in saying, rather than demons, fallen angels. Most people do not distinguish between the two, and I have gotten into the bad habit of using the terms interchangably. Anyway, if you disagree with this, let's just set it aside. Love in Christ, Mark |
||||||
4 | Submissive or Suppressed Wills | Luke 22:42 | DocTrinsograce | 166517 | ||
Dear Mark, No, I can't find anyone suggesting that the heart, in Scripture, is not to be taken literally. The dichotomy and trichotomy stuff entered the world through the pagan Greeks, an idea alien to Hebrews. The Hebrews thought of men as unified beings. Death, an abnormal condition, would be resolved in the resurrection. We also carry around a lot of baggage from Gnostic teachings on this topic. Perhaps it would be helpful to consider the similar way the average American thinks of the brain. The modern man does not expect to cut into a brain and find the real person. The Hebrew would not have expected to cut into a heart and find the real person. The modern man does not use the term brain as a metaphor. The ancient Hebrew man did not use the term heart as a metaphor. Both understand that a blob of tissue exists, but both tend to think of it as somehow containing a man's essence. The "center of man" is probably as good a phrase as any. Essence might work... All our words don't quite sum it up very well. Maybe we shouldn't even try. After all, if the Bible calls it "heart" we should just use the same language, in spite of all the English stuff we carry along with the word. On the other topic: Looking at the context of 1 Corinthians 2:8 one does not find any reference to demons. Paul is assuring his readers that the Gospel is not based in the wisdom of men but the power of God (v5). The comparisons are persuasive speech (v1) versus the testimony of God (v2) and man's wisdom (v4) versus power of the Holy Spirit (v4). The wisdom of the world and the men ruling in the world comes "to nought" (v7), but God's wisdom is eternal and infallible (v7), but is unknown to the men ruling in the world (v8). (Albert Barnes comments on this verse, "referring both to the Jewish rulers, and the Roman governor." John Gill and Matthew Henry concur.) Had the Jewish rulers and Roman governors understood what was involved, they would not have crucified Christ (v8). Sorry, I didn't "just set it aside." I'd really like to know if there is explicit Scriptural support for "demonic influence" in the Crucifiction. I've always assumed that there was -- even before seeing Mel Gibson's movie :-) -- but I hadn't thought it through until your chance comment. After searching the Scriptures I couldn't find an explicit statement to support the view. Now, this doesn't mean that it can't be rightly inferred... after all, we have that Judas passage... I just thought you might have seen a specific Scripture on the topic that I had missed. Questions aren't always challenges, Brother Mark... sometimes they are requests to improve our imperfect understanding. Sorry for getting you upset. In Him, Doc |
||||||
5 | Submissive or Suppressed Wills | Luke 22:42 | mark d seyler | 166519 | ||
Hi Doc, I really do wish that you would not infer me to have a certain emotional state, it tends to get us going in the wrong direction. My comment to "set it aside" was to the intent of not getting completely off topic. Doc, it does not upset me to be challenged, or to be questioned. I do, however, find it difficult when others will not stay on their own side of the fence, as it were, and persist in assuming how I feel, or how I perceive, or how I react within, about things which we have not discussed. I suggest that it would be much more useful to ask, "Have I upset you?", than to simply assume it to be true, and proceed as if that assumption were fact. It might well be equally useful to ask my intent for making some request, or stating a preference, rather than, again, assuming and and accepting as fact that assumption. Love in Christ, Mark |
||||||
6 | Submissive or Suppressed Wills | Luke 22:42 | DocTrinsograce | 166541 | ||
Dear Brother Mark, I rescind my preemptive apology for upsetting you and, in its stead, apologize for interpreting your choice of words as reflecting an emotional state. Henceforth I will attempt to avoid interpreting your emotional states from your posts, but will, per your suggestion, query you explicitly about any such perceived states. Simultaneously, I would encourage you to learn from these incidents so as to reduce unintended impressions where possible. Effective communication, whether the venue is written or verbal, is a two-way street. Thank you for the correction of my poor interpretive skills, and the efforts to improve the utility of my participation in the forum. In this context and in the light of the post to which I am responding -- while making every effort to "stay on my side of the fence" -- I find myself with a single, burning question: Have I upset you? In Him, Doc |
||||||
7 | Submissive or Suppressed Wills | Luke 22:42 | mark d seyler | 166553 | ||
Hi Doc, Thank you for your kind words. Have you upset me? No, you have not. I am somewhat upset with myself, in letting myself get sidetracked from a discussion that is of great interest to me. Communucation certainly is a two way street, and I agree completely that I would do well to more closely monitor my words. Doc, I just don't want this to be about personalities. When it becomes personal, it takes away from the study of the Word. So let's just focus on that, ok? And leave my feelings, and personal reactions, to me. I truly appreciate your kindness and understanding. Love in Christ, Mark |
||||||