Alleged Discrepancies of the Bible #11
DUTY of man --- to his Fellowmen, continued
Foolishness is bound in the heart of a child; but the rod of correction shall drive it far from him.
Though thou shouldest bray a fool in
a mortar among wheat with a pestle,
yet will not his foolishness depart from
These passages refer to entirely different persons. "Foolishness," in the first text, is the incipient waywardness which belongs, in a greater or less degree, to children, and may be corrected by suitable discipline. The "fool" in the second text, is the grown-up fool, whose folly is past cure.
Answered in one way.
Answer not a fool according to his folly,
lest thou also be like unto him.
In another way.
Answer a fool according to his folly,
lest he be wise in his own conceit.
May not this be a simple dilemma, equivalent to saying, "Choose between the two evils. If you answer the fool in a foolish manner, you like him will be chargeable with folly. On the other hand, should you undertake to argue with him, he, failing to appreciate your reasoning, will think himself unanswerable, and so become more obtrusive and offensive than ever."
Or, the two texts may refer to different cases, thus: In certain circumstances, do not answer the fool at all. Silence is often the most fitting answer to a foolish question or remark. In other cases, answer the fool with sharp reproof, exposing his folly as it deserves.
Menasseh ben Israel:113 "Correct and mend him, that he may know his folly and madness. Imitate not his passions, errors, and improper words."
Andrew Fuller114 makes the meaning depend upon the turn given to the words "according to his folly." In the first text, he takes this phraseology as implying, in a foolish manner; in the second, as signifying, in the manner which
113Conciliator,ii.287. 114Works, i. 672.
his folly requires. "A foolish speech is not a rule for our imitation; nevertheless our answer must be so framed by it as to meet and repel it." On this hypothesis, the first text is illustrated by the answer of Moses to the rebellious Israelites;115 the second text by that of Job to his wife.116
Moses answered folly in a foolish manner. Job answered it, not in kind, but in the manner it deserved.
Fruit trees disposed of
When thou shalt besiege a city a long time, in making war against it to take it, thou shalt not destroy the trees thereof by forcing an ax against them; for thou mayest eat of them, and thou shalt not cut them down (for the tree of the field is man's life) to employ them in the siege.
And this is but a light thing in the sight of the Lord: he will deliver the Moabites also into your hand. And ye shall smite every fenced city, and every choice city, and shall fell every good tree, and stop all wells of water, and mar every good piece of land with stones.
2 Kings 3:18-19
Hengstenberg117 and Keil118 say that the injunction in Deuteronomy was applicable only in the case of Canaanite cities, which the Israelites were afterward to inhabit. Rawlinson thinks that the text from Deuteronomy really prohibits "only the using of the fruit trees for timber in siege works;" and applies only to those countries which the Israelites intended to occupy.
THE SECOND COULD ALSO BE A "FIGURE OF SPEECH" THAT MEANS YOU OVERALL TOTALLY CONQUER THOSE IN THE PROMISED LAND. YOU STOP THEIR LIVING ON A DAILY BASIS OF DAILY EVERYDAY LIFE. THE FIRST IS INDEED TO DO WITH BESIEGING A CITY FOR A LONG TIME. THE TREES SHOULD BE FOR FOOD FOR YOU, NOT TO USE TO MAKE INSTRUMENTS TO GET OVER WALLS - Keith Hunt
To be seen by men.
Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.
Not to be seen by them.
Take heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be seen of them: otherwise ye have no reward of your Father which is in heaven.
The glory of God, and not the praise of men, must be our ultimate object in exhibiting our "good works" before others. A. Fuller: "This is another of those cases in which the difference lies in the motive. It is right to do that which men may see and must see, but not for the sake of being seen by them."
117Genuineness of Pent. i. 176.
118On 2 Kings 3:19.
Heretics dealt with
Simon son of Jonas, lovest thou me? He said unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my sheep.
John 21:16 And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat.
In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth.
2 Timothy 2:25
From the first two passages combined, Cardinal Bellarmine119 infers the "twofold function of the Roman pontiff, as successor of Peter, viz. to feed the church and to put heretics to death!' One cannot but wonder that this famous exegete did not advance a step further, and infer the duty of cannibalism from the same text. The language is certainly very explicit: "Rise, Peter; kill, and eat."
THE TWO HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH HERETIC IF THE CONTEXT IS READ. THE LAST SHOWS THAT THERE ARE TIMES WHEN PATIENCE IS NEEDED TOWARDS THOSE WHO DO NOT UNDERSTAND THE TRUTH. THEN THERE ARE TEXTS IN THE NT THAT SAY AFTER TWO ADMONITIONS, THEN THE THIRD…. REJECT THE HERITIC. THERE ARE DEGREES AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF HERETICS, AND HOW TO DEAL WITH THEM. NOT EVERYTHING IS WITH THE SAME PAINT BRUSH - Keith Hunt
Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth.... Therefore I say unto you, Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink; nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on.... Take therefore no thought for the morrow: for the morrow shall take thought for the things of itself.
Matthew 6:19, 25, 34
Give to every man that asketh of thee; and of him that taketh away thy goods ask them not again. . . . But love ye your enemies, and do good, and lend, hoping for nothing again.
Luke 6:30, 35
Sell that ye have, and give alms.
Make not provision for the flesh, to fulfil the lusts thereof.
A good man leaveth an inheritance to
his children's children.
But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.
1 Timothy 5:8
If the texts at the top be carefully examined in their connection with the context, it will be seen that none of them discountenance prudence and true economy, nor encourage wastefulness. The first text simply forbids our making
See Home's Introduction, ii. 632 (Seventh edition).
earthly possessions our "treasure," our chief good. We must not set our hearts upon them.
The word "thought," in the next two texts, as in our early English literature, means solicitude, anxious care. Thus Bacon120 mentions an alderman of London who "died with thought and anguish." Hence the precept is: "Be not unduly anxious concerning your life," etc.
The first two texts from Luke inculcate concretely the abstract principle of benevolence, but do not sanction improvidence.
The text from Luke 12 has, according to Meyer, a specific application, being "addressed only to the apostles and then existing disciples." The quotation from Romans, with its important limiting clause, allows us to make provision for the needs, but not for the lusts of the flesh.
See prohibitions of this crime in Leviticus 18 and 20. Also, denunciations in Deuteronomy 27.
And God said unto Abraham, As for Sarai thy wife, thou shalt not call her name Sarai, but Sarah shall her name be. And I will bless her, and give thee a son also of her: yea, I will bless her, and she shall be a mother of nations; kings of people shall be of her.
And yet indeed she is my sister; she is the daughter of my father, but not the daughter of my mother; and she became my wife.
The terms "brother," "sister," and the like are used in the scriptures with great latitude of meaning, much like the Latin term "parentes," or the word "cousin," in modern speech. For example, Lot, Abraham's nephew, is styled his "brother";121 Rebekah's mother and brother say to her, "Thou art our sister";122 Jacob speaks of himself as his uncles "brother";123 Dinah is styled by her brothers, "our daughter."124
It is thus clear that the term "sister" makes Sarah a near relative, but does not determine the degree of relationship. Lange suggests that she may have been merely the "adopted sister" of Abraham. Bush and Delitzsch think she may
120Eastwood and Wright, "Bible Word-Book," p. 483.
121 Genesis 14:12,16.
122Genesis 24:55, 60.
have been a niece of Abraham—daughter of his brother, or, as Delitzsch says, "half-brother," Haran. In this view concur Jerome, Josephus,125 the Talmud, the Targum of Jonathan, and Rashi, with Jewish writers generally.126 These authors take Sarah, who was but ten years younger than Abraham,127 to be identical with Iscah.128
All we are warranted in saying is, that Sarah was nearly related—a cousin or niece, perhaps—to Abraham upon his father's side. She may have been related to Terah by a former wife, and afterwards adopted by him as a daughter.
As to the case of Lot and his unhappy daughters, recorded in Genesis 19, it is to be noted that the narrative is related in the usual colorless style, without comment, by the sacred writer. There is no concealment, no extenuation, of the crime.
It is clear that their residence in Sodom had blinded the minds of these misguided females, and greatly confused their ideas relative to purity and right and wrong. This case129 forcibly illustrates the demoralizing influence exerted upon the young by corrupt companions.
Israelites' claim to Canaan
Derived from God.
And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession.
And I will set thy bounds from the Red sea even unto the sea of the Philistines, and from the desert unto the river: for I will deliver the inhabitants of the land into your hand; and thou shalt drive them out before thee.
Precluded in the law.
Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's.
Widely divergent opinions have been maintained upon the question of the "right of the Hebrews to Palestine." We subjoin the more reasonable.
Michaelis130 and Dr. Jahn hold that Palestine had from time immemorial been a land of Hebrew herdsmen; and the Israelites, who had never abandoned their right to it, claimed it again of the Canaanites as unlawful possessors.
125Antiq. I. 6:5.
126Macdonald, Introd. to Pent. 70.
129See Lange, Com. on Genesis, p. 81 (American edition).
130Commentary on Mosaic Laws, i. 153.
Ewald131 expresses the opinion that, though the Canaanites had gained possession of Palestine as its original inhabitants, they had not occupied the whole country. The pasturelands lay open to those who wished to appropriate them, which was done by the ancestors of the Israelites. But during the sojourn in Egypt, the Canaanites unjustly occupied these pastures, and when the returning Hebrews asserted their rights the Canaanites would not acknowledge them. Hence the Israelites took possession of the country, partly in virtue of their ancient possession of some of it, and partly by conquest.
A simpler view is that which derives the claim of the Israelites directly from Jehovah himself.
Hengstenberg:132 "The Israelites had no human right whatever to Canaan. Their right rested entirely on God's gift. By this no injustice was done to the Canaanites. By their great depravity they had rendered themselves unworthy of being any longer possessors of the land, which God, as in the case of all other nations, only gave them conditionally. The Israelites were sent against them as ministers of the Divine justice; so that their destruction differed only inform from that of Sodom and Gomorrah. God's giving Canaan to the Israelites was at once an act of grace and of justice."
This is the scriptural view of the matter.133 It is the prerogative of him who hath "determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of the habitation of the nations," to bestow a land upon whomsoever he chooses. The same Being who took America out of the hands of the red men, and bestowed it upon the Anglo-Saxon race, took Palestine out of the hands of degraded idolators, and gave it to the Hebrews.
Dr. Davidson134 well says: "When a nation becomes corrupt and weak, it must give place, in the providence of God, to a stronger. Those that have grown old in superstition and idolatry make way for such as have a more spiritual vitality."
Restricted to her tribe.
And every daughter, that possesseth an inheritance in any tribe of the children of Israel, shall be wife unto one of the family of the tribe of her father, that the children of Israel may enjoy every man the inheritance of his fathers.
Not thus restricted.
If the priest's daughter also be married unto a stranger, she may not eat of an offering of the holy things.
131 Die Composition Jer Genesis, pp. 276-278. See Davidson's Introd. i. 437.
132 Genuineness of Pent. ii. 387-417.
133Psalm 44:1-3; 78:55.
134Introd. to Old Testament, i. 444. Compare Fairbairn's Typology, loc. cit.
It is clear, as Menasseh ben Israel says, that the first passage applies only to heiresses. The object of the precept was to prevent confusion by the transference of landed property from one tribe to another. A daughter who inherited no real estate might marry out of her tribe.
Judging of others
Judge not, that ye be not judged. For
with what judgment ye judge, ye shall
be judged: and with what measure
ye mete, it shall be measured to you
Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned.
Judge not according to the appearance,
but judge righteous judgment.
For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within?
1 Corinthians 5:12
The text from Matthew forbids harsh, censorious judgment, but does not preclude the giving of judicial decisions, nor the expression of our opinions in a proper manner.
The parallelism of the text from Luke, "judge not," "condemn not," indicates the kind of judgment prohibited.
NOTICE JOHN 7:24 - YOU ARE TO JUDGE RIGHTEOUSLY IN THE PROPER SITUATION WHERE CORRECT JUDGING IS PERMITTED - Keith Hunt
By one judge.
Moses sat to judge the people: and the people stood by Moses from the morning unto the evening.
And thou shalt come unto the priests
the Levites, and unto the judge that
shall be in those days, and inquire; and
they shall show thee the sentence of
Both the men, between whom the controversy is, shall stand before the Lord, before the priests and the judges, which shall be in those days.
Then thy elders and thy judges shall come forth.
A recent author discovers, as he thinks, some discrepancy here. But in Exodus 18:13-26, we find an account of the change from one judge to a plurality, with the reasons therefor.
Moreover, the altered circumstances of the people upon their exchange of a nomadic life for settlement in Canaan, occasioned the other modifications of earlier laws, which are discoverable in Deuteronomy. In the words of Dr. Davidson,135 "Should any say that the altered circumstances of the Israelites in Palestine called for these changes; that is true."
Michaelis136 seems to hold that, because the people "dwelt no longer in round numbers together," the former custom was modified, and judges were appointed in every city.
Killing of men
Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder.
Then Moses stood in the gate of the camp, and said, Who is on the Lord's side? let him come unto me. And all the sons of Levi gathered themselves together unto him. And he said unto them, Thus saith the Lord God of Israel, Put every man his sword by his side, and go in and out from gate to gate throughout the camp, and slay every man his brother, and every man his companion, and every man his neighbour.
And Moses said unto the judges of Israel, Slay ye every one his men that were joined unto Baalpeor. . .. When Phinehas, the son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron the priest, saw it, he rose up from among the congregation, and took a javelin in his hand. . . . And he went after the man of Israel into the tent, and thrust both of them through, the man of Israel, and the woman.
Numbers 25:5, 7-8
In both under sanctioned the slaughter was the signal punishment of an atrocious crime.
In the first case, the Israelites had lapsed into gross idolatry, breaking their covenant with God, and committing treason against their Sovereign. Their offence was of the most aggravated character, and merited capital punishment. Calvin, Keil, Bush, and others think that only those were slain by the
135Introd. to Old Testament, i. 363. 136Mosaic Laws, i. 245.
Levites who were recognized as the originators and ringleaders of the crime, or who stood boldly forth as its promoters and abettors. These, being found in the open spaces, while the rest of the people had fled to their tents, would alone be slain.
Much the same may be said of the second case. The Hebrews had fallen into the licentious idolatry of Baal Peor. Moses commanded that all the guilty should be slain. In this hour of national humiliation and sorrow, while the people were weeping at the door of the tabernacle, Zimri, a man of rank, brought into his tent, in the sight of the multitude, a Midianite paramour. This shameless and flagrant outrage was swiftly and fearfully punished by Phinehas, under the impulse of patriotism and loyalty to God. His zeal in this respect was properly commended.
Kindred, how regarded
If any man come to me, and hate not
his father, and mother, and wife, and
children, and brethren, and sisters, yea,
and his own life also, he cannot be my
Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it. . . . Let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband.
Ephesians 5:25, 33
He that loveth not his brother, abideth in death. Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer.
1 John 3:14-15
The word "hate" is sometimes used in the Bible in the sense of to love less. Thus of Jacob it is said that he "loved Rachel more than Leah," and, a little farther on, that Leah was "hated."137
Prof. Stuart: "When the Hebrews compared a stronger affection with a weaker one, they call the first love, and the other hatred."
Alford: "It hardly need be observed that this hate is not only consistent with, but absolutely necessary to the very highest kind of love. It is that element in love which makes a man a wise and Christian friend, not for time only, but for eternity."
In our day a convert from heathenism is sometimes reproached by his idolatrous kindred with "hating" them, because he does not yield to their solicitations,
and renounce Christianity. But the truth is, he loves them better than ever before; he loves them not less, but loves Christ more.
The very fact that, in the first text, the man is spoken of as hating "his own life," indicates the figurative or relative sense in which the term is there employed.
Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee.
Children, obey your parents in all things: for this is well pleasing unto the Lord.
And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.
And he said unto another, Follow me. But he said, Lord, suffer me first to go and bury my father. Jesus said unto him, Let the dead bury their dead: but go thou and preach the kingdom of God.
We have elsewhere seen that the text from Matthew speaks of spiritual relations. "Take no man as an authoritative, infallible guide in matters of religion." It does not prohibit our paying to our parents due honor. It merely forbids our "trusting in man, and making flesh our arm."138 As to the case cited from Luke, Theophylact supposes that the disciple asked permission to reside with his father till his death. If the father were still living, Jesus may have foreseen that he would live for a considerable time, so that delay was needless.
Alford:139 Suffer the spiritually dead to bury the literally dead; the reason of our Lord's rebuke being the peremptory and all-superseding nature of the command, Follow me.
Doubtless Jesus knew that there were a sufficient number of relatives at this man's house to attend to the duty of interment when necessary; also, that, if the man once went back home, he would be over-persuaded to remain, and so never engage in the great work of preaching the gospel.
The case was an exceptional one, simply implying that all other things must be made subordinate to the gospel.
Children put to death.
If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them: then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place; and they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard. And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.
And, ye fathers, provoke not your children to wrath: but bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord.
138 See Jeremiah 17:5. 139On Matthew 8:21-22.
Fathers, provoke not your children to anger, lest they be discouraged.
With regard to the apparently severe law in Deuteronomy, observe:
That it is a son, and not a daughter. That he is "stubborn" and "rebellious," a "glutton" and a "drunkard." The parents are the only allowed plaintiffs, and both must concur in the complaint to make it a legal one. He is brought before the elders of the city, and an investigation is had into the merits of the case.
That no case is on record in which a person was put to death under this law.
That the mere fact of the existence of such a law would tend strongly to confirm the authority of parents, and to deter youth from disobedience and unfilial conduct.
A fixed residence.
Command the children of Israel, that they give unto the Levites of the inheritance of their possession cities to dwell in; and ye shall give also unto the Levites suburbs for the cities round about them. . . . So all the cities which ye shall give to the Levites shall be forty and eight cities.
Numbers 35:2, 7
They were sojourners.
Take heed to thyself that thou forsake not the Levite as long as thou livest upon the earth.
And the Levite that is within thy gates; thou shalt not forsake him: for he hath no part nor inheritance with thee.
Mr. Plumptre:140 "If they were to have, like other tribes, a distinct territory assigned to them, their influence over the people at large would be diminished, and they themselves would be likely to forget, in labors common to them with
140 Smith's Bib. Diet., ii. 1640.
others, their own peculiar calling. Jehovah, therefore, was to be their inheritance. They were to have no territorial possessions."
Ewald:141 "The Levites, not being destined to agriculture, held with each city only the meadows thereto belonging, for the pasturage of some cattle, but not its arable land or homesteads. Thus the ancient city of Hebron became a priestly city; but its land devolved upon Caleb."
The same great critic, speaking of the subsequent neglect of assigned cities, says the entire system fell into confusion, as is clear not only from its never being mentioned in later times as still existing, but still more from the fact that at a later period quite different places appear as Levitical cities, in which the Levites, driven from their first abodes, had taken refuge.
Keil thinks, that as the Canananites were not immediately destroyed or driven out, the Levites did not forthwith come into possession of their cities, but temporarily sojourned elsewhere. Besides, it does not appear that they were compelled to reside in the specified cities. Some of them may have chosen to reside elsewhere; but wherever they were, they were dependent, for their support, upon the tithes and offerings of the people. These considerations relieve the alleged difficulty.
Possessed a stated revenue.
I have given the children of Levi all the tenth in Israel for an inheritance, for their service which they serve, even the service of the tabernacle of the congregation. . . . The tithes of the children of Israel, which they offer as a heave offering unto the Lord, I have given to the Levites to inherit.
Numbers 18:21, 24
Classed with mendicants.
At the end of three years thou shalt bring forth all the tithe of thine increase the same year, and shalt lay it up within thy gates: and the Levite, (because he hath no part nor inheritance with thee,) and the stranger, and the fatherless, and the widow, which are within thy gates, shall come, and shall eat and be satisfied.
Mr. Plumptre142 says, "As if to provide for the contingency of failing crops or the like, and the consequent inadequacy of the tithes thus assigned to them, the Levite, not less than the widow and the orphan, was commended to the special kindness of the people."
The tithe spoken of in Deuteronomy 14 was a second, or "vegetable" tithe, and not the one appointed for the support of the priests and Levites. It was to be employed, not in furnishing a maintenance for the priests and Levites, but
141 Hist, of Israel, ii. 309-310.
142 Smith's Bib. Diet., loc. cit.
to promote charity and brotherly feeling, and to gather the religious life and associations of the people around the sanctuary.143 In a word, the Levite was to be invited, not because of mendicancy on his part, but to give by his presence a kind of religious character to the feast.
THE TITHE OF DEUT. 14 WAS THE THIRD TITHE NOT THE SECOND; IT WAS EVERY THIRD YEAR IN A 7 YEAR CYCLE, SO 3RD AND 6TH, THEN THE 7TH. THEN STARTING AGAIN, THE 3RD AND 6TH OF THE NEXT 7 YEARS, AND SO ON - Keith Hunt
And the king of Egypt called for the midwives, and said unto them, Why have ye done this thing, and have saved the men children alive? And the mid-wives said unto Pharaoh, Because the Hebrew women are not as the Egyptian women; for they are lively, and are delivered ere the midwives come in unto them. Therefore God dealt well with the midwives.
And the woman took the two men, and hid them, and said thus, There came men unto me, but I wist not whence they were\ and it came to pass about the time of shutting of the gate, when it was dark, that the men went out: whither the men went, I wot not.
Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works.
Thou shalt not bear false witness
against thy neighbour.
Lying lips are abomination to the Lord. Proverbs 12:22
Wherefore putting away lying, speak every man truth with his neighbour: for we are members one of another. Ephesians 4:25
Lie not one to another, seeing that ye have put off the old man with his deeds.
All liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.
As to the Hebrew midwives; if they did tell a lie, it was done to avoid committing murder. Of two evils, they chose the less. But there is no proof that they were guilty of falsehood. The king seems to have accepted their explanation of the case, which rested upon a well-known physiological fact.
Macdonald:144 "In proportion as the sentence of toil common to the race, is in any instance mitigated in favor of the female, her own peculiar sentence is only thereby aggravated." The testimony of the rationalist, Von Bohlen,145 is even more emphatic as to the immunity from pain, enjoyed in certain circumstances by females inured to toil. Murphy suggests that the Hebrew mothers, knowing Pharaoh's order, did not admit the midwife, and she did not intrude, if it could be avoided, until after the birth had occurred.
143 Bible Com., Introd. to Deuteronomy Sec. v.
144Introd. to Pent. i. 386.
145 Illustrations of Genesis, 2:60.
As to Rahab's case, several things are to be considered.
Having been reared in the darkness of heathenism, she could not be expected to understand fully the wrong of falsehood.
She was influenced by a desire to preserve her own life. She felt that the only way to secure this end, in the impending overthrow of the city, would be to place the victors under previous obligation by saving the lives of their spies.
James says she was "justified," not by her words, but by her "works." Keil: The course she adopted was a sin of weakness which was forgiven her in mercy because of her faith.
Several other cases of similar nature, are discussed elsewhere.
AS STATED SOMETIMES YOU HAVE TO CHOOSE THE LEAST SINFUL IN THE SITUATION. IF TELLING THE NAZIS DURING WW2 YOU WERE NOT PROTECTING JEWS [WHEN YOU WERE] SO THEY WOULD NOT BE SENT TO CAMPS WHERE THEY WOULD PROBABLY BE KILLED, THEN THAT IS THE LEAST OF TECHNICAL SINS. THE COMMANDMENT MAY ALSO BE REGARDED AS BEING APPLIED UNDER "NORMAL" CIRCUMSTANCES, AND/OR TO DELIBERATELY GAIN SOMETHING TO BENEFIT YOU BY FALSE PRETENCE. SO AN ATTITUDE OF MIND IS ALSO INVOLVED - Keith Hunt
And the Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone:
I will make him a help meet for him.
Whoso findeth a wife, findeth a good
thing, and obtaineth favor of the Lord.
For this cause shall a man leave father and mother,
and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?
Let every man have his own wife, and let every
woman have her own husband.
1 Corinthians 7:2
Marriage is honourable in all.
It is good for a man not to touch a woman....
I say therefore to the unmarried and widows,
It is good for them if they abide even as I....
I suppose therefore that this is good for the present distress,
I say, that it is good for a man so to be....
Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife....
He that is unmarried careth for the things that belong to the Lord,
how he may please the Lord. But he that is married,
careth for the things that are of the world, how he may please his wife....
He that giveth her not in marriage doeth better.
1 Corinthians 7:1, 8, 26-27, 32-33, 38
These last passages which seem to discountenance wedlock were intended for a specific application. Paul foresaw the impending calamity and persecution which was threatening the Corinthian church, and knowing that the formation of new ties of affection would expose men to increased suffering, he advised against it. The man who had a wife and children could be made to suffer intensely on their account; the unmarried man would escape this augmented pain. "I think, then," says Paul, "that it is best, by reason of the trials which are nigh at hand, for all to be unmarried."146 Alford147 says that the language was addressed to the Corinthians "as advising them under circumstances in
146Conybeare's translation. 147Vol.ii.p.519.
which persecution and family divisions for the Gospel's sake, might at any time break up the relations of life." Nothing in this advice discourages matrimony abstractly considered.
With a brothers widow, enjoined.
If brethren dwell together, and one of
them die, and have no child, the wife of
the dead shall not marry without unto
a stranger: her husband's brother shall
go in unto her, and take her to him to
The same prohibited.
And if a man shall take his brother's wife, it is an unclean thing: he hath uncovered his brother's nakedness; they shall be childless.
May not the text at the right refer to the divorced wife of a living brother? It is provided that, after a woman has received "a bill of divorcement" from her husband, she may "go and be another mans wife."148 Is not the above text intended to preclude her marriage with a brother of her recent husband? This seems quite possible.
Keil,149 however, maintains that the prohibition in Leviticus only refers to cases in which the deceased brother had left children; for if he had died childless, the brother not only might, but was required to, marry his sister-in-law. That is, if the widow was childless, her brother-in-law must marry her; if she had children, he was forbidden to do so.
Augustine, Aben Ezra, Michaelis, and the Septuagint take the words, "they shall be childless" as denoting that their children shall be reckoned to the departed brother, they shall be without posterity, so far as the public records show. In a civil sense, they would be childless.
THE MAN COULD REFUSE TO MARRY HIS BROTHER'S WIFE FOR VARIOUS REASONS; SEE THE CASE WITH RUTH (BOOK OF RUTH) THEN ANOTHER MAN COULD MARRY HER. SO IT WAS NOT A SET IN CONCRETE LAW. THE LEVITICUS 20:21 MAY SIMPLY BE REFERRING TO SEXUAL IMMORALITY, BUT AS IT INVOLVES CHILDREN PROBABLY THE EXPLANATION GIVEN ABOVE, A DIVORCED WIFE OF A LIVING BROTHER - THE OTHER BROTHER NOT MARRYING HER; IF IT WAS SO, THEIR CHILDREN WOULD BE WITHOUT POSTERITY SO FAR AS THE PUBLIC RECORDS SHOW. CIVIL SENSE, THEY WOULD BE CHILDLESS - Keith Hunt
Due to rulers.
I counsel thee to keep the king's commandment, and that in regard of the oath of God.
Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.... Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake.
Romans 13:1-2, 5
Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme; or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well.
1 Peter 2:13-14
Sometimes to be withheld.
But the midwives feared God, and did not as the king of Egypt commanded them. . . . Therefore God dealt well with the midwives.
Exodus 1:17, 20
Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, answered and said to the king, O Nebuchadnezzar, we are not careful to answer thee in this matter. ... Be it known unto thee, O king, that we will
not serve thy gods, nor worship the golden image which thou hast set up.
Daniel 3:16, 18
Daniel, which is of the children of the captivity of Judah, regardeth not thee, O king, nor the decree that thou hast signed, but maketh his petition three times a day.
But Peter and John answered and said unto them, Whether it be right in the sight of God to hearken unto you more than unto God, judge ye.
We ought to obey God rather than man.
148 Deuteronomy 24:1-2. 149On Leviticus 18:16.
The first series of texts involves these principles:
That civil government is instituted by God for a specific object, the encouragement of virtue and the suppression of vice; "for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well."
That so long as civil government keeps in its proper sphere, we are under solemn obligation to yield obedience.
THE LAST SENTENCE IS IMPORTANT! YOU DO NOT HAVE TO RESPECT, HONOR, AND OBEY, GOVERNMENTS LIKE ADOLPH HITLER. GOVERNMENTS THAT RESPECT PEOPLE, GRANT FREEDOM OF RELIGION, HAVE GOOD HUMAN LAWS, THOSE WE ARE TO RESPECT AND HONOR, EVEN PRAY FOR THYAT THEY MAY CONTINUE AS SUCH. THE THE DAYS OF THE APOSTLES ROME DID HAVE SUCH LAWS; THEY GAVE FREEDOM TO THE JEWS TO HAVE THEIR TEMPLE AND RELIGION; THEY HAD OTHER GOOD LAWS OF THE LAND; THEY FOUND NO EVIL IN THE MAN CHRIST JESUS AND WOULD HAVE SET HIM FREE - Keith Hunt
From the second series may be legitimately inferred:
That civil government has no right to command or compel us to do anything contrary to the law of God.
That when civil government transcends its proper sphere, when it enjoins unrighteous acts, it then becomes our imperative duty to refuse obedience. In a word, the "higher law" takes the precedence of all human laws. In all the five cases, obedience to unrighteous, therefore nonobligatory, commands, was properly withheld.
Due to masters.
Servants, obey in all things your masters according to the flesh; not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but in singleness of heart, fearing God.
Servants, be subject to your masters with all fear; not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward.
1 Peter 2:18
To God only.
Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God,
and him only shalt thou serve.
One is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren.
Ye are bought with a price; be not ye the servants of men.
1 Corinthians 7:23
The first series refers to civil obedience, or obedience in secular matters; the last relates to worship and religious service.
OBVIOUSLY IF THE SERVICE IN CIVIL AND SECULAR MATTERS WOULD BE AGAINST THE LAWS OF GOD, YOU WOULD NOT COMPLY, BUT OBEY GOD FIRST. A RECENT CASE IN 2015. A LADY IN CHARFE AND WORKING FOR A CIVIL GOVERNMENT, REFUSED TO GIVE MARRIAGE LICENSES TO SAME SEX COUPLES IN THE USA. SHE WAS PUT IN PRISON FOR 5 DAYS; THE CIVIL DEPARTMENT OF HER STATE, SAID SHE SHOULD GIVE OUT THE LICENSES TO SAME SEX COUPLE, SHE SAID SHE COULD NOT GO AGAINST THE LAWS OF GOD; SHE HAD TO OBEY GOD FIRST AND FOREMOST - Keith Hunt
Rendered to the scribes.
The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat: all therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.
They must be shunned.
Beware of the scribes, which love to go in long clothing, and love salutations in the marketplaces.... Which devour widows' houses, and for a pretence make long prayers: these shall receive greater damnation.
Mark 12:38, 40
The idea is, Follow their precepts, but shun their practice. Do as they say, but not as they do.
IT IS ALSO DO AS THEY SAY WHEN THEY SAY WHAT IS GOOD AND RIGHT AND WITHIN GOD'S LAWS; DO NOT FOLLOW HYPOCRITES - Keith Hunt
Moreover if thy brother shall trespass
against thee, go and tell him his fault
between thee and him alone: if he
shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy
Against an elder receive not an accusation, but before two or three witnesses. Them that sin rebuke before all, that others also may fear.
1 Timothy 5:19-20
The first text refers to private, personal wrongs, the second, to open, public offences against peace and good order.
Alford, on the first text: "This direction is only in case of personal offence against ourselves, and then the injured person is to seek private explanation, and that by going to Ms injurer, not waiting till he comes to apologize."
This commentator, with Huther and most others, applies the second quotation to sinning presbyters or "elders," who are to be openly rebuked, that the whole church may fear on seeing the public disgrace consequent on sin. Ellicott thinks that the present participle employed directs the thought towards the habitually sinful character of the offender, and his need of an open rebuke.
THE FIRST IS TO INDIVIDUALS; THE SECOND TO ELDER LEADERSHIP PEOPLE IN THE CHURCH, UPON TWO OR THREE WITNESSES, AND WHERE PRIVATE REBUKE HAS FAILED - Keith Hunt
Pleasing of men
Let every one of us please his neighbour
for his good to edification.
To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some.
1 Corinthians 9:22
Even as I please all men in all things, not seeking mine own profit, but the profit of many, that they may be saved.
1 Corinthians 10:33
For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ.
Not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but as the servants of Christ.
Even so we speak; not as pleasing men, but God, which trieth our hearts.
1 Thessalonians 2:4
In the first texts, we see that Christian gentleness and self-forgetfulness which is ever ready to waive, so far as is proper, its own claims and preferences, in order to win men to the truth.
The latter texts discountenance that time-serving, sycophantic spirit which unhesitatingly sacrifices principle to popularity, and to the furtherance of its own sinister ends.
A. Fuller:150 "The one is conduct which has the glory of God and the good of mankind for its object; the other originates and terminates in self. The former is that sweet inoffensiveness of spirit which teaches us to lay aside all self-will and self-importance. The latter is that sordid compliance with the corruptions of human nature, of which flatterers and deceivers have always availed themselves, not for the glory of God, nor the good of men, but for the promotion of their own selfish designs."
TO BE CONTINUED