Woodshed Workshop
Blessed is the man whom You chasten, O Lord, and whom You teach out of Your law; Psalm 94:12 NASB
Chasten – “Spiritual stress is a major source of unhappiness.”[1] If you haven’t encountered this truth about life, perhaps you missed a growth experience. Far too often we wish for a life of ease, thinking that a good God would certainly want us to be comfortable. What a mistake! Does any child mature in the lap of luxury? Growth requires stress. Maturity requires strain. God’s blessings often come in the form of woodshed experiences.
“We are, by nature, conflicted beings. There is a constant struggle within our minds and hearts between our self-centered animalistic self and our altruistic Godly self. To be engaged in this struggle is not a negative thing. On the contrary: God’s objective was to create an imperfect and conflicted world, and that his ‘partner in creation’—us human beings—should be imperfect and conflicted. Our engagement is this struggle, and the small daily victories we score, is at the heart of our calling in life.”[2]
To put it bluntly, growing hurts. Stress and strain are essential in the effort to complete the creation. There is a very good reason why the prime directive involves kabash (to subdue, keep under, force). Genesis establishes the program of completion and you and I play an essential part. Kabash entails effort to overcome hostility. Life is a fight—for good reason. Both the aggressor and the opponent are changed. We are called to recover the relationship with the Father with all of our might and all of His help.
The Hebrew verb here is yasar, “to discipline, correct, instruct.” TWOT notes:
That Deut 8:5 uses the comparative expression “as a man disciplines his son” is not without covenantal and theological significance. The ancient treaties often refer to the suzerain king as a father and to the vassal as his son (cf. McCarthy, CBQ 27:144–47). In Moses’ covenant hymn we read that Yahweh is referred to as Father (Deut 32:6; cf. 1:31; Isa 1:2) of the covenant people (although Ex 4:22; Deut 1:31 teach the same concept). Hence, the theological basis for an earthly father’s discipline over his son is in the covenant. He bears the image of his covenant Lord, and as such stands in parallel relationship over his children—chastening, correcting, instructing, providing—which are expressions of an interpersonal relationship of love.[3]
Why is this struggling person happy? Because struggle is the soil of love. What grows from struggle is something that has meaning, that matters. Struggle births bonding. What I fight for lasts.
Topical Index: yasar, struggle, discipline, kabash, subdue, Psalm 94:12
[1] Rabbi Mordechain Dinerman, Rabbi Yanki Tauber, David Pelcovitz, How Happiness Thinks (Jewish Learning Institute, 2014), p. 145.
[2] Ibid.
[3] Gilchrist, P. R. (1999). 877 יָסַר. In R. L. Harris, G. L. Archer, Jr. & B. K. Waltke (Eds.), Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament.
Skip good morning shalom aleichem I like what you said why is this struggling person happy what grows from struggle is something that has meaning that matters struggle births bonding what I fight for lasts. Makes me think of putting for the goal hope the High Calling which is in Christ Hallelujah. What God wants for me is in Christ not in self!
PS putting it simply was it that the tree in the garden the knowledge of Good and Evil must be discerned from God’s perspective not our own!! This brings freedom and liberation
Major Objection Alert:
“God’s objective was to create an imperfect and conflicted world”. With all due respect, that is simply not what I read in Genesis. That is not the Creator I know. The mess is our fault, not His. We did not have to eat from the Tree. That would be what the occult teaches; that we are better off by eating from the Tree. We are not. We are better off afterwards than before only because heaven ran major interference for us; not because we ran interference with heaven.
I am registering an objection to the above premise of why there is evil in the world. Why is because of us, not Him, and we were not smarter for doing it, either. The One who built the potential for it was NOT the one who pushed the first pebble in the avalanche. The above quote accuses our Creator of being responsible for suffering. That is not true! We were created capable of creating our own disaster all by ourselves. We didn’t need any help. That is what true choice looks like. Creation is not built on the basis of disaster, either. There was nothing but “good, very good” the first time around. What we have done since has not been very creative. We have been – excuse me, rabbis – very destructive.
Occult teachings sow confusion, for that is what they were designed to do, and you will not find their basis in the Bible, either. This teaching sounds like it was lifted out of something coming from that direction – from the occult Kabbalah (please correct me) – and does not look like anything I have ever read in the Bible. I do not want to go quoting several of the top leaders of the modern occult, but that is a statement that all of them have made in various ways, and is a major premise behind the whole basis for the occult, which worships evil as the greater ‘good’ and Lucifer as the smarter dude, too, by the way.
Could we try again on this one, please?
Hi Laurita,
First of all: It is good to see independent opinion expressed.
My opinion is that we are still in the sixth day. After all the process of the “Big Bang” is still ongoing.
In addition… I shy away from the notions of “evil” and assigning blame: It should not be about “whose fault it is” but “what learning and intervening opportunity was missed”.
So…
“…there was chaos and there was order, Day One”
And we are still engaged (either passive or active) in the chaos part of Day Six.
[A last opinion which I probably should keep to myself: The occult is a popular denomination of “christianity” and (as is common practice) fill their coffers by fear-mongering]
Thank you, Pieter.
Who started chaos? The Creator? That is direct occultic teaching, but NOT Biblical. Show me the verses, and I will show you what the occult says, and we can compare.
Struggle is how WE learn, now, for the Tree is where we chose it. The sinless pair did not struggle. They obeyed. Until the fruit was eaten, there was no struggle. In fact, to obey is to QUIT struggling. This is called rest, and we are all encouraged to enter into it. We can have it right now! This is the gospel! Struggle is not inherent to righteousness. Witness the inhabitants of heaven and who knows how many other countless unfallen universal inhabitants who chose never to sin. Sin makes us WEAK, not strong! Sure we are struggling now back out of the mess, but we made the mess, not our Creator, that is my whole contention. He did not throw us in this slime pit. We jumped, and, contrary to occult thought (AND the teachings of Marxism, by the way), it was not what both refer to as a “fall UP”. I am arguing with the occult emphasis on the origins of our struggle; not with the outcome of struggle for us.
We are only able to struggle because of grace. Under natural law, our first mistake would be our last. No struggle possible. WE chose to learn this way. No one chose for us, that is what I am saying. The above quote directly accuses God of making our disaster FOR us. That would make us pitiful. We are not. Sin, which creates the place to be struggled out of, has always been, and will always be, optional. The fact that we are learning (growing) through struggle does not in any way ‘prove’ that struggle is necessary. That logic does not even hold up to a simple truth table. It doesn’t even make sense: much less is there Biblical ‘proof’ supplied. That is because I contend that there isn’t any.
r.e. chaos: the chaos (milieu) of creation is not what I am referring to. That chaos did not cause struggle in the universe; in fact, the Creator sorted it out before He put us in that universe. The chaos I am talking about is the mess that we are struggling in now. We made that chaos. Different chaos. DIfferent outcomel
Yes, by Chaos I am referring to the “darkness” which He called “night”.But also to the initial stages of the other “days”.
All is coming to order (light) through process under “laws” (Torah), of nature, of cultural interaction, etc. as it is meant to be by the Ancient of Days.
My understanding why we collectively perceive and experience struggle (and the state of the world) is because order (The Day of YHWH) is in process and not complete. The chaos of the sixth day is what we experience now.
The sinless pair had an experience of the 7th day but then and ever since the results of free will was allowed.
Those who are trouble free, are not part of the process and may never eventually experience The Day.
I agree with you about obedience, but would put it that: when we learn to constantly walk (act) in obedience through wisdom and understanding, our struggle will be over. And it will be morning (order), the Seventh Day. As you say this can happen tomorrow on a personal level.
Part of the wisdom and understanding is that YHWH is indeed the origin of everything. Night and darkness; Good and bad (evil); Blessings and curses. He is not “making our disasters” but providing our opportunities.
Otherwise we would not have choices and creation would have no meaning.
The catch 22 is that one can only honestly glorify the Creator if you have free will.
Hi Laurita,
While I fully agree with your premise that “the mess is our fault” we can look back and see that it was YHVH that placed us in the garden, the same garden that housed the serpent. He set us/our world up for conflict and choices. If it were a world without conflict everything ran perfectly why would he need to assign us to any task or mission to “take dominion?” I see that the conflict was created for us and us for the conflict. Taking Skip’s words, “God’s objective was to create an imperfect and conflicted world, and that his ‘partner in creation’—us human beings—should be imperfect and conflicted.” – I don’t imagine he means “imperfect” as in corrupted or contaminated with sin but perhaps incomplete, not perfectly developed. Skip, can you clarify?
Please look at the footnotes. The quotation that is causing ‘heartburn’ is from Rabbi Mordechain Dinerman, Rabbi Yanki Tauber, David Pelcovitz, from their book “How Happiness Thinks”, not Skip Moen
Good point. That is why my beef is with “the quote” and “the rabbis”.
Laurita, I can see your concerns, but if you do not have YHWH creating all this exactly the way it is (for the reasons the rabbis and Skip point out and possibly other reasons that are yet unknowable) then you have Him as a First Responder to the mess we created rather than the cause of all causes and then for what reason was Yeshua from before the foundation of the earth crucified? Find the balance.
True, but, Michael, when my children were little I gave them matches and told them to build fires. If they had chosen to burn down my house It would have been my fault (ultimate cause), but only at the expense of it being any of their responsibility. You cannot have free choice without that responsibility, nor trust either, for that matter. It was not – read my lips – NOT my will that they burn the place down, nor was it in my heart that they would have somehow been better off for doing so.
P.S. My trust was justified. They learned about fire without burning us all out of house and home. I think that they would not have been ‘stronger’ for doing that; on the contrary, they would have been scarred for life. Potential for disaster is built into all chaos systems, but disaster is still neither the SOURCE of order nor is it the goal (contrary to what I think the above statement is saying). If it were, then the best way for us to bring love into existence would be to immediately burn the house down! The only purpose of that potential (and not the realization of it) is to make love possible: not to be the source or the definition of that love. Love does not need disaster to be love. Our foundation is firm (order): remember? Love was around long before our little apple incident.
I understand that it was not your will that your children burn down the house, but by giving them free choice and the matches did you realize the real possibility of both good and evil. But, I suggest, it come into existence when you thought of it- maybe even years before you even ever had children,( dreaming and planning how you would raise those children to become mature, loving responsible adults). At the point of giving them the matches both you and they were prepared for the possibility of disaster …well, maybe not they so much, but you obviously were. The same with us and God in the situation in the garden.
Do you think that if we accuse God of what we think is “evil” that you are committing blasphmey? Undoubtedly our concept of God is too narrow, but in saying that I am not accusing you personally any specific lack. I know you too well from reading your previous comments these past few years to think you are shallow or lacking in any theology, philosophy or understanding. Perhaps I am too attached to my view and I am unable to see your POV. While some tend to think that sin and our fall was and is a such a HUGE problem that it could not possibly be part of a bigger plan, I do not. Nor do I discount the cost to fix our mess.
The fact that the serpant brought the gasoline and handed Chavah the matches is, in my worldview, part of the whole plan. Satan had already been kicked out of the heavens, but where did he set up shop? Was it a coincidence that the newest member of the family of God…the 2 legged, hairy bipedal creatures who were made in the image of God-were on that same planet? God is able to kill 2 birds with one pit of that fruit. The eventual judgement of Satan, our future redemption and the installation of Yeshua as King over the redeemed Universe were the seeds planted by that fall. Our history as humans has been the watering of those plants and our struggle to weed, cultivate and harvest the fruits of the fallen flesh and God’s intervention to save us from our folly, flesh and fall.
It was not the disaster that was the goal, but the resulting lessons of love, trust, obedience, faith, chesed and so much more that could “best” be realized by the failure. So we have a conundrum. As with most concepts in the Hebraic system it is both this and that, yes and no, a tension that we must learn to live with and learn from. Thanks for your response and patience.
I get it, but, Michael, I want to ask, if the Tree was a true choice, then would not there have been a way to learn through obedience – instead of through experience – if the fruit had stayed on the Tree? Is not obedience still the BEST way to learn? I asked my children to please take responsibility for their fires. They did. No disaster necessary.
Yes and Amen. We do learn through obedience and we suffer in that testing, but so did Yeshua. He was victorious and because of His victory over sin, flesh, the world and death we too can reenter the garden by our faithfulness and we will appreciate it all the more because we were not only lost, but dead and are now found and finding our way back with joy!
Halleluah!
Hmmmm, now might be a good place for you to examine your stance on AA, as they stridently teach that ‘truth is learned at the bottom’.
If it doesn’t ring clear, here, then why would it be sanctified there?
Out of chaos, order…a truly occultic concept.
bcp, as you know, I do not subscribe to that church; I only say that they are doing what we all should be, in large part, but not all. Those organizations have been made politically correct so as to achieve a status in our society, but I do not agree with the compromises they had to do to accomplish that. And I don’t know what you meant by “truth is learned at the bottom”. I know that is where I became convinced of it, but the bottom is not what ‘creates’ it. The bottom, for me, is where I QUIT suffering, not started. Suffering, as a wise person observed, is optional. We are doing it to ourselves. YHVH wants us to quit. He calls it rest, or, shalom. Suffering may produce saints, but that does not mean suffering was made in heaven. Suffering was made in hell, with which we, unfortunately, have yet to fall out of agreement with. That is not YHVH’s fault. Refinement (suffering) is only needed for things that have become impure. Even Skip has to agree that we did not start out in that condition. That is the condition we have chosen. No One chose it for us. I rest my case.
When God said that everything He created was good, I don’t think He meant that everything was perfect. God built into creation the notion of choice. You’re right, Laurita. It’s our own choices that have made such a mess of things. But make no doubt. God is, by virtue of His making everything good and not perfect, able to clean things up. He is also the One responsible for the way things are in the first place. You can’t do that with perfection. Perfect is already…well, perfect. Good you can make just a little bit better.
You are wise, Thomas. I never said we were made perfect, but obedience is the way to that perfection; not disobedience or even the fruit of disobedience, which is suffering. Note our Example, Who caused NO chaos, and therefore Who’s sum total of suffering was ours, not His. He learned obedience through suffering; not because He didn’t already know it, but because He is our Door, and we follow Him. We should learn it through ours, too, and we will know when we are obeying, for the suffering in that place quits, and peace begins. The way back is through obedience, not penances (suffering). That would be what paganism teaches. Suffering is there to convince us to let go of death and suffering is simply evidence of someone’s rebellion – either ours or others – not evidence of righteousness nor even the bedrock (source) of that righteousness (love). That would be obedience, not suffering. Again.
I 100% agree with you Laurita.
As a side note – Honestly, It just doesn’t take an awful lot of effort to research rabbinic Judaism over the last 1000 plus years to see how entrenched it has been in mysticism. I see so many messianic believers fall prey to the different Judaism’s it’s not even funny. We just simply can’t look at rabbinic Judaism and have much of an understanding of 1st-century culture.
I look at rabbinic writings, but, I sure don’t base or walk my faith out on them. Surely it has value but, it’s not a very good example of how our Messiah and His disciples lived out they’re faith.
Mark, to be fair, as in the many thousand Christianity denominations, Judaism has a few sects as well, so brushing them all in one broad stroke, would be saying all Christianity denominations or, Christians, have the same beliefs, or same teachers.
I would say strongly, many, many, by the thousands, of Christians are not only leaving churches to learn from sound rabbis who speak and read Hebrew, according to Zech 8:23, are being fulfilled these days.
These are humble, HUNGRY and thirsty Believers who are digging and seeking YHWH with all their hearts and souls.
I pray you will be one of them. Shalom!
I didn’t say everything rabbinic is bad and everything christian is good. But, I am saying the majority of rabbinic Judaism is very much sold on Jewish mysticism. Nothing good can come of that from a messianic perspective.
kabbalah/Jewish mysticism is occult. Granted not all rabbi’s study it but many do. So, I’m just not clear on what a follower of Yeshua can learn or benefit from that. And I highly suggest, that believers in Yeshua Messiah which are hungry, thirsty, digging and seeking YHVH, NOT study under such individuals. Merely speaking and reading Hebrew does not a good teacher make.
Way before any other faith came into being, the only GOD Who was worshipped was YHWH Almighty, right from the Garden of Eden, where GOD spoke to Ahdam (meaning of the earth in Hebrew) and Hawah while walking in the garden, teaching them in the very first language spoken (HEBREW), what is permitted and what is forbidden.
Kabbalah came 4000 years ago, way after Torah, given at Sinai to renew their memory after being enslaved in Egypt for many generations, was passed on down the generations by word/Oral of mouth, until writing was invented.
Rabbis who are brought up in a Hebrew culture, reading their Tanakh from a very young age, memorizing Sacred Texts being the norm, would immediately recognize the GENUINE from the altered, such as the many translated versions.
Read The Grammer of GOD by Aviya Kushner, recommended and often quoted by Skip.
Shalom.
All due respect Ester, we have no clue what language Adam or Chava spoke. That would be pure speculation. The study of etymology is very interesting but by all historical accounts, the language of Hebrew, more likely than not, wasn’t spoken in the garden. Abraham probably didn’t even speak Hebrew.
If we want to look at the traditional rabbinic understanding, Kabbalah dates from Eden. Which is just a way of justifying it however, historically, we have pretty good evidence, that what we see of it today, dates back to around the 10th or 11th century.
So, that goes to my point, which was that, yes, most of Rabbinic Judaism does in fact study and practice this mystic/occultish stuff. And no, I do not think it wise to encourage young believers that are thirsty for Yeshua to be led down that slippery slope.
It’s a strawman argument to think just because one is a Jewish Rabbi, raised in rabbinic Judaism, read and speak Hebrew, they would be better to learn biblical principles from. Let alone how to be a disciple of Yeshua. I do not automatically assume that just because I’m reading something from the Talmud, or hearing a Jewish Rabbi speak, that I’m all the sudden more enlightened to scripture.
If we are His, then we have the Spirit of the living God within us. If we put in the hard work, take the time to learn the languages, history and culture, we can surely learn and know what we need to without having to sit under a Rabbi that thinks it’s a good way to exegete scripture through mysticism.
you might enjoy this one the topic
https://www.amazon.com/Origin-Language-Tracing-Evolution-Mother/dp/0471159638
Thanks, Skip. I have read the few opened pages. It is not comprehensive.
Interestingly, “Languages have evolved from one main language.”
Phoenician language, is the oldest verified, older than 1050 BCE came from Egpyt, which came from the lineage of Ham, Noach’s son.
Gen 10; 5 Of these were the isles of the nations divided in their lands, every one after his tongue, after their families, in their nations.
Shalom!
I am sure you would find the argument of the book quite interesting. As for Phoenician, there are older languages, as the book makes clear. The real issue is whether or not there is a common tongue behind all of the variations.
As for the biblical reference, remember that Genesis is NOT history in the sense that we understand history. It is the narrative necessary for the children of Israel leaving Egypt to have the foundation they need to become a nation. It may not reflect the actual events, and I do not believe it is intended to do so. To apply our idea of history to this document is a category mistake.
Thanks, Skip. I do believe there IS a common tongue behind all of the various languages, a related connection, in the least.
I see Hebrew in the English language, and Chinese in the Japanese. Hebrew and Chinese are expressed/ written in the same sort of root-system.
French and German are quite similar too to Hebrew.
One can often mistake Hebrew to be French. Once we had Hebrew songs playing, and some friends remarked “beautiful French songs”!
And, of course, when we play Israeli prayers, they sound Islamic.
Shalom!
Please explain that better, Skip? Archaeology has already borne out far more as “historical” than it ever has any of the other ‘myths’ of other cultures, right down to the list of nations recorded in Gen. 10.
Dear Mark,
“Abraham probably didn’t even speak Hebrew.” Would a person be called a Hebrew, and not speak Hebrew? An Englishman not speak English?
“Kabbalah dates from Eden.” ” historically, we have pretty good evidence, that what we see of it today, dates back to around the 10th or 11th century.”
How long ago would that period be, from Eden to 10th or 11th century?
WHERE did kabbalah come from in Gan Eden, where the very air is unpolluted?
“… wise to encourage young believers that are thirsty for Yeshua”
I would definitely not, these days, encourage ANYONE, repeat, ANYONE who are thirsty “for Yeshua”, to learn from Christianity, NOR their “NT’s” inconsistent, altered, misquoted texts. Check that out, text by text, within contexts.
PLease read Zech 8:23, with a word of caution- not to go against the Word of the GOD of Israel, your Creator. Shalom.
I think you should be a bit careful in defining a 3000 – 5000 year old practice as occult, since the word occult was only first used in 1881. On our last visit to Israel, our tour guide, David took serious issue this Christian definition and view of Kaballah. Indepth explanations, with a full days visit to Sfad, the capital of Kaballah explained a lot. Mystical is very much Hebrew while Magic is not. I dont understand how you can decide that nothing good can come of it? If God can use an wicked Persian king or a donkey or a rock, surely He can use Kaballah if He wants to?
Well said, Luzette!
King Cyrus, mentioned 22 times in the Tanakh, was the king of kings, GOD’s anointed/messiah shepherd.
Shalom!
interestingly by the time of the first century Judaism was also more sectarian than expected, the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls which gave acute insight into the Qumran community adds to the awareness of different groups in the Gospels as with Josephus’ commentary on differing Jewish groups
whilst it is not popular to say Judaism also underwent substantial revision (at a considerable loss of intellectual thought about spiritual ideas) after the first century in response to ‘Messianic’ Judaism (i.e. Christianity). And yet one way or the other we all appear to be enmeshed in Babylon at this time, the extent of confusion is well beyond the individual’s or human capacity to resolve, these matters can only be fully undone at the end of this time in history
we could suppose there are two phases here, the first created in harmony, the second when humans were exiled and where nature was confounded (Genesis 3:17)
at this time we do inhere some measure of responsibility and thus the need to develop, we can reconcile this later condition with the former without leading to a polysemous interpretation of God’s will for humans, from the beginning to our present conditions
that said I do suspect, and this is only speculation on my part, that evil influences more than our emotions or experiences, to some extent we can possibly theorise even the intrinsic nature of existence and even our personal natures have been addled
I think what you read in Genesis is about God’s creation being GOOD, not perfect. It is common Christian thinking to suppose that GOOD means perfect, and so we talk about Adam and the woman being PERFECT before the fall. But this is not what the story says. It says that God looked over what He made and called it GOOD. Now, what is good does not mean it must be complete in its entirely so that nothing can be added or subtracted. What is PERFECT on the other hand, carries this idea of completeness, as Aquinas so eloquently argued. The result of PERFECT is total determinism. GOOD on the other hand, allows for change and that means you and I have a part to play.
None of this is occultist. Gnostic and occult practice and theory has no real role in this discussion.
Skip, thank you for answering. I take back what I said below, accusing you of not engaging, for I read that first.
I want to ask: since when did “good” morph into “conflicted”? Paul writes about those who are “opposing themselves” and Peter writes about those who are “double-minded” as being sinful, and both mean “conflicted”, or, not-relating (unless the plain meaning of “conflict” has now mysteriously changed, too). Before the Fall, then, people were neither opposing themselves or double-minded, for they were sinless and, therefore, at peace with themselves and all. Harmony (shalom) is the Biblical goal of perfection, but heaven is already there – just like the angels sang – isn’t it? Or is heaven infighting, too? Is that what you are trying to tell us (those angel-singing liars!)? Of course, originally, people were going to have to work at establishing (perfecting) ever more and better ways to connect with all of reality (through obedience, of course), and so will we, through all eternity (halleluah!), but since when was obedience necessarily “conflict”?, and if so, then why doesn’t the text say THAT? I contend that we clearly started out sinless, which is peace and harmony (relating), but lost it. Newborn babies can also have peace (relationship) where they are at, even though they have not grown up yet or fought in wars either, for that matter.
You seem to have embraced the notion that only fighting reality (which is what “conflict” is) can produce happiness, or, perfection (wait: that didn’t even make sense!). That can only be possible if you have changed the definition of “perfection” from the Biblical understanding of relating WITH reality, to the Greek (and also Marxist – ‘happiness by means of the dialectic’) ideal of “perfection”,which, coincidentally, is also a product of ‘overcoming’ reality through um, CONFLICT. This pagan notion of happiness/perfection-via-war/conflict is a completely different idea from happiness/perfection-via-relating/shalom, as you have taught us before. This makes me want to ask: when did you change? (Can you tell I am now confused? Must have been some occult somethin’ or ‘nuther in the vicinity!)
Happiness is what I experience when I am in harmony, or, relationship. Conflict is what I experience when I am not. Since when did I have to fight (reality) what I was supposed to be relating with? Happiness (that ONLY comes from relating correctly, by the way) can only happen by means of conflict (not-relating)? Huh? It don’t make no sense! I am getting the same headache I think I got when I read The Communist Manifesto, and I suddenly feel that we are talking two different languages. Shucks. Just when I was starting to get the hang of Hebrew, too!
And what about obedience? And the verses?
Dear Laurita,
Tov in Hebrew does NOT mean perfect. Everything at time of creation was TOV, meaning Functional/ functioning, which would mean possibility of being perfected/ spoiled.
Looking around us these day, that definitely appears to be- the earth and all in it are being spoiled/ destroyed, progressively.
WE seek restoration! And, that work and responsibility has to come from us.
Blessings.
Thank you, Ester. Could we agree that “good” = function and that “evil” = disfunction? The whole fight is over whether YHVH was the primary cause of disfunction, or, actual fracture of His love in His creation, or did He create the possibility for it? Did He fracture (take away His love from) His creation or did He go along with us taking away ourselves from His love? Good is the action of function, or relating, or, life. Evil is the action of fraction, or unrelating, or death. Did YHVH kill His creation at the same time He made it (see how nonsensical it is) , or is He allowing us to? NOBODY has answered that question!
It seems that your dichotomy is leading you to postulate questions that force alternatives neither supported by the biblical texts or consistent with ethical theory. What I am arguing is not that EVIL is a necessary part of creation but that the postulation of secondary free agency requires the logical concomitant of an indeterminate future. This is not logically incompatible with GOOD since it is GOOD that the future is open to the real choices of independent free will agents. When the text says that God pronounced the creative effort “Good,” that does not have ANY implications at all for the existence or origin of evil. It only suggests that in a world where there is more than one freely choosing entity, good requires the possibility of undetermined action by any one agent. It is therefore “good” that God created an OPEN universe and the consequences of this open universe is that it was not created perfect (complete without alteration) but rather incomplete, allowing the secondary free agents input and purpose. The fact that choice like this includes the POSSIBILITY of disobedience does not guarantee the actual occurrence of disobedience and is therefore not a logical ground for the actual existence of evil. But if you remove the possibility of disobedience by claiming that the original creation was perfect in the sense of absolutely complete at the cessation of God’s original act, then you also remove the REAL existence of choice by any other free agent.
Clarification! That was all I needed! And I am in perfect alignment with your above statement. So you are saying that “creating evil” means creating the POTENTIAL for it, right? If so, we completely agree! Halleluah!
Hi Laurita
I don’t know if I am addressing your concern correctly, and since I have language issues I am going to state my thoughts short but as sweet as possible.
Don’t you think that if God wanted a non- struggling, perfect world, He could have created it with His eyes closed? After Sodom and Gomorra or after the flood? It took Him 3 tries to get to where we are now. And it seems to me that even the righteous of all Noah and Job, struggled a lot. Chaos is not the same as struggle.
If I understand correctly, everything was not so perfect in the garden prior to the serpent repeating what God said ( its not a question).Havvah was told not to touch the tree prior to the incident with the serpent. And she decided that it was good prior to tasting it – so prior to the sin.
What is good for YHVH is always His definition, not yours or mine. I am sure it was not nice for Amalek to be slaughtered.
(Then the LORD said to Moses, “Write this on a scroll as something to be remembered and make sure that Joshua hears it, because I will completely blot out the name of Amalek from under heaven.”)
Even Yeshua had struggles: …38Then He said to them, “My soul is consumed with sorrow to the point of death. Stay here and keep watch with Me.” 39Going a little farther, He fell facedown and prayed, “My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from Me. Yet not as I will, but as You will.” 40Then Jesus returned to the disciples and found them sleeping. “Were you not able to keep watch with Me for one hour?”
And yes, according to Tanach and in monotheism where I worship only ONE God( and no occult, whose power does not exist by Godly definitions), I can ask, just like Joseph’s brothers in Gen 42: 28 “What is this that God has done to us?” Never I find any blame towards anyone but God, not even in Job’s case when Gods gives permission to the accuser.
If God did not create evil, then who did?
Lamentations 3:38 Out of the mouth of the most High proceedeth not evil and good?
Jeremiah 18:11 Now therefore go to, speak to the men of Judah, and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, saying, Thus saith the LORD; Behold, I frame evil against you, and devise a device against you: return ye now every one from his evil way, and make your ways and your doings good.
Isaiah 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these [things].
Amos 3:6 Shall a trumpet be blown in the city, and the people not be afraid? shall there be evil in a city, and the LORD hath not done [it]?
Ezekiel 20:25 Wherefore I gave them also statutes [that were] not good, and judgments whereby they should not live;
Thank you, Luzette. Finally; verses! But what do they really say? What does “create evil” mean? That YHVH tore us all apart? (for that is what evil is!) Did He tear (fracture) us first? Really?
On the origin of evil: those verses tell me that the possibility for choosing chaos was a deliberate design built in to the system, and, further, that the opportunity to choose such was being provided, too, but that is not what is being contended here. The question of evil is not who designed the possibility of choosing to cause fracture, but who actually pulled the trigger. That is the verse I need to see. Did YHVH sling the first mud and rip the first hole, or does He just constrain Himself by mud and holes that are now already there? Is His controversy with the nations because HE ripped them away from each other and from Him, or because they tore themselves from Him? BIG dif!
Further; is there a verse that says that happiness is a PRODUCT of evil – of fracture (conflict) – which is what I think the above contended quote says – or is it something that is still possible in SPITE of evil (suffering)? Big question!
My question is simple: who started the mess (the mess -conflict – that the above quote claims happiness is not possible without)? the One Who made the mess possible, or the ones who chose it? And if we chose it, was happiness simply not possible before we ate the fruit? Really? If I were miserable before I ate the fruit, I would have definitely gone for the fruit, too! And with good reason!
These questions matter to me.
Thank you Skip I needed to hear this today.
Christine
Thank you, I woke up at 5 this morning in a spiritual struggle. Needed this reminder. Blessings on your day.
I just read it again. “Struggle births bonding – I just held a newborn this week. She squirmed so much to look at me, who I was holding her – pulling away to look into my eyes. I know that is one of the first stages of life with the child and its mother – when the child pulls away to look into the mothers eyes. This is how bonding is formed, Interesting.
Saplings grow stronger with buffeting winds and their roots go deeper and deeper as they experience these stresses and strains.Sounds like the fingerprint of God!
What about the MASSIVE trees with superhard wood that were created without that struggle? There is not a tree on the planet today that you could make a boat of any design out of that would hold up to the Flood. The argument sounds good, but you can grow your trees on the cliffs and I will grow mine under optimum conditions and then we can see who ends up picking the most fruit!
Pains of childbirth? Does it ring any bells? Does it give any pictures? Does it connect with todays word?
Miss Hayes just to join in the fun what about a miracle something like nothing is impossible with God but With God all things are possible. The Lord created Force making something out of nothing. Things that only he can do everything is natural to us before us the Lord does the supernatural
Sin and its resultant chaos are not supernatural. Order is.
Miss Hayes, please reread for us everything is natural the Lord does the supernatural. Sin for us is natural his forgiveness and Redemption is Supernatural we can do nothing to save ourselves except obey him through his spirit which we need capital s or spirit. I think these thoughts might make my comment a little clearer
Bro, we are in alignment. As usual.
Laurita, what God created was good according to His measures. Just a thought you have witnessed how natural disasters actually restore nature and even bring people closer together. I read no where of a calm relaxed creation. Did God create the serpent to deceive or test… Read in conjunction with Job’s records. As did he create man to serve His purpose or man’s own conviction. I agree that the creation or specific parts thereof did not turn out right… serpent and human. The rest are still exactly as intended.
Pieter I also considered us to be in the sixth day… Problem that makes the Sabbath rule nullified. It also places every record pertaining to Sabbath and eight day considerations unnecessary. But given if I were Job I would welcome such an explanation for then I would understand all the discomfort I was going through as me still being formed…
Reading into the exegesis it sounds as if there may be two possible creations being depicted in Genesis. The natural creation. Then the creation unto image/likeness using or that creation referred to in Genesis 2…
Creation built in the possibility, or potential, for disaster. We agree, but it does not rest the necessity of love upon it, which is my point of distinction that I am trying to make. Light does not ‘need’ darkness to be itself. There is no chaos in heaven, and that love has been going on a lot longer. Now that we have disaster, grace makes it possible for recovery, but grace is not necessary for order. Grace only has to exist in that disorder. We have grace to thank for our ability to “restore” and “bring people closer together”, but heaven needs no such grace. There, nobody is farther and there is nothing to restore, either, and there is also no suffering, except for YHVH, and that is only because of us. Somebody tell me heaven is chaotic in order for love to exist in it.
And I STILL have seen no verses. Not one. What are we basing on?
For me as a blind, stumbling, falling human…
Lovingkindness (grace) is Light and Justice / Judgement (righteousness) is Darkness.
Dealing with the rigidity of Darkness (Judgement) is required of me.
But without complete and absolute Light (Lovingkindness), I must be killed to pay for my sin.
Both are active and current elements of the Creator’s Universe.
Under human logic they cannot co-exist, so I am doomed.
However in some supernal way, the Son harmonises the miracle that enables not only stay of execution but adoption into the Family.
The verses are all through the white fire of both Moses and the Prophets.
Heaven needs nothing of what we offer or do, this we agree on 100%.
We need guidance to link up with heaven how this happens is how we choose to act out or respond to the whisper we hear in all the chaos.
Yes we caused chaos we promoted progress against the creations intent.
A cosy lifestyle I may add.
You once mentioned your brother meeting up with a human lifestyle that refuses to accept the modern global communal trend. I have reservation on their leadership but do support their concept of living off the creation.
The truth about light and darkness is that we would not recognize either if it was not for the other. The same with peace and chaos.
To reiterate your words we have to decide what we are supporting and live accordingly. Two spirits went out light and darkness, two manifestations have been revealed truth and falseness. Serpent and Christ and for me it seems that we need to consider the results of these two to determine what we are standing for as we cannot serve both for then we are lukewarm and are not fit for the kingdom…
Wait the fear pagan view or God’s blessings. You be the judge as you can only save one soul your own you can bring many to life but that does not make you, you… Your chosen lifestyle makes you God’s called servant.
In Christ you are living and that is for me a worthy lifestyle.
Keep sharing your view as we can all benefit from the water (words of wisdom) you are sharing.
Hi Seeker,
“Problem that makes the Sabbath rule nullified. It also places every record pertaining to Sabbath and eight day considerations unnecessary.”
Does it not enhance it? Elevates it to a price?
So much more reason to start practising keeping and (try) living it.
Pieter that could be possible provided we are then saying goodbye to windows, internet, gasoline etc. For then the birth in the Sabbath is the birth in Christ making human progress zero. No not justifying as needed for God never needed it we proclaim it is needed. For maybe all these progressive developments make us more reliant on the human creation than on the creator…
But yes I concur our goal should be to seek God by using whatever tools are available to make our quest easier. We should not promote the tool but the quest, if that be your view we are on the same track if not I may still be in the dark seeking more light…
No necessity for reclusion. Only need to do it in the spirit… That is where the real reality is.
This life is the shadow image of spiritual. So spirit is not thoughts but more consideration before doing
God gave the first creatures a blank canvas. A good blank canvas, but a canvas created with the intent of seeing what the creatures could do with it. He gave them the tools to work this blank piece of potential art within the tensional conflict of ‘I ought and I ought not’. At times we have painted beautifully and at other times disastrously, far too frequently. And if we are to believe the writer of Revelation, God made provisions for what humanity would do and what they would need, i.e., forgiveness, before the foundation of the world. And so He allowed humanity to keep painting on his good canvas, only occasionally intervening to ‘scrub’ the canvas. Our painting is done daily and often times it takes the next generation to see what we have actually created, and then condemn or praise the work we have done. And it is to that work, we each can choose to contribute or choose to criticize. God has given us all the tools we need to create a wonderful work of art. He loves us, but with a meaningful love that always seeks to make us better bearers of His good image. So life is a struggle and often we are chastened, but always with the intent of improving us. Improving us for what purpose? To lay or collective shoulders into the ‘kingdom’ work we has always had for us. Yeshua told Pilate why he came to this Earth and on the cross he smashed the only real power the Caesars of the world had, i.e., death. So paint on and enjoy the journey, the journey that has His will being done on Earth as it has always been in his ‘Heaven’.
As usual it has been a great day Laurita but it is time to feed the chickens. They need nourishment too!
Just a word on satan/ the devil, which is in fact The/our adversary in Hebrew, is a created angel, a beni Elohim/ son of GOD, one of many (hosts) in the Council of YHWH’s Kingdom heavenly reign; a messenger, still in the spiritual realm, NOT cast down from heaven; a precious vessel to prove/ test our trust in YHWH, as in the obvious case of Job.
The adversary/ ha satan is instrumental in drawing us closer to GOD, as with the yetza ha’ra, in revealing our true selves; a vital force in serving us to progress spiritually, strengthening us to overcome egos, trails, temptations and evil- obstacles/ struggles to our spiritual growth. Growing pains?
A paradigm change? Shalom!
I don’t see the evil one as “precious” and surely not in the “Council of YHWH’s Kingdom”. Created? Yes. But, God does not create evil. Nor does He cause it. Satan seeks to deceive and destroy. That isn’t indicative of a being within the holy council of YHVH. And in the end, he will be utterly destroyed.
Ha-satan is not our alter bad side. He would be a real created being that seeks to destroy and lead astray the people of God. He wasn’t created to test our faith or to bring us to Yeshua. While certainly, God will turn what’s meant for evil for His people, to good, that doesn’t mean satan is an instrumental tool used for good. I see him as our adversary that seeks to lead us away from God.
Maybe I’m missing what you’re saying.
One who corrects, challenges us will always seem evil in our sight, but when it’s an assigned job by YHWH, to test our trust and stand on His ways, it would be an opportunity for us to make right decisions.
Job 1: 6 Now it fell upon a day, that the sons of God/beni Elohim came to present themselves before Hashem, and satan came also AMONG them.
IF hasatan has been cast down from heaven as stated in the christian bible, what was he doingAMONG the angelic beings, in the Presence of YHWH Who asked what was he doing, replied thus- ‘From going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it.’ Does this sound like being cast down from heaven?
Question- Would evil be able/ dare to stand before YHWH without trembling?
Job stood the test with flying colours!! 22 For all this Iyov sinned not, nor ascribed aught unseemly to God.
Are we called to to overcome the yetza hara, our own beastly natures, if not, hasatan, guaranteed, will be there to help us out, IF we are truly of GOD’s Kingdom.
Hasatan can lead us astray only IF our knowledge/ foundation of His Tanakh is not sound, allowing deception to come in. Job 38: 2 2 Who is this that darkens counsel by words without knowledge?
Throughout the book, Job struggles with the reality that he is suffering though seemingly righteous. He challenges God’s justice, trying to make sense out of the age-old question of why bad things happen to good people. Likewise, the Jews at the time of the exile also struggled to understand why they deserved to suffer as they did ( Ezekiel 18).
Job’s personal suffering is emblematic of the suffering of the righteous, within the nation of Israel.
Angelic beings are not given FREE WILL, they only obey and do whatever assignments given to them BY YHWH Almighty.
Lots of ‘mysticism’ in the book of Job!
Reading the Hebrew Scriptures, or holding onto a rabbi to be taught makes a world of difference to our understanding of YHWH’s ways, NOT through a translated (distorted) version.
Shalom!
Did angels (a whole “third of heaven”) rebel, or were they “cast down from heaven” by a YHVH intent on single-handedly turning some of His creation into adversaries? Did Lucifer rebel or was he created already fractured from love? That would be monstrous!
Hi, Laurita, Good question! Just hope my reply will answer your questions.
Lucifer was only mentioned once, KJ Versions, in Isaiah 14:12:-
How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! You have been cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!
Compare-
How have you fallen from the heavens, O day-star/ הֵילֵ֣ל / Helal son of the morning! How are you cut down to the ground, that did cast lots over the nations!
אֵ֛יךְ נָפַ֥לְתָּ מִשָּׁמַ֖יִם הֵילֵ֣ל בֶּן־שָׁ֑חַר נִגְדַּ֣עְתָּ לָאָ֔רֶץ חֹולֵ֖שׁ עַל־גֹּויִֽם
Context- Verse 4 says it is a parable against the king of Bavel, just before his death, was described as the Day Star, son of the Dawn/ Venus in Roman-Lucifer in Latin, a light-bearer that fades when the sun rises, speaks of this king’s arrogance and audacity against GOD.
No such fallen creature, or angel, or satan in the Hebrew texts. Strange that hasatan, supposedly a prince of darkness in Christianity becomes a LIGHT-BEARER, that is what Lucifer means in Latin.
Nope, GOD Almighty did not create anything fractured, not adversaries, nor were there a “third of heaven” cast down from heaven in rebellion, in the Hebrew Texts, ONLY in the “NT”.
Angelic beings are not given free will as human beings.
Shalom!
Ester, as I’ve said before, respectfully, I’m not going to interact with copy and paste from someone else’s work. I don’t engage very well with that. And I just don’t think it’s right.
Mark, you do have the free will to do that! You are not obliged to, please!!
What makes you PRESUME it was a “copy and paste” from someone else’s work?!
I wouldn’t say that if I was just “presuming”. The last time I gave you a link to the book. And of course, since you asked I’ll give you one now too. Just changing a word here or there doesn’t make it any better either. But this is pretty much word for word as it was last time.
Your comment
The link to the commentary it came from. https://theisraelbible.com/bible/job/chapter-40/verse-8
This kind of behavior has a name: plagiarism. And, possibly, copyright violation.
I wouldn’t go that far with it. I doubt it was done with that type of intention. My only point was that I didn’t want to debate with a third party I have no way of addressing.
As with Craig, you are both argumentative, and arrogant! Period!
What debate would you find in that commentary?
So, you do not quote from commentaries? I happen to absolutely AGREE with it! I thought it was GOOD!
Yes, I will certainly use a commentary as a source but, I would also tell who and where it came from so that others could look at it and know the context for which is was being used or how it was given by the person that originally made it.
I’m sorry you find me arrogant and argumentative. Disagreeing with someone’s position though isn’t necessarily an argument. Normally it’s just a difference of opinions. I personally think that should always be welcomed.
If we’re going to dialogue then we should be able to have respectful, open and honest discussions. It’s just always nice to know I’m disagreeing with the individual I’m communicating with, rather than a source they may be using and not letting me know.
Shalom
Honestly, you knew by then where that commentary came from, before you posted your response. SO, what’s your beef with it; you don’t agree with it?
Opinions do not matter, truth does!
Seriously, Mark, feel free to get over yourself. In the grand scheme of things, more likely then not anything you say on here has been gleaned from someone else, you are just paraphrasing.
You have personally requested that we not put in links or waste other’s times w/a lot of mindless words, but that we put in sufficient information that we could find the link if we so desired.
And Craig, dearest, you of all people should be aware of the ‘fair use’ clause/laws…. Since you don’t seem to be, here:
Under the “fair use” rule of copyright law, an author may make limited use of another author’s work without asking permission. Fair use is based on the belief that the public is entitled to freely use portions of copyrighted materials for purposes of commentary and criticism. The fair use privilege is perhaps the most significant limitation on a copyright owner’s exclusive rights. If you write or publish, you need a basic understanding of what is and is not fair use.
If you want to know where i got that, either one of you, please feel free to google….and HEEE! CRAIG!!! ITALICS!!!
and BOLD!!! #showingoff
PS: best way to get mercy? give it.
A requirement for fair use is full attribution of the source. This was not done. In fact, it was implied (January 29, 2017 9:01 pm) that the quote was not a copy and paste – yet it was. I have no patience for ripping off another’s work and passing it off as your own. The following is taken from my own blog:
LOL LOL LOL LOL!!!
CRAIG!!! it’s a discussion, batting things back and forth and she already, in a PREVious post stated that she does so as a form of expediency!
she sends me notes with choice bits pulled out…i promise she is well read and just as pious as either of you.
chill. out. good grief. Nice to have you back. i was getting worried.
bcp, you are an angel! If only more like you, this world would be a better place!
You read and remember well.
Some have selective memory. Sigh.
Cynical and negative folks, I can’t stand, too overbearing.
Was that a “literary work” , an article, that I copied?
Was that anything anybody could easily express, except you, perhaps?
Give me the benefit of the doubt, please.
How’s your reading, understanding ability, with all your “knowledge”?
That “literary work” comment above, which I neglected to address, was meant for Craig, of course.
I had a friend once tell me “It’s never really very wise to keep poking the bear? Especially when your poking finger isn’t so strong”.
I’m not sure why you and bcp feel the need to keep poking after Skip’s post but, this should really be done.
Shalom.
Because you resorted to what a friend referred to as an ‘ad hominem” attack, meaning you couldn’t refute the comment so you personally attacked someone, and unlike others, didn’t come back and clean up your mess.
Meaning that you INTENDED to be a jerk.
Thats. Why.
bcp, SPOT on, exactly my thoughts, honestly. Thank you.
So you are a bear?! Is that why you don’t have control, but to attack? Sounds really odious, and scary to me. Hooligan talk. Should I flee from here that you may not pick nor scare me again? That would be joyful to you, one out, how many more to go?
I AM really SCARED. Trembling!!!
On my first reading of TW I had no problem with it – a struggle is good, but on reading Laurita’s comments I had to narrow that struggle to that which is not caused by sin.
If we concede that sin is ultimately a good thing because, in our struggle to overcome it, we become a better person, we forget one important point; the ultimate net result of sin is one thing, and one thing only, our eternal death. So don’t tell me that, because of the struggle caused by sin, that I get some kind of a short term upside before my eternal death.
No, instead we disavow all sin and thank God for His grace which redeems those in Christ from that sentence of eternal death.
Nevertheless I agree that struggle is good but that doesn’t mean it has to be caused by sin. Do we think that Adam and Chavah were created to do absolutely nothing all day except eat and procreate? Little detail is given to us but certainly God must have had plenty for them to do, – to challenge them to do many difficult but fulfilling tasks. After all, what makes us happier than the successful completion, and then enjoyment, of a worthy project? For example, wouldn’t we all, give all our time and energy, for a large perfect family?
What do we think the Kingdom of God is going to be like? Are you going to tell me that the continuation of sin in the Kingdom is going to be a good thing because it is going to make us struggle to be better? I believe there always was and always will be plenty to contend with without sin destroying everything we build. God won’t let us get bored.
Thank you, Dan! It is struggle that makes us stronger, and when we are willing to obey we will be willing to struggle. Suffering only makes us willing to obey. There is no inherent virtue in suffering. I contend that we were not created to suffer: we were created to obey, and if I hear any more from these rabbis talking about happiness I am going to be tempted to ask if the word “obedience” comes up ANYWHERE in their teaching. Suffering leading to essential happiness is just about as pagan as it gets, and we are right back to medieval penances and slaves and other chattel getting told that their suffering is for “their own good” and parents beating their kids to death, which is the fruit of such teaching. That would not be my Father in heaven. And I still have seen no chapter and verse that supports the notion that suffering is essential to happiness, or even salvation.
Is there always some person to blame for suffering? In John, the disciples asked Yeshua whose fault it was that the man was born blind. Yeshua’s answer, short form, was, “Nobody’s.” God owns everything. Everything is His. Nothing is outside of His ultimate responsibility. These words that we use in this discussion–chaos, suffering, struggle, happiness–we can scarcely agree on what they mean! They, too, however, belong to God. There is a certain amount of relief in understanding that the sovereignty of God is perhaps much larger than we realize.
Totally. As long as we don’t a: accuse Him of what we did and b: saddle Him with the responsibility thereof. Just because somebody has to pull you out of the ditch doesn’t mean that they have to take the blame for the fact that you landed in it.
John 9:2 has a very important cultural background, not unlike some parts in Christianity today, where outright blame of difficult situations and problems are apparent because of someone’s sin. Either theirs or in the case of Jewish thought that of a person’s parents or ancestors. Similar examples can be found in Job’s discussion with the acquaintances who are actually astutely quoting parts of the wisdom (Psalms and Proverbs) literature or antecedent forms of the same and yet when judgements come they are held accountable for speaking so freely in these events. Even though what they said would appear to be consistent with Biblical concepts, the difference here is between knowing how something is written and the responsibility of knowing better
in the simplest sense Jesus explained that such faults and apparent consequences could not be reasonably ascribed to either the person who was blind or their parents, and as such that this type of faulty reasoning to justify spiritually and personally condemning those with difficulties was to be avoided
we could, in some way (I don’t really know the answer myself), apply the same instance to the subject of this thread, why are humans confounded, even in their natures, and why has humanity been suppressed with flawed motivations and propensities. I think in part the answer here is at least related to the final resolution of all these matters, and ultimately restoration, we are not perfect nor is the world perfect (there is tremendous sadness and suffering) therefore we are not perfectly accountable. The world is flawed, it does not operate exclusively to God’s will and there is even happenstance, our roles amidst the confusion are nonetheless always the same, to keep trying to be gentle, kind, good and thus also merciful in understanding (their faults are our faults, their problems are as ours):
He hath shewed thee, O man, what is good; and what doth the LORD require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?
(Micah 6:8)
Dan, I also wanted to thank you for refining the discussion to differentiate between “struggle” and “suffering”. I think we tend to equate struggle with suffering because we added the experience of evil (suffering) to struggle, but the point of redemption, I believe, was to return us to a point where we could go back to growing (struggle through obedience) without experiencing that evil (fracture from reality). Suffering is a side effect of fracture, and the experience of both is what we asked for when we ate the fruit. Salvation concerns itself with both reconnecting the fracture and “healing” of the suffering. Both vanish when fracture has been healed, and we are returned back to the “good” (righteousness, or connection). Halleluah!
Laurita thank you for hanging in on your view and contribution it lead to some further interesting comments.
Dan thank you suffer to come unto Yeshua from the perspiration of the body you will learn to survive.
Teth paradise versus surviving two fold survival option.
How does this all measure up with seek first the kingdom and what you eat drink and clothe with will be added. Not the house, transport mode or perfect career…
I got a clip from David Ring ministry. Very powerful message in it. God made no Oopses, God created all exactly as they should be, it is the bulk in our eye that makes us see defects and shortfalls in others. We need to remember that as we look measure and judge the rest of humanity so are we being scrutinized.
And what is easier than to say I knew he was hiding some motive, especially when the suffer to come unto becomes such a burden due to no support that the strongest believers SIN. Not intentionally but because they did not know what next to do. Is it not here that we are reminded that those still standing need to help the fallen up again. Just because tomorrow we may be in their shoes.
David Ring further emphasized that we are only called to be champions of love.
I am still reflecting on David s message and think it might be an eye opener for me. Sorry no link as only watched the clip shared with me.
The whole of the second quote is congruent with Kabbalistic teaching, as well as basic Gnostic doctrine – though there are different forms of Kabbalah and (neo)Gnosticism. It aligns with the occult and not with properly interpreted Scripture. I’ve not read all the comments here, but I’m largely in agreement with Laurita and Mark.
“ Kabash entails effort to overcome hostility. Life is a fight—for good reason. Both the aggressor and the opponent are changed.”
Hi Skip, this reminded me of what you wrote in The Lucky Life : “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they are the children of God” : “…The ones who are lucky are not those who want peace, but those who MAKE peace. And you cannot make peace unless you are in conflict and ready to put yourself at risk. As a peacemaker you have to step into the fire and someone is going to shoot at you.
So: “lucky are those who give up their peace for the sake of someone else’s peace.”
What wounds have you received on God’s behalf?
Luzette
I almost find it amusing how Skip can right something full of so much wisdom, and something that every “christian” (that I know at least) would agree with, minus a quote. Yet we get hung up on the quote that he uses and entirely miss the incredible message that he has just preached in a short devotion….over theology. So what if he uses a Kabbalistic or mystic quote to make his point. He is in my opinion just showing how much Jewish thinking, though not in keeping with much of christianity, arrives at the same destination. As far as “we shouldn’t be depending on Jewish Mysticism” argument for teaching… are you kidding? Do you understand that much of our “christian” understanding of the “Spirit” is born out of protestant “mysticism”, ie the desert fathers, to present, men such as AW Tozer (whom I love his writing by the way).
I have just done a study on the “white fire” and “black fire” and one can either say, “that’s taboo, you better leave that stuff alone” or one can use it to gain the incredible insight into the working of the Spirit and the Letter of the law. Guess what? Its not too far off what most “christians” would call the “working of the Spirit” or “being led by the Spirit” in a christian’s life. But most would rather turn their noses up and drown in their own self righteousness understanding of scripture and continue being “led by the Spirit”.
In that last paragraph that should have said, ” But most of US….” including MYSELF. Because I am guilty as charged, even recently for doing the same. I have got to learn to reap the wisdom from both sides of the same coin instead of saying the coin is both heads or both tails. Again my apology as that last statement sure sounds “self-righteous’!
Occult teaching is not dangerous when it is obviously wrong, it’s dangerous when it’s almost right. This entire TW is framed by the occultic quote. Therefore, in my opinion, it is wholly wrong. It doesn’t matter that it’s ‘somewhat right’.
When did this discussion of “happiness” get derailed into arguments about the occult and Jewish mysticism. ALL religions have mystical sides. Most people operate in some sort of variation of mysticism. I have never met a person yet whose religious views were entirely rational. But somehow we end up here talking about things that are miles away from the point that you and I have real choice, that our choices make a difference and that how we choose has a lot to do with whether or not we are happy. I am almost at the place of saying that it really doesn’t matter what theological theory you hold. Yes, truth is still truth, but unless you make some sort of CHOICE about it, it isn’t part of how you really live in the world, and almost all of our choices are laced with non-rational motives.
First; avoiding the fact that you, Skip, were the one – not I – who brought up the topic of what rock we should go looking for happiness under, is not going to solve the very real problem here. You cannot just try to sneak in something and hope no one notices! Please, at least engage.
You seem to intimate that beliefs do not affect choices: I maintain that, on the contrary, they totally drive, as well as limit, them.
If I believe that suffering is responsible for happiness, then I should join the monk procession in Monty Python’s Search For The Holy Grail and just start bashing my face with a board. If I believe that obedience is the root of all true happiness then I am going to quit embracing and glorifying my pain and start listening to it instead.
All good is good for its own sake: it needs no reason or support. IF suffering is a simple good, then it all by itself can produce happiness and needs no justification, and I should just accept suffering as my lot in life as being the source of happiness, for I am created to seek happiness. But if suffering is just a means to an end (to bring me back to obedience) that is going to change what I choose to do about suffering. At this point, what I believe about the origin of evil DOES matter in that it determines what I do with my suffering. IF I believe that suffering is a good designed by God to produce my happiness then I am going to hunker down and go looking for even more. If I believe, instead, that obedience is responsible for happiness then I am going to consider suffering as a mere means to get me back to obedience. I beg to argue that there IS a whole lot of difference, and I AM limited to choosing within my belief system.
Just try to convince a parent who believes beating their child will make them ‘better’ that encouraging obedience so as to avoid the beating will make them better, instead. Sounds logical, doesn’t it? Except when you go trying to do it – like I have – repeatedly. Just because it doesn’t make any sense does not mean people are going to be interested in anything else, because they would have to question what they were believing before, which is always painful and humiliating. We would much rather justify, even if it doesn’t make any sense! Choices ARE limited by beliefs. That is why belief systems matter.
Please, I never intended to communicate the beliefs do not affect choices. Of course they do. My point is that these “beliefs” are not necessarily rational. In fact, I find most of them non-rational. Most people make choices that are NOT logically compelling. In other words, they choose on the basis of emotion, tradition, some cognitive process and a host of other things. They normally DO NOT CHOOSE on the basis of some logically defensible theological dogma.
I would also take issue with your proposal that all good is good for its own sake. This leads to an absolute ethics, and, of course, causes all kinds of serious dilemmas in the real world. Even in Scripture, good is NOT a function of inherent worthiness. Good is defined as what God does. It is therefore a derivative value, not an absolute one. I think you have confused the idea that suffering CAN HAVE good purposes with the thought that suffering IN ITSELF is a good thing.
Are you saying that the above quote says that suffering was created and pronounced “good”, when it actually was not “in itself…a good thing”? More confusion!
“Good for its own sake” Does good ‘need’ evil, then, to ‘make’ it ‘good’? This is HIGHLY occultic! And, by extrapolation, does YHVH ‘need’ an evil adversary ‘creating’ chaos (even though the text says YHVH is the ultimate origin) so that what He does CAN be that ‘good’? Really? Before ha-satan, then, was He NOT good, if good is a derivative of (dependent upon) that evil? Confused again!
I agree with you that most people choose on the basis of “emotion, tradition, some cognitive process and a host of other things” (notice that these are all products of experience and exposure), and it is likewise my understanding that our REAL beliefs (at least the unexamined ones) are naturally a by-product of these experiences, and not usually based (we agree again) on “logically defensible theological dogma”. But the question is, why? Answer: because we are not being obedient and “taking every thought captive” until it reveals to us what we really are believing!
I think what we say we believe and what beliefs we really, in practice, are basing our choices on are usually two different things because we are ignorant of our own motivations, but, according to the above referenced verse, that is not an excuse. If I am reduced to a mere by-product (“natural man”) of my experience and what I got handed down from my forefathers, I have not been re-originated from above. If I do not take control of what I believe, what I believe is going to control me. Time to examine what really made me do it!
First, to answer your opening question above @ 1:33pm, from my perspective, it comes directly from your second quote, specifically, the 2nd and 3rd sentences. The 2nd sentence (“There is a constant struggle within our minds and hearts between our self-centered animalistic self and our altruistic Godly self.”) would be fine without the 3rd. When read in conjunction with the 3rd, it conveys the dualism inherent in both Gnosticism and the Kabbalah; that is, the exterior imperfect ‘shell’ (or ‘husk’, aka kellipah in Lurianic Kabbalah) needs to be shed, this being accomplished by the ‘perfecting’ of the inner “divine spark”. New Age / New Spirituality teacher Alice Bailey identifies these two elements in that 2nd sentence as the not self and the self, respectively.
Of course all religions embrace some form of mysticism. However, the type of mysticism to which one adheres can drastically affect, or even alter one’s theology (and vice versa). I’ve seen it time and again in the hyper-charismatic Christian camps, in which formerly ‘mainstream’ Christians change their theology to match their experiences – experiences more in line with Eastern mysticism.
I don’t disagree that one can find ‘happiness’ in this world irrespective of religious belief. I also don’t disagree that humans consistently make choices based on irrational motives. This is why theology is so important – it provides the anchor.
Just a few notes: first, I said non-rational, not irrational, although I am sure there are plenty of irrational choices as well. What I mean is that human beings are much more complex than decision-trees, and often make choices based on their “feelings,” not their logically apprehended circumstances. Second, while I would agree that some forms of mysticism embrace a dualism that I also reject, I do not agree that this means ALL forms of mysticism are wrong. You and I probably agree on the assessment of New Age and other warmed-over Greek religions, but I cannot discount that genuine spiritual experiences of those who seek God outside of the acceptable theological framework provided by Christian theology. In other words, I would love to have a faith like Abraham, and I doubt he had a well-worked-out theology. EXPERIENCE matters a great deal and it seems to me that a large percentage of Christian religion treats feelings the way that Greek philosophy treated feelings, i.e.,as suspect and to be avoided.
So, the fact that I quoted a well-respected Jewish thinker about the struggle within does not NECESSARILY imply that he is a gnostic or that I am a gnostic. It is more likely that case that we are both seeking to find the truth wherever it may be instead of inside the box of theological thinking. While I don’t believe one should defer to experience over rational thought, denying experience in favor of rational thought seems to me to be a decided non-human action.
I never said all mysticism is wrong (I strongly disagree with John MacArthur’s stance on cessationism, e.g.); in fact, my comments above imply that I accept some mysticism. So, your ‘experience vs. rational thought’ above is an unnecessary dichotomy, as least regarding me.
You say that “some forms of mysticism embrace a dualism that I also reject”, yet you’ve not substantively addressed or refuted my point in my 2:40pm comment that the second quote you used does imply a dualism consistent with neognosticism and/or the Kabbalah in the context provided. I’m not saying you selected this quote specifically for the purpose of promoting a gnostic or kabbalistic theology; however, I think you could have made your main point in this TW without that quote.
This “well-respected Jewish thinker” may not be a gnostic, he may be a Kabbalist. That would be much more likely.
[If anyone here wants a laugh, go to the satirical site “babylonbee” by doing a search using that term + john macarthur + wall]
I need to make a correction to my 2:40pm post. I meant the 4th sentence, not the third – this one: “On the contrary: God’s objective was to create an imperfect and conflicted world, and that his ‘partner in creation’—us human beings—should be imperfect and conflicted.”
David, I AGREE wholeheartedly. What nonsense with being “slain in the spirit”, rolling on the floor, be it in laughter, or tears, falling backwards being “filled with the spirit”, to name the few that came to mind?
Question- WHERE is the transformation from such “workings of the Spirit”?
I believe in the natural process of growth through learning and doing- ALL from the right sound sources.
Thank you!
What about the following quote?:
Whose words are these? Martin Buber, from The Way of Man, According to the Teaching of Hasidism (London: Routledge Classics, 1994, p vi) as found in a footnote reference in – a surprise to most here, I’m sure – Max Lucado’s Cure for the Common Life (Nashville, TN: W Publishing Group, 2005, p 215). I was, shall I say, mystified when I found it. My point is that this quote aligns quite well the quote at footnote 2 in this TW. Hasidism comes from Isaac Luria’s Kabbalah.
I can only speculate why Lucado used it in his book – Ignorance? To further a Kabbalistic/Neognostic agenda of some sort? Lucado used “divine spark” in the actual text of the book (then referencing Buber in a footnote), stating that all readers (he made no distinction) have this “divine spark”: You have one [unique gifting]. A divine spark. An uncommon call to an uncommon life….. I think Lucado is wholly wrong.
Just for the record, I used to attend the church Lucado pastors (I think he still does) in San Antonio, TX. He’s absolutely one of the nicest guys one can ever meet. But that doesn’t mean the above quote by Lucado, and his reference regarding that quote, is not occultic.
I don’t know if you view this as wholly wrong, almost right or somewhat right, but I find it interesting that in today’s Torah portion God instructs Moses and Aharon to go and perform the occultic ritual of magic as known by the magicians of Pharoah.
Why? Because God needed Moses to get an audience with Pharoah on an equal basis as a god or king. This way Pharaoh sees Moses and Aaron as gods, a necessity for multiple audiences. Thus the culture predicts the way of doing things and taking care of business.
BTW – interesting how this weeks torah portion is filled with struggle, occult and mysticism. And what Israel fought for during the exodus, lasted!
YES, Luzette, how insightful.
That is playing along/by their game, guided by GOD Almighty Himself. Wisdom displayed!
Blessings!
Skip what can I say. Your post and all the questions it generated took me through Job. Our struggle is the devil trying to prove a point our unwaivering debate or argument our non rational faith. Then that mystic intervention, how when and what causes it we will not know. When God steps in and we are born from above, not by conviction but through acknowledging we are but his creation in Christ and what we do and how we respond is what he permits.
No struggle but our suffering to come unto him. Seek first, rest will be added…
Laurita thank you for all the questioning, remember we will only understand when we reflect on what happened never on our controlled input for then we are not yoked with Christ. We may afterwards stand amazed saying WOW God truly is in control. No rational, mystic, gnostic, Christian or Jewish view can bring us to this point, only God can.
Chaos is a direct response of our rational thought pattern to an unexplainable reality we are facing. Violence on the other hand is an emotional response in our dealing with the reality to force our understanding upon others.
Craig and the word took on flesh – our flesh – and we have exeperinced or witnessed its wonders… A servant in the hands of God…
Been finding myself reminded frequently these days of Bob Dylan’s lyrics on the album “love and theft”. The song as I recall is “Making my last go around”. “I’ll baptize you with fire so you can sin no more, I’ll establish my rule through civil war”.
I like that song.
Dear ALL who have commented on this particular topic. A few remarks, if you will allow. First, there are over 100 comments now. I find that amazing. Very few topics bring out this kind of response and I never expected it with this particular thread. It must have hit a nerve somewhere. Second, in private communication some have expressed how much they regret saying things that have led to unintended personal offense. It is ALWAYS possible that some statement will be personally offending, but I know almost everyone who comments here and I know no one INTENDS to diminish anyone else. The whole point of this blog is to discuss IDEAS, not persons. So, let’s all take a deep breath and let go of anything that might be injurious. On this blog, I AM THE ONLY ONE who should be personally attacked (and I get to delete those before they get posted). Finally, we are all here because we believe that TRUTH is the ultimate goal and we are willing to hunt for it wherever we must. There are NO SACRED COWS on this site. So, ALL, please, take is easy. We all have limited perspectives. We all make mistakes. We are all traveling together. And I’m pretty sure that in person we all deserve a big hug.
I love you, Skip, and am thankful and sorry to you and everyone for having to endure my learning curve and I LOVE everybody. No love without engagement possible! Thank you all for being willing to be so vulnerable! I hate that I am a person who learns with my mouth open. I did try all the other ways first and didn’t get anywhere. Its embarrassing to be so limited, but I need to learn, more. So, again, sorry and thank you to all, and that’s every day! And, I love you. You are my family.
Do not negate being you for the sake of conformity.
From the same origin comes graphite and diamonds: Do you want to scribble or shine?
LOL!
Skip, you deserve the BIGGEST hug/s. You are super tolerant, yet non-compromising, and that is why we/ I am here.
Todah rabah! Blessing you, Rosanne, and the family.