A vent on being "known by God"...

[Peter Debelak]

Acts 17:26 And He made from one every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth, determining beforehand their appointed seasons and the boundaries of their dwelling, (27) That they might seek God, if perhaps they might grope for Him and find Him, even though He is not far from each one of us”

I don’t believe this is a description for the unsaved. I believe He continues to arrange our seasons that we might grope after Him (even after we think we know "His economy"). But, alas, we remain on a trajectory to stop groping: "Seeking" and "questioning" is for the uninitiated. When we find God in dynamic experience, we quickly follow the habits into being certain we KNOW God and what He is after. We treat his Word as a “how-to” instead of as logos and rhema
.
I was struck by a “hiccup” of Paul’s recently. He is perplexed by the Galatians, who – having begun in Spirit – are following the outward standards of men - albeit in the service of God.

He begins to ask a question – “But now that you now God…”
But he stops himself. That is not what he wanted to say. There is something wrong with saying it that way. So he amends (and given the reality that he had no eraser, we get to see the adjustment to his own thought):

“Or rather, are known by God…”
(Galations 4:9)

The context of his question is why have they become enslaved by the standards of men, when they began in Spirit (Galations 3).

Why does he switch from “now that you know God” to “you are known by God.”

In the context of his argument to the Galations, it seems to me obvious.

Because the Galations, and those whispering in their ears, were claiming “knowledge of God’s will.” The pursuit to “know God” leads us to unconsciously “achieve our goal.” After dynamic experience, it doesn’t take much for us to self-convince that we “know God” and what He wants of us. It often involves some version of a dietary law or perhaps a city boundary.
But while “to know God” can breed self-delusion to believe the standards of men, “that you are known BY GOD” – it cuts to the quick. It is both liberating and condemning. Liberating because an honest human experience would admit that we feel alienated. It’s why we do the stupid social things we do. To be completely known – in all our secrets – is liberating. You are who you are, and you can begin there – not with some delusional notion of yourself, but just as you are, broken as you are.

Its also condemning – because your methods of “convincing” those around you that you “know God” and you comport with “God’ will” – well, they don’t fly. Your heart is “known by God.” All those feeble attempts to connect on supposed “Scriptural grounds” with someone with more spiritual authority than you – well, you’re exposed. You are KNOWN BY GOD. It’s all exposed. You can’t hide or contort or assuage. You have to be honest.

Perhaps, it seems to me Paul is arguing, if you are honest in the face of being completely known and therefore exposed as the broken being you are, you might grope after Him in whatever form that might take.

Rather than re-asserting your assurance of how well you “know God.”

What sort of posture or humility is required (and how do you get there) in order to still be open to “grope after God,” despite being able to articulate God’s eternal economy or, more difficult, the administration of God’s economy? Is there any room left for groping??? Perhaps the knowledge that we are completely “known by God” strips away the BS in our honest moments and leaves us bare and seeking…

Can we, when we recognize that every nuance of our hearts are known, start to begin to say "I don't know?" And then have to proceed in faith?

[aron]

Originally Posted by Peter Debelak

After dynamic experience, it doesn’t take much for us to self-convince that we “know God” and what He wants of us. It often involves some version of a dietary law or perhaps a city boundary.
But while “to know God” can breed self-delusion to believe the standards of men, “that you are known BY GOD” – it cuts to the quick. ?

To me, it is like a journey (through a wilderness?), where your given spot at any moment does actually depend on some real experience, i.e. knowledge. But to count your experience/knowledge, such as it is, as "real" as in permanent and immutable is to abandon the process of the journey. You get stuck.

I earlier contrasted Babylon versus Egypt. I said that Egypt is bad, but you know it's bad. Babylon is bad, and you're tricked into thinking it's not bad, and you're stuck. Jesus said to such, "The drunkards and harlots are going into the kingdom before you are."

Originally Posted by Peter Debelak

[Being known by God] is both liberating and condemning. Liberating because an honest human experience would admit that we feel alienated. It’s why we do the stupid social things we do. To be completely known – in all our secrets – is liberating. You are who you are, and you can begin there – not with some delusional notion of yourself, but just as you are, broken as you are.

Its also condemning – because your methods of “convincing” those around you that you “know God” and you comport with “God’ will” – well, they don’t fly. ... You are KNOWN BY GOD. It’s all exposed.

God is the unseen seer. We are the unseeing seen. Once we get this simple fact, we get saved from thinking we "know" anything. Jesus said, "If you admit you are blind I will heal you. But if you think that you can see, your blindness will remain."

Originally Posted by Peter Debelak

Perhaps, it seems to me Paul is arguing, if you are honest in the face of being completely known and therefore exposed as the broken being you are, you might grope after Him in whatever form that might take.

Rather than re-asserting your assurance of how well you “know God.”

Failure is a great liberator. You realize that you don't have it figured out. It is very humbling.

Originally Posted by Peter Debelak

What sort of posture or humility is required (and how do you get there) in order to still be open to “grope after God,” despite being able to articulate God’s eternal economy or, more difficult, the administration of God’s economy?

I have made this point elsewhere, and will try to restate it here. Jesus is the narrow way to God. There is no other name given by which men can be saved. But is there a narrow gate to Jesus? One overarching doctrine which holds all others in its grasp? One special "oracle" or "ministry"? Is there any special mediator between the seeking sinner and Jesus?

Other than the maddeningly vague (and elusive) "Love your neighbor as yourself", really I would say no. There is no doctrinal position which enables you to "cut straight" the rest of the word, like a super Cuisinart or laser beam. The "God's New Testament Economy" idea gets laughable as it strays afield. Consider Psalms chapter one. According to GNTE there is no righteous man, not one (ever heard of a guy named Jesus?). There is no "assembly of the righteous" (ever heard of the church?). According to GNTE Psalms chapter one has no instructive value except to show the psalmist in error; his "fallen concepts". With GNTE you just get a horribly mangled Bible. That's where "knowledge" will take you.

God is full of eyes, before and behind. Nobody sneaks up on God. We, however, are blind and groping. The ones who think they are not blind, that they are also full of eyes, are probably most blind of all.

[aron]

Originally Posted by aron

...Egypt is bad, but you know it's bad. Babylon is also bad, and you're tricked into thinking it's not bad, and you're stuck. Jesus said to such, "The drunkards and harlots are going into the kingdom before you are."

One of the problems we face is that we need to "see" that we are "blind"; to "know" that we "don't know." Conversely, when we repent and confess to God, and seek Him with our whole heart, and we do in fact receive some blessing therefrom, we must not think we have laid hold, but rather we can still let go and keep seeking. We have the name of Jesus. All other knowledge is potentially tenuous.

Like the idea of Babylon deceiving it's inhabitants into thinking they are in Zion, one of the side effects of partaking of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, I think, is that you are deceived into thinking that you see something, that you know something. But what you "perceive" is really a mirage, a delusion. The deception must be exposed and broken or your journey is waylaid.

Let me give an example. Jesus said that you can see the splinter in the other guy's eye, and miss the beam in your own. So you can "see" the defect of the other party, which might be real. The other guy is, in fact, a sinner, and you correctly perceive the sin lodged there. But simultaneously you miss a larger defect in your own person, and because you correctly perceive one small aspect of the situation (the other guy's sin) you incorrectly suppose that you can correctly perceive all aspects of the situation. Which means that since you don't see the beam in your own eye, it doesn't exist. Now you are deluded, but since you think that you perceive correctly you take no measures to break the delusion and are stuck. The beam remains lodged in you own eye.

The poison of the tree of knowledge not only blinds you, but it makes you think that you can see. So you get stuck there. You might read the epistle to the Galatians and think, "Yeah, those foolish Galatians. Who has bewitched them?" Not realizing that you are similarly foolish, and bewitched.

[OBW]

I realize that Babylon and Egypt were different kinds of captivity. But how is it that we should conclude that anyone thought they were in Zion while in Babylon? My initial reaction is to wonder if this is part of the miss-cast of Babylon by Lee and the LRC.

Babylon was not wanted. Many tried to avoid going. But God decreed that it was to be. And they were not simply invited to live peacefully. No. They weren't mistreated the way they had been in Egypt. But they were no less captives.

By the end of the 70 years, while they lived in the land of Babylon, they were no longer under the rule of Babylon. It was still a foreign ruler — Persia — but it was less oppressive, eventually even allowing them to return as had been prophesied.

So the thing that many stayed within (or moved elsewhere besides Jerusalem from) was not the "Babylon" that had captured them. It was the Persians that freed them.

But where is there any suggestion that Babylon tricked the Jews into thinking they were in Zion? Besides some possible declaration by Lee that it is so I am aware of nothing.

I cannot find support for this metaphor of Babylon as bad religion (specifically denominational Christianity) or as a kind of choice among good and bad Christianity. Babylon is not Christianity. If we choose "Babylon," we are not choosing a different brand of Christianity, but the world. We are rejecting even what is deemed "poor" by the LRC.

Yes, you would be correct to say that many who read this forum understand Babylon that way. But unless it is really so, it is probably best not to perpetuate their erroneous lexicon.

[aron]

Originally Posted by OBW

But where is there any suggestion that Babylon tricked the Jews into thinking they were in Zion? Besides some possible declaration by Lee that it is so I am aware of nothing.

Very good question. My comments certainly included a lot of subjective assessments, which coupled with my LC background, should make my pronouncements suspect.

Yes, Babylon as metaphor for deluded religion is a personal one. I own it. As far as where is the biblical source for such notions, I offer a few meager ones. Thank you OBW for your skeptical response.

Here they are:
1. "Fallen, fallen is Babylon the Great". Revelations chapter 14 and 18 don't say that Egypt is fallen, but rather that Babylon is fallen. Why is Babylon used as a metaphor in the NT? Because it is where the majority of the assemblies in Asia are, spiritually, I believe (linking epistles in Chs 2 & 3 with the rest of the book), and by extension where many others also are ("blessed is he who reads and keeps the words of this prophecy"). The readers, blinded by the wrong tree, think they are the "New Testament corporate expression of the processed and consummated Triune God" but they are told, unequivocally, to repent. Just as Jesus and John the Baptist had told the religious and observant Jews in the beginning of the Gospels. Repent. You are not where you think you are.

2. Jesus said that the time will come when people will kill you and think that they are doing service to God. They think they are "in Zion" but they are "in Babylon". They are deluded; they are tricked. Saul of Tarsus was one such, trying to serve God, carrying papers with the names of those who were accused of calling on the name of Jesus. On the road, carrying those names, he was met by the Name Himself. "I am Jesus, whom you persecute". The veil of his delusion was rent.

3(a). Satan disguises himself as a bearer of light. The idea of Satan's penetration into God's kingdom, at least in this iteration, is largely predicated upon deception. Something is disguised as something else, and the unwary recipient then becomes its vector. "Get behind Me, Satan", says Jesus to Peter, and also to anyone who, at some point, gets trapped into carrying the counterfeit of reality.

3(b). Satan, having entered Judas, comes up and kisses Jesus on the cheek. Can you believe that 'God made flesh' would allow 'Satan made flesh' to kiss him? Folks, this is close-in warfare! The bearers of darkness are pretending to be light-bearers, and the agents of heaven are often disguised as "the least of these", i.e. nobodies. Bums and losers, the scum and offscouring of the earth.

So my point is that if some movement calls itself today's Zion (the "local church on the local ground", anyone?), don't be deceived into taking it at face value. Satan is not called the subtle one for nothing.

All the above, of course, is a tentative and subjective reading of the text, and should be modified. OBW is right to be skeptical, and not take my confident, categorical statements (supposed "z" equals "b", disguised) as if they were true or real.

[Peter Debelak]

I think OBW brings a healthy skepticism to the use of the metaphor. That said, the principle behind what aron is arguing - that the "trojan horse" of religion is a way to blind people - had definate biblical support. Here's two great examples from the NT:

1) Matthew 7 - "22 Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’ 23 Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’ "

2) Mark 8: When Jesus predicted his death, Peter tried to "defend" him and project him from such a fate - to which Jesus responded: "Get behind me Satan. For you do not have in mind the concerns of God, but rather the concerns of men."

Both of these reveal something very interesting. These "evildoers" or even "Satan" were called such precisely because they wanted to "do something for God." They were well intentioned. They did their deeds in the service of God.

Yet there was a certain hubris to their actions. They presumed to know the will of God and usurped Christ's name in order to accomplish it. This is the most invidious way to steal people away from following God's will, because it is accomplished by convincing people that they are, in fact, following God's will.

This could often be prevelant in the Local Church (indeed, in any church - but I saw it abundantly there - and practiced it myself). Because we were "part of" the elite group, there didn't need to be scrutiny under God's light. There didn't need to be searching, humble, groping prayer (as Igzy points out regarding the ground of locality. The "status" of our group was ultimately a hinderance to genuine seeking after God.

[alwayslearning]

Originally Posted by Peter Debelak

Perhaps, it seems to me Paul is arguing, if you are honest in the face of being completely known and therefore exposed as the broken being you are, you might grope after Him in whatever form that might take.

Rather than re-asserting your assurance of how well you “know God.”

What sort of posture or humility is required (and how do you get there) in order to still be open to “grope after God,” despite being able to articulate God’s eternal economy or, more difficult, the administration of God’s economy? Is there any room left for groping??? Perhaps the knowledge that we are completely “known by God” strips away the BS in our honest moments and leaves us bare and seeking…

Can we, when we recognize that every nuance of our hearts are known, start to begin to say "I don't know?" And then have to proceed in faith?

Peter I love the insights you have presented on this thread and the "hiccup" you have discovered in Galatians. It reminds me of this beautiful verse: "For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known."

We can know a lot of "the truth" about God and still be wrong. Wrong in attitude. Wrong in actions. Arrogant instead of broken. Rattling off orthodoxy without the fruit of the Spirit in our lives.

Being known by God can be a scary reality to face when we think of the implications. It's humbling to be sure. Our souls naked before God. But as you point out that is the real starting point in our journey to "know in part".

[aron]

Originally Posted by alwayslearning

It reminds me of this beautiful verse: "For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known."

... "then shall I know even as also I am known." What an amazing verse. I am going to have to look that one up. Thanks for your comments.

[Peter Debelak]

Originally Posted by alwayslearning

It reminds me of this beautiful verse: "For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known."

We can know a lot of "the truth" about God and still be wrong. Wrong in attitude. Wrong in actions. Arrogant instead of broken. Rattling off orthodoxy without the fruit of the Spirit in our lives.

Being known by God can be a scary reality to face when we think of the implications. It's humbling to be sure. Our souls naked before God. But as you point out that is the real starting point in our journey to "know in part".

Great verse, alwaylearning. The context in 1 Cor. reinforces your points here: 13:2 "If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing."

Originally Posted by Peter Debelak

.
I was struck by a “hiccup” of Paul’s recently. He is perplexed by the Galatians, who – having begun in Spirit – are following the outward standards of men - albeit in the service of God.
He begins to ask a question – “But now that you now God…”
But he stops himself. That is not what he wanted to say. There is something wrong with saying it that way. So he amends (and given the reality that he had no eraser, we get to see the adjustment to his own thought):
“Or rather, are known by God…”
(Galations 4:9)
The context of his question is why have they become enslaved by the standards of men, when they began in Spirit (Galations 3).
Why does he switch from “now that you know God” to “you are known by God.”
In the context of his argument to the Galations, it seems to me obvious.

I wonder if you're reading this right...I don't think Paul corrects himself in the way that you say (and not having an eraser has nothing to do with it). The Galatians did know God in some true sense. So much so that Paul was able to marvel that they were being led astray. If they had not known God, would it be surprising that they were going their own way, following after other things? Could they be turning BACK to when the did not know Him (Galatians 4:8).

Knowing God and being known are here almost one and the same. Out of this context the two can be quite dissimilar. God knows everyone, but not everyone knows God.

Here, Paul is reminding them that they have known God, but then changes, not correcting himself so much as clarifying what it means to know God--it means more precisely to be known by Him. But to be known by Him how? Surely not in the sense that everyone is known by God (He is their omniscient creator). How then? The answer, I think, is right at the beginning of the chapter. God knew them as sons. Their knowing God resulted in God knowing them as sons and hence as heirs, no longer as slaves.

There is always the danger of thinking that we know God, that we know Him more than others know Him. I don't think that's what Paul is addressing here. His concern seems to be more that they are going back to what previously enslaved them, to their way of life before having come to know God and before having become heirs.

[Peter Debelak]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

I wonder if you're reading this right....

I am not sure we're really saying anything different here.

I do think you are right that in this context there is not much difference in God's eyes between knowing God and being known by God. But to emphasize one as more precient in this context is to make a point. And I do think that Paul was invoking their sonship as you point out.

They had been lead astray back to slavery. But the point I am looking at is what kind of slavery? How did they get there? What kind of influence was it?

I think it is not a small part of their slavery that they became enslaved in the service of God. That is, it is precisely because they sought to "do God right" that they were vulnerable to enslavement by the standards of men.

They absolutely had some knowledge of God - which was right and good. But in this context, where their errors sprang, in part, our of some human notion of "knowing God", Paul sought to emphasize (not necessarily contrast) that they are known by God - a revelation that immediately strips away the outward strivings and returns you to your position as a child with a Father who completely knows you.

As I said: it is both liberating and sobering.

Thank you for your comments.

In Love,

Peter

P.S. regarding the "eraser," Why does the verse not read "Now that you are known by God?" The "or rather" construction is more predominately an oral construction because we compose as we speak. When writing, where we have opportunity to edit or re-write, such a "or rather" construction is unnecessary. Check out 1 Cor. 1:14-16. Paul has to amend his point about how many Corinthians he had baptized, after stating that he was glad he hadn't baptized any of them. There does seem to be a flavor or a free-hand letter being written - without an eraser. But this point is not central in any sense. Just some observations...

Originally Posted by Peter Debelak

But to emphasize one as more precient in this context is to make a point.
They had been lead astray back to slavery. But the point I am looking at is what kind of slavery? How did they get there? What kind of influence was it?

I think it is not a small part of their slavery that they became enslaved in the service of God. That is, it is precisely because they sought to "do God right" that they were vulnerable to enslavement by the standards of men.

Why does the verse not read "Now that you are known by God?" The "or rather" construction is more predominately an oral construction because we compose as we speak. When writing, where we have opportunity to edit or re-write, such a "or rather" construction is unnecessary. Check out 1 Cor. 1:14-16. Paul has to amend his point about how many Corinthians he had baptized, after stating that he was glad he hadn't baptized any of them. There does seem to be a flavor or a free-hand letter being written - without an eraser. But this point is not central in any sense. Just some observations...

Just a few quick responses...I agree with your agreement that we pretty much agree, that we're saying very similar things.

I don't know what you mean by Paul emphasizing "one as more precient..." even if you meant to say prescient, I don't understand what you're trying to say.

What the Galatians were being led back to were not so much the "standards of men" as you say, but the standards as laid out by God to the Jews before Christ came and brought freedom. Circumcision, observation of days, et.al are covered in Paul's letter.

There is something in us that wants to please God, that strives to please Him and that something in its true impulse can only come from God. All other expressions of it are , as you pointed out, a form of slavery. Paul knows the Galatians have known God (been set free in Christ), but almost feels like he's wasted his time because they are exchanging that freedom for their former state of slavery. In 1st Thes. Paul states he is trying to please God. In Hebrews, too, he speaks of what it means to please God. In Romans it is our faith (given to us by God) that pleases God. Pleasing God misaims when it reverts back to the very slavery from which we have been set free.

Re the eraser...I think Paul was a much more careful and sophisticated write to have simply left such an important "correction" stay in a letter. I think it was purposeful for the reasons I pointed out in the initial response. Your reference to his correcting himself in Corinthians is of a different sort, a mistake in his memory. Stylistically it may sound the same, but the import is much different.

A brother in faith

[Peter Debelak]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Just a few quick responses...I agree with your agreement that we pretty much agree, that we're saying very similar things.

I don't know what you mean by Paul emphasizing "one as more precient..." even if you meant to say prescient, I don't understand what you're trying to say.

Yes, I had intended to spell the words I used correctly. Here's what I'm trying to say:

Yes, it is true that - as you said - "to know God" and "to be known by God" in this context are "pretty much the same" (I think this was your phrasing). But that's the point of taking notice of Paul's construction here! If they are "pretty much the same" then why the need to amend the thought? Why was it not sufficient, for what Paul wanted to say, to simply say:

"Now that you know God...."

by amending it, Paul is saying that a reminder that they "know God" is not the side of the truth that he wanted to emphasize for the sake of the argument he is making.

Even if you take out my reference to this as a "hiccup" and throw out my comment on the "eraser," you are still left with the question of why "you are known by God" more effectively communicated the specific argument he's making to the Galations. The fact that "that you know God" does not, itself, foot the bill for the argument he is trying to convey, makes "that you are known by God," even more poignant (perhaps a better word than "prescient" - I should have edited with my eraser before posting).

Originally Posted by Unregistered

What the Galatians were being led back to were not so much the "standards of men" as you say, but the standards as laid out by God to the Jews before Christ came and brought freedom. Circumcision, observation of days, et.al are covered in Paul's letter.

We're splicing hairs, I think. The point I'm making is made whichever "standards" we're referencing. In the context of Christians, under a New Covenant, imposing Jewish standards as the supposed "right way" to be a Christian is the standards of men.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

There is something in us that wants to please God, that strives to please Him and that something in its true impulse can only come from God. All other expressions of it are , as you pointed out, a form of slavery. Paul knows the Galatians have known God (been set free in Christ), but almost feels like he's wasted his time because they are exchanging that freedom for their former state of slavery. In 1st Thes. Paul states he is trying to please God. In Hebrews, too, he speaks of what it means to please God. In Romans it is our faith (given to us by God) that pleases God. Pleasing God misaims when it reverts back to the very slavery from which we have been set free.

...

Agreed.

In Love,

Peter

P.S. The observations here don't rely on my "eraser" comment being right, so I'll drop it.

Originally Posted by Peter Debelak

Why was it not sufficient, for what Paul wanted to say, to simply say:

"Now that you know God...."

by amending it, Paul is saying that a reminder that they "know God" is not the side of the truth that he wanted to emphasize for the sake of the argument he is making.

Even if you take out my reference to this as a "hiccup" and throw out my comment on the "eraser," you are still left with the question of why "you are known by God" more effectively communicated the specific argument he's making to the Galations. The fact that "that you know God" does not, itself, foot the bill for the argument he is trying to convey, makes "that you are known by God," even more poignant...

We're splicing hairs, I think. The point I'm making is made whichever "standards" we're referencing. In the context of Christians, under a New Covenant, imposing Jewish standards as the supposed "right way" to be a Christian is the standards of men.

Splitting hair perhaps. As a Christian "imposing Jewish standards as the supposed right way shows, to my mind, a misunderstanding of what Christ has accomplished, a misunderstanding and what it means to be a Christian. Jewish standards aren't standards of men so much as they are God's old covenant, which has been replaced by Christ. That Peter had been persuaded by man to revert says more about him (and the Galatians fall into the same condition) than about any constructed standards of men. Those men who persuaded Peter were still under the old covenant, not having understood Christ's significance. The men Paul is speaking about here in chapter 4 are those who want the Galatians to be zealous for them, not for Paul, read the old covenant not the new.

In your original post you said that there was something wrong with what Paul initially said. Was his adjustment then correcting what was wrong? If so then your latest post seems to have deviated from your initial position. (I'm sorry if I seem so hung up on this. It's an interesting way of phrasing things--why, indeed, did Paul state the Galatians position vis-a-vis God in such terms)? It seems more likely, again to my mind, that Paul was giving a sort of parallax view of their relationship to the Father. The "or rather" is not so much a change in direction as it is a change in perspective. Paul wanted them to see that NOT ONLY did they know God, but God knew them, God recognized them as heirs. That, I think, is why Paul added that curious phrase.

A brother in faith

[Peter Debelak]

I should add that referencing a "hiccup" or lack of eraser, I am not at all suggesting some error in the Scriptures. It's all Gods word.