What is God's Economy?

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Trapped

IIRC, the comment on "both being true" was made regarding the two trees in the garden of Eden. One side was that "something got into man" from the TOTKOGAE fruit itself....and that the fact that God chose "eating" was significant; the other side was that nothing got into man from the fruit because the Bible describes the TOTKOGAE only positively, just forbidden, and that disobedience was the issue.

And my response is that the only thing we know from the scripture is that there was disobedience and consequence. Everything else, even if actually true, is not commented on and therefore supposition. That is the problem with so much of what Lee said and taught. There is some that is clearly false. But much of it is not stated either way, but insisted upon by Lee as being true and important as such. That is why it is so hard to simply defeat it. It is not clearly wrong, but neither is it clearly right. And it is stated in terms that seem so spiritual. And after you have taken your followers on an exciting trip down "amen!" lane, just saying it seems reasonable since the speaker (Lee) has just established his credibility with that sequence of true statements.

So here we are. Genesis 3. God says don't eat, but they did anyway. Lee's premise is that since eating is the process of getting something into the body, then it must mean that the bite invaded our body with bad stuff. But the Bible never says that. And it never even hints that the tree is evil or bad, or that what is in the fruit is itself harmful. Only the warning that eating results in death (not in permanent invasion by Satan).

And the cause of the curse is given as disobedience, not becoming infected. And neither is the curse itself described as being linked to what was eaten. The disobedience began as a willful exercise of disobedience before the teeth met the fruit.

No evidence that it was something invading man through the ingestion of the fruit. Only supposition. Not known fact. Could be. And could not be. The record here doesn't say. And even the wording of Paul's discourse in Romans 7 doesn't make either clearly right. So we are left without a reason to insist on anything.

However, if you presume it to be true, you could read Romans 7 to support it. But that results in the error of begging the question (circular reasoning) — using the unestablished premise as true to cause the otherwise unclear evidence to support the unestablished premise. (And this is not the only place that Nee or Lee used this kind of logical error to support a teaching.)

The problem is that insisting on either is not supportable, therefore not a basis for claiming a superior theology or ministry.

And it really isn't like the Calvinist/Arminianism debate. Those at least are dealing with verses that somewhat support their positions. That means that there is a lack of understanding of the differences and context for the different verses. And possibly the lack of understanding of certain terms and their extent of application.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by OBW

So here we are. Genesis 3. God says don't eat, but they did anyway. Lee's premise is that since eating is the process of getting something into the body, then it must mean that the bite invaded our body with bad stuff. But the Bible never says that. And it never even hints that the tree is evil or bad, or that what is in the fruit is itself harmful. Only the warning that eating results in death (not in permanent invasion by Satan).

As we've discussed numerous times on here (and I think most know my position) - I still wonder why God used the instance of eating something to start this all out. He could have used many things rathering than fruit eating . . . Jus' sayin'

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

As we've discussed numerous times on here (and I think most know my position) - I still wonder why God used the instance of eating something to start this all out. He could have used many things rathering than fruit eating . . . Jus' sayin'

I understand the presumption. But it is just that . . . presumption. There is no overarching theme, no built-in lens that makes it so.

To arrive at that conclusion requires that you take what is written beyond what is written. That you layer on an extension to what is there does not make it relevant to the issue. And I actually believe that if it was really so important to think in this way, the command would have been more specific. Or the confrontation afterward would have been more about something that got inside rather than how the outward would be.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by OBW

I understand the presumption. But it is just that . . . presumption. There is no overarching theme, no built-in lens that makes it so.

To arrive at that conclusion requires that you take what is written beyond what is written. That you layer on an extension to what is there does not make it relevant to the issue. And I actually believe that if it was really so important to think in this way, the command would have been more specific. Or the confrontation afterward would have been more about something that got inside rather than how the outward would be.

Was that the last significant reference to eating in the Bible? (And didn't Jesus saying something about eating Me and living?)

[aron]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Was that the last significant reference to eating in the Bible? (And didn't Jesus saying something about eating Me and living?)

And didn't Jesus say that his eating was to do the will of the Father, and just as he obeyed the Father, we were to obey his commands? (But you ignore this every time it's raised, will do so here as well)."Thy words were found and I did eat them" is thus contextually being interpreted by Jesus as obedience to commands. Do you willfully ignore this interpretation, in favor of Lee's? That's what it begins to look like.

The problem with Lee's version isn't just that it's unprovable, though he presented it as though it were proved. The real problem is that you buy in and subsequently end up ignoring, downplaying, or waving-away of other verses, just as 'crucial' as the ones that his theology was built on. (Or you generously concede that there are various understandings, all equally true-ish, including yours.)

Originally Posted by OBW

I actually believe that if it was really so important to think in this way, the command would have been more specific. Or the confrontation afterward would have been more about something that got inside rather than how the outward would be.

What came afterward, cited repeatedly in NT epistle, is thematic continuation of the Genesis 3 episode. First there's some connection with God, meant to be maintained through strict obedience to God's command, yet disobedience follows and then there's separation, and consequences of separation: death, darkness, chains, gloomy pits, cries of anguish.

The first that comes to mind is Genesis 6:1-6, cited by Peter and Jude. The angels kept not their appointed place, but transgressed, and were given up. Nothing about eating, but rather about disobedience breaking the relationship with God. Then the famous wilderness episode, cited by both Paul in 1 Corinthians 10 and also the writer of Hebrews (chap 3). God saved them from bondage in Egypt, yet afterward this rescue was severed by disobedience, and they fell. (note that this was written as instruction to believers!) In the narrative structure, there's assumed a relationship, a command, some disobedience, and then a giving-up by God. Similar to Genesis 3, no?

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by aron

And didn't Jesus say that his eating was to do the will of the Father, and just as he obeyed the Father, we were to obey his commands?

"Thy words were found and I did eat them" is thus interpreted by Jesus as obedience. Do you ignore this interpretation, in favor of Lee's? That's what it looks like.

The problem with Lee's version isn't just that it's unprovable, though he presented it as though it were proved. The problem is that you end up ignoring, downplaying, or waving-away of other verses, just as 'crucial' as the ones that the theology was built on.

What came afterward, cited heavily in NT commentary, is a continuation of Genesis 3: some connection with God, to be continued through obedience to God's command, yet disobedience followed, and there was separation from God, and the consequences of separation: death, darkness, chains, gloomy pits, cries of anguish. And in none of it is "eating" linked to the disobedience.

Didn't Jesus say "He who eats Me" right after presenting Himself as the bread of life in John 6?

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Didn't Jesus say "He who eats Me" right after presenting Himself as the bread of life in John 6?

That chapter contains references to Exodus and Isaiah. There is nothing in that chapter to connect it to Genesis. No reference. No throwback. No quote.

There is no reference to trees. Or fruit. Or gardens. Or Adam and Eve.

Do you know what eisegesis is versus exegesis? Here is an example from this website of eisegesis: https://deeperstudy.com/out-or-in-ex...-bible-study/:

"A notorious example of this kind of eisegesis is the following chain of passages: “Judas… went away and hanged himself” (Matthew 27:5). “Go and do likewise” (Luke 10:37). “What you are about to do, do quickly” (John 13:27). These three verses are unrelated to each other, but throwing them together in this haphazard way almost sounds credible."

Can you see the problem?

You're doing the same thing. Trying to take random verses that are not related and mashing them together to form a teaching unsupported by actual scripture. This is the foundation of leading people astray, of deceptive doctrines.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Didn't Jesus say "He who eats Me" right after presenting Himself as the bread of life in John 6?

I said that you would ignore my reference, in search for another, and you did. Jesus' interpretive grid of John 4:34 puts 'eating' as 'doing' -"My food is to do the [expressed] will of the Father" - i.e. to obey God's commands. This puts "Thy words were found and I did eat them" in Jesus' context of doing. This puts "Man doesn't live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God" in Jesus' operational understanding of doing the Father's will. "I always see my Father, because I always do his will". (John 5:19; cf John 8:29)

As Jesus ate the Father's words by obedience, and lived, so should the disciples eat Jesus' words by obedience, and live by him. See also John 15:10. Quite explicitly put - as Jesus lived by the Father's word, so we live by his. Again, continued, unbroken obedience is the theme. Yet all of this text must be ignored when one oversimplifies. When people would argue like this in front of Jesus, he'd say, "Have you no knowledge of scripture" or "Have you not read scripture". One must use all of the available text, not a few 'crucial' verses to support doctrine.

So yes, Jesus did say that; if you were on a desert island, and one sheet of the Bible washed up with John 6 on it, you might be forgiven that reading. But with the whole scripture available, to retreat to that one section, there to resolutely remain, I don't think reading is very strong. It should cross through and connect with the whole text, not jump haphazardly from one unrelated verse to another.

This is especially my critique as stated in post #403. In order to maintain his view, WL had to create a two-tiered scripture, one which supported his thesis, and one which didn't. I don't think such readings are healthy at all. You have your 'crucial' sections, often quite small, then the 'middling' sections, of some use, and then the surprisingly large 'fallen' and 'low' sections, to be forgotten and ignored.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Didn't Jesus say "He who eats Me" right after presenting Himself as the bread of life in John 6?

Well, there you have it. Jesus said "he who eats me shall live by me." That means that Gen 3 was about what was taken in, not just disobedience.

A = B, thefore B = C.

You are too captured to the whole system of error that is wrapped up in the kind of logic that I demonstrate in the simple illogic above.

I know I have said this many times, and I assume you have heard it from me. But if not, here it is again. Studies show that things that have been taught and accepted as true for some period of time will be held as true despite later evidence (overwhelming and incontrovertible) that it is actually false by more than 50 percent of people.

That means that we are prone to simply believe it because we have always believed it. Or have for a long time. "I'm a Baptist like my father and grandfather before me." (Not saying anything about Baptists. Just pointing to the lack of willingness to even consider that it could be wrong.)

And I say this now to you because you have not actually given me any evidence that what you believe is correct other than unrelated facts about eating. Nothing that actually speaks directly to Gen 3, either there or elsewhere.

[aron]

One thing that the interpretation favored by Lee does, is it presumes that Paul was a seer of the high peak of the divine revelation, and James is left behind, stuck in the old ways, soon to be superseded. Yet the NT never shows this.

In this, it must be conceded, WL is not the originator but continues an antipathy held since the early Greek Fathers that the Jewish believers were stuck in some old way. Martin Luther, for instance, expressed dislike for James and wanted it and Hebrews to go away with Tobit and Maccabees. But he conceded and left them at the end, after (!!) Revelation. Even today, those two books are apocryphal tag-ons in the Lutheran Bible.

WL used terms like "mixed sentiments" and "low" and "fallen" and "natural" to separate that which could be safely ignored. It was pretty clear that he was all about Paul and Paul's abstract concepts, which could lead one to an abstract and malleable Christ, a processed Christ.

But if you look at Galatians 2:10 as God's economy (oikonomea theou), then you have one holistic bible, not a two-tiered Bible of the Recovery Version footnotes. There, Paul relates one specific command from the original disciples as they send Paul forth to the gentiles: "remember the poor", and Paul says that he eagerly assents. Does Paul consider this "low" or "fallen" if he receives the command with eagerness?

Jesus had taught, "Store up treasure in heaven" and "give, and it will be given to you" and "give to those who can't repay" and in this command in Galatians 2 we see both the Jerusalem home base and the outreach to the gentile world in lock step with Jesus' commands. There was a unified command.

Then, Paul's requests in Romans and 1 Corinthians to set aside for the poor of Jerusalem, Paul's 2 chapter explication in 2 Cor 8,9 about sharing with those who don't have as fellowship in love (Just as Christ who was rich became poor for you, so you become poor for others), the return to Jerusalem with "alms for my nation" per Acts 24:17.

Then look at James: "Suppose a brother or a sister is without clothes and daily food." This theme is constant in his epistle, to care for the widows and orphans, to respect those who are in filthy rags. If you realize this is 'oikonomea theou' in Paul's epistle, then James and Paul are both following the Master's commands. There is no two-tiered scripture. Galatians 2:10 shows, in Paul's own words, what they both were eager to do: follow the Master's commands.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Was that the last significant reference to eating in the Bible? (And didn't Jesus saying something about eating Me and living?)

And, consistent with Lee, if you find eating anywhere in the Bible, then everything must be about eating in the same way.

Yet so many of the references to eating are metaphorical or typological, not literal. And, just like we have seen about leaven, every instance of eating is not just like every other instance of eating. It makes for a great overlay that "so many others have missed."

Don't go beyond what is written. Don't presume that eating always has the same meaning. It does not necessarily imply anything about the process of spending time chewing, but possibly only about taking in whatever is in question.

And while the eating of the forbidden tree in Gen 3 surely included the chewing and swallowing, there is nothing in the account that indicates that anything more the the act of disobedience was relevant (in other words, the mere act of eating was the forbidden thing). The command did not say that "in the day you eat of it, you will be infected with a poison that will kill you," or "you will ingest Satan himself into you." It just says (in a few more words) "don't eat it or you will die." It didn't even state clearly what "death" meant. Most think that it is probably separation from God. But it could also be that the very fact of physical death is a result of it. But since we get to see it in hindsight, it didn't mean that we drop dead "in the day you eat of it." There was another meaning.

When God came to find them hiding, he didn't say "see, you now have Satan in you." He asked them a question, and they acknowledged that they had eaten. And God said "because you have" to both the serpent and to Adam. In short, because of this, things are going to be bad. If it was simply what went in with the fruit, then no declaration by God was needed.

The point is not that it could not be but that there is nothing we can see that makes it so. Therefore it is not worthy of making declarations about it. Not worthy of being taught.

And if it is not worthy of being taught, then to teach it is to invite . . . guess what . . . questions. Aud you find yourself teaching the things that Paul said to avoid. Like endless genealogies.

So a good Berean is looking for reasons to stand on it as true, not merely the lack of evidence that it is false, or a forced overlay from somewhere else to cause what it written to say something it does not otherwise say.

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by OBW

The problem is that insisting on either is not supportable, therefore not a basis for claiming a superior theology or ministry.

I won't go into everything I've already said about this, but from the verses I do think it is thoroughly supportable. ("It" being that there wasn't any bad element in the fruit).

The TOTKOGAE is described as 1) in the center of the garden, 2) being good for food, 3) pleasant to the sight, 4) makes you like God, and 5) forbidden to eat.

That's the information we are given. I don't know about you, but "good for food" simply cannot be said of something that is bad/death/poison, etc.

It also cannot be said that the TOTKOGAE was actually the "tree of death". To hold that view means that God was deceptive in referring to it as the TOTKOGAE, if it was actually a TOD. Not only that, but reading a few verses later shows where death came from - not from the TOTKOGAE, but it was punishment from God for their sin, by cutting them off from the tree of life.

I am a church kid who believed Lee's interpretation for decades. I went looking for support of his teaching - that there was some negative element in the TOTKOGAE - and found none.