What is God's Economy?

[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.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by Trapped

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.

Okay. Are they both about eating? And what about the tree of life in Revelation 2 & 22, is it just to look at?

Fruit is for eating, which means it gets in you, right?

[aron]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Okay. Are they both about eating? And what about the tree of life in Revelation 2 & 22, is it just to look at?

Fruit is for eating, which means it gets in you, right?

Revelation 22:2 mentions two issues of the TOL: fruit, and leaves. Fruit is assumed to function, but leaves are explicitly listed in function, as healing the nations (i.e. the gentiles, or non-Jews). If you truncate scripture it doesn't strengthen your case. You end up living in a world where only your special verses exist, and the constellations of readings that feed off of them. I was there once.

Of course we all must interpret, and understanding means contextual placement, and placement means subordinating and elevating. But a reading which simplifies to that extent? In which better readings (more scripturally-consistent) are ignored? In which a two-tiered Bible exists, with verses that support your understandings and others which are "low" and "fallen"?

(I don't think StG aligns with all of that, but his overly simplistic reading is too close)

StG, if fruit in Revelation 22 is important, then the leaves and the healing of the nations are moreso, being explicitly spelled out. You can't just hop about, pulling words out of context. That doesn't make a coherent argument. The leaves and the healing of the nations should be 3 to 1 to fruit in context in Rev 22, but the WL context is 1 to 10. It's unbalanced. A worldview must be coherent, executable.

I sympathise with your worldview, having been there once. I just ask you to consider another worldview, in which John 4:24 also exists, in which John 15:10 also exists, in which "leaves" and "nations" also exist besides "fruit". In which obedience means eating, and eating means life, and disobedience means death. That worldview is explicitly spelled out in the pages of the NT text.

If you read Revelation 22:2, the tree of life is not ''just to look at''. But what does the text actually say? All of it, please.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by aron

I don't think StG aligns with all of that, but his overly simplistic "this means that" kind of reading is too close to it for my comfort.

StG, if you think the fruit in Revelation 22:2 is important, then the leaves and the healing of the nations are moreso, being more explicitly spelled out in msg #44. You can't just hop about, pulling words out of context. That doesn't make a coherent argument. The leaves and the healing of the nations should be 3 to 1 in context, but the WL context is 1 to 10. It's unbalanced. A worldview must be coherent, executable.

Sorry I didn't address your specific reference earlier, as you pointed out! I am hoping around today with various business Zoom meetings & communications, personal and other practical items, as well as responding on this forum - hopefully I'm doing at least half of these things effectively!

Let me just say, that this is another instance where I see both. That is, that it was BOTH the disobedient act of our predecessors in the Garden of Eden, and that they ate a forbidden fruit which got into them. Most on here seem to think it's one way, but again, I suspect it's both aspects. That's because I don't think God does things haphazardly for no reason, and I think this also applies to all the talk about eating in scripture.

[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.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by OBW

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.

Hey, now yer "stealing" my line! Yes, I do believe that to be true too. And as my wife is fond of quoting, "A mind convinced against its will, is simply of the same mind still." I am prone to it. You are prone to it. We all are! And as Thomas Sowell astutely points out in his seminal book, "A Conflict of Visions," what we accept as true or not is largely governed by the vision one has previously accepted. This is why the energies we expend trying to convince others of our perspective is frequently an uphill battle, to say the least!

With all that said, it just seems simple to me to accept both the disobedience thing and the eating thing as I see both in scripture. Plus, it's not one of those core, essential items of the faith that I feel a need to die on that hill for. What am I really missing by believing my way or your way in this case?

[aron]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

.. it just seems simple to me to accept both the disobedience thing and the eating thing as I see both in scripture... What am I really missing by believing my way or your way in this case?

In this case, you're missing John 4:24 (among many others). Jesus offers us a window into his world, which you apparently refuse to look into. Why is that? It offers a reading of "Your words were found and I did eat them, and they were to me the joy and rejoicing of my heart." It offers a reading of, "Man does not live by bread alone but by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God." It is a world of absolute and continual obedience: not ours but his.

I don't think Jesus lived in a world of partial truths. He lived in a world of absolutes. "I come to do Thy will, O God; behold in the scroll of the book is written concerning me." Jesus aligns himself with this absoluteness consistently. Yet your interpretive "fruit" in Genesis 3 rolls on past, oblivious to all this, it seems. Why is that?

I think the only explanation we Christians should seek is the one Jesus gives. Everything else finds its relative place within his absolutes. Where there's uncertainty on Jesus' view, or mixed readings, we're quiet, and careful. But is John 4:24 equivocation? Or is it ignored, in pursuit of our equivocation?

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by aron

In this case, you're missing John 4:24 (among many others). Jesus offers us a window into his world, which you apparently refuse to look into. Why is that? It offers a reading of "Your words were found and I did eat them, and they were to me the joy and rejoicing of my heart." It offers a reading of, "Man does not live by bread alone but by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God." It is a world of absolute and continual obedience: not ours but his.

I don't think Jesus lived in a world of partial truths. He lived in a world of absolutes. "I come to do Thy will, O God; behold in the scroll of the book is written concerning me." Jesus aligns himself with this absoluteness consistently. Yet your interpretive "fruit" in Genesis 3 rolls on past, oblivious to all this, it seems. Why is that?

I think the only explanation we Christians should seek is the one Jesus gives. Everything else finds its relative place within his absolutes. Where there's uncertainty on Jesus' view, or mixed readings, we're quiet, and careful. But is John 4:24 equivocation? Or is it ignored, in pursuit of our equivocation?

This seems like a false dilemma to me . . . does it mean if I accept John 4:24 that it negates something else?

[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.