What is God's Economy?

[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!

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.

But even if your point is true (containing some objective validity), then sitting here typing about the "which got into them" might well be an out-welling of "which got into them" and not any closer to "the leaves for the healing of the nations" - or the fruit! - of Revelation 22:2. And any talk of 'eating' which resolutely (so it seems to me) ignores Jesus' own talk of 'my food' in John 4:24 doesn't seem like having a validity of any real application. It's a talk, a book, a pamphlet.

[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]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

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

A philosophical or theological world-view must be coherent, i.e. internally consistent, and must engage all the data/input/experiences [i.e. scripture] available. We were talking about "God's economy" as expounded by WL, and someone raised Lee's Two Trees idea, which you seem to consistently affirm. The Two Trees theorem holds that it's not about doing but about eating. Not outward action but inner life, life-union, and life-supply.

(Yet this misses the outer actions of Jesus. He told the Baptizer's followers to go back and tell John what they saw Jesus doing unto others.)

StG, do you remember the songs by which we learned the WL theorems? I do.

I’m walking down the road
That leads to glory.
I’m pressing toward the mark
By enjoying God!
I don’t know so much,
Just to love Him.
I’m walking down the road,
Glory, here I come.

"I don't know so much" - negation of knowledge = enforced ignorance. Only a few select "crucial" verses are enough. "Get out of your mind, brother!" Cult-speak 101

With the brothers and the sisters,
We enjoy Him day by day.
It’s so simple and easy,
Our worries flee away.
Now we’re growing together,
As one big family,
Abiding in the joy of the Lord

"It's so simple and easy" - an oversimplified world-view in which any difficult reconciliations of various creative tensions in the scripture, e.g., faith v/v works, are dismissed out of hand. Just eat the Tree of Life - yell more, yell louder.

We enjoy You, Lord Jesus,
In our experience.
We’re getting to know You—
It’s making us leap and dance.
Just eating and drinking,
It’s what we do the best,
Delighting in the love of the Lord.

"Just eating and drinking." - don't worry about doing, just get filled with the Triune God, and get conformed, transformed, and transfigured. This is God's economy, in verse, for the masses. (Yet look at behaviours of the leaders - where's evidence of transformation?) The word "just" is key - anything but "eating and drinking" is categorically rejected as TOKOGAE.

I could cite a dozen other songs I learned in my first few months, as I was programmed with the WL world-view. Today I don't think this world-view is either self-consistent or matches the span of NT scripture. So when you presented a seemingly-simple verse, where Jesus tells us to "eat him" in John 6, I showed what Jesus meant by his food in John 4, and later (John 14:15,21,23; 15:10) that his "eating" of obedience to God's word must be matched by our experience of obedience to him. This, per Jesus, is our eating of him. There is a clear and consistent line in John's gospel, and John 6 must stay in this line. If you go, "Genesis 3, John 6, Revelation 22" you create a truncated and oversimplified scriptural narrative.

(I may not be reacting to StG's ideas as much as they seem to be at least partly aligned with the WL world-view, which I do negate on its face.)

Jesus continually lived in the Father's presence. The fall and the curse didn't catch him. He always did the Father's will, saw the Father's face. The Father's word was not disobeyed, to bring judgment and condemnation, but was obeyed, to become approval and eternal life. "This is my beloved Son, in whom I delight; you must hear him."

So Jesus, via obedience, continually lived at the TOL and "ate" via following God's word. Now to his disciples, he's Word incarnate, the Logos of God. He is our very life. Again, we obey him as he obeyed the Father, and he is indeed our life supply. We live by him. But it's doing. Not yelling slogans.

Again, I may not overlap fully with StG world-view, and apologize if I've dragged it afield. I'm just reacting to what I've read, and how it apparently matches the WL world-view that I was once immersed in.

--

Suppose the Jerusalem brothers had said, "only remember the poor" and Paul had replied, "No, I'm not here for that - I just want to enjoy Christ!" Then you'd have a case. But he didn't say that and there's no case, but simply a very deep read-between-the-lines by the self-proclaimed Seer of the Divine Revelation, who happened to self-publish and sell his books to a captive, stupefied audience.

No, Paul was eager to remember the poor, and we repeatedly see him doing this in epistle and in Acts. I've gone over this in detail. And this is a continuation of Jesus' command to Peter - "Feed my sheep" - which Peter and the Twelve did with real, actual physical food, in the early chapters of Acts, and which Paul and Barnabas also did in Acts 12:25, and now Paul was traveling and doing with the gentile churches.

With this view of God's economy, we don't have a two-tiered NT, but rather a self-consistent reading that covers all the available scriptures, not just a few so-called crucial verses.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by aron

A philosophical or theological world-view must be coherent, i.e. internally consistent, and must engage all the data/input/experiences [i.e. scripture] available. We were talking about "God's economy" as expounded by WL, and someone raised Lee's Two Trees idea, which you seem to consistently affirm. The Two Trees theorem holds that it's not about doing but about eating. Not outward action but inner life, life-union, and life-supply.

With this view of God's economy, we don't have a two-tiered NT, but rather a self-consistent reading that covers all the available scriptures, not just a few so-called crucial verses.

I do think it's both. But if you had to force rank, that is, if you only had one (inner life vs. works), which should you have? In my mind, works springs from Him, and He lives in me.

And to me, much of the system of Christianity tends to practice the Christian life by "denying the power thereof." Therefore the Bible just becomes largely a set of outward principles, philosophies and ideas to follow, often without the joy of knowing Him and His resurrection life.

Paul and other writers, as has been pointed out, include both. Some gravitate more toward one side or the other. I see the so-called "inner life" teachers, such as Sparks, as trying to point out that works without Christ working through us is not profitable.

And nothing wrong with that song per se, but when you overlay it with certain LC ideas like you point out (e.g., "get out of your mind"), then I can understand your issue with it.