Pathways For Sojourners

[Johann!@#]

Who do you think Paul was saying was "accursed" in 1Cor 16:22 ?

hawkman

1Co 16:22 If anyone does not have ahavah (love) for HaAdon, Alav ki Cherem hu ("a curse of the ban of destruction is on him") [12:3]. Marana (our L-rd), tha (come).

1Co 16:22 If anyone does not love the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be accursed. O Lord, come!

J.

 

[hawkman]

hawkman

1Co 16:22 If anyone does not have ahavah (love) for HaAdon, Alav ki Cherem hu ("a curse of the ban of destruction is on him") [12:3]. Marana (our L-rd), tha (come).

1Co 16:22 If anyone does not love the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be accursed. O Lord, come!

J.

So it was people who had knowledge of Jesus Christ at that time , right ?

 

[Johann!@#]

So it was people who had knowledge of Jesus Christ at that time , right ?

Correct.

J.

 

[Beetow]

.
125) 2Cor 2:6-8 . . The punishment inflicted on him by the majority is sufficient for
him. Now instead, you ought to forgive and comfort him, so that he will not be
overwhelmed by excessive sorrow. I urge you, therefore, to reaffirm your love for
him.

The cause for which Paul wrote that piece was a guy in the Corinthian church
sleeping with his stepmother (1Cor 5:1). Paul had instructed the congregation to
not only hold the man's feet to the fire, but also to ostracize him.

Some time had passed since then, and the man was apparently regretting his
actions, and broken off the illicit relationship with his kin, so it was time to let him
back into the group. No doubt the humiliation of it all had a tremendous impact
upon his attitude-- probably upon the congregation's too because at first their
attitude wasn't all that good about it either. (cf. 1Cor 5:2)

Here in America scolding and ostracizing a church member would probably just
make them resentful rather than repentant. (cf. Ps 51:17)

FAQ: Does 2Cor 2:5-10 support the Watchtower Society's shunning and/or
Scientology's disconnection?

REPLY: Those organizations practice vindictive forms of ostracizing that oftentimes
destroy friendship bonds, destroy family ties, destroy marriage vows, and even
endanger careers.

Christian ostracizing is pretty much limited to fellowship, i.e. congregational
functions, e.g. worship services, communion, prayer meetings, banquets, etc.
Extreme shunning practices put Christians in jeopardy of failing to comply with
Christ's instructions per Matt 5:44-48. (cf. 2Thess 3:14-15)

* A rough-hewn example for us to think about is located in the 15th chapter of
1Samuel wherein king Saul disobeyed God's instructions to utterly destroy Agag.
Afterwards Saul entreated Samuel to accompany him to church but the prophet
refused until the king fully admitted he was in the wrong.
_

 

[Beetow]

.
126) 2Cor 2:10-11 . . If you forgive anyone, I also forgive him. And what I have
forgiven-- if there was anything to forgive --I have forgiven in the sight of Christ for
your sake, in order that Satan might not outwit us. For we are not unaware of his
schemes.

One of the opposition's tactics is to create disunity in a church. Sure enough when
that happens-- as when one portion of the congregation believes in judging and
ostracizing while the other doesn't --people start taking sides and the church will
end up divided into cliques and factions. According to the lord and master of New
Testament Christianity, a house divided against itself cannot stand.

Paul mentioned that his extension of forgiveness was "in the sight of Christ". There
exists some controversy as to the exact meaning but I think it's just saying that
Paul's forgiveness of that man was done in accordance with Christ's approval.
_

 

[Beetow]

.
127) 2Cor 5:20-21 . . We are therefore Christ's ambassadors, as though God were
making his appeal through us. We implore you on Christ's behalf: Be reconciled to
God.

There's two different aspects to reconciliation. One is a criminal justice kind of
reconciliation (e.g. Rom 5:6-11, Rom 6:3-11, 1John 2:2) and the other is a
fellowship kind of reconciliation. (e.g. Gen 4:1-7, Gen 5:22-24, Gen 6:9, Gen 17:1,
1John 1:3-7)

For example, a man and his wife may not be speaking to each other; and sleeping
in separate beds; but they're still married: they're just not getting along; in other
words, they're out of fellowship with one another. It's God's wishes that His own
walk with Him in fellowship while they're waiting for their departure; and the
Corinthians weren't doing very well at it.

In order to restore diplomatic relations between themselves and their Father above,
that congregation had to knuckle down and deal with sin in their midst in
accordance with their superior's wishes rather than their own. Compare Josh 7:2-26
where Moses' people couldn't win anymore battles until they first dealt with a sin in
their midst.

It's curious that a fully functioning Christian church like the one at Corinth was in
need of reconciliation with God. How many Christian churches are just like that
today? They pride themselves in being Spirit-filled congregations, yet their
congregational attitude is completely out of touch with Christ. Yes, Christian
congregations are oftentimes out of touch and need to come to their senses and
reconnect or else they risk becoming like the church at Laodicea where the central
figure of Christianity is depicted outside the building banging on the door trying to
get someone's attention to let him in. (Rev 3:14-22)
_

 

[Beetow]

.
128) 2Cor 6:1-2 . . As God's fellow workers we urge you not to receive God's grace
in vain; for He says: In the time of my favor I heard you, and in the day of
salvation I helped you. I tell you, now is the time of God's favor, now is the day of
salvation.

Salvation is a project similar to tearing down a house and building it back better.
Well; the Corinthians had undergone the demolition phase in concert with Christ's
crucifixion and resurrection; but they were stuck in the rubble, so to speak.

Well; Paul said, in so many words; that they shouldn't wait till the afterlife to begin
building back better, rather, God wanted them to begin now, in this life.

"For you have spent enough time in the past doing what pagans choose to do--
living in debauchery, lust, drunkenness, orgies, carousing and detestable idolatry."
(1Pet 4:3 cf. Rom 6:1-14)
_

 

[Beetow]

.
129) 2Cor 6:14-18 . . Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for
what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion
hath light with darkness? and what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part
hath he that believeth with an infidel? and what agreement hath the temple of God
with idols?

. . For ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said: I will dwell in them,
and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Wherefore
come out from among them, and be ye separate-- saith The Lord --and touch not
the unclean thing; and I will receive you, And will be a Father unto you, and ye
shall be my sons and daughters --saith The Lord Almighty.

Those instructions clearly prohibit intermarriage between Christians and non
Christians. Failure to comply is not only grossly disobedient, but it's unwise and can
have tragic results; for example:

● Gen 6:1-2 . .When men began to increase in number on the earth and daughters
were born to them, the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful,
and they married any of them they chose.

If we posit that the "sons of God" were believers and the "daughters of men" were
not; then it would appear that back in Noah's day, believing men threw caution to
the wind and built themselves harems of unbelieving women. What happened to
those believing men when it came time for the Flood? Well, for one thing; they had
lost their piety.

● Gen 7:1 . .The Lord then said to Noah: Go into the ark, you and your whole
family, because I have found you righteous in this generation.

None of the other sons of God in that day were righteous; hence they weren't
invited aboard the ark. All of those men-- whose women were chosen based solely
upon sensual allure sans any spiritual prudence whatsoever --perished in the Flood
right along with everybody else.

Another sad incident is located at Nehemiah 13:23-31; which led to the break-up of
homes because the Jews had entered into forbidden marriages. (cf. Josh 23:11-13,
Deut 7:1-6)
_

 

[hawkman]

If we posit that the "sons of God" were believers and the "daughters of men" were
not; then it would appear that back in Noah's day, believing men threw caution to
the wind and built themselves harems of unbelieving women. What happened to
those believing men when it came time for the Flood? Well, for one thing; they had
lost their piety.

All the other times "sons of God " are mentioned in the Old Testament the reference means angels so why would we interpret this differently ? I say we should not .

Genesis 6:2 Context KJV​

1And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, 2That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose. 3And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years. 4There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown. 5And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

Text from article "Bloodline of the Nephilim"​

This brief passage tells a very important origin story. A group of the “sons of God”, the Biblical name for angels, in rebellion against The Lord, came to Earth and took human women as wives to have illicit relations. And their children, half-human, half-angelic hybrids, were the Nephilim giants. The idea of angels sleeping with women and having kids is not something that all Christians agree upon, know about or even comfortable with. However, the truth of Christianity is based upon one source: God’s Word as revealed in the Holy Bible. And from a study of Scripture it becomes clear that this event did indeed happen. Were the “Sons of God” Angels? This question is often raised initially as an objection to the idea that Nephilim giants ever even existed.

the Hebrew words for the “sons of God” is B’nai Ha Elohim, which would means these are Heavenly beings, giving credence to them being offspring of fallen angels (the term Elohim is literally the plural of ‘god’). And then we see the children of these sons of God and daughters of men were “mighty men” and of “renown.” They were also “giants.” Something in their genetics made them super-sized people. And it was their fallen angelic parentage. But again, we must keep searching the Bible to make certain of meaning. The Bible is self-confirming and one passage of Scripture can always be confirmed by another. We see the term “sons of God” next used in the book of Job. Job chapter 1 reads: “Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them. And the LORD said unto Satan, Whence comest thou? Then Satan answered the LORD, and said, From going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it.” (Job 1:6-7) The scene being described, where God is literally meeting with the sons of Go, took place in Heaven. This is a Divine Council that God holds where He chooses to meet with both good and evil angels to discuss affairs of the world (for more examples of these assemblies see 1 Kings 22 and Psalm 82). Another Divine Council is called in Job Chapter 2. Verse 1 states: “Again there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them to present himself before the LORD.” So again from the clear reading of the text, the “sons of God” are not human men but are in fact angels, who are meeting in Heaven with The Lord. And the Hebrew term is b’nai ha Elohim. The third reference to the sons of God in the Old Testament is again in Job, but this time in chapter 38. God who in this is posing questions to Job about the creation of the universe (to show Job how little understanding and knowledge he has compared to The Lord) says:

Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding. Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it? Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof; When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy? — Job 38:4-7

So again, not only were the sons of God again with God, they existed even before the Earth itself was created. Every use of the term b’nai ha elohim in the Old Testament is a reference to angelic beings. In the Septuagint, the oldest form of the Old Testament today (and the version most quoted by Jesus and His disciples in the New Testament) the term ‘sons of God’ is not even used in these passages in Job, it just reads “the angels of God.” Thus it can be concluded with certainty that the sons of God in Genesis 6 were in fact, angels.

 

[Johann!@#]

All the other times "sons of God " are mentioned in the Old Testament the reference means angels so why would we interpret this differently ? I say we should not .

Genesis 6:2 Context KJV​

1And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, 2That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose. 3And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years. 4There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown. 5And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

Text from article "Bloodline of the Nephilim"​

This brief passage tells a very important origin story. A group of the “sons of God”, the Biblical name for angels, in rebellion against The Lord, came to Earth and took human women as wives to have illicit relations. And their children, half-human, half-angelic hybrids, were the Nephilim giants. The idea of angels sleeping with women and having kids is not something that all Christians agree upon, know about or even comfortable with. However, the truth of Christianity is based upon one source: God’s Word as revealed in the Holy Bible. And from a study of Scripture it becomes clear that this event did indeed happen. Were the “Sons of God” Angels? This question is often raised initially as an objection to the idea that Nephilim giants ever even existed.

the Hebrew words for the “sons of God” is B’nai Ha Elohim, which would means these are Heavenly beings, giving credence to them being offspring of fallen angels (the term Elohim is literally the plural of ‘god’). And then we see the children of these sons of God and daughters of men were “mighty men” and of “renown.” They were also “giants.” Something in their genetics made them super-sized people. And it was their fallen angelic parentage. But again, we must keep searching the Bible to make certain of meaning. The Bible is self-confirming and one passage of Scripture can always be confirmed by another. We see the term “sons of God” next used in the book of Job. Job chapter 1 reads: “Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them. And the LORD said unto Satan, Whence comest thou? Then Satan answered the LORD, and said, From going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it.” (Job 1:6-7) The scene being described, where God is literally meeting with the sons of Go, took place in Heaven. This is a Divine Council that God holds where He chooses to meet with both good and evil angels to discuss affairs of the world (for more examples of these assemblies see 1 Kings 22 and Psalm 82). Another Divine Council is called in Job Chapter 2. Verse 1 states: “Again there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them to present himself before the LORD.” So again from the clear reading of the text, the “sons of God” are not human men but are in fact angels, who are meeting in Heaven with The Lord. And the Hebrew term is b’nai ha Elohim. The third reference to the sons of God in the Old Testament is again in Job, but this time in chapter 38. God who in this is posing questions to Job about the creation of the universe (to show Job how little understanding and knowledge he has compared to The Lord) says:

Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding. Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it? Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof; When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy? — Job 38:4-7

So again, not only were the sons of God again with God, they existed even before the Earth itself was created. Every use of the term b’nai ha elohim in the Old Testament is a reference to angelic beings. In the Septuagint, the oldest form of the Old Testament today (and the version most quoted by Jesus and His disciples in the New Testament) the term ‘sons of God’ is not even used in these passages in Job, it just reads “the angels of God.” Thus it can be concluded with certainty that the sons of God in Genesis 6 were in fact, angels.

SONS OF GOD

Now we have all the necessary tools to delve into our story. First of all, let us try to understand who “the sons of God” were. The Hebrew words translated “the sons of God” are b’nai ha Elohim, ‎בְנֵי־הָֽאֱלֹהִים֙. Does the Torah mean angels, or just “the sons of rulers”, or “the sons of the nobles”, as some Jewish translations translate b’nai ha Elohim here? We have “the sons of the princes” in Targumim, and “the sons of the Judges” in Midrashim[7] – in fact, the “angelic interpretation” (that they were angels, or some kind of divine beings) is almost non-existent in Judaism. Many of you probably know that the noun הָֽאֱלֹהִים֙ (Elohim) is in a plural form, and it can be read not only as “God”, but also as ‘gods” or even “lords, rulers”, and this is exactly how the Jewish commentaries choose to read this word in this particular verse.

However, if we study the use of this expression בְנֵי־הָֽאֱלֹהִים֙ in Tanach, we will see a completely different picture. There is no better commentary to the Bible than the Bible itself, and for that reason, we will use the “derash” technique to compare our passage with other similar passages.

The expression “sons of God” doesn’t occur many times in Tanach. The next time we encounter this expression is in Job 1:6: Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan came also among them. We have the same expression again in Job 2:1: Again there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them to present himself before the LORD.

Nobody questions the meaning of “the sons of God” here: We all know that these verses describe the Divine Council – a meeting in Heaven – therefore, the “sons of God” here are obviously not humans, but angels, who are meeting with God. Notice that the words in Hebrew translated as “the sons of God” here, are exactly the same as in Genesis 6:2: בְּנֵ֣י הָאֱלֹהִ֔ים – b’nai ha Elohim.

The next (and the last, at least in Hebrew[8]) reference to “the sons of God” in Tanach is again in the book of Job, in chapter 38. Speaking about the creation of the universe, God is saying: I laid the foundations of the earth… When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy.[9]

From this verse[10], we can see that the sons of God existed even before the earth itself was created. This indicates that every use of the term: b’nai ha Elohim or b’nai Elohim in the Old Testament, is, in fact, a reference to angelic beings. Thus, we can conclude that “the sons of God” in Genesis 6 also refers to angels.

Now, that we’ve established that “the sons of God” were angels, we can try to understand the story of Nephilim – and we will do it in our next post.[11]

https://blog.israelbiblicalstudies....AY!-,The Story Of Flood You Did Not Know,-(i)

J.

 

[Johann!@#]

All the other times "sons of God " are mentioned in the Old Testament the reference means angels so why would we interpret this differently ? I say we should not .

Genesis 6:2 Context KJV​

1And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, 2That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose. 3And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years. 4There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown. 5And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

Text from article "Bloodline of the Nephilim"​

This brief passage tells a very important origin story. A group of the “sons of God”, the Biblical name for angels, in rebellion against The Lord, came to Earth and took human women as wives to have illicit relations. And their children, half-human, half-angelic hybrids, were the Nephilim giants. The idea of angels sleeping with women and having kids is not something that all Christians agree upon, know about or even comfortable with. However, the truth of Christianity is based upon one source: God’s Word as revealed in the Holy Bible. And from a study of Scripture it becomes clear that this event did indeed happen. Were the “Sons of God” Angels? This question is often raised initially as an objection to the idea that Nephilim giants ever even existed.

the Hebrew words for the “sons of God” is B’nai Ha Elohim, which would means these are Heavenly beings, giving credence to them being offspring of fallen angels (the term Elohim is literally the plural of ‘god’). And then we see the children of these sons of God and daughters of men were “mighty men” and of “renown.” They were also “giants.” Something in their genetics made them super-sized people. And it was their fallen angelic parentage. But again, we must keep searching the Bible to make certain of meaning. The Bible is self-confirming and one passage of Scripture can always be confirmed by another. We see the term “sons of God” next used in the book of Job. Job chapter 1 reads: “Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them. And the LORD said unto Satan, Whence comest thou? Then Satan answered the LORD, and said, From going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it.” (Job 1:6-7) The scene being described, where God is literally meeting with the sons of Go, took place in Heaven. This is a Divine Council that God holds where He chooses to meet with both good and evil angels to discuss affairs of the world (for more examples of these assemblies see 1 Kings 22 and Psalm 82). Another Divine Council is called in Job Chapter 2. Verse 1 states: “Again there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them to present himself before the LORD.” So again from the clear reading of the text, the “sons of God” are not human men but are in fact angels, who are meeting in Heaven with The Lord. And the Hebrew term is b’nai ha Elohim. The third reference to the sons of God in the Old Testament is again in Job, but this time in chapter 38. God who in this is posing questions to Job about the creation of the universe (to show Job how little understanding and knowledge he has compared to The Lord) says:

Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding. Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it? Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof; When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy? — Job 38:4-7

So again, not only were the sons of God again with God, they existed even before the Earth itself was created. Every use of the term b’nai ha elohim in the Old Testament is a reference to angelic beings. In the Septuagint, the oldest form of the Old Testament today (and the version most quoted by Jesus and His disciples in the New Testament) the term ‘sons of God’ is not even used in these passages in Job, it just reads “the angels of God.” Thus it can be concluded with certainty that the sons of God in Genesis 6 were in fact, angels.

Excellent research here brother.

J.

 

[Beetow]

Job chapter 1 reads: “Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves
before the LORD

That's pretty much what Christians do every Sunday here in the USA only here in
my country "there was a day" is called the Lord's Day.

and Satan came also among them.

Wasn't Satan among Jesus and his men in that upper room the night of the Lord's
arrest? I think we pretty much have to expect the presence of Satan's spirits not only
in church Sunday mornings, but also in mid-week prayer meetings, viz: wherever
Christians are; Satan's spirits are.
_

 

[Beetow]

.
The descriptive term "son of God" is somewhat versatile in the old testament. For
example in Job 1:6 & Job 38:7 it pertains to angels, whereas in Ex 4:22-23 an
entire people are identified as God's son, and in Psalm 82 authorities are sons of
God, while in Psalm 89 king David is God's son.

● Gen 6:4 . .There were giants on the earth in those days, and also afterward,
when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men, and they bore children to
them. Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown.

One of the Bible's Hebrew words for "giant" is rapha' which appears in numerous
places throughout the old testament and typically always indicates brutish people of
large physical stature. But that's not the word for giants here. Instead, here it's the
word ha-nepihilym which appears in only two verses in the entire Bible; one here
and the other in Numbers 13:33.

The word is somewhat ambiguous, but in this context it pertains to bullies:
especially to men famous for tyranny; e.g. Genghis Khan of Mongolia, and
Alexander the Great of Greece; Napoleon of France, Peter Alekseyevich Romanov of
Russia, Chandragupta Maurya of India, shogun Minamoto no Yoritomo of Japan,
conquistador Hernando Cortes of Spain, Timur: founder of the Timurid dynasty, and
Zahir-ud din Muhammad Babur: founder of the Mughal dynasty that ruled the
Indian subcontinent for over three centuries; and of course guys like Adolf Hitler,
Joseph Stalin, Benito Mussolini, Mao Tse-tung, Pol Pot, Saddam Hussein, Idi Amin,
Robert Mugabe, Muammar Gaddafi, Xi Jinping, and the Kim family dynasty of North
Korea.

In other words: ha-nepihilyhm doesn't necessarily indicate a unique race of people;
but mostly strong personalities, i.e. especially beastly individuals whose ambition is
to quite dominate others, i.e. despots, dictators, and tyrants, etc. Those kinds of
people don't just want power: they want to own your soul, censor your information,
control the content of your thoughts, determine where you live, regulate your
income and how you make a living, and manipulate the quantity and the quality of
the food on your table.

Men (and women) who seek to dominate others are often the least suitable to do
so; and back there in Noah's day that was certainly true. The moral quality of the
world built by the governance of the ha-nepihilym was so poor that the situation
required God to step in and do something about it.
_

 

[Beetow]

.
130) 2Cor 7:1 . . Since we have these promises, dear friends, let us cleanse
ourselves from everything that contaminates body and spirit, perfecting holiness
out of deference to God's will.

* The promises are those listed at 2Cor 6:14-18.

Webster's defines "deference" as affected and/or ingratiating regard for another's
wishes. Deference is the opposite of resistance, rebellion, defiance, indifference,
stubbornness and/or doing things your own way.

Contaminations of one's body would include things like drug addiction, alcoholism,
adultery, promiscuity, gluttony, eating blood, etc.

Contaminations of the spirit likely refers to things that influence one's thinking
and/or have an effect upon the personality; for example: Critical Race Theory, the
political philosophies of Carl Marx, Mao Zedong, and Vladimir Lenin, Planned
Parenthood, Liberalism, LGBTQ sex education, transgender propaganda, anti
Semitism, certain kinds of television and/or internet entertainment, etc.
_

 

[Beetow]

.
131) 2Cor 8:11-15 . . If the willingness is there, the gift is acceptable according to
what one has, not according to what he does not have. Our desire is not that others
might be relieved while you are hard pressed, but that there might be equality.

. . At the present time your plenty will supply what they need, so that in turn their
plenty will supply what you need. Then there will be equality, as it is written: He
who gathered much did not have too much, and he who gathered little did not have
too little.

* The equality we're looking at here has nothing to do with banning private
property and/or mandatory distribution of wealth; viz: this is about generosity
rather than politics, so please don't attempt to defend and/or promote Socialism
with this passage.

It's inevitable that some churches would be disadvantaged compared to others. For
example: here in the USA's big cities, churches have no lack of resources to take
care of themselves; while small town churches are barely scraping by. The
charitable thing for the big-city church to do is take a small town church under its
wing, like any normal person would a needy relative. The idea here is to moderate
the small church's disadvantages and keep things closer to a level playing field, so
to speak, i.e. fair vs. unfair.

NOTE: "if the willingness is there" tells me that church officers should not pressure
and/or shame their people into sharing their abundance, viz: should not attempt to
break down their resistance; like talking people into buying cars and vacuum
cleaners, so to speak.

These instructions are an excellent passage for debunking the so-called Faith
Promise; which is a popular scheme for seducing congregations into pledging
money they don't have while expecting God's providence will somehow provide it.
That is not the Lord's way. By means of Paul, the Lord says to help out with what
you already have, not what you hope to have later; I mean: it is not His wish to
copy ENRON's mark-to-market accounting practices and/or futures trading with
pork bellies and soy beans.
_

 

[Beetow]

.
132) 2Cor 9:7 . . Each man should give what he has decided in his heart to give,
not reluctantly or under compulsion for God loves a cheerful giver.

Towards what end is the giving spoken of in the new testament? To finance
ambitious building programs? Well; Christians back then met in homes. Did their
contributions go towards obtaining more homes to meet in? No.

Within the context of the new testament; donations in the early church were
charitable. It met needs rather than expenses; and those needs were typically
congregational rather than universal; viz: their charity went towards those amongst
themselves and/or other congregations that were hungry, sick, injured, homeless,
alone, helpless, missionaries, full-time-church officers, orphans, widows,
abandoned, and/or oppressed, etc.
_

 

[Beetow]

.
133) 1Cor 16:13a . . Be on your guard, stand firm in the faith, be men of courage;
be strong.

The Greek word for "men of courage" basically means to act manly; defined by
Webster's as: (1) having qualities generally associated with a man; viz: strength
and virility, and (2) appropriate in character to a man.

These days; progressive politics (a.k.a. woke) would have us to believe that things
like manliness, strength, and virility are toxic, viz: threats to public health and
safety. Well; all I can say to Christian men is: DO NOT permit progressive politics to
define your manhood or you'll just end up a sissy boy and thus useless for standing
firm in the faith; instead your stance will become flexible, i.e. influenced by
evolving social customs.
_

 

[Beetow]

.
134) 1Cor 16:14 . . Do everything in love.

The Greek word translated "love" in this instance doesn't necessarily indicate
fondness or affection but does indicate benevolence; defined by Webster's as the
disposition to do good, e.g. generosity, charity, altruism, compassion, and
sympathy, i.e. thoughtful, cordial, affable, genial, sociable, cheerful, warm,
sensitive, hospitable, considerate, tactful, diplomatic, accommodating, cooperative,
kind, courteous, lenient, tolerant, patient, helpful, civil, approachable, and friendly,
etc.

I would imagine that "everything" includes the business of managing a Church.

If a church officer's management practices tend to be more Machiavellian than
Christian, then maybe he really ought to consider stepping down and finding
himself a seat in a pew rather than a chair on the board. I mean it; this is not
something to take lightly. 1Cor 16:14 isn't optional; it's mandatory.
_

 

[Beetow]

.
135) 1Cor 16:15-18 . .You know that the household of Stephanas were the first
converts in Achaia, and they have devoted themselves to the service of the saints. I
urge you, brothers, to submit to such as these and to everyone who joins in the
work, and labors at it. I was glad when Stephanas, Fortunatus, and Achaicus
arrived, because they have supplied what was lacking from you. For they refreshed
my spirit and yours also. Such men deserve recognition.

Paul and his associates depended pretty heavily upon the hospitality of local
believers for accommodations and daily necessities. Congregations do well to follow
the examples of Stephanas, Fortunatus, and Achaicus either by opening their
homes to genuine missionaries or by funding their stay in a motel, providing them
with some pocket money, and possibly a rental car too.
_

 

[Beetow]

.
136) 134) 1Cor 16:20 . . Greet one another with a holy kiss.

Kissing was a common form of greeting in the old world; and still is in the Middle
East and certain parts of Europe; but here in America-- a super-sized
racial/cultural/ethnic amalgam of customs from all over the globe --it's wise to
dispense your kisses with discretion. Some of us don't even like to be hugged, let
alone bussed; and if you should perchance try to make physical contact with an
autistic Christian, you're liable to cause them a panic attack; so go easy on the
touchy-feely stuff.

* The people to whom Paul referred as "one another" are one's fellows unified with
Christ. We're not required to be religiously cozy with outsiders.
_