52 replies to this topic

[Ben Masada]

NONE BUT ONE CAN SERVE TWO MASTERS

Jesus once declared that no man can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and depise the other. (Mat. 6:24) Nonsense! Paul would have objected. I can prove that's possible to serve two masters. I mean, if he had been around to read that quote of Matthew.

Paul, throughout his life, would struggle with a "thorn in his flesh" which was described as a sinful condition that he just could not get rid of; A condition related to his carnal desires, according to Romans 7:14. When he understood how severely sinful his condition was, he revealed that the good in the Law meant death to him,  according to Romans 7:13.

Some of us could naturally wonder why he did not repent and obey, according to Isaiah 1:18,19, so that his sins, from scarlet red, could become as white as snow. That's easy to say but quite a different matter for the one with a "thorn in his flesh" to carry out. Paul had lost his will, so to speak, as he would end up by following the whims of the sin that dwelt in him, as we have in Romans 7:17. It means that Paul, whereas against his will, was actually living according to his sinful condition. (Rom. 7:18-23)

"O wretched man that I am," he said; wretched because he had to fight a sinful condition that he just could not get rid of. "Who shall deliver me from the body of this death?" (Rom. 7:24) That's death for his transgression of the Law, which had become death to him after he had become aware of the condemnation of his behaviour by the Law.

Now, with regards to Romans 7:25, we have the piece to the puzzle why none but one can serve two masters. Paul had found out that the only way to solve his problem was to serve two masters. Never mind what Jesus had said that none could. It was the only way to harmonize the Law with the "thorn in his flesh" which would make him too weak to escape the spider web. He would serve God's Law in his mind and sin in his flesh. He reasoned that if he could not eliminate the Law that condemned his sin, he would accommodate his sin in spite of the Law. And thus, Paul had proved an exception to the rule that none can serve two masters.

Now, what could have been Paul's "thorn in the flesh?" It happens that Paul had been brought up as a Hellenistic Jew. Hellenists had a very loose sense of morality as homosexuality was concerned. To be a homosexual or bysexual in the Greco-Roman world was as normal as the normal relation between men and women. At first, I thought that his "thorn in the flesh" could have been an epileptic condition; but since epilepsy is not a sin but a disease, most definitely, Paul was struggling with repressed homosexual feelings, if we consider his attitude towards women, as  he would advice men to observe bachelorhood. "It is good for a man not to touch a woman. I would that all men were as I am. Therefore, to the unmarried and widows, it is good for them to remain as I am."  (I Cor. 7:1,7,8)

Ben

[J. K.]

If you will continue reading the book of Romans into the 8th chapter, you will see that Paul lays out the dichotomy between the flesh and the spirit.  The "flesh" of the Christian is the sin nature - the tendency to sin.  The flesh can only bring death.  The spirit is the spirit of God that lives within the Christian.  The battle of the spirit and the flesh occurs in the mind of the Christian.  The spirit urges us to live righteously.  The flesh urges us to live selfishly.  For a Christian, growth comes through the spirit having mastery over the flesh.  We will not lose the sin nature until such a time as our salvation is complete, upon death or the return of Jesus.

Paul expresses his very human frustration with the sin nature clamoring to reign over the spirit of life.

Your identification of Paul's thorn in the flesh is interesting, but unsupported by any documentation.  His thorn is more commonly thought to be an eye condition which interfered with his ability to minister.

[and then]

Ah Ben...... In your eyes my Lord was the possible product of rape rather than an immaculate conception.  Now the "Moses" of the NT, Paul, is a latent homosexual.  I think you are just a provocateur.  You have a wonderful day and please don't allow reality to change you one iota......

[Ben Masada]

J. K., on 08 May 2012 - 10:59 PM, said:

If you will continue reading the book of Romans into the 8th chapter, you will see that Paul lays out the dichotomy between the flesh and the spirit.  The "flesh" of the Christian is the sin nature - the tendency to sin.  The flesh can only bring death.  The spirit is the spirit of God that lives within the Christian.  The battle of the spirit and the flesh occurs in the mind of the Christian.  The spirit urges us to live righteously.  The flesh urges us to live selfishly.  For a Christian, growth comes through the spirit having mastery over the flesh.  We will not lose the sin nature until such a time as our salvation is complete, upon death or the return of Jesus.

Paul expresses his very human frustration with the sin nature clamoring to reign over the spirit of life.

Your identification of Paul's thorn in the flesh is interesting, but unsupported by any documentation.  His thorn is more commonly thought to be an eye condition which interfered with his ability to minister.

I did read all of chapter 8 of Romans. It does not at all diminish from Paul's attitude in the previous chapter. Regarding his thorn in the flesh, I have a question for you. Is an eye ailment a sinful condition in the eyes of the Lord or a transgression of the Law? Of course not! Therefore, his thorn in the flesh was not an eye condition. I even looked for the possibility that it could have been a case of epilepsy, aka "fallen disease," an unhealthy disorder marked by abnormal electrical discharges in the brain, which, to a certain extent describes Paul's experience when he fell from his horse on the Road to Damascus, as he confessed to have experienced light from the sky to have flashed upon him and of having heard voices. All evidences of an epileptic attack. But, from the same point of view, to be an epileptic is not to be sinful. (Acts 9:3,4). He did agree that the Law is good, but to him it worked for death, as he had understood that his sinful condition was unbearable as it kept him a slave of it. (Rom. 7:13-25) I only wonder how he did not finish his life by means of suicide. IMHO, what prevented this to happen was his arrangement that Jesus would absolve him from the condenation of the Law by granting him the exception to the rule that one cannot serve two masters.
Ben

[Ben Masada]

and then, on 09 May 2012 - 12:07 AM, said:

Ah Ben...... In your eyes my Lord was the possible product of rape rather than an immaculate conception.  Now the "Moses" of the NT, Paul, is a latent homosexual.  I think you are just a provocateur.  You have a wonderful day and please don't allow reality to change you one iota......

Sorry 'And then', but you are deadly mistaken about me. In my eyes, Jesus was a biological son of Joseph's. It is rather in your eyes and in the eyes of all Christians that Jesus could have been the result of a rape. Any one with the minimum of common sense knows that the myth of the demigod is impossible in Judaism which was the Faith of Jesus. Literal immaculate conception!!! Are you kidding? Jesus was a Jew for heaven's sake! If you wanna talk about the virgin who conceived a child of Isaiah 7:14, let me know and I'll post a thread on that subject for your eyes only.
Ben

[Bella-Angelique]

One of my most disliked Paulinian writings.
However, it is not about homosexuality. It is clearly a proclamation by whoever wrote it, that by converting to Christianity you could consider yourself to have died under the law because of adultery, been reborn as a Christian, and are now free to marry whoever you wish just as a widow is allowed to remarry because death breaks the spiritual bond.
Perhaps the horror of casting aside families and wanting a clean slate was inspired by the writings of Ezra.
People locked within the same cultural area have a strong tendency of repeating former cultural mistakes and transgressions within their history.

[J. K.]

Ben Masada, on 09 May 2012 - 07:52 PM, said:

I did read all of chapter 8 of Romans. It does not at all diminish from Paul's attitude in the previous chapter. Regarding his thorn in the flesh, I have a question for you. Is an eye ailment a sinful condition in the eyes of the Lord or a transgression of the Law? Of course not! Therefore, his thorn in the flesh was not an eye condition.

Consider this, Ben.  If you were stricken with an eye disease, or any physical condition, that prevented you from performing your job at 100% capacity, would you ever experience frustration, impatience, even anger?   A physical condition, as you said, is not a sin, but its effects can lead to an unhealthy attitude which could turn into sin.

Quote

He did agree that the Law is good, but to him it worked for death, as he had understood that his sinful condition was unbearable as it kept him a slave of it.

Not just him, but all Christians.  The sinful flesh of man is at war with the righteous spirit of God in man.

Quote

IMHO, what prevented this to happen was his arrangement that Jesus would absolve him from the condenation of the Law by granting him the exception to the rule that one cannot serve two masters.

Paul had no special privileged arrangement with Jesus for sinning.  The 'no condemnation' clause is for all Christians.  "There is therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus, who do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit." Romans 8:1

[Ben Masada]

Bella-Angelique, on 09 May 2012 - 08:20 PM, said:

One of my most disliked Paulinian writings.
However, it is not about homosexuality. It is clearly a proclamation by whoever wrote it, that by converting to Christianity you could consider yourself to have died under the law because of adultery, been reborn as a Christian, and are now free to marry whoever you wish just as a widow is allowed to remarry because death breaks the spiritual bond.
Perhaps the horror of casting aside families and wanting a clean slate was inspired by the writings of Ezra.
People locked within the same cultural area have a strong tendency of repeating former cultural mistakes and transgressions within their history.

Interesting that you bring up above that death breaks the spiritual bond, in the case between a husband who dies and his wife who stays in life. You are reproducing the Pauline allegory in Romans 7 that, with the death of the husband, the woman is free. An allegory that Paul transfers to freedom from the Law with the death of... perhaps the Giver of the Law. If you focus well enough, you will see that he refers to the Decalogue. (Rom. 7:7) Do you have any idea why Paul was so anxious to erase God's Law from his agenda?
Ben

[Ben Masada]

J. K., on 10 May 2012 - 03:28 AM, said:

Consider this, Ben.  If you were stricken with an eye disease, or any physical condition, that prevented you from performing your job at 100% capacity, would you ever experience frustration, impatience, even anger?   A physical condition, as you said, is not a sin, but its effects can lead to an unhealthy attitude which could turn into sin.

Not just him, but all Christians.  The sinful flesh of man is at war with the righteous spirit of God in man.

Paul had no special privileged arrangement with Jesus for sinning.  The 'no condemnation' clause is for all Christians.  "There is therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus, who do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit." Romans 8:1

J.K., here is what you are succeeding to convey to me: That being in Christ, one is allowed to sin at his or her heart's content, because he or she is already justified beforehand. Imagine if we did not have the law of the land to curb this idea, we would be all in big trouble. No one can live without the Law. That's what brings security. Then, you say: "Not to walk according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit. Paul himself was walking acording to both; to the flesh and to the spirit. (Rom. 7:25) Who gave him that freedom, Jesus? Please!
Ben

Edited by Ben Masada, 10 May 2012 - 09:17 PM.

[J. K.]

Ben Masada, on 10 May 2012 - 09:17 PM, said:

J.K., here is what you are succeeding to convey to me: That being in Christ, one is allowed to sin at his or her heart's content, because he or she is already justified beforehand.

You are missing the distinction between an unsaved man's state of sin and individual acts of sin.

The spirit of an unsaved man is dead.  The unsaved man cannot have fellowship with God, because we fellowship with God through our regenerated spirit.  When a man trusts in God for salvation, he is redeemed from the penalty of sin: eternal spiritual death.

A saved man can commit individual acts of sin.  The consequence is inhibition of fellowship with God.  This consequence may be forgiven by a saved man's confession and repentance of sin.

Your phrase "sin at his or her heart's content" is ironic, because an act of sin will trouble a saved man's heart.  To walk according to the Spirit is to focus on performing acts of righteousness.  To walk according to the flesh is to disregard the consequences of acts of sin, and rebel against God.  A saved man cannot rebel for long without being troubled in his heart.

Quote

Then, you say: "Not to walk according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit. Paul himself was walking acording to both; to the flesh and to the spirit. (Rom. 7:25) Who gave him that freedom, Jesus? Please!

There are numerous passage in the Psalms which state that God "straightens" our path.  The same idea of a journey is found in the idea of walking according to the flesh/spirit.  When one is journeying on a road, you can walk on the road, or you can walk off the road.  However, you can't do both at the same time.  You make a choice as to which one you walk on.

Yes, we are free to walk on the shoulder if we choose; however, we do face the consequences of our actions:  stones that trip and bruise, thorns to stab, holes to fall into.

I must ask this question, for I am curious.  I believe that you have communicated that you live by the Old Testament law.  Do you obey "Also you shall have a place outside the camp, where you may go out; and you shall have an implement among your equipment, and when you sit down outside, you shall dig with it and turn and cover your refuse." (Deuteronomy 23:12)?

Edited by J. K., 11 May 2012 - 02:33 PM.

[Ben Masada]

J. K., on 11 May 2012 - 02:33 PM, said:

You are missing the distinction between an unsaved man's state of sin and individual acts of sin.

The spirit of an unsaved man is dead.  The unsaved man cannot have fellowship with God, because we fellowship with God through our regenerated spirit.  When a man trusts in God for salvation, he is redeemed from the penalty of sin: eternal spiritual death.

A saved man can commit individual acts of sin.  The consequence is inhibition of fellowship with God.  This consequence may be forgiven by a saved man's confession and repentance of sin.

Your phrase "sin at his or her heart's content" is ironic, because an act of sin will trouble a saved man's heart.  To walk according to the Spirit is to focus on performing acts of righteousness.  To walk according to the flesh is to disregard the consequences of acts of sin, and rebel against God.  A saved man cannot rebel for long without being troubled in his heart.



There are numerous passage in the Psalms which state that God "straightens" our path.  The same idea of a journey is found in the idea of walking according to the flesh/spirit.  When one is journeying on a road, you can walk on the road, or you can walk off the road.  However, you can't do both at the same time.  You make a choice as to which one you walk on.

Yes, we are free to walk on the shoulder if we choose; however, we do face the consequences of our actions:  stones that trip and bruise, thorns to stab, holes to fall into.

I must ask this question, for I am curious.  I believe that you have communicated that you live by the Old Testament law.  Do you obey "Also you shall have a place outside the camp, where you may go out; and you shall have an implement among your equipment, and when you sit down outside, you shall dig with it and turn and cover your refuse." (Deuteronomy 23:12)?

To answer your question, those little things were temporary and prone to change with time, when we would no longer need them. They were not part of the Decalogue. You should have said, "just kidding!" Such an elementary reference should be considered as a joke. But the bottom line for your message this time can be fulfilled in terms of Isaiah 1:18,19. If we sin, as there is none who doesn't, to set things right with God, so that our sins, from scarlet red, become as white as snow, all we need is to repent and turn back to obey God's Law. There is no need for one to sacrifice for another.
Ben

Edited by Ben Masada, 15 May 2012 - 07:52 PM.

[J. K.]

Ben Masada, on 15 May 2012 - 07:50 PM, said:

To answer your question, those little things were temporary and prone to change with time, when we would no longer need them. They were not part of the Decalogue. You should have said, "just kidding!" Such an elementary reference should be considered as a joke. But the bottom line for your message this time can be fulfilled in terms of Isaiah 1:18,19. If we sin, as there is none who doesn't, to set things right with God, so that our sins, from scarlet red, become as white as snow, all we need is to repent and turn back to obey God's Law. There is no need for one to sacrifice for another.
Ben

Do I understand you correctly: only the Ten Commandments are valid as laws from God?  And do they only apply to the Jews to whom they were given?

[Ben Masada]

J. K., on 15 May 2012 - 08:33 PM, said:

Do I understand you correctly: only the Ten Commandments are valid as laws from God?  And do they only apply to the Jews to whom they were given?

No, you do not understand me correctly. All the little laws throughout the Torah are equally valid but as fences around the Torah. I mean, as steps to prevent a transgression of the laws in the Decalogue. All the Decalogue aplies to all Mankind, except the 4th Commandment with regards to the Shabbat. This is a requirement on the Jews only. (Ezek. 20:12,20)
Ben

[J. K.]

Quote

J. K.:  I must ask this question, for I am curious. I believe that you have communicated that you live by the Old Testament law. Do you obey "Also you shall have a place outside the camp, where you may go out; and you shall have an implement among your equipment, and when you sit down outside, you shall dig with it and turn and cover your refuse." (Deuteronomy 23:12)?

Ben:  To answer your question, those little things were temporary and prone to change with time, when we would no longer need them. They were not part of the Decalogue. You should have said, "just kidding!" Such an elementary reference should be considered as a joke. But the bottom line for your message this time can be fulfilled in terms of Isaiah 1:18,19. If we sin, as there is none who doesn't, to set things right with God, so that our sins, from scarlet red, become as white as snow, all we need is to repent and turn back to obey God's Law. There is no need for one to sacrifice for another.

J. K.:  Do I understand you correctly: only the Ten Commandments are valid as laws from God? And do they only apply to the Jews to whom they were given?

Ben:  No, you do not understand me correctly. All the little laws throughout the Torah are equally valid but as fences around the Torah. I mean, as steps to prevent a transgression of the laws in the Decalogue. All the Decalogue aplies to all Mankind, except the 4th Commandment with regards to the Shabbat. This is a requirement on the Jews only. (Ezek. 20:12,20)

At what point in time were the "little things" no longer needed?  How was that change communicated to humanity?

At what point in time were blood sacrifices no longer required for forgiveness of sin?  How was that change communicated to humanity?

[Paranoid Android]

1- How do you suppose Paul was a Hellenist Jew?  According to his own words, he was a Pharisee.  Oh, let me guess - it disagrees with your Jewish sensibilities and therefore must be inaccurate.  But other parts that support your argument, you are happy to quote as authoritative   Good fun.

2- You mentioned that you have read Romans 8, but I have a hard time believing that, unless you totally ignored it.  In that chapter, Paul extends on what he means by living according to the flesh and to the spirit.  There is NO INDICATION that you can serve God in the spirit while serving sin in the flesh.  Chapter 8 goes into detail as to how one must strive to follow the spirit and turn away from following the flesh.  For following the spirit is to follow God, and turning away from the flesh is turning away from sin.  At no point is Paul advocating that we can follow our minds/Spirit while allowing our bodies to follow flesh/sin and thus serve two masters.  Only one master can be served - will it be the flesh or the spirit that is to be served though?

3- I wonder why you chose to take a totally unfounded assertion that the sin of the flesh that Paul is struggling with was homosexuality (along with the equally unfounded assertion that Paul was a Hellenistic Jew, mentioned in point 1 above).  You are free to your own unfounded opinions, but it seems strange then that Paul would introduce the book of Romans with a passage such as 1:26-28.

Edited by Paranoid Android, 17 May 2012 - 03:11 AM.