Overcoming Satan

[Once4all]

A comment from a post by Morris in the Greek grammar thread: "Jesus declared that He bound Satan when on earth, and that this was evidence that the kingdom had come to them. Matthew 12:22-30."

Sometimes comments by others spawn thoughts. This is just such a thought, unresearched, blurted out: Might "binding Satan" simply mean overcoming sin?

James 4:7-8 NASB
(7) Submit therefore to God. Resist the devil and he will flee from you.
(8) Draw near to God and He will draw near to you. Cleanse your hands, you sinners; and purify your hearts, you double-minded.

Resisting the devil and him fleeing from you should bring to mind Jesus' encounter with Satan in the wilderness.

[MoGrace2U]

Just going with the thought here...surely we don't need to declare to Satan "I bind you in the name of Jesus"!

What I especially liked about how the Lord handled the devil in the wilderness was how He held fast to the word of God. And this is easier said than done in our day, when so many opinions abound.

But this submission to God is the requirement, which Adam did not do when he and Eve bought the devil's lie. Eve may not have realized that she was being deceived until it was too late, but surely Adam knew the choice he was making.

Yet Eve reveals her thoughts on the matter which she already held but had not expressed apparently until the devil questioned her. She seems to have heard the word of the Lord second hand from Adam, so her listening to the devil at the first seems like just another opinion on the matter as she gives us her own. But this was the trap the devil laid for her - once she gave her opinion on why the Lord had forbidden them to eat, it was easy for the devil to say, no that isn't it...

I have thought often on this story - it is one of my favorites.

[Morris]

Really interesting topic!

Here's another thought to spur the thoughts of others, "Devil" means "a traducer [to speak maliciously and falsely of; slander; defame: to traduce someone's character]". (The antonym of which is 'praise', by the way, which I find very interesting).

This goes hand in hand with "Satan", meaning "the accuser". When we submit to God (and therefore also to His righteousness) we are justified (declared innocent; to have not committed the offense).

Could a part of what James was saying be that when have submitted ourselves to God and to His righteousness, we cannot be accused before Him, for we are not guilty and cannot even be falsely accused or slandered before Him?

It is because of this that we can even draw near to God and He to us. It is the only way our hands can be cleansed and our hearts purified. And knowing this has been done for us, how much more are we then spurred on to live in that pureness of heart.

Notice also that James says "Therefore submit to God". It actually appears more like 'You are subject then to God', and when we look back to see how it is that we are subject to God we find, "But He gives more grace. Therefore He says: “God resists the proud, But gives grace to the humble.” "

This is also what Paul preached in Romans 5:20,
"Moreover the law entered that the offense might abound. But where sin abounded, grace abounded much more",
and Peter preached in 1 Peter 5:5,6,
"Likewise you younger people, submit yourselves to your elders. Yes, all of you be submissive to one another, and be clothed with humility, for “God resists the proud, But gives grace to the humble. Therefore humble yourselves under the mighty hand of God, that He may exalt you in due time” "

(I'm babbling a bit but that happens when I get excited. Sorry)

So what is it about humility anyway? Why would Jesus say things like,
Matthew 18:4
"Therefore whoever humbles himself as this little child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven." and,
Matthew 23:12
"And whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted."

I think humility in this context relates to the realization of what our efforts produce before God. When we look at the Greek meanings for these "humility" words, they are quite strong; "depressed, i.e. (figuratively) humiliated (in circumstances or disposition)". Our circumstance before God, based on our efforts, should leave us humiliated. This should also leave us with only one recourse; turn to God. Wasn't this the purpose us the law?

(I'm short on time now so I'll try and wrap this up). "God resists the proud, But gives grace to the humble" and "by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God". Our reliance on God, our faith and trust, saves us where we cannot, and this salvation is so great that not even the accuser has a case to bring forward. He must flee.

[didymus]

Oct 1, 2010 20:49:29 GMT -5 MoGrace2U said:

Just going with the thought here...surely we don't need to declare to Satan "I bind you in the name of Jesus"!

What I especially liked about how the Lord handled the devil in the wilderness was how He held fast to the word of God. And this is easier said than done in our day, when so many opinions abound.

But this submission to God is the requirement, which Adam did not do when he and Eve bought the devil's lie. Eve may not have realized that she was being deceived until it was too late, but surely Adam knew the choice he was making.

Yet Eve reveals her thoughts on the matter which she already held but had not expressed apparently until the devil questioned her. She seems to have heard the word of the Lord second hand from Adam, so her listening to the devil at the first seems like just another opinion on the matter as she gives us her own. But this was the trap the devil laid for her - once she gave her opinion on why the Lord had forbidden them to eat, it was easy for the devil to say, no that isn't it...

I have thought often on this story - it is one of my favorites.

Excellent post Robin.

[Once4all]

Oct 4, 2010 14:50:16 GMT -5 Morris said:

Really interesting topic!

Here's another thought to spur the thoughts of others, "Devil" means "a traducer [to speak maliciously and falsely of; slander; defame: to traduce someone's character]". (The antonym of which is 'praise', by the way, which I find very interesting).

This goes hand in hand with "Satan", meaning "the accuser". When we submit to God (and therefore also to His righteousness) we are justified (declared innocent; to have not committed the offense).

Could a part of what James was saying be that when have submitted ourselves to God and to His righteousness, we cannot be accused before Him, for we are not guilty and cannot even be falsely accused or slandered before Him?

It is because of this that we can even draw near to God and He to us. It is the only way our hands can be cleansed and our hearts purified. And knowing this has been done for us, how much more are we then spurred on to live in that pureness of heart.

Notice also that James says "Therefore submit to God". It actually appears more like 'You are subject then to God', and when we look back to see how it is that we are subject to God we find, "But He gives more grace. Therefore He says: “God resists the proud, But gives grace to the humble.” "

This is also what Paul preached in Romans 5:20,
"Moreover the law entered that the offense might abound. But where sin abounded, grace abounded much more",
and Peter preached in 1 Peter 5:5,6,
"Likewise you younger people, submit yourselves to your elders. Yes, all of you be submissive to one another, and be clothed with humility, for “God resists the proud, But gives grace to the humble. Therefore humble yourselves under the mighty hand of God, that He may exalt you in due time” "

(I'm babbling a bit but that happens when I get excited. Sorry)

So what is it about humility anyway? Why would Jesus say things like,
Matthew 18:4
"Therefore whoever humbles himself as this little child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven." and,
Matthew 23:12
"And whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted."

I think humility in this context relates to the realization of what our efforts produce before God. When we look at the Greek meanings for these "humility" words, they are quite strong; "depressed, i.e. (figuratively) humiliated (in circumstances or disposition)". Our circumstance before God, based on our efforts, should leave us humiliated. This should also leave us with only one recourse; turn to God. Wasn't this the purpose us the law?

(I'm short on time now so I'll try and wrap this up). "God resists the proud, But gives grace to the humble" and "by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God". Our reliance on God, our faith and trust, saves us where we cannot, and this salvation is so great that not even the accuser has a case to bring forward. He must flee.

So then the question is: What does it mean to submit to God and to be humble before Him?

[Morris]

Oct 4, 2010 21:18:05 GMT -5 Once4all said:

So then the question is: What does it mean to submit to God and to be humble before Him?

Indeed, that is the question, and we have two basic options here. We can read books that people have written on the subject from a viewpoint of human logic, reason, and sensibilities (not that these are wrong in themselves), or we can simply see what scripture tells us (and accept it at that). In my thinking, many doctrines are developed because the answer in scripture is too simplistic and not centered on ourselves.

So, lets explore a bit. (I love doing that ). Here's an obvious one;
Romans 10:3
"For they being ignorant of God’s righteousness, and seeking to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted to the righteousness of God."

I also think we should have a look at the meaning of some key words, according to the original language and not the English translation. (I like doing that too, just to make sure I understand the message being conveyed).
"Ignorant" - not to know (through lack of information or intelligence); by implication, to ignore (through disinclination).
"Establish" - to stand (transitively or intransitively), used in various applications (literally or figuratively)
"Submitted" - to subordinate; reflexively, to obey.

So, the message here appears to be a contrasting of righteousness, between God's and their own. They did not know God's righteousness (either by lack of knowledge or by choice). Now, because they did not know God's, but still understood that they were in need of righteousness (as they were taught by the law), they tried "to stand" in their own.

In all this they failed to subordinate themselves, to place themselves under something else. This is actually very related to humility, which carries a sense of being "depressed", not as in sadness but in lowering our self in position or rank. When we lower our 'rank' so that God is higher, we have submitted our self to Him. But this can't be in word only. It must be effectively.

Looking back into James again, we see this same pattern; lowering your rank before God is what is required before He'll give grace. This is submitting to God.

"But He gives more grace. Therefore He says: “God resists the proud, But gives grace to the humble.” Therefore submit [literally, 'you are subject then'] to God. Resist the devil and he will flee from you."

So what is so wrong with pride? Why does God resist the proud? What is it that we can be proud of? The word for "proud" in James there means 'appearing above others (conspicuous), i.e. (figuratively) haughty'. That is the opposite of 'depressed' or 'lowered'. There is certainly a connection in imagery here between pride and humility; of being above or under.

If we are proud it is in something about us or that we have done. As Thayer puts it, 'an overweening estimate of one’s means or merits'. In pride, we look to ourselves and our own merit, or righteousness (equity of character). Now if we look to ourselves and our own character or works, are we not placing our faith in ourselves? For what is faith? A part of it is this, 'belief with the predominate idea of trust (or confidence)'. And what is faithfulness? 'The character of one who can be relied on'.

Sorry for the length but this is all related to each other; pride, humility, faith, submission, and grace. Pride is putting our faith and trust in ourselves based on an overvaluing of our equity of character. Since this is not based on truth, it is based on a lie, and who is the father of lies?

Humility is based on knowledge of truth, that we are not above or on par with God. Lowering ourselves before God (and man) is an acknowledgment of truth and must be done for faith (and trust) to be placed on someone other than our self (i.e. God). How is this done? It is so simple that people cannot except it. It is so simple that it is difficult to do.

Trust God.

David understood this, Psalm 18:2 "The LORD is my rock and my fortress and my deliverer; My God, my strength, in whom I will trust; My shield and the horn of my salvation, my stronghold."

As did Paul, 1 Timothy 4:10 "For to this end we both labor and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of those who believe."

And also Isaiah, Isaiah 50:10 "Who among you fears the LORD? Who obeys the voice of His Servant? Who walks in darkness And has no light? Let him trust in the name of the LORD And rely upon his God."

What does it mean to submit to God and to be humble before Him? We don't look to ourselves as a source, but rather look to God in trust, as the source of all things; Jehovah-jireh - the Lord will provide, Jehovah-tsidkenu - the Lord our righteousness.

Now, there are other elements at work here, such as obedience and a setting aside of our will, but the fact of the matter is that the grace of God is not based on our merit or worth; it is based on His. Ephesians 2:8, "For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God".

God's grace is what saves. It comes to us simply by trusting God. We respond to His grace, but again, our response isn't what we 'stand in' or what provides equity of character.

There is so much more scripture to look at and aspects to explore but this has already gone way too long.

[didymus]

Morris,

I have a question based on what I read of your post so far. When it comes to somewhat lengthy posts, unless I write it, I have a hard time remembering everything. So I pick one thing to comment on. Old age, I guess.

The "lower rank" of which you speak. Would that be a military term? The people of God are at times referred to as the army of God. And Paul speaks in military terms as he suggests we put on the full armour.

To use a metaphor. God is the President (commander in chief). Christ and the apostles are the "Joint Chiefs of Staff." Then comes the Generals, Lieutenants, Sergeants, Corperals, and Privates. As in the church we have Elders, Deacons, Teachers, etc.

I don't remember if you mentioned it, but is it not true, the word "humble" could mean "humble in spirit," i.e. "depressed"? And, is there any sadness in one who is "humble in spirit"? Just asking.

- coffee

[Morris]

Hey Didy.

Personally, I wouldn't use 'lower rank' to denote some kind of hierarchy among the people of God. We are told to submit to each other in places such as Ephesians 5:21, "submitting to one another in the fear of God" and 1 Peter 5:5, "Yes, all of you be submissive to one another, and be clothed with humility".

If there is any hierarchy found in scripture it would be Father, Son, us. Instead, I would suggest that 'lower rank' be understood from the vantage point of authority and will. God is our superior. As such, we shouldn't disobey, question, or hesitate in regard to our instructions.

And at the same time, we shouldn't think that we have authority over any other person. As Paul asked the Corinthians, "What do you want? Shall I come to you with a rod, or in love and a spirit of gentleness?" (1 Corinthians 4:21). Those who instruct (teach) are not over others but yet they are held more accountable (James 3:1).

Jesus was our example,
John 13:13,14
"You call Me Teacher and Lord, and you say well, for so I am. If I then, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also ought to wash one another’s feet."

Oh, there is so much more that could be said about humility, love, servanthood, and the will of our Lord!

[Once4all]

The scripture that hovered in the back of my mind while reading your post, Sheldon, was this one:

Matthew 20:25-28 NASB
(25) But Jesus called them to Himself and said, "You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great men exercise authority over them.
(26) "It is not this way among you, but whoever wishes to become great among you shall be your servant,
(27) and whoever wishes to be first among you shall be your slave;
(28) just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many."

[Morris]

Yes, great passage, Bev!

Here's more;
John 13:35
"By this all will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another."

How will they "know" if they can't see it? Love is seen through servanthood, not merely through the serving, but inhow we serve. This is the new law of liberty we are under in Christ.

Galatians 5:13
"For you, brethren, have been called to liberty; only do not use liberty as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another."

[Once4all]

Oct 5, 2010 15:30:38 GMT -5 Morris said:

Yes, great passage, Bev!

Here's more;
John 13:35
"By this all will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another."

How will they "know" if they can't see it? Love is seen through servanthood, not merely through the serving, but inhow we serve. This is the new law of liberty we are under in Christ.

Galatians 5:13
"For you, brethren, have been called to liberty; only do not use liberty as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another."

I wanted to add more of the Galatians context:

Galatians 5:13-15 NASB
(13) For you were called to freedom, brethren; only do not turn your freedom into an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another.
(14) For the whole Law is fulfilled in one word, in the statement, "YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF."
(15) But if you bite and devour one another, take care that you are not consumed by one another.

Do you think that to "turn your freedom into an opportunity for the flesh" might refer to selfishness, since it is contrasted with serving one another? Selfishness causes dissension (biting and devouring one another) because we focus on our own needs above the needs of others.

[didymus]

Oct 5, 2010 13:49:46 GMT -5 Morris said:

Hey Didy.

Personally, I wouldn't use 'lower rank' to denote some kind of hierarchy among the people of God. We are told to submit to each other in places such as Ephesians 5:21, "submitting to one another in the fear of God" and 1 Peter 5:5, "Yes, all of you be submissive to one another, and be clothed with humility".

If there is any hierarchy found in scripture it would be Father, Son, us. Instead, I would suggest that 'lower rank' be understood from the vantage point of authority and will. God is our superior. As such, we shouldn't disobey, question, or hesitate in regard to our instructions.

And at the same time, we shouldn't think that we have authority over any other person. As Paul asked the Corinthians, "What do you want? Shall I come to you with a rod, or in love and a spirit of gentleness?" (1 Corinthians 4:21). Those who instruct (teach) are not over others but yet they are held more accountable (James 3:1).

Jesus was our example,
John 13:13,14
"You call Me Teacher and Lord, and you say well, for so I am. If I then, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also ought to wash one another’s feet."

Oh, there is so much more that could be said about humility, love, servanthood, and the will of our Lord!

Are you saying there is no hierarchy in the kingdom of Christ? There wouldn't be a kingdom with out a king. And the king is Christ. The idea of a kingdom suggests a king and his subjects.

The words "submit and submitting," in Ephesians 5 are translated from the Greek word, "hupotasso," which, according to Vine is primarily a military term. And certainly, in any military there is a hierarchy. Therefore, Ephesians 5.21 indicates placing yourself under those who have authourity over you, or those who outrank, or those in the ranks above you.

We can see this also in this site. We have the members who are under the authority of the Global Moderator, who is under the authority of the Administrator/Owner, who has established rules for us to follow. If we violate those rules, we could face retribution up to and including banning.

In any organization, there must be order. Without it, there is only disorder and confusion. And God is not the author(ity) of confusion.

[Morris]

Oct 6, 2010 7:07:21 GMT -5 @didymus said:

Are you saying there is no hierarchy in the kingdom of Christ? There wouldn't be a kingdom with out a king. And the king is Christ. The idea of a kingdom suggests a king and his subjects.

Not at all. I wrote "If there is any hierarchy found in scripture it would be Father, Son, [then] us... God is our superior. As such, we shouldn't disobey, question, or hesitate in regard to our instructions.

My point is that there is only one authority and that is the King Himself. Any hierarchy beyond this is perspective-based; from my perspective all my brothers and sisters are of 'higher rank'. Therefore I will serve them. From my brother's perspective, all other brothers and sisters are of 'higher rank', including me, and therefore are too serve them.

It is exactly as Bev commented,

Do you think that to "turn your freedom into an opportunity for the flesh" might refer to selfishness, since it is contrasted with serving one another? Selfishness causes dissension (biting and devouring one another) because we focus on our own needs above the needs of others.

This is all about the heart. If we truly love the Lord we will obey His kingship which says;
John 13:34
"A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another; as I have loved you, that you also love one another.", and,
John 14:15
"If you love Me, keep My commandments."

In a true organizational hierarchy there will be some that are above me, but in the kingdom all are above me.

Do you realize that if Christians actually did what Jesus taught we wouldn't need any authority over us except Christ? Every reason for having an authority structure (as regards strictly Christian matters) would be removed. Why? Because no one would use selfishness against another, but would instead already be under each other in servanthood.

In the old testament, God desired to be the king over Israel, but instead they desired to have a man-made system of hierarchy like the nations around them. God said that they rejected Him.

In the new testament, we are told to be subject to authority because the entire concept of authority derives from the nature of God. As we submit to authority we submit to the only One who has authority, and in doing so, show to man the nature of God in us.

The words "submit and submitting," in Ephesians 5 are translated from the Greek word, "hupotasso," which, according to Vine is primarily a military term. And certainly, in any military there is a hierarchy. Therefore, Ephesians 5.21 indicates placing yourself under those who have authourity over you, or those who outrank, or those in the ranks above you.

This is true, but then who outranks you? And how do we know who does? This leaves things open for a 'power struggle' driven by selfishness and pride. However, if we come with the understanding that all are above us, God rules and we serve through love, not showing partiality.

Who in the body of Christ can claim to be above another? Ephesians 5 simply says "submitting to one another", all inclusive. That is no different than "love one another", "receive one another", "admonish one another", "have the same care for one another", "forgiving one another", and "through love serve one another", etc.

In the kingdom and army of God there are two 'ranks' - King and sons(/daughters).

[MoGrace2U]

I was looking at Titus yesterday and Isa 43 today which seem to relate here. Paul was instructing Titus on who he should place in charge as elders and who he should reject. A good man can lead and direct others into the same obedience, while a contentious man, a heretic; only causes more strife and contention. Both men may be equally knowledgeable in Paul's gospel, but they do not live it out in practice the same.

And the problem in Crete was that the believers were still living according to their old reputation, therefore they needed to have the gospel lived out before them by men who knew how to do it thru having practiced what they saw Paul do. That some only used their position to lord it over others - is not the example Paul wanted Titus to model to the Cretans.

Learning to live by grace can only happen if one submits to extending that grace to others and more grace will be the result. Whereas the opposite is also true that strife and contention will infect a congregation and disrupt it because no one is willing to submit or give grace to another.

I was thinking about how this works with a compliant child who desires to obey and a rebellious one who never does. The rebellious child who doesn't learn by favor being extended to him, but only uses it as an opportunity to take advantage, ends up receiving more punishment lest his sin grow stronger. The obedient child on the other hand when he errs, learns quickly and corrects himself because he desires to walk in favor and not lose it.

I thought of Cain as the example of a rebellious child who when instructed and corrected, turned right around and did even worse, because he was not willing to repent and change his ways. Such a nature as that only looks to find ways to become hypocritical and more deceitful so he can continue in his sin. Unless his life becomes more unbearable than the pleasure his sin gives him, he won't even consider that the problem lies in him. (Breaking a horse is easier!)

I also see this as the difference between the administration of law toward sin and the administration of grace we now have. Because we have the example of what that grace looks like which was extended to us thru no merit of our own, thankfulness emerges in our heart as we contemplate it. And this was why Paul wanted that same type of order set in Crete, so the people might continue to learn about what grace is like in their own lives. And that would be how they would overcome their former sinful ways willingly so they could repent of it.

Grace works well in the heart of a child who knows His Father's love and his desire is to walk in it so as to learn how to do the same. And when he stumbles or errs, he knows that correction will be merciful as well.

There is no difficulty in submitting to such leadership as that!

[Morris]

That's an awesome post to sums things up, Robin!


Edit: Here's an afterthought - read Robin's post again with the thread's topic in mind.

[MoGrace2U]

Thanks Morris, the Lord blesses my studies when I seek to be teachable! And it gives me great encouragement to persevere that I might understand better and grow in my knowledge of His glory. When I first became involved in studying endtimes about 3+ years ago, this was my prayer and He gave me fresh light that I didn't have before when such things were only confusing to me. Preterism came as a result of my studies - I was not looking for it. But as I began to believe His words more fully - I did eat them up! I also looked to David in Ps 119 and asked to have his heart for the word of God. What is awesome to me is how the Lord will give to us the desires of HIS heart! All we need do is ask.

[Once4all]

Oct 6, 2010 10:36:25 GMT -5 MoGrace2U said:

...
I was thinking about how this works with a compliant child who desires to obey and a rebellious one who never does. The rebellious child who doesn't learn by favor being extended to him, but only uses it as an opportunity to take advantage, ends up receiving more punishment lest his sin grow stronger. The obedient child on the other hand when he errs, learns quickly and corrects himself because he desires to walk in favor and not lose it.
...

Reading Robin's words above, I thought of this parable that Jesus told:

Matthew 21:28-31 NASB
(28) "But what do you think? A man had two sons, and he came to the first and said, 'Son, go work today in the vineyard.'
(29) "And he answered, 'I will not'; but afterward he regretted it and went.
(30) "The man came to the second and said the same thing; and he answered, 'I will, sir'; but he did not go.
(31) "Which of the two did the will of his father?" They *said, "The first." Jesus *said to them, "Truly I say to you that the tax collectors and prostitutes will get into the kingdom of God before you.

[didymus]

Oct 6, 2010 9:51:58 GMT -5 Morris said:

Oct 6, 2010 7:07:21 GMT -5 @didymus said:

Are you saying there is no hierarchy in the kingdom of Christ? There wouldn't be a kingdom with out a king. And the king is Christ. The idea of a kingdom suggests a king and his subjects.

Not at all. I wrote "If there is any hierarchy found in scripture it would be Father, Son, [then] us... God is our superior. As such, we shouldn't disobey, question, or hesitate in regard to our instructions.

My point is that there is only one authority and that is the King Himself. Any hierarchy beyond this is perspective-based; from my perspective all my brothers and sisters are of 'higher rank'. Therefore I will serve them. From my brother's perspective, all other brothers and sisters are of 'higher rank', including me, and therefore are too serve them.

It is exactly as Bev commented,


This is all about the heart. If we truly love the Lord we will obey His kingship which says;
John 13:34
"A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another; as I have loved you, that you also love one another.", and,
John 14:15
"If you love Me, keep My commandments."

In a true organizational hierarchy there will be some that are above me, but in the kingdom all are above me.

Do you realize that if Christians actually did what Jesus taught we wouldn't need any authority over us except Christ? Every reason for having an authority structure (as regards strictly Christian matters) would be removed. Why? Because no one would use selfishness against another, but would instead already be under each other in servanthood.

In the old testament, God desired to be the king over Israel, but instead they desired to have a man-made system of hierarchy like the nations around them. God said that they rejected Him.

In the new testament, we are told to be subject to authority because the entire concept of authority derives from the nature of God. As we submit to authority we submit to the only One who has authority, and in doing so, show to man the nature of God in us.

The words "submit and submitting," in Ephesians 5 are translated from the Greek word, "hupotasso," which, according to Vine is primarily a military term. And certainly, in any military there is a hierarchy. Therefore, Ephesians 5.21 indicates placing yourself under those who have authourity over you, or those who outrank, or those in the ranks above you.

This is true, but then who outranks you? And how do we know who does? This leaves things open for a 'power struggle' driven by selfishness and pride. However, if we come with the understanding that all are above us, God rules and we serve through love, not showing partiality.

Who in the body of Christ can claim to be above another? Ephesians 5 simply says "submitting to one another", all inclusive. That is no different than "love one another", "receive one another", "admonish one another", "have the same care for one another", "forgiving one another", and "through love serve one another", etc.

In the kingdom and army of God there are two 'ranks' - King and sons(/daughters).

Then why did God set in the church, Apostles, Prophets, Pastors (Elders), and Teachers. - Ephesians 4.11

Are not Elders in authority over the membership at large? Are not Teachers in authority over their students? I speak of the church as in the New Testament, not the churches we have today. The reason we have so many denominations is that men have assumed authority they didn't have. We are under the authority of the elders that are under the authority of the apostles who were under the authority of Christ who is under the authority of God who is the Supreme authority.

I understand your aversion to authority, and in many ways, I share it. But, because of the religious mess we see in this world, let us not deny the Biblical truth of authority.

Don't make me pull rank on you - LOL

[didymus]

I Refer to Robin's reply #13.

May I submit, the "compliant/obedient" child is a child under authority. The rebellious child is one who rejects authority.

[Morris]

Oct 6, 2010 15:09:43 GMT -5 @didymus said:

Then why did God set in the church, Apostles, Prophets, Pastors (Elders), and Teachers. - Ephesians 4.11

Ephesians 4:12
"For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ".

They aren't there to exert authority, they are there for perfecting, working, and edifying.

Are not Elders in authority over the membership at large? Are not Teachers in authority over their students? I speak of the church as in the New Testament, not the churches we have today.

Titus 1:7-9
"For a bishop must be blameless, as a steward of God, not self-willed, not quick-tempered, not given to wine, not violent, not greedy for money, but hospitable, a lover of what is good, sober-minded, just, holy, self-controlled, holding fast the faithful word as he has been taught, that he may be able, by sound doctrine, both to exhort and convict those who contradict."
Where is it said that they have authority greater than anyone else? Again, look at 1 Peter 5:5, "Likewise you younger people, submit yourselves to your elders. Yes, all of you be submissive to one another, and be clothed with humility".

An elder/bishop is to be an example, as a steward of God. This "sound doctrine" is not head-knowledge. Just look at the 'qualifications'. I don't have time to explain it as fully as I'd like to, but look very carefully at what is going on in that Titus passage.

Look at why Paul left Titus in Crete and what he wanted him to do. He wanted elders who were blameless and not accused of insubordination. It is through their "sound doctrine" that they were to "exhort and convict". This is speaking of character. ("For a bishop must be blameless, as a steward of God, not self-willed, not quick-tempered, not given to wine, not violent, not greedy for money, but hospitable, a lover of what is good, sober-minded, just, holy, self-controlled, holding fast the faithful word").

He speaks of "Jewish fables and commandments of men". This is the context under which Paul writes "To the pure all things are pure, but to those who are defiled and unbelieving nothing is pure". The underlying thought here is that people were only being "outwardly" pure, as by ritual or work.

This is so clearly seen in the continuing passage of Titus 2:1-10,
"But as for you, speak the things which are proper for sound doctrine: that the older men be sober, reverent, temperate, sound in faith, in love, in patience; the older women likewise, that they be reverent in behavior, not slanderers, not given to much wine, teachers of good things— that they admonish the young women to love their husbands, to love their children, to be discreet, chaste, homemakers, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God may not be blasphemed.

Likewise, exhort the young men to be sober-minded, in all things showing yourself to be a pattern of good works; in doctrine showing integrity, reverence, incorruptibility, sound speech that cannot be condemned, that one who is an opponent may be ashamed, having nothing evil to say of you.

Exhort bondservants to be obedient to their own masters, to be well pleasing in all things, not answering back,not pilfering, but showing all good fidelity, that they may adorn the doctrine of God our Savior in all things."

This "sound doctrine" is all about character, not book-learning or understanding, nor is it about an authority hierarchy.

Out of time, so sorry...

[Once4all]

Oct 6, 2010 16:29:10 GMT -5 Morris said:

...
This is so clearly seen in the continuing passage of Titus 2:1-10,
"But as for you, speak the things which are proper for sound doctrine: that the older men be sober, reverent, temperate, sound in faith, in love, in patience; the older women likewise, that they be reverent in behavior, not slanderers, not given to much wine, teachers of good things— that they admonish the young women to love their husbands, to love their children, to be discreet, chaste, homemakers, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God may not be blasphemed.

Likewise, exhort the young men to be sober-minded, in all things showing yourself to be a pattern of good works; in doctrine showing integrity, reverence, incorruptibility, sound speech that cannot be condemned, that one who is an opponent may be ashamed, having nothing evil to say of you.

Exhort bondservants to be obedient to their own masters, to be well pleasing in all things, not answering back,not pilfering, but showing all good fidelity, that they may adorn the doctrine of God our Savior in all things."

This "sound doctrine" is all about character, not book-learning or understanding, nor is it about an authority hierarchy.
...

Oh, amen and amen, Sheldon! As I was reading the verses you quoted (before getting to your final statement), I'm thinking "this is about behavior, character, NOT about rules and interpretations."

"Doctrine" is simply "teaching" or "instruction." And what is the NT replete with, probably more than anything else? Teachings about loving God and loving one another.

[didymus]

Oct 6, 2010 16:29:10 GMT -5 Morris said:

Oct 6, 2010 15:09:43 GMT -5 @didymus said:

Then why did God set in the church, Apostles, Prophets, Pastors (Elders), and Teachers. - Ephesians 4.11

Ephesians 4:12
"For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ".

They aren't there to exert authority, they are there for perfecting, working, and edifying.

Are not Elders in authority over the membership at large? Are not Teachers in authority over their students? I speak of the church as in the New Testament, not the churches we have today.

Titus 1:7-9
"For a bishop must be blameless, as a steward of God, not self-willed, not quick-tempered, not given to wine, not violent, not greedy for money, but hospitable, a lover of what is good, sober-minded, just, holy, self-controlled, holding fast the faithful word as he has been taught, that he may be able, by sound doctrine, both to exhort and convict those who contradict."
Where is it said that they have authority greater than anyone else? Again, look at 1 Peter 5:5, "Likewise you younger people, submit yourselves to your elders. Yes, all of you be submissive to one another, and be clothed with humility".

There you answer your own question and don't know it. In I Peter 5.5 we see "submit" again. It is, once again, a translation of hupotasso. If elders are not in authority, why are we told to place ourselves under their authority? When you consider the full ramification of this word. "hupotasso," we are told to be under subjection, under submission, and obedient to elders. In another place, we are told to respect our elders. In another place, we are told that elders are worthy of double honour.

And, I Peter 5.5, in the Amplified Bible, reads: Likewise, you who are younger and of lesser rank, be subject to the elders (the ministers and spiritual guides of the church)--[giving them due respect and yielding to their counsel]. Clothe (apron) yourselves, all of you, with humility [as the garb of a servant, so that its covering cannot possibly be stripped from you, with freedom from pride and arrogance] toward one another. For God sets Himself against the proud (the insolent, the overbearing, the disdainful, the presumptuous, the boastful)--[and He opposes, frustrates, and defeats them], but gives grace (favor, blessing) to the humble.

We see here an element of age. The younger are of lesser rank than the older. When it comes to eldership, there is certainly an element of age involved. Why would age be important? The older are generally more mature, have more wisdom, and most important, they have been walking with the Lord a lot longer than the younger. That is not always the case.

I know a man who is about 30 years older than me. And even though he is a Reformed Preterist, and I disagree with him on his Calvinism. I still respect him, and look at him like a father. My attitude toward him is different that my attitude toward you. I see you as a younger brother in need of guidance. Don't take that the wrong way. At 54, I still need guidance. But all of us, no matter what the age, still need guidance form our eldest brother, Jesus Christ, and of Elder of elders, God the Father.

Does this make sense to you?

[Morris]

Oct 7, 2010 8:20:12 GMT -5 @didymus said:

There you answer your own question and don't know it. In I Peter 5.5 we see "submit" again. It is, once again, a translation of hupotasso. If elders are not in authority, why are we told to place ourselves under their authority?

There is no concept here of elder authority in the sense you are implying. Let's look at it more of this passage;

1 Peter 5:1-4
"The elders who are among you I exhort, I who am a fellow elder and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that will be revealed: Shepherd the flock of God which is among you, serving as overseers, not by compulsion but willingly, not for dishonest gain but eagerly; nor as being lords over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock; and when the Chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the crown of glory that does not fade away."

They are told not to be "lords" over those entrusted to them. That "lords" simply means 'to lord against, i.e. control, subjugate'. This is entirely opposite to the idea that elders should exercise authority over those they are examples to.

There are examples, not enforcers.

When you consider the full ramification of this word. "hupotasso," we are told to be under subjection, under submission, and obedient to elders. In another place, we are told to respect our elders. In another place, we are told that elders are worthy of double honour.

And this is true. We should place ourselves under their examples, that we should learn what the character of Christ is from those who have lived out that character.

And, I Peter 5.5, in the Amplified Bible, reads:

That's an awful lot of explanatory notes. I don't particularly see that rendering of the Greek as given there, but I really can't say. But when compared to the other scriptures we have explored here, it seems rather apparent that this submission is in regard to the general call of Christians to submit to one another without partiality, even though elders are given special honour and respect for the example they are to provide us.

As you've stated "We see here an element of age", and I certainly agree with that. However, in the body of Christ there is no one that is not called to serve and love his brother or sister, regardless of age or 'position'.

Does this make sense to you?

It does, but just under a different context than what you see. In my opinion, there is a significant difference between exercising authority over another to 'enforce' behavior, and being an example of character by which another person is drawn to submit themselves under.

[didymus]

Okay, Morris, this discussion seems to be going nowhere, so I guess I will have to pull rank.

I am 54, and I have been walking with the Lord longer than you've been alive. I have studied the Bible since I was 7, came to repentence when I was 18. And my studies became far more intense.

You have a wonderful mind for academics. But, I have more experience, and you should trust my experience, just as I trust the experience of my friend who is in his 80s. He has been walking with the Lord in maturity a lot longer than I.

Now, this word, hupotasso, is a military term regarding lower rank. A rank is a level of authority. If there is a lower level of authority, there is a higher level of authority. And the use of this word suggests that elders are of higher rank/authority than the younger.

Let's look at the phrase, "shepherd the flock." Does not the shepherd have any authority over the flock? Of course they do. And the shepherd must exercise his authority or the sheep will destroy themselves. Just ask someone who has had sheep. Sheep just have no sense. Without a good shepherd, the sheep will go astray. And again, this term is referring to elders.



Sorry for pulling rank.

- coffee

[Morris]

Oct 8, 2010 8:42:28 GMT -5 @didymus said:

Let's look at the phrase, "shepherd the flock." Does not the shepherd have any authority over the flock?

Alright, let's look at it. The word here means "to tend as a shepherd of (figuratively, superviser)" and "to feed, to tend a flock, keep sheep".
There are two basic elements to this term; one being a supplier, caregiver, and to nourish, the other being a governor and to rule.

Variations of the base word appear in Matthew 2:6, Luke 17:7, John 21:16, Acts 20:28, 1 Corinthians 9:7, 1 Peter 5:2, Jude 1 :12, Revelation 2:27, 7:17, 12:5, 19:15.

I included all these references because I'd like people to see that this term is not all about ruling. So which of the two elements are being used here in 1 Peter? I say Peter clarifies it very well for us in the next verse, "nor as being lords over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock".

As I have already pointed out, "being lords" is to exercise rule. Therefore, Peter is saying "feed" the flock of God but do not rule over them. Feed them and nourish them by being examples. This is supported in various places of scripture and isn't merely an argument based on the military aspect of a word. "Shepherd" is a term of animal husbandry, but that doesn't mean elders are to be keepers of sheep or veterinarians.

Christ is the Good Shepherd and we follow Him as we follow those who follow Him (i.e. by their example);
Philippians 3:14-17
"I press toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus. Therefore let us, as many as are mature, have this mind; and if in anything you think otherwise, God will reveal even this to you. Nevertheless, to the degree that we have already attained, let us walk by the same rule, let us be of the same mind. Brethren, join in following my example, and note those who so walk, as you have us for a pattern."

1 Thessalonians 1:5-8
"For our gospel did not come to you in word only, but also in power, and in the Holy Spirit and in much assurance, as you know what kind of men we were among you for your sake. And you became followers of us and of the Lord, having received the word in much affliction, with joy of the Holy Spirit, so that you became examples to all in Macedonia and Achaia who believe. For from you the word of the Lord has sounded forth, not only in Macedonia and Achaia, but also in every place. Your faith toward God has gone out, so that we do not need to say anything."

2 Thessalonians 3:6-9
"But we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw from every brother who walks disorderly and not according to the tradition which he received from us. For you yourselves know how you ought to follow us, for we were not disorderly among you; nor did we eat anyone’s bread free of charge, but worked with labor and toil night and day, that we might not be a burden to any of you, not because we do not have authority, but to make ourselves an example of how you should follow us."

1 Corinthians 11:1
"Imitate me, just as I also imitate Christ."

The authority an elder has over others an authority of example. We are to submit ourselves to that example, just as we are to submit ourselves to Christ's example. A part of that example is to love one another selflessly, and to serve one another as serving Christ (to one who is greater then us).

[didymus]

Morris,

This discussion is taking a life of it's own. When I get back from the store (I'm getting hungry), I intend to start a thread on eldership.

[kangaroojack]

Oct 8, 2010 11:57:36 GMT -5 @didymus said:

Morris,

This discussion is taking a life of it's own. When I get back from the store (I'm getting hungry), I intend to start a thread on eldership.

Keep in mind that elders in the Bible were appointed by apostles. Today they must be elected by the congregation because there is no apostolic succession. Therefore, elders today have only as much authority that the congregation gives them. Apostolic appointed elders had absolute authority because of the apostles who appointed them.

The diminished authority of the elders is seen by the fact that they no longer have power to forgive sins as they once did.

Roo

[Once4all]

This "pull rank" stuff is totally bizarre to me. How much time someone has been walking with the Lord does not mean that what they believe to be true is "more true" than someone who has only been with the Lord a few years. I'm just sayin'...

[Allyn]

Oct 8, 2010 17:52:37 GMT -5 Once4all said:

This "pull rank" stuff is totally bizarre to me. How much time someone has been walking with the Lord does not mean that what they believe to be true is "more true" than someone who has only been with the Lord a few years. I'm just sayin'...

You lost me

[Once4all]

Oct 8, 2010 17:59:30 GMT -5 Allyn said:

Oct 8, 2010 17:52:37 GMT -5 Once4all said:

This "pull rank" stuff is totally bizarre to me. How much time someone has been walking with the Lord does not mean that what they believe to be true is "more true" than someone who has only been with the Lord a few years. I'm just sayin'...

You lost me

didymus said:

Didymus wrote: Okay, Morris, this discussion seems to be going nowhere, so I guess I will have to pull rank. I am 54, and I have been walking with the Lord longer than you've been alive. I have studied the Bible since I was 7, came to repentence when I was 18. And my studies became far more intense.