|
|
Post by Once4all on Nov 1, 2011 0:42:06 GMT -5
2 Corinthians 13:5 NASB
(5) Test yourselves to see if you are in the faith; examine yourselves! Or do you not recognize this about yourselves, that Jesus Christ is in you--unless indeed you fail the test?
What is the test, of which you can test yourself, to determine that Jesus Christ is in you?
Can you find the answer within the context of the chapter where the above verse occurs?
|
|
|
|
Post by Allyn on Nov 1, 2011 7:22:30 GMT -5
This really is a great question. I have read this verse several times over the years and have always skimmed past it. No red flags went up so I went on with my reading. But now that you put it right in front of me and have forced me to give it some thoughtful consideration I say that the "what" of the test as it applies to me is one of security. Its an emotional settled feeling deep inside of knowing that Christ lives in me. My actions, my thougts, my finances - everything revolves around the fact that Christ lives in me and so I am trying hard to live for Him.
|
|
|
|
Post by edwardgoodie on Nov 1, 2011 10:32:22 GMT -5
Wouldn't a couple of answers to that examining be given in the next two verses:
2 Corinthians 13:6-7 - But I trust that ye shall know that we are not reprobates.
7 Now I pray to God that ye do no evil; not that we should appear approved, but that ye should do that which is honest, though we be as reprobates.
|
|
|
|
Post by Morris on Nov 1, 2011 11:06:28 GMT -5
This has been fascinating to look into. Thanks for bringing such a great question forward. Hopefully this starts things off and helps a bit.
Starting back in verse 3 we read that the Corinthians wanted proof that Christ was speaking in Paul, "since you seek a proof of Christ speaking in me". That word "proof" is actually "test", the noun form of the verb that appears in verse 5, "Test yourselves".
Paul continues to tell them that it isn't as though Christ is strong in him and weak with them, but rather "mighty in you". Comparing themselves with Christ being crucified, he tells them that in ourselves we are "feeble", and that as Christ lived by the power of God, so shall our strength be by the power of God in you.
It is at this point where Paul says to them, "Examine yourselves as to whether you are in the faith. Test yourselves".
"Examine" is to quite literally 'try out' or 'put on trial'. Paul is saying to them, if you want a test of Christ speaking in me, you perform that test on yourselves because the same Christ working in me is working in you.
What is the test against? It is "whether you are in the faith". That seems rather nebulous to us because of how we use the word 'faith', but faith basically means persuasion (as in persuaded) and conviction (of what is true). Thus Paul says to them, 'if you are persuaded and convinced that the message I brought to you is true, act upon that belief'.
But wait. Paul said we are weak. What if I don't have the courage or fortitude to do what I believe? This is Paul's argument I believe; that if you put onto trial your beliefs of the truthfulness of the gospel, you will have the strength to do according to those beliefs even though you might think you couldn't. That strength, that power, to meet the test, is the 'proof' that Christ is in you with the power of God.
So he tells them that, 'hey, you can test your conviction, and don't be overly surprised when the test is passed'. Why shouldn't they be surprised? "Do you not know yourselves, that Jesus Christ is in you?". Again Paul turns the situation around, from the Corinthians wanting to know if Christ is in him, to Paul telling them that Christ is in them also, with the same power as in him.
However, if you are not persuaded of the gospel, if your faith is not in Christ, you will fail, for you have neither the belief or the power of God through Christ in you; "unless indeed you are disqualified. But I trust that you will know that we are not disqualified." Even those who fail their own testing will recognize, by the very virtue of them being unable to stand, that it is the power of God that allows the apostles and Christians to stand.
Verse 7 is the one I find quite interesting, "Now I pray to God that you do no evil, not that we should appear approved, but that you should do what is honorable, though we may seem disqualified". What makes it interesting is that Paul brings out the purpose of this testing. It isn't for our elevation in the eyes of others. In fact, we may even appear to be failures. But the purpose of our 'trying out' our faith is to do what is "good and beautiful".
As Paul said in 1 Thessalonians 5:21,22,
"Test all things; hold fast what is good. Abstain from every form of evil."
Finally, we read in verse 8, "For we can do nothing against the truth, but for the truth". I believe that in this context (as the meaning of the word allows), "truth" simple means the opposite of false. Therefore, I think that what Paul is saying is that we can only do what we really, honestly, and truthfully believe. We don't generally act against what we truthfully believe.
They are compared (that is, what we believe and what is absolutely truth) in 1 John 3:18,19,
"My little children, let us not love in word or in tongue, but in deed and in truth [according to our real belief that we should love]. And by this we know that we are of the truth [God's absolute truth], and shall assure our hearts before Him".
I've gone on long enough, but there's my view.
|
|
|
|
Post by Once4all on Nov 1, 2011 22:50:47 GMT -5
Thanks for the replies, everyone! Sheldon, that was a great exposition. Good job. I think that Ted nailed it the most concisely.
The context is whether or not one is sinning; whether you have repented from your sins. The ending verse of the previous chapter leading into the discussion reads:
I am afraid that when I come again my God may humiliate me before you, and I may mourn over many of those who have sinned in the past and not repented of the impurity, immorality and sensuality which they have practiced. (2 Corinthians 12:21 NASB)
The test is to see if Christ is in you and it is important to be assured of that because "Christ in you" is the hope of glory (Colossians 1:27). Paul writes that that is the reason they (the apostles) admonish and teach, "so that we may present every man complete in Christ" (Colossians 1:28).
Romans 8:10-14 NASB
(10) If Christ is in you, though the body is dead because of sin, yet the spirit is alive because of righteousness.
(11) But if the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, He who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through His Spirit who dwells in you.
(12) So then, brethren, we are under obligation, not to the flesh, to live according to the flesh--
(13) for if you are living according to the flesh, you must die; but if by the Spirit you are putting to death the deeds of the body, you will live.
(14) For all who are being led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God.
|
|
|
|
Post by Morris on Nov 2, 2011 11:04:31 GMT -5
2 Corinthians 13:7,
"Now pray to God that you do no evil, not that we should appear approved, but that you should do what is honorable, though we may seem disqualified".
It should be noted here that "evil" is not, strictly speaking, referring to sin or a breaking of the law. There is an intentional double juxtaposition in this sentence. There is 'evil' [kakon] vs 'honorable' [kalon], and 'approved' [dokimoi] vs 'disqualified' [adokimoi]. Even the close appearance of the words themselves are intentional, but is unfortunately completely lost in translation.
"Evil" here is actually "worthless (intrinsically, such; whereas G4190 properly refers to effects), i.e. (subjectively) depraved, or (objectively) injurious". An example of its use is in Acts 16:28 where Paul calls out to the prison guards not to "harm" themselves, thinking that the prisoners have escaped. Another is in Acts 28:5 where a poisonous snake bites Paul's hand, but he "suffered no harm".
In fact, there is an exact opposite word of 'evil' in scripture and people might be surprised at what that word is; it's 'un-evil' [akakon]! It is found in Romans 16:19 as "simple", and Hebrews 7:26 as "harmless". My point is that this word "evil" is not simply a word substitute for "sin". In a parable in Matthew 21:41, Jesus says that the landowner (i.e. God) "will destroy those wicked men miserably". That "miserably" is literally "evilly". Would Jesus say of His Father that He would do something 'sin-ly'? Personally, I don't think so.
"Honorable", going back to 2 Corinthians 13:7, means "properly, beautiful, but chiefly (figuratively) good (literally or morally), i.e. valuable or virtuous (for appearance or use). So where 'evil' conveys the idea of 'worthless', this word says 'valuable'. An example of this is in Luke 6:38, "Give, and it will be given to you: good measure, pressed down, shaken together, and running over will be put into your bosom. For with the same measure that you use, it will be measured back to you". Just as the word 'evil' doesn't necessarily mean 'sin', this word doesn't equal 'righteous'.
A quick note on the other two words, 'approved' and 'disqualified'.
These too are related in opposition, literally meaning 'approved' and 'disapproved'. But the other interesting thing about these words is that 'approved' is connected with "may-be-appearing", while 'disapproved' is connected with 'may-be'. (The "seem" in "we may seem disqualified" is not in the Greek.)
The significance of this, I believe, is that our approval is in the fact that our faith is placed in Christ and not in the doing of good rather than evil. When we are 'tried', the good we do is the sign of our faith in Christ. In other words, approval comes because of Christ and the fact that we place our trust on Him, rather than because we did something 'good'.
|
|
|
|
Post by Once4all on Nov 2, 2011 15:52:42 GMT -5
2 Corinthians 13:7 NASB
(7) Now we pray to God that you do no wrong (G2556); not that we ourselves may appear approved, but that you may do what is right, even though we may appear unapproved.
G2556
κακός kakos
Thayer Definition:
1) of a bad nature
1a) not such as it ought to be
2) of a mode of thinking, feeling, acting
2a) base, wrong, wicked
3) troublesome, injurious, pernicious, destructive, baneful
Now here are the activities that caused Paul to write this:
2 Corinthians 12:20-21 NASB
(20) For I am afraid that perhaps when I come I may find you to be not what I wish and may be found by you to be not what you wish; that perhaps there will be strife, jealousy, angry tempers, disputes, slanders, gossip, arrogance, disturbances;
(21) I am afraid that when I come again my God may humiliate me before you, and I may mourn over many of those who have sinned in the past and not repented of the impurity, immorality and sensuality which they have practiced.
Look how the above list of actions and attitudes match those of the "deeds of the flesh" in Galatians 5:
Galatians 5:19-21 NASB
(19) Now the deeds of the flesh are evident, which are: immorality, impurity, sensuality,
(20) idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, disputes, dissensions, factions,
(21) envying, drunkenness, carousing, and things like these, of which I forewarn you, just as I have forewarned you, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.
Those actions and attitudes are listed in opposition to the fruit of the spirit:
Galatians 5:22-23 NASB
(22) But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness,
(23) gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law.
|
|
|
|
Post by Morris on Nov 4, 2011 11:11:03 GMT -5
I have a few questions regarding this word 'evil/wrong' ("kakon", Strong's G2556).
First, in Matthew 21:41, Jesus says that the landowner (i.e. God) "will destroy those wicked men miserably". That word is #2560 ("kakos"), the Adverb form of #2556 ("kakon"). If Jesus is indeed relating the 'landowner' to God, and 'kakon' is viewed as 'evil' or 'wrong' in the strict sense of 'sin', Jesus said that God would 'destroy those wicked men' in a sinful manner. Is this possible?
Second, 'kakon' is often contrasted with 'kalon' (beautiful/good/valuable/right). Yet 'kakon' has a true opposite form; 'akakon' - 'not-kakon'. What is the difference? If Paul says that it is "good" for the unmarried and widowed to remain unmarried (1 Corinthians 7:8), is he saying it is 'wrong' if they were to marry, or otherwise 'un-wrong' to remain single? Is right and wrong, in the context of sin, being discussed here?
In 1 Corinthians 9:1, is Paul saying that it would have been 'right' if he had died? Is it 'wrong' or a 'sin' that he lived?
|
|
|
|
Post by Once4all on Nov 5, 2011 0:27:22 GMT -5
I have a few questions regarding this word 'evil/wrong' ("kakon", Strong's G2556). First, in Matthew 21:41, Jesus says that the landowner (i.e. God) " will destroy those wicked men miserably". That word is #2560 ("kakos"), the Adverb form of #2556 ("kakon"). If Jesus is indeed relating the 'landowner' to God, and 'kakon' is viewed as 'evil' or 'wrong' in the strict sense of 'sin', Jesus said that God would 'destroy those wicked men' in a sinful manner. Is this possible? It is not Jesus speaking in Matthew 21:41; it is the chief priests and Pharisees. Second, 'kakon' is often contrasted with 'kalon' (beautiful/good/valuable/right). Yet 'kakon' has a true opposite form; 'akakon' - 'not-kakon'. What is the difference? If Paul says that it is "good" for the unmarried and widowed to remain unmarried (1 Corinthians 7:8), is he saying it is 'wrong' if they were to marry, or otherwise 'un-wrong' to remain single? Is right and wrong, in the context of sin, being discussed here? Possibly, given his discussion of the same topic later in the chapter, where he clarifies that their marrying would not be a sin. The fact that he felt the need to make that clarification about sin indicates that it could be understood as "right and wrong, in the context of sin." In this case it is not, but the usage obviously allows for it. 1 Corinthians 7:26-28 NASB (26) I think then that this is good in view of the present distress, that it is good for a man to remain as he is. (27) Are you bound to a wife? Do not seek to be released. Are you released from a wife? Do not seek a wife. (28) But if you marry, you have not sinned; and if a virgin marries, she has not sinned. Yet such will have trouble in this life, and I am trying to spare you. In 1 Corinthians 9:1, is Paul saying that it would have been 'right' if he had died? Is it 'wrong' or a 'sin' that he lived? I don't think that's the correct scripture reference: 1 Corinthians 9:1 NASB (1) Am I not free? Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord? Are you not my work in the Lord? |
|
|
|
Post by Morris on Nov 5, 2011 20:29:13 GMT -5
It is not Jesus speaking in Matthew 21:41; it is the chief priests and Pharisees. Evidently, my eyes weren't working so well that day.  However, I still find it rather interesting that they would say that of a holy God. All this is really my point; 'kakon'/worthless/evil/wrong can be a sin, but kakon itself doesn't mean it is a sin. It is as if it is used to convey things which have negative/injurious/harmful consequences. Not wearing a hard hat on a construction site is 'wrong' because of the negative consequences it can have. Theft is 'wrong' for the same reasons. Sin also has negative consequences. I doubt I'm explaining myself all that well, but hopefully I'm getting enough across. Sorry. Make that 1 Corinthians 9:15, " But I have used none of these things, nor have I written these things that it should be done so to me; for it would be better [kalon, 'right'] for me to die than that anyone should make my boasting void". Just like 'kakon' is not inherently equated to "sin", 'kalon' is not inherently equated to "righteousness", In other words, righteousness and sin are far more than just right/valuable and wrong/worthless. I have a lot more to say on the appearance of righteousness because of the doing of 'kalon', but I just don't have the time at the moment, but here's a hint of one my thoughts: " You have heard that it was said to those of old..."  |
|
|
|
Post by Once4all on Nov 7, 2011 17:23:56 GMT -5
I think it would be helpful if you stated plainly what it is you are attempting to display; something apparently contradictory to what I presented. Rather than trying to lead me to it via various pathways, just tell me the intended destination up front.  |
|
|
|
Post by Morris on Nov 8, 2011 11:10:22 GMT -5
I think it would be helpful if you stated plainly what it is you are attempting to display; something apparently contradictory to what I presented. Rather than trying to lead me to it via various pathways, just tell me the intended destination up front. I'm not trying to be contradictory so much as complimentary; "and" instead of "or". "Kakon" can refer to a sin and it can refer to something that is not sin. "Kalon" can refer to something righteous and it can refer to something that is not righteous. Believe it or not, I was actually trying to state plainly my thoughts when I said: I wanted to give much more support to my destination but just didn't have the time available. Here's the destination without all the support; "Kalon" (good/right/valuable) can be done but that, in and of itself, doesn't make anyone righteous* or free from sin. "Kakon" (evil/wrong/worthless) can be done that doesn't automatically mean that sin has been imputed. [/li][li] |
|
|
|
Post by Once4all on Nov 8, 2011 14:48:18 GMT -5
Hey, Sheldon. Sorry if I sounded impatient. I'm leaving on Sunday for a week and I guess I'm just finding it difficult to get too deeply into any discussions right now. Yeah, I know, I started this one! I am very, very happy for your participation in it, too.
|
|
|
|
Post by Morris on Nov 9, 2011 10:44:27 GMT -5
I completely understand, Bev. I'm having time constraints for posting and I'm conscious that I may not be as clear as I'd like. In fact, I'll be away myself until late Saturday. I'll probably not get to talk with you again until you get back, so have yourself a good time and safe travels!
|
|
