Arkiv | januari 2012

The danger of misusing the misuse of tongues

Below I use the word ”cessationist” (a person who believes speaking in tongues is not for today but a gift that has ceased) but I could address anyone who is skeptic about tongues and especially those who have produced ”anti-tongue material” – like uploaded video clips on youtube. Sometimes I wonder if cessationists feel that if they can’t pray by the Spirit’s power, they assume that no one else can either and they therefore prefer to read the Bible accordingly.  I don’t wish to cause bad feelings with what I write, but would like to defend the gift of speaking in tongues, and to make some clarifications concerning some common misunderstandings.

Speaking in tongues does not mean that the language is always understood, but actually the exact opposite

It’s very common for cessationists to base their views about tongues on Acts 2 alone, with hardly no aid from 1 Cor. 11-14 where Paul quite extensively describes tongues and the way to use them. If the agenda is to show that speaking in tongues has either ceased or nothing to strive for,  people would likely try to ignore 1 Cor. 11-14 to avoid the clear information we can find there:

  • we should be eager to get this gift
  • tongues can edify YOU ALONE, which is something good
  • NO MAN understands the tongues (unless interpreted)
  • you’re not even addressing people with your tongues but you’re praying to GOD
  • you should pray in BOTH ways; 1) with the spirit and 2) with your understanding

Acts 2 of course doesn’t contradict 1 Cor. in any way, but it’s still not a good approach to avoid the larger passages about tongues and focus on the very first experience alone. What if the very first experience was totally unique and a bit different than the experiences which followed? The Greek word ”dialectos” is used only in the original Pentecost of Acts 2. The other occurences of tongues-speaking (Acts 19, Acts 10) was not in earthly dialects and ”dialectos” is not found in the text. All we know from Acts 2 is that ”every man heard them speak in his own language”. Notice:

  • It does NOT say that each man understood ALL the languages spoken
  • It does NOT say that each man understood every single disciple
  • It does NOT say that no ”gibberish” was uttered apart from the comprehensible languages

If tongues are always foreign languages, then there is no reason for anyone to ever do it alone (where no foreigners can hear) and yet we are told to pray privately:

1 Cor. 14:28 But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and LET HIM SPEAK TO HIMSELF, AND TO GOD

Also, there would have been no reason for the Ephesians (of Acts 19) or for Cornelius’ family (Acts 10) to speak in tongues since there were no foreigners there to understand it. If tongues were always understood, why is ”interpreting tongues” a separate gift? And how come believers with the gift of speaking in tongues don’t automatically have the gift of interpreting? We are told to pray in two ways; 1) with the spirit (where we don’t understand what we are saying) and 2) with our own words (which we understand):

1 Cor. 14:19 I will pray with the spirit, and I will pray with the understanding ALSO: I will sing with the spirit, and I will sing with the understanding also.

1 Cor. 14:13 Wherefore let him who speaks in an unknown tongue pray that he may interpret (so clearly not a gift always combined with speaking in tongues)

1 Cor. 14:17 For you verily give thanks well,[in tongues] but the other is not edified (because he can’t understand)

Since the Bible says that no one understands a person who speaks in tongues, it means that ”gibberish” fits this description rather well. That people sometimes understand the tongues is likely due to that they are interpreted.

Speaking in tongues is for praise, worship, edification and not for evangelism

Tongues are for praise and nowhere are we told they are meant for evangelism. The Ephesians in Acts 19 and the Romans in Acts 10 (Cornelius’ house) spoke in tongues but there were no foreigners around to hear in a foreign ”known language”. What purpose would a foreign dialect serve as they all already spoke the same language? Two portions from the book of Acts show that tongues are for praise rather than for evangelism:

1) Acts 10:44-46 While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word. And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost. For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God

In Cornelius’ house there were no foreigners to hear what was spoken. ”And Cornelius waited for them, and he called together his kinsmen and near friends.”Acts 10:24

2) Acts 19:5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied. And all the men were about twelve.

Paul met some faithful Jews who believed in John’s baptism and when Paul told them of Jesus and laid his hands on them they spoke in tongues. But not to evangelize foreigners but they where simply prophesying (and we have learned that prophesying is mainly for believers). No foreigners were present.

When a cessationist says that pentecostals over-emphasize tongues; he is basically saying that Pentecostals over-emphasize prayer and praise. A good church service shouldn’t contain all the important aspects of a church service; teaching, song, praise, edification, etc.

The tongues (interpreted) are not for the jews but for the CHURCH

1 Cor. 14: 3-4 He that speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth himself; but he that prophesieth edifieth the church

Cessationists might say that tongues were only meant to judge the unbelieving Jews. This idea is proved false because there were no unbelieving Jews to hear the words of ”judgment” at Cornelius’ house (Acts 10) or at Ephesus (Acts 19) as mentioned above. The Scriptures that cessationists use to support their idea is below (notice the absence of the word ”judgment”):

1 Cor. 14:20-22 Brethren, be not children in understanding: howbeit in malice be ye children, but in understanding be men. In the Law it is written, With men of other tongues and other lips will I speak unto this people; and yet for all that will they not hear me, saith the Lord. Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not: but prophesying serveth not for them that believe not, but for them which believe.

The OT quote within 1 Cor 14:20-22 (above) is from Isaiah 28, where God is telling Israel that they have been so wicked that He will allow them to be conquered by Assyria.

Isaiah 28:11 For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people.

Therefore cessationists have come to the conclusion that hearing a foreign language is a judgment. However, the judgment against Israel in Isaiah’s day was not a strange tongue but that they would be taken captive. The strange language was not a judgment, but a consequence of the judgment. The consequence of tongues-speaking is that unbelievers (Jew and Gentile) do not understand what is being spoken and therefore to them it is just a ”sign.” The Greek word ”semeion” means a ”sign” as in a ”wonder” or a ”mystery” or ”perplexity.” This same word is used in a similar way in Rev. 12:1, Rev. 12:3 and Rev. 15:1. Paul, wrote 1 Cor 14 to show that tongues without interpretation does not benefit anyone except the speaker; therefore, do not speak tongues loudly in the church service (without interpretation) because for others it is just a mystery/sign. And just as the OT Jews were perplexed by the Assyrian dialect, so they are perplexed today by tongues, and it will not help them.

Paul wants to show that the church is made up of believers, and prophecy is for believers in the church-service for their instruction, and that prophecy can also convict a stray unbeliever that happens to be there. Therefore prophecy is better than tongues in the church unless there is an interpretation:

1 Cor. 14:24 But if all prophesy, and there come in one that believeth not, or one unlearned, he is convinced of all, he is judged of all:25 And thus are the secrets of his heart made manifest; and so falling down on his face he will worship God, and report that God is in you of a truth.

Speaking in tongues is a sign that shall follow them that BELIEVE:

Mark 16:17 And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues

If speaking in tongues has ceased, then people who still speak in tongues would have to be faking them or being possessed by the devil. This would in turn lead to that a sure sign of an unsaved person would be if he spoke in tongues! That is the exact opposite of what Mark 16:17 is saying!

It is only during the portion of the church service that is set aside for prophetic speaking that the tongues-speakers should keep silence – if there is no interpreter. However, there are no verses which prohibit quiet tongues-speaking during the prayer/worship portion of the service. If you would normally pray quietly for yourselves in church, perhaps due to a common request from the pastor, then speaking in tongues would be one way to express yourself. There is a chance/risk that a person who sits beside you overhears your mumbling, but this is not against Paul’s teaching. Someone might also overhear another person praying in Spanish who sits beside him, and no one would be offended unless the prayers are inconveniently loud. It’s only when a person requests the attention of others that irritation can be the outcome. If a person stood up in an American church speaking in another language, then that would clearly violate Paul’s instructions, and it’s not hard to figure out why. A person who repeatedly shouts ”Praise the LORD, Halleluyaaaa, Amen”…” etc, and jumps up and down, would equally disturb the church service and contribute to chaos. This could not be filed under ”dangerous” but rather ”silly” and ”annoying”. Paul advised against speaking in tongues publically because no others would be edified, and outsiders would think you’re nuts. Not because it’s ”dangerous”.

Yes, speaking in tongues is a GIFT freely provided by God

1 Cor. 12:11But all these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will.

It’s nothing controversial about the fact that speaking in tongues is a GIFT freely offered by God and something that you can’t earn, because this is generally accepted both inside and outside of the Pentecostal church. Sadly people misunderstand this to mean that we should just forget about this subject altogether since it’s God’s business to intervene in our lives and give us any gift he wants us to have. How is this ”covet earnestly the best gifts” which we are told to do? Although it’s true that we certainly can’t give ourselves any gifts, it doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t approach God and ask for them, and be EAGER to get them. Sometimes we don’t get because we don’t ask (it’s still a free gift), and if we on top of this doubt that we might be the lucky recipients of spiritual gifts, then this might hinder us to get them. It doesn’t matter if God is standing there handing out gifts if we don’t even look for them or stretch out our hands to get them.

Luke 11:9 And I say unto you, Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you.10 For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened.—13 If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children: how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him?

Speaking in tongues is not a ”less important gift”

1 Cor. 12:8For to one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom; to another the word of knowledge by the same Spirit;9To another faith by the same Spirit; to another the gifts of healing by the same Spirit; 10To another the working of miracles; to another prophecy; to another discerning of spirits; to another divers kinds of tongues; to another the interpretation of tongues: 11But all these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will.12For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ.

Paul never says that he is listing the gifts of the Spirit in a descending ranking order. If that was his aim, we would have to conclude that the interpretation of tongues is not as important as tongues-speaking, because it is listed below ”tongues”. Yet, the ”best gifts,” according to Paul in 1 Cor. are ”prophecy” and ”interpretation” because more people can be edified. Paul goes on to explain right after the verse above that all parts of the body are necessary and equally important. Also:

1 Cor. 14:5 I would that ye all spake with tongues but rather that ye prophesied:For greater is he that prophesieth than he that speaketh with tongues, except he interpret, that the church may receive edifying

With other words, we are told to earnestly covet the best gifts, meaning that we should be eager to get gifts where as many people as possible can be edified. This means that we shouldn’t be satisified with only being able to speak in tongues, but we should also earnestly seek the gift of interpretation since this would lead to prophesying. Are you honestly seeking the gifts on Paul’s list as he tells you to, or have you brushed all these gifts aside? (Or even worse; are you spending your valuable time giving warnings to fellow christians to be aware of spiritual gifts, and hindering them as well from being eager to get them?)

A believer can be ”filled” again by the Holy Ghost

Below we can see WHY the believing jews understood that certain gentiles had received the Holy Ghost. It was ”FOR they heard them speak with tongues and magnify God”. We can trust that this reason is correct, maybe in combination with noticing good fruit. These gentiles had not yet been baptised in WATER but they had received the baptism of the HOLY GHOST. Also Peter was certain of that these gentiles were ready to be baptised also in water since he understood that they had been baptised in the Holy Ghost. No one involved seemed terrified that these gentiles maybe faked their tongues or that they were demon possessed. They didn’t feel it was ”dangerous” at all, but they took what they heard as a sign for that the gentiles were true believers and ready to be water baptised since they had the Holy Ghost:

Acts 10:44While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them whichheard the word. 45And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost. 46For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter, 47Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? 

It is a spiritual power seen as manifestations of the Spirit which are demonstrated by the working of spiritual gifts. Acts 1:5, Acts 1:8 and Joel’s prophecy point to a filling of the Holy Spirit that is more than just a salvation experience.They speak of a ”drenching, soaking” of the Spirit known as ”baptizo”. The ”baptizo” experience happening to someone who already has the Holy Spirit in him (because he is already saved) might be for him to attend a powerful prayer meeting, like the one in Acts 4:31, and this person would gain the power to prophesy through tongues, the word of wisdom etc. A power that the believers received when the Holy Spirit was poured out was the ability to praise God through the Holy Spirit. A true believer who has the Holy Spirit dwelling inside him can still be said to be ”filled with the Holy Ghost/spirit/power” at a later stage in his life and on several different occasions. This can happen through prayers:

Acts 4:31 And when they had prayed, the place was shaken where they were assembled together; and they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and they spake the word of God with boldness 

Luke. 24:48-49 ye are witnesses of these things. And, behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you: but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be endued with power from on high

Acts 2:16-17 But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel; And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy”

Acts 1:5 For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence. But ye shall receive power after that the Holy Ghost has come upon you

Acts 1:8 But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.

Eph 5:17 Wherefore be ye not unwise, but understanding what the will of the Lord is. 18And be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess; but be filled with the Spirit;19Speaking to yourselves in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord; 20Giving thanks always for all things unto God and the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ;

John 7: 37-39 If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink. He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water. (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given because Jesus was not yet glorified.)

The Apostle Peter was filled with the Spirit when Jesus breathed on him. He was filled again on the Acts 2 Pentecost. After that, he was at a powerful prayer meeting where the whole house was shaken. John was ”in the Spirit” (as opposed to just a normal day when he would not be considered as being ”in the Spirit”) when he wrote the book of Revelation. Stephen was ”filled” when he saw Jesus at the right hand of God. Even though the Ephesians were already saved, Paul still tells them to be ”filled” with the Spirit. At the moment that someone prophecies he is filled with an extra anointing of the Holy Spirit for that occasion.

”Baptism” has a primary meaning which is ”to drench”, but the proper definition of the word ”baptizo” (”drenching”) is something that not all Christians receive. For instance, there are many Christians who have never been baptized in water yet they may be said to be ”baptized” in a more general sense. When Bible writers use the word ”baptism” to describe the Holy Spirit falling on someone causing him to speak in tongues, they are not speaking of ”baptism” in a vague sense; rather they are speaking of a Holy Spirit drenching that is a spiritual equivalent of a water-baptism.

Why do people get so scared when it comes to speaking in tongues?

Maybe because they have come across some of the material from people who have an agenda to scare people away from the Pentecostal churches and from the spiritual gifts. This might even inspire them to produce their own material and continue spreading the rumour that pentecostal churches are dangerous and filled with unruly people who speak with fake tongues which we would do well to keep away from. Why is this not slander? What if we would start a campaign where we claimed that MOST baptist churches are like the Westboro Baptist Church?

A common denominator among those who fervently speak out against tongues (and others who have a negative attitude towards them) seems to be that they are not members of a charismatic church and possibly haven’t made many visits in one either (I know there are exceptions). There are some who spend their valuable time to produce video clips, audio clips and articles where they write warning upon warning about the misuse of tongues. Some of them are cessationists and some of them are ”just against the misuse” of tongues as they say. But in the latter category you will find some starting out saying ”I’m not a cessationist, BUT…” followed by several pages of warnings and examples of negative things about tongues. Why not doing the exact opposite? Why not start out saying ”I’m aware of that there is a misuse of tongues in some odd churches, BUT…” followed by page upon page with encouragement to speak in tongues, and with wonderful examples across the world where people have been much edified by them? If the idea isn’t to scare people away from speaking in tongues, and to run away from Pentecostal churches, then what do they think such scare-tactics material will do to people? Why not at least spend 50% of a video clip with encouragement to use the spiritual gifts?  The risk is that viewers might believe the material and flee from tongues. This means that SATAN is the winner.

People who produce this type of warning-material, and compare the practice of pentecostals with pagans, might feel they are doing a good deed among christians. Instead they are causing a DIVISION about something that is neither common nor dangerous. Why not give warnings about doctrines or traditions which could harm your soul? There are plenty to choose from. (But maybe the same people refrain from doing this to ”not cause a division”.) How ”dangerous” would it be if I stood up in an American church and spoke in Swedish? It would be irritating at worst, and I would be wasting people’s time, but dangerous? Hardly. You might say that people wouldn’t know if I spoke with ”demonic” tongues or not, but how many examples of ”demonic” tongues do we really know from the western world, and how many examples inside a CHURCH? (Do give me a source with valid examples because it would be interesting reading.) Anyone could stand up in a church and say a curse in another language (not necessarily in tongues) but this isn’t very likely, and of course everyone would notice a person who is disturbing the church service. Besides, a ”curse” wouldn’t make anyone lose his soul. Satan can’t touch a christian’s heart unless the christian person opens up for him. I’m saying this to show that it wouldn’t be ”dangerous” to stand up speaking in tongues with no interpreter, but just dumb.

The anti-tongues videos can cause christians to be robbed of spiritual power

By scaring christians away from the spiritual gifts, Satan robs them of the many benefits of speaking in tongues and the power of the holy spirit. So instead of helping christians, this anti-tongue material is causing much harm and is a GREAT aid for Satan to diminish our strength. Keep this in mind if you think you’re doing something good by producing and/or endorsing such material.

Some pastors might feel that the subject of speaking in tongues is so controversial that  they won’t raise up this topic at all in church, to avoid being charged for influencing the members in either direction. But do they reason the same way when it comes to the subject of Creation or Evolution, or other touchy subjects? There are even pastors who WARN members against speaking in tongues. Why not making videos and warn people against churches which are negative towards tongues? By speaking in tongues, Christians would be edified and get much power,joy and confidence, and yet these pastors try to prevent them from getting these benefits! If you are in a church where the pastor is speaking about the spiritual gifts in negative terms, then I hope you will consider leaving this church. It’s rather serious (and dangerous) if a leader of a church warns people against something that Paul encourages. Paul gave instructions about tongues and seemed to take this gift for granted in churches, so he would likely be appalled if he lived today and realized that this gift is totally ABSENT in many churches! I believe he would like to have word with the church leaders if he realized they have tried to put a lid on the holy spirit:

1 Thess. 5:19Quench not the Spirit. 20Despise not prophesyings. 21Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.

You might hear cessationists say ”MOST pentecostal churches misuse the tongues” and ”the misuse of tongues is INCREASING” and ”it’s dangerous” but they of course have no sources or statistics to back up their claims. By doing false generalizations like this, and painting with a broad brush, they just want to build up a scenario where they try to show that their warning-material is much-needed. Instead the misuse of tongues might not be common at all, and only tied to a small group of infamous preachers and their supporters.

I read on a thread on Facebook the other day: ”Having been originally taught as a Baptist, tongues were not talked about hardly at all” and someone else said ”As a Presbyterian growing up the Holy Spirit was never mentioned except in the doxology” and another person said ”I would ask him why would we not believe the Bible on the issue of spiritual gifts, and his excuse was because some had abused the gifts”. No wonder that the gifts of the holy spirit is absent in so many churches!

People feel ”pressured” to speak in tongues in Pentecostal churches?

One argument against the Pentecostal church that I’ve heard on several occasions, is that people might feel ”pressured” and even ”forced” to speak in tongues when they are in a Pentecostal church. I find this to be very strange considering that not all people inside the pentecostal church have this gift, which pentecostals are well aware of, and pentecostals are also aware of that you’re not supposed to speak in tongues with no interpreter. Do people feel bothered and pressured to speak in tongues because they overhear people who speak them? If my praise and worship to the Lord bothers someone else, then so be it. I shouldn’t have to feel pressured to reduce my time of praise in order to accommodate someone else. Naturally I shouldn’t be too loud, and I shouldn’t be disturbing the rest of the service by praising and praying in the wrong time. Not even misuse of tongues should have to cause a person to feel ”pressured” to speak in tongues, unless he enters a church where pretty much everyone babbled in unknown tongues. Still, he shouldn’t be judging all Pentecostal churches based on one where they misuse tongues. What if a person enters a church and finds the members there sing beautifully, unlike him? Should the church members try to sing less beautifully, or reduce their singing, in order to not make the visiting person feel bad?

1 Cor 1: 4-7 I thank my God always on your behalf, for the grace of God which is given you by Jesus Christ; That in everything ye are enriched by him, in all utterance, and in all knowledge; Even as the testimony of Christ was confirmed in you: So that ye come behind in no gift; waiting for the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ 

Annonser

Penalty fee of USD 26,450 for home schooling their kids

Jonas and Tamara Himmelstrand home schooled their first child since he had chronic  learning difficulties and had problems to attend the public school. Both Jonas and Tamara are both teachers/educators so well qualified for a job to home school children. They have had a very good experience with home schooling their son and wanted to do the same for their other two children, aged 13 and 7. But the municipality of Uppsala has given them a penalty fee of USD 26,450 (SEK 180,000) for home schooling their children without permission and neglecting to bring their children to the public school.

It has always been difficult for parents to legally home school children in Sweden, but since June 23rd 2010 it has been totally prohibited to do so, unless there are extremely valid reasons involved – such as the child being severely sick or both parents travelling – and then only for brief periods of time.

Jonas believes that the situation in Sweden is partly due to fear that parents will influence their children in  certain extreme religious directions. That parents and/or children are not satisfied with the public school is not a valid reason to be allowed to home schools children. Jonas says that the only country with similar rules is Germany, and they have had their present system since 1938. According to a worker in the UN, it’s wrong with mandatory school attendance tied to schools alone.

Cecilia Fors is the Head of the Youth Department in Uppsala kommun, and says that the penalty fee is set high in order to make the parents reevaluate their attempt to home school their children. When asked why parents are not allowed to home school their own children, she says :

It’s not considered acceptable in Sweden. It hasn’t been possible ever since the mid 1800’s and it has been a success. We have progressed from a country in poverty to a rich country, much thanks to the school law enforcement.

(Based on an article in Dagen, January 25th, 2012)

Should women always submit to men?

Women submitting to men – What does the Bible say? 

The Bible speaks about the equality among men and women, but also that women should submit themselves to their husbands. Naturally a woman must obey GOD more than MAN in cases where her husband would be opposing God. That’s why it’s beneficial in all sorts of way for a christian woman to marry a Bible believing man. If both parties obey Paul’s instructions, it’s a good ground for a matrimony in harmony.

Eph. 5:21 Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God.22Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.24Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;

1 Cor 11:11 Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord.12 For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God.

1 Cor. 7:4 The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife. 

Women in the Bible

Miriam, Deborah, Huldah, Anna, etc are named prophetess of the Lord…

Judges 4 & 5: Deborah, a prophet-judge, headed the army of ancient Israel.

2 Kings 22:14; 2 Chronicles 34:22 Huldah, a prophet, verified the authenticity of the ”Book of the Law of the Lord given through Moses.”

Acts 9:36 f Luke refers to a female disciple by her Aramaic name Tabitha, who was also known by her Greek name Dorcas.

Romans 16:1: Paul refers to Phoebe as a minister (diakonos) of the church mistranslating it as ”servant” or ”helper”.

Romans 16:3: Paul refers to Priscilla as another of his ”fellow workers in Christ Jesus” (NIV) Other translations refer to her as a ”co-worker”. The original Greek word is ”synergoi”, which literally means ”fellow worker” or ”colleague.”

Exodus 15:20-21 And Miriam the prophetess, the sister of Aaron, took a timbrel in her hand; and all the women went out after her with timbrels and with dances. 21 And Miriam answered them, Sing ye to the LORD, for he hath triumphed gloriously; the horse and his rider hath he thrown into the sea.’ 

Micah 6:4 I brought you up from the land of Egypt. I redeemed you from a life of slavery. I sent Moshe, Aharon and Miryam to lead you.

Isaiah 8:3 And I went unto the prophetess; and she conceived, and bare a son. Then said the LORD to me, Call his name Mahershalalhashbaz.

Luke 2:36 And there was one Anna, a prophetess, the daughter of Phanuel, of the tribe of Aser: she was of a great age, and had lived with a husband seven years from her virginity; 37And she was a widow of about fourscore and four years, which departed not from the temple, but served God with fastings and prayers night and day.38And she coming in that instant gave thanks likewise unto the Lord, and spake of him to all them that looked for redemption in Jerusalem.

Rom. 16:7 Salute Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen, and my fellow-prisoners, who are of note among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me.

Phil. 4:2 I beseech Euodias, and beseech Syntyche, that they be of the same mind in the Lord.  3 And I intreat thee also, true yokefellow, help those women which laboured with me in the gospel, with Clement also, and with other my fellowlabourers, whose names are in the book of life.

Acts 21:8 And the next day we that were of Paul’s company departed, and came unto Caesarea: and we entered into the house of Philip the evangelist, which was one of the seven; and abode with him.9 And the same man had four daughters, virgins, which did prophesy.

Acts 2:17 And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams. 18 ”And on my servants and on my handmaidens I will pour out in those days of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy

Anthrópos and anér – two words for MAN

If God caused Balaam to be taught by a donkey (Numbers 22), why couldn’t He use women to teach men? If women are supposed to submit to men, what happens when christian men disagree among themselves?

There are 2 words for MAN in Greek ”Anthrópos” and ”anér” (genitive of ”anér” is ”andros”). In some languages the word for ”man” and ”woman” can mean either man/husband or woman/wife, depending on context. In English separate words are used. When it comes to the Greek NT, there is no other word for a husband but ”anér”.

Jacques More says: In my research and look at every place where ”anér” and ”anthrópos” are found, and reproduced in the appendices, something became clear: ”anér” is always used about a particular man so that in the plural it refers to a particular group of men whilst ”anthrópos” is about any man, someone, and in plural can just mean ”peoples”. This is well illustrated in John’s gospel and the feeding of the 5,000. ”Then Jesus said, ‘Make the people (anthrópous)sit down. Now there was much grass in the place. So the men (andres) sat down, in number about five thousand’. John 6:10 (NKJV)

 Verses commonly used to support a general headship of man

1) 1 Cor. 11:3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.

Anér is here used for ”the man” resulting in ”head of woman the man/husband”. The definite article is present to indicate a certain man, and ”anér” itself refers to a particular man. Again there is no other word for ”husband” but ”anér”A better translation would be: ”and head of a woman THE HUSBAND” As found in the Amp.V, GNB, LB, RSV. 1 Cor. 11:3 cannot thereby be used for a general understanding of headship of men over women!

2) 1 Timothy 2:11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man (andros which is from the Greek word anér), but to be in silence. 13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

The man Paul is talking about is a particular man – namely the HUSBAND of the woman. There is no other word for ”husband” than ”anér”. But we already know that a husband is the head of the household and not the wife. So a woman must submit to her own man and she must not have authority over him. It doesn’t say that a woman must be submissive to ALL MEN, and that ALL MEN can be an authority over ALL women out there. No, Paul is comparing with Adam and Eve, and he doesn’t suggest that Eve must be submissive to any other man than her own husband. But Paul is not saying that a woman therefore should try to rule over other men in a church environment.

The context shows he is also talking about a church environment and  Paul is addressing the issue of church order and about the danger of deception. The concern seems to be speaking out of turn while the official leader is teaching. In other areas women are free to pray and prophesy publicly “every woman who prays or prophesies” (1 Cor.11:5 NKJV) and to share and teach “whenever you come together, each of you has a psalm, has a teaching, has a revelation, has an interpretation” (1 Cor.14:26 NKJV) which Paul here proceeded with “How is then, it brethren?” (NKJV) Brethren is meant in a generic sense as seen by Paul’s use of the term in regards to communion (1 Cor.11:33-34), the gifts of the Spirit (1 Cor.12:1),  to prophecy (1 Cor. 11:2-16) and the proper observance of the Lord’s Supper (1 Cor. 11:17-34). Then he gets into his main subject, the exercise of spiritual gifts (especially speaking in tongues), in chapters 12-14.

1 Cor. 11:5 But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.

If women were not allowed to pray and prophesy in church, it wouldn’t make sense to have rules for women how to go about when praying and prophesying. Paul nowhere says that women are to pray and prophesy only for women, and it would be a difficult task for a woman who feels a message coming from the Lord, to first try to make sure that no men are present risking to overhear her. A better translation of 1 Tim. 2:12 would be “nor to exercise authority of A HUSBAND”. The below verse seems to confirm that Paul wants to instruct his readers about order in church.

3) 1 Corinthians 14:34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law.35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their HUSBANDS at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.

Also this shows that it concerns a church setting. Paul might have had good reasons for giving advice to the Corinthian church due to unruly women with low education (or none) who have many questions in relation to what is spoken about during a church gathering. These women might have disturbed the assembly due to questions, gossip and general talk why some instructions from Paul were needed. This still doesn’t mean that Paul’s advice was for this church alone but was an instruction for all churches to adhere to.

Another subject is women in leadership

There are views for and against women leadership and even if the below three verses seem to endorse only male leadership when it comes to bishops, deacons and elders, one of the arguments against (I’m not saying it’s right or wrong) is that there are verses such as Gen. 2:24 (Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh),where the MAN is in focus and used as an example, even though BOTH men and women are inferred. Both men and women must equally leave their parents even though only the MAN is referred to.  Matt. 5:28 is another example of that the man’s perspective is in focus:

Matt. 5:28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

This is very serious information and there is not a word about that it’s a sin for a WOMAN to look on a MAN to lust. This is something we just have to ADD or ASSUME, despite that we can’t read this in the text.  The argument is thus, that the below in the same way uses the MAN as an example, even though the same rule applies for both genders.

1 Timothy 3:2 A bishop (episkopon) then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;

1 Timothy 3:12 Let the deacons (diakonoi) be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.

Titus 1:5 For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders (presbyterous) in every city, as I had appointed thee: 6 If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly.

”The husband of one wife” is literally ”a one-woman man” which is an idiom. If taken literally this requirement would rule out unmarried, widowed and divorced men and women from being church leaders; yet Paul says that being single and celibate enables people to serve God better (1 Cor 7:32-35). The phrase is essentially describing the moral quality of marital fidelity, and not primarily referring to marital status or gender. An interesting verse when in relation to Tim. 3:12 is:

1 Tim. 5:14I will therefore that the younger women marry, bear children, guide the house, give none occasion to the adversary to speak reproachfully.

So in conclusion a WIFE is not supposed to have authority over her HUSBAND, but what if her husband allows her to teach others about the gospel – whoever wants to listen? Then she is not going against the will of her husband even though she is teaching and spreading the word to others. She IS submitting to her husband. I hope women are allowed to teach their sons about the Bible and that there is no age limit for when they need to stop this due to the risk of teaching a person who is considered a ”man” and not a ”boy”.

With this background, it’s never a good idea for a man to dismiss a woman in a theology discussion for the reason that she is a woman teaching a man. Unless he is the HUSBAND of this particular woman. But this still doesn’t mean that all kinds of crazy theology views are correct just because a husband is claiming them before his wife or another woman. All men are supposed to be corrected by Jesus who is their Head, and Jesus words are found in the BIBLE which is our guidance. It’s rather evident that ALL christian men cannot ALWAYS be correct in a theology discussion with a woman. If that were the case, then a catholic man would automatically be correct for saying that christians should pray through Mary – if claiming this to a woman. If the woman objects, he can always say Who are YOU to teach a MAN? Works all the time…

(Check www.jarom.net to find more information from Jacques More about this subject and others)

Ska kvinnan alltid underordna sig mannen?

Kvinnligt underordnande – Vad säger Bibeln?

Bibeln talar mycket om jämnställdheten mellan man och kvinna, men även att kvinnan ska underställa sig sin man. Den bästa förutsättningen är därför att både mannen och kvinnan är bibeltrogna och lever sitt liv för Gud. En människa måste lyda Gud mer än människor, så en kvinna måste lyda skaparen före sin man i det fall mannen agerar tvärt emot Guds bud. Därför är det av stor vikt att kvinnan gifter sig med en bibeltrogen man så att konflikter kan undvikas. Om båda parter lyder Paulus instruktioner så är det ett vinnande koncept, men om endast den enda parten lyder så är det ingen jämvikt.

Ef. 5:21 Underordna er varandra i Kristi fruktan.22 Ni hustrur, underordna er era män, så som ni underordnar er Herren. 23 Ty en man är sin hustrus huvud, liksom Kristus är församlingens huvud – han som är Frälsare för sin kropp. 24 Som församlingen underordnar sig Kristus, skall hustrun i allt underordna sig sin man.25 Ni män, älska era hustrur, så som Kristus har älskat församlingen och offrat sig för den.

1 Kor 11:11Men i Herren är det så att kvinnan inte är till utan mannen eller mannen utan kvinnan. 12 Ty liksom kvinnan har kommit från mannen, så blir också mannen till genom kvinnan, men allt kommer från Gud.

1 Kor 7:4 Hustrun bestämmer inte över sin kropp, det gör mannen. På samma sätt bestämmer inte mannen över sin kropp, det gör hustrun.

Kvinnor i Bibeln

Miriam, Debora, Hulda, Hanna, etc kallades Guds profetissor…

Domarboken 4 & 5: Debora, en profet och domare, ledde Israels armé

2 Kung 22:14; 2 Krön 34:22 Hulda, en profet, konfirmerade äktheten av Lagens Bok som gavs till Moses av Gud.

Apg 9:36 Lukas hänvisar till en kvinnlig lärljunge med hennes arameiska namn Tabita, också känd som Dorkas.

Rom 16:1: Paul hänvisar till Febe som en av tjänarna (diakonos) för kyrkan vid Kenkkrea. Några översättningar använder ordet ”tjänare” eller ”medhjälpare” vilket leder till en förminskning av ordet diakonos.

Rom 16:3: Paul hänvisar till Prisilla som en annan medarbetare i Kristus. Grekiskan använder ordet ”synergoi”, vilket betyder medhjälpare eller kollega

2 Mosebok 15:20 Och profetissan Mirjam, Arons syster, tog en tamburin i handen, och alla kvinnorna följde henne med tamburiner och dansade.

Mika 6:4 Jag förde dig upp ur Egyptens land,ur träldomshuset befriade jag dig. Jag sände Mose, Aron och Mirjam framför dig (to lead you, KJV).

Jesaja 8:3 Och jag gick in till profetissan och hon blev havande och födde en son. Och HERREN sade till mig: ”Ge honom namnet Maher-salal Has-bas.

Luk 2:36 Där fanns också en profetissa, Hanna, Fanuels dotter, av Asers stam. Hon hade kommit upp i hög ålder. I sju år hade hon levt med sin man från den tid hon var jungfru, 37 och hon var nu änka, åttiofyra år gammal. Hon lämnade aldrig templet utan tjänade Gud med fastor och böner natt och dag. 38 Just i den stunden kom hon fram och prisade Gud och talade om honom för alla dem som väntade på Jerusalems frälsning.

Rom. 16:7 Hälsa Andronikus och Junias, mina landsmän och medfångar, som är högt ansedda bland apostlarna och som även före mig tillhörde Kristus.

Fil. 4:2 Evodia och Syntyke uppmanar jag att vara eniga i Herren. 3 Ja, också dig, trofaste medarbetare, ber jag: hjälp dem som har kämpat med mig i evangeliets tjänst tillsammans med Klemens och mina andra medarbetare, som har sina namn i livets bok.

Apg 21:8 Nästa dag begav vi oss därifrån och kom till Cesarea. Där tog vi in hos evangelisten Filippus, som var en av de sju, och stannade hos honom. 9 Han hade fyra ogifta döttrar som hade profetisk gåva.

Apg 2:17 Och det skall ske i de sista dagarna, säger Gud: Jag skall utgjuta av min Ande över allt kött. Era söner och era döttrar skall profetera, era unga män skall se syner, och era gamla män skall ha drömmar.18 Ja, över mina tjänare och tjänarinnor skall jag i de dagarna utgjuta av min Ande,och de skall profetera.

Anthrópos och anér – två ord för MAN 

Om Gud åstadkom så att Balaam blev lärd av en åsna (4 Mosebok 22) varför skulle han inte kunnat använda sig av kvinnnor för att lära män? Om kvinnor är tänkta att alltid underordna sig män, vad händer om kristna män inte är överens sinsemellan?

Det finns två ord för MAN på grekiska; ”Anthrópos” och ”anér” (genitiv av ”anér” är ”andros”). På några språk kan ordet för ”man” respektive ”kvinna” betyda antingen man/make eller kvinna/hustru, beroende på sammanhang. På engelska används separata ord. På grekiska finns inget annat ord för ”make” än ”anér”.

Jacques More säger: I min forskning och min undersökning av varje ställe där ”anér” och ”anthrópos” finns, inkl. i fotnoter, så ger det en tydlig bild: ”anér” används alltid när det handlar om an speciell man, och i plural betyder det en speciell grupp av män, medan ”anthrópos” handlar om vilken man som helst, och i plural kan det betyda ”människor”. Denna bild återger Johannes evangelium när det handlar om utspisningen av 5.000 människor. Joh. 6:10 Jesus sade: ”Låt folket (anthrópous) slå sig ner” – det var gott om gräs på det stället – och de slog sig ner. Det var omkring fem tusen män (andres).

Verser som vanligtvis används som stöd för en allmän kvinnlig underställning av män

1) 1 Kor 11:3 Och nu vill jag att ni skall veta att Kristus är varje mans huvud, att mannen är kvinnans huvud och att Gud är Kristi huvud.

Anér används här för ”mannen” så texten blir ”kvinnans huvud mannen/maken”. Den bestämda formen visar på en viss sorts man, och ”anér” i sig själv visar också på en viss sorts man. Återigen finns det inget annat ord för ”make” än ”anér”. En bättre översättning skulle vara: ”och kvinnans huvud är MAKEN” vilket en rad bibelöversättningar också angett. 1 Kor. 11:3 kan därför inte användas som stöd för en allmän kvinnlig underställning av män.

2) 1 Tim. 2:11 En kvinna skall i stillhet ta emot undervisning och helt underordna sig. 12 Jag tillåter inte att en kvinna undervisar eller gör sig till herre över mannen, utan hon skall leva i stillhet, 13 eftersom Adam skapades först och sedan Eva.

Sammanhanget visar att det handlar om en kyrkomiljö. Att ta emot undervisning och att underordna sig är här kopplat till tillfället för själva undervisningen i en kristen sammankomst. Paulus talar om ordning och om risk för förvillande. Impulsiva och oordnade handlingar kan distrahera och Paulus vill begränsa den risken. Det verkar handla om att tala vid fel tillfällen när den officiella ledaren borde sköta undervisningen. Under andra omständigheter så är kvinnan fri att be och profetera “om en kvinna ber eller profeterar utan något på huvudet–-(1 Kor.11:5) och att vittna och undervisa “när ni samlas har var och en något att ge: en psalm, ett ord till undervisning, en uppenbarelse, ett tungotal, och en uttydning (1 Kor.14:26) vilket Paulus inleder med “Hur skall det då vara, bröder?” Bröder är menat i en allmän betydelse (kvinnor och män) vilket vi kan se på Paulus användande av termen när det handlar om brödsbrytelse (1 Kor.11:33-34) och andens gåvor (1 Kor.12:1). Att eliminera kvinnor i en passage för att det står ”bröder” och inte i en annan med exakt samma ordalydelse är inte logiskt. Paulus diskuterar hårklädnad i samband med bön och profetior (1 Kor. 11:2-16) och den rätta inställningen till Herrens måltid (1 Kor. 11:17-34). Sedan kommer han in på huvudpunkten vilket är de andliga gåvorna i kapitlen 12-14.

1 Corinthians 11:5 Men om en kvinna ber eller profeterar utan något på huvudet, så vanärar hon sitt huvud. Det är som att ha håret avrakat.

Om kvinnor inte vore tillåtna att be och profetera i en kyrkomiljö så skulle det inte finnas någon anledning att ha regler för hur kvinnor ska förfara just under bön och profetiska uttalanden. Paulus säger ingenstans att kvinnor endast får be och profetera för andra kvinnor, och det skulle vara svårt för en kvinna som vill profetera att först se till att ingen manlig person finns närvarande som kan tänkas lyssna av misstag. En bättre översättning av 1 Tim. 2:12 skulle vara “eller gör sig till herre över EN MAKE”.

3) 1 Kor. 14:34 Liksom kvinnorna tiger i de heligas alla församlingar 34 skall de tiga i era församlingar. De får inte tala utan skall underordna sig, som också lagen säger. 35 Vill de veta något, skall de fråga sina män där hemma. Ty det är en skam för en kvinna att tala i församlingen.

Även den här versen visar att det handlar om en kyrkomiljö. Paulus kan ha haft goda skäl att ge råd till den Korintiska kyrkan på den här tiden pga stökiga kvinnor med låg (eller ingen) utbildning, och som har många frågor i relation till undervisningen i en kristen gemenskap. Dessa kvinnor kanske hade stört församlingen pga frågor, skvaller och allmänt prat varför Paulus råd var på sin plats. Detta betyder fortfarande inte att Paulus råd var endast för denna kyrka, utan är instruktioner för alla andra kyrkor också.

En annan fråga är kvinnligt ledarskap

Det finns åsikter för och emot ett kvinnligt ledarskap, och även om nedanstående tre veser verkar ge stöd åt idén för enbart manligt ledarskap så är ett av argumenten emot att det finns verser såsom 1 Mos. 2:24 (Därför skall en man lämna sin far och sin mor och hålla sig till sin hustru, och de skall bli ett kött.), där MANNEN är i fokus och används som exempel, även om det handlar om BÅDE män och kvinnor. Både män och kvinnor måste lämna sina föräldrar trots att det endast är mannen som beskrivs. Likaså är Matt. 5:28 ett exempel på att mannens perspektiv är i fokus:

Matt. 5:28Men jag säger eder: Var och en som med begärelse ser på en annans hustru, han har redan begått äktenskapsbrott med henne i sitt hjärta.

Det är allvarliga ord men det står inte ett ord om att det är synd för en KVINNA att med begärelse se på en annans MAN. Detta är något som vi faktiskt måste LÄGGA TILL eller UTGÅ IFRÅN, trots att det faktiskt inte står i texten. På samma sätt är argumentet att nedanstående verser använder sig av endast mannen som exempel trots att samma regler gäller även för kvinnor. Dessutom visar ordet ”bröder” som återgetts ovan, att det ändå kan inkludera kvinnor.

1 Tim. 3:2 En församlingsledare (episkpon) skall vara oklanderlig, en enda kvinnas man, nykter, förståndig, aktad, gästfri och en god lärare.

Tim. 3:12 En församlingstjänare (diakonoi) skall vara en enda kvinnas man. Han skall hålla god ordning på sina barn och väl förestå sitt hus.

Titus 1:5 När jag lämnade dig kvar på Kreta, var det för att du skulle ordna det som ännu återstod och i varje stad insätta äldste (presbyterous) efter mina anvisningar. 6 En sådan skall vara oförvitlig, en enda kvinnas man, och ha troende barn som inte kan beskyllas för att vara ostyriga eller uppstudsiga.

”En enda kvinnas man” är ett idiom, och om det tas bokstavligt så utesluter denna regel ogifta, änklingar och skilda personer från att bli kyrkoledare; och ändå säger Paulus att det är bättre att vara ogift, och att leva i celibat kan få människor att tjäna Gud bättre (1 Kor 7:32-35). Frasen beskriver först och främst den moraliska kvalitén i personens förhållande till äktenskapet, och inte till civilstatus och kön. En intressant vers med tanke på 1 Tim. 3:12 är denna:

1 Tim 5:14 Jag vill därför att unga änkor gifter sig, föder barn, sköter hemmet och inte ger motståndaren något tillfälle att tala illa om dem.

Så sammantaget ska en hustru aldrig ha auktoritet över sin make, men vad händer om maken tillåter henne att undervisa i Guds ord och t o m VILL att hon gör det – till vem som helst som nu vill lyssna? Då agerar hon INTE emot sin mans vilja, trots att hon undervisar och sprider Guds ord till andra. Hon är fortfarande underställd mannen.

Med den här bakgrunden är det aldrig en bra idé för en man att avfärda en kvinna i en teologisk diskussion av skälet att hon är en kvinna som undervisar en man. Såvida han inte är MAKEN till denna kvinna. Men det betyder fortfarande inte att alla möjliga tokiga teologiska åsikter måste stämma bara för att det är en make som gör påståendena till sin fru eller till en annan kvinna. Det är tänkt att alla män ska underordna sig Jesus som är deras huvud, och Jesus bud finns i BIBELN som ska vara vårt rättesnöre. Det är ganska uppenbart att alla kristna män inte alltid har rätt i en teologisk diskussion med en kvinna. Om så vore fallet så skulle en katolsk man per automatik ha rätt, även om han påstår att kristna bör be till eller genom Maria. Om kvinnan protesterar kan han alltid säga ”Vem är DU som undervisar en MAN?” Fungerar alltid…

Free will is Biblical, and the same as moral ability

MAN’S MORAL ABILITY AND THE RELATION IT HAS TO THE MORAL LAW
By Jesse Morrell (A section from the booklet “Free Will & Conscience”)

Moral ability and free will are synonymous terms, being identical in nature and meaning. Inability and free will are antonymous terms, being contrary in nature and meaning. Free will is the power of contrary choice. A man is able to do only what a man is free to do; and a man is free to do only what a man is able to do. Freedom speaks of the contingent, not of the necessitated, of that which was voluntarily chosen under liberty, and not that forced by necessity. A freewill choice is a choice that did not have to be chosen, but that was voluntarily chosen when the person could have chosen the opposite.

To be required or obligated to do better, and to be accountable or judged for failure to do better, one must be capable of doing better. To be capable of doing better, one must be free, or able, to do better. What a man is free to do, a man is capable, or able, of doing. If a man is not capable, then a man is not able or free, and if a man is not a free agent, then he is a necessitated agent who can no more have moral character than a puppet or a machine can have moral character. Moral character relates to voluntary or intentional choices commanded or condemned by the God-given intelligence, knowledge, revelation, or conscience, and moral accountability relates to moral character. Therefore, what a man is accountable for, he must not have been necessitated to do, but must have voluntarily committed.

A man is responsible only for that which he is intentionally the cause of, and a man is only the intentional cause of that which is voluntary, since what is voluntary is intentional, and what is intentional is voluntary. And since moral character consists only in free, voluntary, intentional choices, and moral accountability is according to moral character, a man is only accountable for his free, voluntary, intentional choices.

Thomas Chalmers said, “The morality of any act is with its willfulness.” And then again, “That an action then be the rightful object, either of moral censure, or approval, it must have had the consent of the will to go along with it. It must be the fruit of volition – else it is utterly beyond the scope, either of praise for its virtuousness or of blame for its criminality. If an action be involuntary, it is as unfit a subject for any moral reckoning, as are the pulsations of the wrist.”1

Respecting the moral government of God (Isa. 9:6-7), or the ruling and reigning of God in the realm of morality over moral agents (Lk. 17:21), in which God is the Governor (Matt. 2:6), the moral commandments of God never exceed the moral ability of men. The commands of God are directed to the ability of man, being instructions as to how a man is to use the liberty of his will, or how a man is to properly use his ability.

Since God’s moral commandments are directions for man’s moral ability, as to how to use this God-given ability, God’s moral requirements never exceed this God-given moral 3ability. Since God’s Moral Government is the governing of man’s moral agency (through persuasion and influence, not through force or necessity), God’s moral commandments never can, never do, and never will exceed man’s moral ability or moral agency. Because God’s commandments are directions to man, as to how a man is to use his ability, God’s commandments are in fact a declaration or a revelation of what man can do and what man should do.

The moral law of God’s Moral Government is: “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind” (Matt. 22:37) and “love thy neighbor as thyself” (Matt. 22:39). The moral law of God, in essence, is the law of love, love being the total and complete fulfillment of the whole of the law (Rom. 13:8, 10; Gal. 5:14; Jas. 2:8).

The law of love, or the life of love, is commanded, and the law of selfishness, or the life of selfishness, is condemned. Love is not an involuntary emotion or feeling, but it is a voluntary, impartial committal of the will towards the highest well-being of all (Jn. 3:16; 15:13); it is the intention of the heart, and is synonymous with “good will” (Lk.2:14; Eph. 6:7; Php. 1:15), and is the same as benevolence.

If love is truly love, it must of necessity manifest itself into action and conduct whenever possible and whenever necessary, performing the required means to secure the end of the well-being of others. The “readiness to will” results in the performance” or in the “doing” (2 Cor. 8:11). If the inside of the cup (inward intention) is first clean, then the outside of the cup (outward actions) will be clean as well (Matt. 23:26), because what is inside will manifest in what is outside whenever possible. A good tree can only produce good fruit, while a bad tree can only produce bad fruit (Matt. 7:17), because the heart, or intention, determines the outward life (Matt. 12:35; Lk. 6:45).

Love, good will, or benevolence satisfies the whole of the law (Rom. 13:8, 10; Gal. 5:14; Jas. 2:8), but selfishness or self-centeredness is a total and complete violation of the whole of the law (Jas. 2:10). To break one letter of the law is to break the whole spirit of the law; which the entire letter of the law is derived from. The letter of the law is derived from the spirit of the law; therefore, to break one letter of the law is to break the whole spirit of the law. He that breaks the one breaks the whole. Therefore, to “offend in one point” is to be “guilty of all” (Jas. 2:10).

Notice that God does not command that we love Him with faculties that we do not possess, but rather that we love Him with all that we currently possess, “with all thy,” as opposed to with that which is not currently yours. The commandments are  directions to man as to how he is to use his ability. The commandments of God are not impossible, demanding that we love Him with a heart, soul, mind and strength that we do not have. Rather, it is possible to keep the law of God, which demands that we love Him with all of what we do have, with all that we are capable of, to the very highest of our ability, no more and no less. It is possible to keep the law because we are capable, and we are capable because it is possible to keep the law; our God-given commandments and our God-given ability directly correspond with each other. The command of God is that we 4love to the very highest of our ability, no more and no less, and therefore we are able to keep the law of love; we are able to keep the commandments of Jesus (1 Jn. 2:3; 3:22; 5:2-3; Rev. 12:17; 14:12; 22:14). Obedience is always possible, and disobedience is never necessary or unavoidable. The highest that our ability is capable of is all that the law of God commands, no more and no less. The law of God is the law of our ability, to love Him supremely and our neighbor equally, according to our ability, with all of our ability, “with all thy.”

Clemens of Alexandrinus said that the call of “the Divine word – requireth but that which is according to the ability and strength of every one.”2 Gordon Olson said, “The words -all thy’ express our obligation. It is the exertion of -thy’ personality and ability that is required – all’ this ability.”3 Charles Finney said, “Entire obedience is the entire consecration of the powers, as they are, to God. It does not imply any change in them, but simply the right use of them.”4 Again Finney said that the law “simply requires us to use what strength we have. They very wording of the law is proof conclusive, that it extents its demands only to the full amount of what strength we have. And this is true of every moral being, however great or small.”5 And Asa Mahan said, “the law, addressing men -requires them to love God with all their – mind and strength,’ that is -with the power they now actually possess.”6

God commands that you use “thy heart” and “thy soul” and “thy mind.” Clement of Alexandria said, “What the commandments direct are in our own power”7 The command of God is directed towards our current faculties, and it does not exceed the limits of those faculties. We are to love him with “all” of these faculties, not with less or with more than those faculties are capable of. Man is not responsible for more than he can perform, and so man is not accountable for more than he can perform. Man’s responsibility is in accordance with all of his ability, and man’s accountability is according to his responsibility. Therefore, man will not be accountable for that which was beyond his power because man is not accountable beyond his responsibility, and his responsibility is never beyond his ability.

Man’s moral ability is naturally and obviously limited by moral possibilities; therefore, God’s moral commandments never require moral impossibilities, for that which is morally impossible cannot be morally commanded. God cannot morally demand a moral impossibility. Augustine said, “God does not demand impossibilities.”8  Charles Finney said, “The law of God requires nothing more of any human being, than that which he is at present naturally able to perform, under the present circumstances of his being.”9

The extent of God’s commandments is the exact extent of man’s ability, and the extent of man’s ability is the extent of God’s commandments; each one establishes and determines the limitations and boundaries of the other, and since man will be judged by the commandments, the extent of man’s accountability will be the extent of man’s ability. A man will not be accountable for that which he was not capable of; he will not be judged for that which was outside of the realm of his control. 5

The law of God is therefore the law of our ability: to love Him supremely and our neighbor equally, according to our ability, with all of our ability, to the highest of our ability, no more and no less. There is, then, no inability in which a sinner can hide behind as an excuse, no commandment that a sinner can point to as tyrannical, since all the commandments of God can be kept, without exception.

All sin is, therefore, inexcusable since all sin is voluntary and avoidable; that which brings moral guilt is always voluntary and avoidable. What is unavoidable is excusable, but what is inexcusable must be avoidable. What is punishable must voluntary, and what is voluntary must be avoidable. What is punishable must be vice, and what is vice must be voluntary. Only sin can be punishable, and only what is voluntary and avoidable can be sin. Therefore, sin is inexcusable and punishable because sin is voluntary and avoidable, and it is voluntary and avoidable because God has given man free will.

Justin the Martyr said, “We have learned from the prophets, and we hold it to be true, that punishment, chastisement, and rewards are rendered according to the merit of each man’s actions. Otherwise, if all things happen by fate, then nothing is ur own power. For if it is predestined that one man be good and another man evil, then the first is not deserving of praise and the other to be blamed. Unless humans have the power of avoiding evil and choosing good by free choice, they are not accountable for their actions – whatever they may be – for neither would a man be worthy of praise if he did not himself choose the good, but was merely created for that end. Likewise, if a man were evil, he would not deserve punishment, since he was not evil of himself, being unable to do anything else than what he was made for.”10

Charles Finney said, “Moral agency implies the possession of free-will. By freewill it is intended the power of choosing or refusing to choose, in every instance, in compliance with moral obligation. Free-will implies the power of originating and
deciding our own choices, and of exercising our own sovereignty, in every instance of choice upon moral questions, of deciding or choosing in conformity with duty or otherwise in all cases of moral obligation . . . unless the will is free, man has no freedom; and if he has no freedom he is not a moral agent, that is, he is incapable of moral action and also of moral character. Free-will then, in the above defined sense, must be a condition of moral agency, and, of course, of moral obligation.”11

Miner Raymond said, “It is axiomatic that that for which any agent is morally responsible must be within his control. If man be responsible for obedience or disobedience to the divine commands, then obedience and disobedience are both equally
within his power. Which of them shall result is not determined by any thing external to him. His own power of choice selects the one, it being at the same time a power equally adequate to select the other. That for which an agent is morally responsible must be an election; that is, a selection with an alternative.”12 L. D. McCabe said, “Accountability necessitates the origination of choice between obedience and disobedience.”13 And again, “A free, original, independent, conscious choice between good and evil, is the sine qua non [condition] of every act that involves morality.”14

A man is only accountable for his moral character. His moral character is his heart or intention (which necessarily manifests into action whenever possible). A man’s intention is within the realm of his control (or else it cannot be his). Intention must be voluntary, and what is voluntary must be avoidable.  Therefore, a man is only accountable for his intentional, voluntary, avoidable choices or intentions.

God holds men accountable to their responsibility. What God requires of man God expects from men, what God expects from men is possible for men, and what is possible for men is the same as what men are capable of. Accountability implies requirement, requirement implies expectation, expectation implies possibility, and possibility implies capability. Man is accountable for choosing sin only because he is capable of choosing righteousness over sin. A man is accountable for choosing darkness over the light onlybecause he is capable of choosing the light over darkness. A man is accountable for disobedience because he is capable of choosing obedience over disobedience.

A man is accountable for rejecting Jesus only because he is capable of following Jesus. A man is responsible and accountable according to that which is within his realm of control, according to that which is within his power. A man will be judged by his ability, no more and no less, since the commands of God require nothing more then that which is within man’s moral ability, that which is within the realm of moral possibilities.

Consider the great disappointment of God over mankind (Gen. 6:5-6, Ps. 81:13, Eze. 6:9). Now consider the logical implications of disappointment. Disappointment requires expectation, and reasonable expectation requires capabilities or potential.
Disappointment arises when failed expectations, which were based upon potential possibilities, occur. God’s great  disappointment with mankind is rooted in mankind’s great potential, moral capabilities, or open possibilities, which were given to mankind by God Himself. And if God’s disappointment comes from God’s expectations, and if God legislates according to His expectations, that is, if God’s requirements are the same thing as His expectations, then all of God’s requirements are perfectly matched by mankind’s capabilities or potential because God’s expectations are according to man’s capabilities or potential. Once again we clearly see that God’s requirements never exceed man’s capabilities. What God genuinely requires God must genuinely desire. And if God genuinely desires it, then God will enable man to do it.

Irenaeus said, “God made man free from the beginning, possessing his own power, even as he does his own soul, to obey the commandments of God voluntarily.”15 If God does not grant man the genuine ability to obey it must be because God does not
genuinely want man to obey. But if God genuinely wants to be obeyed it must be understood that God grants man the ability to genuinely obey. If God wants man to voluntarily obey, God must make it possible for man to voluntarily obey since it is in His
power to make this ability available to man. That which He requires He supplies the ability to achieve. If God commands the parting of the red sea, God will supply the power to do it (Ex. 14:26-27). If God commands moral perfection of heart from men (Gen. 17:1, 7Deut. 18:13, Matt. 5:48) God supplies the ability for it to be achieved (1 Cor. 10:13). Those whom God holds morally responsible and morally accountable are those whom God has made or created morally free, morally capable, or morally able with open possibilities and natural potential.

So man has a free will because man was made with one, because man was made in the image of God. Winkie Pratney said, “Free choice is a reality with man because it is a reality in God.”16 Gordon Olson said, “God designed man’s constitution, with its
profound abilities and reactions, to enable him to achieve great heights of comprehension and moral nobility in the imitation of his Creator.”17

*1 Thomas Chalmers; The Bridgewater Treatise by T. Chalmers, 1835 Edition, p. 272,
273, published by Corie, Lea, & Blanchard
*2 Clemens of Alexandrinus; An Equal Check to Pharisaism and Antinomianism by John
Fletcher, Volume Two, p. 204, published by Carlton & Porter
*3 Gordon Olson; The Kindness of God Our Savior, p. 10, published by Revival
Theology Promotion
*4 Charles Finney; Finney’s Systematic Theology, 1878 Edition, p. 129, published by
Bethany House
*5 Charles Finney; Finney’s Systematic Theology, 1878 Edition, p. 134, published by
Bethany House
*6 Asa Mahan; The Doctrine of the Will by Asa Mahan, p. 118, published by Truth in
Heart
*7 Clement of Alexandria; A Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs by David Bercot, p.
295, published by Hendrickson Publishers
*8 Augustine; Joy and Strength, 1929 Edition, p. 192, published by Grosset & Dunlap
*9 Charles G. Finney; Lectures on Systematic Theology, 1851 Edition, p. 35
*10 Justin the Martyr, First Apology Chap. 43
*11 Charles G. Finney; Lectures on Systematic Theology, 1851 Edition, p. 46-47
*12 Miner Raymond; Systematic Theology, Volume One, 1877 Edition, p. 520-521,
published by Granston & Stowe
*13 L. D. McCabe; Divine Nescience of Future Contingencies a Necessity, p. 67
*14 L. D. McCabe; Divine Nescience of Future Contingencies a Necessity, p. 74
*15 Irenaeus; A Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs by David Bercot, p. 286, published
by Hendrickson Publishers
*16 Winkie Pratney; The Nature and Character of God, 1988, p. 205, Bethany House
Publishing
17 Gordon Olson; The Kindness of God Our Savior, p. 61, published by Revival
Theology Promotion


Evolutionsteorin kan inte lösa frågan om den genetiska informationens uppkomst

Varje befruktat ägg genomgår en svindlande komplex process, styrd och reglerad av cellkärnans program, till dess att ägget kläcks, människan föds eller en ny planta vuxit upp. Embryonalutvecklingen kontrolleras genom en mångfald av gener, som grovt kan indelas i strukturella gener (som kodar för proteiner med antingen strukturell eller katalytisk funktion – eller för RNA – som också kan ha antingen strukturella eller katalytiska egenskaper) och regulatoriska gener (som i regel utövar sin funktion genom syntes av proteiner med förmågan att stänga av eller koppla på bestämda gener). Cellens genetiska program omfattar allt ifrån några miljoner (eller något tusental om man inberäknar virus bland livsformerna) till några miljarder bitar information, beroende på vilken organism det är fråga om. Oavsett om man anser att en stor del av programvaran saknar biologisk funktion eller om man hänskjuter den frågan åt framtida vetenskapliga landvinningar, så är det ett obestridligt faktum att resultatet är fantastiskt. Det handlar om reglersystem som bland annat leder fram till varelser som i sin tur kan konstruera datorer cykla och spela pingis, om än inte samtidigt…

Hur har då dessa mjukvarusystem uppkommit? Darwinisten svarar: – Genom mutationer och naturligt urval under lång tid. Kreationisten svarar: – Genom någon form av intelligent skapelseakt under kort tid – eller lång, beroende på vem man frågar.
De rationella argument som evolutionsbiologer anför är av två slag – direkta och indirekta. Till de direkta hör mutationer som leder till DDT-resistens hos malariamyggor och mutationer som leder till att bakterier kan utnyttja nya näringssubstrat. Ett annat är de punktmutationer som ibland visat sig kunna leda till stora morfologiska förändringar – exempelvis uppkomsten av en insektsvinge. Och även vissa datorsimuleringar – som t ex Richard Dawkins i sin kända bok ”The Blind Watchmaker”, där han återskapar en strof ur Shakespeares Hamlet genom att slumpmässigt generera bokstäver (”mutationer”) och sedan selektera dessa på grundval om de är ”rätt” eller ej (”naturligt urval”). Till den indirekta kategorin hör förekomsten av så kallat nonsens-DNA (DNA som inte transkriberas) bestående dels av upprepade DNA-sekvenser som sannolikt uppkommit genom genduplikationer och dels av ”trasiga” gener som inte längre fungerar (som t ex genen för syntes av vitamin C). Då snarlikt nonsens-DNA förekommer hos olika organismer brukar detta betraktas som rudiment från gemensamma förfäder.

När det gäller mutationerna som leder till resistens och bredare kosthållning hävdar kritikerna (och hit hör inte bara kreationister som jag) att dessa mutationers effekter på organismen genomgående kan visas bero på att de minskar respektive enzyms specificitet (specialisering) och därför i praktiken minskar genomets informationsinnehåll. (Detta av samma skäl som att jag generellt behöver förmedla fler bitar information för att guida min son fram till Twinings Earl Grey i 400-g-påsar än vad som behövs för att få honom att hitta hyllan med kaffe och te i vårt snabbköp). Det är en korrekt iakttagelse att mutationerna i dessa fall ökar organismens överlevnadschanser, men detta är faktiskt en annan fråga. även om sådana mutationer visar sig vara positiva för organismerna i fråga så kan de inte utgöra länkar i förklaringskedjan till hur dess informationsinnehåll en gång uppstod. Snabbköpet som gör en förlust på 50 öre för varje försåld teförpackning kan ju inte komma till rätta med problemet enbart genom att sälja fler förpackningar till samma pris…

För att nämna något om Dawkins räkneexempel så ledde hans datorsimulering efter 43 ”generationer” fram till den aktuella shakespearefrasen. Att hans exempel saknar relevans när det gäller frågan om den biologiska informationens uppkomst behöver väl knappast påpekas – informationen fanns ju där redan från början. Kombinationen av hans genom intelligenta metoder konstruerade hård- och mjukvara har ju endast återskapat den information som från början programmerades in som mall!

När det gäller genduplikationer kan vi ta jämförelsen med manualen till en stereoanläggning. Innehåller ett exemplar av manualen mer information än originalet bara för att kapitel fem råkar komma med i dubbel upplaga? Jag menar att så inte är fallet. Vi måste kunna skilja på kvantitet och kvalitet! Och detta gäller även livets manualer.

Förekomsten av ”trasiga” gener i vår arvsmassa har jag själv svårt att se som ett övertygande argument för evolution. Snarare kanske devolution…

Men hur är det med punktmutationers ibland häpnadsväckande effekter på en organism? Vi måste då hålla i minnet att en punktmutation teoretiskt sett maximalt kan tillföra en ”bit” (eller egentligen två, eftersom det genetiska alfabetet består av 22=4 symboler), ny information till genomet. Om effekten blir anmärkningsvärd bör man därför rimligen dra slutsatsen att det handlar om en ”påkoppling” av redan befintlig, men avstängd, ”latent” information t ex genom återställning av en tidigare mallförskjutning. Jag känner i själva verket inte till ett enda dokumenterat exempel på en mutation som ökat det genetiska informationsinnehållet hos en organism, även om detta teoretiskt vore möjligt.

Naturligtvis är varje naturvetare fullt fri att anse att de genetiska programmen trots det ovan sagda har uppkommit genom slumpartade processer i samspel med en föränderlig miljö, i enlighet med evolutionsteorin – men några direkta och empiriskt belagda argument eller ”bevis” för detta har jag inte sett inom ramen för de cellbiologiska disciplinerna. Det skulle annars vara intressant att ta del av dem. Och inom informationsteorins område lär vi få leta förgäves. All annan information som vi rör oss med i vardagen har alltid ursprungligen ett intelligent ursprung. I stället måste man basera sitt förhållningssätt på indirekta argument som förekomsten av DNA-sekvenser med för oss idag obekant funktion.

Men likheterna mellan olika organismers arvsmassa då – bevisar inte det ett gemensamt släktskap?

Jo, det skulle det naturligtvis kunna göra. Men detta hör också till den indirekta kategorin av argument. Utan att vara en konstkännare så kan till och med jag se gemensamma drag i Rembrandts olika verk. Detta är ju knappast ett argument mot att han har skapat dem. Jag har ofta undrat hur det komma sig att så få biologer ens har reflekterat över en så central fråga som informationens uppkomst. En del av förklaringen tror jag handlar om den definition av evolution som numera är den förhärskande, den att varje förändring över tiden av allelfrekvenserna inom en population definieras som evolution. Eftersom dessa förändringar obestridligen äger rum, så betraktas även evolutionen som obestridlig. Mycket handlar alltså om definitioner. Om vi i stället hade definierat biologisk evolution som ökning av informationsinnehållet i en population snarare än som nu förändring av detsamma, skulle studiet av biologin i och för sig kompliceras något, men samtidigt skulle relevansen med avseende på ursprungsfrågan öka. Organismer förändras och artbildning sker ständigt i naturen – ibland inom loppet av ett förvånansvärt fåtal generationer, men så länge det inte kan påvisas att någon kvalitativt ny information uppstår borde fenomenet inte gå under beteckningen evolution. Tycker jag. Och flera med mig.

Den resterande orsaksförklaringen är nog att frågan om hur de genetiska programmen uppkommit, av det hittills torftiga bevismaterialet att döma, tycks ligga utom räckhåll för den empiriska vetenskapen. Det fossila materialet säger oss på sin höjd att det skett förändringar med levande organismer i det förflutna, men ingenting om mekanismerna bakom dessa förändringar. Men det fossila materialet finns det inte utrymme att diskutera här.

För att runda av resonemanget så är Du som läsare naturligtvis fri att mena att den artikel som Du just nu begrundar och kanske förundrar dig över, och som alldeles strax är slut, har en ”naturlig förklaring” i termer av slump, naturligt urval och tid. ämnar Du försöka leda detta i bevis, har Du i och för sig en diger uppgift framför dig. å andra sidan skulle Du inte riskera att bli betraktad som ovetenskaplig eller som en religiös fanatiker om Du hävdade att den sannolikt författats av en tänkande varelse.

Och vem vet – kanske var det jag som skrev!

(Tack till Göran Schmidt. Se fler artiklar på hans sida http://www.gschmidt.se)

”I synd är jag född” säger Kung David, men menar inte att han är född syndig

Se, i synd är jag född, och i synd BLEV JAG TILL i min moders liv. (Ps. 51:7 SFB)

Se, i synd är jag född, och i synd har MIN MOR AVLAT MIG (Ps 51:7 1917)

Behold, I was SHAPEN in iniquity; and in sin did MY MOTHER CONCEIVE ME (Ps. 51:5 KJV)

Om David menar att han BLEV TILL i synd (pga att hans mamma syndade den dagen då han blev till) så kan man poetiskt uttrycka det med att man är avlad eller född i SYND. Man kan poetiskt säga att vi allihop är födda rakt in i en syndfull värld, men just denna vers handlar inte om alla människor i hela världen utan om David och hans mamma

Versen säger att Davids mamma avlat honom i synd och INTE att David blev avlad syndig. Inte på minsta vis står det att David och alla andra människor är födda syndiga, och det kan mycket väl stämma att David blev till genom synd om vi ser till omständigheterna till Davids mamma. David var precis som vi född in i en syndfull värld och man kan också bli född in i ett språk (Apg 2:8) och på samma sätt var inte David syndig från födelsen (eller befruktningen) men var född in i en syndig värld. Psalmer innehåller poetiskt tal så de kan tolkas poetiskt eller bokstavligt beroende på sammanhanget, och i det här fallet så vet vi redan att ben inte kan prata, att Gud inte krossar ben när vi syndat, att ben kan jubla eller att isop kan bokstavligen få oss vitare än snö. Det är inte meningen att vi ska använda oss utav poetiska psalmer eller ordspråk för att starta nya läror med hjälp av dem, och speciellt inte om dessa läror motsägs i resten av Bibeln.

Ps 51:9 Rena mig med isop, så att jag blir ren, två mig, så att jag blir vitare än snö.10 Låt mig få höra fröjd och glädje, låt de ben som du har krossat få JUBLA.

Kan Davids mamma verkligen ha syndat just då David blev till?

David hade två halvsystrar Zeruiah and Abigail (1 Krön. 2:13-16). Pappan till dem var inte Jesse utan Nahash (2 Sam. 17:25). Davids mamma var förmodligen inte Jesses första fru, vilket kan förklara varför Davids halvbröder såg sig själva som bättre än David (1 Sam. 17:28-30). Det kan också förklara varför David inte kallades fram då profeten Samuel var på besök för att hitta en kung. (1 Sam. 16:11).

Det går att spekulera ytterligare om omständigheterna gällande Davids mamma och hur hon fick sina barn, men vi vet åtminstone ovan. Det går t ex att spekulera om otrohet, våld, skilsmässa osv vad gäller omständigheterna kring Nahash och Jesse. David’s mamma borde däremot ha varit gift med Jesse när han föddes eftersom David inte var någon bastard (Deut 23:2). Det kan ha varit så enkelt att Davids mamma inte var gift med Jesse när hon blev gravid.

Kapitlet börjar med:

Ps. 51:För sångmästaren, en psalm av David, när profeten Natan kom till honom, sedan han hade gått in till Bat-Seba.

Sedan fortsätter David med att be om ursäkt för det som han själv gjort sig skyldig till gällande hela historien gällande sin otrohet med Bat-Seba. David säger till Gud att ”det är mot DIG jag har syndat”, men det utesluter förstås inte att han även syndat gentemot Bat-Sebas make, för det var inte inför Bat-Sebas make som han bekände sina synder utan inför Gud.

Ps. 51: 3 Gud, var mig nådig enligt din godhet, utplåna mina överträdelser enligt din stora barmhärtighet. Två mig ren från min missgärning,rena mig från min synd.5 Ty jag känner mina överträdelser och min synd är alltid inför mig.6 Det är mot dig jag har syndat och gjort det som är ont i dina ögon. Du är rättfärdig när du talar, du är ren när du dömer.

David fortsätter att tala om sig själv och även den första minuten i sitt liv som verkar ha startat på syndens väg genom att hans mamma syndade när hon avlade honom. Sedan säger han:

Ps 51:10 Vänd bort ditt ansikte från mina synder, utplåna alla mina missgärningar. 12 Skapa i mig, Gud, ett rent hjärta och ge mig på nytt en frimodig ande.13 Förkasta mig inte från ditt ansikte och tag inte din helige Ande ifrån mig.13 Förkasta mig inte från ditt ansikte och tag inte din helige Ande ifrån mig. 

David var i riskzonen för att förlora den helige anden pga överträdelser. Det är inte så att David plötsligt kommer på att han är född i synd och kastar sig ner på sina knän för att be så mycket om ursäkt för en sådan överträdelse inför Gud. Det hade knappast varit Davids fel om han blev född i synd och det skulle snarare indirekt vara Guds fel, vilket innebär att Gud borde ha bett DAVID om ursäkt för att stackars David tvingades blir född i synd – som David aldrig bett om att få bli. En synd handlar om en överträdelse av Guds lag, men på vilket sätt kan vår egen befruktning vara emot Guds lag och göra honom besviken?

Denna psalm har tyvärr ofta använts som stöd för den gnostiska idén att vi är födda i synd (liksom Rom. 5) men arvsynden stöds inte av Bibeln. Ingen av de gamla kyrkofäderna lärde detta de första 300 åren e. Kr. Endast gnostikerna. Läs gärna mer om Arvsynden i denna bloggartikel.

Psalm 22:10 Det var du som hämtade mig ut ur moderlivet och lät mig vila trygg vid min moders bröst. 11 På dig är jag kastad ända från modersskötet, redan i moderlivet var du min Gud.

I Ps. 51:7 vill en del tolka som att vi alla är syndare allt sedan BEFRUKTELSEN (avelsen), och i Ps. 58:4 står det att vi är syndare så fort vi FÖDS. Så hur ska vi ha det? Är vi syndare sedan befruktelsen eller så fort vi föds? Och kan verkligen nyfödda bebisar prata och ljuga direkt vid födseln? ELLER, ska vi kanske tolka psalmer som PSALMER?

Ps. 58:4 De ogudaktiga är avfälliga ända från FÖDELSEN, de lögnaktiga far vilse alltifrån moderlivet. (SFB)

Ps. 58:3 The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be BORN, speaking lies. (KJV)

Vi kan acceptera vad som står i detta kapitel, men vi behöver inte acceptera det som INTE står. Det står ingenstans att människor är födda i synd. Bebisar är neutrala och har inte kapacitet att synda. Om själva grunddefinitionen av synd är att bryta mot Guds bud, då kan ju inte en befruktelse/födelse vara en orsak till synd.

1 Joh. 3:Var och en som gör synd bryter mot lagen, ty synd är brott mot lagen.