Jonadab is also a good example of someone who made their own artificial restrictions within the scope of God's Law. God still honored him, but Jonadab and his descendants COULD have relaxed some their self-imposed restrictions and still been right in God's sight.
How many rules and restrictive boundaries have you set in your own heart and mind that God never said to make?
For myself, I have had a hard time reconciling the severe restrictions with the concept of "Law of Liberty". How can this be a "law of liberty" if there are so many subtle traps to watch out for? Even now, I feel trapped, and have been seeking guidance from folks who I respect to help reconcile all these restrictions into a livable system.
It seems to me that the point of the story was that God *did* honour them... and honoured them for strictly keeping their father's commandment. And that God contrasted them from Israel, who did not obey Him.
Strictly keeping a father's commandment to live a life outside the scope of God's law isn't honored by God even if those descendants are more strict in their adherence than Israel ever was. Does God honor the Muslim in their jihad?
God has a provided a large available space in His law to live in. Too often people artificially restrict themselves and condemn others for not following their own personal restrictions. I have relatives who believe that "one drink is a sin" and no amount of Scripture which only condemns drunkenness will convince them otherwise. They are quite condemning on anyone who has drinks alcohol at any level or even has it in their house.
What's the difference between a Baptist and a Methodist?
Baptists refuse to acknowledge each other in the liquor store.
The question I was asking was "In what ways have you artificially restricted yourself within the scope of God's law?"
I recognize that I have artificial restrictions that I have placed inside my own head that are hindering my ability to live a free life in Christian liberty. So many things are a No, and so few things are Yes.
2 Cor 1:18-20
"As surely as God is faithful, our word to you has not been Yes and No. For the Son of God, Jesus Christ, whom we proclaimed among you, Silvanus and Timothy and I, was not Yes and No, but in Him it is always Yes. For all the promises of God find their Yes in Him. That is why it is through Him that we utter our Amen to God for His glory."
I’m not seeing how your answer has anything at all to do with the text we are discussing. In the text that we are discussing God rewards the rechabites for obeying all of their fathers commandments.
All law establishes both an upper and a lower bound for moral behavior. Less than x is evil, but more than y is evil. This defines the limited "SCOPE" of right action. (Imagine a BIG circle. Inside is moral and right. Outside is evil and wrong.)
"Artificial restriction" is to redefine that upper &/or lower bound for whatever reason within the confines of God's actual law.
(Imagine a smaller circle inside the BIG circle. It could be concentric or not. Some circles are close to the line. Others have lots of room between them and the outside line, but all points on this inner circle is within the scope and overlaps the BIG circle.)
The Canaanites also "strictly kept their father's commandments" in their idolatry. This was outside the scope of God's law. God did NOT honor the Canaanites for "strictly keeping their father's commandments".
(Imagine a circle that overlaps God's circle and included parts outside of it.
Or, more extreme, imagine a circle outside of that excludes God's circle entirely.)
Eph 6:1 "Children, obey your parents IN THE LORD, for this is right."
Drinking alcohol is MORAL in God's law and wasn't restricted from the Israelites, but the Rechabites restricted themselves from it. (Inside the BIG circle, but outside of their circle.)
Building a house is MORAL in God's law and wasn't restricted from the Israelites, but the Rechabites restricted themselves from it. (Inside the BIG circle, but outside of their circle.)
Sowing seed is MORAL in God's law and wasn't restricted from the Israelites, but the Rechabites restricted themselves from it. (Inside the BIG circle, but outside of their circle.)
The Rechabites restricted themselves MORE than God required. Since it's still within the SCOPE of morality; it was acceptable and honoring God. (The Rechabite's circle is completely inside the BIG circle.)
The prerequisite for God's honor of the Rechabites or anyone is to live within the scope of His law. The problem with the Israelites was they kept going outside the scope of God's law and complained that it was too restrictive. The Rechabites lived faithfully inside a scope that was even more restrictive than what the Israelites were given.
Jer 35:19 "therefore thus says the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel: Jonadab the son of Rechab shall never lack a man to STAND before Me.”
Ps 1:5 "Therefore the wicked will not STAND in the judgment,
nor sinners in the congregation of the righteous;"
Well, that’s a very interesting hypothesis. There are two problems with it, the first is that it has nothing to do with scripture, and the second is you completely leave out what God said to therechabites.
Thus saith the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel; Because ye have obeyed the commandment of Jonadab your father, and kept all his precepts, and done according unto all that he hath commanded you:
Your theory has to in someway include God’s ‘because’ statement .
1) Command: This is the most obvious. "Thou shalt NOT steal." "Honor your father and your mother." Lots of folks stop here because it allows them to avoid the other 2 by simply saying, "God never said Don't do it."
2) Example: Throughout Scripture there are both good examples that we're encouraged to follow (Elijah's praying, Job's patience, etc.) as well as examples we're encouraged to avoid. ("Don't be like ...") This entire section is an example to follow.
3) Necessary Inference: This is where there is the most controversy, but it's also a key part of Scriptural instructions. "Love your neighbor as yourself" has a necessary inference of "love yourself". Problems arise when we HATE ourself or don't know how to love ourself properly.
In John 3, Jesus is trying to explain "you must be born again" to Nicodemus who is NOT understanding what Jesus is saying. Jesus gets a little frustrated with him and "...answered him, 'Are you the teacher of Israel and yet you do not understand these things?' " (John 3:10). Where in the Old Testament would Nicodemus have learned about "being born again"? It's not in the 614 commands which Nic probably knew by heart. It's not even in the examples since all the prophets like Elijah come onto the scene fully empowered by God from however they originally were. The entire concept of "being born again" was a necessary inference.
Most of Jesus' conversations with the Pharisees were traps because they missed the necessary inference in the verses until Jesus asked the right question:
Matt 22:41-45
Now while the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them a question, saying, “What do you think about the Christ? Whose son is he?”
They said to him, “The son of David.”
He said to them, “How is it then that David, in the Spirit, calls him Lord, saying,
‘The Lord said to my Lord, sit at my right hand, until I put your enemies under your feet’? If then David calls him Lord, how is he his son?”
So what we're discussing here is a necessary inference in the Scripture.
Does this entire chapter point out any sin in the lives of the Rechabites that God is overlooking because they were doing it in obedience to their father?
Is it more reasonable based on what you know ...
* about Scripture
* God's character
* the Law
* the Prophets which were rejected (Jer 35:15)
* etc.
to assume that the Rechabites were within or outside the Law of God in their obedience to their father?
Jonadab is also a good example of someone who made their own artificial restrictions within the scope of God's Law. God still honored him, but Jonadab and his descendants COULD have relaxed some their self-imposed restrictions and still been right in God's sight.
How many rules and restrictive boundaries have you set in your own heart and mind that God never said to make?
For myself, I have had a hard time reconciling the severe restrictions with the concept of "Law of Liberty". How can this be a "law of liberty" if there are so many subtle traps to watch out for? Even now, I feel trapped, and have been seeking guidance from folks who I respect to help reconcile all these restrictions into a livable system.
Umm, God 'still honoured him'??
It seems to me that the point of the story was that God *did* honour them... and honoured them for strictly keeping their father's commandment. And that God contrasted them from Israel, who did not obey Him.
Strictly keeping a father's commandment to live a life outside the scope of God's law isn't honored by God even if those descendants are more strict in their adherence than Israel ever was. Does God honor the Muslim in their jihad?
God has a provided a large available space in His law to live in. Too often people artificially restrict themselves and condemn others for not following their own personal restrictions. I have relatives who believe that "one drink is a sin" and no amount of Scripture which only condemns drunkenness will convince them otherwise. They are quite condemning on anyone who has drinks alcohol at any level or even has it in their house.
What's the difference between a Baptist and a Methodist?
Baptists refuse to acknowledge each other in the liquor store.
The question I was asking was "In what ways have you artificially restricted yourself within the scope of God's law?"
I recognize that I have artificial restrictions that I have placed inside my own head that are hindering my ability to live a free life in Christian liberty. So many things are a No, and so few things are Yes.
2 Cor 1:18-20
"As surely as God is faithful, our word to you has not been Yes and No. For the Son of God, Jesus Christ, whom we proclaimed among you, Silvanus and Timothy and I, was not Yes and No, but in Him it is always Yes. For all the promises of God find their Yes in Him. That is why it is through Him that we utter our Amen to God for His glory."
I’m not seeing how your answer has anything at all to do with the text we are discussing. In the text that we are discussing God rewards the rechabites for obeying all of their fathers commandments.
All law establishes both an upper and a lower bound for moral behavior. Less than x is evil, but more than y is evil. This defines the limited "SCOPE" of right action. (Imagine a BIG circle. Inside is moral and right. Outside is evil and wrong.)
"Artificial restriction" is to redefine that upper &/or lower bound for whatever reason within the confines of God's actual law.
(Imagine a smaller circle inside the BIG circle. It could be concentric or not. Some circles are close to the line. Others have lots of room between them and the outside line, but all points on this inner circle is within the scope and overlaps the BIG circle.)
The Canaanites also "strictly kept their father's commandments" in their idolatry. This was outside the scope of God's law. God did NOT honor the Canaanites for "strictly keeping their father's commandments".
(Imagine a circle that overlaps God's circle and included parts outside of it.
Or, more extreme, imagine a circle outside of that excludes God's circle entirely.)
Eph 6:1 "Children, obey your parents IN THE LORD, for this is right."
Drinking alcohol is MORAL in God's law and wasn't restricted from the Israelites, but the Rechabites restricted themselves from it. (Inside the BIG circle, but outside of their circle.)
Building a house is MORAL in God's law and wasn't restricted from the Israelites, but the Rechabites restricted themselves from it. (Inside the BIG circle, but outside of their circle.)
Sowing seed is MORAL in God's law and wasn't restricted from the Israelites, but the Rechabites restricted themselves from it. (Inside the BIG circle, but outside of their circle.)
The Rechabites restricted themselves MORE than God required. Since it's still within the SCOPE of morality; it was acceptable and honoring God. (The Rechabite's circle is completely inside the BIG circle.)
The prerequisite for God's honor of the Rechabites or anyone is to live within the scope of His law. The problem with the Israelites was they kept going outside the scope of God's law and complained that it was too restrictive. The Rechabites lived faithfully inside a scope that was even more restrictive than what the Israelites were given.
Jer 35:19 "therefore thus says the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel: Jonadab the son of Rechab shall never lack a man to STAND before Me.”
Ps 1:5 "Therefore the wicked will not STAND in the judgment,
nor sinners in the congregation of the righteous;"
Well, that’s a very interesting hypothesis. There are two problems with it, the first is that it has nothing to do with scripture, and the second is you completely leave out what God said to therechabites.
Thus saith the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel; Because ye have obeyed the commandment of Jonadab your father, and kept all his precepts, and done according unto all that he hath commanded you:
Your theory has to in someway include God’s ‘because’ statement .
Scripture teaches in 3 ways:
1) Command: This is the most obvious. "Thou shalt NOT steal." "Honor your father and your mother." Lots of folks stop here because it allows them to avoid the other 2 by simply saying, "God never said Don't do it."
2) Example: Throughout Scripture there are both good examples that we're encouraged to follow (Elijah's praying, Job's patience, etc.) as well as examples we're encouraged to avoid. ("Don't be like ...") This entire section is an example to follow.
3) Necessary Inference: This is where there is the most controversy, but it's also a key part of Scriptural instructions. "Love your neighbor as yourself" has a necessary inference of "love yourself". Problems arise when we HATE ourself or don't know how to love ourself properly.
In John 3, Jesus is trying to explain "you must be born again" to Nicodemus who is NOT understanding what Jesus is saying. Jesus gets a little frustrated with him and "...answered him, 'Are you the teacher of Israel and yet you do not understand these things?' " (John 3:10). Where in the Old Testament would Nicodemus have learned about "being born again"? It's not in the 614 commands which Nic probably knew by heart. It's not even in the examples since all the prophets like Elijah come onto the scene fully empowered by God from however they originally were. The entire concept of "being born again" was a necessary inference.
Most of Jesus' conversations with the Pharisees were traps because they missed the necessary inference in the verses until Jesus asked the right question:
Matt 22:41-45
Now while the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them a question, saying, “What do you think about the Christ? Whose son is he?”
They said to him, “The son of David.”
He said to them, “How is it then that David, in the Spirit, calls him Lord, saying,
‘The Lord said to my Lord, sit at my right hand, until I put your enemies under your feet’? If then David calls him Lord, how is he his son?”
So what we're discussing here is a necessary inference in the Scripture.
Does this entire chapter point out any sin in the lives of the Rechabites that God is overlooking because they were doing it in obedience to their father?
Is it more reasonable based on what you know ...
* about Scripture
* God's character
* the Law
* the Prophets which were rejected (Jer 35:15)
* etc.
to assume that the Rechabites were within or outside the Law of God in their obedience to their father?