BCV and context

Jesus applies scripture

I am going to take a book, chapter and verse (BCV) from the Old Testament out of context just like . . . Jesus.

13 “‘You shall not oppress your neighbor, nor rob him.

“‘The wages of a hired servant shall not remain with you all night until the morning.
Leviticus 19:13

Jesus did not quote or cite the Leviticus passage, but paraphrased it in his own words in his instructions to the disciples.

Remain in that same house, eating and drinking the things they give, for the laborer is worthy of his wages. Don’t go from house to house. Luke 10:7

Furthermore, his servant, the apostle Paul, did the same.

Let the elders who rule well be counted worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in the word and in teaching. 18 For the Scripture says, “You shall not muzzle the ox when it treads out the grain.” And, “The laborer is worthy of his wages.” I Timothy 5:17

These two tactics, BCV and context, are the taser prongs of many discussions among the saints. These tactics are used as much to attack as to defend what each one believes, or just really feels that it is not only right, but what others should acknowledge, embrace and teach. BCV and context are touted as the ultimate throwdown. No rebuttal is expected. No rebuttal is accepted.

I stated at the start that I was going to take  a BCV out of context. I wonder what reaction that stirred in some hearts. The fact is the three passages from Leviticus 19, Luke 10 and I Timothy 5 all allude to one common element: the laborer and his wages.

The Leviticus passage is a charge for masters not to withhold from the hired laborer the wages due him.

Jesus alluded to this same teaching from Leviticus when he sent out his disciples. He sent them out to preach in the villages. He instructed them not to go from house to house but to remain in that house in which they were received while they were in that village.Lastly, Paul quoted Jesus, but he also substantiated his point by quoting the Deuteronomy 25:4 passage about letting the ox who works the mill eat freely while he labors. Paul’s application of the passage is as concerns compensation for elders who labor in the word and in teaching. Furthermore, for those who might have wondered or missed it Paul poses a rhetorical question, God is not concerned about oxen, is He? (I Corinthians 9:9)

applying Paul's rhetorical question

Today as in the first century, the truth is there are saints, men as well as women, who may not necessarily wonder or miss the reference to oxen, but they fail to learn, or to accept and make those applications of the text because it disturbs their sensibilities. Those sensibilities will remain undisturbed as long as the saints do not look closer at presuppositions and conclusions taken from the Deuteronomy passages and the application of that passage by Jesus and Paul in the New Testament.

For instance, what was the gender of the laborer? Although it is not mentioned the saints tend to assume that it was male, but even IF, and I emphasize IF, that were the case does the assumption also follow that since the laborer is not female she is not worthy of her wages? Or, that her employer can unjustly withhold the wages due to her, because, after all, she is a woman?

Was the laborer a teacher in the passage? Again the type of work which the laborer performed was not specified. Since Jesus applied it to the Galilean fishermen preachers does anyone think that the matter of the laborer's wages is limited to preachers only? Furthermore, it seems that like as some saints, as Paul appears to have anticipated, might think and assume that God was concerned about oxen there are saints today who have just as mistakenly drawn their conclusions that the gender of those who are to preach and receive their compensation is limited to males. Yet, neither preachers or teachers nor gender were present in the original text which Jesus applied as he did, not just for the moment, but for our learning. In the spirit of Paul's rhetorical question about oxen; does anyone really think (another rhetorical question) Jesus was concerned that men and only men are to go and preach and that men and only men are to receive their compensation for doing so?

Paul's application

Then, there is an extended application on the teaching from these passages by Jesus and Paul. It is a matter which Paul presented to Timothy for his consideration. (II Timothy 2:7) It involved the livelihood of those who make their living through the preaching of the gospel. Paul illustrated for Timothy how soldiers and athletes keep themselves from becoming entangled in the affairs of this of life, and like the farmer who labors must be the first to get a share of the crops. (II Timothy 2:6) I cannot help but notice Paul’s use of the term labor perhaps to stir in Timothy’s mind a connection with the Leviticus passage. Similarly, I notice he is emphatic, unabashed and unapologetic to Timothy that this is a must. Yet, he did not command Timothy on the matter of Timothy’s livelihood, but Paul was confident that the precedent of the scriptures from Leviticus, to the teaching of Jesus, and the realities of the lives of athletes, soldiers and farmers would be just a few ways by which the Spirit would instruct Timothy concerning his livelihood.

It seems scandalous for someone whose idea of faithfulness to the text is BCV and context. How could or would Jesus take a book, chapter and verse from Leviticus; paraphrase it instead of quoting it, take it out of context, and apply it to the disciples whose work as preachers and teachers was questionable and who certainly were not rabbis? It would be a stretch to say Jesus hired and compensated the disciples out of his own pocket. What's more, they were certainly not hired by their hosts who provided free room and board for them. Nonetheless, Jesus confidently asserted they were worthy of their wages.

Paul applied this same cumulative and combined teaching of the Law and Jesus’ teaching to elders. (He also applies it to Barnabas and himself. [I Corinthians 9:9]) The context of the Leviticus passage does not concern teachers, prophets or others who proclaim the word of God. Yet, Jesus, as he received from the Father, and Paul, by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, revealed for the understanding of the saints in Christ that this book, chapter and verse and its context use of the Leviticus passage represented an application of scripture which was valid, true, and _ biblical.

conclusion

This is absolutely not to say book, chapter and verse or context can be disregarded and dismissed as irrelevant or that they have no use or value in our study and understanding of the scriptures. It is to say that the saints in Christ are to take notice and consider what the scripture states and how there can be, as modeled by Jesus and Paul, a proper application of a single particular passage in different ways. Is there any danger that someone reading this could go into a distortion binge on scripture? Yes, but this is nothing new. The word of God as He spoke it has been distorted since before it was even written. Furthermore, if anyone were to make a misapplication (image that) are we not as brothers and sisters who are indwelt by the same Spirit not able to speak and admonish each other and thereby strengthen our love and glorify God through our understanding of the Holy Scriptures?

The clout of BCV and context is as inflated and overrated as much as it reflects a serious misunderstanding of how Jesus, by the will of the Father, and Paul by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit were not afraid or timid in their handling of the scriptures in their teaching.

Read More

Marks of a Spiritual

Note: The RRMinistry is a twin blog to the YouTube site by the same name. My prolonged technical struggles on the video side are nearly over. Until I post the first video ( which will be Marks of a Spiritual) the site remains unaccessible. I'm not waiting any longer and have decided to move ahead with this post. These posts are not offered as manuscripts of the videos. The blog allows those with more extended comments the space to do so. Thank you. Walk in the Spirit. Gil.

Spiritual and religious soundbites and implications

There is, for some people, no meaning in life. Just live and die. End of story. Others seek to understand and articulate in simple, clear terms beyond a superficial level those things which hold meaning for them.

There's an unfortunate fallout behind such a simple and clear approach. The fallout is that understanding and meaning are summed up in soundbites: I'm not religious. I am spiritual. It's an erroneous, mistaken implication which would ascribe a greater value or even vice versa of the spiritual above the religious. One would be no less mistaken to place religiosity over spirituality. Competitive ranking and one-upmanship are the way of the world. It does not take much listening to people's attempts to articulate beyond soundbites before their lack of understanding becomes apparent. Perhaps even worse than trite soundbites is the extremely convoluted language surrounding their talk of spirituality. There are many who buy it whether in the form of superficial soundbites or the extremely convoluted because, _ it's spiritual.

Spirituality on the Internet

A brief sampling of some offerings on spiritual/spirituality found on the Internet:

just be honest, listen to your inner self, be good, listen to your gut, listen to your heart, do what feels good, do what makes you feel good inside, be yourself, everyone is spiritual, everything is spiritual, you are already spiritual, you are god, be in tune with your energy, rocks are spiritual, trees are spiritual, animals are spiritual, get in tune with the universe; a list without end.

Can anyone who feeds on this walk away with a appreciable understanding that they have been filled with anything of substance in their quest for spirituality or to be a spiritual?

How is a spiritual to be identified? What does it mean to be spiritual? The question, Who is a spiritual emerges with the apostle Paul's admonition to the Christians in Galatia you who are spiritual restore the one who has fallen in sin.

Read More

Mistake-free trainees

During my years in International Export with Dell I was a one-man team in my operation. It's not rocket science and, yes, a caveman could do it. However, the exportation of product involves government, customs and international industry standards with serious consequences for the exporter, and, in some instances the individual employee too should a product be shipped without the required documentation. Although management had me train various associates to fill-in in my absence management never allowed those associates to do the job in my absence presumably for fear they would make a mistake.

I determined I wanted to do everything I could do in my training of associates. I developed a training philosophy around these three points to set them at ease in the training process.

1) There is no mistake you can make I have not already made.
2) There is no mistake you can make which can not be rectified.
3) You do not make mistakes.

The first two are pretty clear. It was the third point which had the desired effect on my trainee. I waited for their question: "What do you mean, 'You do not make mistakes?'"

Those of you who have been trained as the new employee know there are varieties of trainers; those who love/enjoy training and are competent, those who love/enjoy training but have little clue about the task, those who hate training despite their vast knowledge and experience, and, those who hate training and lack the knowledge, experience or aptitude to train others.

My point, by way of setting my trainee at ease, is that I take responsibility for any errors which might slip through my supervision. Too many people train from the perspective of fear: Don't mess up because I don't want to get yelled at or get fired.

I stand by and am accountable for the day's work. I can take the hit. I am confident about my tract record and my ability to give an account of myself and to implement the measures necessary to rectify the error. It is for this reason I see no need/have no need to, or in the language of the world, cover my ass. Fear produces lack of confidence which results in self-preservation and self-defense tactics. Mistakes are my responsibility and are not to be passed off on my trainee. It pleased me to know and to see trainees at ease in a learning environment free of fear. They knew there really were no dumb questions or dumb mistakes to be made only teachable moments to be captured by their trainer.

What was your experience as a learner of the fundamentals of the scriptures? I cringe when I hear of people's training experiences and what is passed off on them by those who profess themselves teachers. I love it when an unwitting visitor raises a tough question in a Bible study. The tension in the group becomes palpable, but I love it because it is the teachable moment for me to capture both for the visitor, for the regular class members and teacher trainees especially.

Let not many of you be teachers, my brothers, knowing that we will receive heavier judgment. 3:2 For in many things we all stumble. If anyone doesn’t stumble in word, the same is a perfect man, able to bridle the whole body also. (Epistle of James 3:1)

The passage speaks to those who would be teachers. If your view and approach of the task of teaching or training is with a fear of judgment for making a mistake you may be wise to wait a while before taking on that responsibility. In the meantime, challenge those who teach not as to oppose them but in the interest of a fuller, richer understanding of the scriptures for the benefit of all without fear of mistakes.

A disciple is not above his teacher, but everyone when he is fully trained will be like his teacher. Luke 6:40

Read More