ARCHIVE: Is it ever right to deny Christ?
- Thread starter Freak
- Start date
Calvinist
New member
Matthew Henry, the simplest of all commentators:
Matthew 22:36-39
"2. The design was to try him, or tempt him; to try, not so much his knowledge as his judgment. It was a question disputed among the critics in the law. Some would have the law of circumcision to be the great commandment, others the law of the sabbath, others the law of sacrifices, according as they severally stood affected, and spent their zeal; now they would try what Christ said to this question, hoping to incense the people against him, if he should not answer according to the vulgar opinion; and if he should magnify one commandment, they would reflect on him as vilifying the rest. The question was harmless enough; and it appears by comparing Luke x. 27, 28, that it was an adjudged point among the lawyers, that the love of God and our neighbour is the great commandment, and the sum of all the rest, and Christ had there approved it; so the putting of it to him here seems rather a scornful design to catechise him as a child, than spiteful design to dispute with him as an adversary."
"the love of God and our neighbor is the great commandment"
Matthew 22:36-39
"2. The design was to try him, or tempt him; to try, not so much his knowledge as his judgment. It was a question disputed among the critics in the law. Some would have the law of circumcision to be the great commandment, others the law of the sabbath, others the law of sacrifices, according as they severally stood affected, and spent their zeal; now they would try what Christ said to this question, hoping to incense the people against him, if he should not answer according to the vulgar opinion; and if he should magnify one commandment, they would reflect on him as vilifying the rest. The question was harmless enough; and it appears by comparing Luke x. 27, 28, that it was an adjudged point among the lawyers, that the love of God and our neighbour is the great commandment, and the sum of all the rest, and Christ had there approved it; so the putting of it to him here seems rather a scornful design to catechise him as a child, than spiteful design to dispute with him as an adversary."
"the love of God and our neighbor is the great commandment"
smilax
New member
You want to play this burden-shifting game? The New Living Translation is the only one that says they are equally important.
The French translation Bible de Semeur says, "Et voici celui qui vient en second rang." That means it's the second in rank, which agrees with my interpretation. That's two against one, and by your strange criteria, that shows your interpretation is wrong.
Again, you used the word "orthodox" to describe your interpretation. Justify that.
The French translation Bible de Semeur says, "Et voici celui qui vient en second rang." That means it's the second in rank, which agrees with my interpretation. That's two against one, and by your strange criteria, that shows your interpretation is wrong.
Again, you used the word "orthodox" to describe your interpretation. Justify that.
Calvinist
New member
Why don't you read a commentary? The interpretation is rock solid. I would think you don't need me to post quotes from a multitude of commentaries. I don't read French so its meaningless to me. One Commentary, posted above, should suffice unless you have proof that my interpretation of the greek is wrong.
smilax
New member
Okay, we can play this game with commentaries, too.
John Calvin's comments on Matthew xxii, 39: "And the second is like it. He assigns the second place to mutual kindness among men, for the worship of God is first in order. The commandment to love our neighbors, he tells us, is like the first, because it depends upon it. For, since every man is devoted to himself, there will never be true charity towards neighbors, unless where the love of God reigns; for it is a mercenary love which the children of the world entertain for each other, because every one of them has regard to his own advantage. On the other hand, it is impossible for the love of God to reign without producing brotherly kindness among men."
Get it? One implies the other, but it doesn't go both ways. The love of God is primary.
John Calvin's comments on Matthew xxii, 39: "And the second is like it. He assigns the second place to mutual kindness among men, for the worship of God is first in order. The commandment to love our neighbors, he tells us, is like the first, because it depends upon it. For, since every man is devoted to himself, there will never be true charity towards neighbors, unless where the love of God reigns; for it is a mercenary love which the children of the world entertain for each other, because every one of them has regard to his own advantage. On the other hand, it is impossible for the love of God to reign without producing brotherly kindness among men."
Get it? One implies the other, but it doesn't go both ways. The love of God is primary.
Calvinist
New member
Calvin:
""And the second is like it. He assigns the second place to mutual kindness among men, for the worship of God is first in order. The commandment to love our neighbors, he tells us, is like the first, because it depends upon it. For, since every man is devoted to himself, there will never be true charity towards neighbors, unless where the love of God reigns; for it is a mercenary love 6 which the children of the world entertain for each other, because every one of them has regard to his own advantage. On the other hand, it is impossible for the love of God to reign without producing brotherly kindness among men."
"Again, when Moses commanded us to love our neighbors as ourselves, he did not intend to put the love of ourselves in the first place, so that a man may first love himself and then love his neighbors; as the sophists of the Sorbonne are wont to cavil, that a rule must always go before what it regulates. But as we are too much devoted to ourselves, Moses, in correcting this fault, places our neighbors in an equal rank with us; thus forbidding every man to pay so much attention to himself as to disregard others, because kindness unites all in one body."
"is like the first, because it depends upon it."
""And the second is like it. He assigns the second place to mutual kindness among men, for the worship of God is first in order. The commandment to love our neighbors, he tells us, is like the first, because it depends upon it. For, since every man is devoted to himself, there will never be true charity towards neighbors, unless where the love of God reigns; for it is a mercenary love 6 which the children of the world entertain for each other, because every one of them has regard to his own advantage. On the other hand, it is impossible for the love of God to reign without producing brotherly kindness among men."
"Again, when Moses commanded us to love our neighbors as ourselves, he did not intend to put the love of ourselves in the first place, so that a man may first love himself and then love his neighbors; as the sophists of the Sorbonne are wont to cavil, that a rule must always go before what it regulates. But as we are too much devoted to ourselves, Moses, in correcting this fault, places our neighbors in an equal rank with us; thus forbidding every man to pay so much attention to himself as to disregard others, because kindness unites all in one body."
"is like the first, because it depends upon it."
P
Pilgrimagain
Guest
I'm not sure of the point being debated here.
It is an eegetical truism that the Bible interprets itself. Thus you read the passage about the greatest commandment in the context of other statements that are simular. For instance, the fact that Christ says you must "hate" others to love him might have something to say about the hierarchy of the commands out lined by Christ's summation of the law.
At any rate, it is clear that Christ claims for himself (and therefore God) a commitment and love from us that supercedes all others.
It is an eegetical truism that the Bible interprets itself. Thus you read the passage about the greatest commandment in the context of other statements that are simular. For instance, the fact that Christ says you must "hate" others to love him might have something to say about the hierarchy of the commands out lined by Christ's summation of the law.
At any rate, it is clear that Christ claims for himself (and therefore God) a commitment and love from us that supercedes all others.
P
Pilgrimagain
Guest
Fair enough.
If I remember correctly, you made a statement concerning "exceptions" when referring to passages dealing with "following the law of the land" etc.. then proceeded to liken examples such as those with the 'denial of Christ' scenario as being one of those exceptions. In other words, an instance where an all inclusive word such as "all" no longer means "all" but rather "just about all". Hence the Col1:15 citation from the WTS's New World Translation which adds in the word "other" in order to convey the idea that Christ is the co-creator of all creatures OTHER than Himself ['a creature' in WTS theology].
...I don't think that made any more sense..
This was my entire point concerning the Apostle Peter. He didn't *really* deny Christ in the internal sense. Only outwardly in verbal form in order to prevent his potential death. If anyone had a valid "reason" for denying Christ, it would be him. After all, two books of the New Testament are named after him and as PA stated, he was the one upon whom Christ built His church. With that much at stake a "strictly outward" denial would, within the rubric of Knight's scenario, be entirely validated...but in Peter's case it wasn't. Jesus even added the *question of "Love"* within the rebuke.
Dito here. I agree with Dee Dee in that the death of a person is not a mere "trivial" event. I just don't believe that the denial of Christ can be considered so either. I may seem rather placid on the matter of "death", but only as a result of what becomes of me and my family afterwards
....and lets not forget Daniel's three friends in the fire. If the improbability of survival was ever greater.....
I have to agree with Smilax etc.. on this one. After all, that does sound a bit too "King Jamesy".
>
God bless--AV
Calvinist
New member
"quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So your interpretation of this verse is that we MUST HATE our wife and children to be a disciple of Jesus?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have to agree with Smilax etc.. on this one. After all, that does sound a bit too "King Jamesy"."
Your opinion is built on the "it sounds too King Jamesy" hermeneutic?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So your interpretation of this verse is that we MUST HATE our wife and children to be a disciple of Jesus?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have to agree with Smilax etc.. on this one. After all, that does sound a bit too "King Jamesy"."
Your opinion is built on the "it sounds too King Jamesy" hermeneutic?
No, my opinion is based on the evidence presented by PA, Smilax etc... The latter was an observation from stuff like...
>
Dan Barker [the atheist & apostate] asks something like:
"Do you really want to belong to a religion that requires you to HATE your own family?"
>
...evidently he doesn't understand WHAT that passage is truly trying to convey
.God bless--Av
The most recent point seems to be that if you refuse to deny Christ even in the face of a threat to your family then you don't love your family. I don't see that link. You would be putting your family in the hands of God and relying on his mercy and judgement as to what would happen.
Amen!!! That was my point way back when.
Originally posted by Hank
Thanks ebenz. Rarely do I say anything that anyone else agrees with.
I know the feeling well.
P
Pilgrimagain
Guest
And indeed it is a good point.