Needs & Neediness - Part 2

Editor's Note: this is a long and fairly technical article, mostly due to the complexity of the subject, and the logic and Biblical studies involved. I have highlighted the more edifying or devotional parts in red. For readers who are not particularly interested in all of the details, you may find it useful to skim through and read the red highlights.

Editor's Note #2: This series was written in response to a question posed by Barry Wallace at this post. Although I'm going to argue my case strongly, I still respect Barry's opinion and won't be surprised if he disagrees with me. I could be wrong. But let the reader take all of the evidence into consideration and make his or her own decision. We're working on a sub-point here, not the essentials of the Gospel or the basics of Christian orthodoxy - although those things certainly play a part in the discussion. And I have no doubt that Barry and I would be in perfect harmony regarding those matters.
Editor's Note #3: Sorry for the way this looks. There are a ton of bugs in the new blogspot text editor, and I can't get it to format correctly to save my life. I've decided to give up on the aesthetics and just post this the way it is.

In part 1, we established some of the linguistic parameters of the word "need."

1. A "need" is defined by its associated purpose. (for example, I need light in order to see)

2. We can only legitimately use the word "need" when there is a clearly defined relationship of dependency between the subject, the object, and the purpose. (for example, my eyesight depends on light, and without light it is impossible for me to see - SUBJECT: Eyesight; OBJECT: Light; PURPOSE: Seeing).

Now I will attempt to show how and why these linguistic parameters - and Scripture - make the concept of "emotional needs" an illegitimate illusion. At the same time, I am going to be very careful to affirm that we have real needs similar to those usually touted as "emotional needs." Thus, it's not surprising that so many people embrace the emotional needs model of human behavior. The aim here, however, is to apply very precise Biblical thinking to the topic.

What is an "emotional" need? 

First, let's look at how secular psychiatrists talk about emotional needs (note the purpose and dependency in these statements) . . .

. . . our emotional needs often define the finer points of our relationships. Psychologist Dennis Sugrue says we must acknowledge those emotional needs before we can find someone who can fill them. "A need for intimacy, for sexual gratification and satisfaction, a need to be honored and understood and even accepted by our partner, these are all important aspects of who we are. Each of us has our own way in which these needs must be met in order to feel happy and secure" says Sugrue , an associate clinical professor of psychiatry at the University of Michigan Medical School . . .  (Source: medicinenet.com)

But the happiness and security of a Christian come from God, not another person. Professor Sugrue apparently recognizes a potential problem with the psychological view and goes on to say this . . .

"If you are looking to a partner to make you feel worthwhile, to make you feel happy, to rescue you from a bored or unhappy life, if you are seeking someone to make you feel complete or whole -- well then you have some work to do, because these are needs that are never going to be met by any one other than yourself." (Source: medicinenet.com)

So, what distinguishes emotional needs that should be met by others from "work" that we must do ourselves? The professor does not elaborate on this distinction. Notice that the focus in this approach is on the assumption that one needs to feel a certain way and must depend on others to make this happen.

Now let's look at the approach taken by a Christian psychologist, Dr. Willard F. Harley, who authored the well known book, His Needs, Her Needs. Dr. Harley offers the following definition . . .

What is an emotional need? It is a craving that, when satisfied, leaves you with a feeling of happiness and contentment, and, when unsatisfied, leaves you with a feeling of unhappiness and frustration. There are probably thousands of emotional needs. A need for birthday parties, peanut butter sandwiches, Monday Night Football, I could go on and on. Some people have some of those needs while others have different needs. If you feel good doing something, or if someone does something for you that makes you feel good, an emotional need has been met. (Source: http://www.marriagebuilders.com/graphic/mbi3300_needs.html) 

Now, that's a broad definition! Note carefully the number of Biblical references used to support this astounding claim. According to Dr. Harley, you and I are just brimming with oodles and oodles of "needs" all the time. We're slaves to our "cravings" and whatever makes us "feel good." And apparently the people who have the misfortune of being in proximity of demanding black holes of "need" like us are supposed to be fulfilling our cravings continually. 
A Few Problems . . .
-The term "emotional need" implies that in some way I depend on emotions. This is a huge problem, because reliance on emotion for anything is a road to disaster. Emotions are unstable by definition, and we must avoid every inclination to become dependent on them. Being reliable is not the job of an emotion because it is designed to be an effect rather than a cause.

-The term "emotional need" also implies that some legitimate (i.e. God-ordained and God-sanctioned) purpose can only be fulfilled after the presence of specific emotions has been established. This again is a huge problem, because it makes a legitimate purpose, for which man bears a responsibility, dependent on something that is inconstant (and often downright volatile) by definition.

We should grant, a la John Piper, that emotions play a key role in some of the commands God has given us. After all, how does one "shout for joy" without the involvement of feelings? However, we must not think the source of these Biblically mandated emotions is outside of God and His Word. Nor are these commands to be interpreted as beginning with emotion. Nor may we ever say that God commands us to make another person feel a certain way; rather, we are commanded to choose, think and do things which will inevitably result in particular emotions becoming increasingly present in us. As a specific focus for this article, we will show that obedience to marriage-related commands is never in any way dependent on emotions.

Note: we are not minimizing the significance of feelings. Rather, we are attempting to view them in their proper Biblical role, as intended by their Creator - nothing more, nothing less.

What's the Purpose?

It has been said that a man must love his wife because this is her greatest emotional need. As a corollary, it has been said that a woman must respect her husband because this will meet his greatest emotional need. Let's examine these claims carefully.

If I have a legitimate need for respect from my wife, what is the related purpose, and is it true that this purpose cannot be fulfilled in any other way than by a feeling that she is respecting me? In other words, what is the purpose of marriage, and how is it fulfilled? Clearly, the primary purpose of Christian marriage is to illustrate the Gospel, the story of Christ's love for His Church. For this purpose to be fulfilled, there must be several things: one man and one woman, for starters. There must also be love. And there must be respect. No problems there. But there must also be some disrespect, and there must sometimes be a lack of love. I'm sure I've just shattered someone's dream. Sorry, but it's true. I'll try to explain . . .

Does my wife's occasional (or extended) disrespect nullify the ability of my marriage to reflect Christ's love for His Church? Certainly not. Rather, it makes the picture that much more real, and it provides me with an opportunity to express an even greater love than I ever could if my "emotional need" for respect was continually and perfectly being filled. Christ died for a Church that had NO RESPECT for Him, and rather chose to kill Him. That is ultimate disrespect, and yet it is an essential element of the Gospel story. Christ died for sinners, evildoers and wretches. And if we didn't continue to struggle with sin after conversion, we would surely swell up with something even worse: Gospel-shrouding pride and cross-stifling self-righteousness!

Does my occasional (or extended) failure to effectively show love for my wife nullify the ability of my marriage to reflect the Church's high view of Christ? Certainly not. Rather, it makes the picture that much more real - not because Christ fails in any way to love the Church, but because the Church so often doubts her Lord's love for her. My very real lack of love for my wife elicits in her the same opportunity for faith and obedience that is produced in the Church whenever she feels that Christ's love for her is inadequate (though this feeling is unwarranted). Under suffering and strain, believers become fearful, and we sometimes lose sight of the imperishable love that undergirds us. But faith continues on through these times, through the dark night of the soul and on into the renewed brightness of morning. Eventually we rediscover the undying love that was always there. Likewise, a wife finds great blessing in Christ as she perseveres under the sufferings wrought by a hard-headed and hard-hearted husband (to be clear, I am not speaking here of abuse, but unfulfilled desires).

So, rather than diminishing the Gospel picture that is portrayed through Christian marriage, failures in love and respect become occasions for the Gospel to shine that much brighter! The trouble with the "emotional needs" teaching is that it implies I must feel Christ's love in order for the Gospel's purpose to be fulfilled in my life. It implies that He must feel my respect in order for the Gospel's purpose to be fulfilled through Him. And I am woefully incapable of producing those feelings in Him!

I am grateful that Christ loves me faithfully even when I fail to respect Him. I am grateful for the times I have continued to trust Him, even though I didn't feel His love. I am also grateful for the times I have been able to love my wife in spite of her struggles with submission. And I am exceedingly grateful for the Gospel's work in her, enabling her to respect me even when I have fallen terribly short of the mark in my love for her.

There is a very legitimate and real need for love and respect, in order for the Gospel picture to be portrayed in marriage, and there is also a legitimate need for their opposites. Without failure there can be no illustration of grace, forgiveness, and growth. The positive side of this equation is provided by God Himself, and the negative side - the failure - is supplied by us. Taken together, all of this paints the very best picture of the Gospel. None of this has anything at all to do with the emotions produced in one spouse by the conduct of the other. In fact, it is precisely at the times when I don't feel respected by my wife that I am most tempted to sin against her - and it is precisely at these times that my demonstrated love for her, springing from a reliance on God's grace and not from a dependence on my emotions, is most powerfully portraying the Gospel. In short, the ability of my marriage to illustrate the Gospel depends more on God's grace than it does on my emotions. In fact, with God's grace in view, my emotions become quite irrelevant to the purpose of marriage.

Emotional needs are neither legitimate nor real. They simply do not exist, because there is nothing Biblically essential that depends on the feelings generated by my response to another person's actions. Scripture calls me to obediently love my wife, with or without a feeling of respect from her. It calls her to respect me, with or without the feeling that I love her. This is why Ephesians 5 contains marital instruction in the form of commands, and not a single mention of emotions or feelings. 

With all of this in mind, let's consider this text, which might be considered definitive on the topic of needs:

II Peter 1:1-4 Simon Peter, a bond-servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, to those who have received a faith of the same kind as ours, by the righteousness of our God and Savior, Jesus Christ: Grace and peace be multiplied to you in the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord; seeing that His divine power has granted to us everything pertaining to life and godliness, through the true knowledge of Him who called us by His own glory and excellence. For by these He has granted to us His precious and magnificent promises, so that by them you may become partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world by lust (Gk. EPITHUMIA - more on this word later).

The clear implication is that there is no legitimate purpose pertaining to life and godliness for which the ultimate dependence is on anything other than God and His Word. Relating this to our discussion, the respect of my wife is a product of God's work in her through the Gospel, and my love for her is also produced by His love for me.  A Biblical marriage is one in which both partners are drawing strength and comfort directly from God, and then sharing the benefits of that relationship with one another. Union with God is primary, marital union is secondary. The alternative is idolatry. 
There is no problem with saying, "A Christian marriage cannot fulfill its primary purpose without love from the husband and respect from the wife." God's marriage plan involves many legitimate needs and purposes. The husband is needed. The wife is needed. The Gospel is needed. Love is needed. Respect is needed. The fact that these components are needed is Biblically true and undeniable, and there are purposes and dependencies tied to each of them. But to call any of these components an "emotional need" is another thing entirely. Emotions aren't needs and needs aren't emotions.

Biblical sanctification is intended to change our basis of decision-making from an emotionally-oriented pattern to a command-and-promise-oriented path. It is designed to lead us away from a focus on what other people aren't doing for us, and toward a discovery of what we can and should do for them (in response to what He has done for us). Indeed, a lifestyle in which we "take up our cross daily" assures us that we will suffer. When I stop depending on my wife's respect - and the wonderful feelings I have when I am basking in the glow of it - I get the privilege of dying to self and finding a new life in Christ. This is the life of divine power and grace that is sustained by heaven's authority and is free from the uncertainties of earth-life. I must not demand that my wife fill me up with good emotions, for she is as undependable as I am. Relying on God means there is abundant supply and nothing essential is missing, ever. I have to die to my idolatrous dependence on her, and live in full dependence on Him. If the feeling that my wife respects me is not an "emotional need," what is it? The last word from the passage quoted above is not there by accident. That which corrupts the world also corrupts man's understanding of psychology - and it corrupts good marriages, too.

Distinguishing Needs from Desires

Bear in mind that Dr. Willard F. Harley defined emotional needs as "cravings." This is the perfect word for what we falsely call "emotional needs." a "need" and a "craving" are two entirely different things. Anything I need in order to create a feeling is nothing more than a craving! There is a huge difference between a legitimate spiritual or physical need and the mere "craving" of a sinful heart.

Let's compare the two:

Needs are a matter of fact. Desires are a matter of will.

Needs are objective. Desires are subjective.

Needs are fixed by purpose. Desires are subject to change by the whims of the human heart.

Knowing the difference between the two is essential, but certain universal sinful tendencies lead us to confuse them.

Idolatrous desire/lust/coveting (a.k.a. craving) leads us to think of mere desires as needs. For example: "I need a cigarette."

Self-sufficient Pride leads us to think of actual needs as mere desires. For example: "I don't need God!"

For believers, legitimate "needs" are of no great concern, for we have a Great Father who cares for us with great affection. Consider our Lord's reassurances in this regard . . .

Matthew 6:8 ". . . your Father knows what you need before you ask Him."

Matthew 6:31-32 "Do not worry then, saying, 'What will we eat?' or 'What will we drink?' or 'What will we wear for clothing?' For the Gentiles eagerly seek all these things; for your heavenly Father knows that you need all these things."

On the other hand, dealing with our "desires" or "lusts" (a.k.a. cravings) is a key theme related to Christian growth in the New Testament. Consider these examples . . .

Mark 4:19 . . . but the worries of the world, and the deceitfulness of riches, and the desires (Gk. EPITHUMIA) for other things enter in and choke the word, and it becomes unfruitful.

Romans 6:12 Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body so that you obey its lusts (Gk. EPITHUMIA)

Romans 7:8 But sin, taking opportunity through the commandment, produced in me coveting (Gk. EPITHUMIA) of every kind . . .

Romans 13:14 But put on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make no provision for the flesh in regard to its lusts (Gk. EPITHUMIA).

Galatians 5:24 Now those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires (Gk. EPITHUMIA).

2 Timothy 2:22 Now flee from youthful lusts (Gk. EPITHUMIA) and pursue righteousness, faith, love and peace, with those who call on the Lord from a pure heart.

2 Timothy 4:3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but {wanting} to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires (Gk. EPITHUMIA) . . .

It is significant that the Septuagint (the Greek version of the Old Testament) uses the word EPITHUMEO for "coveting" in the 10th commandment (cf. Romans 7:7). EPITHUMEO is the common Greek verb for "to lust" (i.e., have strong desire for something, not necessarily sexual). EPITHUMIA is the equivalent noun.

Addressing an Objection

A significant objection to the view presented here is this: if man is made up of physical, spiritual, and emotional components, and there are clearly defined and Biblically legitimate physical and spiritual needs, doesn't it follow that there can be (yea, should be) emotional needs as well? While this objection sounds entirely plausible, it is grounded in a mistaken view of the psyche and therefore draws a false conclusion.

The word "psyche" comes from the Greek word PSUCHE, which means "soul." Psychologists are students of the soul, and are therefore dealing in an area of concern directly addressed by the Bible. They typically disagree with God's Word and are therefore flat wrong. But let's examine Scripture's view of the PSUCHE, or the "psychology" found in Scripture. 

Biblically, man is divided into two parts: material/physical and immaterial/invisible. The material/physical part is called the "body," while the immaterial/invisible part is called "soul" and/or "spirit." Some like to divide these into body and soul/spirit (two parts - known as the dichotomist view), while others are inclined to divide them into body, soul, and spirit (three parts - the trichotomist view). There are also other views, but our purpose is not to address these hair-splitting questions, for only the Word of God is a razor sharp enough to divide between soul and spirit. Perhaps there is a paradox in this.

Generally speaking, Scripture refers to the inner man, the immaterial/invisible part, as the "soul." When we speak of spiritual needs, we are talking about the needs of the inner man, the soul (or the soul/spirit, if you will). The inner man contains the three aspects of personality: mind, emotion, and will. The mind perceives, the will decides, and the emotions respond. To whatever degree there are legitimate, Biblical needs associated with these, they fall under the banner of spiritual needs, and they are all meant to be fulfilled by God Himself. Seeking another source is the essence of idolatry, and this is typically the path that is followed in the "emotional needs" paradigm offered by modern psychologists and Christians who adhere to their ideology.
Emotions are indicators of our thought processes and circumstances. They are the thermometer of our heart, as it were, while our minds and wills are the thermostat. In this analogy, our circumstances can be compared to the weather, and our hearts to a very inefficient HVAC system. Our minds and wills can be perfectly sound, but our emotions drag along, responding to yesterday's events or last week's pressures, or last year's life-altering event. Our minds and wills could be in outright rebellion to God's command, but our emotions might not figure it out and begin processing the facts until tomorrow. Or we may merely think of doing right or wrong, and find our feelings pulling us powerfully toward acting on those thoughts. But no matter how you slice it, emotions aren't needs and needs aren't emotions. Our need is not so much to experience particular emotions, as it is to pay attention and understand the effects they have upon us, and then to crucify the depraved desires which would lead us to idolize emotional experiences. As powerful as these emotions and desires are, the mercy of God is our only hope in this. So, rather than preach about emotional needs, preachers ought to feed us with the Gospel and lead us more and more to Christ as our ultimate and eternal Source of everything.

NOTE: If you read this entire article, give yourself a pat on the back and some much-needed (oops! I mean rightfully-desired) rest.

I'm Not a Research Scientist Looking for Extra-Terrestrial Life (But I Play One On TV)

This is topically unrelated to anything else on this blog . . . but let's call it a humor break.

I recently had the privilege of appearing in a commercial that was submitted for the Dorito's "Crash the Super Bowl" Contest. My pastor and his family were the driving force behind this production, I just showed up and did whatever they asked me to do.

http://www.crashthesuperbowl.com/#/video/3820

NOTE: After clicking this link, you will be greeted by loud, blaring, 80's style electric guitar music (provided by Dorito's). Just click "SKIP INTRO" in the lower right hand corner of the screen, and our video will appear immediately afterwards.

Phil Johnson on Paradox and Logic

Recently, on the Pyromaniacs blog, Phil Johnson posted an interesting perspective on the concepts of paradox and logic. Let me start by saying Phil is way smarter and way more educated than I am. I should also say that I largely agree with what he wrote. However, I did submit a detailed comment in which I challenged him to open the door for mystery and paradox just a tad wider - without shutting the door on the laws of logic in the process. 

I believe mystery and paradox exist within the framework of and because of the laws of logic - but they DO exist. THEOparadox is not misology (hatred of reason). Quite the opposite - it is a dual acknowledgement of the Source of reason (God), and the limitation of reason (our creaturely and fallen minds). We want to avoid rationalism on one side, and irrationality on the other. In the work of inspiring the Scriptures, the Holy Spirit did a remarkably good job of balancing this. It's exactly what we would expect from the God Who IS the Truth.

I'm not sure if Phil will answer my questions, but if he does I am sure I will learn something. Here's an excerpt from the Pyromaniacs post:


"When faced with two difficult truths we find hard to reconcile, we ought to view it as an opportunity to work out the kinks in our thinking and try to gain a better understanding of truth. If two biblical truths seem to contradict, we need to take another look and be humble enough to acknowledge that perhaps we have misunderstood one or the other (or both) of the seemingly contradictory ideas. We need to understand—like those mathematicians did at the start of the 20th century—that if "truth" really contradicted itself, the very concept of truth would be moot. Christians of all people ought to stand firmly against every charge that truth is inherently self-contradictory."


Here is a link to the post:
http://teampyro.blogspot.com/2009/11/most-ingenious-paradox.html


And here is my comment/question to Phil Johnson:


As one who finds paradoxes (i.e. apparent contradictions of greater and lesser degree) all over the place in Scripture and theology; as one who passionately believes in the fallen-ness and limited-ness of human understanding which result from total depravity; as one who deliberately embraces a very real sense of mystery in God's revelation (or, in some cases, non-revelation) of Himself; and as one who takes seriously the implications of God's incomprehensibility, I have to say . . .

AMEN!!!!

Because of the above checklist, I am sometimes confused with those Neo-Orthodox and PoMo people you are talking about. For the record: I'm not them.

Here's a really cool paradox that helps to keep me balanced and always has me hunting for possible solutions to Biblical paradoxes:

One cannot even say there is an apparent contradiction unless one has already acknowledged the fact that the law of non-contradiction is normative. IOW, if the law of non-contradiction is invalid, then there IS no such thing as an "apparent contradiction." There could only be a vague mish-mash of what might be called "ungrounded propositions" (welcome to Postmodernism). So, in my view, the Biblical way to approach paradox is to START by acknowledging the Law of Non-Contradiction.

I believe the Holy Spirit deliberately placed some APPARENT contradictions (i.e. paradoxes) in the Scriptures in order to get our attention. To Him, they are not contradictory at all, but to us they appear contradictory. Given enough time, information, and application of logic, all would be solved - but we're not fully equipped.

To go a little further, and at the risk of alienating some readers . . . don't we have to admit with Spurgeon (and contra Gordon Clark, I think) that there are some things revealed in the Bible which man's creaturely and fallen mind can't quite comprehend? That is to say, in at least some cases, the logic which reconciles two apparently contradictory truths is with God alone? Who's to say God has given us ALL of His logical tools? Maybe we've only got enough to confuse ourselves on certain issues. Hence Calvin's many warnings against "morbid speculation" and the like.

The laws of logic, like other valid laws, aren't OVER God (nothing is) - rather, they FLOW FROM His Essence and Nature. So, can't there be aspects of logic that remain incomprehensible to us?

What I'm really trying to say is that, from a practical standpoint, we shouldn't go too far with our rational DEMANDS when it comes to the things not revealed. We can get ourselves into trouble applying laws of strict logic when some of the needed propositions are unknowns. IOW, we are sometimes in danger of jumping to conclusions. The results can be errors like Arminianism and Hyper-Calvinism.

Legalism: What it IS and What it ISN'T

Here is a great synopsis of what legalism is and isn't, from a blog I've been enjoying lately.

Legalism is:

• Distorting the gospel by adding conditions to free grace: Acts 15:1, 7-11; Gal.1:6-7, 2:11-16, 4:8-11, Gal. 5:2-4; Col.2:16-17
• Substituting man-made regulations for the Word of God: Matthew 15:1-3
• Majoring on the minors and neglecting the more important issues: Luke 11:42
• Over-concern with the externals while disregarding matters of the heart: Matthew 23:27
• Regarding with contempt or judging a brother based on matters of personal conviction: Romans 14:1-5
• Trusting in ourselves that we are righteous based on religious performance: Luke 18:9-14
• Hypocrisy, the leaven of the Pharisees: Luke 11:53-12:1

Legalism is not:

• A zeal for the commandments of Christ: Matthew 5.19; 1 Corinthians 7.19
• A ministry that teaches others to follow Christ in obedience: Matthew 28.20; 1 Thess. 4.1-2
• Strong personal convictions (as long as they are not required of others): Romans 14.2,5
• Man-made restrictions for personal protection from sinful habits (as long as we do not begin to view them as binding on others): Romans 13.14; 1 Corinthians 6.12
• A zeal for good works: Eph. 2.10; Titus 1.16, 2.7, 14, 3.8, 14
• Limiting our liberty for the benefit of others: Romans 14.15, 21, 15.2; Acts 16.1-3
• Obedience: John 14.15, 23, 15.10; 1 John 2.3-5, 5.2-4

Source: Reformed and Always Reforming by the Reformed Rebel

Blamelessness and the Law

One of my old posts about the Rich Young Ruler recently received an interesting challenge from a commenter. The commenter pointed out an apparent contradiction between my statement (that it is impossible for anyone to keep the Law perfectly) and Luke 1:5-6.
 
Luke 1:5-6 - In the days of Herod, king of Judea, there was a priest named Zacharias, of the division of Abijah; and he had a wife from the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elizabeth. They were both righteous in the sight of God, walking blamelessly [Gk. ANEMPTOS] in all the commandments and requirements of the Lord

The commenter went on to draw this conclusion:

Unless you say you can be righteous in God's sight via IMPERFECT obedience to the Law, the only reason you can give for why these two people's obedience made them righteous in God's sight, is because God regarded their obedience as perfect.

Which means Luke 1:6 proves that sinners CAN (and often did) perfectly obey the Law of Moses.

So if you find some passage by Paul that says no sinner can keep the law perfectly, you've either misunderstood, or Paul is wrong, or Luke is wrong.

I answered as follows:

 You've brought up an interesting point that deserves attention. I think there is another alternative to your either/or scenario - is it possible we commonly misunderstand the meaning of "blameless"? You defined it as perfect obedience to the law, but I'm going to make a Biblical case that this is not the true meaning. We are naturally legalistic in our thinking, so we often impute shades of meaning to Biblical words that are not actually there. Open-hearted Bible study is the cure for this, and it's a cure we all need. The Bible is a document with amazing continuity and thematic resonance throughout its pages. God doesn't make mistakes, so things that appear contradictory can't be truly contradictory, and these seeming contradictions (a.k.a. paradoxes) often lead to a deeper understanding as we work through them. We are forced to look at things the way God does, and not with our man-made ideas. If we won't to do this, we can only distrust the Bible.

The approach you have taken is probably very similar to that which was taken by the early Judaizers who opposed the apostles. The Judaizers believed obedience to the Law was the way to righteousness. The tone of the whole New Testament, and indeed the entire Bible, is actually opposite to this, as I am about to show with regard to this word, "blameless."

First, let's consider three verses from David (not generally considered a "sinlessly" righteous man or a "blameless" man in terms of keeping all the requirements of the Law).

2 Samuel 22:24 - "I was also blameless toward Him, and I kept myself from my iniquity."

NOTE: He says my iniquity. So David's blamelessness did not equal sinlessness. David describes himself as both blameless and sinful. Or, better, blameless in spite of being sinful. We can and should carry this connection over to Luke 1:5-6.

Psalm 18:32 - "The God who girds me with strength and makes my way blameless?"

NOTE: David's blamelessness did not come from his own sinlessness or observance of the Law. It came from God's direct intervention in his life. He was depending on God, not his own performance (which obviously fell short at various times in his life - yet he said he was blameless toward God).

Psalm 19:13 - Also keep back Your servant from presumptuous sins; let them not rule over me; then I will be blameless, and I shall be acquitted of great transgression.

NOTE: Here blamelessness is described in terms of forgiveness rather than perfection or Law keeping. If blamelessness is a result of forgiveness, then it actually requires one to be a sinner prior to becoming blameless or righteous. This is a strong theme in the book of Matthew, where it is said that heaven rejoices more over one sinner who repents than it does over 99 who don't [think they] need to repent. Paul makes a similar point in Galatians 2:16-17. Again, Scripture has an amazing cohesiveness that can never be broken by any human reason - though many have tried.

Now let's trace blamelessness into the New Testament for some further examples.

Philippians 3:6 - as to zeal, a persecutor of the church; as to the righteousness which is in the Law, found blameless [Gk. ANEMPTOS].

NOTE: This is Paul's testimony of the life he lived before Christ rescued him. He was externally "blameless" and "righteous" in regard to the law, and yet that wasn't good enough. Later he says, "not having a righteousness OF MY OWN derived from the Law, but that which is THROUGH FAITH in Christ, the righteousness which comes from God on the basis of faith" (Php 3:9). Romans 7 shows us that somewhere along the line, Paul had a major battle with covetousness, to the point of calling himself "wretched." So, outwardly he may have been blameless all his life, but inwardly there was sin, and the Law provided no resources to change this. Even if there is perfect outward obedience (and apparently there was in the cases of Zechariah and Paul), there can never be perfect inward obedience because every person covets. It's impossible for any fallen human being to completely avoid breaking the 10th commandment, given enough time and opportunity. It happens all the time, but nobody else knows about it.

I Thess 3:12-13 - and may the Lord cause you to increase and abound in love for one another, and for all people, just as we also do for you; so that He may establish your hearts without blame [Gk. ANEMPTOS] in holiness before our God and Father at the coming of our Lord Jesus with all His saints.

NOTE: Here Paul gets to the heart of the matter, which is the heart. Rather than perfect outward obedience, Paul indicates that it is love - as it is given increase by God Himself - which makes our hearts blameless in holiness before Him. As Paul says elsewhere, "Love is the fulfillment of the Law." And love, I daresay, is the exact opposite of covetousness. So it is love, not perfect obedience, that fulfills the Law. And this does not happen SO WE CAN BE saved; it happens BECAUSE WE HAVE BEEN saved, by grace through faith on the basis of Christ's perfect inward and outward obedience.

"Blameless" outward observance of the Law is certainly achievable, but it cannot justify a person in God's sight. This is the limitation of the Law to which I am referring in the post. It is when the inward aspects are applied, e.g. the 10th commandment, that we see our need for a Savior who died for our sins. I do not deny that one can outwardly observe the Law, but with Paul I deny that any person can thereby please God or become righteous in His sight. It is faith alone that saves, by the grace of our loving and kind God, through the cross and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Notice also, later in Luke 1, Zechariah was struck mute because he did not believe the angel's message. So, while he was outwardly blameless in observing the Law, he did not have the perfect and blameless heart that would trust the God Who must Himself sanctify all of our obedience, forgive all of our failure, and perfect all of our works. This is the Gospel, and it is continuously interlaced through the whole text of Scripture. I pray you may know the power of it, and be found truly blameless by Him on that day.

Thanks again for commenting. One quick question: the picture on your profile looks like a demon - is there some significance to this? I know that apart from Christ, I could never be anything more than a devil, with or without the benefit of the Law. 

____________________________________________________ 

NOTES

Here's what ANEMPTOS means according to Thayer's Lexicon:

Here is an illuminating bit of insight from Tony Hayling:

We know that Zechariah and Elizabeth were righteous in God's eyes in the same way that Noah was. Noah found grace in the eyes of God. They, too, were righteous through faith by grace. They were looking for the Hope of Israel. The rest is the fruit of the grace of God towards them. The operative word is GRACE.

Similarly, their observances and their obedience were fruit of the faith that the grace of God granted to them. The reason they were walking in all the commandments (moral law) and ordinances (ceremonial law) BLAMELESS is not because they were perfect and without blame, but because they were free from the weight of blame, being justified by faith in the promised Savior.

In other words they were as all believers are. They were sinners justified and regarded as blameless in God's eyes because of what God did (or, in their case, was about to do) and not because of what they did or would do.

Jesus Is The Way

Editor's Note: This post was written by my 8-year-old daughter.

Hi! I'm GirlWhomGODloves. Did you know Jesus loves you?

"For God so loved the world, that he gave His only Son, so that whoever believes in Him shall not perish but have everlasting life."
~ John 3:16

He loves everyone - even me and you. Are you glad? Isn't this good news? I think it is. Jesus is kind.

This is amazing. Do you think so? I do. Yea! Jesus loves everyone.

I can understand "no end" better than "no beginning." Because how can you have no end if you have no beginning? God has no beginning or end. And neither does His love.

"What can be said, what can be sung" to so faithful a King? Jesus is our King . Jesus is our Savior!

"Jesus said to Him, 'I am the Way, the Truth and the Life.'" Jesus is the way to eternal life! God sent His Son into the world to save the world. That's good news. Are you glad? That's not bad news! I used to think, "How do people get to heaven? Do they fly with wings? No. Do they let a cloud take them up? No, Jesus is the way to heaven. So, don't try to fly to heaven! You won't get there. Heaven isn't in the sky! It's out of the world. If you go to church, that doesn't mean you will go to heaven. You have to believe in Jesus.

"So, faith comes from hearing and hearing through the word of christ." ~ Romans 10:17       

~ bye bye ~

Editor's Note: Does anyone want to speculate on the mystery of the week? Where is heaven?