Moses was unfaithful when called

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

1 timothy 1:12 (esv),



apparently, for paul, being appointed by christ jesus our lord to service, i.e. Ministry occurs when the lord accounts a man as faithful, i.e. Obedient and dependable.

Hebrews 3:2 (esv),



moses, likewise, was obedient and dependable in all god's house.

Hard to see how anyone could call moses unfaithful, or say unfaithful people are accounted as faithful, and be appointed to god's service.

👍🏽

[Amanah]

Don:

Along with that, plz develope some gracious thoughts of others instead of negative thoughts, thinking of them as more or less the same way you would think of yourself. You don't think of yourself as a disobedient person do you? Think of me as you would think of yourself, until I give clear indications you should think otherwise. I have shown in other posts that the Bible is the center of my faith, and not disobedience and am insulted by your insinuations in post 9 that I would condone disobedience.

Don it's not my intention to hurt your feelings or to misunderstand you. Honestly, this forum has dwindled down to probably less than 30 posters, most likely because people are on social media. So, we welcome new comers.

That being said, people are going to defend scripture.

[donfriesen1]

Originally Posted by Esaias

I have yet to learn how to do quotes. You said "yes" to the question "Can disobedient people be appointed to ministry." The full question from post 2 is "Are you saying that unfaithful disobedient people can be appointed to ministry?" The answer you quote looks different than the answer given by me when taken out of context, which most good Bible students, which you are included in, know better than to do. The full answer, which you must have read but didn't quote fully was "Reading Ex3,4 would answer that question with a yes. Its against my theology but I can't argue with the Word." Post 3. This leads me to conclude that you will make every effort and use any means possible to discredit another. What motivates such actions?

Anyone following the Lord's example, whose example I assume you desire to follow, could on occasion, listening to his leading by placing in leadership positions, appoint and empower for service some who are not faithful, trusting as the Lord did for Moses in Ex3,4, for their future faithfulness. As I stated in Post3, that its been against my theology and sense to do so but who am I, or who would you be if you said God's example was a bunch of phooey. I won't do so and hope you say the same, because God doesn't make mistakes and didn't make a mistake in Ex3,4. But by no means should this be the rule to always follow in every appointment. But it must be allowed that the Lord may direct on certain occasions to do similarly as he had done with Moses.

So there is your point in this thread, and it plainly confirms what everyone has said about your position. We come to these conclusions because you plainly state them. But plz, don't put words in my mouth that I contend that leaders should appoint such disobedient/unfaithful people
without prayer or his leading. I have never said any such thing and any who say so are jumping to conclusions or misinterpretting my words. As the wise person you are, you must discern what another writes of but not jump to conclusions about something they never explicitely make. If something is unclear in what you perceive they write of, then you have the privilege of asking for clarification without accusing them of error. But to deny that the Lord appointed and anointed with miraculous power Moses when he was disobedient/unfaithful to the covenant is denying what the scripture plainly shows. Do you do so now?

Nobody here disagrees that a person can be CALLED BY GOD while in a condition of disobedience. In fact that is the essence of conversion. But the Bible instructs the church on who can be ordained, so we go with that as the rule to follow for appointing leadership. Agreed. Any wise leader will appoint faithful obedient people to leadership positions. That is just common sense at work, which should be embraced. Well yes, but also allowing for the Lord, in like wisdom as shown in Ex3,4, to lead in showing that some may be appointed to leadership, as was done with unfaithful/disobedient Moses. To reject the possibility of such leading would be rejecting the Lord who exemplifies it. That he does so is plainly seen everyday in the thousands and thousands of Jesus-name-baptism-rejecting preachers, who collectively perform miracles everyday. This plainly shows that God does call disobedient/unfaithful people to leadership positions, even doing miracles by them. It is God not these truth rejectors who does the miracle at their disobedient hands, Surely you must see this as a reality. And what is your explanation as to why God performs miracles at the hands of the disa=obedient? The story of Moses in Ex3,4 shows the 'why it is possible that truth rejectors are used of God'. (Even if only 5% of reported miracles are true it still takes nothing from the truth that 5% are truth-rejecting-miracle workers, because it is God who has empowered them. This empowering shows God's great grace and trust in Man. It magnifies to great heights the Lord's goodness.

.

Plz answer my question from post 43.

[donfriesen1]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

1 Timothy 1:12 (ESV),



Apparently, for Paul, being appointed by Christ Jesus our Lord to service, i.e. ministry occurs when the Lord accounts a man as faithful, i.e. obedient and dependable.

Hebrews 3:2 (ESV),



Moses, likewise, was obedient and dependable in ALL God's house.

Hard to see how anyone could call Moses unfaithful, or say unfaithful people are accounted as faithful, and be appointed to God's service.

Thx for the reply, votivesoul.

As to the Paul comment: Of course in a perfect world the Lord would only call and appoint the perfect. We all know we don't live in such a perfect world. To say that the Lord never calls/anoints/equips-for-ministry anyone other than the perfect obedient/faithful would deny the fact that God called Moses when unfaithful. There it is in black and white inspite of our theology which insists he calls the faithful. It happened. Yes, it happened by God.

Of course Moses learned obedience/faithfulness as he grew in the Lord. But to deny that he was unfaithful to God's covenant with Abraham is to deny that the story in Ex4 happened. Thus you misapply, by time, the quote in He3.2. And what of the murder of the Egyptian? Was Moses faithful then too?
This faithfulness of Moses came later. It does not apply to early Exodus.

Many a scripture must be taken with a grain of salt because of the Near Eastern's peoples propensity to exaggerate, the Lord incorporating exaggeration into his Word, because the writers and their immediate-time readers were culturally aware of it. Abraham was considered faithful yet exhibited times of unfaithfulness. Thus, the claims made of his faithfulness must be seen as hyperbole to an extent.

[donfriesen1]

Originally Posted by Amanah

Don:


Don it's not my intention to hurt your feelings or to misunderstand you. Honestly, this forum has dwindled down to probably less than 30 posters, most likely because people are on social media. So, we welcome new comers.

That being said, people are going to defend scripture.

And I am 110% behind the need to defend scripture. That being said, care must be used in the methods used to do so. Care must be taken when using text because text has limitation in conveying thoughts accurately. All who read must read with the filters of understanding on high, to properly try to understand what others are saying. Extra caution is needed.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

.

Plz answer my question from post 43.

Please learn to format your posts correctly.

[Esaias]

One thing I have noticed, is that Don's posts are almost always focused on his perceptions of people's motives and character flaws, rather than on the actual subject(s) being discussed.

Don started off by talking about how Moses, after he was initially called by God, still had some obedience problems in his life. He then extrapolated from that the idea that ministers can be appointed to ministry while being disobedient and/or unfaithful to God. When it was pointed out that Moses was corrected, and fixed the issue, and that the bible gives specific qualifications for those ordained to ministry, he not only doubled down on his insistence that unfaithful men can serve as ministers, but began to insinuate and even outright state that the people who disagreed with his interpretations and applications of Scripture were somehow being nefarious and motivated by bad intentions.

And, as in the other thread he started, the whole discussion has devolved into a "debate" about the discussion participants' motives and honesty (or lack thereof) rather than a discussion about whether or not the proposed interpretation is correct.

A pattern has been seen and noticed by everyone in the discussions, that if anyone disagrees with Don it is (according to Don) because they are somehow not being honest, forthright, of good Christian character, or some other ethical accusation. When this is brought up, it is simply perceived by Don as more evidence of malicious intent on the part of everyone else.

As a result, discussion becomes practically impossible.

So, to make a long story short, the lesson from Moses is that ministry is held to a standard that must be met. Failure to meet those qualifications will result in disqualification from ministry. The apostle Paul gave instructions on who was to be ordained. As Christians we are to follow the Bible's instructions. Therefore, unqualified men are not to be ordained into ministry.

/thread

[votivesoul]

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

Thx for the reply, votivesoul.

As to the Paul comment: Of course in a perfect world the Lord would only call and appoint the perfect. We all know we don't live in such a perfect world. To say that the Lord never calls/anoints/equips-for-ministry anyone other than the perfect obedient/faithful would deny the fact that God called Moses when unfaithful. There it is in black and white inspite of our theology which insists he calls the faithful. It happened. Yes, it happened by God.

Of course Moses learned obedience/faithfulness as he grew in the Lord. But to deny that he was unfaithful to God's covenant with Abraham is to deny that the story in Ex4 happened. Thus you misapply, by time, the quote in He3.2. And what of the murder of the Egyptian? Was Moses faithful then too?
This faithfulness of Moses came later. It does not apply to early Exodus.

Many a scripture must be taken with a grain of salt because of the Near Eastern's peoples propensity to exaggerate, the Lord incorporating exaggeration into his Word, because the writers and their immediate-time readers were culturally aware of it. Abraham was considered faithful yet exhibited times of unfaithfulness. Thus, the claims made of his faithfulness must be seen as hyperbole to an extent.

Don, you may not realize this, and perhaps it may come across as a nitpick to you, but from what I've read of your posts, you tend to replace particular, inspired words of Scripture, with your own interpretation of those words.

I will demonstrate. Above, you replied to me the following:

As to the Paul comment: Of course in a perfect world the Lord would only call and appoint the perfect. We all know we don't live in such a perfect world

Your exact words, word for word, from your post. Notice what you did.

You replaced the word used by Paul, that is, "faithful", with "perfect". Then, using your inserted word, you've begun to create a doctrine around it, that is, that the Lord calls unfaithful men into ministry, and you give Moses as the prime example of such a policy.

But note the text you've used, from Exodus 4:24:26:

24 At a lodging place on the way the Lord met him and sought to put him to death. 25 Then Zipporah took a flint and cut off her son's foreskin and touched Moses' feet with it and said, “Surely you are a bridegroom of blood to me!” 26 So he let him alone. It was then that she said, “A bridegroom of blood,” because of the circumcision.

I am using the English Standard Version here, but the translation doesn't matter. The word "unfaithful" isn't present in any English translation, and certainly not in the Hebrew Masoretic, or the Greek Septuagint.

So, what you've done is, you've read the text, you've made an interpretation based on an assumption that the text must mean Moses was unfaithful when God first called him, then read into the text the story of Abraham and God's command to circumcise his children, and deduced that Moses was disobedient to God for not circumcising his children per the command to Abraham, therefore, Moses was unfaithful to God, ergo God calls unfaithful men in the ministry who have not believed and obeyed the Gospel.

This is circular reasoning and eisegesis. You've read into the text something the text itself does not declare. You've assumed there must have been an unbroken record of every male descended from Abraham to the time of Moses as being uncircumcised. You've assumed that Moses, for whatever his reasons, chose to disobey and be unfaithful to that requirement, while missing the entire context of the Exodus story of the Israelites as enslaved in Egypt, isolated and removed from their cultural heritage, their ancestral land, and the promises of God to the Patriarchs.

A better, more historical understanding is that both Egypt and Israel performed circumcision, but the Egyptians performed it differently. Moses grew up under Pharaoh and the Egyptian method, and so, would have only known to circumcise his sons according to that custom. But for God, such a circumcision wasn't sufficient. Zipporah, having grown up under her father's tutelage, as a priest of Midian, who is a descendant of Abraham through Keturah, would have known the manner of circumcision God expected, and so, performed the ritual correctly.

It's not about Moses being unfaithful. It's about Moses being ignorant.

Now, tie this back to Paul:

1 Timothy 1:12-13 (ESV),

12 I thank him who has given me strength, Christ Jesus our Lord, because he judged me faithful, appointing me to his service, 13 though formerly I was a blasphemer, persecutor, and insolent opponent. But I received mercy because I had acted ignorantly in unbelief...

Like Moses, Paul once acted ignorantly in unbelief. Like Moses, Paul received mercy from the Lord. Jesus met with Paul just as YHWH met with Moses. For Paul, mercy came in the form of Ananias, who proclaimed Paul's washing from his sins through water baptism. For Moses, mercy came in the form of his wife, who knew what was happening and what to do about it.

There is therefore no accusation against Moses as being called while unfaithful to God. Just ignorance that required mercy. Therefore, there is no doctrine that teaches God calls unfaithful men into ministry, just ignorant men who need mercy, that is, an evangelist who can show them the way of God more perfectly.

Here is a short paper I recommend you read, to get a better understanding of Exodus 4 and the circumcision story:

https://jbqnew.jewishbible.org/asset...circumcise.pdf

While I come to a slightly different conclusion, the rest of the text is sound and worth your consideration.

[votivesoul]

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

And what of the murder of the Egyptian? Was Moses faithful then too?
This faithfulness of Moses came later. It does not apply to early Exodus.

Many a scripture must be taken with a grain of salt because of the Near Eastern's peoples propensity to exaggerate, the Lord incorporating exaggeration into his Word, because the writers and their immediate-time readers were culturally aware of it. Abraham was considered faithful yet exhibited times of unfaithfulness. Thus, the claims made of his faithfulness must be seen as hyperbole to an extent.

Don, this portion of your post deserves its own attention.

And what of the murder of the Egyptian? Was Moses faithful then too?

Moses didn't murder anyone. The Hebrew term in Exodus 2:14 is הָרַג - harag. It means "to kill". It never means to murder.

Murder, as in the prohibition thereof in the Ten Commandments, is the word רָצַח - ratsach. Two different words, two different meanings, two different connotations as to motive. Even our own justice system differentiates between murder and killing, i.e. manslaughter, and takes into account context and motive.

Moses therefore, didn't commit a crime against YHWH. He did commit a crime against Pharaoh, which he realized and understood, which is why he hid the body, and left Egypt for Midian. But he wasn't guilty in God's eyes of murder.

Secondly, as it pertains to this:

Many a scripture must be taken with a grain of salt because of the Near Eastern's peoples propensity to exaggerate, the Lord incorporating exaggeration into his Word, because the writers and their immediate-time readers were culturally aware of it. Abraham was considered faithful yet exhibited times of unfaithfulness. Thus, the claims made of his faithfulness must be seen as hyperbole to an extent.

Do you realize what the phrase "taken with a grain of salt" means? It means to remain skeptical, even doubtful about the truth contained within a statement until such a time that the truth can be proven.

That's how we are to approach "[m]any a scripture"? You read the text and you remain skeptical, even doubtful about the truth it contains?

Further, you even accuse God of exaggeration:

...the Lord incorporating exaggeration into his Word...

Do you realize what it means to exaggerate? It means to enlarge or make bigger something beyond the scope of the actual truth.

That's what the Lord has done in His Word? Really?

Further still, regarding Abraham, you wrote:

...the claims made of his faithfulness must be seen as hyperbole to an extent.

Here is what YHWH said about Abraham:

Genesis 26:5 (ESV),

"...Abraham obeyed my voice and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.”

Is God exaggerating here? Is Abraham's obedience to God's voice mere hyperbole?

It seems to me your whole approach to the Scriptures is off.

Isaiah wrote this:

Isaiah 66:2b (ESV),

...But this is the one to whom I will look: he who is humble and contrite in spirit and trembles at my word.

Do we really need to tremble at anything God says that we are supposed to take with a grain of salt, that is, to remain skeptical, even doubtful about the truth contained within His statements until such a time as He can prove they are true?

Do we really need to tremble at anything God says that is intended to enlarge or make bigger something beyond the scope of the actual truth?

I'm all for understanding a text allegorically, or metaphorically, or symbolically, or psychologically, and even occasionally, mythologically, when the context suits it, but within those parameters, actual truth is nonetheless being conveyed. The Scriptures are not exaggerating or are to be taken with a grain of salt. It means they are to be understood and interpreted in a particular manner or with a particular method, but at the end of the day, you are still intended to come to the truth and be certain you tremble at His Word when you do so.

Don, it just doesn't seem this is the case with you. Perhaps I've read you wrong?

It doesn't seem like it, but perhaps...

[donfriesen1]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

Don, this is what Esaias means. It would be better to use the html of the forum, and make your posts like this:

(An example from Post #70)

Don, you can use the "quote" function in the Go Advanced Panel, or simply make sure to type the word "quote" in [brackets] at the beginning of the quote, then type /quote at the end, except in [brackets], and you will be able to differentiate your text from someone else's, without having to resort to colors or etc. It's much easier for everyone, including yourself.

votive soul: I appreciate your efforts to educate me on the use of quoting. I've searched for what you call 'go advanced panel' but don't see it anywhere. How do I find it? - Don