Authority, Inspiration, and Inerrancy of the Bible

A.W. Pink (1886-1952) said “Christianity is the religion of a Book.”(1) As a Christian how can one trust the reliability of the Bible? By addressing it’s authority, inspiration, and inerrancy.
     I’ll start with how the Bible is authoritative. The writers of and/or the main characters in the Bible—i.e. the prophets, the Apostles, Jesus, God, and others—claimed to either be speaking from God, for God, to God, or of God, so when the authoritative statements in the Bible were penned, the authority isn’t from the human authors but God. Maybe you’re thinking, “I can say God told me to write something too. Does that mean what I write is authoritative?” No, not without God confirming that He is the source of your revelation. Once God revealed Himself to and through the people in the Bible with signs, miracles, prophecies foretold and fulfilled, and so on, what the human authors recorded about Him or from Him in the Bible became authoritative because of the testimony of Himself. As a scholar wrote, “Because the Bible points beyond itself to God, it has a conferred authority. Yet the Bible has a real authority in itself as the authentic embodiment of God’s self-disclosure.”(2) The Bible is authoritative because of God’s undeniable revelation of Himself throughout it.
     So how can we trust these so-called “human authors”? That is a matter of inspiration. The human authors who penned the Bible were supernaturally led to record just what God wanted them to record for their time and times to come. The Apostle Peter wrote,

“And so we have the prophetic word confirmed, which you do well to heed as a light that shines in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts; knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation, for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.”(3)

The Apostle Paul said,

“But God has revealed them to us through His Spirit. For the Spirit searches all things, yes, the deep things of God. For what man knows the things of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him? Even so no one knows the things of God except the Spirit of God. Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might know the things that have been freely given to us by God. These things we also speak, not in words which man’s wisdom teaches but which the Holy Spirit teaches, comparing spiritual things with spiritual.”(4)

And in another place Paul recorded, “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.”(5) Furthermore, Old Testament writers repeatedly stated, “Thus says the LORD” or “The LORD said”, when they spoke or kept record of what was said; indicating they were speaking and writing God’s word not their own. Hence, because of inspiration the Bible has dual authorship, God and humans.
     Does this mean that the Bible is perfect (without flaw) because God inspired it? Yes, that’s exactly what it means. Some of the characteristics of God revealed throughout the Scriptures are He’s all-powerful, all-knowing, and perfect. Just from these three characteristics how can a God who inspired what to be written in His book not keep it free from error? That’s logically incompatible. The Bible then is inerrant. Yet, there are those who disagree. They say if there is even one mistake found then it is not inerrant. But that would mean that God’s testimony of Himself is not true, and for centuries they have found no errors but more confirmations. Another disagreement is that this “inerrancy” view came in later centuries and was not adopted by the earlier saints, nor is “inerrancy” taught in the Bible. However, the earliest saints—i.e. the Apostles and the disciples after them (Clement of Rome, Augustine, etc)—acknowledged that (6)“Every Scripture is God-breathed”. And even Jesus Himself said, “For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished.”(7) As we can see, while there are arguments against this, the arguments for the Bible being inerrant are much more solid. Because God has divinely inspired what was written in the original autographs it bears His character throughout it, one being His perfection.
     If a person who calls themselves a believer plays down the authority, inspiration, and inerrancy of the Bible, it is difficult to hold on to biblical certainty and conviction. As for me, these three ensure that what I believe stands true and solid, and because of that I can be totally open when reading, studying, and living what is in God’s Word.

----------
1. Arthur W. Pink, The Divine Inspiration of the Bible (Grand Rapids: Guardian Press, 1976), 5.
2. Walter A. Elwell, ed., Evangelical Dictionary of Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic), 153
3. 2Peter 1:19-21 (New King James Version)
4. 1Corinthians 2:10-13 (New King James Version)
5. 2Timothy 3:16-17 (New King James Version)
6. 2Timothy 3:16 (Amplified Bible)
7. Matthew 5:18 (English Standard Version)

Salvation: Does Baptism Save?

About a week ago, a brother from my church called me asking for some assistance. His problem was that a new convert in his small group had been targeted by another religious group. The religious group eventually planted its claws in this new convert and he was telling my brother (the small group leader) that he was confused about his salvation. The religious group told him that baptism is a requirement for his salvation, but his small group leader was telling him that is false teaching. The religious group told my brother to meet and discuss this issue with the new convert. So, I and another brother from my church (Lance Evans) started to prepare an outline to specifically defend what the Bible says about salvation and baptism and give it to our brother to use. I wanted to share this outline with everyone (which has been cleaned up and turned into a blog), so we all can see the truth about this matter.

Most Christians are familiar with what apologetics is—the rational defense of our Faith for those outside our Faith. But what do we call it when we have to soundly defend the truths of our Faith from others who claim to be sharing truth from within the same Faith? This “defense within” is called polemics. This outline is a polemical writing meant to defend the truth about salvation from the false teaching of salvation through baptism.
____________________________
1. Putting Acts 2:38 in Context

*Acts 3:19 - Once again Peter addresses a different crowd about salvation and leaves out water baptism, but mentions repentance and faith.
*Acts 8:35-37 - Phillip clearly makes it plain to the Ethiopian Eunuch that belief proceeds water baptism.
*Acts 10:34, 42-27 - Peter clearly makes it plain that belief proceeds water baptism.
*Acts 16:30-33 - Paul and Silas clearly make it plain that belief proceeds water baptism.

In Acts alone we see 2 Apostles and 2 church elders who have taught that believing is what saves and baptism proceeds but is not a necessity for salvation.

2. Putting 1Peter 3:21 in Context
(The same Peter in Acts 2:38 now speaking in his own Letter/Epistle)

*What is Peter not saying? Peter is not saying water baptism saves a person, because that would contradict the point Peter makes in verses 18-20; which is Jesus died for sin to save people from God’s judgment on sin, just as the Ark saved Noah and the 8 souls from the water, the water didn’t save anyone—the water was God’s judgment on the world (Gen. 6).
*The Ark is an Old Testament prefigure of Jesus. And just as the Ark carried them through the water, our Ark—Jesus, after we believe in Him as shown by multiple people in the multiple passages in Acts—leads us to the water in baptism (Rom. 6).
*This point, belief in Jesus first for salvation and then baptism proceeds, goes along with Peter’s introduction in 1Peter 1:17-25. If he showed us in chapter one that it is the blood of Christ and the Word of God that redeems us, why would Peter teach a blatant contradiction in chapter 3 that baptism saves us?

3. The Apostles learned their theology on salvation from the Old Testament & Jesus who affirmed it (i.e. the theology of salvation) in the New Testament.

*Matt. 26:26-28 - Jesus confirming that it’s through His blood where we receive the forgiveness of sins.
*The Old Testament clearly teaches that God required blood (of animals) to provide forgiveness for the people. Hebrews chapter 9 all to 10:18 talks about the blood of Jesus being the fulfillment of that Old Testament requirement for the forgiveness of the sins of those who believe. If the blood of Jesus does this, what need/function is there for baptism? There is nothing left to do! The blood Jesus shed when He died as a sacrifice/atonement for sin has paid it all. God’s wages for sin has been paid in full!
*This clears up what Mark and Matthew penned in the last chapter of their gospels (Mk. 16:16-17, Matt. 28:18-20). These two learned their theology from Jesus and the Old Testament (Mark from Peter and the Old Testament, but Peter learned his from the Old Testament and Jesus). Thus, this understanding is essential because in both we see belief still precedes the act of baptism, and if belief is absent (not baptism, but belief) the person is not saved.

4. Putting Eph. 2:1-9 in Context

*Anything added to the grace of God freely given in the life and death of Jesus Christ, and our faith (our believing) in what God’s grace through Jesus Christ has done, is works! God’s grace and our faith is it for salvation. Baptism is a work! Furthermore, before Apostle Paul nailed this point in chapter 2, he actually introduced his letter to Ephesus by making it clear that it’s through God’s grace in Jesus’ blood and our belief in what God did through Jesus that we have forgiveness and redemption (Eph. 1:7, 13-14, cf. Col. 1:13-14).

5. Putting John 3:3-8 in Context

*The context of the term “water” in John 3:5 is ambiguous (to some extent). It could mean water as in physical birth (flesh v.6), baptism (but that would be a work added to grace and faith which contradicts scripture, so that’s out), or water as the washing and regeneration of the Holy Spirit in Titus 3:5-6. The point Jesus is making in John 3:3-8 is the same point he reiterates in John 6:63, the Spirit gives Life (eternal life), the Flesh profits nothing. The water is not what gives life to the person dead in sins and trespasses, but rather the Holy Spirit.

Scripture does not, will not, nor cannot contradict Scripture. Whatever verse/passage is pulled out, it MUST stay in line (agree with) the whole scope of Scripture, not just part. If not, then whatever the interpretation of that verse/passage is should not be taken as biblically sound and thus not accepted, since the whole biblical context doesn’t agree with it. We can conclude with this, water baptism does not save a person. Salvation is through the grace of God in the blood of Jesus and our believing in what He’s done—death/atonement and resurrection. Anything more than this is a false gospel!

1/2011

Questions & Answers: The Bible

Here are a few questions in regards to the Bible, but with a different spin. I've combined some coursework I did in college. Just wanted to share it. It's good info!

Do you agree that the Bible is a divine-human book? Why?
Yes, I agree that the Bible is a divine-human book. Obviously humans wrote the different “books” of the Bible. And in their respected books they claim that this holy book is by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit of God. Thus you have a divine-human book, though it’s the divine that gives it true value and importance.

What explanation can be given for the fact that God’s name does not appear in the Book of Esther?
In light of the story of Esther being during a time where the people were in another land, it is understandable why there was a “fear of using God’s name in a document written in a foreign country—the name might be profaned or the story changed by the simple substitution of a pagan god’s name” (Geisler). Another reason is the author of Esther is not obviously clear, so it is possible that “the book was compiled from the Persian royal records (9:20; 10:2)” (Geisler) and they would not have transcribed the name of the Jewish God in their records. However, even though the “name” of God may not appear the presence of God is apparent.

Distinguish between the meaning of inspiration and canonization.
Inspiration is saying the nature of the Scriptures are the divinely authoritative truth of the one and only God (Geisler, pp 13-15). Canonization is saying which of the scriptural writings are actually inspired (Geisler, pp 16-17).

Why ought one conclude that there are thirty-nine (no more and no less) books in the Old Testament canon?
Because Jesus Himself affirmed that the thirty-nine books in the Old Testament was the Law and the Prophets (Geisler, pp 16). Also, the Jewish Talmud attest to the same Old Testament books as Jesus (Geisler, pp 16).

How do the numerical discrepancies show that our copies of Scripture were very faithfully copied?
The Jewish scribes who copied the errors down “through the centuries were undoubtedly aware it was wrong”, yet “out of reverence for the text before them and in faithfulness to their task to copy accurately what was in the manuscript they did not tamper with the text.” (Geisler, pp 139)

What is textual criticism?
Textual criticism is a discipline that focuses on bringing about “the most accurate text possible based upon available manuscript evidence.”(Tools of Inductive Bible Study).

How is it possible to have a high view of the authority of Scripture and a positive view of textual criticism at the same time?
God’s sovereignty! I trust my God, who brought His Word to us through the first human authors, to keep His Word faithful for us through the succeeding scribes and translators.

What is translation?
The reproducing “of a text that is in one language (the source language), as fully as possible, in another (the receptor language).” (Strauss, Distorting Scripture? 1998, p. 77)

Why is translation not a simple exercise?
Because translating one language into another language is not as easy as copying one language word-for-word into another language, especially from copies and without the original authors present for assistance.

Describe the two main approaches to translation. Which approach do you feel most comfortable with? Why?
The “more formal” approach (word-for-word) and the “more functional” approach (thought-for-thought). The “more formal” approach tries to stay as close as possible to the original in structure and words. The “more functional” tries to stay as close as possible in expressing the meaning of the original text though in today’s language. I feel most comfortable with both. I think both are needed in trying to get a more holistic understanding and picture.

Now what other belief/religion can put their "holy book" through this type of scrutiny? None of them. Christianity, not its false offshoots (i.e. Jehovah Witness, Christian Science, Mormons, Black Israelites, etc), is the most solid and vetted belief. This gives Jesus Christ and His claims more and more credence. Thus, the remarks that the Christian Faith is foolish, is foolish.

--------------

Geisler, N. (1977). A Popular Survey of the Old Testament. Baker Academic, Grands Rapids:MI.

2009

"Permissible" Session #1: Drinking Wine

One day on Facebook I happened to read Mark Driscoll’s status update. He said something about Christians drinking alcoholic beverages. The comments on his update erupted with a flood of people speaking for it and against it. This led me to start thinking, “Is it really that serious? Are you kidding me, people are actually arguing over it being okay to drink wine and beer as Christians. Where is this type of passion in the Body of Christ for sanctification and holiness?” Right there is where this blog began to bubble in my heart and mind. My mind would not shut-up. So here I am, writing to address this issue objectively and biblically.

Let’s start with some of what the Bible has to say or show about drinking wine.
For:

• Old Testament people drank wine and were told to drink wine at times- (too many verses to list)
• Jesus turned water into wine- Jn. 2:1-10
• Jesus drank wine- Mk. 2:16, Lk. 5:30
• Jesus and His disciples drank wine at the Lord’s Supper (the first “communion”)- Lk. 22:14-20
• Apostle Paul told Timothy to drink a little wine for infirmities- 1Tim. 5:23
• A voice in the midst of the four living creature around the throne of God said not to harm the wine on earth- Rev. 6:5-6

Against:

• Wine is not for Nazarites or priests- Lev. 10:8-11, Num. 6:1-4
• Bishops, elders, pastors, deacons, deaconess, and older women are not to drink much wine- 1Tim. 3:1-10, Tit. 1:5-9; 2:3
• Don’t get drunk- (too many verses to list)
• Not wise for kings and princes to drink wine- Prov. 31:4-5
• Don’t seek out wine- Prov. 23:29-35
• Don’t drink wine if it causes your brother to stumble- Rom. 14:21
• Wine is addictive- 1Tim. 3:3, 8, Tit. 1:7, 2:3
• Wine makes a mockery of you and strong drink (beer, liquor) leads to commotions- Prov. 20:1
• Wine takes away understanding- Hos. 4:11
• Wine gratifies the flesh/stimulates the body- Eccl. 2:3

The “wine” used in all of these verses are from the same Hebrew term (yayin) and Greek term (oinos).

Now let’s clarify a few things.
The exact nature of the “wine” used in the New Testament is unconfirmed. Here is why. In the O.T., there are two terms for wine: tirosh, which is juice; and yayin, which means a fermented drink; (“strong drink” is a different term). Nowhere in the N.T. is there a term used for juice. They use the same term, oinos, for every occurrence of wine; (except for in Acts 2:13 where gleukos is used, which means a highly intoxicating fermented wine, a.k.a “new wine”).

During Bible times they only had three things to drink other than wine type beverages…juice, water, and milk. In the N.T. language it appears that other than wine, new wine, and liquor (a.k.a “strong drink”, sikera, which means an intensely fermented drink) they only drank water and milk. Wine, new wine, and liquor are all intoxicants—they can get you drunk/intoxicated. This would imply that nobody in the N.T. drunk juice as they did in the O.T., which is highly unlikely knowing the times back then. Thus, it’s probable that the term “wine” used in its 100+ occurrences also refers to “juice” in some of those occasions. It is on which of those occasions that scholars are unconfirmed on. 

Am I diluting Jesus’ miracle? No, because to take jars of water with no fruit around and instantly turn them into juice or wine is still a miracle; (though in that specific occasion it’s more likely that it was wine, taking into consideration that Jews historically drank wine at weddings, banquets, parties, and so on). My point in sharing this is to display that the meaning for wine in the N.T. is not as clear as it is in the O.T. So we have to look at it from another perspective and in its historical and/or literary context to get its proper meaning.

Another point to share is purpose/motive.
Why did Jesus turn water into wine and drank wine on other occasions? Turning water to wine was for miracle-sake so to begin displaying who He was and His ministry (Jn. 2:11). Him drinking a little wine (unconfirmed to which it is) was to reach sinners (Mk. 2:16, Lk. 5:30); for which he was falsely accused of being a glutton and drunkard- Matt. 11:19. He also drank wine during the Lord's supper (Lk. 22:14-20). Jesus’ purpose for why He dabbled with wine was to solely glorify God, not to gratify His flesh. For those Christians who are “for” drinking wine, can you say your purpose for dabbling in wine is the same? Because if not, you cannot validly use these instances of Jesus to justify why you drink wine.

Why would the Bible endorse drinking wine?
The same reason it endorses slavery (Lev. 25:44, 1Cor. 7:21-22, Phile. 1:15-16), and other random things we don’t do or need to do today—for example, building a wall on our roofs (Deut. 22:8), or men and women wearing coverings on their heads (1Cor. 11:2-7, 13-16). As we’ve seen already drinking wine was customary during Bible time and culture (as was slavery and head coverings). Today we have numerous options to choose to drink. Back then, they only had water, juice, milk, and intoxicants—wine, new wine, and strong drink. Regular wine being the lesser of the other intoxicants provided something different to drink, and if only drank in mild moderation it wouldn’t get you drunk. Therefore it was acceptable. Today we don’t have that type of concern because of the numerous options of non-alcoholic drinks. Thus while the Bible says it’s permissible, we truthfully don’t have a need for it; except to gratify our flesh.

Why would Apostle Paul tell Timothy (1Tim. 5:23) to drink wine for his infirmities?
Again, it was customary during Bible time and culture. Today we have plenty medicinal resources they never had nor thought of back then. Thus while the Bible says it’s permissible, we truthfully don’t have a need for it in this capacity as they did back then.

So why drink wine?
What’s the purpose other than because “you want to”? Unless you have a doctor prescribing wine to you for a medical reason there is no purpose for drinking wine, except to gratify your flesh—i.e. because “you want to”. Aren’t we called to die to the flesh/carnal appetites (Rom. 6:1-22; 8:5-13)? Aren’t we called to be salt and light to this world (Matt. 5:13-16)? Aren’t we called to be set-apart (Rom. 12:1-2)? Aren’t we called to walk in sanctification and holiness (2Cor. 5:14-17, 1Pet. 1:13-16)? Aren’t we told to glorify God in all things (1Cor. 10:31, Rom. 15:5-6, 1Cor. 6:20, Rev. 15:3-4)? Drinking wine gratifies the flesh, and gratifying the flesh can never help us fulfill any of these which are far greater than what “we want”.

“I thought deeply about the effects of indulging myself with wine (all the while my mind was guiding me with wisdom) and the effects of behaving foolishly, so that I might discover what is profitable for people to do on earth during the few days of their lives.” (Eccl. 2:3, NET).

Conclusion
I’m sure many might be saying I’m making a big deal out of something that’s not a big deal, and others may even be upset in the flesh because of how I’m calling it out. And I say good for both. Drinking is not the issue, it’s the heart behind why one drinks that is the issue (Prov. 4:23; 21:2; 28:26). Yes, the Bible says and implies that drinking wine is permissible; which means you are not wrong if you do, nor are you wrong if you don’t, nor can anyone say you “cannot” drink a little wine every now and then, or that drinking a little wine is a sin. However, while the Bible says/implies it is permissible, the Bible does not say in it’s theologically timeless truth that it is beneficial nor edifying to the believer, or glorifying unto Jesus (another perfect example of this is slavery––permissible but not beneficial). 

Actually, as we’ve seen, the Bible says just the opposite. The Bible says, shows, and implies that drinking wine is of past-time Jewish culture not theologically timeless. It’s addictive, a mocker, takes away understanding, gratifies the flesh, may cause your brother to stumble, and is a no-no for priest, Nazarites, and leaders in the church (of which Christians are all three- 1Pet. 2:4-5, 9; Eph. 2:19; 4:17-24, Tit. 2:1-8, 1Pet. 4:7-11). Thus, while drinking wine is permissible in the flesh it is injurious in the spiritual. Hopefully those of you who are for drinking wine choose that which is greater.

“Just because something is technically legal doesn’t mean that it’s spiritually appropriate. If I went around doing whatever I thought I could get by with, I’d be a slave to my whims.” “Looking at it one way, you could say, “Anything goes. Because of God’s immense generosity and grace, we don’t have to dissect and scrutinize every action to see if it will pass muster.” But the point is not to just get by. We want to live well, but our foremost efforts should be to help others live well.” (1Cor. 6:12; 10:23-24, Msg)

There has to be biblical discernment in everything we do—that is, is Christ being glorified in this, if not then why am I doing it; am I or other believers being edified or pushed closer to Christ in this, if not then why am I doing it—especially when we extract that “something” from the Bible.

Hope this helped.

7/2/2010

Codependency vs. Submission

There is a very fine line between codependency and submission. One may think they're being submissive when in fact they are codependent. You have to know what each mean in order to clearly make out that very fine line between the two. Let's talk about codependency first.

Background on Codependency
"The concept of codependence was first developed in relation to alcohol and other substance abuse addictions. The alcoholic or drug abuser was the dependent, and the person involved with the dependent person in any intimate way (spouse, lover, child, sibling, etc.) was the codependent." However, this concept has broadened. "Codependency can occur in any type of relationship, including in families, at work, in friendships, and also in romantic, peer or community relationships."

What Does Codependency Mean?
1. "A psychological condition or a relationship in which a person is controlled or manipulated by another who is affected with a pathological condition [like an addiction or other kinds of negative behaviors]"
2. "Dependence on the needs of [another] or [the] control by another"
3. "A tendency to behave in overly passive or excessively caretaking ways that negatively impact one's relationships and quality of life. It also often involves putting ones needs at a lower priority than others while being excessively preoccupied with the needs of others."
4. "Anyone showing an extreme degree of certain personality traits: denial, silent or even cheerful tolerance of unreasonable behavior from others [excessive compliance], a need to control others, finding identity through relationships with others, a lack of personal boundaries, and low self-esteem [insecure]."

If we sum up these definitions we see that "codependency describes behavior, thoughts and feelings that go beyond normal kinds of self-sacrifice or care taking."
Codependency is "a progressive disease, one which gets worse without treatment until the codependent becomes unable to function successfully in the world." Therefore, as codependency progresses it "can lead to depression, isolation, self-destructive behavior or even suicide."

Biblical Stories of Codependency
_Abraham and Sarah (Gen. 16:1-6)--Abraham displays codependent behavior in giving in to the need of Sarah rather than trusting and resting in God's promise. He was overly passive (didn't speak up) when Sarah blamed him for listening to her. And he gave in (excessive compliance) when Sarah wanted to falsely punish Hagar.
_Jacob, Leah, and Rachel (Gen. 29:16-30:24)--Jacob loved Rachel from the beginning, but not Leah. He loved Rachel so much he served double the amount (14yrs) just for her hand in marriage; which is the start of his codependent behavior. God, in turn, opened Leah's womb because Jacob loved Rachel and not her, and she gave birth to Jacob's first handful of children. This leads Rachel, who was barren, to give her maid-servant to Jacob to have her (Rachel's) kids, all out of jealously of Leah. Jacob does speak against it, but then he gives in to her. Leah, then jealous of Rachel, goes and does the same thing with her maid-servant. Jacob again gives in. Jacob, amidst his two jealous wives, displays he's codependent.
_David and Bathsheba (2Sam. ch.11, 12:24)--David wrongly sleeps with a married women (Bathsheba). He then goes on to attempt to cover up his sin. Eventually he gets Bathsheba's husband killed to cover it up. Immediately after her time of mourning--which in those days was anywhere from 7days to 30days--for her dead husband, David marries her and sleeps with her again. She gets pregnant. But God, who is displeased with David's sin, doesn't allow them to have the child. Bathsheba has a miscarriage. Immediately after her time of mourning--7 to 30days--(and time of cleansing, which is 7days) for her dead child, David sleeps with her to "comfort her". From all of this we see David displaying his lust problem and Bathsheba displaying her codependency.

Points to Ponder
Point#1: The "object" of the codependency uses manipulation and control to keep the codependent person codependent (the revolving door cycle--the codependent person allows the "object" to come and go and do as they please without effective consequences).
Point#2: Codependency enables the problem and/or condones the sin of the "object" the person is codependent upon.
Point#3: "Codependency does not refer to all caring behavior or feelings, but only those that are excessive to an unhealthy degree." Read David and Abigail (1Sam. 25:14-42) for an example of this point.

So, after all of the discussion on codependency, the question that looms is...how. How do we break codependency? The answer: By becoming "submissive" unto Jesus first and foremost for as long as we live--all day, everyday.

What is Submission?
Merriam-Webster defines submission as: "a willing act of [yielding or making oneself subject] to the authority or control of another".
The Bible's prescriptive definition of submission is: (Gr. hupotasso) "to place or rank under; to subject; put in subjection".

Points to Ponder
Point#1: Submission is identical to a bondservant (Rom. 1:1, Tit. 1:1, Jam. 1:1, 2Pet. 1:1)--someone who willingly puts oneself in servanthood to another.
Point#2: We must first be submissive unto Jesus (be a bondservant of Christ) before we can properly and healthily be submissive (a bondservant) to anyone else (Eph. 5:21-22, Col. 3:18, 1Pet. 3:1-2; 5:5--wives submissive to their husbands and we all are to be submissive one to another).
Point#3: Submission finds its source of contentment in the one it's submitted to (i.e. Jesus, not our spouse or others).

Conclusion
Biblical submission is not duped, easily mislead, willfully blind to the reality of the sin and problems in the relationship, or lacking in administering effective consequences like someone who is codependent. Biblical submission is grounded; it draws a definitive line in the sand. And why is biblical submission grounded? Because biblical submission finds its source of contentment in the One the submission is primarily unto...Jesus Christ. Hence if the consequences of the sin and problem(s) severs relationships, one's contentment is still intact because it was submitted to Christ and not the relationship.

A believer in Christ must submit to Christ as their first (or primary) spouse/relationship, and their earthly spouse/relationships secondarily. Thus, as long as our submission is unto Christ and not primarily unto another, regardless to the relationships coming and going and starting and ending it will not treat us like a puppet (being pulled to and fro) because we're submissive unto Jesus first. Our faithfulness and love unto our spouses/relationships are a by-product of our individual submission and surrendering unto Jesus (example--Abigail).

You cannot be biblically submissive unto Jesus and still codependent upon another person. It's either you are codependent or you are submissive.

What I've shared, I'm sharing from experience and education. I was codependent. I followed my idol (my wife) right into sin. After my fall and all throughout my restoration, I've become (and daily work on staying) submissive unto Jesus first and foremost. This I share to help liberate someone else that may be codependent, ignorant about codependency, ignorant about submission, or just needs to hear the truth about this struggle so to not fall into it. I hope this helped. And if you have any questions, feel free to ask. There is more to this topic, but this should be enough for this type of venue.

______________________
References:
(Merriam-webster.com)
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codependency)
(http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_g2699/is_0000/ai_2699000060/)
(http://kjvs.scripturetext.com/)
______________________

6/14/2010