O
Your other responses are up to you - to each their own. We will not agree on everything. But as for Romans 14, your response that you don't read that anywhere - that is correct. But it is also the same response akin to Jesus never wore sandals because it is not stated in Scripture that he wore sandals. Therefore, he could've worn Nikes or Adidas because it is not stated in Scripture. Is that a fair argument? I highly doubt you would say that Jesus wore shoes. In fact, I'm pretty sure we can both agree that Jesus either wore sandals or was barefooted and even the latter is difficult to believe. Romans 14 does not give all that info but from biblical history, we do know that Paul wrote that letter to the Romans and the Jewish believers to reconcile some disagreements. One of those issues in dispute was that the Jewish believers were telling the Roman/gentile believers to stop eating food sacrificed to idols. The Jewish believers felt that the food sacrificed to idols was somehow defiled, contaminated and to eat it was sinful. But the problem was that the meat that was resold at the back of the pagan temples is actually much cheaper than buying it "clean." So who is right? If you understand that the idol is a piece of wood and means nothing, then the food is clean and undefiled. Therefore, it is ok to eat that meat/food/whatever that was "sacrificed" to the idol. That was one of the points that Paul was trying to make. Simply stating that it is not found in Scriptures to destroy a point of view isn't a fair statement to make.
Now, I am going to make some assumptions here. If I am wrong, please do correct/clarify me. I do not want to be unfair to you in my understanding of what you have said. You have quoted James 3:18 as supporting Scripture to the interpretation that peacemakers should go forth and set wrong to right. In this case, though you did not say it, you imply that we should ban/punish a few individuals, and that will bring about true peace. So far so good?
Earlier, I quoted Matthew 6:38-41 which teaches peace by setting an example of peace. Turn the other cheek type of mentality. That passage is from Jesus.
Let's work from a framework. I do not fully know all your beliefs so it would be unfair of me to guess and interpret from the guess. So I will use my beliefs as a framework. If you disagree with my framework, then that's ok for both of us because the interpretation is from my framework. Fair? Ok, here's mine: I prescribe to the belief that the entire Bible is God-breathed including the Epistles which are written under divine guidance and inspiration. So what James, Paul, or any other apostle says is the same as what God has said in the Old Testament or what Jesus says in the Gospels. It is all from God. That's my framework.
So within this framework, we have a discrepancy. Jesus says to bring peace, we must set an example by being peaceful. Turn the other cheek. He lived this example and taught the example. On the other hand, you say that James is saying that to bring about peace, we must set the wrongs to right. We must do something such as banning some individuals - that would be considered acceptable action. But God does not contradict Himself and I take Jesus' words as always true. So, either...
a) James is wrong, or
b) James is talking about something else entirely, or
c) James is talking about the same thing that Jesus is saying
I think I got them all... but anyway, I'm going to rule out 'a' because I accept James' writing as divinely inspired - the Words from God. So James is either talking about something else entirely or is saying the same thing as Jesus is saying.
I have not yet done any reading on James so I will take this opportunity to do so to further our growth and understanding of Scriptures. Fair enough?
I have found that it is always better to look at the entire passage. So I'm going to read James 3:13-18. The first part of the passage is talking about the root of the things we do. We call it wisdom such as setting right from wrong or turning the other cheek. James is saying, even if you are doing something wise, there can still be some "selfishness" in the wisdom. I can say that personal entertainment has some selfishness but I can also interpret your need to ban the individuals as having a "self" factor too - you feel hurt/insulted/etc., so to feel better, they need to go. But at the same time, you can also say that it is for the greater good - the betterment of other members. It can go both ways. All James is doing in the first part is to highlight the minute differences in our motives. In the second part, he tells us what heavenly wisdom looks like. It is pure, then peace-loving, then considerate, then submissive, full of mercy, and good fruit, impartial and sincere. So now we have the verse placed in context of the passage. On to the verse we are going to study:
Verse 18 (NIV):
Peacemakers who sow in peace raise a harvest of righteousness.
Naturally, I have some questions. I want to know the entire truth and this is an English translation - which isn't the best in the world. For my study, I have decided to use a Bible encyclopedia instead of a commentary. I find that a Bible encyclopedia is less biased than commentaries. The encyclopedia I'm using is The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia revised for reprinting in June 1990 published by William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapis, MI. The general editor is Geoffrey W. Bromiley.
Some things I would like to know from the encyclopedia... what does the encyclopedia say about:
On Peace:
I am getting lazy... these entries are very long so I will only summarize them. You can look it up for yourself - it is available online.
James 3:18
Peacemakers who sow in peace raise a harvest of righteousness.
Peacemakers are people who seek to end strife and to establish harmony between oneself or others. The heading does not describe a required method of bringing peace. Peacemakers are free to use many different means to bring about peace. For example, under the heading of 'peace,' peace in the Old Testament can come from military peace - to conquer brings peace. Surrender to a nation's military might brings peace. The opposite of peace can also be seen (in a military sense) the opposite of war. So a peacemaker can bring about peace by military means. There is no restriction there. The word 'peace' (salom) can also be used in greetings and blessings such as "Peace be with you" would be an acceptable use of 'peace.' But this does not imply a method of bring about peace and neither does "rest/die in peace." Those are more neutral forms of "peace." The Old Testament also has examples of positive methods of bringing about peace such as leading a righteous life made possible by God's help or by doing good with its absence as judgment. In this comparison, the absence of peace is judgment, it denotes a negative connotation for judgment. It does not seem to be about righteous and holy judgment (because holy judgment would be from God and God is the source of all peace). I did not look further but I am thinking along the lines of do not judge lest you be judged and plank in one's own eye type of passages and verses on judgment.
New Testament peace is based primarily on the Greek word eirene. This word signifies the absence of conflict. I did not look up "conflict" but I think we can agree on a general view as opposite to peace. To quote the encyclopedia again, "Thus eirene in the NT has taken on the broader connotations of well-being, completeness, inner satisfaction, the contentment and serenity that derive from having lived a full life, etc." Peace in the New Testament focuses more on the goodness of peace rather than a more aggressive form of peace. So accepting Jesus as our Saviour brings us a very good kind of peace that makes us effective witnesses. This salvation and forgiveness from God brings us a good kind of peace.
So while peacemakers have a variety of ways to bring about peace, the Greek word used in James 3:18 is oi poiousin eirenen with eirene as the root for eirenen. So we can safely assume that peacemaker in the verse is most likely denoted as something good and wonderful. Peace in the eirene-sense is a goodness type of peace rather than a military-type of peace.
Let's look at sow. Sow is to scatter seed for the purpose of producing a crop. I did not look up the word "crop" but I can say it is safe to assume that James does not want us to harvest a bad crop. Naturally, one would want to harvest a good crop! So, if we want to harvest a good crop (and keeping in mind that harvest in itself is extremely important particularly for an agrarian society), we need to sow. However, the Greek word to sow also gives us a metaphorical meaning in the sense that people 'reap' what they 'sow.' This is echoed under the "harvest" heading - the encyclopedia specifically quotes Galatians 6:8 to impart to us the importance of a harvest.
If we want to harvest a good crop, we must sow well and sowing means we scatter seed (in the literal sense but can also be extended to a metaphorical sense if we know what the "seed" is). James tells us to sow in peace. What does that mean? James could be saying sow during a time of peace. Or perhaps he can be describing a method of sowing such as sowing seeds of peace. We know what peace means in this verse - something good and wonderful but the encyclopedia (unless someone else knows fluent ancient Greek) does not provide a sense of time in oi poiousin eirenen. So it is easy to rule out
sowing in a time of peace. So can James mean sow "with" peace as in sow seeds of peace? Semantically, I can't read sow with peace any differently than sow in peace. Maybe you can but I can't.
Here is where we may split and disagree. I cannot see another way to read "sow in peace." Remember, either James is talking about something deeper or he is echoing what Jesus taught. I can only see that James is describing the method of sowing - sow in peace as in sow seeds of peace! What will happen if you do that? You will raise a harvest! This harvest is so good and wonderful that it is righteous! Since I cannot read a different interpretation that is deeper and more profound, then I can only come to the following conclusion:
Jesus teaches in Matthew 6:38-41 to bring about peace by setting an example of peace. Since the word "peace" in the New Testament is used as something good (i.e., eirene - unless it is in a military sense, then the word salom is used), it cannot be something in conflict or opposite of that. Opposite of that is conflict. Conflict denotes a negative connotation. So James is merely reinforcing what Jesus said. Sow in peace is to live an example of this peace (eirene) and then you will raise up a harvest so great that it is righteous. This reconciles the discrepancy. James is not talking about something deeper - he is agreeing with Jesus. There is no discrepancy with this interpretation unless you are able to provide an alternative interpretation that shows James is speaking about something profound and with great deep meaning that has nothing to do with living by example.
Now, with this interpretation in mind, let's look at what you propose. You propose that we do not just sit back, watch, and do nothing. You want something to be done. There are really only one of two courses of action: ban/gag (i.e., punish) them or set an example of peace. I say you propose to ban them but the nice thing about it is that you never said it outright - just implied it in a roundabout way because if you were to set an example of peace, you wouldn't have responded in the way you did to me. True, setting an example of peace probably won't change either cup or miktre's behaviour. But James never said who's a part of the harvest. Let's look at pickles. Her patience in her responses to cup amazed me. Such witnessing has changed my mind on using them for laughter and entertainment. Pickles set an example of peace (with great restraint, no doubt) and as a result of her witnessing, she's raised up something for harvest.
Now, I know you can respond back to me and argue on syntax but let's be fair because I've been fair - I did all the hours of research. Semantically, that is what you want - punishment. So you decide what to do. Let the Word of God speak to your heart. I am good with any decision as I've set my heart straight.
We are called to be peace-makers, not peace-keepers (James 3:18). Peace-keepers are the ones who say "well, I'm just going to keep my mouth shut so I don't cause any arguments to start up." Peace-makers are the ones who go forth and set wrong to right so that there can be true peace.
Earlier, I quoted Matthew 6:38-41 which teaches peace by setting an example of peace. Turn the other cheek type of mentality. That passage is from Jesus.
Let's work from a framework. I do not fully know all your beliefs so it would be unfair of me to guess and interpret from the guess. So I will use my beliefs as a framework. If you disagree with my framework, then that's ok for both of us because the interpretation is from my framework. Fair? Ok, here's mine: I prescribe to the belief that the entire Bible is God-breathed including the Epistles which are written under divine guidance and inspiration. So what James, Paul, or any other apostle says is the same as what God has said in the Old Testament or what Jesus says in the Gospels. It is all from God. That's my framework.
So within this framework, we have a discrepancy. Jesus says to bring peace, we must set an example by being peaceful. Turn the other cheek. He lived this example and taught the example. On the other hand, you say that James is saying that to bring about peace, we must set the wrongs to right. We must do something such as banning some individuals - that would be considered acceptable action. But God does not contradict Himself and I take Jesus' words as always true. So, either...
a) James is wrong, or
b) James is talking about something else entirely, or
c) James is talking about the same thing that Jesus is saying
I think I got them all... but anyway, I'm going to rule out 'a' because I accept James' writing as divinely inspired - the Words from God. So James is either talking about something else entirely or is saying the same thing as Jesus is saying.
I have not yet done any reading on James so I will take this opportunity to do so to further our growth and understanding of Scriptures. Fair enough?
I have found that it is always better to look at the entire passage. So I'm going to read James 3:13-18. The first part of the passage is talking about the root of the things we do. We call it wisdom such as setting right from wrong or turning the other cheek. James is saying, even if you are doing something wise, there can still be some "selfishness" in the wisdom. I can say that personal entertainment has some selfishness but I can also interpret your need to ban the individuals as having a "self" factor too - you feel hurt/insulted/etc., so to feel better, they need to go. But at the same time, you can also say that it is for the greater good - the betterment of other members. It can go both ways. All James is doing in the first part is to highlight the minute differences in our motives. In the second part, he tells us what heavenly wisdom looks like. It is pure, then peace-loving, then considerate, then submissive, full of mercy, and good fruit, impartial and sincere. So now we have the verse placed in context of the passage. On to the verse we are going to study:
Verse 18 (NIV):
Peacemakers who sow in peace raise a harvest of righteousness.
Naturally, I have some questions. I want to know the entire truth and this is an English translation - which isn't the best in the world. For my study, I have decided to use a Bible encyclopedia instead of a commentary. I find that a Bible encyclopedia is less biased than commentaries. The encyclopedia I'm using is The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia revised for reprinting in June 1990 published by William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapis, MI. The general editor is Geoffrey W. Bromiley.
Some things I would like to know from the encyclopedia... what does the encyclopedia say about:
- peace
- making peace
- living in peace (peacetime)
- peacefulness
- peacemakers
- righteousness - since we are disagreeing on the method of bringing about peace, I think it is safe to say that we more or less agree to a general meaning of righteousness and therefore, unless you really want to read 3 pages of tiny print on the entry, let's just leave this one off the list.
- harvest
- sowing
On Peace:
- under the heading "peace" is found make peace, be at peace, live in peace, give peace, peaceful, and others. So we have items 1-4 answered in this entry.
- "The concept of peace in the OT is most often represented by the Hebrew root s^lm and its derivatives. The noun salom (I excluded the accents), one of the most significant theological terms in Scripture, has a wide semantic range stressing various nuances of its basic meaning: totality or completeness. These nuances include fulfillment, completion, maturity, soundness, wholeness (both individual and communal), community, harmony, tranquility, security, well-being, welfare, friendship, agreement, success, and prosperity" (Vol III, 732) --- so we know from this that peace has many many many meanings and interpretations. What are some of those meanings and interpretations of salom in the Old Testament?
- "Peace is often understood as the opposite of war (citations deleted)."
- "Such peace can result from military victory (citations deleted)."
- "Surrender is often concomitant with the end of military hostilities and is therefore an element in the resulting peace (citations deleted). But peace can also result from diplomacy (citations deleted)."
- "Psalm 119:165 stresses the sense of serenity and contentment possessed by all who love (i.e., obey...) the divine law. Prominent in the OT is the teaching that God is the giver of peace in all its fullness (citations deleted). The prophets declare emphatically that God Himself is the source of true peace (citations deleted). Without a righteous life, made possible by God's help, no one is able to find peace (citations deleted)..."
- "... 'peace' is sometimes invoked as a spiritual blessing upon another (citations deleted)."
- "Harmony between God and His creatures (citation del.) and among His creatures themselves (cit. del.) is at the heart of the OT emphasis on peace as community. Such community results when people treat one another with goodwill and love, but no peace is possible where there is malice (cit. del.)."
- "Whereas peace is found by doing good (cit. del.), its absence can be equated with judgment (cit. del.)."
- "The use of 'peace' as a word of greeting implies a desire for the addressee's well-being in the widest sense."
- "To die 'in peace' connotes that one has completed a full and satisfying life (cit. del.)"
- In the NT... corresponding to Hebrew salom in the OT, Greek eirene and its derviatives form the dominant NT word-group expressing the ideas of peace, well-being, rest, reconciliation with God, and salvation in the fullest sense.
- In classical Greek eirene primarily signified the absence of conflict.
- In the political and military spheres, the encyclopedia says that the term is "used almost invariably to translate salom. Thus eirene in the NT has taken on the broader connotations of well-being, completeness, inner satisfaction, the contentment and serenity that derive from having lived a full life, etc."
- "One who seeks to end strife and establish harmony, particularly between oneself and one's neighbours" (733).
- The word "peacemaker" used in James 3:18 is in Greek - oi poiousin eirenen.
I am getting lazy... these entries are very long so I will only summarize them. You can look it up for yourself - it is available online.
- harvest used in James 3:18 and Romans 1:13 is karpos - also "crop."
- harvest was a most important season - so important that events came from harvests such as festivals and rejoicings
- from early times harvest was associated with requirements with respect to God and mankind.
- there are many different ways to harvest depending on what is being harvested
- there are many rules to harvesting such as gleaning was forbidden and harvesters of grain need to leave a corner of the field unharvested for the poor and the needy
- harvest was also used figuratively in the sense of end-times destruction - when the good will be separated from the evil
- during harvesting season, there is normally no rain in the Israeli/Palestinian area of the world.
- the harvest is determined by what is sown - the encyclopedia quotes Galatians 6:8 "For he who sows to his own flesh will from the flesh reap corruption; but he who sows to the Spirit will from the Spirit reap eternal life" on the topic of harvesting by God's divine harvesters.
- "to scatter seed upon the ground for the purpose of producing a crop"
- to sow can also have metaphorical meanings such as the "greek speiro... [which] in addition to its literal use for the planting of crops... people 'reap' what they 'sow,' i.e., what they receive back from life is proportional to what they have given."
- there is also a few sentences on the Parable of the Sower told by Jesus in which one commentator says that the sower ended up throwing seeds on the pathway was not abnormal because in ancient times, people sowed seeds before they plowed.
James 3:18
Peacemakers who sow in peace raise a harvest of righteousness.
Peacemakers are people who seek to end strife and to establish harmony between oneself or others. The heading does not describe a required method of bringing peace. Peacemakers are free to use many different means to bring about peace. For example, under the heading of 'peace,' peace in the Old Testament can come from military peace - to conquer brings peace. Surrender to a nation's military might brings peace. The opposite of peace can also be seen (in a military sense) the opposite of war. So a peacemaker can bring about peace by military means. There is no restriction there. The word 'peace' (salom) can also be used in greetings and blessings such as "Peace be with you" would be an acceptable use of 'peace.' But this does not imply a method of bring about peace and neither does "rest/die in peace." Those are more neutral forms of "peace." The Old Testament also has examples of positive methods of bringing about peace such as leading a righteous life made possible by God's help or by doing good with its absence as judgment. In this comparison, the absence of peace is judgment, it denotes a negative connotation for judgment. It does not seem to be about righteous and holy judgment (because holy judgment would be from God and God is the source of all peace). I did not look further but I am thinking along the lines of do not judge lest you be judged and plank in one's own eye type of passages and verses on judgment.
New Testament peace is based primarily on the Greek word eirene. This word signifies the absence of conflict. I did not look up "conflict" but I think we can agree on a general view as opposite to peace. To quote the encyclopedia again, "Thus eirene in the NT has taken on the broader connotations of well-being, completeness, inner satisfaction, the contentment and serenity that derive from having lived a full life, etc." Peace in the New Testament focuses more on the goodness of peace rather than a more aggressive form of peace. So accepting Jesus as our Saviour brings us a very good kind of peace that makes us effective witnesses. This salvation and forgiveness from God brings us a good kind of peace.
So while peacemakers have a variety of ways to bring about peace, the Greek word used in James 3:18 is oi poiousin eirenen with eirene as the root for eirenen. So we can safely assume that peacemaker in the verse is most likely denoted as something good and wonderful. Peace in the eirene-sense is a goodness type of peace rather than a military-type of peace.
Let's look at sow. Sow is to scatter seed for the purpose of producing a crop. I did not look up the word "crop" but I can say it is safe to assume that James does not want us to harvest a bad crop. Naturally, one would want to harvest a good crop! So, if we want to harvest a good crop (and keeping in mind that harvest in itself is extremely important particularly for an agrarian society), we need to sow. However, the Greek word to sow also gives us a metaphorical meaning in the sense that people 'reap' what they 'sow.' This is echoed under the "harvest" heading - the encyclopedia specifically quotes Galatians 6:8 to impart to us the importance of a harvest.
If we want to harvest a good crop, we must sow well and sowing means we scatter seed (in the literal sense but can also be extended to a metaphorical sense if we know what the "seed" is). James tells us to sow in peace. What does that mean? James could be saying sow during a time of peace. Or perhaps he can be describing a method of sowing such as sowing seeds of peace. We know what peace means in this verse - something good and wonderful but the encyclopedia (unless someone else knows fluent ancient Greek) does not provide a sense of time in oi poiousin eirenen. So it is easy to rule out
sowing in a time of peace. So can James mean sow "with" peace as in sow seeds of peace? Semantically, I can't read sow with peace any differently than sow in peace. Maybe you can but I can't.
Here is where we may split and disagree. I cannot see another way to read "sow in peace." Remember, either James is talking about something deeper or he is echoing what Jesus taught. I can only see that James is describing the method of sowing - sow in peace as in sow seeds of peace! What will happen if you do that? You will raise a harvest! This harvest is so good and wonderful that it is righteous! Since I cannot read a different interpretation that is deeper and more profound, then I can only come to the following conclusion:
Jesus teaches in Matthew 6:38-41 to bring about peace by setting an example of peace. Since the word "peace" in the New Testament is used as something good (i.e., eirene - unless it is in a military sense, then the word salom is used), it cannot be something in conflict or opposite of that. Opposite of that is conflict. Conflict denotes a negative connotation. So James is merely reinforcing what Jesus said. Sow in peace is to live an example of this peace (eirene) and then you will raise up a harvest so great that it is righteous. This reconciles the discrepancy. James is not talking about something deeper - he is agreeing with Jesus. There is no discrepancy with this interpretation unless you are able to provide an alternative interpretation that shows James is speaking about something profound and with great deep meaning that has nothing to do with living by example.
Now, with this interpretation in mind, let's look at what you propose. You propose that we do not just sit back, watch, and do nothing. You want something to be done. There are really only one of two courses of action: ban/gag (i.e., punish) them or set an example of peace. I say you propose to ban them but the nice thing about it is that you never said it outright - just implied it in a roundabout way because if you were to set an example of peace, you wouldn't have responded in the way you did to me. True, setting an example of peace probably won't change either cup or miktre's behaviour. But James never said who's a part of the harvest. Let's look at pickles. Her patience in her responses to cup amazed me. Such witnessing has changed my mind on using them for laughter and entertainment. Pickles set an example of peace (with great restraint, no doubt) and as a result of her witnessing, she's raised up something for harvest.
Now, I know you can respond back to me and argue on syntax but let's be fair because I've been fair - I did all the hours of research. Semantically, that is what you want - punishment. So you decide what to do. Let the Word of God speak to your heart. I am good with any decision as I've set my heart straight.