N
newton3003
Guest
Galatians 6:2 says to “Bear one another's burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ.” Galatians 6:5 says, “For each will have to bear his own load.” Is there an inconsistency? One says we should take on the burdens of others, while the other says we have to deal with our own burdens. Is there an inconsistency, or is there something which connects the two? For in principle, there should be no inconsistencies in the Bible.
And where does the responsibility lie? Would I be acting out of righteousness if I have you share burdens of mine that I can deal with myself? On the other hand, would I be acting out of righteousness if I deal with my own burdens and not take on the burdens of others, since it appears that others have the responsibility of dealing with their own burdens?
Jesus said the second great commandment is to love our neighbor as we love ourselves. When asked who our neighbor is, Jesus answers with The Parable of the Good Samaritan, in which someone is beaten and robbed and is left on the ground. A priest and a Levite walk by him without doing anything, and a third, a Samaritan, brings him to an inn, gives the innkeeper money and tells him to take care of him. Jesus in this Parable establishes that the neighbor to the man is the Samaritan who helps him. So, the Samaritan fulfills Galatians 6:2 by bearing to some extent the burden that was heaped upon the man due to the robbers.
The robbed and beaten man in the Parable does not ask the Samaritan for help. You might say that in that sense he was fulfilling Galatians 6:5 by resigning himself to deal with his own problems and not lay then on others. If the roles were reversed, such that the Samaritan was the one that was beaten and robbed, would the man help him as the Samaritan helped the man? Who knows?
It seems that if we just look at Galatians 6:2 and 6:5 together, and perhaps take the above Parable into consideration, we could come away believing that it is up to us as to whether we would take on the burdens of others, but if we do so, this would be a form of righteousness. On the other hand, out of righteousness, we should not expect others to take on burdens that we cannot handle ourselves. In that regard, to an extent, the Bible leaves us out in the cold, hoping that through divine intervention or in the name of God, someone would come along and help us with our burden. In other words, we cannot impose upon others to help us, to the extent that we have not and cannot provide for them to do so by giving value for the value of their help.
What is the role of our government in all this? The Bible tells us that government’s authority comes from God. That is, a governing authority is a reflection of God. But this is just a governing authority as the Bible sees it. We know there have been other governments whose authority did not come from God, so God did away with them. Daniel 2:21 says that God “removes kings and sets up kings…” So, we can compare some of the governments we see today to those that have been deposed by God, and we may have some idea of which of those governments will not last. Safe to say that a governing authority reflects what God wants, the same as individuals striving for righteousness reflect what God wants.
So, what to make of a leader in government who imposes an unwarranted hardship on people who had nothing to do with the burden that the leader has taken on, without the leader himself enduring some pain? Is he, in his own way, trying to fulfill Galatians 6:2 by having others share his burdens? And those burdens may well reflect the burdens of the people who elected him, expecting him to do the things they want. But what of those who do not want the leader to do those things? What of those who have to take it in the gut if the leader dos those things, because the leader believes they have to share his pain, even though he himself does not bear any of the pain? Is this a leader who is acting in God’s name, making people suffer who have no control over the processes that take place among him and other elected people in government?
Where would such a leader fit, in the Parable of the Good Samaritan? He certainly wouldn’t be the man who was robbed and beaten, because this leader still has everything he had before, and can expect more. He certainly isn’t the good Samaritan, because he is not giving aid to the person who was ROBBED. Like the priest and the Levite, he just ignores him in the things he does. Also, he’s not giving up anything he has to help the man. He just walks on by, believing he will impress those who voted for him. But even some of those who voted for him have households to support, and rents and mortgages to pay.
Is it not the job of a government under God to do what is best for the people in their vast household? Would the leader expect his own household to go hungry or become deprived because of a matter that in terms of the degrees of separation has nothing to do with the workings of that household?
And what is ironic is that these people have chosen to work for the very government that has decided to deprive them of their role in it and/or their means. And especially of the latter, what does Leviticus 19:13 say? It says “The wages of a hired worker shall not REMAIN with you all night until the morning.”
And what does James 5:4 say? “Behold, the wages of the laborers who mowed your fields, which you kept back by fraud, are crying out against you…” Where is the “fraud” here? It is the fraud of a leader that told the voters, 'Elect me and I’ll see that you prosper,' but prosper they don’t, at least for the time being.
What is fraud? The Oxford dictionary defines it as “Wrongful…deception intended to result in… personal gain.” What “personal gain” did the leader get here? He got the vote of people whom he is now depriving. And what does 1 Timothy 5:8 say? It says, “…if anyone does not provide…especially for members of his HOUSEHOLD, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.”
And where does the responsibility lie? Would I be acting out of righteousness if I have you share burdens of mine that I can deal with myself? On the other hand, would I be acting out of righteousness if I deal with my own burdens and not take on the burdens of others, since it appears that others have the responsibility of dealing with their own burdens?
Jesus said the second great commandment is to love our neighbor as we love ourselves. When asked who our neighbor is, Jesus answers with The Parable of the Good Samaritan, in which someone is beaten and robbed and is left on the ground. A priest and a Levite walk by him without doing anything, and a third, a Samaritan, brings him to an inn, gives the innkeeper money and tells him to take care of him. Jesus in this Parable establishes that the neighbor to the man is the Samaritan who helps him. So, the Samaritan fulfills Galatians 6:2 by bearing to some extent the burden that was heaped upon the man due to the robbers.
The robbed and beaten man in the Parable does not ask the Samaritan for help. You might say that in that sense he was fulfilling Galatians 6:5 by resigning himself to deal with his own problems and not lay then on others. If the roles were reversed, such that the Samaritan was the one that was beaten and robbed, would the man help him as the Samaritan helped the man? Who knows?
It seems that if we just look at Galatians 6:2 and 6:5 together, and perhaps take the above Parable into consideration, we could come away believing that it is up to us as to whether we would take on the burdens of others, but if we do so, this would be a form of righteousness. On the other hand, out of righteousness, we should not expect others to take on burdens that we cannot handle ourselves. In that regard, to an extent, the Bible leaves us out in the cold, hoping that through divine intervention or in the name of God, someone would come along and help us with our burden. In other words, we cannot impose upon others to help us, to the extent that we have not and cannot provide for them to do so by giving value for the value of their help.
What is the role of our government in all this? The Bible tells us that government’s authority comes from God. That is, a governing authority is a reflection of God. But this is just a governing authority as the Bible sees it. We know there have been other governments whose authority did not come from God, so God did away with them. Daniel 2:21 says that God “removes kings and sets up kings…” So, we can compare some of the governments we see today to those that have been deposed by God, and we may have some idea of which of those governments will not last. Safe to say that a governing authority reflects what God wants, the same as individuals striving for righteousness reflect what God wants.
So, what to make of a leader in government who imposes an unwarranted hardship on people who had nothing to do with the burden that the leader has taken on, without the leader himself enduring some pain? Is he, in his own way, trying to fulfill Galatians 6:2 by having others share his burdens? And those burdens may well reflect the burdens of the people who elected him, expecting him to do the things they want. But what of those who do not want the leader to do those things? What of those who have to take it in the gut if the leader dos those things, because the leader believes they have to share his pain, even though he himself does not bear any of the pain? Is this a leader who is acting in God’s name, making people suffer who have no control over the processes that take place among him and other elected people in government?
Where would such a leader fit, in the Parable of the Good Samaritan? He certainly wouldn’t be the man who was robbed and beaten, because this leader still has everything he had before, and can expect more. He certainly isn’t the good Samaritan, because he is not giving aid to the person who was ROBBED. Like the priest and the Levite, he just ignores him in the things he does. Also, he’s not giving up anything he has to help the man. He just walks on by, believing he will impress those who voted for him. But even some of those who voted for him have households to support, and rents and mortgages to pay.
Is it not the job of a government under God to do what is best for the people in their vast household? Would the leader expect his own household to go hungry or become deprived because of a matter that in terms of the degrees of separation has nothing to do with the workings of that household?
And what is ironic is that these people have chosen to work for the very government that has decided to deprive them of their role in it and/or their means. And especially of the latter, what does Leviticus 19:13 say? It says “The wages of a hired worker shall not REMAIN with you all night until the morning.”
And what does James 5:4 say? “Behold, the wages of the laborers who mowed your fields, which you kept back by fraud, are crying out against you…” Where is the “fraud” here? It is the fraud of a leader that told the voters, 'Elect me and I’ll see that you prosper,' but prosper they don’t, at least for the time being.
What is fraud? The Oxford dictionary defines it as “Wrongful…deception intended to result in… personal gain.” What “personal gain” did the leader get here? He got the vote of people whom he is now depriving. And what does 1 Timothy 5:8 say? It says, “…if anyone does not provide…especially for members of his HOUSEHOLD, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.”