Think on These Things
December 2000
The
“not ... but ...” language construct occurs quite frequently in the bible.
Misunderstanding its meaning has caused many problems of biblical
interpretation. The main problem is
that readers tend to take the “not” part of the sentence out of context and
make it into an absolute doctrine. For
example, many have concluded from the following that it is a sin for women to
wear jewelry (1 Tim. 2:9-10): “Likewise, {I want} women to adorn themselves
with proper clothing, modestly and discreetly, not with braided hair and gold or
pearls or costly garments; but rather by means of good works, as befits women
making a claim to godliness.” It
says it right there: “Not with ...gold or pearls ...”
Is this an absolute prohibition?
Before
answering this question, let us consider another example.
Jesus said in John 6:27: "Do not work for the food which perishes,
but for the food which endures to eternal life, ...”
Is Jesus saying that it is a sin to work and to purchase food with the
money earned? Of course not. We
understand that the “not” part of the expression does not forbid us to work
to purchase our food. Clearly what
Jesus said is that eternal life is far, far, far more important than getting a
good meal. It has nothing to do
with our secular jobs; there are other passages that give us instruction on that
(Tit. 3:14; 1 Tim. 6:17f).
Now,
let’s go back to 1 Tim. 2:9 and read it again (in italics above).
See the point? It is one of emphasis. Godliness
is far, far, far more important than the way that we look.
But does this mean we should not look our best?
Of course not. Those who
interpret this as an edict miss the entire point of what Paul is trying to say. It is a principle of attitude, not of fashion.
Let us explore this interesting bible language construct in the remainder
of this issue.
Back to the Contents
The goal of this page is to promote morality and justice in our society (Prov. 14:23).
The
downside of a close race.
There are probably many people who wish they had voted, especially if
they are citizens of Florida. We
emphasized last month the awesome responsibility that we have in this country to
vote. Regardless of the outcome, those who trust in God recognize
that all things will ultimately work together for good (Rom. 8:28).
The tabulation of the popular vote shows just how equally the citizens of
this country are divided in their political philosophy.
If it were not so close, then it would be obvious that appeals and
recounts would be fruitless. But
being so close, the litigation goes on.
One
thing that we can learn from recent events is how easily two groups of people
can see the exact same set of events and draw completely different conclusions
from them. Why is this? How can one group believe that the democrats can do no wrong,
while the other sees them as evil obstructionists who are intent on dismantling
the very structure of our democracy? It
is a simple human tendency called filtering.
Effectively we listen to that which pleases us and we block that which
causes us discomfort. Did you ever
just turn to another station when you did not agree with what was being said to
look for someone who agrees with you? If
so, don’t worry ... it is normal, and it is not altogether bad in the
political realm.
But
when you do the same thing in religion you need to beware because your eternal
destiny is at stake, and this is far more important than who the next president
may be. Most people just accept
whatever seems right religiously with little evaluation. But while there may be no way to validate some political
positions, there is a way to validate a religious one.
The bible is totally sufficient (2 Tim. 3:16), and all of the critical
precepts are understandable (Eph. 3:4). To
test if you have your priorities right, ask yourself: “Do I get as emotional
over my being right with God as I do with who our next president will be?”
Then get your bible out and put your heart into studying it.
Back to the Contents
Some Not...But...Examples
We
saw the basic principle on our cover page that the first clause in bible “not
... but ...” expressions are not necessarily absolute.
Rather, this construct is quite often used to greatly emphasize the
importance of the second clause over the first. Let’s consider some examples that have commonly led to
errors. Remember, the principle is
an emphasis of the second item over the first, not the absolute statement of the
first.
Matt
6:19-20 "Do not lay up for yourselves treasures upon earth, ... But lay up
for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys, ...”
Matt
15:11 "Not what enters into the mouth defiles the man, but what proceeds
out of the mouth, this defiles the man."
John
5:30 "I do not seek My own
will, but the will of Him who sent Me.”
Rom
2:28-29 “For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly; neither is circumcision
that which is outward in the flesh. But
he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that which is of the heart,
by the Spirit, not by the letter; and his praise is not from men, but from
God.” (Count them — four in
this passage.)
Rom
4:5 “But to the one who does not
work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned as
righteousness, ...”
Rom
9:16 “So then it {does} not
{depend} on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy.”
Rom
14:13 “Therefore let us not judge one another anymore, but rather determine
this-- not to put an obstacle or a stumbling block in a brother's way.”
1
Cor 1:17 “For Christ did not send
me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not in cleverness of speech, that the
cross of Christ should not be made void.”
1
Cor 2:4 “And my message and my
preaching were not in persuasive words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the
Spirit and of power, ...”
1
Tim 1:9 “... realizing the fact
that law is not made for a righteous man, but for those who are lawless and
rebellious, ...”
We must add that there are some “not... but ...” expressions in the bible where the “not” part is absolute. The context and a comparison with other scriptures is the key to resolving the true meaning. It is not difficult if we are willing to dedicate a little time to study the context and the overall subject (2 Tim. 2:15).
Back to the Contents
“Our works have nothing at all
to do with our salvation.”
but
this is often based on Paul’s statement (Titus 3:5) ...
“He saved us, not on the
basis of works which we have done in
Notice
that this is a “not ... but ...” statement.
Thus, the “not” part is not necessarily absolute.
The scriptures clearly teach that we cannot earn our salvation.
But does this mean that our behavior has absolutely nothing to do with
our salvation? Some even go so far
as to teach that if we do not accept this absolute, we cannot be saved. Paradoxically, they have made this “faith only” behavior
a condition of salvation, thus contradicting their own position.
We need to let the bible resolve God’s conditions of salvation.
Study
the context — go back to Titus 3:1. Is
not our behavior the very subject of this chapter?
Look at verse 3. Is not a
transformed life important? “We
once were ... but now are ...” This
salvation was not because of our righteousness, but by the mercy of God.
Verses 4-7 emphasize God’s part, which is by far, far, far the most
critical part. But verse 8 returns
back to the main subject: “... that those who believed in God may be careful
to engage in good works.” There
is no contradiction here, and we should see clearly that God’s part eclipses
our own. But as free-will agents, we can either yield ourselves to
God’s part or not, allowing him to work through us or not. It is a small part; but it is essential (Phil. 2:12).
Be careful.
Back to the Contents