Good works explained (PART I)

What is good works? The works of a philanthropic? The big, big good undertakings, like that of Mother Theresa? What about I give my lunch pack to another? Is my working to earn an income to support myself and to provide for my family a good works?

Common definition of works
What is a works? A works is something on which exertion or labor is expended; a task or undertaking. Very simply, a works is an action, a laboring or a deed. When we do something to produce something, that is a works. This is one definition, but is this the definition used in Scriptures?

What is lacking in the common definition
I believe as a minimum, we have to add “from whose point of view” into the definition. We need to interpret Scriptures theocentrically, meaning we have to interpret Scriptures from the perspective of God. In other words, whether what is done is works or not, must be viewed from God’s perspective; if God says it is works, it is works, if God says it is NOT works, it is NOT works.

For example, I can say Mr A is NOT working, but you may disagree and say he is; then another person may say Mr A is NOT working, he is playing, and Mr A himself may express that he is both working and playing! This illustrates the importance of attaching  “from whose point of view”.

Believing per se is NOT works
So how does God view works? For one thing, believing per se is NOT works; these scriptures tell us so:

James 2:14-18 –

14 What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him? 15 Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. 16 If one of you says to him, “Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed,” but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it? 17 In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead. 18 But someone will say, “You have faith; I have deeds.” Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by what I do.

James 2:20-24 –

20 You foolish man, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless? 21 Was not our ancestor Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? 22 You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did. 23 And the scripture was fulfilled that says, “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness,” and he was called God’s friend. 24 You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone.

James 2:25-26 –

25 In the same way, was not even Rahab the prostitute considered righteous for what she did when she gave lodging to the spies and sent them off in a different direction? 26 As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without deeds is dead.

What about words or verbalization?
Are words or verbalizations, even “silent verbalizations”, works or not? I believe we have to divide such into 2 categories to consider. One category is verbalization of belief, and other, action through verbalization.

Action through verbalization
Actions through verbalization include all such actions like preaching, giving a lecture, instructing, teaching or singing; and they are works, mostly, theocentrically; are all works, generally (using the common definition) {Similarly, actions with mouth (not verbalization), such as eating, drinking, biting, kissing, etc are similarly mostly works (not necessarily good works), theocentrically; are all works, generally}.

Verbalization of belief, works or not?
First, let me pose this question, “Do you consider believing in your heart (NOT yet verbalisation) that Jesus Christ died for you, a works?” No, a mere belief or "faith" (or rather, I prefer to say, an incomplete unit of faith) is NOT works. This we have seen above, supported by verses from Apostle James, particularly James 2:22, 24.

How about confessing with your mouth that Jesus is your Lord and Savior? In other words, is the verbalization of your belief or "faith" in Jesus Christ, works? For THIS verbalization of belief, there is agreement, but NOT strong agreement (some still do NOT agree) that it is works. I will elaborate a little more below.

Verbalization of belief on salvation
How does one enter into salvation? Typically, he believes in his heart, and confesses with his mouth that Jesus Christ is his Lord and Savior (Rom 10:10). So, is that works? Because, we are accustomed to saying salvation is by grace, through faith, and NOT by works, many of us will NOT even look at the verbalization of our belief, as works. I can appreciate that, but I also have no issue with saying that the confession with one’s mouth is a deed or works, using the common definition. But could it be regarded as a works theocentrically?

If believing with one’s heart that Jesus died for him, is NOT deed or works, and confessing with one’s mouth, the same, is also NOT deed or works, theocentrically, what is the significance of the calling for both, in entering into salvation?

Now, I said that typically, how one comes into salvation is by believing in his heart and confessing with his mouth (and that is what is said in Rom 10:10), but it really does NOT necessarily be that a confession with the mouth must be had; if for example, he was asked to come to the front of a sanctuary, and given a salvation form to fill in, and he did that, even if there was no verbalization, the person has entered into salvation. The coming up to the front of a sanctuary and filling in of the salvation form are actions acknowledging the belief in the heart (motive/purpose – to acknowledge). If you look at it that way, confessing with one’s mouth serves exactly the same function, acknowledging the belief, and is therefore, equivalent.

But I still have not answered the question of whether or not there is a unit of works here, theocentrically. Perhaps, this way of looking at the matter is admissible: Salvation believing is NOT works, theocentrically, confessing of that belief, for the first time, is works theocentrically (making confession of our salvation faith, the first good works of a believer). The point is that when it is the first time, the very act acknowledges (motive/purpose) that salvation faith.

Doesn’t contradict salvation is by grace, as far as I can see it
I see no real inconsistency with saying that the confession of one’s belief in Jesus Christ as his Lord and Savior, completing the entry into salvation, as works, and the saying that salvation is by grace, through faith, not by works. The intent and purpose of saying that salvation is not by works, is to point to us not being able to earn or merit our entry into salvation; surely acknowledging our belief that is in our heart is no more meriting than stretching our hand out to receive or saying I will take it, when a gift is offered; rather this action pleases God, for it is in agreement with His will. As one's stretching forth his hand to receive a gift is NOT regarded that the receipient has merited or worked for the gift, in the same way, a non-believer coming into salvation, that he lifted up his hands or verbalised his belief, cannot be treated that he has merited or worked for the gift of salvation; it does NOT contradict "Salvation is a gift", by grace. But that lifting up his hands or verbalising his belief forms the first works, completing the salvation faith.

Actually viewing the process of entry into salvation in the above manner points us to “faith” in Jesus Christ is NOT faith in Jesus Christ, until the belief in Jesus Christ is acknowledged by the person; or when acknowledged, the belief in Jesus Christ becomes faith in Jesus Christ. The works of acknowledging the belief (in this case, in Jesus Christ) is what completes the faith. Belief in this sense is incomplete faith. I believe this is what James was trying to say in James 2:22, 24.

Confession and profession
Confession essentially is to acknowledge something that is already there. In this case, the “something” is the belief in the heart. Our confession acknowledges that belief that is already in the heart.

To me, there is a difference between confession and profession, although it is commonly used interchangeably. Maybe it is easier to see the difference when we reference it to sin (instead of salvation belief). When someone committed a sin against you, that is a fact, although not necessarily known to others. When he confesses that he has sinned against you, it means he acknowledges that he has sinned against you. Subsequently, when he makes mention of the same sin with you, he is not confessing, for what is already confessed, stays confessed. More correctly, to me, in the latter, he is professing (stating), not again confessing. Similarly, for belief in Jesus Christ, in the first time, we confess (acknowledge) our belief, subsequently, we profess (state) our faith.

What about subsequent professions?
When one has entered into salvation he is a believer or a Christian. His believing in his heart and his confession with his mouth made him to be a Christian. Now, what if he repeats (and repeats) he is a Christian, any works there or good works there, theocentrically? If it is MERE profession, my answer is “No”, for the motive/purpose of first time confession (to acknowledge the belief in the heart) has been expended. The first time mouthing of the belief was to acknowledge (motive) the belief of the heart. Subsequent profession of the same faith must be for a fresh motive/purpose. Now, if we just keep repeating without a motive, it is just vain repetitions, which do NOT please God. In Matt 6:7 we read this:

But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking.

In general too, MERE mouthing of words do NOT constitute works, theocentrically, unless it is loaded with a motive/purpose. For example, you are saying you are a Christian in crisis situation to encourage others, that your God is mighty to save, your professing you are a Christian is a works, a good works, for it was loaded with a noble purpose of encouraging others in a time of crisis.

Mere talk or talk per se
We have seen that if you verbalize your faith with the intention to encourage another, that is a works or deed. Of course, if you speak to discourage another, that is a works or deed, too, albeit NOT a “good” works or deed. Lying is works or a deed, for when you lied, you talked with a motive, albeit with a bad one. What about mere talk or talk per se?

We often hear people saying talk is cheap, or even NATO (No Action, Talk Only). In such, perhaps, is also found a guide as to whether or not, talk or verbalization is works. For example, if before us, there is a thinly dressed, empty-handed young girl, understandably lost her way, outside, in the open, late at night, in freezing winter season, and we are indoor, around a warm fireplace, chatting and looking out of glass windows in front of us, and we only talk about the girl’s plight and the possibility of her freezing to death in the night, and do nothing for her, our talk is cheap talk, and we are just being members of NATO, so to speak, no action, talk only. There is no works in such cheap talk. Well, we could say we have a motive, we just wanted to pass time and we just took her as a subject of conversation. In that case, it is an occasion of talk per se, or mere talk, and there is no works there, in relation to the young girl’s plight, and in God’s eyes.

We can talk all we want, how much of it amounts to works
The point of such lengthy deliberation on words or verbalization or speech or talk, is to remind us that we can talk all we want, the crucial point is whether any of it amounts to works, and good works. Actually, a lot of us talk a lot; we use up a big chunk of our time in talking, in words, in verbalization (even writing, well, consistent with change of time, with electronic communications, SMSes, emails, chats, etc). There is indeed a need for us to see that bigger and bigger portions of our such verbalizations fall into good works, not bad ones, and not into no works. How do we do that? The way is to cleanse ourselves from corruptive ones, and to avoid more, those verbalizations, speeches or talks that do NOT amount to good works, and to do more of those that do, not forgetting our motives (or purposes) are key.

What about physical actions?
The framework is similar. For example, if you are simply walking for no apparent reason or motive, what you are doing is no works, but if you are walking with a motive of getting to a place where there is a phone to call for help for someone in distress, your walking can possibly be a works, a good one; if you are walking to a place to fetch a boulder to throw at someone already fallen into a well, that is surely works, but a bad one.

Remember, it is to be from God’s perspective
We will NOT go into quarreling over whether or not there is such thing as absolutely no works. Works is always in relation to or relative to someone or something. Even a man’s walking aimlessly maybe no works to us, but to that man, walking aimlessly, serves a purpose, whatever that purpose may be (even to give him time to calm down, for example, is a purpose), it is a works in his point of view (he did not do nothing, he was trying to calm down). But we are to remember that we are to view works from God’s perspective.

So, what constitute good works in the eyes of God?
Although it is NOT necessary to begin this discussion with the confession of salvation belief (or faith, as is more commonly referred to), I will start there. If you feel very strongly that it is wrong to treat confession of salvation faith for the first time as works (the first good works of a believer), you can still skip the next paragraph and go on with the one following.

The first confession (actually, there is only one confession, all subsequent ones are really professions, not confession) of salvation belief (even if it were not verbal, e.g. came to the sanctuary front and filled in the salvation form) with acknowledgment as a motive/purpose, has made the salvation belief a complete unit of faith. Putting it in another way, faith, even salvation faith is of 2 components, a right belief, and a conviction; and it is only when the conviction is so strong and strong enough to propel the person to an action like speaking the belief out, walking to the front of the sanctuary, or filling up a salvation form, that, that faith unit is made complete, and becomes righteousness-countable to God, and all works from belief conviction is good works in the eyes of God. 

What faith is
We know from Scripture that without faith it is impossible to please God (Heb 11:6). My understanding of faith is that a complete unit of faith or faith that is righteousness-countable to God is of 2 components, a right belief and a strong enough conviction in that belief. The right belief must be based on the Word and truth of God, His will and desires.

For example, if you think it is right to steal from another, and you go and steal from another, your belief is NOT a right belief, although you may think that you have the correct belief, that stealing is ok, but based on the Word and truth of God, that belief you have is NOT a right belief. The other component of faith is the conviction of that belief you have. If your conviction is strong enough, you will act on your belief, and we have an action or works. If you do not feel strongly enough stealing is the thing to do (your conviction not strong enough), you will not do it.

Also noteworthy is that our motives/purposes are invariably linked to our belief system. There is a lot of truth in the common saying that we hear, “You are what you believe”. Scripture puts it this way:

The good man brings good things out of the good stored up in his heart, and the evil man brings evil things out of the evil stored up in his heart. For out of the overflow of his heart his mouth speaks. “Why do you call me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ and do not do what I say? (Luke 6:45-46)

He {Jesus} went on: “What comes out of a man is what makes him ‘unclean.’ For from within, out of men’s hearts, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly. (Mark 7:20-22)

“Make a tree good and its fruit will be good, or make a tree bad and its fruit will be bad, for a tree is recognized by its fruit. You brood of vipers, how can you who are evil say anything good? For out of the overflow of the heart the mouth speaks. The good man brings good things out of the good stored up in him, and the evil man brings evil things out of the evil stored up in him. (Matt 12:33-35)

In Scripture, where is our belief lodged in? It is in the heart.

For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved. (Rom 10:10) – concerning salvation

That is why the set of verses quoted here made reference to the heart of man. God looks at the heart, for it is there that our belief is lodged, and they shape the thoughts or meditations of our heart. Before God commissioned Noah to build the ark, and sent The Flood, this was what God said:

The LORD saw how great man’s wickedness on the earth had become, and that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all the time (Gen 6:5).

This is what King David told his son, Solomon:

“And you, my son Solomon, acknowledge the God of your father, and serve him with wholehearted devotion and with a willing mind, for the LORD searches every heart and understands every motive behind the thoughts (1 Chr 28:9)

If it is not yet apparent to you, I will say it, “Many people confuse faith with belief”. One does NOT yet have a faith in Jesus Christ as his Lord and Savior until he has believed (a belief) in his heart, and confessed with his mouth (threshold-crossing conviction reached). Until one completes the second portion of the salvation process which NOT necessarily be confession with his mouth, it can be his coming to the front of the sanctuary and filling up a salvation form, he, at most, has a belief, NOT a (complete unit of) faith in Christ Jesus. What pleases God is, a right belief (as defined above) AND threshold-crossing conviction of that belief. When there is that combination, we have a faith unit, and we inevitably have an action or works. And because the action or works is based on a right belief, it is pleasing to God, and therefore, is said to be good. Righteousness-countable faith = right belief + works (motivated from that belief conviction). A NOT yet righteousness-countable "faith" or a non-expended "faith" (strictly, still an incomplete faith) = right belief + that belief conviction. When the conviction exceeded the thrusthold of inaction, works kicks in, and we have a "faith" in action that can be righteousness-countable by God. Therefore, another way of saying “without faith it is impossible to please God” is “Without good works it is impossible to please God”.  That way "faith" was used in Scripures, I believed, was in line with what described in Heb 11:1 - "substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen", meaning when "faith" was used, works was already factored in or expected; in other words, the "substance...." and the "evidence...." are NOT to be taken as applied on the "God's part" only but it is also to apply to the "Man's part".   In other words, it is proper to say, "Without faith it is impossible to please God", and improper to say, "With belief  I will please God"; it should be "With faith I will please God".

So, for the question of what constitutes good works in the eyes of God, from the exposition thus far, is: good works is works from and of faith; works apart from faith cannot be good works, for everything that does not come from faith is sin (Rom 14:23). Good works is works coming from faith, for it is coming from a right belief, and brought on by the conviction of that belief busting the threshold of inaction; and it is good, for faith pleases God.

Without good works it is impossible to please God
To me, the Apostle James had this understanding when he said this:

But someone will say, “You have faith; I have deeds.” Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by what I do (James 2:18).

The Apostle James was saying if you claim there is a faith, there must have been a deed, too. Why? Because faith without deed is no faith (no complete unit of faith); at most, it is only a belief (an incomplete faith). When a belief becomes a faith, a deed would have been done. In other words, the deed evidences the belief, and when and only when there is a deed is there a (complete) unit of faith, or faith is faith only when it is an evidenced belief, evidenced by a deed, coming about when the conviction of that belief has busted the threshold of inaction. James said, “I will show you my faith by what I do”.


Although what is expounded so far, does not yet completely answer the questions and similar ones posed at the beginning of this article, I believe it has provided the beginnings of what can be used to better understand the topic of good works, viewed from the perspective of God. Watch out for other parts to this multi-part article.


Anthony Chia, high.expressions - The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good (Ps 14:1, KJV).

PS: Added: 04/08/2011 - The above led us to good works as faith in action or faith in exercise.  Additionally, my latest revelation is that faith is to be exercised through love (Gal 5:6, 1 Cor 13:2).  Therefore, finally good works is from faith in action through love.  For exposition of the more excellent way, of faith is to be exercised in love, read my separate article, "You need faith, and you need love"

Comments are welcome here. Alternatively, email them to me @: ... {click on it to reveal complete address}

Or just email me your email address so that I can put you on my blog (new entry) notification list. To go back to blog main page, click here.

You must choose to cleanse yourself from ignoble

2 Tim 2:20-21 (NIV) - 20 In a large house there are articles not only of gold and silver, but also of wood and clay; some are for noble purposes and some for ignoble. 21 If a man cleanses himself from the latter, he will be an instrument for noble purposes, made holy, useful to the Master and prepared to do any good work. KJV - 20But in a great house there are not only vessels of gold and of silver, but also of wood and of earth; and some to honour, and some to dishonour. 21If a man therefore purge himself from these, he shall be a vessel unto honour, sanctified, and meet for the master's use, and prepared unto every good work.

We backtrack to verse 14 to start from there
To interpret this text, we first have to go back a little further up the 2 Timothy 2 passage.

Quarrel about words
In verse 14, we read Paul was reminding Timothy to warn the BELIEVERS against quarreling about words, saying it was of no value, and only ruining those who listen. How should a believer behave then? Paul, in verse 15, said instead, we are to do our best to present ourselves to God as one approved, a workman who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth; in other words, do NOT quarrel about words, but be an approved workman (who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the Word).

Godless chatter
Paul also warned against godless chatter, for such only promotes further ungodliness. What is godless chatter? What could possibly be the godless chatter then, in Ephesus? Not wanting to import from extra-biblical materials, all we know from Scriptures, was that it possibly included loose talks NOT in line with the truths of God. Such talks if indulged in, would corrupt godliness (v16), and might lead to believers wandering away from the faith (v17).

In verse 17, we read that 2 characters, (I called them) H & P, they indulged in such godless chatter, including talk that men (living men) were already resurrected {i.e. you and I are already resurrected} (v18). From verse 18, it was clear that the 2 characters mentioned by Paul were once believers, but had since wandered from the faith, and their teaching (false teaching) were spreading like gangrene.

God’s solid foundation
Then in verse 19, Paul was asserting that regardless of distortions and false claims, God’s solid foundation stood firm. What was Paul referring to, by “God’s solid foundation”? To me, I simply call it the central pillar of the faith – God knows, or what others would call, God’s omniscience.

Those who use the NIV Bible will find that verse 19 was footnoted back to Num 16:5 (on Korah's rebellion). In Num 16, in the relevant passage where the verse was referred to, we found an account showing God knew who were in the truth and who were not; in other words, Paul was trying to say that men, including believers and so-called servants of God, they could think what they wanted (including H & P referred to, in the passage), God knew who was in the truth – Was it Paul or these other false teachers (or believers) who perverted the truths of God (or made claim of who they were, but were in fact, not)?

For the benefit of readers, I am also putting down below, verses 14-19 of 2 Timothy 2:

14 Keep reminding them of these things. Warn them before God against quarreling about words; it is of no value, and only ruins those who listen. 15 Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth. 16 Avoid godless chatter, because those who indulge in it will become more and more ungodly. 17 Their teaching will spread like gangrene. Among them are Hymenaeus and Philetus {H & P}, 18 who have wandered away from the truth. They say that the resurrection has already taken place, and they destroy the faith of some. 19 Nevertheless, God’s solid foundation stands firm, sealed with this inscription: “The Lord knows those who are his,” {footnoted to Num 16:5, NIV84} and, “Everyone who confesses the name of the Lord must turn away from wickedness.” (2 Tim 2:14-19, NIV84)

The “But”, what it implied
Then, Paul went on to give us verse 20 (and 21), which is the subject of this article. Now, the KJ version of verse 20 has “But” at the start of the verse, which the NIV Bible has omitted. There are Bible scholars who argued that the “But” is significant, and it meant to tell us that a different “house” was being painted in the verses preceding the verse 20’s “large house”. I believe there are 2 errors in that interpretation.

Firstly, there was no “house” painted in the preceding verses. Proponents argued that God’s invisible church was painted in the preceding verses (preceding to vv20-21), whereas the large house of verse 20 was referring to the physical church. No, the preceding verses we have just covered above, they spoke nothing of a “house” or invisible church!

Secondly, when we leave the “But” in, the construct of verse 20, reading it with verse 19b of “and, ‘Everyone who confesses the name of the Lord must turn away from wickedness.’”, does NOT call for suggestion that there was another “house” preceding verse 20. Rather, it pointed to, the “But” meant “despite so” What “so”? It was despite “Everyone who confesses the name of the Lord must turn away from wickedness.”

When verses 19 & 20 are read together, it meant that despite God knowing who {which person(s)} was His, and every believer must turn away from wickedness, there were still those who cleanse NOT themselves from ignoble, and there were those who would, and when they did that (cleanse themselves of ignoble), they would be instrument for noble purpose (or vessels unto honor), useful to God, and would be prepared to do any good work – this is how it should be read, in a nutshell.

Therefore, Paul, by that, had said, characters such as H & P who did not cleanse themselves from ignoble, which in their case, godless chatter, which in turn corrupted their belief in the faith, they would NOT be vessels useful for the Lord. Paul, in subsequent verses to verses 20 & 21, elaborated a lot more of what constituted ignoble.

The rest of the ignoble
Before we expound the message of verses 20 & 21, let us complete the study of the ignoble, bearing in mind Paul already mentioned quarrel about words (v14) and godless chatter (v16). The pointer suggesting Paul was still on the same theme he started, “to avoid ignoble”, is found in verse 22, the verse following from our subject verses of 20 & 21. This pointer is best seen in the KJ version, just as the “But” of KJ version’s verse 20 was of significance. Verse 22, KJV, “Flee also youthful lusts….” The “also” here, pointed to Paul wanting to point to other ignoble apart from the two he had mentioned, quarreling about words (v14) and godless chatter (v16).

And so, in verse 22, Paul named evil desires of youth (this connotates the desires of the [fallen] flesh; to flee from it), unrighteousness (to pursue righteousness instead), unfaithfulness (be faithful instead), unloving or not loving (to love instead), and unrest promotion (pursue peace instead). Paul said to cleanse ourselves from the ignoble, and set ourselves to pursue the noble, along with those who call on the Lord out of a pure heart.

Consequence of NOT avoiding ignoble
In elaboration, Paul, in verses 23-26, explained that we are to have nothing to do with foolish and stupid arguments, for they would produce quarrels; the Lord’s servant must NOT quarrel; instead, he must be kind to everyone, able to teach, NOT resentful. Those who oppose him he must gently instruct, in the hope that God will grant them repentance leading them to a knowledge of the truth, and that they will come to their senses and escape from the trap of the devil, who has taken them captive to do his will. Paul was explaining that if we do NOT cleanse ourselves from the ignoble, we might end up being taken captive to do the devil’s will.

Some more ignoble
Paul was one of those biblical authors who, I often said, wrote with great flow, often with singular theme running over many verses and even chapters. Here is no exception; there were some more ignoble; he listed in 2 Tim 3. I will not put down the verses here in this article but you can read them yourselves; these are the some more ignoble he listed: loving self, loving money, boastful, prideful, abusive, disobedience or rebellious against parents, be ungrateful, unholy, love not, unforgiving, slanderous, without self-control, give in to brutality, not loving the good, treacherous, rash, conceited, loving pleasure instead of loving God, pursuit of a form of godliness but denial of its power (2 Tim 3:1-5). Have nothing to do with such people who are set on such ignoble (v5).

What those set on ignoble are like
In verses 6-9 of 2 Tim 3, Paul likened them, people who are set on ignoble, as follows: worms who make their way into homes and gain control over the weak-willed women (use of women, I believe, was symbolic, rather than actually saying they prey only on women); they are men loaded down with sins and are swayed by all kinds of evil desires; men who are always learning but never able to acknowledge the truth; men of depraved minds, some, as far as the faith is concerned, are rejected (serious warning, considered fallen away, no longer accepted), others, will not get very far, for their folly will be clear one day to all.

Paul used himself as example of being noble-minded
In verses 10-11 (of 2 Tim 3), Paul used himself as illustration, and named some of the noble. Paul said, “You, however, know all about my teaching, my way of life, my purpose, faith, patience, love, endurance, persecutions, sufferings …..” In those 2 verses, we find Paul implied the following noble: live a godly life which includes spreading the Gospel, be of faith and exercise faith, be of patience, be loving, be enduring or persevering, embracing persecutions and sufferings (NOT that we should particularly love them, but can expect them, and if we are in them, we are to be prepared to face them and endure them, even with peace and joy in the Holy Spirit).

Marks of nobility and ignobility
Paul then spelled out a mark difference between those who are focused on noble and those, on ignoble: Everyone who wants to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted but the Lord does rescue (He rescued Paul from all, said Paul), while evil men and impostors (those who set on ignoble) will go from bad to worse, deceiving and being deceived (themselves).

Exhortations for Timothy and for us, too
He then rounded up 2 Tim 3 with exhortation for Timothy (v14 – “But as for you, ...”) to continue in what he had learned (be cleansed from, and to avoid, ignoble, and be focused on the noble) and had become convinced of, because of what he learned from the life of Paul (and his team), and from the Holy Scriptures.

Paul’s life attested to the Word, in other words, Paul’s life bore testimony to the truth of the Word or Scripture. Ultimately, Paul must, and he did, point Timothy back to Scripture, for our experiences (even those of Paul) do NOT produce theology; theology comes (and MUST come) from Scripture; our experiences only testifies to it.

Paul adeptly said it, “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.” (2 Tim 3:16-17).

The message of 2 Tim 2:20-21
So what is the message of 2 Tim 2:20-21?

20 {But} In a large house there are articles not only of gold and silver, but also of wood and clay; some are for noble purposes and some for ignoble. 21 If a man cleanses himself from the latter, he will be an instrument for noble purposes, made holy, useful to the Master and prepared to do any good work. (2 Tim 2:20-21)

Earlier, in passing, I have said that when verses 19 & 20 of 2 Timothy 2 are read together, it meant that despite God knowing who {which person(s)} was His, and every believer must turn away from wickedness, there were still those who cleanse NOT themselves from ignoble, and there were those who would, and when they did that (cleanse themselves of ignoble), they would be instrument for noble purpose, useful to God, and would be prepared to do any good work; and that is how 2 Tim 2:20-21 should be read. I will now elaborate more on the message of the 2 verses.

The large house referred to, in verse 20, is the current house of God, the church on earth. The “articles” or “vessels” in KJ translation (KJV), are referring to us, believers or Christians. I preferred the KJV words of vessels. Alternatively, as a parable, we could look at ourselves as “substances”. Some of us are as gold, some as silver, some wood and others, clay. Is it not true, the believers in the church of God are made up of people from all sorts of prior backgrounds, with all sorts of prior aims and purposes, some given in noble purposes, some, ignoble?

Paul was saying, despite (meaning I preferred to adopt the KJ version which began verse 20 with “But”) God knowing who had entered into salvation (became a Christian or believer), and every believer was supposed to (and must) turn away from wickedness, believers entered from all sorts of prior backgrounds, given to all sorts of purposes, some noble, some, ignoble. Their prior backgrounds (likened to gold, silver, wood or clay) and purposes or focuses (noble or ignoble), are not the issue, if the man cleanses himself from the ignoble, he will be an instrument for noble purposes, made holy, useful to the Master and prepared to do any good work. If he does not, he will not be an instrument for noble purposes, made holy, useful to the Master and prepared to do any good work.

So, it is NOT a matter of whether you are gold or silver or just wood or clay, or whatever your prior background was; it is whether or not, having entered into salvation, you are going to cleanse yourselves from the ignoble. What are the ignoble? I have already expounded above. Are we going to flee or get rid of those ignoble from our lives, or using the term of Paul, cleanse ourselves from the ignoble? That we might have those ignoble previously, is NOT the issue; it is, after entering into the house of God or the church of God, are we cleansing ourselves from the ignoble? If we are NOT willing to do that, we CANNOT be instruments for noble purposes, made holy and useful to God to do any good work.

Do not say, “So what!”
You may say, “So what! So what if I am NOT useful to God to do any good work? What is the big deal?” It is big deal. We have seen what Paul said when he rounded up the subject in 2 Tim 3:16-17:

All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.(2 Tim 3:16-17).

What is the purpose (or at least an important purpose) of Scriptures? Verse 17 - “so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for EVERY GOOD WORK.”

We are saved for good works – Eph 2:10 – “For we are God’s workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.”

Eph 2:10, an isolated verse? No, similar thing is said in Titus: Who gave himself for us, that he {Jesus} might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of GOOD WORKS (Titus 2:14. KJV).

What did Jesus say about trees that do NOT bear good fruits? Matt 7:19 – “Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.” The “tree” is symbolic for man.

What does Jesus said about those who called Him, “Lord, Lord” and want to enter the kingdom of heaven? Matt 7:21 – ““Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.”

What did the Apostle James said concerning faith without deeds? James 2:14 – “What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him?” James 2:17 – “…., faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.” James 2:20 – “You foolish man, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless {dead}?”

Jesus’ redemptive works on the Cross for believers are of 3-folds, spiritual, to ransom us back from damnation to Hell, that we may have eternal life, physical, culminating with the granting of incorruptible body after we have died or rapture, and lastly, works or purpose, even though we might not be fully assigned in current life. For better understanding of works is part of redemptive works of Jesus, read my separate article – “Works of redemption by Our Lord”

If you are still NOT convinced of the big deal of good works, try reading Matt 25:31-46 on “Who are the sheep and goats” told by Jesus. Read my separate article on the same, “Who are the sheep, and who are the goats”

You have a choice to make
The important message of 2 Tim 2:20-21 is that we have to cleanse ourselves from ignoble so that we may be instruments of noble purposes, useful to God for good works. If we do NOT know where to start, to do good works or to serve God, start with cleansing ourselves from ignoble.

To me, this is a very important text for people who want to find their places in connection to serving God. This text will NOT tell us specifically what we are “called” to do, but it tells what we need to do to prepare ourselves for service.

FIRSTLY, We have a choice - we can choose to be pursuing noble purposes or ignoble purposes. Even though we have become a believer, we still have a choice, that is why when verses 19 & 20 are taken together, they spoke of, despite God knowing who {which person(s)} was His, and every believer must turn away from wickedness, there were still those who cleanse NOT themselves from ignoble, and there were those who would; there is an onus that lies with the believer!

The text is also a parable
Do NOT say I am clay, NOT gold, so I am only fit to be made into, say, a spittoon, unlike another, the gold, who can be made into, say a meal bowl fit for a king’s use – the portrayal of a man as substance of gold, silver, wood or clay is just a parable placing of the subject (man) side by side with another, the metaphor, substance (gold, silver, wood or clay).

Man is LIKE the substance of gold, silver, wood or clay (I use “substance” as it would imply all, and any, article. The particular article would subsequently be determined by the purpose desired. In some Bible translations “articles” is NOT used, instead the word used is “vessels”. Therefore, it is more appropriate to say the comparison is with the “substance of” rather than articles. And in the Bible we commonly find man being likened to the substance of gold being refined in fire), but he is NOT gold, silver, wood or clay. This is an important point because if you interpret man as the substance, and NOT “like the substance”, you end up with the problem of clay is clay, and gold is gold, one CANNOT be changed into the other. 

The Apostle Paul, separately, also talked about foundation being built from gold, silver, costly stones, wood, hay or straw in his epistle to the Corinthians (1 Cor 3:12 - If any man builds on this foundation using gold, silver, costly stones, wood, hay or straw, ). (If you want to know what a parable is, and a better idea of how parables are to be interpreted, you can read my exposition of the Parable of the Shrewd Manager, here).

If you would take yourself out of the ignoble purposes, God can transform you from “LIKE clay” to “LIKE gold”. It is what you purpose that matters, and that is a choice. For example, do you want to be useless or useful? To be useless is ignoble, to be useful, is noble. Do you want to be a pew warmer or do you want to do something more during a church service? Do you want to use your intelligence to con people or do you want to use your brain to help solve problems? Do you want to spend your money on weekends, shopping, drinking and clubbing most of the time, or do you want to set aside some of the money and time for some more meaningful purposes?

When you set your eyes on the noble purposes, and take yourself out of those ignoble, and plant yourself into the noble ones, the Lord would then be able to come in to set you apart for good work. You may still be like the clay but as time goes by, your heart may slowly turn to gold; and after some more time, maybe you will be all gold to God, and to men too!

There is something noble (NOT ignoble) for everyone
SECONDLY, just like in a huge room, there are many articles serving many different purposes, there are many tasks comprised in the noble purposes of God – there is always one for everybody.

There are many noble-purposed tasks we can put our hearts to. Joining the worship team to lead others to high worship to God counts as one; even worshipping from the pew to bless God and other members of congregation qualifies too (you will be surprised how many people go to church services and NOT sing when it was time to sing); serving as a service usher is easy enough, and it counts; being a helper in the church Sunday School is a good one; giving towards a needy cause sponsored by the church is another; praying for the sick; spending time and money to go on missionary work with your annual leave is good, and intercessory work is commendable. I am sure you can come up with more.

No, I do NOT consider it as the intent and purpose of the Apostle Paul to say, here, that there are both noble and ignoble purposes in the church of God, some of us do the noble and some, the ignoble. About the sovereignty of the Creator, that He could use us in any capacity He desires, that comes from another Scripture passage (Rom 9:21-24), we should NOT confuse the two! (see PS at end of article)

Always remember this
It matters NOT your prior background (like gold, silver, wood or clay) and prior noble or ignoble focuses, what is important is that in the large house of God, when you have cleansed yourselves from the ignoble, you are useful for God for good works. It matters NOT if you were previously gold, silver, wood or clay, speaking in parable terms, as you serve, the Lord will transform you from being like clay or like wood to like silver and eventually like gold. When you set your eyes on the noble purposes, and take yourself out of those ignoble, and plant yourself into the noble ones, the Lord would then be able to come in to set you apart for good work.

You may still be like the clay but as time goes by, your heart may slowly turn to gold; and after some more time, maybe you will be all gold to God, and to men too! The same can still apply for believers who have fallen from grace or have back-slidened; you can come back and re-dedicate your life to the Lord, and go from there.


Anthony Chia, high.expressions – To serve God, we must choose to cleanse ourselves from ignoble, avoid ignoble, set our eyes on noble purposes, and plant ourselves into the latter. It is not some works are common, and some are royal, but that even the good works of ushering for a church service is/can be as noble as that of ministering holy communion, for example.

PS: 2 Tim 2:20-21 and Rom 9:21-24 should NOT be confused together. The former is focused on our responsibility, on our need to choose and effort (“cleanses {purges} HIMSELF from…”); the latter explains the sovereign rights of the Creator. If you are like me, believing that there is the God’s part, and there is the Man’s part in God’s scheme of things, which I believe was also what the Apostle Paul believed in, you will appreciate that we do NOT explain both texts in the same way. Perhaps, I will write on Rom 9:21-24 another day. [Added 07/07/2011 - has since been written: The potter and the clay - His sovereignty.]

Comments are welcome here. Alternatively, email them to me @: high.expressions@gmail.com. Or just email me your email address so that I can put you on my blog (new entry) notification list. To go back to blog main page, click here.

Secret of Obed Edom, faulty premise more likely

In recent times, books, articles, and sermons had been spun out of this so-called secret of Obed-Edom, or the pleasing ways of Obed-Edom. Many of them were erroneous, for their core premise of one Obed-Edom throughout, was faulty. In this long article, by addressing who Obed-Edom was, I will show indeed the core premise used was incorrect, and therefore, the conclusions drawn are NOT admissible as exhortations from the life of an individual called Obed-Edom.
                                                                                 

Link to author's cross catalogue

The following are the few questions that we need to address, with given information in the Bible:

1. The Obed-Edom who housed the ark for 3 months, who was he?
2. The Obed-Edom that followed the 2nd attempt by King David to bring the ark to City of David, who was he?
3. Who was the Obed-Edom who was said to be a musician? And who was the Obed-Edom who was said to be a gatekeeper?
4. And lastly, who was the Obed-Edom who was said to have been the treasurer?


The Obed-Edom who housed the ark for 3 months, who was he?
10 He {David} was not willing to take the ark of the LORD to be with him in the City of David. Instead, he took it aside to the house of Obed-Edom the Gittite. 11 The ark of the LORD remained in the house of Obed-Edom the Gittite for three months, and the LORD blessed him and his entire household. (2 Sam 6:10-11).

The above was recorded of what David did after his first (failed) attempt to bring the ark of the LORD to the City of David (old Jerusalem), from the house of Abinadab. The ark was “parked” in the house of Obed-Edom, the Gittite, for 3 months. Who was this Obed-Edom? First, we need to know who was a Gittite? Scripture tells us that he was a native of Gath, one of the 5 main cities of the Philistines:

From Sihor, which is before Egypt, even unto the borders of Ekron northward, which is counted to the Canaanite: five lords of the Philistines; the Gazathites, and the Ashdothites, the Eshkalonites, the Gittites, and the Ekronites; also the Avites: (Jos 13:3, KJV)
from the Shihor River on the east of Egypt to the territory of Ekron on the north, all of it counted as Canaanite (the territory of the five Philistine rulers in Gaza, Ashdod, Ashkelon, Gath and Ekron—that of the Avvites);(Jos 13:3, NIV)

This verse below confirms that indeed, Gittites were natives of Gath:

All his {David’s} men marched past him, along with all the Kerethites and Pelethites; and all the six hundred Gittites who had accompanied him from Gath marched before the king. (2 Sam 15:18 – Here David was fleeing from Jerusalem because his son, Absalom, has revolted against him)

Now, from the above, we are clear that Gittites were natives of Gath; whether or NOT, Gittites also referred to residents of Gath-Rimmon, the Bible does NOT say. Gath-Rimmon (became of Dan, was believed, situate in the northen part of Dan, near{er} to the Yarkon River) and Gath (of Philistines, nearer to the Valley of Elah) were believed NOT the same.  Scripture said this of Gath-Rimmon, in Joshua 21 - it was one of the many towns given to the Levites in the Promised Land:

23 Also from the tribe of Dan they received Eltekeh, Gibbethon, 24 Aijalon and Gath Rimmon, together with their pasturelands—four towns. 25 From half the tribe of Manasseh they received Taanach and Gath Rimmon, together with their pasturelands—two towns. 26 All these ten towns and their pasturelands were given to the rest of the Kohathite clans. (Joshua 21:23-26).

Now, there are people who linked “Gittite” to Gath-Rimmon, but they gave NOT their reasons. Of course, it does NOT make sense if David is said to have passed through Gath (in the territory of the Philistines) in trying to bring the ark to Jerusalem, for the house of Abinadab was already inside Israel’s territory (Kiriath Jearim {see 1 Chron. 13:6}); but that does NOT mean that the ark was necessarily parked at Gath-Rimmon even though Gath-Rimmon was inside Israel (and Gath was outside); 2 Sam 6:10-11 only said the ark was put aside in the house of a Gittite; not necessarily the place was Gath (regardless, Gath or Gath-Rimmon). Well, even the threshing floor of Nacon where Uzzah was killed for his “unauthorized touch” of the ark has NOT been identified (Nacon, likely to the name of a person, owner of the threshing floor, perhaps). 2 Sam 6:10-11 only said that the ark was taken aside to the house of a Gittite, most likely, a place in Israel, but NOT necessarily in Gath-Rimmon (You can look up old maps on the internet on the likely locations of Gath and Gath-Rimmon yourself.  I will NOT put any here, for copyright reason).

The most plausible conclusion to draw is that the ark was parked in Israel’s territory, at a house on the way from the house of Abinadab to the City of David; and that house belonged to a Gittite. It is completely possible that a native of Gath, therefore, called a Gittite, was staying in the land of Israel, for among the most faithful followers and warriors of King David were the Gittites, and 600 of them were still with David even when David was fleeing Jerusalem when his son, Absalom, revolted against him (2 Sam 15:18 – given above). The Gittites were loyalists; when David was a fugitive from King Saul, they followed David; and when David was again on the run, from his son, Absalom, they still remained loyal. I think it is NOT wrong to say they, despite being Gentiles (non-Israelites), were special vessels of God.

One possible reason for bringing in Gath-Rimmon, by people, I speculate could be because, they wanted to believe the ark of the LORD must be housed with a Levite or Levitical family, and Gath-Rimmon was given to the Kohathites-Levites, as was recorded in Joshua 21:23-26; but did it happen so? I reckoned nearly no one had wanted to take the ark of the LORD then! Even King David was afraid to continue to bring the ark to his City of David. Just imagine, even the son of Abinadab, Uzzah, died for the “unauthorized touch” of the ark. The ark was in the house of Abinadab for 20 years, yet Uzzah was struck dead when he was acting in good faith to steady the ark when the oxen stumbled. Indeed, many would be afraid to take the ark home. It was probably, a loyal Gittite coming to aid of the King, agreed to take the ark back to his house in that place. That Gittite was Obed-Edom.

Obed-Edom was indeed loyal and bold, for Gittites, taking the stance that Gittites were natives of Gath (and NOT Gath-Rimmon), would most likely, of all peoples with David, to remember that 20 years before that, when the ark was captured by the Philistines and circulated in the cities of the Philistines, God inflicted plagues against all the cities of the Philistines, including Gath (God brought tumors there!). But God honored the Gittite, Obed-Edom. God blessed him and his entire household (2 Sam 6:11), for the 3 months the ark was in his house. Frankly speaking, there was no evidence to expect the Gittite was a Levite, for in the first attempt (ark was put aside in this first attempt), David was NOT tasking the Levites to bring back the ark to the City of David; we only know that David went with 30,000 able young men of Israel (2 Sam 6:1). To me, squarely, the ark of the LORD did get housed in a Gentile’s house, and NOT a Levite’s house, and the LORD blessed that Gentile and his entire household.

Who was the Obed-Edom who housed the ark for 3 months? He was Obed-Edom, the Gittite, native of Gath, one of the 5 main cities of the Philistines.


The Obed-Edom that followed the 2nd attempt by King David to bring the ark to City of David, who was he?
1 Chronicles 15 recorded for us, how King David went about to bring the ark of the LORD to the City of David (old Jerusalem) from the house of Obed-Edom; in other words, it was a recording of the 2nd attempt of David to bring the ark to (old) Jerusalem, NOT of the 1st attempt. In Chr 15:4 we read David called together the descendants of Aaron and the Levites, and a whole list of names was given. Realising his mistake, David wanted the priests and Levites to do everything as prescribed by Moses in regard to moving the ark. Among other things, we also read in 1 Chr 15:16-24, this:

16 David told the leaders of the Levites to appoint their fellow Levites as musicians to make a joyful sound with musical instruments: lyres, harps and cymbals. 17 So the Levites appointed Heman son of Joel; from his relatives, Asaph son of Berekiah; and from their relatives the Merarites, Ethan son of Kushaiah; 18 and with them their relatives next in rank: Zechariah,[b] Jaaziel, Shemiramoth, Jehiel, Unni, Eliab, Benaiah, Maaseiah, Mattithiah, Eliphelehu, Mikneiah, Obed-Edom and Jeiel,[c] the gatekeepers. 19 The musicians Heman, Asaph and Ethan were to sound the bronze cymbals; 20 Zechariah, Jaaziel,[d] Shemiramoth, Jehiel, Unni, Eliab, Maaseiah and Benaiah were to play the lyres according to alamoth,[e] 21 and Mattithiah, Eliphelehu, Mikneiah, Obed-Edom, Jeiel and Azaziah were to play the harps, directing according to sheminith.[f] 22 Kenaniah the head Levite was in charge of the singing; that was his responsibility because he was skillful at it. 23 Berekiah and Elkanah were to be doorkeepers for the ark. 24 Shebaniah, Joshaphat, Nethanel, Amasai, Zechariah, Benaiah and Eliezer the priests were to blow trumpets before the ark of God. Obed-Edom and Jehiah were also to be doorkeepers for the ark (1 Chr 15:16-24).

David had wanted to have music and singing to accompany the procession, and the Levites appointed from among themselves (i.e. Levites) people to take various roles. Verse 17 said that Heman (a Kohathite-Levite {1 Chr 6:33-38}) was appointed, and from his relatives, Asaph (a Gershonite-Levite {1 Chr 6:39-42}) was appointed, and from their relatives, the Merarites (Kohathites, Gershonites and Merarites were sub-tribes within the Levi tribe – see 1 Chr 23:6 given below), headed by Ethan (Merarite-Levite {1 Chr 6:44-46}). Included among the 2nd tier Levites (“next in rank”) was one Obed-Edom who was a gatekeeper (v18). So, from here, we can see that the Obed-Edom here was a gatekeeper. He was a Levite, NOT a Gittite, NOT a warrior or bodyguard of David.

3 sets of instruments, cymbals, lyres and harps, were decided to be played. For the cymbals, the musician heads, Heman, Asaph and Ethan would be doing that. Verse 20 listed those who would play the lyres; for the harps, Obed-Edom, the Levite, was involved in there (v21). Another Levite head, Kenaniah, was in charge of singing (v22). Two senior Levites were assigned as doorkeepers for the ark (v23); and they were Berekiah, the father of Asaph (1 Chr 6:39), Elkanah, the grandfather of Heman (1 Chr 6:34), with the same Obed-Edom and one Jehiah as back-up {or maybe, rear-end} doorkeepers (v24). Clearly, Obed-Edom, the Gittite was NOT involved. The Obed-Edom involved in the procession was Obed-Edom, the 2nd tier Levite whose formal and usual job, was a gatekeeper.

From 1 Chr 16:1 we know that David was successful in bringing the ark to the City of David, on this 2nd attempt:

They brought the ark of God and set it inside the tent that David had pitched for it, and they presented burnt offerings and fellowship offerings before God (1 Chr 16:1).

We must understand that at this time, the Temple of Solomon had NOT yet been built; David had prepared a tent to house the ark of the LORD.

So, now, who was the Obed-Edom who was involved in the 2nd attempt by David to bring the ark to the City of David (old Jerusalem)? It was Obed-Edom, a 2nd tier (2nd rank)-Levite who was a gatekeeper, NOT Obed-Edom, the Gittite. Obed-Edom, the Levite, his role in the procession was to play the harp along with other Levites assigned, and secondarily, he served as back-up (or perhaps, rear-end) doorkeeper for the ark.


Who was the Obed-Edom who was said to be a musician? And who was the Obed-Edom who was said to be a gatekeeper?
From the above, the Obed-Edom who had a musical role in the procession was Obed-Edom, the 2nd tier Levite who was a gatekeeper. It had nothing to do with Obed-Edom, the Gittite; although I am NOT saying that it was NOT possible Obed-Edom, the Gittite, followed the ark to the City of David, but Scripture did NOT say he did that.

What about at the City of David? There was a celebration, and this is what was recorded for us:

4 He {David} appointed some of the Levites to minister before the ark of the LORD, to extol,[a] thank, and praise the LORD, the God of Israel: 5 Asaph was the chief, and next to him in rank were Zechariah, then Jaaziel,[b] Shemiramoth, Jehiel, Mattithiah, Eliab, Benaiah, Obed-Edom and Jeiel. They were to play the lyres and harps, Asaph was to sound the cymbals, 6 and Benaiah and Jahaziel the priests were to blow the trumpets regularly before the ark of the covenant of God. (1 Chr 16:4-6)

From 1 Chr 15, we continued into 1 Chr 16; the Obed-Edom in verse 5 (of 1 Chr 16) was the same Obed-Edom who played the harp in bringing the ark to the City. There is no reason to believe that a different Obed-Edom was involved. The difference in rank or tier was still reflected there, Asaph being higher in rank. He (Obed-Edom) just continued to minister before the ark in the same capacity as a harp musician, which was his temporary assignment, for his formal and usual function was a Levite gatekeeper.

It should be understood that the ark of God was moved to the City of David, and placed in a tent specifically made by the order of David for the LORD, but the original Tabernacle (Tent of Meeting) was NOT brought into the City with the ark.

It should be noted with the arrival of the ark in the City of David, David instituted a set of religious duties for the priests and general Levites to be undertaken before the LORD, and this had been omitted in the Book of Samuel, and so, it was more elaborately narrated in 1 Chronicles. I will NOT go into too much details, but it suffices to mention, firstly, the original Tabernacle was still in Gibeon, and secondly, there was then a scenario of 2 tents, one in the City of David with the ark of the LORD in it, and the other, with all the other implements of the tabernacle (including the altar of burnt offering) but without the ark, still in Gibeon. The original Tabernacle (Tabernacle of Moses) with all the other implements could NOT be ignored, and must continue to be maintained. Because of David’s instructions to include music and singing, the Tabernacle at the City of David was also called the Tabernacle of Praise. The Tabernacle of Moses essentially became the Tabernacle of Sacrifice (sacrifices were made on the altar of burnt offering still within the Tabernacle of Moses).

David instituted and wanted Asaph and his associates to minister to the LORD daily at the City of David, according to each day’s requirements. Asaph and his associates were musicians, and so, it is believed they ministered songs, praise, worship, and joyful sound before the LORD daily. Other Levites were left there to minister to the LORD, including the gatekeepers. Now, Obed-Edom was again reflected in David’s instructions:


37 David left Asaph and his associates before the ark of the covenant of the LORD to minister there regularly, according to each day’s requirements. 38 He also left Obed-Edom and his sixty-eight associates to minister with them. Obed-Edom son of Jeduthun, and also Hosah, were gatekeepers. (1 Chr 16:37-38).

39 David left Zadok the priest and his fellow priests before the tabernacle of the LORD at the high place in Gibeon 40 to present burnt offerings to the LORD on the altar of burnt offering regularly, morning and evening, in accordance with everything written in the Law of the LORD, which he had given Israel. 41 With them were Heman and Jeduthun and the rest of those chosen and designated by name to give thanks to the LORD, “for his love endures forever.” 42 Heman and Jeduthun were responsible for the sounding of the trumpets and cymbals and for the playing of the other instruments for sacred song. The sons of Jeduthun were stationed at the gate. (1 Chr 16:39-42).

David appointed Asaph as chief musician to minister before the Tabernacle of Praise in the City of David (v37). The other key head musician, Heman, was sent up to Gibeon to minister before the Tabernacle of Moses where burnt offerings were still being done regularly. In verse 38, we read the Obed-Edom, the Levite, was the son of the Levite, Jeduthun. And he, Obed-Edom, together with his 68 associates ministered with Asaph (and his associates) before the Tabernacle of Praise. And Obed-Edom continued to function in his original role as a gatekeeper.

For one thing, since it was all a continuation, and there was nothing to cause to us to think otherwise, the Obed-Edom referred to, here, should be the same Obed-Edom as in 1 Chr 15, who took part in the procession of the ark into the City of David. Also, one unchallenged view has it that Jeduthun and Ethan of 1 Chr 15:17 {given above} were the same person. That being the case, since Ethan was a Merarite-Levite {1 Chr 6:44-46}, the Obed-Edom here was a Merarite-Levite.

Meanwhile, Zadok, the priest was assigned to Gibeon, for the priest must be there to carry out the burnt offerings on the altar of burnt offerings. Heman and Jeduthun (the father of Obed-Edom) ministered music there, and other sons of Jeduthun functioned as gatekeepers at the Tabernacle of Moses in Gibeon (Some of the sons of Jeduthun also functioned as musicians. Jeduthun family was believed to be great string instrumentalists, especially the harp {1 Chr 25:3 recorded it for us; now, Obed-Edom was NOT listed there; I believed it was because Obed-Edom was assigned to Asaph in the City of David to assist in music, even though formally he was a gatekeeper, while Jeduthun and some of his sons were assigned to Gibeon – The father, Jeduthun went to assist Heman, and his son, Obed-Edom assisted Asaph}).

From notations against the psalms in Scriptures (and also from 1 Chr 25:6 – these 3, Heman, Asaph and Jeduthun, were under the King’s supervision, and they in turn supervised those below them), we know the 3 head musicians of David were Heman, Asaph and Jeduthun, and therefore, I submit to you that, because of the 2 separate locations, due to the 2 Tabernacles, Obed-Edom, son of Jeduthun was put to assist Asaph, even as he (Obed-Edom) continued to serve as a gatekeeper {1 Chr 16:38}, making each location with 2 main musicians {Obed-Edom assisting Asaph, and Jeduthun, Heman}).

The above covered the time period where the Temple of Solomon had NOT yet being built; subsequent to this, in 1 Chr 23, we read that David had become old and he made his son, Solomon, King in his place, and because of his heart for the LORD and the lesson he learnt from his experience of NOT following the prescribed ways of ministering to the LORD, he once again specifically laid down the roles and duties of the Levites (including priests) concerning ministering to the LORD in anticipation of the Temple which Solomon would build, so that his descendants and the people would be careful to observe the requirements of the LORD.

He gathered together all the leaders of Israel, as well as the priests and Levites. The Levites of 30 years old or more were counted, and they numbered 38,000. This was how David divided the roles of the Levites: 24,000 were to supervise the work of the temple, 6,000 were to be officials and judges, 4,000 were to be gatekeepers, and the balance 4,000 were to praise the LORD, i.e. be designated as temple singers of the LORD, to sing and praise God with songs and musical instruments David had provided for that purpose.

In 1 Chr 23:6, we read this:

David divided the Levites into groups corresponding to the sons of Levi: Gershon, Kohath and Merari.

Levi, one of the 12 sons of Israel (aka Jacob) had 3 sons, Gershon, Kohath and Merari. From these 3 came the tribes of Levi.

Gershon’s descendants were listed there - 1 Ch 23:7-11. Moses and Aaron (also Miriam) were siblings, and their father was Amram, son of Kohath, son of Levi, meaning Moses and Aaron were Levites. Because the LORD had, right from the beginning, had Moses led the Israelites, out of Egypt, and Aaron, being made the high-priest, it was the Kohathites who had the exclusivity of being priests for the LORD, amongst the Levites. This meant that all priests were Levites, but NOT all Levites were priests. God designated that priestly functions were to be done by the priests, and the general Levites were subject to the High-priest. The general Levites were supposed to, under the direction of the High-priest (and his priests), to take care of the non-priestly functions. The priestly functions included: consecrating the most holy things, offering of sacrifices before the LORD, ministering before God, and pronouncing blessings in His name. The descendants of Moses were also listed there -1 Chr 23:15-20. The early {just the early} descendants of Merarites were listed there - 1 Chr 23:21-23.

1 Chr 24 further gave us the ancestries of the Levites from the functional (priest and non-priest) perspective. 1 Chr 25 gave us the singers and musicians. 1 Chr 26 gave us the gatekeepers, and in there we read of Obed-Edom!

Obed-Edom appeared in verse 4 (of 1 Chr 26), and because verse 1 has the word, “Korahites (clan of Kohathites), some interpreted Obed-Edom was a Kohathites or Korahites. Actually, there is ambiguity in the couple of verses there; for one, Asaph was listed there, verse 1, worded as if he was under Korahites when we know from 1 Chr 6:39-42, Asaph was a Gershonite-Levite. Although it was possible that some sons of Asaph, and therefore, clans from Asaph could be gatekeepers (as was the case for Jeduthun), Asaph (who co-ranked with Heman {and Jeduthun}) was NOT a Korahites (or Kohathites). It was ambiguous there; whether or not, one can conclude, the Obed-Edom there, in verse 4 (of 1 Chr 26) was also a Korahites, and therefore, conflicts with 1 Chr 16:38 which clearly said Obed-Edom was the son of Jeduthun (aka Ethan), and therefore, a Merarite-Levite, is subjective. I believe, in such a scenario, the correct approach to take, is to adopt the unambiguous verse, and that would be 1 Chr 16:38, i.e. the Obed-Edom who was a gatekeeper was a Merarite and NOT a Kohathite or Korahite Levite. Furthermore, the way 1 Chr 26:1-5 were worded, it appeared to want to refer to the “next in rank” gatekeepers, and their sons, and so, Jeduthun (or Ethan) was NOT reflected there; and also, Jeduthun (or Ethan) was NOT to be classified under “gatekeepers”, for he was a chief musician, and had been reflected in 1 Chr 25. In any case, it was clear that, the Obed-Edom who was a gatekeeper was a Levite, and could not have been a Gentile, Gittite.

Obed-Edom, the Merarite (I have preferred accepting 1 Chr 16:38), had 8 sons (1 Chr 26:4-5), and when lots were casted (then; lots would be casted for each new term), the lot for the South Gate fell to Obed-Edom, and the lot for the storehouse fell to his sons. (1 Chr 26:15). The section on gatekeepers concluded with verse 19 saying this: These were the divisions of the gatekeepers who were descendants of Korah and Merari (I believe Korahite (Kohathite) equivalent in rank with Obed-Edom (of Merarite) was Meshelemiah given in verse 1 (of 1 Chr 26). Just as Obed-Edom’s sons were listed (vv4-5), Meshelemiah’s sons were listed in verses 2-3).

Before we move on to who was the Obed-Edom who was said to be a treasurer, let me conclude on who the Obed-Edom who was said to be a musician, and who was the Obed-Edom who was a gatekeeper. Why did I go at great length about the genealogy and functions of the Levites? It is my hope that you get a clearer picture that it was highly unlikely if NOT impossible for the Gittite Obed-Edom to be functioning as a musician or a gatekeeper or doorkeeper before the ark or Tabernacle or in the Temple of God. I have omitted to refer to the Torah (or the 1st 5 Books of Moses), but if you go there, you will know that God left very strict instructions as to who could minister before Him, before the ark and in the Tabernacle, and therefore, also Temple of God. There was no doubt that David knew his God, the LORD, but he was initially NOT careful to pay attention to this aspect of the requirements of the LORD, and he learnt it the hard way (by the way, king Saul also learnt it the hard way), in his failed attempt (1st attempt) to bring the ark of the LORD from the house of Abinadab to the City of David. David learnt fast and he learnt well, and he wanted to make sure his successor, his son, King Solomon, to know well, and therefore, he laid down clearly, who and who were to minister in what capacities to the LORD. A Gittite Obed-Edom could NEVER be a Merarite-Levite; for who were the Levites was all predetermined, as 1 Chr 23:6 (given above) showed. Today, any believer can be a priest or a pastor, and can minister before the Lord, but that is because of the works of Jesus on the Cross, but back then, it was NOT so. The Obed-Edom who was a gatekeeper was the Merarite-Levite, son of Jeduthun; and he, Obed-Edom doubled-up to minister with head musician, Asaph, at City of David, because his father, Jeduthun was assigned to assist Heman in Gibeon.


And lastly, who was the Obed-Edom who was said to have been the treasurer?
Below is the section from 1 Chr 26 on the treasurers:

20 Their fellow Levites were[b] in charge of the treasuries of the house of God and the treasuries for the dedicated things. 21 The descendants of Ladan, who were Gershonites through Ladan and who were heads of families belonging to Ladan the Gershonite, were Jehieli, 22 the sons of Jehieli, Zetham and his brother Joel. They were in charge of the treasuries of the temple of the LORD.

23 From the Amramites, the Izharites, the Hebronites and the Uzzielites: 24 Shubael, a descendant of Gershom son of Moses, was the officer in charge of the treasuries. 25 His relatives through Eliezer: Rehabiah his son, Jeshaiah his son, Joram his son, Zicri his son and Shelomith his son. 26 Shelomith and his relatives were in charge of all the treasuries for the things dedicated by King David, by the heads of families who were the commanders of thousands and commanders of hundreds, and by the other army commanders. 27 Some of the plunder taken in battle they dedicated for the repair of the temple of the LORD. 28 And everything dedicated by Samuel the seer and by Saul son of Kish, Abner son of Ner and Joab son of Zeruiah, and all the other dedicated things were in the care of Shelomith and his relatives. (1 Chr 26:20-28)

Another key function of the Levites was to act as treasurers for the temple of the LORD, for there were the general treasuries, and the treasuries of dedicated things. There were offerings dropped off, by the people who came to the Temple, there were the dedicated things of the Temple, and the latter included those dedicated by the kings, as well as plunders of war dedicated for the Temple or to the LORD.

From the above scripture passage, we know only 2 of the 3 sub-tribes of the Levites were involved as treasurers. From verses 21-22, we know the Gershonites were involved. From verse 23, we know the Kohathites were involved; Amramites, Izharites, Hebronites and Ussielites were all clans within Kohathites; Amramites, for example, were descendants of Amram, descendant of Kohath. (Some of the Kohathites were also assigned out of the temple to be officials and judges over Israel).

From the above, we know that Merarite-Levites were NOT involved as treasurers, and so, solely based on the above, there could NOT be a Merarite-Levite Obed-Edom who was a treasurer. Then, from where did that erroneous notion come? It came from a misunderstanding of what the role of the gatekeepers given charge of the storehouse of the Temple, and a misreading of 2 Chr 25:23-24 where the name Obed-Edom appeared.

In 1 Chr 26:14-16 we read this, regarding the Temple gates and the storehouse of the Temple:

14 The lot for the East Gate fell to Shelemiah.[a] Then lots were cast for his son Zechariah, a wise counselor, and the lot for the North Gate fell to him. 15 The lot for the South Gate fell to Obed-Edom, and the lot for the storehouse fell to his sons. 16 The lots for the West Gate and the Shalleketh Gate on the upper road fell to Shuppim and Hosah. (1 Chr 26:14-16)

From the above, we know that in those days, among the gatekeepers (Levites), they drew lots to assign duties for each term. And we know, as previously noted, Obed-Edom, the Merarite-Levite was assigned the South Gate. From verse 15 above, we also know that the storehouse lot fell to Obed-Edom’s sons. Now, the whole section in this 1 Chr 26 was concerning the gatekeepers, in other words, the storehouse and the 4 gates came under the gatekeepers. Among the many duties, and you can read about them in 1 Chr 9:26-29 (although there, the scenario painted could be that of the Tabernacle {v24} rather than a temple, but it was still equally applicable), was that gatekeepers guarded over the gates, and if the storehouse was included, the guarding of the same. In other words, their main duties were that of a guard. Now, as a guard for the storehouse was different from being the treasurer of the treasury of the Temple. It is NOT even important to discuss what was found in the storehouse, but verse 28 of 1 Chr 9 painted to us, articles used in the Temple (made of gold and silver) moved in and out of the storehouse, and it was the duty of the gatekeepers or guards to check if correct number were taken out and returned. Gatekeepers in charge of the storehouse were guards on duty to ensure the storehouse was NOT broken into, burgled, and items pilfered, they were NO treasurers. The Merarites-Levites gatekeepers, like Obed-Edom or his sons, were NOT Temple treasurers.

Now, we turn to 2 Chr 25:23-24:

23 Jehoash king of Israel captured Amaziah king of Judah, the son of Joash, the son of Ahaziah,[e] at Beth Shemesh. Then Jehoash brought him {king Amaziah} to Jerusalem and broke down the wall of Jerusalem from the Ephraim Gate to the Corner Gate—a section about six hundred feet[f] long. 24 He took all the gold and silver and all the articles found in the temple of God that had been in the care of Obed-Edom, together with the palace treasures and the hostages, and returned to Samaria. (2 Chr 25:23-24)

Now, the above incident happened, at least 180 years after the reign of King David (if you traced the genealogy of the kings of Judah, Amaziah came into power after more than ½ a dozen kings). So, firstly, the Obed-Edom here could NOT be the Gittite Obed-Edom. Secondly, the Merarite-Levite Obed-Edom, of David’s time, around the same time as the Gittite Obed-Edom, too, could NOT have lived until the time of King Amaziah!

One possibility is that the Obed-Edom here was referring to the clan name, started from The Merarite-Levite Obed-Edom. This means that the actual person(s) involved were the descendant(s) of the Merarite-Levite gatekeeper, Obed-Edom, NOT himself; and they were NO treasurers of the treasury of the Temple; they were merely gatekeepers, who, in that time, also had been assigned to guard the storehouse. If at all it was referring to a specific individual, then it had to be a recycling of ancestral name, which was NOT impossible, but it obviously was NOT the same Obed-Edom of David’s time (from the bringing of the ark into the City of David).

The king of Israel (Northern Kingdom, Israel, for the United Monarchy of Israel was already split, into Israel and Judah {in the south}) came attacking and broke a section of the wall of Jerusalem, went into the Temple, and looted the storehouse which was then under the guarding of the Obed-Edom clan, and the Israelites from the North (Samaria), also looted the palace treasury and took hostages.

The above was what it was all about; and there was NO Gittite Obed-Edom as treasurer, in charge of the Temple treasury, nor was there the Merarite-Levite Obed-Edom, son of Jeduthun, personally present (or still alive), but merely that the descendants of the Merarite-Levite Obed-Edom were on duty at that time as gatekeepers of one of the gates and the storehouse.

I repeat, books, articles, and sermons had been spun out of this so-called secret of Obed-Edom, or the pleasing ways of Obed-Edom; they were erroneous, for their core premise of one Obed-Edom throughout, was faulty. While I know 2 Tim 3:16 said that “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness”, still facts and reasonableness CANNOT be ignored. Filling-in of gaps is one thing, but no matter how we fill in the gap, we cannot contradict existing facts given in Scripture.

These are clear:
1. In the first attempt by David to bring the ark of the LORD from the house of Abinadab to the City of David, when Uzziah was struck by the LORD and killed, the ark was “parked” with the Gittite Obed-Edom. There was NOTHING to suggest the Gittite Obed-Edom was also the subsequent Merarite-Levite. A Levite was a Levite, he could NOT be a Gittite, and a Gittite could NOT be a Levite (Even if the Gath referred to, in 2 Sam 6:10-11 was equated to Gath-Rimmon, a Kohathite-Levite and a Merarite-Levite were NOT the same). By the way, Levites, they did NOT fight in battles, unlike the Gittites who were warriors for David.

2. The Obed-Edom who functioned as a musician, playing the harp, and served as a back-up (or rear-end) doorkeeper in David’s 2nd attempt to bring the ark to the City of David, was NOT the Gittite Obed-Edom. The latter, whether or NOT he followed the ark of the LORD down to the City of David, we know NOT, for scriptures did NOT say.

3. The Obed-Edom who functioned as a musician, played the harp, and served as a doorkeeper in David’s 2nd attempt to bring the ark of LORD to the City of David was the Merarite-Levite, Obed-Edom, son of Jeduthun.

4. The duties of Levites were all established during the time of Moses, right from the time God took the Levi Tribe as His own to minister to Him. They did NOT fight directly in battles, and they did NOT inherit territories but were given cities and places to live, and were (supposed to be) looked after, by the other tribes of Israel, as was instructed by God. Functions such as priests and gatekeepers were long established, the various sub-tribes and clans of the Levites knew what they were supposed to do. A clan assigned to be gatekeepers, generally stayed as gatekeepers for generations. Only certain Levites could be priests, the rest could NOT; all these duties and functions of the Levites were carefully observed, although there were periods of lapses (in Judges Period for example) but still occasions revealed in Scriptures were none of the kind that Gentiles taking over the roles of Levites as a normality. A Gentile could NOT be deemed a Levite and functioned like a Levite (At least NOT under the hand of David, after his realization of the importance of the roles of Levites, after his 1st attempt to move the ark). Examples are present in Scripture of the fury of God’s wrath when there was disobedience; the Uzziah incident was one; the 2 sons of Aaron died when they offered “unauthorized” fire before the LORD was another; and King Saul losing his kingdom when he took upon himself the role which the priest and prophet, Samuel, could function in, was also another. You should be convinced by the lengthy and detailed instructions of David concerning all of these, after he realised the seriousness of properly ministering before the LORD.

5. The Levite Obed-Edom was merely doing his duties, almost NOTHING more than that. He was a Merarite-Levite, and his job for life was a gatekeeper, and his sons were to be, also; except, because of David’s remodeling of the worship ministering before the LORD, he doubled up as a musician. As evidenced by scriptures which we have seen above, even after more than ½ a dozen kings later on, his descendants or clan were still gatekeepers.

6. There was nothing of the sorts that the Levite Obed-Edom did an extraordinary good job of having his sons also serving the LORD. No, if you were a Levite-gatekeeper, your sons would be one; they just would NOT be going round trying to do another thing, unless the King or the priest said so. If they did, most likely they were doing them against the wishes of the LORD or because the other tribes of Israel failed to provide for the Levite tribe (as they were required to, by the LORD) as recorded for us, in occasions, in the Judges Period.

7. Obed-Edom was NOT promoted from a gatekeeper to be a treasurer. If there was any scope expansion, it was only that David had let him doubled up as musician to support Asaph in the City of David, before the Tabernacle of Praise, which housed the ark, because his (Obed-Edom’s) father, Jeduthun, had to be at Gibeon to support Heman who was ministering before the Tabernacle of Moses (of Sacrifice).

Only if you are preaching Obed-Edom NOT in contradiction to the above points, you perhaps have a “legitimate message”. Similarly, for listeners or readers, watch what you hear or read; whatever the message, it must NOT contradict the above points. If you have NOT heard about Obed-Edom being portrayed as models in the likes of Abraham, Moses, Joseph, Esther, etc, until more recently, it was because Scripture did NOT make him out to be one. Separating him from the Gittite Obed-Edom, the Levite Obed-Edom was NOT given any comments by God of how he had functioned; we were merely told of what he functioned in, as a Levite, hardly enough to build any case of him having any pleasing ways or secrets!

                                                                                 

Link to author's items catalogue

Anthony Chia, high.expressions –
Lord, as far as I could search out, your Word did NOT contain the facts that could justify the use of the character, Obed-Edom, particularly, to say the way to receive prosperity blessings from you is to follow the ways of Obed-Edom, the Levite. But I did learn you used the Gentiles, Gittites, for your cause of protecting your servant, David, and the Gittites showed great dedication and loyalty to their leader, David; and you were pleased to bless when we revere you despite our fear.

Comments are welcome. Alternatively, email them to me @ high.expressions@gmail.com.

Or just email me your email address so that I can put you on my blog (new entry) notification list. To go back to blog main page, click here.

It is a tug of war

There is indeed a tug of war, but it is NOT as Paul McCartney put it (in his 1982 album of the same name); it is NOT a tug of war to try to outdo or outscore one another.

It is a tug of war alright, but is NOT about Paul before salvation
No, Romans 7:14-24 was NOT a painting of a life of the Apostle Paul before salvation. It was an illustration by Paul, using his own experience of life as a believer, of what it was like to live a Christian life. It was his attempt to stress that we MUST WILL to follow the ways of God despite having entered into salvation. It was NOT and it is NOT “Abra-cadabra, and you now (upon born-again) automatically follow all the ways of God”. Nor is it “voila or presto and your will is perfectly aligned to that of God - no more struggle!”

Romans 7:14-25, 8:1-15
Romans 7:14-25 - 14 We know that the law is spiritual; but I am unspiritual, sold as a slave to sin. 15 I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do.

16 And if I do what I do not want to do, I agree that the law is good.

17 As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me. 18 I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my sinful nature. For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. 19 For what I do is not the good I want to do; no, the evil I do not want to do—this I keep on doing. 20 Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it.

21 So I find this law at work: When I want to do good, evil is right there with me. 22 For in my inner being I delight in God’s law; 23 but I see another law at work in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within my members.

24 What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death?

25 Thanks be to God—through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, I myself in my mind am a slave to God’s law, but in the sinful nature a slave to the law of sin.


Romans 8:1-15 - 1 Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, 2 because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit of life set me free from the law of sin and death. 3 For what the law was powerless to do in that it was weakened by the sinful nature, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful man to be a sin offering. And so he condemned sin in sinful man, 4 in order that the righteous requirements of the law might be fully met in us, who do not live according to the sinful nature but according to the Spirit.

5 Those who live according to the sinful nature have their minds set on what that nature desires; but those who live in accordance with the Spirit have their minds set on what the Spirit desires.

6 The mind of sinful man is death, but the mind controlled by the Spirit is life and peace; 7 the sinful mind is hostile to God. It does not submit to God’s law, nor can it do so. 8 Those controlled by the sinful nature cannot please God. 9 You, however, are controlled not by the sinful nature but by the Spirit, if the Spirit of God lives in you. And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Christ.

10 But if Christ is in you, your body is dead because of sin, yet your spirit is alive because of righteousness. 11 And if the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead is living in you, he who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit, who lives in you.

12 Therefore, brothers, we have an obligation—but it is not to the sinful nature, to live according to it. 13 For if you live according to the sinful nature, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live, 14 because those who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God. 15 For you did not receive a spirit that makes you a slave again to fear, but you received the Spirit of sonship. And by him we cry, “Abba, Father.”

The above passage is indeed a long passage; but really, to do meaningful study of the Word, often it is necessary to look at big chunk of scriptures at a go, for Bible authors, such as Paul, wrote with great flow, often with singular theme running over many verses and chapters.

3 grounds it was NOT a flashback
A number of people have argued that Romans 7:14-24 was a flashback by the Apostle Paul of the time he was NOT a believer yet; and so, such people are arguing that Paul was talking about the struggles in him before he became a believer. In isolation, perhaps, one could say that, but if one reads the verses following, which was a continuation of the same theme, in Romans 8:12, we find the answer that Paul was NOT doing a flashback.

In fact, the present tense used for Romans 7:14-25 already painted to us a picture that Paul was NOT doing a flashback, for NORMALLY, if it were a narration of the past, past tense would have been used by the author.

Let’s us look at what Romans 8:12 said.

Therefore, brothers, we have an obligation—but it is not to the sinful nature, to live according to it (Rom 8:12).

Remember now, this epistle of Paul was written to the believers in Rome, and in Romans 8:12, we read that Paul used the word, “brothers”, meaning he was referring to the Roman believers. Paul said, “we”, meaning, the Romans believers and himself (Paul), in other words, believers generally, have an OBLIGATION {or be a debtor to, KJV}. Now, if Romans 7:14-25 was a flashback, about Paul’s life and struggles before becoming a believer, then accordingly, Romans 8:1-11 must be referring to the change upon and after salvation or born-again. Indeed, Romans 8:1-11 was talking about what happens upon salvation or born-again, and post born-again. But was Romans 7:24 the question Paul posed before his salvation, and Romans 8:1-11, the answer to that question, we have to determine.

In brief, there are 3 grounds for NOT believing that Paul was doing a flashback:
1. Present tense used
2. How Paul was before conversion, and how he was being converted
3. If sinful nature is NOT relevant or dead, why talk about obligation to it

The first is clear-cut, and has been explained above; we will look at the remaining two grounds.

Have you forgotten how Paul was and how he was being converted?
Now, how was Paul converted? People who argued Romans 7:14-24 was a flashback erred on NOT taking into account how Paul, previously known as Saul, was converted and the kind of life he was having before conversion. Paul did NOT hear the Gospel, felt somewhat convicted, but continued to do the evil of persecuting the believers, and then one day, on hearing a good preaching, accepted Jesus as his Lord and Savior. Saul’s conversion was NOT the run-of-the-mill conversion.

Below was how Paul had narrated his past, before believing and how he became converted:

Acts 22:3-10 - 3 “I am a Jew, born in Tarsus of Cilicia, but brought up in this city. Under Gamaliel I was thoroughly trained in the law of our fathers and was just as zealous for God as any of you are today. 4 I persecuted the followers of this Way to their death, arresting both men and women and throwing them into prison, 5 as also the high priest and all the Council can testify. I even obtained letters from them to their brothers in Damascus, and went there to bring these people as prisoners to Jerusalem to be punished. 6 “About noon as I came near Damascus, suddenly a bright light from heaven flashed around me. 7 I fell to the ground and heard a voice say to me, ‘Saul! Saul! Why do you persecute me?’ 8 “‘Who are you, Lord?’ I asked. “ ‘I am Jesus of Nazareth, whom you are persecuting,’ he replied. 9 My companions saw the light, but they did not understand the voice of him who was speaking to me. 10 “‘What shall I do, Lord?’ I asked. “ ‘Get up,’ the Lord said, ‘and go into Damascus. There you will be told all that you have been assigned to do.’ 11 My companions led me by the hand into Damascus, because the brilliance of the light had blinded me.

Even when Paul was testifying before King Agrippa, he gave a similar account; here is a part of it (Acts 26:15-18):
15 “Then I asked, ‘Who are you, Lord?’ “ ‘I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting,’ the Lord replied. 16 ‘Now get up and stand on your feet. I have appeared to you to appoint you as a servant and as a witness of what you have seen of me and what I will show you. 17 I will rescue you from your own people and from the Gentiles. I am sending you to them 18 to open their eyes and turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan to God, so that they may receive forgiveness of sins and a place among those who are sanctified by faith in me.’
This was what Paul told King Agrippa concerning what he, Paul, had been doing most zealously before his supernatural encounter with Jesus on the road to Damascus:
9 “I too was convinced that I ought to do all that was possible to oppose the name of Jesus of Nazareth. 10 And that is just what I did in Jerusalem. On the authority of the chief priests I put many of the saints in prison, and when they were put to death, I cast my vote against them. 11 Many a time I went from one synagogue to another to have them punished, and I tried to force them to blaspheme. In my obsession against them, I even went to foreign cities to persecute them. (Acts 26:9-11).

I submit to you, Paul, before conversion, did NOT struggle the struggles painted in Romans 7:14-24. He was deceived and in deception, he thought he did right, and he, before he became a believer was bent on persecuting believers, and was so obsessed with it that the Lord said Saul was persecuting Him, the Lord Himself! The sentiment expressed by Romans 7:24 – “What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death?” could NOT have been that of Paul’s before his conversion. His conversion was one of those “you have no choice”, so to speak; God had chosen him, he “could not” refuse. Rather, the sentiment expressed in Romans 7:24 was that of a man, truly had had experienced God, and understood his own utter wretchedness despite having been born-again. Romans 7:14-24 could NOT be a flashback of Paul’s condition before conversion, rather it was a speaking of the struggles that he, Paul, still had to put up with, to pursue the course that the Lord had designated him to take, as he himself had testified, before King Agrippa (Acts 26:15-18), above.

[Added 27/07/2011: The Apostle Paul also exhorted, in Gal 5:13, 16-17, BELIEVERS to live by the Spirit, and NOT to gratify the desires of the sinful nature: 13 YOU, MY BROTHERS {cap, mine}, were called to be free. But do not use your freedom to indulge the sinful nature; rather, serve one another in love. (Gal 5:13) 16 So I say, live by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the sinful nature. 17 For the sinful nature desires what is contrary to the Spirit, and the Spirit what is contrary to the sinful nature. They are in conflict with each other, so that you do not do what you want. (Gal 5:16-17 – notice the similar fashion of expression of the struggle – the tug of war!)]

Some misconceptions
It is a misinterpretation and a lie, on the part of many overly grace preachers and believers, that the Apostle Paul taught perfection (righteousness and all) upon born-again or salvation. All over, in many epistles of Paul, he wrote about the need to grow and mature. This passage of Romans 7:14-25 was one such admission of even himself still needing to put up with battling against that which Satan had stacked against Man. The above text of Acts 26:15-18 recorded for us what Jesus had taken hold of Paul, and in Phil 3:12, we read Paul expressed his imperfection and the right posture of a believer –

Not that I {Paul} have already obtained all this, or have already been made perfect, but I press on to take hold of that for which Christ Jesus took hold of me (Phil 3:12).

Some argued that it is preposterous to say, the God-appointed Apostle Paul was still so unspiritual, and he did what he had NOT wanted to do, and did what he hated to do (Romans 7:14-15) even after he was born-again. What these people did NOT realize was that those words were a lamentation of a contrite heart of a mature believer. A mark of true growth in a Christian life is increased sensitivity to sinfulness; NOT only the person leaves sin, he abhors it, just as God would. Here is NOT the place to elaborate on “You are a new creation upon born-again”, but central to this new creation fact, is the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, and as a believer continues to be increasingly yielded to the Holy Spirit, his sensitivity and abhorrence of sin increases, and his awareness of his own utter carnality or wretchedness increases.

How could Paul, while saying he was unspiritual, said the law is spiritual (Romans 7:14)? In fact, 2 verses earlier, in Romans 7:12, Paul said, “the law is holy, and the commandment is holy, righteous and good”. This is again another mark of maturity, and a more mature believer knows that he can get to understand God a little more through His many precepts, and appreciates what the psalmist said in Ps 119:104, that “Through thy precepts I get understanding: therefore I hate every false way.” Again, it is misinterpretation, and by many, to say Paul taught that laws (commandments, precepts) are NOT important or irrelevant to the Christian’s life.

We come back to Romans 8:12 – about obligation
In Romans 8:12, Paul said that we, believers, have an OBLIGATION {or be a debtor to, KJV}, but it is NOT to the sinful nature, and it is NOT to live according to it. If sinful nature was NO longer an issue, why would Paul have talked about the possibility of believers (including himself) having an obligation to it? If sinful nature is non-issue or completely done away with, upon born-again, why talk of obligation to it. Very obviously, Paul was NOT talking about, before salvation sinful nature was an issue, and after salvation it was a non-issue or dead. Paul did NOT say, “Abra-cadabra, you are born-again, sinful nature no more; or voila or presto, now you automatically sin no more.” Worst still, some believers actually believe they cannot sin (impossible to sin; erroneous interpretations of 1 John 3:9 & 1 John 5:18a – those interested, can read my separate article – “Please, 1 John 3:9 does not mean a believer cannot (unable to) sin!”).

It is precisely because there is still the sinful nature still operating and the Holy Spirit operating, that we, believers, have to choose. If sinful nature is no longer operating in a believer, then there is no need to choose. Paul was painting a matter of choice; don’t believe, see what the subsequent verse, Romans 8:13 said:

13 For if you live according to the sinful nature, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live,

Now, some people still insist on saying Paul was painting the picture generically, meaning if a person, if he decides NOT to be born-again, then he is making the decision of living according to the sinful nature, he will die, but if he decides to be born-again, he will live. If we look at the verse in isolation, yes, that is a possible interpretation, but we have just looked at the verse before it (v12) and we read loud and clear, who Paul was talking and referring to, “Therefore, BROTHERS, WE have an obligation ….”. Yes, believers, including Paul himself. In fact, the “For” at the start of verse 13, is the same as the conjunctive, “since”, meaning verses 12 & 13 are to be read together. In other words, verses 12 & 13 could read like this:

Therefore, BROTHERS, WE have an obligation, but it is not to the sinful nature, to live according to it SINCE if you live according it, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live,(Romans 8:12-13 joined and rephrased, substituting “since” for “for”)

If you still insist to think that Paul was addressing the believers, but NOT that they, the believers, were posed the choice, but rather non-believers had to decide, then let me tell you it was unlikely that Paul or for that matter, any man writing to instruct another, to instruct on non-existing scenario. It is as good as we, telling our sons this: “Son, tonight, when you sleep in the park (camping), and when a dinosaur comes into the camp, you are to pretend to continue to sleep and not move, so that the dinosaur will think that you are dead and will not eat you up.” The boys will say you are crazy, for there are no more dinosaurs! If sinful nature is dead, do you think Paul would say, “BROTHERS, WE have an obligation … not to the sinful nature”?

People are just kidding themselves if they think upon born-again, sinful nature is dead, and Satan is dead. The overall counsel of the Word did NOT paint such pictures as sinful nature is dead or Satan is dead or if you are a believer, it is now alright for you to give in to the sinful nature in you (exercise NOT self-control), because you are now a born-again.

What really is that tug of war?
For a believer, 2 “parties” are operating in him; one, Iniquity or Sin or sinful nature (this is NOT the mere act of wrongdoing, but it is in the like of iniquity {“evil”} of Eze 28:15, KJV) which we all inherited from the Original Sin (from the Fall), and two, the Holy Spirit {I tell you a revelation: even the Apostle Paul interpreted the relevant verses of Eze 28 as depicting the fall of Lucifer (aka Satan) – read 1 Tim 3:6 if you do NOT believe!}. Before conversion, a man is a slave to Iniquity or sinful nature; the man has almost no means of resisting, for Satan who replicated Iniquity into Man, has authority over all unregenerate men (or men NOT born-again). At conversion, God put His Holy Spirit into the person, and the born-again man has the Holy Spirit indwelling him. At the Fall, Satan replicated Iniquity or sinful nature into Man, at born again or salvation, God put a deposit of His own Spirit (also called the Holy Spirit or Spirit of Christ) into Man. Jesus, the Son of God, has defeated Satan (but Satan is NOT dead), and wrestled back, that authority over Man which was lost in the Fall of Man, in the Garden of Eden.

Because, in the first place, God created Man with free-will, even when Jesus had wrestled back that authority, God only held it until a man gives his life over to Jesus. God gave that authority back to the man entering into born-again. It amounts to God saying to the man, “Now, so-and-so, Satan no longer has authority over you. That authority over your life is now vested back into your hand. You, once again, have free-will, to decide if you will obey me, God, and live, or if you still want to choose to re-give that authority to Satan, all over again, in which case, you will die.”

Now, that Satan, has no real authority over a believer does NOT mean that he has no more powers; there is a difference between authority and power. Against a believer, unless he has re-given the authority to Satan, Satan has NO authority over the believer, even though he, Satan, has powers. What it means is that as a believer, we can refuse Satan, and he cannot exercise authority over us. But he, Satan, has powers (NOT yet removed from him) to tempt a believer, to deceive a believer, even powers to perform signs and wonders and miracles. To level out the playing field, in fact, more than level out the field, so to speak, God put His Spirit to indwell you upon your born-again, even as Satan had Iniquity (or sinful nature) indwelled you.

There is a war on, a war between God and Satan (lopsided, nevertheless, a war), and there is a tug of war within us, and that is between the dictates of the Holy Spirit and that of Iniquity or sinful nature. But because God did NOT take away a believer’s free-will, we have to choose which side of the tug of war we are on, to follow the dictates of the Spirit of God against the misdeeds of sinful nature or to still choose to allow ourselves to be enslaved by the sinful desires of the sinful nature, even though we are freed at born-again. Isn’t that what Romans 8:12-13 is painting to us?:

Therefore, BROTHERS, WE have an obligation, but it is not to the sinful nature, to live according to it SINCE if you live according it, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live,(Romans 8:12-13 joined and rephrased, substituting “since” for “for”)

Why an obligation? Because Jesus died to set you and I, believers, free from the slavery of sinful nature. Indeed, we, believers, have an obligation to the Spirit of God, and to live by it (Him); and it is only by the Spirit we can put to death the misdeeds of the flesh (sinful nature resides in the flesh), and live.

Verse 14 (of Romans 8), i.e. the next verse, went on to say that those who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God. Why did Paul said that, when the Holy Spirit already adopted our spirits as sons of God? The answer is this (another revelation!): God adopts us, that is His part; when we allow ourselves be led by His Spirit, that is when we are acknowledging God as our Father. Isn’t it also so, for the human father and son? A man begot a son, the son did no part, but we know, that son, acknowledges the man as his father when he allows himself be led by that man.

Indeed, there is that tug of war within every believer, a pull from the Father of perdition through Iniquity or Sin or sinful nature, and a pull from the Father of Heaven through the Holy Spirit. At the base of it all, love is a choice (that’s another revelation for some). Your choice is your love. Do you choose your Creator? Do you choose the One who first loved you by giving of His Son to die on your behalf? Do you choose the One who adopted us first, as sons of Heaven? Often not easy, even Paul experienced that, yet which side are you on? Do you pull to the tune of the Holy Spirit, or to that of Iniquity?


Anthony Chia, high.expressions – Fear not Iniquity or sinful nature or Satan, for you and I have received NOT a spirit of timidity but a Spirit of sonship. He, who is in us, the Holy Spirit, is greater than he who is outside us (in the world), Satan {from 1 John 4:4}. The Holy Spirit is in us, but Satan is NOT, if you permit him NOT. Only Iniquity or sinful nature is in us, but we have God in us. Amen.

PS: We can put to death the misdeeds of sinful nature. Sinful nature dies only when we die, for then the body is no more, until replaced by an incorruptible body.

Comments are welcome here. Alternatively, email them to me @: ... {click on it to reveal complete address}

Or just email me your email address so that I can put you on my blog (new entry) notification list. To go back to blog main page, click here.