ECT Forbearing threatening

[nikolai_42]

And, ye masters, do the same things unto them, forbearing threatening: knowing that your Master also is in heaven; neither is there respect of persons with him.
Ephesians 6:9

Is this telling masters (bosses, slave owners etc...) not to threaten those who work for them because if they do, God will threaten them? Or is it saying not to do so because God doesn't threaten (as a means of "motivation")?

Is there some meaning to "threatening" that goes beyond the general understanding we have of it today?

 

[oatmeal]

And, ye masters, do the same things unto them, forbearing threatening: knowing that your Master also is in heaven; neither is there respect of persons with him.
Ephesians 6:9

Is this telling masters (bosses, slave owners etc...) not to threaten those who work for them because if they do, God will threaten them? Or is it saying not to do so because God doesn't threaten (as a means of "motivation")?

Is there some meaning to "threatening" that goes beyond the general understanding we have of it today?

Believers who are masters/employers have the same master as the employees/slaves.

Masters/employees should remember that when dealing with subordinates

Jesus taught a parable on a similar situation

If we expect forgiveness, we should readily forgive as well.

Yet, if we have learned to do well, we could teach others to do well also

Matthew 18:21-35

Then came Peter to him, and said, Lord, how oft shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? till seven times?

22 Jesus saith unto him, I say not unto thee, Until seven times: but, Until seventy times seven.

23 Therefore is the kingdom of heaven likened unto a certain king, which would take account of his servants.

24 And when he had begun to reckon, one was brought unto him, which owed him ten thousand talents.

25 But forasmuch as he had not to pay, his lord commanded him to be sold, and his wife, and children, and all that he had, and payment to be made.

26 The servant therefore fell down, and worshipped him, saying, Lord, have patience with me, and I will pay thee all.

27 Then the lord of that servant was moved with compassion, and loosed him, and forgave him the debt.

28 But the same servant went out, and found one of his fellowservants, which owed him an hundred pence: and he laid hands on him, and took him by the throat, saying, Pay me that thou owest.

29 And his fellowservant fell down at his feet, and besought him, saying, Have patience with me, and I will pay thee all.

30 And he would not: but went and cast him into prison, till he should pay the debt.

31 So when his fellowservants saw what was done, they were very sorry, and came and told unto their lord all that was done.

32 Then his lord, after that he had called him, said unto him, O thou wicked servant, I forgave thee all that debt, because thou desiredst me:

33 Shouldest not thou also have had compassion on thy fellowservant, even as I had pity on thee?

34 And his lord was wroth, and delivered him to the tormentors, till he should pay all that was due unto him.

35 So likewise shall my heavenly Father do also unto you, if ye from your hearts forgive not every one his brother their trespasses.

 

[nikolai_42]

Believers who are masters/employers have the same master as the employees/slaves.

Masters/employees should remember that when dealing with subordinates

Jesus taught a parable on a similar situation

If we expect forgiveness, we should readily forgive as well.

Yet, if we have learned to do well, we could teach others to do well also

Matthew 18:21-35

Then came Peter to him, and said, Lord, how oft shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? till seven times?

22 Jesus saith unto him, I say not unto thee, Until seven times: but, Until seventy times seven.

23 Therefore is the kingdom of heaven likened unto a certain king, which would take account of his servants.

24 And when he had begun to reckon, one was brought unto him, which owed him ten thousand talents.

25 But forasmuch as he had not to pay, his lord commanded him to be sold, and his wife, and children, and all that he had, and payment to be made.

26 The servant therefore fell down, and worshipped him, saying, Lord, have patience with me, and I will pay thee all.

27 Then the lord of that servant was moved with compassion, and loosed him, and forgave him the debt.

28 But the same servant went out, and found one of his fellowservants, which owed him an hundred pence: and he laid hands on him, and took him by the throat, saying, Pay me that thou owest.

29 And his fellowservant fell down at his feet, and besought him, saying, Have patience with me, and I will pay thee all.

30 And he would not: but went and cast him into prison, till he should pay the debt.

31 So when his fellowservants saw what was done, they were very sorry, and came and told unto their lord all that was done.

32 Then his lord, after that he had called him, said unto him, O thou wicked servant, I forgave thee all that debt, because thou desiredst me:

33 Shouldest not thou also have had compassion on thy fellowservant, even as I had pity on thee?

34 And his lord was wroth, and delivered him to the tormentors, till he should pay all that was due unto him.

35 So likewise shall my heavenly Father do also unto you, if ye from your hearts forgive not every one his brother their trespasses.

I don't really disagree, but it doesn't really answer the question. Threatening is a method of "motivation". Any parent knows that this is something that is used - even if mildly as a consequence of disobedience. And there is at least a hint of that in scripture (the "threat" of eternal punishment is not what I would call mild). And while masters can't put those under them into everlasting punishment, they may need to institute discipline of some sort. So are they being told not to threaten that?

 

[Truster]

Matthew Henry provides a commentary on this:

The duty of masters: "And you masters, do the same things unto them (v. 9); that is, act after the same manner. Be just to them, as you expect they should be to you: show the like good-will and concern for them, and be careful herein to approve yourselves to God.’’ Observe, Masters are under as strict obligations to discharge their duty to their servants as servants are to be obedient and dutiful to them. "Forbearing threatening; anientes —moderating threatening, and remitting the evils with which you threaten them. Remember that your servants are made of the same mould with yourselves, and therefore be not tyrannical and imperious over them, knowing that your Master also is in heaven:’’ some copies read, both your and their Master. "You have a Master to obey who makes this your duty; and you and they are but fellow-servants in respect of Christ. You will be as punishable by him, for the neglect of your duty, or for acting contrary to it, as any others of meaner condition in the world. You are therefore to show favour to others, as ever you expect to find favour with him; and you will never be a match for him, though you may be too hard for your servants.’’ Neither is there respect of persons with him; a rich, a wealthy, and a dignified master, if he be unjust, imperious, and abusive, is not a jot the nearer being accepted of God for his riches, wealth, and honour. He will call masters and servants to an impartial account for their conduct one to another, and will neither spare the former because they are more advanced nor be severe towards the latter because they are inferior and mean in the world. If both masters and servants would consider their relation and obligation to God and the account they must shortly give to him, they would be more careful of their duty to each other. Thus the apostle concludes his exhortation to relative duties.

 

[Livelystone]

And, ye masters, do the same things unto them, forbearing threatening: knowing that your Master also is in heaven; neither is there respect of persons with him.
Ephesians 6:9

Is this telling masters (bosses, slave owners etc...) not to threaten those who work for them because if they do, God will threaten them? Or is it saying not to do so because God doesn't threaten (as a means of "motivation")?

Is there some meaning to "threatening" that goes beyond the general understanding we have of it today?

Excellent verse for discussion

It strikes straight at the heart of the evangelical message that if you do not accept Jesus as your personal savior before you die...... for punishment you will spend time without end in a burning napalm environment

Those who preach this threatening heresy that is repugnant to God, will spend more time in the fires of correction than will those who never heard of Jesus and the good news of the gospel.

 

[oatmeal]

I don't really disagree, but it doesn't really answer the question. Threatening is a method of "motivation". Any parent knows that this is something that is used - even if mildly as a consequence of disobedience. And there is at least a hint of that in scripture (the "threat" of eternal punishment is not what I would call mild). And while masters can't put those under them into everlasting punishment, they may need to institute discipline of some sort. So are they being told not to threaten that?

Why threaten when we can love someone

Both fear and love are strong motivators.

Which do you conclude God uses?

I John 4:8

 

[nikolai_42]

Matthew Henry provides a commentary on this:

The duty of masters: "And you masters, do the same things unto them (v. 9); that is, act after the same manner. Be just to them, as you expect they should be to you: show the like good-will and concern for them, and be careful herein to approve yourselves to God.’’ Observe, Masters are under as strict obligations to discharge their duty to their servants as servants are to be obedient and dutiful to them. "Forbearing threatening; anientes —moderating threatening, and remitting the evils with which you threaten them. Remember that your servants are made of the same mould with yourselves, and therefore be not tyrannical and imperious over them, knowing that your Master also is in heaven:’’ some copies read, both your and their Master. "You have a Master to obey who makes this your duty; and you and they are but fellow-servants in respect of Christ. You will be as punishable by him, for the neglect of your duty, or for acting contrary to it, as any others of meaner condition in the world. You are therefore to show favour to others, as ever you expect to find favour with him; and you will never be a match for him, though you may be too hard for your servants.’’ Neither is there respect of persons with him; a rich, a wealthy, and a dignified master, if he be unjust, imperious, and abusive, is not a jot the nearer being accepted of God for his riches, wealth, and honour. He will call masters and servants to an impartial account for their conduct one to another, and will neither spare the former because they are more advanced nor be severe towards the latter because they are inferior and mean in the world. If both masters and servants would consider their relation and obligation to God and the account they must shortly give to him, they would be more careful of their duty to each other. Thus the apostle concludes his exhortation to relative duties.

I have no quarrel that we are all duty-bound to God and so we should all remember to do that duty under all circumstances (including in the sense that we treat those under us kindly), but there is an element that seems missing from that exegesis that shows me this contrast. And that is that the whole injunction from Paul is to do the will of God from the heart. Not simply because one has a duty. Not simply because one was told to do it. But Paul makes it clear that the core element is joyfully doing what is required because it is Christ who (ultimately) is beings served.

Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ;
Not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but as the servants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart;
With good will doing service, as to the Lord, and not to men:
Knowing that whatsoever good thing any man doeth, the same shall he receive of the Lord, whether he be bond or free.
And, ye masters, do the same things unto them, forbearing threatening: knowing that your Master also is in heaven; neither is there respect of persons with him.
Ephesians 6:5-9

There is this exhortation to forbear threatening. But just before that, Paul says, essentially, that we need to treat those under us carefully because we will get the same thing from the Lord. I do believe that is true - but the essence of service Paul requires is "doing the will of God from the heart.". Since God is no respecter of persons, that (it seems to me) applies both to slave and master. So I'm trying to understand the whole tenor of the command on "forbearing threatening".

 

[nikolai_42]

Why threaten when we can love someone

Both fear and love are strong motivators.

Which do you conclude God uses?

I John 4:8

As a motivator, specifically? There are only a few instances that I can think of in which motivators are used - but they certainly are - and usually negative.

And I say unto you my friends, Be not afraid of them that kill the body, and after that have no more that they can do.
But I will forewarn you whom ye shall fear: Fear him, which after he hath killed hath power to cast into hell; yea, I say unto you, Fear him.
Luke 12:4-5

(And this was to His friends!)

For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad.
Knowing therefore the terror of the Lord, we persuade men; but we are made manifest unto God; and I trust also are made manifest in your consciences.
2 Corinthians 5:10-11

Though I think Jesus was sometimes a little more subtle about it with some...

And he that was healed wist not who it was: for Jesus had conveyed himself away, a multitude being in that place.
Afterward Jesus findeth him in the temple, and said unto him, Behold, thou art made whole: sin no more, lest a worse thing come unto thee.
John 5:13-14

But in places where He could easily have condemned, He didn't. The Samaritan woman at the well (John 4) comes immediately to mind.

Never do you hear promises of a "better life" as enticements to belief. Rarely do you hear promises of anything (though they are certainly there - just not usually as motivators). The whole foundation of a life of faith is in God Himself and knowing Him.

After these things the word of the Lord came unto Abram in a vision, saying, Fear not, Abram: I am thy shield, and thy exceeding great reward.
Genesis 15:1

But there are scattered, explicit "threatenings".

 

[Truster]

I have no quarrel that we are all duty-bound to God and so we should all remember to do that duty under all circumstances (including in the sense that we treat those under us kindly), but there is an element that seems missing from that exegesis that shows me this contrast. And that is that the whole injunction from Paul is to do the will of God from the heart. Not simply because one has a duty. Not simply because one was told to do it. But Paul makes it clear that the core element is joyfully doing what is required because it is Christ who (ultimately) is beings served.

Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ;
Not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but as the servants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart;
With good will doing service, as to the Lord, and not to men:
Knowing that whatsoever good thing any man doeth, the same shall he receive of the Lord, whether he be bond or free.
And, ye masters, do the same things unto them, forbearing threatening: knowing that your Master also is in heaven; neither is there respect of persons with him.
Ephesians 6:5-9

There is this exhortation to forbear threatening. But just before that, Paul says, essentially, that we need to treat those under us carefully because we will get the same thing from the Lord. I do believe that is true - but the essence of service Paul requires is "doing the will of God from the heart.". Since God is no respecter of persons, that (it seems to me) applies both to slave and master. So I'm trying to understand the whole tenor of the command on "forbearing threatening".

Forbearing is better translated as 'leaving off' taken from slackening.

There are three words translated as forbearing and this is one of them Strong's No on this is 447 and it is only used once by Paul.

The other two words are listed as 430 and are better conveyed as tolerating.

The translators take two words with different meanings and just use one word for all three that doesn't truly convey what was being said…again.

 

[nikolai_42]

Why threaten when we can love someone

Both fear and love are strong motivators.

Which do you conclude God uses?

I John 4:8

I meant to say this in direct response to that scripture...it isn't a motivator, but it (as one sees all throughout I John) is an indicator that one knows God. Not a motivator TO know Him. We love Him BECAUSE He first loved us. Not in motivation, but as a result of His love. You never hear Jesus using love as a motivator - just as a command (quoting the OT "Thou shalt love the Lord your God...") and as an evidence of being in Him ("If you love me, you will keep my commandments...").

So it is a motivator...but only for those who already know Him.

 

[nikolai_42]

Excellent verse for discussion

It strikes straight at the heart of the evangelical message that if you do not accept Jesus as your personal savior before you die...... for punishment you will spend time without end in a burning napalm environment

Those who preach this threatening heresy that is repugnant to God, will spend more time in the fires of correction than will those who never heard of Jesus and the good news of the gospel.

I understand where you are coming from. But as I see it, the whole idea of threatening is rarely effective. At least as the evangelical church has it. Not because eternal punishment is not true, but because it is usually fleshly in its focus and the fear of the Lord is not the same thing as the fear of punishment. There are aspects of salvation that are motivated by fear of punishment, but to approach it that way ignores the fact that sin and rebellion are against a person (God), not just a precept (the Law). So we are supposed to be reconciled to Him, not just saved from His wrath. But both are necessary.

 

[nikolai_42]

Forbearing is better translated as 'leaving off' taken from slackening.

There are three words translated as forbearing and this is one of them Strong's No on this is 447 and it is only used once by Paul.

The other two words are listed as 430 and are better conveyed as tolerating.

The translators take two words with different meanings and just use one word for all three that doesn't truly convey what was being said…again.

So you are saying that Paul, in essence, is telling Masters to "ease up" or be warier of threatening?

 

[Livelystone]

I understand where you are coming from. But as I see it, the whole idea of threatening is rarely effective. At least as the evangelical church has it. Not because eternal punishment is not true, but because it is usually fleshly in its focus and the fear of the Lord is not the same thing as the fear of punishment. There are aspects of salvation that are motivated by fear of punishment, but to approach it that way ignores the fact that sin and rebellion are against a person (God), not just a precept (the Law). So we are supposed to be reconciled to Him, not just saved from His wrath. But both are necessary.

It is not only the persons who may have been influenced through fear to seek the Lord, but all of those who have refused any notion of any God who would send people to the worst torture possible all because they have not bowed before what they may have never heard the truth of, or have heard pieces of it through obvious hypocrites and perverts who prey on those whom they rule over.

Look at how the world reacted to the Jordanian pilot being burned alive by his captors, and how barbaric they have labeled the people who did this horrible crime.

Yet it was only a few centuries ago when Christians who were charged with heresy were burnt at the stake by orders of the self righteous giving them a taste of what they had coming in the world to come.

We have no right to expect atheists to have any more respect for, or desire to know a God who would order this same torture for millions of persons, then they are willing to respect terrorists who did it to one person.

God's Law never called for, or sanctioned unending torture as a way to discourage crime or not worshipping Him.......... and God does not change other than repenting from punishment and giving mercy instead

The evangelical doctrine of eternal punishment did not come from God, but instead came from the tail of the dragon that is made up of clergy teaching lies to the church causing most to miss out on the inheritance they could have had, providing they had been taught the truth instead of man made lies that have been handed down from dark age doctrines meant to scare persons into paying indulgences

 

[Lazy afternoon]

I meant to say this in direct response to that scripture...it isn't a motivator, but it (as one sees all throughout I John) is an indicator that one knows God. Not a motivator TO know Him. We love Him BECAUSE He first loved us. Not in motivation, but as a result of His love. You never hear Jesus using love as a motivator - just as a command (quoting the OT "Thou shalt love the Lord your God...") and as an evidence of being in Him ("If you love me, you will keep my commandments...").

So it is a motivator...but only for those who already know Him.

Warnings concerning consequences of disobedience should only be applied after all avenues of grace have been exhausted.

This is partly because every believer usually knows when they do wrong.

Heb.ch 12.

LA

 

[Truster]

So you are saying that Paul, in essence, is telling Masters to "ease up" or be warier of threatening?

The word that Paul uses could be translated as ''stop''. Young's goes as far as ''letting threatening alone''. For some reason there seems to be a hesitancy of actually saying stop. It seems as if this was a choice of words and I can't help wondering why.
There are at least a couple of instances in the OT that prophets were used to condemn the treatment of slaves. Paul is here relying on the grace given to do the work, instead of laying down the law, so to speak. It would be a case of Paul practising what he preaches:

''My speech and my proclamation were not with persuasive words of wisdom but with a powerful demonstration by the Spirit''.

It would match the tenor of the epistle which is one of grateful thanksgiving and a demonstration of the power of grace.

 

[Lon]

And, ye masters, do the same things unto them, forbearing threatening: knowing that your Master also is in heaven; neither is there respect of persons with him.
Ephesians 6:9

Eph 6:5 Bondservants, obey your earthly masters with fear and trembling, with a sincere heart, as you would Christ,
Eph 6:6 not by the way of eye-service, as people-pleasers, but as bondservants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart,
Eph 6:7 rendering service with a good will as to the Lord and not to man,
Eph 6:8 knowing that whatever good anyone does, this he will receive back from the Lord, whether he is a bondservant or is free.
Eph 6:9 Masters, do the same to them, and stop your threatening, knowing that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and that there is no partiality with him.

I see this as an appeal to love, to not be harsh, because God is concerned with them both, the same, slave and master.

Galatians 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

Phm 1:15 For this perhaps is why [Onesimus] was parted from you for a while [runaway slave], that you might have him back forever,

Phm 1:16 no longer as a bondservant but more than a bondservant, as a beloved brother—especially to me, but how much more to you, both in the flesh and in the Lord.
For he is our peace, who has made both one, and has broken down the middle wall of partition between us Ephesians 2:14

 

[nikolai_42]

My followup has always been in the back of my mind but NOT the reason for asking this question. There has been some decent response and so now I ask if this is a general rule. And if so, how does it apply in a parenting situation, specifically? Really, this is a part of the OP in that it may involve what the definition of "threatening" is.

Paul is talking to people in different stations in life and even speaks to husbands and wives. So does this mean that threatening your child with punishment that fits the crime is poor (or unGodly) parenting? Children have to know (learn) right and wrong and know that there are consequences for doing what is wrong. So when does teaching cause and effect become a "threat" in Paul's terminology? Or is that reserved specifically for the Master-slave relationship in which both are full grown and should know what is right and wrong?

EDIT : Note that what I am trying to say is that teaching cause and effect to a child can be done in a situation where you are reviewing the rules - talking about the Ten Commandments with your children, for example. That is clearly not threatening. But if you are in a situation in which the child is clearly being tempted with doing something deserving of punishment, is it threatening then to say "If you do that, {you will suffer the consequences...whatever they may be}..."? It goes from being general rule to being personally applicable to specific situation.

 

[Truster]

My followup has always been in the back of my mind but NOT the reason for asking this question. There has been some decent response and so now I ask if this is a general rule. And if so, how does it apply in a parenting situation, specifically? Really, this is a part of the OP in that it may involve what the definition of "threatening" is.

Paul is talking to people in different stations in life and even speaks to husbands and wives. So does this mean that threatening your child with punishment that fits the crime is poor (or unGodly) parenting? Children have to know (learn) right and wrong and know that there are consequences for doing what is wrong. So when does teaching cause and effect become a "threat" in Paul's terminology? Or is that reserved specifically for the Master-slave relationship in which both are full grown and should know what is right and wrong?

EDIT : Note that what I am trying to say is that teaching cause and effect to a child can be done in a situation where you are reviewing the rules - talking about the Ten Commandments with your children, for example. That is clearly not threatening. But if you are in a situation in which the child is clearly being tempted with doing something deserving of punishment, is it threatening then to say "If you do that, {you will suffer the consequences...whatever they may be}..."? It goes from being general rule to being personally applicable to specific situation.

The father that does not discipline his children actually hates them.

 

[nikolai_42]

The father that does not discipline his children actually hates them.

No argument there whatsoever. But the same could be said about a Master and his slaves or servants, couldn't it? I realize the relationship is on different terms, but what is it about "threatening" in a father-son relationship that is good that is not good in a master-slave (or servant) relationship?

One of the things that has me on this is that Paul could have said "forbearing striking" and it would have been clearer. The father that spares the rod hates his child. But the Master that beats a slave is clearly not acting towards that slave in a Godly manner. The servant or slave is at arm's length and is only in that position to work for wages. The son is far closer.

I think of Romans 4 :

Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.
But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.
Romans 4:4-5

This, as I see it, is a picture of the contrast between the Master-slave relationship and the Father-son relationship. One is working simply for wages, the other is working (in part) out of filial love. And so in referring back to the OP, we see this in action in Ephesians 6:6 ("...doing the will of God from the heart..."). This is the picture of someone working for a higher reward - the reward of the inheritance (appears in the Colossians version of this passage - Col 3:24 which is parallel to Eph 6:8). Not even that, but remembering what the Lord told Abraham in Genesis 15:1 - that HE actually WAS (and IS) his exceeding great reward. Where the Law can define and mediate a master-slave relationship, it is insufficient to mediate the father-son relationship (even though the father teaches the son to be law-abiding).

I'm just trying to see where these threatenings are proper for a father-son relationship but not a master-slave relationship. Especially since threatenings are evidences of the Law as being the mediator. Or are they different threatenings?

 

[oatmeal]

[/SIZE]
I see this as an appeal to love, to not be harsh, because God is concerned with them both, the same, slave and master.

Nicely stated