Log in

No account? Create an account
RSQUBF LiveJournal Community
UBF Ten Commandments 2 
24th-Dec-2006 03:24 am
The following is an another excerpt from the Anamgol message on the Ten Commandments. The Anamgol messenger divided the Ten Commandments into two parts. Part one is about the first four commandments and part two is about the rest. I think dividing the Ten Commandments in this way is also very controversial. Anyway the Anamgol message doesn’t seem to accurately handle the first commandment.

제 1계명. 우리 다같이 3절 말씀을 읽어보겠습니다. “너는 나 외에는 다른 신들을 네게 있게 말찌니라” 이 계명의 목적은 한마디로 하나님 외에 다른 신은 다 없애라, 일체의 미신을 너희 생활 속에 일소시키라는 것입니다. 하나님의 백성은 하나님 한분만을 믿고 섬겨야합니다. 왜 그렇습니까? 그 이유는 바로 2절 말씀 속에 있습니다. “나는 너를 애굽 땅, 종 되었던 집에서 인도하여 낸 너의 하나님 여호와로라”

The first commandment. Let’s read verse 3 together. “You shall have no other gods before me.” In short, the purpose of this command is to get rid of all other gods beside God alone and to eradicate any kind of superstition in our life. God’s people must trust God alone and worship him only. Why is this so? Verse 2 tells us the reason. “I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery.”
24th-Dec-2006 10:02 am (UTC)
This is another typical UBF theological reasoning. The first commandment only tells us “You shall have no other gods before me.” But the Anamgol messenger says: “the purpose of this command is to get rid of all other gods beside God alone and to eradicate any kind of superstition in our life.” Where does this come from? The Anamgol messenger claims to know “THE PURPOSE” of the first commandment. But how can one translate the first commandment into “destroy all other gods and get rid of all superstitions”? Does the first commandment imply this? I don't think so.

To investigate the problem of this kind of UBF theological reasoning, consider what happens in Genesis chapters 2 and 3. In Genesis 2:16 and 17(NIV), God gave Adam a commandment, “You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die.” But in Genesis chapter 3, this commandment was misquoted and misinterpreted by the woman. Genesis 3:2 and 3 read, “The woman said to the serpent, "We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, but God did say, 'You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.’"

In the original commandment, God said, “You are free to eat from any tree in the garden.” But the woman dropped any and said, “We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden.” She also dropped surely in “surely die” part of the original commandment.

The interesting part related to the Anamgol message is the following. Notice that in the original commandment, God only said “You must not eat”. But the woman interpreted this as “You must not eat and you must not touch”. The woman added “you must not touch” clause to “You must not eat”. God never said that.

One can argue that you must touch it first to eat it. So you must not touch it not to eat it! Ok. Do what you can to keep the commandment. But it still stands that that is not what God said in the original commandment. “You must not eat” does not automatically imply “you must not touch”. The woman fell into Satan's trap first of all because she was not accurate about the commandment. She was full of her personal opinion about the commandment. So she has become at this point legalistic/habitual and God’s commandment has become burdensome when it is supposed to be a blessing and joy.

What the Anamgol messenger is doing is exactly the same as what the woman did. I think that theology, most of all, must be very accurate based on the Bible. One must not add his own idea to it or substract any word from the Bible. As the woman did, the Anamgol messenger is trapped up in performance-oriented, ritualistic and legalistic theology. The Anamgol messenger is interpreting the first commandment in terms of what one should do to keep the commandment. How can one possibly interpret “You shall have no other gods before me” as “The purpose of this command is to get rid of all other gods beside God alone and to eradicate any kind of superstition”? This is like saying "Romance can lead to immoral relationship; so romantic relationship is sin!" But I think someone in UBF said "No romance, no history!"

The Anamgol messenger is very careless in his theological reasoning about the meaning of “no other gods” in terms of the totality of the first commandment. There is no denying that to many UBFers, UBF organization itself has become “an other god” beside God himself. One can see this clearly in Dr. Joseph Schafer’s testimony where he attacks the topical Bible study in order to preserve Dr. Samuel Lee’s Bible study methodology. In UBF one-to-one shepherd is someone who is equal to God. Dr. Samuel Lee’s theology has more authority than the Bible itself in UBF. Thus the false interpretation of the Ten commandments is resulted.
This page was loaded Aug 24th 2019, 9:20 am GMT.