I am glad you posted this, dear Armand (peace to you, dear brother!). First, for the truth as to "it" not being about us. It is not OUR message; we are only instruments. Can the flute take offense when the audience doesn't like how the musician plays it? Can the piano take offense because the "notes" its player touches on "irritate" the ears of the hearer? If the "note" is "sour" to them, one must ask: was it really the musician... or did the hearer not appreciate the melody? Some love classical music; some abhor it. Some adore country music; some are irritated by it. Some prefer rap; others are repulsed by it. In all of these instances, the musician is considered genius by some, a total imbecile by others. They never, however, blame the keyboard or guitar - LOLOL!
True, a guitar plays MUCH better when the strings are properly tightened and in tune... a flute, when it's cleaned and the reed has been prepped... a piano, when the keys are properly tuned and played with the right emphasis and timing. When those things are out of whack, the sound an instrument makes can be abhorrent. A PROPERLY, CORRECTLY, and ADEQUATELY tuned instrument, however, always makes a sweet sound. Even it's off notes aren't that bad. And give the instrument a trained player?
For us, we have THE Maestro to properly, correctly, and adequately train, tune, prep... and "play"... us. IF we listen to HIS voice as to the "sound" we should make. If we do that and someone is irritated or even angered by the sound... or chooses to ignore the sound, regardless of its "sweetness," then that is between the audience... and the player, yes?
The only time the instrument should take offense is if that instrument has not been properly tuned
but yet still tried to emit a sound. In that case, the "sour" note IS on the instrument and the instrument
should be offended... but at no one other than itself. Because what... or rather, who... "possessed" it to try and make a sound on its own, anyway? Presumption... and ego.
The second reason I'm glad you posted this has to do with the term "illegitimate sons." I know we've discussed this here before, but perhaps we should again because of what came out of this this time.
When I first read your post, I thought, "Wait... are illegitimate sons
sons, too?" I mean, there are legitimate sons... and illegitimate sons. But both are
sons... yes? Yes. And the issue is not as to the father - both are HIS sons. Their "legitimacy" is about the MOTHER.
"Legitimacy" has to do with legality... which has to do with "law." A "legitimate" child was one whose mother was a "lawful" wife (one lawfully wedded... wedded under/by whatever law oversaw marriage... to the man in question). An "illegitimate" child was one who mother was NOT (lawfully) wedded to the man (i.e., a slave, concubine, whore, passing fancy, etc.). While the initial "law" in question was the Law Covenant, the "law" later became whatever church doctrine had jurisdiction (i.e., RCC, Protestant, Jewish, etc.). Now, it is primarily whatever CIVIL law has jurisdiction (hence, the need for a marriage
license in most US states... or co-habitation for some time, which constitutes a "common law" marriage, living together for a time being presumed marriage under English common law... or law for the "commoners". It was different for the aristocracy - they had to have the consent of the king to marry, due to the potential liabilities as to land grants - can't have a million acres falling into the hands of the enemy simply because your son married his daughter. I digress. )
The primary reason legitimacy was a concern was property inheritance, especially land, but including titles. Until the last century, under the law of inheritance, only legitimate children could inherit parental property. Today, in every state of the US except Louisiana, illegitimate children are entitled to the same share of parental property as are legitimate. This, of course, is a problem... for lawful(ly wedded) wives.
A lawfully wedded wife is entitled to the property of her husband. That is one of the main purposes of the marriage "contract" - what's your's is mine, what's mine is your's. And so, her children are entitled to inherit, both from their mother and their father. And so, say, four children... four portions. If, however, there are other children NOT of this (lawful) marriage, HER children would have to split their share with such. So, say, four (of her) children, and two of another woman's... now there must be six shares. Making the initial four childrens' shares smaller. Not fair. [This is, of course, not counting any other legitimate children the man might have, say, from another lawful marriage (i.e., children of a wife who has died, children of a woman the man was lawfully divorced from, of children of a new wife after the previous one has died or been divorced).]
So, laws were created to protect the property and title rights of "legitimate" children (i.e., the children of lawful wives). That law goes at least as far back as Abraham and Sarah. It is the reason why Isaac was the heir, and not Ishmael. Isaac's mother, Sarah, was Abraham's free and lawful wife. Hagar, Ishmael's mother, was Sarah's housemaid, a slave/servant, and given to Abraham by Sarah (as a concubine to bear him children, as Sarah believed herself barren and never to have a child). As Abraham's son, Ishmael would have received SOMETHING... even a share of land... but he would not have been Abraham's HEIR. And thus, not received Abraham's TITLE.
Why was this important? Because of the law of land grants: as Abraham's son, Ishmael would have received land as his own... BUT... subject to Isaac. Meaning, although Ishmael would be a GrantEE (receiver) of some of Abraham's land, as heir Isaac would fall into the position of GrantOR. And the grantor... virtually always holds the land. The grantee can sell encumber it, even sell it. But when it all shakes down, it can still be revoked/escheat back to the grantor. As ultimate "king" of the land and owner of the property. It is the same today - if there is no one to step up and claim land or property... including money... it escheats... back to the state (government/king).
There are stricter rules around this today that there were before. Before, the king could just come in and take back the land, at his own whim. And he didn't have to pay for it - it was always his; he just "granted" some of it to others... to use (i.e., farm, mine, reserve, etc.)... at his will and whim. He can come in and take it back today, too. Under the law of what's called "eminent domain." The king... or government... or, in Abraham's day, Abraham (because he got HIS grant directly from God)... is the "eminent" owner and thus has "eminent" domain... ownership/domicility... over the land/property. Today, though, he (the government) can't just take it - he/it has to offer "just compensation" (big eye roll here, as to what is considered "just". I digress, again).
EVEN so, whether a son was legitimate (and so a rightful, because of being lawful, heir)... or illegitimate (and perhaps not entitled to anything at all)... he was, by BLOOD... still a son. So, when dear Armand wrote:
Quote:
I received from our Lord was: “They [unbelievers/atheists, and the like] are illegitimate children.”
I was a little bit confused. Because this is saying that they ARE children (of God), although illegitimate children. Okay, no worries. Except, that seems to imply that one is either a legitimate child of God... or an illegitimate child of God. But... a child of God. That, though, couldn't be right. Because these are only two choices. Surely, though, contrary to what many BELIEVE... not EVERYONE is a child of God. There is a
third choice:
"You are from YOUR father, the Devil." Matthew 13:38; John 8:44; Acts 13:10; 1 John 3:10So, how could this be, how could he have heard that these unbelievers/atheists, etc., are illegitimate children? And then I heard that the word used for "illegitimate" does not mean what dear Armand and perhaps others think it means. And what I heard comports with what dear Armand posted next, that:
"... you are not legitimate, not true sons and daughters at all..." Hebrews 12:8The Greek word used for "not legitimate" is
nothos and means:
Quote:
illegitimate, bastard
one born, not in lawful wedlock, but of a concubine or female slave
And so, in most Bible translations, quite understandably, the rendering is "illegitimate". Or "You are illegitimate (non-, not legitimate) sons and daughters." And that is what dear Armand also heard. BUT... is that what was MEANT, "illegitimate", as we usually know the word? This is what concerned me at first. And I HEARD that this, the way we know the word, is not what was MEANT. What WAS meant, though? The verse in Hebrews answers that:
"...not true sons and daughters at all..."What dear Armand heard our Lord say... and what the verse means... with the word "illegitimate" is not as to someone who is not LEGALLY a son... because even if not legal, by BLOOD such one is still a SON... but to one who is not a son AT ALL.
I brought this to dear Armand's attention. And, looking up the LATIN word (from which the English and modern Greek Bible terminology is taken - the Hebrew parts are of Hebrew translated from Greek which was translated from Hebrews... and the Greek parts are of Greek translated from English and/or LATIN)... he learned and shared with me that there is another word (which he will have to share) that while perhaps comports with "illegitimate" isn't quite the same meaning. The word is ACCURATELY translated as "FAKE, FALSE".
In other words, the verse SHOULD read:
"You are FALSE (fake) and not really (truly) sons and daughters at all."In THIS sense, the word that translates as "not legitimate" is correct. A false/fake thing is NOT legitimate (valid, true). But the word "
illegitimate" is not fully accurate. If we were to use a word that includes the
lack of legitimacy, then "NON-legitimate" would be accurate, whereas "IL-LEGITIMATE" is not quite.
The point? There are three groups:
Illegitimate children (of God) - Those (1) who are descendants of Abraham, most particularly through Isaac, then Jacob (Israel), but including through Ishmael, Esau, the sons of Keturah, etc., AND those of the nations who join with them (thus, becoming "Israel") and claim to be sons of God who (2) seek God but have not yet been "legitimized" through receiving
His blood... holy spirit... by means of which they are adopted by Him so as to BE legitimate sons because they ignore or even deny the voice, leading, and discipline of God's Son and Word, the Holy One of Israel and Holy Spirit, JAHESHUA, the Chosen One of JAH (MischaJAH)...
Non-Legitimate or False/fake "children of God" - Those "seed" who either (1) outright deny God; or (2) make the false claim that they are of God but, by their works (i.e., delivering up the legitimate sons to death) show themselves to be children of the Adversary - "You are from YOUR father, the Devil")...
Legitimate children (of God) - Those who listen to the voice, follow the leading, and do not belittle the discipline of God's Word and Son, the Holy One of Israel and Holy Spirit, JAHESHUA, the Chosen One of JAH (MischaJAH), so as to be led to be the "seed" (children) of the free woman "Sarah," the "Jerusalem Above," who are legitimized as sons through having received and been "fertilized" by GOD's blood and seed... holy spirit... which blood/seed is granted them by that Word and Son, through his OWN blood... which he pours out upon and puts in them... as a group, constituting the NEW Jerusalem, the Bride of the Spirit that is Christ (
2 Corinthians 3:17).
My point is, as I've shared before, words are important. If we are to be able to withstand the "questionings" of others, we must sometimes listen longer, focus more acutely, look deeper... so as to get the true meaning. So as not to mislead others, or be misled. While this was not necessarily a big issue, I am sure there are some "wordsmiths" who would take issue with hearing that an "illegitimate" son is not a son. Because that is not accurate. Such one is not a son by LAW, but is certainly a son... by BLOOD.
I hope this helps... and, as always, peace to you all... and to your dear households!
YSSFS of Christ,
Shel