Godless Chatter

Avoid godless chatter, because those who indulge in it will become more and more ungodly. Their teaching will spread like gangrene. Among them are Hymenaeus and Philetus, who have wandered away from the truth. They say that the resurrection has already taken place, and they destroy the faith of some. (II Timothy 2:16-18) 
 

          The Greek word translated “godless” above (bebhvlou") can also be translated worldly, profane, irreligious. I believe it’s related to the word Babylon, and to the Greek word from which we get barbarian, a word that came from the notion of their language sounding like the bleating of sheep. The example Paul provides is a pair of men who claimed the resurrection had already taken place. According to the notes in my study Bible, this was apparently an early Gnostic teaching that made the resurrection merely a spiritual thing. 

         One of the problems of Gnostic thinking is an underlying belief that the spirit was good and the body bad. It didn’t matter what the body did, it couldn’t contaminate the spirit. The parallel in modern thinking isn’t difficult to find. In our society, we are all “good.” There is something wrong with the system in which we live and if the system could be adjusted in the right way, all our problems would be over. We are all “good” and everyone is going to Heaven, so it doesn’t matter if we do what we want, when we want, where we want, with whom we want, as long as no one gets hurt and we define “hurt” in very narrow ways. 

         One reason why this philosophy is so bad is because sin always separates. It separates us from God. It separates us from life. It separates us from ourselves, just like the teaching. We aren’t designed to be two separate beings. We are designed to be an integrated whole. It may be convenient to use models of ourselves that had distinct parts, but they aren’t separate. What we do with ourselves, and to ourselves matters to our whole selves, not just part. If you hurt your left leg, it interferes with your whole life. 

         Another version of this is what I’ll call the “natural” argument. If it is connected to nature, it must be OK. So, since we find what we describe as “homosexual” behavior in nature, it must be OK. Don’t look to closely at what is described as homosexual behavior in nature. If you mention “dominance behavior,” you won’t like the responses. Perhaps you shouldn’t mention that cannibalism and the killing of (usually male) mates is also found in nature. Society frowns on those activities. Breast feeding is natural, therefore it’s OK to do whenever, wherever, no matter who is around. Of course, vomiting, defecating, sex and some measure of personal hygiene are all just as natural, but we don’t tend to like people at the next table to engage in nose picking, pimple popping or any of the other functions in public. While there may be justifications for one or more of these behaviors, “It’s natural” is not sufficient. Neither is “it’s beautiful” because beauty is in the eye of the beholder. 

         As I noted before, Gnosticism separates. It divides spiritual from physical and self from self. It divides natural from artificial, and artificial always seems to mean “man-made.” It divides group from group. Those special few who understand, they are the elite, the enlightened, the Brites and what they proclaim must be accepted as fact. It’s interesting how often their teachings separate one from God. Paul tells us to avoid such empty chatter