I would definitely agree that we need to take into consideration cultural considerations. Taken too far we could pretty much
justify doing away with the entire OT and also Pauls culture though could we not? But the other extreme is not considering
that certain teachings were indeed to be understood in a cultural context and would not apply to our current culture. James
does say to pray for wisdom, and so It seems best to ask God to reveal, study with sound Hermeneutics and try our best to
discern if a particular principle is universal in scope or was intended for a particular people. We do need to wrestle with
some of these tough questions with an emphasis on Grace and Love and the purpose behind the instruction. To Assume all
instructions apply to all people in my opinion denies what scripure itself shows, which is progressive revelation and God
dealing differently with different people in different dispensations (if I may use that term) or covenants or cultures.
Agreed!
Bob, Is it possible you can rephrase or expand on this statement “But you argue that it’s Jesus who was “literal,” since he
says that David could “desecrate” the Sabbath, only in the sense that it “appeared” that way to Pharisees” I am not sure what
you mean by that statement. This whole section is actually a little difficult for me to understand. And I don’t want to
address what you are saying if I misunderstand it.
I’m a little confused on what you are saying here as well. Can you restate it for me? It was God who established the Sabbath
laws and enforced punishment for the lawbreakers correct? But I am understanding you to say that me realizing that sounds
Legalistic? Not sure how i Become the bad guy here :> God was trying to establish his ways with an obstinate stiff necked
often times wreckless rebelious people, So he is enforcing righteousness and justice with a forceful hand is he not? I don’t
see a problem with that. And I don’t see any unfairness with him making exceptions for the Priests and workers of ministry
that did not have a 9-5 typical life. Jesus Grace can clearly be seen in his emphasis on healing and feeding those in need on
the Sabbath, so I would not diminish his ministry of Grace, but I see him at the same time needing to uphold the Sabbath to an often wicked Idolatrous people that needed strict rules and lessons of setting apart A day of Worshipping and learning
about the True God and growing in his ways.
I would never of course put Paul on a level with Jesus. Paul was indeed set apart for Gods work and Sent by Jesus himself to
be the bearer of this new covenant that has its focal point as Jesus himself and his Gospel. But I can in my mind make the
distinction between that and Jesus fully complying with the law, since he was born under the law and perfectly followed it.
It is strange to think that we are under a new covenent that in some ways are different then the one Jesus was under but is
that not what scripure reveals. Jesus said he will send the Spirit to teach us all things and when the Spirit was poured out
he chose to use human Vessels to communicate the full mystery of the Gospel using Paul the Apostle and other Apostles, did he not?
+1 for Bob here. And I don’t mean that sarcastic. This is a strong point and observation, your view does indeed fit well with the similarites we see with food and the Sabbath, and these two exact topics are repeated and often hand in hand in the same context and discussion in Pauls letters as well. So I am thinking there is some truth here, I am just not ready to go as far as I think you are saying he is purposely breaking laws to prove a point. I don’t see him breaking them or redefining them, just revealing how law and grace should be viewed at this time in revelation.
Jesus can do whatever he wants whenever he wants far be it from me to appear to limit what he can do. I just don’t read
scripture to present that is what he is doing regarding the Sabbath. I believe the NT makes clear in Hebrews and other places that the Sabbath was a foreshadowing of something to come, it is when Jesus died and was resurrected that a certain aspect of the Sabbath was fulfilled, would you not agree? I don’t see any problem with Kelly asserting that the Sabbath should still be followed, as long as she is not asserting its neccessary for salvation, which I know she does not.
I think Jesus in one sense was indeed making a statement regarding food and the sabbath that revealed great new principles
and truth. Namely that Salvation is through grace through faith alone and that adherence to law had no bearing on that.That
the Power of the law to condemn those that could not keep it was about to be shattered.That the amazing Love of God and Grace of God for all mankind was being revealed right before their eyes in the person and ministry of Jesus. But I think in context, in the Gospels the immediate lesson or point was that it is the heart that matters not the outward appearance.I think Paul carries this same principle and expands on it and its application in the Epistles and Luke as well in the book of Acts.
If you and Bob are saying Jesus was not sinning then we are close in that regard. And don’t get me wrong I see the deeper meaning of the law that Jesus was trying to make to the Pharisees and everyone. I think this is Why we all love what Jesus did regarding the Sabbath, and why Bobs paper “the case against Jesus” is so cool, it brings out this “more important than the law” aspect of his ministry and this passion of his to reveal the true heart of God and Grace and the important things like healing people etc. This revolutionary message of Jesus is written all over the Gospels in what he does and says.
I think there still remains a few differences in our views however, which is perfectly fine.
I see Jesus as not breaking the Literal interpretation of the law regarding the Sabbath.
It appears I see the Literal parts of the Law as sourced just as much in the Grace and Love of God as the figurative, but you do not.
TV’s statements that Jesus is trying to reveal or teach the figurative and therefore transcend the literal, not do away with the literal is what I am seeing happening. It appears you see Jesus almost ushering in the figurative and doing away with the literal.
It appears you see Jesus breaking the Literal. I see Jesus breaking the Pharisees present understanding of the Literal, though even their own law contradicted their present understanding of the literal, and validated Jesus as not breaking the Literal.
I see Jesus revealing the coming new covenant that would be ushered in after his death and resurrection, you seem to see him more than revealing what is coming and actually ushering in the New Covenant during his ministry.
I see Jesus as born under law and therefore the Gospel writers detailing how he perfectly kept the literal law and you seem to see the Gospel writers presenting him as breaking the Literal.
I see Jesus correcting the Pharisees law, you see Jesus as breaking God’s established Literal law.
would you agree with that assessment.
You see Rahab breaking the Literal for the philosophical as support for your arguement. I suppose that is what I see. But I’ve always viewed it as Rahab understanding the Hierarchy of God’s literal laws as can be seen in other parts of scripture. When one is faced with such a decision that either way violates a command, then the Right Approach is to do what she did and prioritize life over speaking truth. One is justified in such a case.
I am not sure what your definition of a dispensationalist is, by my definition we all are to some extent, and I see the Lines blurred regarding if one is or isnt, but if you want to clearly define your definition I will tell you whether I might agree to that position or not.
The Funny thing is I am just now back with the Lord and studying scripture after an 11 year tailspin, so I am a little rusty on some of the theological jargon and definitions. It was God Revealing EU to me out of the blue that brought me back, Praise God!!! So some things I have forgotten and am just sort of relearning to an extent. But it is kind of nice to take that approach because I’m not all boxed in to my systematic theology and therefore hopefully more able to approach things without tradition or preconceived ideas, but I am sure some things are still lingering and are in need of being brought back to what Scripture really says.
Steve,
I certainly don’t think that TV, Kelly or you fail to see the deeper philosophical values of the law. I appreciate that you all do. I will say that having you and Kelly, and others like you, may in fact be necessary for this site. I have a friend from high school who is much like Kelly. You might say it’s sort of like having Peter for the jews (In the literalists) and Paul unto the gentiles (The philosophical). I understand both Kelly and You hold a view that God’s love is inescapable and that is what matters. It’s also been a total treat to get such a different point of view. To be honest, you and Kelly are really the first to engage Bob’s paper and we both appreciate that. We may disagree, but please don’t read words like “legalism” to be a pejorative – I know both Bob and I never mean it in that sense. I don’t take offense if you say my view is antinomianism – it’s the way it might appear to people.
The paper was for me profound and I can’t thank Bob enough for it. He persued it because as he taught our Sunday school class, using Joel B. Green’s commentary on Luke, he (Joel) presented that there was a reversal going on (not in an antinomian sense). As we got to these difficult passages, people in class were painting the Sanhedrin to be off the wall evil. I found myself sympathizing with them. When people say God’s commands are not “do’s and don’ts” I scrathed my head saying “of course they did, God says don’t do this and don’t do that”. Bob then condensed down this part of the lesson into the essay and it helped me to grow deeper into grace. So I agree, along with Talbott’s book, this essay is priceless to me.
I think your assesement is very close, however, I’m in no position to say my opinion is fully formed. I’ve appreciated thus far things you and Kelly have stood for and want to be open to being wrong. However, for the most part I think you’ve curtailed my view enough. You’re right, I don’t see pork as being about grace.
I think you’re right, I do see Jesus as taking the literal and showing how it’s always been about philosophy – currently I’m even favoring the atonement in such a way as well. I reason that the external ceremonial regulations were just that – external. But the spirit (of God) moves in and a transformation (of the mind) begins by the renewing of the mind (philosophy – the love of God’s wisdom). This new creature is not bound to have be circumcised of the flesh, but of the heart.
So yes, I do see Jesus as using David (whom I believe did break the command that the shew bread was only to be eaten by the priests) was a conundrum for the Sanhedrin. Much like Rahab’s bearing false witness about hiding the spies or hiding Jews in a home from Nazis- The law was intended to show us sin and so we could know what was right – except we focused on external qualities rather than subtext (wisdom).
I agree with much of what you say about the pattern of the new covenenat. I think we just define that differently. If I understand Kelly correctly, I agree with her that the New covenenat is much like the old one, in fact they are one and the same EXCEPT that the OC was written on stone (externally) while the NC is written in hearts (philosophy). But they stand for the same thing – DO WHAT IS RIGHT – for righteousness is of faith and faith is of love. But I def. disagree with her that both systems are now at play, that is, the OC is present with the NC. I see Hebrews declaring the old is now obsolete (rules and regulations). The New covenant has been established because the meaning of the OC has been declared by Jesus- God’s grace saves, not the law.
Wow, is God’s love amazing. My story is not too different from yours. I feel had I not had been introduced to Universalism, I might very well be an atheist. I feel that God’s love reached me just in time because between Calvinism and Arminianism, I found them both to be failures. Your view is more than welcome here and please, continue to share. Also, I have reservations on my own view as well – I do ask myself questions “well if that’s true than what about this!” – I’m on a journey in learning wisdom and I’ve not yet arrived
Steve, sorry to be so confusing. In case you have not read my last resonse, I had to go back and edit because I said a couple of things wrong - I said “the old covenant is NOT obsolete” when I meant is now obsolete.
Also when I say I want to be open to being wrong, I mean I feel it’s wise for me to be skeptical of even my own views. So I don’t to come off like I KNOW…I don’t. I’m just giving my opinions; I have to test them.
No Problem I figured that’s exactly what you meant in both cases.
I think the humble and open approach is critically important myself. We EU’ers should know that tradition seems more and more wrong in many cases the older I get and Honestly I am not happy about being more on the traditional view side on this Sabbath issue. At least I would assume my view is the more traditional one. I, like you am trying to strip down what I have been taught or believed and just trying to make arguements from what I see the scripture saying.
It’s hard to keep up. But we agree on a lot! E.g. that we mustn’t just enforce whatever even Paul recommends, but esp. my original contention that we are not bound to whatever O.T. Law says.
On our variations, yes, you read me right, that I would not say it appears that we operate under a “different covenant” than Jesus. Nor that the Gospels “detail how Jesus perfectly kept the literal law.” Nor that his death somehow “fulfills” the Sabbath. Rather it appears to me that the life of Jesus is what fulfills God’s purpose, and in his life he introduced the day of the Lord’s ‘new covenant’ (which I take as consistent with the original Abrahamic covenant). Thus, yes, I would think it is accurate to say that in his radical approach, he did “redefine” the law.
Forgive my obtuseness regarding Jesus and Sabbath. Yes, I’ll try to expand more clearly:
(BTW, you say that Paul assumed a different covenant, BUT that even he would “uphold the Sabbath command” and “careful distinctions.” Would that mean that he would oppose the church’s Sunday observance tradition, or what? You esp. say Jesus upheld the need for “strict Sabbath rules.” Where do you see that?)
A. You argue that ‘work’ was fine in Sabbath Law. But arguing that prohibiting “your” work means vocational labor, and thus allowed doing other peoples’ work seems unconvincing. Insisting you “do your work” another day just seems to me in agreement with the basic command restricting “any work” you are tempted to do on Saturday, instead of on another day. Isn’t your central justification for this distinction, what priests did on Sabbath, precisely their vocation, contradicting your thesis that one’s regular work is what’s restricted and thus what can’t be considered divine or permissible.
B. You repeatedly say Jesus is the one who most upheld the “literal interpretation.” The command’s basic prohibition was on “any work.” And I’ve cited O.T. executions for doing things to meet needs that could be done another time, with specific applications to carrying things, meeting needs to have food, etc. Couldn’t Pharisees then be seen as most literally justified in placing the burden of proof on anyone who seemed to risk stretching these specified restrictions?
C. I fear I offended you in calling discerning divine work from deadly ‘labor’ a legalistic distinction. I only meant that this sounds to me like the kind of judgment that only legal scribes claimed to be able to do, and that I am not confident in my ability to sort such differences out. And in previous sections, I’m implying that I fear I personally would have thought the Pharisees prudently drew the lines about right. Thus I think they earn a reputation as those most concerned to safeguard a literal version of the law. Yet I now see Jesus as leading us to a place where we need not worry about such lines, but rather have freedom to focus on what love would mean. I don’t think Paul introduced this. I think Jesus radically did.
I think much confusion comes from the difficulty (in light of what is taught in religious institutions) of discerning between following the commandments BECAUSE of our salvation as a free gift verses following the commandments FOR salvation by works.
I am in the category of the former.
I believe God speaks to every generation from Adam to the very last generation on earth.
That there is a reason for everything, even if I don’t understand it and that being obedient, even if in ignorance is of great worth to God and me.
I see the shadow of the tabernacle and temple as nothing unclean shall enter it and also believe, as the temple now on earth – it still matters.
I see that following the commandments are profitable for me and others. That it is hypocritical to follow only those, I, in my wisdom, think applicable. Therefore, even if I didn’t “understand” (as truly, I don’t understand anything perfectly) the meaning of Sabbath, I would do my best to keep it anyway.
Eliminating the significance of the OC, eliminates Messiah because He is the Messiah that was coming. The OC is how we know who He is. He is the image of the invisible God. How did we know God before the “image” dwelt among us? The Torah (law) and the Prophets. His un-physical image is “drawn” so to speak, in the OC. The Father and Son are One. Jesus spoke His Father’s words. I don’t see Him as contradicting what His Father said. We are not like His Image because we are sinners therefore, we could not save ourselves by being perfect like Him. But, His Salvation came and He fulfilled His perfect image and instead of us paying the price for our lack of perfection, He did. Now, in the Spirit, we enter into perfection (or rather are entering in) under His covering. His image is still perfection, His Torah (law) still relevant because it is who He is. I look at His Image and aim to be like Him in Spirit and truth.
I believe we, as energy and matter are dual expressions within one body. As “energy” we are under the Spiritual law needing a right heart to thrive in Messiah. If our hearts are right, we walk in the Spirit. A right relationship with God and our fellow man takes a higher priority than any fleeting, cheap moment of “sinful pleasure” (Sin being defined by the commandments). Our inner man is set right with God through Christ’s righteousness and sacrifice. He died because we broke His commandments. They are indeed important.
As “matter” our flesh will not submit to the Spirit so we see that the law is good to show us our sin and to turn us back to Christ. Also, the commandments are beneficial (not for salvation) but, as a standard for the ‘matter’ part of us. We can not fool ourselves into thinking what we do in the flesh doesn’t matter at all as long as we “believe Christ died for us” so anything we want to do is fine with God. If that were true, He wouldn’t have had to redeem us.
Jesus made us alive in the Spirit (energy) but, our flesh (matter) is not made alive. We live as both.
I cannot dismiss all the Scripture that speaks about Yehovah’s Torah. For example . . .
Those forsaking the law praise the wicked, Those keeping the law plead against them.
Evil men understand not judgment, And those seeking Jehovah understand all. (Pro 28:4-5)
Whoso is keeping the law is an intelligent son, And a friend of gluttons, Doth cause his father to blush.
(Pro 28:7)
Whoso is turning his ear from hearing the law, Even his prayer is an abomination. (Pro 28:9)
Without a Vision is a people perish, And whoso is keeping the law, O his happiness! (Pro 29:18)
All things were in effect from the very beginning. Yehovah’s plan is seen plainly in the 12 constellations for example. God’s image and character is still important for us to seek after. We can’t earn salvation by it but, if we are walking in the Spirit, He is sanctifying us, remaking us into His image for all to see. If our hearts are right with God and we are walking in the Spirit being purified and sanctified the law is a beneficial marker. Salvation is by grace, rewards by works.
The “change” in the law was a fulfilling of it. Jesus Christ is our High Priest and we are priests under Him in the order of Melchizedek. How do you practice this priesthood? If a shadow was fulfilled does that mean the filling of it is past? Or, is there ministry in the filling also?
If animal sacrifice was a shadow is there a ministry now in the fulfilling of the shadow? Or is it now irrelevant? I believe there is ministry in the change though it is a fulfilling of the shadow. In addition, I believe there is a ministry in the fulfilling of Torah, the Image of God that is for us right now.
Therefore, I work to fulfill the ministry God has given me, as His priest, as understanding His days and sacrifice and as one who desires to become like Him in this world.
I hope this helps you understand, at least a bit, of my position. If I need to clarify or if you have a question, I’ll answer it the best I know how. Thank you for asking our positions again. I think that was needed. Peace!
I think we are definitely making progress on defining each of our views regarding the Sabbath accounts in the Gospels and it’s implications on us New Covenant Gentiles. It seems like not only are there still some differences but I’m not sure you are understanding my postion. This may be because I have not stated is clearly. Let, me address your statements and questions in hopes of clarifying what I see scripture to say.
Much of what Paul says I would Contend we need to apply. But not everything. We need to study each section to determine who he is talking to, the reason for the instruction and if the instruction is limited to his culture or is a universal command of God. Or as you have said before wrestle with each scripture with Sound Hermeneutics.
Bound to OT law? Even the NT Covenant people are instructed to be slaves to Christ rather than slaves to Sin. Paul says this, Peter says this, James says this. They all repeat it. Where does it come from? Jesus said if you want to follow me, you need to “die to self” did he not?We are not bound to the OT Law in the sense that we are not required to carry out the law in order to secure our salvation. We should apply sound Hermeneutics to the OT just as with the New as I have indicated above. Some apllies (10 commandments, wisdom, universal principles) and some OT does not apply. But regarding Jesus being bound by it, I believe the Gospel writers and Epistles conclusively and repeatedly show that Jesus was born under the Law and kept the law 100 percent in order to be the perfect sacrifice. You seem to see him redefining the law in some places from literal to the deeper figurative or the higher intent, and therefore seem him sinless in that regard from what I understand. I am not sure I see that right yet. I see the New Covenant being sort of foreshadowed in Jesus words and ministry but ushered in at his death and Ressurection as I believe Hebrews and some other scriptures seem to indicate.
I would agree Jesus introduced the New Covenant and introduced the “Redefining” of the Law or put more accurately the fulfilling of the law which is the foreshadowed New Covenant, but I don’t see this commencing or being ushered in until his death and Resurrection. The Focal point even in the Gospels where Jesus is introducing a radical approach always is pointing to the New Covenant being established through his death.
Sorry for posting a whole Chapter, but I think looking at Hebrews 9 in full context makes the point that the New Covenant is established by the Blood of Christ when it was poured out for us:
Hebrews 9:
1 Now the first covenant had regulations for worship and also an earthly sanctuary. 2 A tabernacle was set up. In its first room were the lampstand and the table with its consecrated bread; this was called the Holy Place. 3 Behind the second curtain was a room called the Most Holy Place, 4 which had the golden altar of incense and the gold-covered ark of the covenant. This ark contained the gold jar of manna, Aaron’s staff that had budded, and the stone tablets of the covenant. 5 Above the ark were the cherubim of the Glory, overshadowing the atonement cover. But we cannot discuss these things in detail now.
6 When everything had been arranged like this, the priests entered regularly into the outer room to carry on their ministry. 7 But only the high priest entered the inner room, and that only once a year, and never without blood, which he offered for himself and for the sins the people had committed in ignorance. 8 The Holy Spirit was showing by this that the way into the Most Holy Place had not yet been disclosed as long as the first tabernacle was still functioning. 9 This is an illustration for the present time, indicating that the gifts and sacrifices being offered were not able to clear the conscience of the worshiper. 10 They are only a matter of food and drink and various ceremonial washings—external regulations applying until the time of the new order.
11 But when Christ came as high priest of the good things that are now already here,[a] he went through the greater and more perfect tabernacle that is not made with human hands, that is to say, is not a part of this creation. 12 He did not enter by means of the blood of goats and calves; but he entered the Most Holy Place once for all by his own blood, thus obtaining** eternal redemption. 13 The blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a heifer sprinkled on those who are ceremonially unclean sanctify them so that they are outwardly clean. 14 How much more, then, will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself unblemished to God, cleanse our consciences from acts that lead to death,[c] so that we may serve the living God!
15 For this reason Christ is the mediator of a new covenant, that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance—now that he has died as a ransom to set them free from the sins committed under the first covenant.
16 In the case of a will,[d] it is necessary to prove the death of the one who made it, 17 because a will is in force only when somebody has died; it never takes effect while the one who made it is living. 18 This is why even the first covenant was not put into effect without blood. 19 When Moses had proclaimed every command of the law to all the people, he took the blood of calves, together with water, scarlet wool and branches of hyssop, and sprinkled the scroll and all the people. 20 He said, “This is the blood of the covenant, which God has commanded you to keep.”[e] 21 In the same way, he sprinkled with the blood both the tabernacle and everything used in its ceremonies. 22 In fact, the law requires that nearly everything be cleansed with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.
23 It was necessary, then, for the copies of the heavenly things to be purified with these sacrifices, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. 24 For Christ did not enter a sanctuary made with human hands that was only a copy of the true one; he entered heaven itself, now to appear for us in God’s presence. 25 Nor did he enter heaven to offer himself again and again, the way the high priest enters the Most Holy Place every year with blood that is not his own. 26 Otherwise Christ would have had to suffer many times since the creation of the world. But he has appeared once for all at the culmination of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself. 27 Just as people are destined to die once, and after that to face judgment, 28 so Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many; and he will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for him.
That entire Context is contrasting the Old and New Covenants, both of which were established through Blood. In the Old it was sprinkled blood of an animal, in the New it was the Blood of Jesus Sacrifice at the Cross.
Sabbath rules." Where do you see that?)
Can you provide my specific quotes that you are referencing here?
If I said Jesus “upheld strict Sabbath Rules” I would think that I made that statement in reference to Jesus following the Sabbath law as Established by God in Exodus/Leviticus, because as I pointed out, Jesus was born under law and thus perfectly followed it to perfection.
work" another day just seems to me in agreement with the basic command restricting “any work” you are tempted to do on Saturday, instead of on another day. Isn’t your central justification for this distinction, what priests did on Sabbath, precisely their vocation, contradicting your thesis that one’s regular work is what’s restricted and thus what can’t be considered divine or permissible.
WIthin the same breath in Leviticus we see Moses telling telling the people Thus saith the Lord…
“Your work” should be done before, not on the Sabbath.
“No work” should be done on the Sabbath or you will be put to death. This within the Leviticus context of the already established “your work”.
God Commanding the Priests and therfore making an exception to do “Their Work” on the Sabbath.
What do we also see in other parts of the OT scripture:
People put to death for doing “Their Work” on the Sabbath.
Priests NOT being put do death for doing “Their Work” on the Sabbath as God Commanded.
So the above sets a precedent for the exceptions you find a contradiction with in your quote above. I am merely pointing out the exception God made, not defining it by myself outside of scripure. I therefore have a precedent to support the Literal law exceptions the Jesus followed, rendering him sinless by the Letter of the law. Even the Pharisees Law as Jesus points out, validates these exceptions. The Problems is they were contradicting their own law in accusing Jesus verbally, and he had to point that out.
is the one who most upheld the “literal interpretation.” The command’s basic prohibition was on “any work.” And I’ve cited O.T. executions for doing things to meet needs that could be done another time, with specific applications to carrying things, meeting needs to have food, etc. Couldn’t Pharisees then be seen as most literally justified in placing the burden of proof on anyone who seemed to risk stretching these specified restrictions?
Again your definition of “any Work” is in my opinion not correct. It does not take into consideration the “your work” and “exception work” that I have detailed above which comes directly from the same context that “any work” is found in.
The Pharisees did place the Burden of Proof on someone who appeared to be stretching the Literal, this Person Was Jesus and his response was to paraphrase “your Literal interpretation is wrong”. He pointed out that there were exceptions for the Literal Law of No Work, he used both scripure and their Law to point out that even their tradition recognized and justified these exceptions that he was taking the liberty to utilize.
distinction. I only meant that this sounds to me like the kind of judgment that only legal scribes claimed to be able to do, and that I am not confident in my ability to sort such differences out. And in previous sections, I’m implying that I fear I personally would have thought the Pharisees prudently drew the lines about right. Thus I think they earn a reputation as those most concerned to safeguard a literal version of the law. Yet I now see Jesus as leading us to a place where we need not worry about such lines, but rather have freedom to focus on what love would mean. I don’t think Paul introduced this. I think Jesus radically did.
FIrst off, You didn’t offend me, no worries Bob. I was just looking for clarification of your interpretation.
You say you “personally would have thought the Pharisees prudently drew the lines about right”. Wow, Really?! Those guys Jesus called dead men’s bones inside? Those guys Jesus said love to be seen of men rather than of God? Those guys Jesus said you don’t know me or who sent me and that they neither know God nor keep his commands? The guys that Jesus said didn’t listen to the Law and Prophets?
It seems to me Jesus spent a great deal of time exposing the Pharisees false interpretation of the Law, he talked about them making converts “sons of hell” just like them. He called their view of the law wrong and overloading people with Burdens that even they could not bare. I think it would be incorrect to think he was referring to God’s law, but rather to their Oral Law which Added unto what he commanded with more technicalites to the Law then was ever intended…just as he commanded NOT to do. I have mentioned the “mishnah” a nd how it contains 24 chapters on Sabbath Do’s and Don’ts alone, I believe this is exactly what he was talking about. Jesus in my opinion was attacking their Legalistic interpretation of the Law and their enforcement of their additons to God’s Law, Jesus was not ever in my opinion attacking God’s Torah. He was upholding and fulfilling that. The Torah and Prophets spoke of this New Covenant to come, It spoke of the day when the commands would be transfered from stone to written on hearts, it spoke of the perfect high priest making the once for all sacrifce through the perfect spotless lamb. So in my opinion Jesus was destroying the pharisees false additions and drawing a parallel to the new covenant he was introducing and the fact that even the Torah was perfectly aligned with this New Covenant he is introducing.
Jesus introduced this New Covenant to the house of Israel, ushered it in at his death and resurrection and then appointed Paul as the one he would send (Apostle) to the Gentiles to introduce them to this same Covenant. Through the Holy Spirit Paul then introduced the Gentiles to the New Covenant, repeating exactly what Jesus introduced. So Paul does not have a New Covenant outside of what Jesus introduced. He just reiterates exactly what Jesus did. And Via the Spirit brings clarity to the Definition of this Gospel Jesus introduced, which was spoken of by the Prophets and Torah ahead of time.**
I’ve argued that Jesus ‘redefined’ the Law, putting greater emphasis that it all hangs on love, and is fulfilled by love. Steve and Kelly appear to contend that Jesus only changed that the Law is no longer FOR gaining salvation. I’m not seeing that that’s what Jesus does at all. Where do you see this?
I’m skeptical that Israel or the O.T. ever thought salvation was not a gift based on the electing grace of God, with obedience being the way you show that you accept and maintain this grace of being part of God’s people. Each time he is asked how to enter the kingdom of heaven, or to inherit eternal life, does not Jesus specify that the vital necessity is obedience of God’s commands? I detail these texts in my paper comparing Jesus and Paul, arguing that they are in sync on this. Perhaps this difference is greater than our variation on whether Jesus intends a ‘literal’ interpretation of the Law.
When I said “bound” to a command, I just mean your words that the Sabbath “applies” to us. In its’ literal sense, I’d disagree with that. But you also now say, “Jesus introduced the Redefining of the Law.” I thought that was my view! And that you specifically had rejected that very term?
(Arguing changes of covenants here, or that they are created with “blood” probably is a new thread that won’t settle anything. But Heb. 9:22 explicitly indicates that not every sacrifice establishing forgiveness required blood. I see it as historically signifying (by an oath) that forgiveness is assured, but that God’s grace rests in his merciful character, rather than saying it is created by receiving blood.)
You question that you said Jesus upheld the need for strict Sabbath rules. I was citing your Nov. 11 words, “I see Jesus needing to uphold the Sabbath to people that needed strict rules…” But I perceive that He was seen to do just the opposite: to loosen what people thought ‘no work’ could mean.
I doubt that I’m completely following why you think priestly Sabbath duties clarifies what everyone else should do. Of course they were not prohibited, and I’ve emphasized that Jesus pointed to other apparent exceptions. But we seem to read the total texts with different sympathies. I don’t see how that would assure a Pharisee that harvesting food, or carrying a load that could be done another time would necessarily be safe for everyone. And I see Jesus as boldly confronting them that he so knows God, that making such decisions needn’t be as horrifically frightening as many Bible readers would naturally assume.
The Redefining term that you are using, as i said doesn’t accurately depict what I see Jesus as doing. I would use the term fulfilling the law as in “introducing the New Covenant that he had come to usher in”. But in one sense the New Covenant does redefine the law (since certain things foreshadowed in the law are being fulfilled and becoming obsolete as prophecied in the Torah and Prophets).
I would agree with you on that particular point and I think from one perspective the Forgiveness comes before the Foundation of the World, from who he is… A God who’s essence is Love, but the demonstration can be seen at the Cross. This would be for an entire different thread agreed. But I think anyone would be hardpressed to dismiss that the New Covenant is ushered in at the death and resurrection of Jesus. I am open to debating this point, at some other time of course.
But for our purpose here we both see Jesus bringing in a New Covenant, I see the entire OT and New Testament pointing the new Covenant at the Cross:
Jesus predicting his death associates the New Covenant with his Blood.
luke 22:20 In like manner, also, the cup after the supping, saying, `This cup [is] the new covenant in my blood, that for you is being poured forth.
Paul repeats what he learned from Jesus
1 cor 11:25
For I – I received from the Lord that which also I did deliver to you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which he was delivered up, took bread, and having given thanks, he brake, and said, Take ye, eat ye, this is my body, that for you is being broken; this do ye -- to the remembrance of me. In like manner also the cup after the supping, saying,This cup is the new covenant in my blood; this do ye, as often as ye may drink [it] – to the remembrance of me;for as often as ye may eat this bread, and this cup may drink, the **death of the Lord ye do shew forth **-- till he may come
.
I guess my view sees Jesus upholding what God had established, while introducing a taste of what God had said would be fulfilled and changed. Your view I guess shows Jesus correcting what Moses said? Or I guess ushering in the New Covenant.
Either way, we both see the New Covenant has come, so it seems a mute point. The question still remains, what exactly became obsolete? everything or some things? if Some things, then what things.
You use the terms “Harvesting food” and “carrying a load”.
The disciples picked grain and ate it, and the guy that Jesus healed picked up his mat to show he was healed. Where are you getting Harvesting and a “load”. Those seem to be terms that make it appear more was done than what was actually done, and those terms rather misleading.
Jesus did Redefine the Pharisees Oral Law which was not based on Love.
God’s law (Torah) was sourced from God who is love. Jesus didn’t come to redefine this, why would he do that unless he is against God in some way? Jesus said he came not to destroy God’s Law but to Fulfill it. The Fulfillment was introducing the New Covenant which would be fulfilled in his life, death and resurection. In one sense this New Covenant does put greater emphasis on Love, it’s the unveiling of the unconditional Love of God that was there all along.
I don’t think either Kelly or Myself contend that Jesus only changed that the law is no longer FOR gaining salvation. In my view Paul makes a distinction between the Abrahamic and Mosaic Covenants. I believe per the Abrahamic Covenant salvation was always by Grace through faith and “the just shall live by faith” as Paul states in Romans and Galatians and other places. This is why he argues… to paraphrase “wasn’t Abraham justified by Faith when he Believed God”! and “was Abraham justifed when he believed or when he obeyed the law?”
Jesus says John 5:39 You search the Scriptures because you think they give you eternal life. But the Scriptures point to me!
So the leaders of Israel apparently thought that through study and observance of the law they would gain Life.
It seems to me that much of Israel and especially the Pharisees and Leaders of Israel were unclear about this and may not have understood that Salvation was through Faith and in Abrahams seed to come. Therefore the Judaisars tried to get New Covenant Believers back under the Old Covenant claiming it was binding for salvation. And the New Testament writers battled this in their arguements against the people that could not transition to the New Covenant.
When Kelly or I say Pauls argues at times that the Old Covenant is no longer binding for salvation we are not saying that it ever was in Reality binding for salvation, only that the Judaisers think that and so that is why Paul has to go to great lengths to show the weakness or futility of the law in regard to Salvation. But our point it that even though Paul shows the Laws weakness, that doesn’t mean Paul is calling the Law bad or something we shouldn’t uphold or do away with. And to make some important distinctions here, I believe we have to understand what the NT writers are specifically refering to when they use the General term “law”. They could mean in some cases Torah, They could mean in some cases law and prophets, it can mean in some cases the Universal law…as in 10 commandements etc. And there was also Oral Law and things such as the “law of love” or law of sin and death.
When Paul says we uphold the law I read that to mean we uphold the Torah but within the Context of his other statements that some aspects of the Law are being fulfilled in Jesus and passing away. And Some of the Ceremonial and civil law was part of the Old Mosaic Covenant between God and the people of Israel.
I would seem to me that big sweeping statements like “Jesus Redefined the law and now the law is fulfilled by Love” are true only in context of how that Love is defined in this New Covenant. Both Jesus and Paul provide plenty of defintion regarding what that love looks like.
I went back and found that I have not really stated my position. I touch on it using terms like “philsophical” but haven’t really clarified. I’m hoping Red Hot Magma will also define his/her view.
I hold that Jesus appears to break the law, even to us, because the plain reading of the law demands that no one may do any work. While there were exceptions for preists for their duties, I do not see anyone else had provions for working. Jesus as I understand his words, declares that the law is about the inside through a philsophical understanding of the law rather than a literal. The Pharisees, as I understand them, held to a literal view of the law and could not understand the law. For the pharisee yeast in the bread was a bad thing - for Jesus it meant not being a hypocrite. I do believe Jesus could have eaten yeast in his bread and done so without sinning - for there is nothing wrong with eating yeast in bread. I believe Jesus could have worked on the sabbath, for there is nothing wrong with working on any day of the week. But just as many see that it would be wrong for Jesus to eat pork, for that would be to disobey God’s command to abstain from an unclean food, they fall in line with the contemporaries of Jesus’ time. So for them it would have been a sin for Jesus to eat pork or work on the sabbath. Thus I see strength and value in the depths of the philosophy of the law, and find worthless rules about eating particular foods, kicking back (resting) on saturdays, eating unleavened bread, dunking people in water, or cutting your hair.
I’ve noticed through this thread that there’s a pendulum for the literalists. They want to claim that Jesus was not working - he was only picking grains - yet he claims in John 5 “God works on the sabbath and so do I”. Knowing this the literalist then moves their pieces to present the case that there were provisions for working on the sabbath - albeit preistly duties - but I seem to to be the only one who thinks Jesus didn’t qualify for these provisions. I find this pendulum to be telling.
Here is find it puzzling that you continue to argue as if holding a non-literal view (what I call philosophical view) means that we must not believe in God’s law when you are no different. Is not bowing to another god only a matter of blessing. Can one sociopathically murder millions and he’s only missing out on blessing? I’m not sure who’s closer to antinomianism. Can one DEFILE the 10 commandments and be saved?
If keeping the law is not neccessary for salvation, and in this covenant keeping the law is a matter of blessing, then can one live his life constantly breaking the 10 commandments and still be saved? Can breaking the law keep you from salvation? If so then aren’t you saying that keeping the 10 is necessary for salvation?
Here we get into a rather large disagreement I have with the literalists - for the argument goes like this:
keeping Gods commands keeps you clean (The cup on the outside is clean, therefore the cup must be clean on the inside)
violating the commands of God (literally as they’re plainly stated) makes the violater unclean in need of salvation.
CONCLUSION: Keeping God’s command is not necessary for salvation.
I think Kelly is also under this connundrum. For the lilteralist want’s to paint a picutre that disobeying sabbath laws is a matter of blessing but then turns and says Thou shalt have not murder is not - unless I’m wrong about that - perhaps you do believe abstaining from murder is a matter of blessing only
I think what we’re getting at here is that the literalist approach has to switch positions in order to maintain it’s existence. At least that’s how it appears to me.
I almost want to laugh when reading what you wrote here. I’ve tried to present my view and state time after time and Kelly’s view that we in no way believe keeping any law or command has anything to do with salvation. Let me try to spell out my view here because Bob and you seem to be misunderstanding it.
Salvation (from the penalty of death) is something God has secured for every person.
It is by the Grace of God through Faith that we are justified. This is how everyone From Abraham to Auggy himself has ever been justified. I believe the faith aspect is the result of the new creation that God creates in a spiritually dead person.
The Law has no bearing on our salvation.
Our sanctification, or being made more like Jesus is accomplished when we abide in him and walk in the Spirit vs carrying out the lust of the Flesh.
Jesus call to take up ones cross and follow him is the way to sanctification, not salvation.
Jesus said with man this is not possible but with God all Things are possible. I believe that means literally the salvation of All is through God and will happen. But this happens in God’s timing with an individual as he said no one comes to the me unless the father draws him. He also heardened Israel and Pharoah etc in order to show mercy on them later.
by the works of the law no man is justified.
so to answer your question above…
Absolutely not! breaking the law will not keep you from salvation!! That is works righteousness.
Keeping the 10 has nothing to do with Salvation whatsoever.
The law has a direct bearing on our lives here and now (He who sows to the flesh shall reap destruction).
Paul and Jesus also urge people to follow the commandments, but never for salvation. It’s for sanctification. For staying connected to the vine and bearing fruit. He who says he knows God but does not keep his commands is a liar and the Love of God is not in him.
Now regarding which commands are to be followed in the new Covenant vs the Old, that is our discussion. The discussion is NOT if following commands is required for salvation.
If you remember, the original arguement I was making was that under the New Covenant the law is summarized in Love God and Love one another, and I was making the Arguement that the commands of God showed us how to Love, so dismissing the commandments and other NT instructions as if they were getting in the way of “loving” was missing the point of the commands in the first place.
We all agree the radical approach of Jesus is to Love. It was Radical because the leaders of God’s Chosen people had added rules onto God’s Laws that rendered God as unloving and his commands as overbearing. Jesus radical approach with Love brought us back to the reason he gave any command in the first place, because he cared about his people and all his creation and establishing Justice and peace and righteousness on the earth. This is why Jesus would say the the woman “you are forgiven, now go and sin no more”. It was a radical approach. He did not negate the need to follow the command regarding adultery, but he at the same time helped her understand that before God she stood guiltless and accepted. This really pissed off the pharisees because not only was Jesus claiming to be able to forgive but they had no place in their small way of thinking to allow for God accepting one outside of scrict adherence to the law as they interpreted it. The Pharisees saw God accept only those who were following the law perfectly. Jesus said NO! Forgiveness and acceptance from God is present now apart from the Law. And this is what Jesus was radically showcasing with his Healings. The mercy and Love and Power of God to set the captives free and proclaim the year of jubilee. And doing it on the Sabbath was the most radical in your face way to do that, beacause it would cause the Pharisees to have to comes to terms with exactly what the law said, vs what they were enforcing. The Work of God on the Sabbath to bring life and healing, as Jesus pointed out, this was never forbidden. This is the very heart of God. The Sabbath command itself was based on God’s love for mankind. The Sabbath was created for man. Not man for The Sabbath.
I argue that we cannot define that love outside of how God defines it. I argue this is why Paul under the inspiration of the Spirit defines that Love in the NT for Gentile Believers. I argue all of God’s Universal commands are sourced in the Character of God… who is Love, so they apply as well, or help define what it means to Love God and Love your neighbor. But when I say apply I never mean for salvation.
As I have said Jesus **did work **on the Sabbath! God COMMANDED the priests to work on the sabbath! So this provision is clearly established by GOD himself.
Now why would Jesus need to qualify that his work on the Sabbath was Priestly work?!
Think about it Auggy, what did the Priests who were offering the sacrifices foreshadow?? Jesus Himself!
The Book of Hebrews and many other places go at greath length to show that Jesus was our high Priest that made atonement once and for all for the sin of all and then sat down at the right hand of the Father.
Your the one that is supposed to see Jesus bringing the deeper meaning to the law Who do you think those Priests that were commanded to make atonement for the sins of the people symblolized? And it’s not as if anyone has to read this into the text, the NT writers under the Spirit of God explain this to us.
Steve,
forgive me for having to go around the block a few times; hope you don’t get motion sickness.
I think Bob and I have to feel around the elephant and are confused because of our understanding of what’s been endorsed.
It seems to me that Kelly’s position is that if one lives by faith they will manifest this by obedience to the law. I assume this is your position as well. I certainly hold this position and so does Bob.
If one is saved, that person is spirit filled and will walk by the Spirit, no? If one truly believes and loves, then they obey God’s commands as Kelly has continually quoted Jesus. But then I push, if abstinance from murder is only for blessing (or sanctification) and suddenly this discussion is not about “salvation by law”. I disagree; this discussion pivots on that and our interpretation of scripture (the purpose of the law) is vital.
A great example is Kelly’s opening statement on this very thread. For here Kelly remarks:
I understand “should ramin under mosic law” to be synonomous with “should reflect righteoussness outwardly”. Isn’t that what Kelly means? If we love God then we’ll obey the law (all of it)?
It seems to me that in order to avoid salvation by works, the argument is curtailed to assert that obedience to God’s commands is not necessary (for salvation) but only beneficial (blessing). But in laying the defense of why Christians should still obey the law it’s then argued that if you love God you’ll keep his commands. So basically, if you murder, commit adulters, covet, bow to other gods, steal and lie - this does not bring death for Christians are free to practice such things.
So yes, I find fault in the dispensational/penal substitutionary approach.
Hi Auggy,
I really don’t have a good understanding of your definitions of “literalist” and “philosophical”. Could you help me out on that? Just thinking, perhaps the problem is in the labels and not so much in how others understand Scripture.
Enjoying the conversation and thankful for you all! Peace!
Kelly,
By literal I mean that people can take the plain reading and think there is no subtext or philosophy to it. So when the scriptures read to abstain from pork, literalists believe that there is something wrong with eating pork.
By philosophical, I mean that people read the subtext and understand God had deeper meanings to his law. That the literal external codes did nothing for the heart. The external things could not bring one closer to God nor take one further from God.
I’m not saying that literalists don’t have a deep value, I’m saying the approach is shallow no matter how deep they claim. For to think that pork is unclean to them is a deep truth proclaimed by God’s righteouss mouth.
Jesus Himself!