tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4894764035439419656.post5446643482551637603..comments2024-01-07T00:04:51.972-08:00Comments on Humble Wonderful: Between moral chaos and the law.Tonyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07412650446530771853noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4894764035439419656.post-84932833202817159462012-09-23T17:23:57.520-07:002012-09-23T17:23:57.520-07:00Interesting point Kevin and I agree that’s a prett...Interesting point Kevin and I agree that’s a pretty easy reading of those verses. It seems though from Acts 10 that the apostles didn’t all share that idea until a fair bit later. Is that an argument that Mat 15:11 and Mark 7:15 are later textual additions to support this new position or is it just evidence that the apostles were a bit slow? <br /><br />If nothing else it shows how big a deal it would have been to stop caring about dietary laws. Let’s be clear those dietary laws were seen by early Christians as commands from an unchanging God just as modern ideas of God’s commands are seen by Christians. (“They will always be detestable to you. You must never eat their meat or even touch their dead bodies.” – Leviticus 11:11) <br /><br />One way of understanding what I am saying is that Matt 15:11 and Mark 7:15 are not newly true because Jesus says them but have always been true. They are in fact part of the picture of what belonging to God means that Jesus is trying to paint. The Kingdom of God is not about following a distant ruler’s law but sharing in the attitude of love from a parent, that orders the universe.<br /><br />Simon, I think Matthew 5:17-20 quite simply makes no sense in any way I try to understand it. It certainly makes no sense as a means of telling other people that they must follow the codes that Jesus breaks (and breaks with others). “Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven” would be Jesus gathering grain on the Sabbath. Or ignoring the clear command to stone adulteresses. It’s not a suggestion in the Old Testament, after all, it’s a very firm requirement of God’s people.<br /><br />In fact I would point to this verse based on its literal and simplest reading to say the gospels are contradictory. So if we are to avoid that thorny outcome (not thorny for me but perhaps for some Christians) then a much more inventive interpretation of that verse must be applied. Or we would have to go back to Leviticus and Deuteronomy and change how we understand those laws. Basically it seems insane to have a religion that requires following every letter of a body of law that no-one can identify. What a yoke for people’s backs eh? A lawyer’s breakfast.<br /><br />Now when I concede the next point you may consider this the end of the case in your favour. However I want to say you’re right, I didn’t contend with verses like the above, because I don’t think more and more Bible study is the way to find the second love-based Christianity at all, especially not if you stand in front of the bible as if it was authoritative. You will have already established the Authority of the Bible as something Love might have to be sacrificed to should that be required. In the second Christianity, the one I frankly admire, God is believed to want of us and to have demonstrated in Jesus that the Authority of the Bible (where it says for example to stone someone) needs to be sacrificed to Love. To get to that Christianity you have to commit to Love before you even start finding proof texts for different laws in the Bible. What the Gospels are good for is describing (broadly) that love, not extracting rules from. It might help you to see that I am not proposing a conflict or binary between Love and God here so much as Love and such a system of rules.<br /><br />Remember Bible study (where the Bible is made an authority over Love) didn’t seem to help the Pharisees in Jesus’ time to “get it”. <br />Tonyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07412650446530771853noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4894764035439419656.post-70861650537631347042012-09-23T00:36:23.004-07:002012-09-23T00:36:23.004-07:00Jesus did lift the ban on foods that weren't k...Jesus did lift the ban on foods that weren't kosher, such as pork, seafood, et cetera: <br /><br />"It is not what goes into the mouth that defiles a person, but what comes out of the mouth; this defiles a person.” (Matthew 15:11, English Standard Version 2001)<br /><br />and here:<br /><br />"It's not what goes into your body that defiles you; you are defiled by what comes from your heart." (Mark 7:15, New Living Translation 2007)<br />Kev Staceyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14050444140529428264noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4894764035439419656.post-48091398894081956962012-09-22T05:43:28.541-07:002012-09-22T05:43:28.541-07:00Basically Tony, you create an imaginary two sides....Basically Tony, you create an imaginary two sides. You say on one side there are those Christians who think Jesus replaced the law with his own authority, and on the other side there are Christians who think Jesus replaced the law with love.<br /><br />You present them as two mutually exclusive "masters" that can't both be served and Christians who try to do so are trying to "straddle" two different things.<br /><br />Naturally, you say we should follow love and express your respect for your partner who does likewise. I think you are being very unfair on her. You have created two boxes - one labelled "Jesus' Authority" and one labelled "Love" and you have asked her which box does she choose. <br /><br />My question to you is, what does the "Love" box have to say about the authority of Jesus? Does it do away with it? Does it say it doesn't actually exist? You seem to be saying that a Christian can't follow Jesus as King of the Universe and being fully loving. Why create that tension? It doesn't exist in the New Testament at least.<br /><br />Acknowledging the authority of Jesus is fundamental to being a Christian. If you do not acknowledge and respond to Jesus as your King (or Lord or Ruler or Messiah, if you don't like the term "king"), you are not relating to him as he is - the Christ. Now, if you don't believe he is the Christ, then I don't think (without some major linguistic gymnastics) you can accurately call yourself a "Christ"ian.<br /><br />Being a "Christ"ian doesn't mean that I don't love. In fact to follow Christ is to love as he loved - sacrificially, boldly, controversially and unconditionally. This is where I straddle. I aim to love like my King. I do not find them to be two masters as all.<br /> Simon Camillerihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14813561936965631699noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4894764035439419656.post-52020558017095941682012-09-22T05:20:39.301-07:002012-09-22T05:20:39.301-07:00I do agree that the law is summed up by the comman...I do agree that the law is summed up by the command to love. This is exactly what Paul says in Galatians 5:14 and when Jesus is asked in Matthew 22:35-40 about the most important law, he said "Number One is love God with everything you have, and number two is love everyone else as much as you love yourself" (paraphrase mine). He then summed it up by saying, "All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."<br /><br />The relationship between following the law of God and following the love of God, is a great subject for study and is widely discussed in the new testament. I highly recommend reading through Galatians for Paul's debate on the issue.<br /><br />The problem is Tony, I think you HAVE created your own binary between love and legalism. I don't think God's law is EVER in conflict with God's love and so I don't see them as two masters that I have to choose between.<br /><br />Now, to clarify, I do agree that "legalism" is a bad thing, but the issue in the New Testament church in regard to legalism, wasn't whether God care about laws any more, but whether you could earn salvation or favour with God by obeying the law. That was the heart of legalism. So, in that sense, I do wholeheartedly reject legalism, but I don't replace it with love. What I mean by that is that I don't now think I earn favour with God by loving people as opposed to obeying the law - that would simply be another form of legalism. <br /><br />Now, I know that's not what you were talking about but I mention it because I think you've missed the point of the New Testament's great teaching on this subject and have created a conflict that doesn't need to exist.<br /><br />God's law is a reflection of God's character. God does not exchange following laws with just love each other when Jesus comes along. He points out that the very heart of the law is love. <br /><br />There are so many passages where Jesus upholds and supports the law, even to say things like "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven." (Matthew 5:17-20) Your blog doesn't grapple with these passages at all.Simon Camillerihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14813561936965631699noreply@blogger.com