Let me tell a little “parable” kind of story that might illustrate what I think definitely sounds better than mere rules.
A man and his neighbor have known each other for many years and, while not always together in some cozy “best friends” sense, they’ve built up a trust for each other. They look out for each other, loan stuff to each other, and generally don’t worry about anything that they know the other is attending to. In fact, Bill (one of these two neighbors) has on occasion needed a tool he knew the other had. He went and just helped himself to it in his neighbor’s barn without a second thought - not even needing to ask because he knew this was as nothing between them and he always made his own stuff available to his friend just as freely. He has no intention of keeping it, and if he should happen to break it, he would replace it, of course.
Now … to a strict rule-enforcing, outside observer Bill is stealing because he didn’t ask his neighbor first. He just helped himself (and it wouldn’t have occurred to him to feel ashamed or try to hide anything had his neighbor happened on him in the barn - because his conscience is clean and he would have then happily confirmed with him that it was okay; but as it was he didn’t want to go find his neighbor and disturb him at his own work out in the field).
Bill and his neighbor are beyond the letter of the law. They are following a much higher law of love. Does that mean that they are snubbing their nose at the “thou shalt not steal” commandment? Hardly! They’ve just moved beyond it. Let’s suppose that Bill has another neighbor on the other side that he doesn’t [yet] know nearly so well, and so of course would not presume the same freedom with him. Their relationship would probably more heavily depend on a code of rules as between strangers. But Bill’s relationship with the first neighbor is a superior one. As infinitely superior to it as love is superior to law. The letter kills, but the spirit gives life. That doesn’t mean the letter is unnecessary. People do have to start somewhere. Trust has to be built. But once it is … once the perfect is in place, the imperfect just disappears. Bill and his first neighbor know each other so well, that when Bill quite innocently forgot to return the tool in a timely manner and his friend asked him about it. He sheepishly returned it with much apology and his friend was relieved to have it back; but considered his minor and brief annoyance as nothing compared to their friendship. They have left the obsolete “stealing” commandment in the dustbin where it belongs because their relationship with each other is so far beyond that they would never dream of actually stealing from each other because … why would I ever want to cheat my good friend out of something belonging to him?! They don’t need the inferior letter any more. It’s already written on their hearts.
That’s how God wants us to live, both with those around us as well as with God.
1 Like
I have no problem with the story… but. It is very nice, but changes nothing about what I said, nor does it really address any of it. How about my question the unloving usher? Or my point about Jesus fulfilling the law and not abolishing it? We still need objective guardrails. Paul makes it clear over and over.
What confusion can there possibly be about the stealing usher? So far from acting in love, he isn’t even living up to the rules! Especially if that’s what is in his heart: to take advantage of these gullible people so that he can line his pockets at their expense.
Make it more interesting by having the usher desperately pocketing some of the cash because he hopes to pay for a doctor visit for his sick sister. Still wrong … [maybe]. But much more interesting to think on how Jesus might have handled it once the usher was caught and confronted. [In fact, never mind the so-called sympathetic scenario of mine here … leave it to Jesus to give us an interesting and scandalous answer even to your first scenario of the thief who is just a selfish jerk.]
Only while we’re still obliged to live under worried and inferior legalisms. Once the perfect is in place … all that is buried [meaning superseded, not destroyed] underneath an avalanche of infinitely superior blessing and relationship.
“Guardrails” would only be in place to help prevent accidents. Not because some party was untrustworthy.
That harsh a possibility for his motive hadn’t even occurred to me. He might just have succumbed to a temptation he struggles with, or might have been too embarrassed to ask for financial help for a legitimate need, as you suggested
The point is, the rule is how we know it is wrong.
Who is worried? 
And I actually take some offense at your suggesting that Jesus’ raising the bar is an ‘inferior legalism’, far from abolishing the law(!), not to mention all the ‘inferior legalisms’ that Paul adds to test ourselves against.
Tell me that porn is not a problem in Christian circles.
That is exactly why my heart is not worried about ‘worried legalisms’, because they have been fulfilled by my Lord and he has taken my place.
And they are not legalisms, anyway. They are laws of love, and far from being abolished, they are, when humbly, graciously and lovingly confessed and obeyed, avenues leading to Father’s smile, which is not nothing.
Okay, I take back my euphemism. 
Let’s go back to speed limit. What does Paul tell us to test ourselves against? Jello?
What does Paul say about the law? (And I think it is fairly obvious that he is talking about the moral law, the laws of love.)
I would not have known what sin was had it not been for the law.
That is still true.
The point is, the rule is how we know it is wrong.
But is it the only way? Is it the best way?
Also, don’t rules need to be applied? I don’t think that is always a simple thing. And sometimes you’re forced to choose to which to give greater credence.
I think rules are always approximate and inferior to experience.
For Christians who put any stock at all in the words of Jesus and Paul, yeah, pretty much.
That is exactly what we have been discussing.
Mercy trumps law. (The ‘ox in a ditch’ is an idiomatic example.)
That sounds nice, but if someone keys your car or throws a rock through your window is that what you will be thinking? I seriously doubt it.
😁
2 Likes
I picture the officer answering like the imperial guards when Obi Wan assured them these are not the droids we’re looking for. The officer would probably turn meekly to her partner and say “she can go. She is under grace. Cool.
4 Likes
Cool, but still fiction and not the real world with real rules and real unloving disobedience of those rules.
This must be a misunderstanding of some kind. What Jesus gives us is the trajectory toward the superior. Now … those who want to take what Jesus taught and reduce it to merely a new & updated set of more stringent rules … I would argue that they are still not getting it. I think Jesus was showing us that we will not save ourselves by any rule-following, no matter how exemplary we may be ahead of everyone else. We will always be falling short of the true spirit of any rule we pride ourselves in having “fulfilled”.
You’re right that rules show us important things about right and wrong that enable love to grow in wise and caring directions toward our neighbor. Think of it this way. Rules are like training wheels for love.
It certainly is a problem. It isn’t enough that a man be “technically” innocent of actually committing adultery against his wife. Jesus shows the inadequacy of that rule too in Matthew 5:28. That a husband would fantasize about doing so - or even just for a moment notice another woman in such a way that there is even a seed of a wish in his heart - anything that would woo him away from loving faithfulness to his wife or cause her to feel any insecurity whatsoever; those are signs of trouble. Lord have mercy on us all - because what husband (or wife I suppose) could ever aspire to such life-long consistency of purity of thought. There are religious groups that take all such things to such extremes (speaking of “guardrails”) that, for example, in some cultures, they don’t allow women to even so much as show their face (or perhaps even let them out of the house without their husband) because of these temptations. [Note that all the burden for the sin of such temptation is placed on the woman and none of it on the man - I have nothing but loathing for the way such a system treats women - and such abuse is about as far from true Love as one could get - rule following run amok and corrupted to extremes.] In contrast, let’s say that a husband and wife loved each other so much, that - yes - even while they also notice and admire and enjoy other friends and people (in appropriate ways!) they are so secure about their love for each other that they feel and grant complete freedom with and for each other. The husband doesn’t at all mind that his wife will sometimes enjoy fellowship with friends of her own (maybe even male friends, and without the husband necessarily always present) because he has complete trust in his wife, and she in him. They know that they would never abandon each other for anyone else, and so they do not at all attempt to exercise any kind of insecure and exclusive possession of their mate’s every last attention. Even if other attractive people were present, not even a twinge of insecurity is felt because their love for each other is so established and unshakable. Now … am I suggesting that any real and existing marriage has reached such an idealized state? Probably not. I don’t know of the marriage that doesn’t need continued vigilance against sin [or rather: positive work of cultivating love for each other, without which, so-called vigilance against sin will be nothing but a futile ‘effort’] - but just because I know only my own experience and relative shortcomings compared to that ideal, that doesn’t mean that marriages don’t exist that we can aspire to be more like, who have reached and maintained an even closer level of love (but always because they worked to build that - I’m pretty sure it never just happens.) And it would be a matter of degree and perpetually continued work, not perfection. Love never rests on its laurels as a “thing achieved”. It is always working and asking, how can I better serve my wife, my neighbors, even my … enemies!
Since I’ve already “cut loose” with a bit of a sermon here, I may as well go on some more and just finish it…
I’m also quite well aware that a whole lot of marriages, so far from thinking of such ‘ideals’ are instead struggling (or not) just to even survive. Real life is messy. People who meet each other aren’t perfect, and in many cases infidelity has often been present already from prior history even before young marriages have even started. Here is where so-called “purity culture” (the “Christian” equivalent of Sharia law) has been so damaging I suppose. It tempts some to suppose that all sin can be quarantined away as being “over there”. If only I avoid all the big “no-nos” like avoiding porn, premarital sex, etc. … then by such rule-following, I can make sure I will have a good life unlike all those poor saps over there who didn’t follow all the same formulas. This is what leads some cultures to stone their adulterers to death - they don’t hear the message that such sin has already cut through your own hearts too, and only he without sin could have the right to pick up the first stone. But that’s just it. If you were so perfect as to have that right, then you, like Jesus, would have no interest in picking up any stones at all. There is no “us” and “them”. There is only us. I don’t think it’s an accident that the writer of the gospel of John records the older [probably wiser] men dropping their stones first after Jesus’ challenge, while the younger ones hold on just a bit longer, dabbling longest in the pretense that just perhaps maybe they could qualify as rule-following judges over others. It’s the young “purity culture” sorts that are most addicted to the thought that they can judge others and somehow escape judgment themselves. But Jesus cuts right through and refuses to sanction all such pretense, both then and now.
Love runs toward such messiness in life, not away from it. When persons in real-life marriages realize (shock of shocks!) that their own marriage falls short of such idealization of perfect love, they (if their marriage is to survive) labor hard to fashion lives of grace for each other. And they realize that the continued work, the ebb and flow of such grace is the lifeblood - the very love itself that holds their marriage together. Such is what real life is all about on this side of the vale.
2 Likes
Yes. Absolutely.
What I don’t think you’re getting is that higher standards (like raising the bar?), not ‘more stringent rules’, are something to strive for, something to test ourselves against, as Paul says. They are also something to be glad in, when we discover ourselves to have conquered a temptation (with the Holy Spirit’s strong help) and we see our desire has changed for the good.
Is it the words ‘rule’ and ‘law’ that is the problem? They’re biblical, so let’s use ‘standard’. That might be less offensive to the antinomian. It’s biblical, too, but maybe has a less ‘restricting’ and legalistic connotation.
Guardrails (I use the term advisedly 
) are freeing. They keep us freer from the likelihood of falling over a cliff. The same is true of rules in all kinds of situations — they are freeing. Sports, for instance. They make competition fair and more fun.
Returning to civil law again – traffic laws, obeyed and enforced, keep us all freer from injury. They are also good for the economy, because medical, legal and policing costs weigh it down with reduced productivity, reducing the standard of living and leading to inflation.
How can the antinomian enjoy Psalm 1 (vs. 2 in particular, and of course it’s hyperbole) or 119?! Those of us who can be thankful for ‘standards’ () can wholeheartedly, not that we are sinless, by any means, except in our Father’s eyes through the labor of our Elder Brother on the cross.
Don’t worry about offending me. It’s more like … some words are more provocative toward further productive thought and reflection. So it isn’t that I’m offended by the word “rule”. In fact, it becomes the springboard for a lot of good discourse!
I’m not sure I actually disagree with any of what you say in that last post. Yes - if we have conquered a temptation (meaning it isn’t even tempting for us any more - as in, it has been entirely conquered!) that would be something to be glad about.
How can an ‘antinomian’ enjoy Psalm 1 or 119? Good questions. I would say that if the old sets of laws can inspire gratitude, delight, and admiration, then how much more so the yet more glorious law of love revealed in and by Christ? An old thing can be a welcomed gift indeed, but when the giver later comes and gives you something even greater to replace it with … the glory of the old becomes at least somewhat eclipsed, no?
On some further reflection, I will still push back just a mite about this. Testing ourselves against … yes - always; in fact that’s always what rules turned out to be used for in the first place. And yes, the standard got higher. But I’m pretty sure that if you approached Christ (say, like the rich young man did) with some claim like … “okay - now I’ve managed to meet your more stringent standard - am I ‘saved’ yet?” - Christ would probably move the goal post yet further along yet for you … “So you’ve given away half of your wealth now, have you? … tell you what: how about you give it all away, then come and let’s revisit where you stand…” And this would probably go on until you finally “get it” that this isn’t about satisfying rules and formulas at all. It’s about putting yourself (all of yourself and all that you have) permanently at Christ’s feet. As long as you want some rule or formula that you can use to safely partition off your obligation into some potentially satisfiable box, so that you can then relax and kick your feet up; you will probably find yourself persistently rebuffed by further challenge from Christ. Eventually we catch on and finally say … I’m not going to be meeting your standards, am I! Apparently you’re just taking me right where I’m at, and I’m expected to do the best I can for you and for neighbor going forward. Yes, we do show this repentance - this turning by our subsequent (even if inevitably still spotty) obedience toward Christ. That is the law of love - it’s intertwined with grace. It can reach a rich man who’s given nothing away. It can reach a wretch on a cross who’s spent his life stealing from people.
Yes and no, because the old standard is part of the new. We are not talking only about the glory of the Standard Bearer, but also the excellent standards (OT & NT laws of love) that are part of who he is.
We’ve already covered that, I believe:
Yes, absolutely.
I hope so.
A couple of other ‘standards’ to keep in mind and heart:
The most frequent mandate [commandment, law, rule…] in the Bible [including the OT] is “Don’t be afraid” or one of its several variations – “Fear not!” “Be anxious for nothing”, “Fret not”, …
If we recognize ourselves being anxious about anything, what are we to remember? (Make it a mandate goal. ) That our Father is in control, and what he does is good. All the time.
It’s not our perfect love! It is our Father’s, and he only does what is good for both him and us. I catch myself being anxious about ANYTHING, I can go crawl up on Father’s lap even when court is in session in the throne room, so to speak, and his strong arms will comfort me and shield me.
Imagine if all Christians did that consistently how much less anxiety leading to real depression there might be.
The other mandate, goal, rule, standard, law, commandment, rule or instruction I had in mind I cite frequently:
That speaks to Jesus’ motivation… and that future joy should be our motivation, too, not even counting all the peace, beauty and joy we can experience here.
1 Like
I think there is more to “fulfilling the law” (Romans 13:8-10) that simply “the law of Christ”, which is to love one another. In John 3:34, Jesus speaks of a “new commandment”, but that doesn’t mean it is the only commandment. The commandment “love one another” doesn’t mean fornication and homosexuality are allowed.
If loving one another is the only law, does that mean bestiality is permitted? I don’t think so - that prohibition comes from the law of Moses.
Jesus speaks of keeping his “commandments” (John 14:15) - plural. The plural “commandments” also appears in 1John 2:2-3.
1Peter 1 says:
“as obedient children, not conforming yourselves to the former lusts, as in your ignorance; 15 but as He who called you is holy, you also be holy in all your conduct, 16 because it is written, “Be holy, for I am holy.””
What does it means to be “holy in all your conduct”, exactly?
Why “expected”? The account (Luke 19:1-10) simply says Zacchaeus would give back four-fold to anyone he had defrauded – nothing there at all about him being rendered penniless as a result.
Did the rich man “walk away from salvation”? In the Mark account, Jesus said it was hard for those “who trust in riches” to get to Heaven (Mark 10:24) – which is not the same as saying it is hard for those who are rich to get to Heaven. The bottom line is, someone can be rich and also love God and keep his commandments.
In the Matthew account, Jesus tells the rich man “If you would be perfect ”, you should give all your money to the poor (Matt 19:21). Jesus did not say, “If you would be saved …” - rather, Jesus is telling him what would be ideal for that particular person, not what is necessary . Jesus is not saying all rich people must give away their money to the poor in order to be saved.
That’s incorrect. The most important requirement of the Law of Moses had always been loving God . When a Pharisee asked Jesus what the greatest commandment was, Jesus replied, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind” (Matt 22:36-37), which comes from Deut 6:5.
“If you love the Lord your God, by walking in his ways, and by keeping his commandments and his statutes and his ordinances, then you shall live and multiply” (Deut 30:16). In other words, you demonstrate your love of God by keeping his commandments.
Loving your neighbour is nothing new either. In fact, Jesus said the second-greatest commandment is “to love your neighbour as yourself (Matt 22:39), which comes from Lev 19:18.
It would be an insult to God to suggest he is so trivial as to impose “rules for rules sake”. In Deut 10:13, God says his laws are “for your good”.
Isaiah 48:18 says, “Oh, that you had heeded My commandments! Then your peace would have been like a river, And your righteousness like the waves of the sea.”
The higher law of love was there from the beginning - Jesus said “all the law (of Moses) and the prophets” are based on loving God and loving your neighbour (Matt 22:40).
… or it could be that those “law-enthusiasts” are simply doing what Scripture says believers must do in order to be saved.
For example,
Paul says “Do we then make void the law through faith? Certainly not! On the contrary, we uphold the law.” (Romans 3:31);
Jesus said, “If you love me, you will keep my commandments ” (John 14:15);;
Rev 12:17 and 14:12 describes the people of God as those who keep God’s commandments and have faith in Jesus;
1John 2:3-6 says “He who says ‘I know him’ but disobeys his commandments is a liar , and the truth is not in him ”;
in Gal 5 and 1Cor 6, Paul warns believers that their sins (ie, disobeying God’s commandments) can result in them *not inheriting the kingdom of God.
in Rev 2 and 3, Jesus judges believers according to their “ works”.
But the New Covenant is “transactional” – the very meaning of the word “covenant” is transactional - it is a mutual agreement, contract or guarantee, predicated on meeting certain agreed conditions.
James 2:24 says, “a man is justified by works and not by faith alone” (“works” = keeping the commandments of God). In other words, God’s promise of eternal life is conditional on faith and works – if the conditions are not met, the promise is rendered null and void
This is nothing new – the old covenant was conditional too:
Deut 11:22-25 says, “For if you will be careful to do all this all this commandment with I command you to do, loving the Lord your God, walking in his ways, and clinging to him … No man will be able stand against you”.
Jesus said, “If you love me, you will keep my commandments” (John 14:15). We demonstrate our love for God by keeping his laws, so faith, love and obedience are inseparable. In Rev 12:17 and 14:12, the God’s people are described as those who have faith in Jesus and keep God’s commandments.
Obedience (keeping God’s commandments is necessary in order to be justified: “a man is justified by works and not by faith alone” (James 2:24).
1 Like
You truncated the verse:
You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.
That means there had better be outward evidence of the inward truth. If it were by faith alone with no or contrary outward evidence, then the individual’s justification is at least highly suspect. And we can and should test ourselves. Also notice the conjunction. “…and not by faith alone.” That means a person is not justified by works alone either. There had better be both.
I think we agree. But we are not to be focused on the rules. You are not driving well of you only look at the speedometer. As @Mervin_Bitikofer said, it is not transactional.
Jesus’ transaction on the cross covers us.
O the deep, deep love of Jesus!
Vast, unmeasured, boundless, free,
rolling as a mighty ocean
in its fullness over me.
Underneath me, all around me,
is the current of thy love;
leading onward, leading homeward,
to thy glorious rest above.
But the transaction is a gift, and the only ‘requirement’ on our part is to accept his unconditional love and grace. The transaction was complete on the cross, and our “performance” does not buy us anything. It is, again, only the outward indicator of the inward truth of our acceptance of the gift of adoption. We cannot earn it.
I agree with you that what Jesus taught was not entirely original - and that the motivation of Love had indeed been there from the beginning (as in fact Christ has always been there from the beginning.) That’s why I used the word ‘ostensibly’ when I spoke of the motivation [of just ‘rule-following’] adopted by so many before Christ and even now yet today. I think you’re right - that it is an insult to God to see his rules as just ‘rules for rules sake’.
I’ll always continue to at least gently push back on this. As long as our concern is for ourselves being ‘saved’ as individuals, and taking reassurance in some formula toward that end, I suggest that God’s love hasn’t fully taken root in us yet. We are still stuck with Love’s “training wheels”: minding our 'p’s and 'q’s in the inferior transactional ‘law-oriented’ way. [and who among us could properly claim to have fully ‘arrived’ in such regard? I certainly don’t claim that for myself yet - God’s work in me and on me is not done yet.] I have no need to convince you otherwise. Whatever either of us still lacks in understanding about the law, God will make clear to us in the season we need it. Blessings to you.
3 Likes