Recently reached this chapter (3) in 2 Corinthians again. Seems to have direct bearing on the subject of this thread. Sorry if all this was already posted somewhere up there. But it sure does give us a lot of “old covenant set aside” language.
From 2 Corinthians 3 (NRSV)
… 6 who has made us competent to be ministers of a new covenant, not of letter but of spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.
7 Now if the ministry of death, chiseled in letters on stone tablets, came in glory so that the people of Israel could not gaze at Moses’ face because of the glory of his face, a glory now set aside, 8 how much more will the ministry of the Spirit come in glory? 9 For if there was glory in the ministry of condemnation, much more does the ministry of justification abound in glory! 10 Indeed, what once had glory has lost its glory because of the greater glory; 11 for if what was set aside came through glory, much more has the permanent come in glory!
12 Since, then, we have such a hope, we act with great boldness, 13 not like Moses, who put a veil over his face to keep the people of Israel from gazing at the end of the glory that was being set aside. 14 But their minds were hardened. Indeed, to this very day, when they hear the reading of the old covenant, that same veil is still there, since only in Christ is it set aside. 15 Indeed, to this very day whenever Moses is read, a veil lies over their minds; 16 but when one turns to the Lord, the veil is removed. 17 Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom. 18 And all of us, with unveiled faces, seeing the glory of the Lord as though reflected in a mirror, are being transformed into the same image from one degree of glory to another; for this comes from the Lord, the Spirit.
There is another thread on this, and I encourage you to investigate that thread and place your comments and questions there.
The summary is that the Bible never claims to be, in its entirety, the Word of God, and those making claims for the Bible that it does not make for itself are imagining man-made traditions to be teachings of God.
The last two? Short as they are, they look reasonable enough to me. Of course God’s law (which I now interpret as Christ’s law) is good. And, yes, we have trouble following it in the flesh.
Well, the whole passage was straight from the pen of Paul. Glad you ‘approve’. I’ve brought up other material in other posts, and don’t feel beholden to agree with any one person on everything. Feel free to bring up any passages you feel are being neglected.
Psalm 119:1-3 (NIV2011)
1 Blessed are those whose ways are blameless, who walk according to the law of the LORD.
2 Blessed are those who keep his statutes and seek him with all their heart—
3 they do no wrong but follow his ways.
OK, you made Psalm 119 an important proof text. Ps 119 speaks about the OT covenant, the Torah. Are you claiming that the OT covenant is the same as the NT covenant just updated and improved? or are you saying that Christians need some guide lines to know if they are doing what is right as @fmiddel rightly has said?
Paul disagrees with the first view. He kept the OT covenant and found that he was apposing the Messiah. In the passage from Romans from which you quoted and I quoted more fully he is talking about his situation before Jesus knocked him off his horse, confronted him in a vision, and took away his sight. Paul, then Saul, loved God’s Law, but he was unable to carry it out, because he was held hostage by sin. Only after Paul accepted Jesus as the Messiah was he able to accept the fact that his sins were forgiven and enter into a new relationship with God the Father.
Now if you are interested in discussing Paul’s views, I am glad to talk with you. On the other hand if you are only interested in a debate to justify your own view, we are finished.
No, I did not. I cited it as an example of what our hearts should desire, like Paul’s.
You have zero basis for the claim that he is speaking about his past. You are merely projecting your confirmation bias onto scripture. He is speaking in the present tense. You had better reread Romans 7:21-25 and be knocked off your high horse! Pay especial attention to verse 23.
Guess what else. It is also in the present tense, the implication being that we, if we are not hostile to God, should submit to God’s law, because we can, since our hearts have been softened by the Spirit.
Pleease note the lowercase L, as distinct from the implicit uppercase of Mosaic Law. The laws of love, moral laws, were written on hearts before Mosaic Law (remember Cain?), even as they are today, without Mosaic Law. And we still disobey them.
I agree that the thread 03Cobra mentioned is worth an investigation; I like where the conversation ended (unfortunately the thread is now closed). Hoping to continue it briefly here for those interested. Note, I have repeated previously mentioned things for emphasis.
The conversation in the other thread ended with Scriptures being “a” word of God and Jesus being “the” word of God. This is clear in the Ancient Hebrew and Ancient Greek.
Here are example translations (Ancient Hebrew to English) from three of the major prophets:
I have not come across an example anywhere in the Scriptures pre-Jesus where the authors used the definite article “the” (I.e. “H” prefix in Ancient Hebrew) in conjunction with “davar” (translated as ‘word’ in English). I think this showed the author’s reverence for God in the sense that they did not want to limit God in any sense by claiming that the visions and prophecy that came to them from God were “the” final word of God.
It was not until the unique moment in history, when Jesus was on earth, when John (and we can assume other disciples) implicitly refer to a person, Jesus, being “the” word of God. This is clear in the Ancient Greek:
Literally: And the word became flesh and dwelt among us…
How could we then interpret the scriptures for our lifestyle? Interpret it like Timothy (as mentioned previously in this thread):
“All Scripture is God-inspired/breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.”
This appears to be how Paul and Peter used scripture in their meeting in Antioch (if you are looking for some guidance on application from the early church). They don’t “un-hitch the OT from the NT”, but rather use the OT along with newly revealed teaching from Jesus to instruct each other (I.e. is one informs the other, and vice-versa).
In Paul’s description of the church, the final authority is Jesus (because he perfectly loved God and his neighbours and thus exalted as “the” son of God as proven by his resurrection), who is the head of the church (as he taught that he is the way, the truth, and the life). Jesus’ operative in the world is the Holy Spirit, who breaths-in (ancient metaphor for inspires) those who accept Jesus as their master and saviour. The individual members of the church are a body moving under the direction of the Holy Spirit who inspires individuals as directed by Jesus (who does not speak anything that contradicts what his father has already spoken in the OT). Therefore, all christians need each other to interpret the word of God because Jesus is giving revelation (via the Holy Spirit) to each member of the church, this was the main point of Paul’s analogy in his teaching.
I don’t think a debate about old/new covenant or laws is healthy for the church, but rather framing the discussion on Jesus’ teachings of the kingdom of God and the citizen of the kingdom of God, and his examples of Godly lifestyle/actions/thoughts, as the foundation for us to understand the Torah/Mosaic Laws. Remember that Jesus himself said he came to fulfil the law, not abolish it; his time on earth was necessary for us to understand the proper context of the Torah (I.e. Godly lifestyle) in order for us not to be a slave to religion (I.e. traditions of men discussed between Jesus in the Pharisees recorded in Mark 7). A major part of Jesus’ ministry was about giving the truth, and “the truth will set [us] free [from the religions of the world]” - this is the good news, and this is why I leap for joy - because there is an alternative way to live than what is proposed by the world religions and governments that are burdensome on the soul.
Jesus’ gospel is the same back then as it is today, it is supposed to give us the truth that will allow us to see through the deceit and injustice of our present institutions and its leaders and followers, both religious and non-religious.
Paul makes this clear to the Ephesians that the struggle in the present age (including ours) is not against flesh and blood (like many christians believe, hence why we are so focused on making good-bad lists/rulebooks, and religious forms based on physical actions). He writes that the struggle in this present age is against the rulers (I.e. Caesar and other kings, but could be extended to current dictators), authorities (I.e. Roman government in this context, but could be extended to current governments and legal bodies), powers of this dark world (I.e. evil powers enacting injustices, such as unethical corporations), and spiritual forces of evil (the Book of Job could give us an indication of what these are, e.g. disease, famine, evil ideas/spirits, etc.).
Paul describes “truth” (I.e. what has been revealed throughout the scriptures and made clear by Jesus) as being the belt that holds together our metaphorical amour in the battle against the above. Religious action is secondary to truth because without truth; how do we know that we are not one of those that Jesus describes as “prophesying in his name, but never knew him?” A thought-provoking question I ask myself every day and one that requires continual Bible study (both OT and NT) and prayer.
Klax
(The only thing that matters is faith expressed in love.)
419
Jesus decoupled the NT from the OT by arrogating it. It was His milieu, the basis of His fully enculturated humanity, He couldn’t NOT knowing who, what He was by His ancient epistemology that cannot work for post-Enlightenment minds.
Since you went back to the original languages, I would like to mention that there is not an “is” in 2 Timothy 3:16 in Koine Greek, and the text doesn’t say “all scripture is inspired…,” rather “every inspired scripture…”
@andrewt316, You are arguing for everything that Paul was arguing against. The Judaizers were saying that Jesus came to perfect the Law. They said that He made it possible for Gentiles to become Jews, to accept the Jewish covenant and become part of the Chosen People, so they needed to be circumcized and follow the Torah as Jesus Himself followed it.
Paul said No. He said that if the Gospel was the Law plus Jesus, then then in effect you have just the law without Jesus. Jesus is the Savior, Jesus is God, The Law does not save. The Law is not God. You are making the Law superior or prior to Jesus, just as the Pharisees said, which cannot be.
At the coming of the Man of Lawlessnes Paul said that there would be a rebellion against Jesus. This is what you are advocating. Please do not go this route. Flee those who advocate Legalism in all its forms.
@Relates I’m not too sure if I am? I am merely paraphrasing Jesus in the quote you referenced from my post.
By Judaizers, are you referring to Jesus himself, who said:
“…I have not come to abolish [the Law or the Prophets] but to fulfill them. For truly I tell you, 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. Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly 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.”
I think this is quite explicit what Jesus is saying to the apostles and surrounding crowd: there is a God-given standard, it has been given to Moses and the Prophets, and if we practice it and show others how to, then we will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. This is the basis for the apostles and early christians still practicing and showing how to live out the Torah to the new converts. This is how the apostles and early christians interpreted the metaphors of being the salt of the earth and light of the world: to show an alternative, holy lifestyle to their contemporaries - one that promoted justice and equality according to God, not according to Caesar or any other human person.
How else could we interpret the sermon on the mount?
Futhermore, I didn’t say that Jesus came to “perfect” the law, I said he came to “fulfill” the law (his words according to Matthew, not mine). By saying Jesus came to perfect the Law are you implying that his ministry on earth is the perfect example of acting out the law for all places, for all time? I don’t think this is the case, otherwise the model for the church would still be 1st century lifestyle. Thus, Jesus said he came to “fulfill” the law, as in, give its proper context, which he summarised as “love God and love your neighbour as yourself” (By the way he is just emphasising Exodus 20:3 and Leviticus 19:18 here, and many Jewish sages that came before him such as Hillel). He did this by being the “Sacrifical Lamb” and the “Suffering Servant” depicted by Isaiah, and was resurrected by God as a result. A unique and historical moment in time that has not been repeated since.
I can’t find an exact reference for your assertion above.
Only closest reference is in Acts 15, we read that there were people who were saying “Unless you are circumcised, according to the custom taught by Moses, you cannot be saved”, and in Jerusalem where the apostles and elders were, there were Christian Pharisees saying “The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to keep the law of Moses.” (Not as strong, but still imposing a requirement for Gentiles to be a “Christian” - this is more an identity thing).
I think we have to separate into three categories of Christians in this passage:
The people saying, “Unless you are circumcised, according to the custom taught by Moses, you cannot be saved”. I think this would have been a minority who had distorted view of Christ; certainly, Paul, the other apostles, and elders in Jerusalem did not believe this - hence, Peter and James clarified this.
The Christian Pharisees, " The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to keep the law of Moses." I don’t think this group were promoting salvation by works, but rather imposing their religious model on other Christians - remember their background is the Pharisaic interpretation of the law of Moses; every early Christian had their imperfect understanding of the Torah/word of God (even Peter, James, Paul and Barnabas), hence needed each other to instruct, rebuke, correct and train one another, as I think they are all doing here in the account by the author of Acts. Again, I am emphasising my point about how Timothy is encouraging us to use the scriptures.
Peter, James and the other Christian elders are not saying, “Don’t practice the Mosaic Law.” I think proponents of “unhitching the OT from the NT” often add this into the NT, when it doesn’t mention this at all. Rather, they are saying, circumcision and practicing the Mosaic Law is not a requirement for salvation or being a Christian. Although, I didn’t explicitly state in my previous post, I was hoping readers would get the implicit meaning from reading Acts, Galatians and Matthew (otherwise we’d be quoting the Bible all day…) and focus on the main point of my post, which is Jesus’ gospel, death and resurrection frees us from religion so we can better focus on understanding God as a person as Abraham did; I’ve clarified it in this post to avoid confusion and pointless argument.
Also, we have to take note that James (showing compassion he learnt from Jesus regarding following the Mosaic Law) instructed that the Gentiles did not need to follow the relatively larger requirements of the Mosaic Law (because they did not come from hundreds of years of understanding, remembering and practicing them and would thus fail frequently). But, this did not mean that there was no standard, James still instructed: " Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood. For the law of Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath.”
Why this standard? It is entirely contextual (thus not applicable today). The pagans at that time used these acts as worship to other gods; hence, they broke the most important commandment to love God. We can take this principle and ask ourselves in the 21st century: “What cultural practices are causing us to worship gods, other than the one true God?”
Paul did not deny James in setting a standard for the Gentiles. Nor, did he reject those who chose to practice all the Mosaic Law. We have to understand the context of Paul’s ministry; he was presenting the bare minimum to become a Christian in order to make it accessible to the entire world. Both James’ “faith without works is dead” and Paul’s “salvation by grace through faith” are two sides of the same coin. I think a lot of Christians misinterpret Paul by implying just because he didn’t explicitly say, “follow the Torah” that he advocated for the “abolishment of the Torah” (otherwise this is not congruent with Jesus, the Prophets and Moses). I encourage us as Christians to read Paul in conjunction with the other apostles to understand the proper context of ministry during that time period.
Also, I recommend a book called “True Spirituality” by the late Francis Schaffer, it explores the above (I.e. reconciliation of “faith without works is dead” and “salvation by grace through faith”, the two sides of the same coin [I.e. Godly lifestyle] in the 20th century, but still not to distant to glean insights for the 21st century.
I agree with you here. Not sure which part of my previous post made you think otherwise. Feel free to directly quote the specific part in my previous post and I can clarify.
Not sure how I am making the law superior to Jesus? Certainly, Jesus viewed himself as above the law by claiming he was lord of the sabbath. This is implicitly proven through his exaltation and resurrection by God. Letter to Hebrews also clarifies this (including Jesus’ superiority to Angels, as in messengers from God, Moses, High Priests) to those believing that he is beneath the law.
Again, please quote and I can clarify.
Again, I feel like you may be skim-reading my post? Where exactly in my previous post do I advocate rebellion against Jesus and Legalism? I meant quite the opposite, so please let me know and I can clarify.
@Relates apologies, my convoluted writing style may have blurred the intent of my post; I think we are in agree-ance on a lot of points. This is something I am working on; I get misinterpreted quite a lot both in verbal and written form.
Thanks for the clarification Vance, I haven’t studied Greek before so wasn’t aware. But, even basic understanding of the ancient languages has made studying the bible interesting, and helped clarify certain assumptions I had about what the ancient believers actually meant.
Hope we can evoke more learning and discussion of translational nuances and issues.
Certainly, a nuance there in 2 Timothy 3:16 in Koine Greek you posted that is worth thinking about.
I think the ASV is a better translation, but even it inserts an “is” not in the Greek:
2 Timothy 3:14-17 American Standard Version (ASV)
14 But abide thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them; and that from a babe thou hast known the sacred writings which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. Every scripture inspired of God is (inserted) also profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction which is in righteousness: that the man of God may be complete, furnished completely unto every good work.
A friend of mine who has been reading Koine Greek for 40 years and studied at Princeton seminary translates it more like this:
But abide thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them; and that from a babe thou hast known the sacred writings which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus: every scripture inspired of God, profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction which is in righteousness: that the
man of God may be complete, furnished completely unto every good work.
)