Thanks for bringing that up – it’s an excellent point. You see that in Matthew, as well.
1 Like
I like Deuteronomy. (I’ve never heard a sermon on spending your tithe on a celebratory vacation – especially the ‘or strong drink’ part. 
)
1 Like
Thanks for reading! This narrative appears in all three synoptic gospels. Because no other humans were there, Jesus must have shared the encounter with his disciples.
2 Likes
I was reading 1 Corinthians chapter 9 this morning, and in there Paul makes a lot of interesting reference to the law, and makes commentary on his own relationship to it, which should also be of interest to this thread. He spoke of oxen treading out the grain and then asks if it was really oxen that God was concerned for, and did not that apply all the more to God’s servants?
After vs. 19 or so…
To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews. To those under the law I became as one under the law (though I myself am not under the law) so that I might win those under the law. To those outside the law I became as one outside the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law) so that I might win those outside the law.
One apparent take away from that? To Paul, all our conniptions here about “law or no law” are neither here nor there … It’s all about Christ. The [old] law doesn’t seem particularly essential to Paul, but he would certainly use it as necessary when it is the way to reach those who are under it. And he certainly did not think of himself as “lawless” either, as the concluding verses of the above quote indicate.
4 Likes
Andy Stanley was certainly not recommending discarding.
The dietary laws are the easy ones to identify as “not moral, not about love.”
The law allowing beating of slaves, as long as they don’t die, is one that you, Dale, could not or would not categorize.
The same with the laws on divorce.
I shan’t ask again if those laws are part of the moral laws that haven’t passed away, because you have already demonstrated that you either don’t know or won’t say.
Those laws are clearly moral laws, yet I see them as violating the new law Jesus gave at the Last Supper.
And those commands are the terms of the first covenant? Or just “some of them,” that we intuitively figure out? Or just 10-1 of them?
Which ones?
I agree. I also think that this is done under the leading of the Holy Spirit.
It’s not about “knowing scripture well enough that you’ll know it better than the devil.”
I think that’s bang-on. “Lawlessness” is specifically criticized in the New Testament. I would argue that “striving to keep the law” will not fulfill the intention of the law and can inadvertently make us “breakers of the law” because we wouldn’t be keeping “the whole law.” But living by the Spirit accomplishes the intention of the law; that’s not “lawlessness.”
And Jesus emphasizes that his requirements go beyond the letter of the law.
1 Like
Good, because I have said, and you don’t get it.
1 Like
He wants to unhitch it from our faith. And he doesn’t like mixing and matching the OT and the NT.
But anyway, do you think the temptation narrative is a valuable lesson for the church in facing our own testing and temptation?
1 Like
The last time I asked for a direct quote from Andy that supported your interpretation of his position, the quote you provided differed from the position you had paraphrased.
Could you provide a quote from Andy that directly supports these assertions?
I will answer your question after you support your assertions.
What seems to be lost in this whole discussion is the fact that both the Jewish and Christian faith are4 covenantal in structure. That is found in the fact that they ar4e based on the Old (Mosaic) and New (Christian) Testaments although many people are unaware that the English word “testament” is another word for the more biblical word “covenant.”
The word covenant refers to an agreement or contract. It comes from treaties made between a great power and its allies, in which the allies pledge their support to the great power and the great power pledges to defend its allies, and the allies pledge not to attack each other.
A serious question arises here . How can God limit Godself by making a covenant with humans? I cannot explain it. I can only say that God did it, and God can do whatever God choses to do. I AM WHO I AM.
The basis of a covenant is the covenantal relationship. For the OT this is expressed as I shall be your God and you shall be my people. The covenant relationship is more important than covenant itself, because it is that relationship that seeks to be established by the covenant and the covenant law, which is the Torah for the OT.
YHWH God initiated the OT covenant with Abraham and Moses. Israel is YHWH’s Chosen People YHWH rescued God’s People from slavery in Egypt, and gave the Hebrews the covenant law needed for them to keep the covenant.
God the Father, Son, and Spirit initiated the NT covenant. John 3:16 (NIV2011)
16 For God so loved the world that He gave His one and only Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish but have Eternal Life.
The covenant relationship of the NT covenant is the Love relationship between God and humanity as found in Jesus Christ. The covenant law of the NT is found in Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ is the Beginning and End of the Christian Covenant
While the OT covenant can help us to understand the Covenant of Christ, it is completely different from it. The Covenant of Christ is our complete commitment to Him and following Him. It is quite different from the OT covenant based on the Law.
Does this look familiar?:
Moral laws are laws of love. Which part of that don’t you get?
That absolutely and directly addresses owning and beating slaves, and is to be invoked in many if not all cases of divorce.
So…that’s the law of love, the law of Christ. Not “Torah” (or…“certain parts of Torah”).
No?
I don’t disagree, but I would suggest that you cannot articulate that universally. You can’t have a “list of rules” that encapsulate love. Following rules doesn’t make you loving, it doesn’t make you love, and the rules can always be applied in specific circumstances that end up being the opposite of love.
So…law of love? Yes. Articulated by rules or “laws”? No.
Emerging through the inside-out transformation empowered by and informed by the Spirit? Yes!
1 Like
Yes, you can. Jesus did.
You should be able to tell us what the two greatest commandments are. They are both found in the OT, and are the most concise encapsulation of the laws of love. The Big Ten are also laws of love – all of them, and are a less concise encapsulation. The whole NT expands and elaborates more.
1 Like
Except at the Jerusalem Council they decided some of them did. Out of love for the Jewish believers the Gentile Christians were instructed to keep some of them. So it seems the line between love and escargot is not clear cut.
2 Likes
I don’t believe you ever answered about the usher who was stealing out of the offering plate.
Jesus had a “list of rules”? Can you share some examples? Can you share how to follow and enforce those rules? Also, can you honestly say that you do these specific things?
I did implicitly. With a question. Is it Christ-like to steal out of offering plates?
If you had to post a list of rules in whatever Christian organization you might oversee, what would that list be?