However…
The Sabbath preexisted Mosaic law and the Old Covenant and is a continuing metaphor of our redemption, for grace and justification by faith:
We ignore Father’s heart.
Do a New Testament word search on submit. Is it a measure? No, it is not. It is a mandate.
The principle certainly exists. But it’s not as simple as just “Saturday” or “Sunday.”
“Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day” (Colossians 2:16).
“For if Joshua had given them rest, God would not have spoken later about another day. There remains, then, a Sabbath-rest for the people of God; for anyone who enters God’s rest also rests from their works, just as God did from his” (Hebrews 4:8-10–in the context of people keeping the Sabbath as opposed to not keeping the Sabbath).
Did you read my little essay. Your complaint is addressed.
Did you? Just curious.
All right. So…
We still have to keep the Law. Well, not all the Law, just a certain part of it. Or…a different kind of Law that is partly included in the old kind of Law, and partly not. So…part of the old Law is gone and part is not, but there is new stuff too.
And even though keeping rules is ineffective in transforming character (see Colossians 2:20-23, Galatians 2:21, 5:23, Romans 7), we still have to keep this “new set” of Laws. They are an indicator of “not loving,” but if we keep them (but not strive to keep them), then we know we are loving.
Not sure what Paul meant when he said that the Law was temporary (Galatians 3:23-24), but maybe that was just “the part we’re not supposed to keep” and not “the part we’re still supposed to keep along with the new stuff.” Oh, and James 2:10 (you have to keep the whole Law and not just part of it)…does that apply to “just part of the old stuff and some new stuff”?
I’m not looking an answer backed by pragmatics–like…“we have rules in our families”–I’m looking for what scripture says.
Now, you might be right. I might be wrong.
But what do you do with those passages in Galatians, Colossians, James, etc.? Because they don’t seem to fit. Not at all.
I just skimmed it. What is the “Lord’s Day”? Do you mean Sunday?
That is typically the busiest day of my week.
Take your time and chew on it.
What day does John mean by the ‘Lord’s day’ in Revelation?
What do you do that it is the busiest day for you?
The most obvious meaning to me is Sunday, the first day of the week.
I am a pastor. One thing is for sure–for me Sunday is not a day of “rest.”
1 Like
God’s not going to give you a speeding ticket. An extension of the government will.
Didn’t we already do this?
Then I am presuming you take another day off as your day of shabbath, not another regular work day.
I might suggest that you are having so much difficulty because you are not practiced in making the distinction between the laws of love and the entirety of Mosaic law and the distinctions within it.
Our redemption does not depend on our keeping the whole of Mosaic Law. It was temporary. The laws of love are still in effect. Our redemption does not depend on keeping them, either. (Good thing!)
Does that allow us to ignore them? No, we are still instructed in righteousness by them (the implication being, if we disobey them, we are not being righteous and seeking Father’s smile). Remember the suitor – the ‘law of love’ was in his heart when he purchased the bouquet.
You are disingenuously changing the meaning of what I said.
Absolutely. That’s why I asked what you meant by “the Lord’s Day.”
There is a “law of love.” I don’t know that there are “laws of love.”
I’m also not “having difficulty.”
Not at all. I am, however, wondering what the functional difference is between “keeping the law” and “trying/striving to keep the law.”
1 Like
Pretty much what anyone, including pastors, means by it. Why you asked the question is the question.
Now you do. There are two you should already be familiar with.
Yes, you are. Moral laws are laws of love. Laws of love are moral laws. There are two you should already be familiar with.
Okay, sorry. I mistakenly inferred irony in your first, maybe because I’m not sure I agree with it, articulated (a little) below:
That is a good question. I think the suitor analogy still applies. If bringing flowers to his beloved becomes rote, then he not striving, but he also is not at all necessarily being loving, either. So we don’t know we are loving if we are keeping the law and not striving. Maybe the criterion is what or who (or Who) is the focus, who the object of attention is and why, and where, the heart is, where it is focused, or not.
(I have it easy – bringing flowers to my beloved is not an issue, because of her sinus allergies. I would definitely not be loving if I brought her a bouquet. 
I have brought her potted basil on occasion, though, and poinsettia. )
1 Like
Also, love is active, not passive. That could well be another criterion. (That might require a little filling out. I don’t think you have to be actively and consciously not stealing. Maybe for the repentant pickpocket or professional thief or tax cheat (à la Zaccheus), that would be the case early on, but hopefully soon not. We do need to be actively giving.)
1 Like
“Pretty much what anyone, including pastors, means by it” is usually Sunday. That’s my point. And it’s absolutely not my “day of rest.” That’s why I asked. If you mean something other than “Sunday,” then I probably agree with you. If you, like most people, mean “Sunday,” then I vehemently disagree with you because the implications are appalling.
There’s an arrogance in assuming that if someone disagrees with you, they are “having difficulty.” It can be challenging at times to live without abiding by a set of rules and to avoid imposing sets of rules upon others, but it’s better than the alternative. Far better.
And I’ve seen it work for the most part for the past, say 12-13 years since I’ve been leading the church I pastor.
Oh, we do have policies–just a few, either out of practical necessity (e.g., vacation policy, building use policy, plan to protect policy), or because they are mandated by the government (e.g., benevolence policy (still working on that one), anti-violence policy, anti-harassment policy (can you imagine those last two being required in a church?)), but that’s about it. We also have articulated things like values and practices. But those aren’t “rules.” It’s the way we behave that’s more about attitude and approach than the conformity to systems of behaviour. That’s practical. It’s not “rules.”
I think we agree more than it might appear. One issue is that “love” is all of behaviour, motivation, attitude, and intent (and maybe more). “Rules” can govern and define the behaviour, but cannot govern and define motivation, attitude, intent, etc.
Some years ago, I had flowers ordered for my wife at work, with the only intent of surprising her to make her happy. I had no conscious selfish motivation on my part, and the act was not instigated by “feelings of love” or other emotion. When she received the flowers, however, that instigated feelings of emotion on her part, and when she got home, she acted on those feelings of emotion which in turn effected emotional responses in me.
But there’s no rule that says “order your wife flowers” or “demonstrate love to your wife by ordering her flowers.” Love opens up infinite opportunities and means of expression. Rules limit them.
Another example.
Quite a few years ago, our ushering team at the church was led by a rule-driven procedure: stand here, hand out bulletin, greet and shake hands appropriately. We had one guy on the team who broke the rules. When it would rain, he would grab an umbrella and walk people in from their cars. There wasn’t a rule to do so and the implication of the rules, that defined what to do did not include that.
Over a period of a few years, we made significant changes, not so much in what was done as how the things being done were encouraged and defined. The team name was changed from “greeters and ushers” to “First Impressions Team.” The (new) head of the ministry was empowered with “making that happen.” Culture change is difficult, but now we are farther on the road to having our workers “create a great first impression” than “standing in these particular spots and greeting people.” I see newcomers welcomed and having things explained, like where the kids’ programs are, and team members even walk them over to where the kids are and introduce them to someone who can register their kids, etc.
That’s a difference between being governed by rules and motivated by values and purpose. Living by the Spirit is more like being motivated by values and purpose than it is being governed by rules.
4 Likes
Just like the suitor, and we should be, desirous of pleasing God because we love him, not for our own sakes. But what does Hebrews 12:2 teach us about the ‘why’ of the cross?
Do you remember ‘mercy trumps law’, above, and my references to the heart, not to mention Father’s heart?
“The Old Testament is God’s authoritative Word to us, but we have to read the whole Bible covenantally, and in light of the fulfillment of Christ, to apply it well to our lives.”
This is not true. Jesus Christ is God’s Word to us. Jesus Christ is the Alpha and Omega of our faith. What is true is that we must read the Bible in light of both covenants and apply the Covenant of Christ to our lives. It is not the laws of the covenant that save us, but living in the covenantal with God that save us.
Version:1.0 StartHTML:000000236 EndHTML:000002005 StartFragment:000000347 EndFragment:000001973 StartSelection:000000347 EndSelection:000001973 SourceURL:file:///C:/ProgramData/WORDsearch/Wordsearch%2012/Cache/copy_passage.html Matthew 19:16-21 (NIV2011)
16 Just then a man came up to Jesus and asked, “Teacher, what good thing must I do to get eternal life?”
17 “Why do you ask me about what is good?” Jesus replied. “There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, keep the commandments.”
18 “Which ones?” he inquired. Jesus replied, “ ‘You shall not murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not steal, you shall not give false testimony,
19 honor your father and mother,’ and ‘love your neighbor as yourself.’”
20 “All these I have kept,” the young man said. “What do I still lack?”
21 Jesus answered, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”
When the rich young ruler asked, “What must I do to get eternal life?” Jesus said that he must keep the Commandments, but He did not mention the first four. The young ruler replied that he has done so.
Then Jesus responded that to be perfect the Rich Young Ruler needed to sell all that he had, give the proceeds to the poor, and follow Him. Because he would not that he left disappointed.
Jesus does not tell all that seek to follow Him that they must sell all that they have and give the proceeds to the poor, but He does tell us that we must follow Him and that following must be unqualified. In a true sense this is the equivalent to the First Commandment. Jews could not claim to love God, if they rejected God the Son. The New Covenant of Jesus Christ is to love God, particularly in the form of Jesus Christ Who lived and died and lives again for us, and love others as He has loved us.
This is our Covenant with God. The Torah is not about eternal life. It is a political covenant, concerning how to be God’s nation. Jews are born into their “church”, Christians are not. The rules of the Decalogue are very useful, because they are the basis for civil order.
I idea of having a covenant as the basis for a government is important, because this is the basis of having a Constitutional form of government, where everyone agrees to live under a common rule of law. This is what the US government is discussing right now in the Impeachment process, whether the President is bound by our Constitution. It is a strange feeling to know that soon our Constitution may be a dead letter, murdered by the party that most of my family supported.
1 Like
What is temptation then, if it is not a temptation to violate a rule of some sort, an existing legitimate mandate?