Doesn't it this way point to Jesus' and God's grace, like Paul wrote? Yes, this way the Torah is the real tutor. Yes, according Gal. 3:22-25, the primary function of the Law and Scriptures is to "shut all under sin" unto the revelation of our Savior. :)
Corporal punishment was instituted to limit tragedy and not to increase it. Dietary laws and rules against mixed fabrics were given to make the children of Israel distinct, holy, and set apart from the cultures that sought to assimilate them. But the Law was given primarily to expose our our sin that we would see our need to desperately seek Him.
We often see the Law as something negative because it exposes us of our sin. But the Law actually has a very positive--even romantic--dimension. God saw all of His actions towards Israel as a means of courting them (Ezek. 16:8; Isa. 54:5-7; Jer. 2:2, 31:3; Hos. 2:19-20), and thus you could say that the Law was a kind of engagement contract
( ... )
Re: Extra two centspastorlennyMarch 15 2008, 11:57:43 UTC
How would you feel about the contention that during the time of the Tabernacle of Moses and the First Temple there were some who were technically "without sin" -- and therefore legitimately able to perform capital punishment under the provisions of the Law -- because the Ark was with Israel and the sacrificial system was in fact efficacious in (at least temporarily) removing the stain of sin from those who followed its followable instructions. The scriptures have several accounts of such divinely ordained executions (Joshua 7, for example).
At the time of the Christ, this was no longer the case. The prophets has already been declaring the nullity of the sacrifical system -- not because it didn't work, but because the children of Israel had failed (or indeed really could not) to "work it." This is, in part, why those ready to stone had to back down. They were neither actually nor ritually clean
( ... )
Re: Extra two centsnobleproletMarch 15 2008, 12:44:22 UTC
I don't think there could have been someone without ANY sin. Impossible. Even now, we christians can't be completely without sin, and that while we receive so much grace and help through Jesus and the Holy Spirit and God the Father. Particularly the commandment to love God is too hard to follow entirely, at least not all the time. Also, the death verdict is made impossible once more through the commandment to love your neighbor as yourself. There is nothing that says this one is a neighbor and this one isn't. Even murderers remain neighbors.
Re: Extra two centspastorlennyMarch 15 2008, 13:11:19 UTC
I meant cleansed of sin under the sacrifical system. And, FYI, you are completely and totally cleansed of all your sin. When your life is hidden in Christ, you have His righteousness imputed to you. The sooner you gain this revelation, the better.
Yet indeed I also count all things loss for the excellence of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them as rubbish, that I may gain Christ and be found in Him, not having my own righteousness, which is from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which is from God by faith." -Philippians 3:8-9
Re: Extra two centschaeriMarch 15 2008, 15:07:33 UTC
That is true, that we are without sin under Christ. that's the Gospel - the Good News! correct me if i am wrong, but what Christ seemed to be saying is that even though we are without sin and technically able to throw stones, we shouldn't. we should use that state of Grace in mercy and love to bring people to the Truth.
Re: Extra two centspastorlennyMarch 15 2008, 15:22:16 UTC
I think a better way of saying it in light of the other comments in this thread is that we shouldn't ignore the lesson of the stoning incident just because we can claim the imputed righteousness of Christ. After all, to claim that righteousness, we can't just point to some empty confession. We actuallyhave to be hidden in Him. That would entail having His heart and mind -- which clearly in this case is one of forgiveness rather than accusation.
And, anyway, we no longer throw stones. Within the Church, however, we do have recourse to rebuke, discipline, and -- in extreme cases -- disfellowshipping.
Re: Extra two centschaeriMarch 15 2008, 15:30:30 UTC
i understand the clarification, i agree.
yes, but there is a big difference between rebuking and disfellowshipping in love and for the purpose of redemption and throwing (physical or metaphorical) stones.
Re: Extra two centschaeriMarch 15 2008, 23:27:28 UTC
awww...thank you. that means a lot. i do sometimes wish i could get to the truth of something without having to go down all the rabbit trails, but then i probably wouldn't have such a strong sense of truth and why its true without exploring the heresies.
Yes, according Gal. 3:22-25, the primary function of the Law and Scriptures is to "shut all under sin" unto the revelation of our Savior. :)
Corporal punishment was instituted to limit tragedy and not to increase it. Dietary laws and rules against mixed fabrics were given to make the children of Israel distinct, holy, and set apart from the cultures that sought to assimilate them. But the Law was given primarily to expose our our sin that we would see our need to desperately seek Him.
We often see the Law as something negative because it exposes us of our sin. But the Law actually has a very positive--even romantic--dimension. God saw all of His actions towards Israel as a means of courting them (Ezek. 16:8; Isa. 54:5-7; Jer. 2:2, 31:3; Hos. 2:19-20), and thus you could say that the Law was a kind of engagement contract ( ... )
Reply
Both the OP and your comments here have opened my eyes to things at many levels. than k you both.
Reply
Reply
At the time of the Christ, this was no longer the case. The prophets has already been declaring the nullity of the sacrifical system -- not because it didn't work, but because the children of Israel had failed (or indeed really could not) to "work it." This is, in part, why those ready to stone had to back down. They were neither actually nor ritually clean ( ... )
Reply
Reply
Yet indeed I also count all things loss for the excellence of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them as rubbish, that I may gain Christ and be found in Him, not having my own righteousness, which is from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which is from God by faith." -Philippians 3:8-9
Reply
Reply
And, anyway, we no longer throw stones. Within the Church, however, we do have recourse to rebuke, discipline, and -- in extreme cases -- disfellowshipping.
Reply
yes, but there is a big difference between rebuking and disfellowshipping in love and for the purpose of redemption and throwing (physical or metaphorical) stones.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment