(Untitled)

Mar 15, 2008 07:33

Lot's of talk about the law recently. Thought I could put in a few cents ( Read more... )

ot law

Leave a comment

Extra two cents thehonorableryu March 15 2008, 07:59:11 UTC
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.

When God was revealing the Law to the children of Israel, He was revealing Himself to them. The Law is a picture of who God is. If a gambler were able to make all the laws, they probably would not criminalize gambling. Someone may claim to be a "moral" person, and yet they may consider fornication quite permissible according to their self-chosen definition of "morality." The principles behind their laws would show what kind of person they are. However, the Law shows that God would never legalize crime or sin.

The Law, especially the ten commandments, reveal that God is love, God is light, God is life, God is holiness, God is righteousness, God is purity, God is truth. We have a God-given yearning for love, light, life, holiness, righteousness, purity and truth, but we fall desperately short of His glory, because only God is the reality of these things. Therefore only He Himself can fill us. Thus by giving the Law, He was in essence unveiling Himself and saying, "This is who I am! I am your perfect match! You were created to be one with Me!"

When we read the Bible, we see that the giving of the Law produced two kinds of people in Israel: law-keepers and God-seekers. The scribes and Pharisees, for example, cared more about their tradition and the outward letter of the law than for thirsting for God as their everything. Meanwhile, the psalmists, prophets and other holy persons of God had a genuine yearning for Him and a heart to love Him.

Reply

Re: Extra two cents mintogrubb March 15 2008, 10:55:32 UTC
I think this is a really amazing revelation.

Both the OP and your comments here have opened my eyes to things at many levels. than k you both.

Reply

Re: Extra two cents thehonorableryu March 15 2008, 13:10:40 UTC
I'm glad you're finding it helpful. :)

Reply

Re: Extra two cents pastorlenny March 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.

I just think it may be necessary to differentiate between united Israel under the anointed leadership of Moses with the Ark of the Covenant in the Most Holy Place and apostate Judah under the carnal leadership of the Sanhedrin with no Ark in the Most Holy Place.

Thoughts?

Reply

Re: Extra two cents nobleprolet March 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.

Reply

Re: Extra two cents pastorlenny March 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

Reply

Re: Extra two cents chaeri March 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.

Reply

Re: Extra two cents pastorlenny March 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.

Reply

Re: Extra two cents chaeri March 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.

Reply

Re: Extra two cents pastorlenny March 15 2008, 15:35:22 UTC
Not that I've never been tempted. Just either there are too many witnesses around or no good-sized rocks. :)

Reply

Re: Extra two cents chaeri March 15 2008, 15:37:16 UTC
heh yes. which is the point of a good church, in part.

Reply

Re: Extra two cents pastorlenny March 15 2008, 15:43:59 UTC
That was actually deep!

Reply

Re: Extra two cents chaeri March 15 2008, 15:51:01 UTC
well you know occasionally i get it:P

Reply

Re: Extra two cents pastorlenny March 15 2008, 16:05:41 UTC
You're doing amazing. Watching someone like you grow is exactly what makes a pastor's heart glad. Well, that and Haagen-Dazs Dulce de Leche. Mmmmmm.

Reply

Re: Extra two cents chaeri March 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.

Reply

Re: Extra two cents pastorlenny March 15 2008, 23:36:22 UTC
Plus sometimes the rabbits turn out to be white chocolate bunnies!

Reply


Leave a comment

Up