Rhology, I'll need some help from you on this one, because I am having difficulty finding all the verses I'm thinking of. While God writes His scripture on our hearts and minds, He often does not write the chapter and verse numbers! :)
I have often struggled to understand Paul's treatment of the law. I think anyone would, as Paul seems to talk in circles. However, this morning as I was considering it, I came to a new interpretation of it that I'm SURE is only new to me, but that finally helps me to understand it. I thought I would share.
I am having trouble at the present time pegging down the exact verse, but it is the one where Paul is talking about the law and how, as Christians, we are no longer bound by the law. Many groups claim to be Christian because of this chapter - they believe that if Christ destroyed the law and gave us freedom, then we can pretty much do whatever we like. One group I'm specifically thinking of is Liberated Christians. They believe that Christians should pretty much be able to sleep with each other completely without regard to marriage bonds or any other factor. I once tried to argue with the owner of the site to convince them that they were, in fact, sinning, but I failed miserably to convince him because I did not have a good enough understanding of this chapter of the Bible.
However, what I came to realize this morning is that this whole concept is predicated heavily on what kind of people are making the choices. Looking at sin as a group, sin is anything that:
Does not glorify God
Does not show love toward others
Is done despite the possibility of being wrong
If any of these things are violated, we sin. The law is entirely tied up in those three things. However, some things that are technically law are violated by Christ. The point is that Christ came to say that what is important is not the law, but the reason for things. All of His actions fulfill those three things. He showed that it is acceptable to do certain things that technically violate the law because the law is only in place to guide those who are incapable of keeping themselves to those three things.
But only someone who has given himself completely to God can do those things. For example: Cuss words are not that bad, they aren't specifically forbidden to us anywhere, and they're just words, technically. But is there any way they can possibly glorify God? If there is not, then I sin when I cuss. Even if I believe they can glorify God, but that they don't always do so, or that there is any chance that they do not do so, then I sin when I cuss. There is no law to govern this.
Sphere: Related Content
3 comments:
Hey Gamelot,
Sorry, haven't been around here recently.
Just wrote on this.
And Jesus never broke the law, but He DID break what the Pharisees thought was the law, their *traditions*.
Finally, in brief, when Paul says that we're free from the law, what he means is that we're free from the curse of the law. Law brings death and condemnation b/c we can't obey it. Freedom is the freedom from obligation to be good enough to earn salvation, and freedom from sin in Christ.
Yes, but that's my point. In Jewish culture, tradition *is* law. Additionally, the law about working on the Sabbath did really seem to be about any work. Christ had to explain to us that that didn't mean all work. Ergo, Christ did violate the law of man, but not the law of God.
Maybe in Jewish culture tradition is law, but why would anyone, most of all Jesus Himself, be bound by the traditions of men?
Look at Mark 7:1-13 where Jesus excoriates the Jewish leaders for holding up human traditions as equal to the Law of God. They're not even close to identical in terms of their conception in godliness, their applicability, and their authority and prescriptive power to be bound on the conscience of the believer. We are to reject human trads when they conflict with God's Law as Jesus tells us specifically in this psg.
the law about working on the Sabbath did really seem to be about any work
It "seemed" to be, huh? According to you? Serious question - why give your exegesis more credit than Jesus Christ's exegesis of the Law? Did He not say He came to fulfill the Law, not to abolish? Did He not challenge anyone to charge Him successfully with sin? And you're saying He broke the Law...
Sorry, man - something is wrong with YOU, not with Jesus. Fix YOU before you try to fix God.
Christ had to explain to us that that didn't mean all work. Ergo, Christ did violate the law of man, but not the law of God.
Now you're all confused.
The Sabbath IS the Law of God. The untoward twisting and application of what that meant was what Christ reacted against and critiqued. It's not that walking 10 paces but not 11 was what God intended; it was sthg else entirely - the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.
So, you got it right at the end, but the middle part was tough.
Does that make sense?
Peace,
Rhology
PS - would you mind at the very least publishing my comments when I make them? No one is forcing you to answer, but when I write sthg up, I'd like it at least to appear. Thanks.
Post a Comment