PDA

View Full Version : Holiness



Soyeong
04-13-2015, 01:58 PM
1 Peter 1:13-16 Therefore, preparing your minds for action,[a] and being sober-minded, set your hope fully on the grace that will be brought to you at the revelation of Jesus Christ. 14 As obedient children, do not be conformed to the passions of your former ignorance, 15 but as he who called you is holy, you also be holy in all your conduct, 16 since it is written, “You shall be holy, for I am holy.”

First note that acting in obedience to God's instructions is not in opposition to setting our hope fully on the grace that will be brought to you at the revelation of Jesus Christ, but is in accordance with it. We should be holy in all our conduct as God is holy. In verse 16, the author quoting from the OT Scriptures and in a high context society that also brought to mind the context of what is being quoted, so let's look at the context of the quote to see how we are to be holy as God is holy.

Leviticus 11:44-47 For I am the Lord your God. Consecrate yourselves therefore, and be holy, for I am holy. You shall not defile yourselves with any swarming thing that crawls on the ground. 45 For I am the Lord who brought you up out of the land of Egypt to be your God. You shall therefore be holy, for I am holy.” 46 This is the law about beast and bird and every living creature that moves through the waters and every creature that swarms on the ground, 47 to make a distinction between the unclean and the clean and between the living creature that may be eaten and the living creature that may not be eaten.

Here, the command to be holy as God is holy is in the context of the dietary laws. "To be holy" means "to be set apart". Something can not be clean and unclean at the same time, so to be holy is to be pure or spotless. The deeper meaning of God commanding His people in regard to dietary laws is to teach them to be discerning about everything that they took into their bodies so that we would not become polluted by the world around us. In every action, we should consider whether it is something that God would have us do. Are we bringing glory to God or dishonor? We are either facing toward God or away from God, there is no middle ground.

Leviticus 19:2-4 “Speak to all the congregation of the people of Israel and say to them, You shall be holy, for I the Lord your God am holy. 3 Every one of you shall revere his mother and his father, and you shall keep my Sabbaths: I am the Lord your God. 4 Do not turn to idols or make for yourselves any gods of cast metal: I am the Lord your God.

God has ordered the world in a way that He wants us adhere to, so we are to be holy be revering the parents that God has put over us. God has blessed the seventh day and made it holy or set it apart, so we are to be holy by treating God's Sabbaths as holy. We are to be holy by not polluting ourselves with the worship of idols.

Leviticus 20:7-9 Consecrate yourselves, therefore, and be holy, for I am the Lord your God. 8 Keep my statutes and do them; I am the Lord who sanctifies you. 9 For anyone who curses his father or his mother shall surely be put to death; he has cursed his father or his mother; his blood is upon him.

We are to be holy as God is holy by keeping God's statues in accordance with His holy, righteous, and good standard. Again, we are to be holy by honoring our parents.

Leviticus 20:22-26 “You shall therefore keep all my statutes and all my rules and do them, that the land where I am bringing you to live may not vomit you out. 23 And you shall not walk in the customs of the nation that I am driving out before you, for they did all these things, and therefore I detested them. 24 But I have said to you, ‘You shall inherit their land, and I will give it to you to possess, a land flowing with milk and honey.’ I am the Lord your God, who has separated you from the peoples. 25 You shall therefore separate the clean beast from the unclean, and the unclean bird from the clean. You shall not make yourselves detestable by beast or by bird or by anything with which the ground crawls, which I have set apart for you to hold unclean. 26 You shall be holy to me, for I the Lord am holy and have separated you from the peoples, that you should be mine.

Again, holiness is associated with keeping all of Gods statues and rules and doing them, as well as with keeping God's dietary laws.

Leviticus 23:2 “Speak to the people of Israel and say to them, These are the appointed feasts of the Lord that you shall proclaim as holy convocations; they are my appointed feasts.

We are to be holy as God is holy by keeping all of God's appointed times, which includes the Sabbath as one of the feasts.

Numbers 15:40 So you shall remember and do all my commandments, and be holy to your God.

Deuteronomy 28:9 The Lord will establish you as a people holy to himself, as he has sworn to you, if you keep the commandments of the Lord your God and walk in his ways

1 Peter 2:9-10 But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s special possession, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light. 10 Once you were not a people, but now you are the people of God; once you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy.

Speaking to Gentiles, who were not a people, but were now the people of God, the author says they are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, and God's special possession. What God said about Israel is now true about Gentiles:

Deuteronomy 7:6 “For you are a people holy to the Lord your God. The Lord your God has chosen you to be a people for his treasured possession, out of all the peoples who are on the face of the earth.

We can not be a holy nation without God making us holy and without faithfully following God's instructions for how to be holy.

Scrawly
04-13-2015, 04:50 PM
"Let not many of you become teachers, my brethren, knowing that as such we will incur a stricter judgment..." (Jas. 3:1).


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XKO9dGZlt8o

Soyeong
04-13-2015, 06:53 PM
"Let not many of you become teachers, my brethren, knowing that as such we will incur a stricter judgment..." (Jas. 3:1).

I'm speaking to myself as much as anyone else about our need to be holy in our conduct, but for the most part I'm interpreting Scripture with Scripture. If you think that I'm wrong in my reasoning, then I'd appreciate you interacting with what I said by explaining where my error is. However, if I'm right, then I'd hope that you pause to consider the implications.

Soyeong
04-13-2015, 06:55 PM
We can not be a holy nation without God making us holy and without faithfully following God's instructions for how to be holy.

In case this last part wasn't clear, our holiness is found in God, not by what we do. Rather, following God's instructions for how to be holy is what those who are made holy by God should do.

Soyeong
04-13-2015, 08:04 PM
"Let not many of you become teachers, my brethren, knowing that as such we will incur a stricter judgment..." (Jas. 3:1).


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XKO9dGZlt8o

"Peter understands that what is said of God's covenant people under the terms of the Old Covenant is exactly what must of God's covenant people under the New."

I watched the whole video and agreed with pretty much everything he said about what 1 Peter 2:9-10 said in regard to a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s special possession. However, it didn't really interact with my main point about what 1 Peter 1:13-16 is quoting, so that still stands.

Paprika
04-14-2015, 12:58 AM
in a high context society that also brought to mind the context of what is being quoted
The higher context, of course, is that Jesus has fulfilled the Mosaic Law and that a new Covenant has been inaugurated that for those who are in Him the Mosaic Law no longer applies.

The quotations from the Pentateuch are to establish that that the church is now the true Israel, not the Jews, and that there is are high demands on the people within - but not the Mosaic Law.

Leonhard
04-14-2015, 02:39 AM
The higher context, of course, is that Jesus has fulfilled the Mosaic Law and that a new Covenant has been inaugurated that for those who are in Him the Mosaic Law no longer applies.

We certainly don't have to get circumcised any longer, and we're dispensed legally from any purity rituals. However we're still obligated to fulfill all the moral commandments.


The quotations from the Pentateuch are to establish that that the church is now the true Israel, not the Jews, and that there is are high demands on the people within - but not the Mosaic Law.

This I agree with.

Paprika
04-14-2015, 05:40 AM
We certainly don't have to get circumcised any longer, and we're dispensed legally from any purity rituals. However we're still obligated to fulfill all the moral commandments.
The obligation exists not because we're under the Mosaic Law but under something else. Scripture doesn't use the 'moral law' category at all.

Leonhard
04-14-2015, 06:13 AM
The obligation exists not because we're under the Mosaic Law but under something else. Scripture doesn't use the 'moral law' category at all.

I'm not sure this can be interpreted as "The Mosaic Law has been abrogated." Any while Scripture doesn't use the 'moral law' category as such, the first council (of the apostles no less), determined that gentiles need not be circumcised in order to be baptized. So clearly as a Christian you're dispensed from those rituals, but all the other laws you're supposed to keep. Take usury for instance.

Paprika
04-14-2015, 07:48 AM
I'm not sure this can be interpreted as "The Mosaic Law has been abrogated."
Good thing I never made such a claim, isn't it?


Any while Scripture doesn't use the 'moral law' category as such, the first council (of the apostles no less), determined that gentiles need not be circumcised in order to be baptized. So clearly as a Christian you're dispensed from those rituals, but all the other laws you're supposed to keep. Take usury for instance.
It hardly follows from Acts 15 that since one ritual is dispensed with, "those rituals" whatever they may be are dispensed with as well, and that "all the other laws" are still to be kept.

My pointing out that Scripture doesn't use the category of 'moral law' is to jerk the reader from automatically projecting such common external concepts onto Scripture, as it tends to distort and obscure. Does Paul use the categories of 'moral law' or 'ceremonial law'? If not, then let's see what he actually uses and try to understand why.

Also, those that hold to Divine Command Theory will have difficulties making a distinction between 'moral law' and 'ceremonial law' since by basic premise all commands from God are moral.

One Bad Pig
04-14-2015, 07:52 AM
I'm not sure this can be interpreted as "The Mosaic Law has been abrogated." Any while Scripture doesn't use the 'moral law' category as such, the first council (of the apostles no less), determined that gentiles need not be circumcised in order to be baptized. So clearly as a Christian you're dispensed from those rituals, but all the other laws you're supposed to keep. Take usury for instance.
Isn't usury addressed in the NT though?

Leonhard
04-14-2015, 08:07 AM
Isn't usury addressed in the NT though?

Its also addressed in the Old Testament, even more strongly. I don't want to play act a moral theologian in this discussion, because I realize my inadequacy on this subject. However its not as if Christ simple abolished the whole of the Mosaic Law, and only such things as have been mentioned in the NT apply. And its also the case that we're called to be holy, which implies that we should strive to live free of deliberate sin, no Christian gets a free pass to sin (I know you're an Eastern Orthodox so we should see eye to eye on this).

I'm kinda reacting strongly to anything that resembles the notion of "I'm a Christian, I believe Christ rose from the dead and I love Him, but its okay that me and my girlfriend are sleeping together even though we're not married. I mean we're all sinners, and its faith that saves so there." which is really prevalent in my country.

Paprika
04-14-2015, 08:16 AM
I'm kinda reacting strongly to anything that resembles the notion of "I'm a Christian, I believe Christ rose from the dead and I love Him, but its okay that me and my girlfriend are sleeping together even though we're not married. I mean we're all sinners, and its faith that saves so there." which is really prevalent in my country.
Right. So could you actually address what I'm saying instead of projecting the theological imbecility of your countrymen?

Leonhard
04-14-2015, 08:27 AM
Right. So could you actually address what I'm saying instead of projecting the theological imbecility of your countrymen?

Given this response I think I'll just bow out of this conversation.

Paprika
04-14-2015, 09:20 AM
Given this response I think I'll just bow out of this conversation.
Do come back when you're less reactive.

One Bad Pig
04-14-2015, 09:39 AM
Its also addressed in the Old Testament, even more strongly. I don't want to play act a moral theologian in this discussion, because I realize my inadequacy on this subject. However its not as if Christ simple abolished the whole of the Mosaic Law, and only such things as have been mentioned in the NT apply. And its also the case that we're called to be holy, which implies that we should strive to live free of deliberate sin, no Christian gets a free pass to sin (I know you're an Eastern Orthodox so we should see eye to eye on this).
The Mosaic Law was not abolished; it was fulfilled/superceded in Christ. As far as I can see, the NT more or less reinforces the spirit of the "moral laws" of the OT (and the thought, much less the action, is now condemned).


I'm kinda reacting strongly to anything that resembles the notion of "I'm a Christian, I believe Christ rose from the dead and I love Him, but its okay that me and my girlfriend are sleeping together even though we're not married. I mean we're all sinners, and its faith that saves so there." which is really prevalent in my country.
I would never advocate any sort of notion like that.

One Bad Pig
04-14-2015, 09:41 AM
Do come back when you're less reactive.

:ahem: He has no obligation to put up with your asininity.

Paprika
04-14-2015, 10:13 AM
:ahem: He has no obligation to put up with your asininity.
:ahem: It's an invitation to come back when he is able to be rational.

KingsGambit
04-14-2015, 10:16 AM
:ahem: It's an invitation to come back when he is able to be rational.

There's nothing irrational about simply preferring a more pleasant conversation.

Paprika
04-14-2015, 10:20 AM
There's nothing irrational about simply preferring a more pleasant conversation.
It's irrational to bow out just because one doesn't like 'imbecility' - which isn't even targeted at oneself.

Cerebrum123
04-14-2015, 10:56 AM
Its also addressed in the Old Testament, even more strongly. I don't want to play act a moral theologian in this discussion, because I realize my inadequacy on this subject. However its not as if Christ simple abolished the whole of the Mosaic Law, and only such things as have been mentioned in the NT apply. And its also the case that we're called to be holy, which implies that we should strive to live free of deliberate sin, no Christian gets a free pass to sin (I know you're an Eastern Orthodox so we should see eye to eye on this).

I'm kinda reacting strongly to anything that resembles the notion of "I'm a Christian, I believe Christ rose from the dead and I love Him, but its okay that me and my girlfriend are sleeping together even though we're not married. I mean we're all sinners, and its faith that saves so there." which is really prevalent in my country.

I know you said you were leaving in a subsequent post, but I felt I needed to say this about the underlined.

In all my life I've only met one person who thinks that way. This person has had a very bad impact on people I care about. This kind of attitude is clearly not Christian teaching. I've never seen anybody teach it either. I know I'm more sheltered than some, but I think my family would have at least mentioned it if it was more common elsewhere around here. All of the churches and ministries I've known teach how important repentance is.

I'm guessing this is not limited to your country, but I don't think it's as widespread as you might think.

KingsGambit
04-14-2015, 11:06 AM
I know you said you were leaving in a subsequent post, but I felt I needed to say this about the underlined.

In all my life I've only met one person who thinks that way. This person has had a very bad impact on people I care about. This kind of attitude is clearly not Christian teaching. I've never seen anybody teach it either. I know I'm more sheltered than some, but I think my family would have at least mentioned it if it was more common elsewhere around here. All of the churches and ministries I've known teach how important repentance is.

I'm guessing this is not limited to your country, but I don't think it's as widespread as you might think.

I suspect (but can't prove) that many people who are familiar with John 3:16 and a few other Bible verses take words like "believe" completely literally in their American English context and have a similar mindset. Of course, an even basic familiarity with the New Testament would demonstrate that this isn't a viable reading...

Cerebrum123
04-14-2015, 11:20 AM
I suspect (but can't prove) that many people who are familiar with John 3:16 and a few other Bible verses take words like "believe" completely literally in their American English context and have a similar mindset. Of course, an even basic familiarity with the New Testament would demonstrate that this isn't a viable reading...

I'm not saying it doesn't happen. I'm saying that I think it must be a lot rarer where I live. I've met 1 person in like that my whole life, and it's clear to most that that person isn't living by the Bible. I also met people from all over the world when I would visit Dr. Hooshmand. I'll admit I wasn't "all there" a lot of the time, but I after that first year, I was a bit more aware of what was being said. Either Leon's sample, or mine, or both are way off on this.

KingsGambit
04-14-2015, 11:29 AM
I'm not saying it doesn't happen. I'm saying that I think it must be a lot rarer where I live. I've met 1 person in like that my whole life, and it's clear to most that that person isn't living by the Bible. I also met people from all over the world when I would visit Dr. Hooshmand. I'll admit I wasn't "all there" a lot of the time, but I after that first year, I was a bit more aware of what was being said. Either Leon's sample, or mine, or both are way off on this.

The Grace Evangelical Society teaches it, but I believe most people see them for who they are (sadly, Glenn Miller links to them on his website):

http://www.faithalone.org/

Cerebrum123
04-14-2015, 12:44 PM
The Grace Evangelical Society teaches it, but I believe most people see them for who they are (sadly, Glenn Miller links to them on his website):

http://www.faithalone.org/

:sad:

Soyeong
04-14-2015, 06:24 PM
The higher context, of course, is that Jesus has fulfilled the Mosaic Law and that a new Covenant has been inaugurated that for those who are in Him the Mosaic Law no longer applies.

Jesus fulfilled the Law and the Prophets, so you should interpret "fulfilling the Law" in the same way that you interpret "fulfilling the Prophets". That of course leads to problems if prophecies in regard to his second coming would be done away with. The phrase "to fulfill the law" was a rabbinic term that means to explain or interpret law. In a synagogue, a rabbi take his place on the Moses Seat where he would read from one of the scrolls and then interpret it or clarify its meaning, thereby fulfilling the law. When Jesus said he came to fulfill the law, he was not referring to a once and for all event, but rather that he came to explain or interpret the law, which is precisely what he spent the rest of Matthew 5 doing.

God is holy, righteous, and good, and He gave a law to Moses that is holy, righteous, and good by which we can measure against to tell which things are sins, and by which God will hold the world accountable. This holy, righteous, and good standard is independently of any particular covenant to follow it. Someone who is righteous is someone who practices righteousness, so when we are declared by faith by God to be righteous, that means we are declared to be someone who practices righteousness. How do we practice righteousness? It just so happens that God gave holy, righteous, and good instructions to Moses for how to do that. The same goes being holy. We can't become righteous or holy through our own efforts, but rather practicing righteousness and holiness is what those who are declared to be righteous and holy are called to do.

Deuteronomy 6:25 And if we are careful to obey all this law before the Lord our God, as he has commanded us, that will be our righteousness.”


The quotations from the Pentateuch are to establish that that the church is now the true Israel, not the Jews, and that there is are high demands on the people within - but not the Mosaic Law.

As Ephesians 2:11-22 makes clear, the Gentiles who were separated from the Jews that are being joined to them by faith in Messiah. Not to replace, but to be part of Israel without having to become Jews. Everything that applied to God's chosen people then applies to God's chosen people today.

Soyeong
04-14-2015, 06:31 PM
[QUOTE=Leonhard;185211]We certainly don't have to get circumcised any longer, and we're dispensed legally from any purity rituals. However we're still obligated to fulfill all the moral commandments.

The law only commands Gentiles to be circumcised in two instances, neither of which is a command for all Gentiles. In other words, it not that we don't have to get circumcised any longer, that that it was never a requirement in the first place. In rejecting the circumcision group in Acts 15:1, they were ruling against a man-made requirement and upholding God's laws.

I'm not saying you said this, but if moral commands are only in regard to man's relationship with man and not man's relationship with God, then the first four of the Ten Commandments are not moral laws, including the commandment against idolatry. However, if moral commands are also in regard to man's relationship with God, then all of God's commands are moral commandments.

Soyeong
04-14-2015, 06:35 PM
I'm not sure this can be interpreted as "The Mosaic Law has been abrogated." Any while Scripture doesn't use the 'moral law' category as such, the first council (of the apostles no less), determined that gentiles need not be circumcised in order to be baptized. So clearly as a Christian you're dispensed from those rituals, but all the other laws you're supposed to keep. Take usury for instance.

The Bible doesn't not list the process for how a Gentile is to become a Jewish proselyte. Even without Jewish literature, there was disagreement about what was required for a proper proselyte:

Yevamot 46a Our Rabbis taught: ‘If a proselyte was circumcised but had not performed the prescribed ritual immersion, R. Eliezer said, ‘Behold he is a proper proselyte; for so we find that our forefathers were circumcised and had not performed ritual immersion.’ If he performed the prescribed immersion but had not been circumcised, R. Joshua said, ‘Behold he is a proper proselyte; for so we find that the mothers had performed ritual immersion but had not been circumcised.’ The Sages, however, said, ‘Whether he had performed ritual immersion but had not been circumcised or whether he had been circumcised but had not performed the prescribed ritual immersion, he is not a proper proselyte, unless he has been circumcised and has also performed the prescribed ritual immersion.’

Jedidiah
04-14-2015, 09:09 PM
Do come back when you're less reactive.

It might help if you were less abrasive. All the unpleasant things you say could be better said without the nastiness.

Jedidiah
04-14-2015, 09:10 PM
:ahem: It's an invitation to come back when he is able to be rational.

You might actually try to be rational. There was no rationality in post #13, only venom.

Paprika
04-14-2015, 09:35 PM
Jesus fulfilled the Law and the Prophets, so you should interpret "fulfilling the Law" in the same way that you interpret "fulfilling the Prophets". That of course leads to problems if prophecies in regard to his second coming would be done away with.
Have you heard of merism? Did Jesus come to fulfill the prophecies already come to pass before his birth?


The phrase "to fulfill the law" was a rabbinic term that means to explain or interpret law. In a synagogue, a rabbi take his place on the Moses Seat where he would read from one of the scrolls and then interpret it or clarify its meaning, thereby fulfilling the law. When Jesus said he came to fulfill the law, he was not referring to a once and for all event, but rather that he came to explain or interpret the law, which is precisely what he spent the rest of Matthew 5 doing.
Please explain why we should project this rabbinic term onto what Jesus said.


Someone who is righteous is someone who practices righteousness, so when we are declared by faith by God to be righteous, that means we are declared to be someone who practices righteousness.
We are declared righteous - of justified - by faith, not by our works in practicing righteousness.


How do we practice righteousness? It just so happens that God gave holy, righteous, and good instructions to Moses for how to do that.
The Mosaic Law is hardly the only place where instructions are given.


As Ephesians 2:11-22 makes clear... Everything that applied to God's chosen people then applies to God's chosen people today.
That hardly follows. Rather, the wall of separation that distinguished Jew from non-Jew was destroyed in Him.

Paprika
04-14-2015, 09:35 PM
You might actually try to be rational. There was no rationality in post #13, only venom.
There is, but you don't care because you're just here to defend Leonhard from the evil bad Paprika. :duh:

Soyeong
04-14-2015, 11:19 PM
Have you heard of merism? Did Jesus come to fulfill the prophecies already come to pass before his birth?

From my understanding, a merism is a phrase that's used to encompass more than its parts, not less than its parts. Furthermore, "fulfill" is used in contrast with "abolish" so it shouldn't be interpreted to mean the same thing.


Please explain why we should project this rabbinic term onto what Jesus said.

Jesus was a Jewish rabbi with Jewish disciples who interacted with other Jewish rabbis. We should use the Jewish cultural context in which the events of the Bible take place to help us to understand it.


We are declared righteous - of justified - by faith, not by our works in practicing righteousness.

Indeed, I never did or would suggest otherwise. I'm talking about how a Christian should behave after they are justified.

Ephesians 2:8-10 For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, 9 not a result of works, so that no one may boast. 10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.

Paul could have equivalently said that we are declared righteous by grace through faith, not by practicing righteousness, but for the purpose of practicing righteousness. The practicing righteousness comes after the being declared righteous, not before, so order was very important to Paul.


The Mosaic Law is hardly the only place where instructions are given.

In trying to figure out how to practice righteousness, we should look at all instructions that God gave for how to do that. The instructions that are given elsewhere are all in accordance with Mosaic Law.


That hardly follows. Rather, the wall of separation that distinguished Jew from non-Jew was destroyed in Him.

It doesn't follow that Paul would say that we are created in Messiah to do good works and then a few verse later that Messiah destroyed his holy, righteous, and good instructions for how to do good works. What is being referred to in verse 15 is likely the man-made dividing wall at the Temple that separated Jews from worshipping together with Gentiles in violation of Leviticus 19:34 and the man-made rules that prevented Jews from associating with Gentiles that Peter talked about in Acts 10:28. In any case, what was destroyed allowed Gentiles to become part of Israel, not replace it. Very consistently it was man-made laws that were ruled against while the Torah was upheld.

Paprika
04-15-2015, 04:57 AM
From my understanding, a merism is a phrase that's used to encompass more than its parts, not less than its parts.
Quite, it referred to Scripture as a general whole, not that Jesus would fulfill all of the Law and Prophets.


Furthermore, "fulfill" is used in contrast with "abolish" so it shouldn't be interpreted to mean the same thing.
Strawman. As you well know I've already addressed this (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?6223-Christians-Don-t-Sin&p=179354&viewfull=1#post179354): that the reason Christians aren't under the Mosaic law isn't because Jesus abolished it.


Jesus was a Jewish rabbi with Jewish disciples who interacted with other Jewish rabbis. We should use the Jewish cultural context in which the events of the Bible take place to help us to understand it.
The chronology is important. When does this rabbinic term date from? Why should we adopt it over the obvious meaning of the Greek?


Indeed, I never did or would suggest otherwise. I'm talking about how a Christian should behave after they are justified.

Paul could have equivalently said that we are declared righteous by grace through faith, not by practicing righteousness, but for the purpose of practicing righteousness. The practicing righteousness comes after the being declared righteous, not before, so order was very important to Paul.
Precisely. And what did you say?



when we are declared by faith by God to be righteous, that means we are declared to be someone who practices righteousness
You're the one who mixed up the chronology: when we were justified we were not, up to that point, practicing righteousness.


In trying to figure out how to practice righteousness, we should look at all instructions that God gave for how to do that. The instructions that are given elsewhere are all in accordance with Mosaic Law.
Except that we have died to the Law.


It doesn't follow that Paul would say that we are created in Messiah to do good works and then a few verse later that Messiah destroyed his holy, righteous, and good instructions for how to do good works. What is being referred to in verse 15 is likely the man-made dividing wall at the Temple that separated Jews from worshipping together with Gentiles in violation of Leviticus 19:34 and the man-made rules that prevented Jews from associating with Gentiles that Peter talked about in Acts 10:28.
I repeat myself: I've already addressed this; (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?6223-Christians-Don-t-Sin&p=179355&viewfull=1#post179355) Ephesians emphasises circumcision as synecdoche for the law that divides: circumcision as part of Mosaic Law, and your reading of 'man-made laws' is mere eisegesis


In any case, what was destroyed allowed Gentiles to become part of Israel, not replace it. Very consistently it was man-made laws that were ruled against while the Torah was upheld.
Nonsense. The food laws no longer apply (as repeated in many texts) and the sacrificial laws (Hebrews) all don't apply to Christians after Christ had completed his work.

As Paul has pointed out in Galatians and Romans, we are no longer under the Mosaic Law, and not just the man-made regulations.


The best way to cut through the 'Paul was talking about oral law, not the Mosaic Law' nonsense is to go to Galatians 3 where Paul speaks of the Law given to Moses 430 years after the promises to Abraham, the Law that was a guardian, but which those in Christ are no longer under.

Then one goes to Romans 7 to show why Christians are not under the Law: not because the Law is abolished or destroyed (so the Matthew 5 objection fails) but because we have died to the Law, and here to support this point Paul clearly refers to the marriage law from Mosaic Law, not oral law.
Cut your crap.

Soyeong
04-15-2015, 12:23 PM
Strawman. As you well know I've already addressed this: that the reason Christians aren't under the Mosaic law isn't because Jesus abolished it.

Regardless of your interpretation of Romans 7 and Galatians 3, in trying to understand what Jesus meant by "fulfill", we shouldn't interpret it to mean the same thing as abolish. Furthermore, we should let the words of Jesus inform the words of Paul, not the other way around. If Paul contradicts Jesus, then Jesus trumps Paul, but fortunately it doesn't come to that, because Romans 7 is talking about being set free from the aspect of the law that condemns us.


It is the husband who is free from the Law by dying. Paul's point is that (but I repeat myself) "the Law is binding on a person only as long as he lives". The wife is freed only because the husband died and they were previously bound together by Law. That's it.

No, Paul makes the point in 7:2-3 that it is the woman who is bound by the law as long as her husband lives and that she would be be called an adulteress if she were to live with other man while he was still alive, she is the one who is freed from that law after he dies, and is free to marry another. In 7:4 Paul says in the same way we have died to the law so that we can belong to another, so he's talking about being free from that aspect of the law that would penalize us so that we can belong to Christ.

We are being made free from sin and in 7:7, Paul makes the point that the law is not sin, but rather the law instructs us of what sin is. He says the same thing in Romans 3:20 that the law gives us knowledge of sin. So if we are free from the instruction of the law, then we would be free to sin and transgress the law all that we wanted, but Paul emphatically insisted in Romans 6:15 that not being under the law and being under grace didn't give us the freedom to transgress the law. Rather, in 6:16, he says we are to become slaves of obedience.

This is further confirmed by Paul building up to Romans 8:1-2 that the is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Messiah. And in 8:7 that it is the mind of flesh that is hostile to God and does not submit to God's law. Paul says in Romans 3:31 that our faith upholds the law, and in Romans 7:12 that the law is holy, righteous and good. So he is trying to make it clear that he's talking about different aspects of the law. What our faith upholds and what the mind of the flesh rejects is the holy, righteous, and good instructions of the law and what we die to is the law's power to condemn us for breaking it. We have no need to be redeemed from a set of holy, righteous, and good instructions that Jesus summed up as being about how to love God and how to love your neighbor, but we do have need to be redeemed from our sin penalty and to be set free from being mastered by our sin nature.


The chronology is important. When does this rabbinic term date from?

There are plenty of sources that talk about rabbis during that time:

http://followtherabbi.com/uploads/assets/pdfs/RabbiandTalmidim.pdf

The Mishna became codified a bit after Jesus, but it codified things that were already in existence during his time and includes references to fulfilling that law as interpreting or explaining it.

"If this is how you act, you have never in your whole life fulfilled the requirement of dwelling in a sukkah! (One rabbi is criticizing another's interpretation of the Torah, which caused him not to do what it really intends.)

Whoever fulfills the Torah when poor will in the end fulfill it in wealth. And whoever treats the Torah as nothing when he is wealthy in the end will treat it as nothing in poverty. (Here it means "to obey" - definitely the opposite of "fulfill in order to do away with.")"

Considering that Jesus spent the rest of chapter 5 interpreting and explaining the law, I see no good reason to think that he meant anything other than that.


Why should we adopt it over the obvious meaning of the Greek?

G4137 Πληρόω Plēroō
Thayer definition:
1) to make full, to fill up, i.e. To fill to the full
1a) to cause to abound, to furnish or supply liberally
1a1) I abound, I am liberally supplied
2) to render full, i.e. To complete
2a) to fill to the top: so that nothing shall be wanting to full measure, fill to the brim
2b1) to make complete in every particular, to render perfect

It stands that Christ did not come to abolish, but to fill up the Law and the Prophets with meaning and to make perfect the understanding of the them.


You're the one who mixed up the chronology: when we were justified we were not, up to that point, practicing righteousness.

I never said we were. When an employee is hired and given an occupational title, they are declared to be someone who now performs that job. Practicing righteousness is the job given to those who are declared righteousness. We can't do this job on our own, but only by faith and through the leading of the Spirit.


Except that we have died to the Law.

God is holy, righteous, and good and He gave a holy, righteous, and good law to Moses to instruct them how to be holy, righteous, and good. We are made to be holy, righteous, and good by becoming slaves of obedience, leading to righteousness and slaves of righteousness leading to sanctification. It shouldn't be hard for you to connect the dots. Paul was not saying our freedom in Christ is a freedom to disregard God's holy, righteous, and good standard, but rather it is a freedom to become obedient to it. The law was not exhaustive in that it neither commanded everything that was righteous nor commanded against everything that was unrighteous, so you're welcome to point out that there are other sources of instruction, but they are all complementary.


I repeat myself: I've already addressed this; Ephesians emphasises circumcision as synecdoche for the law that divides: circumcision as part of Mosaic Law, and your reading of 'man-made laws' is mere eisegesis

We are to be a holy nation, which means that we are to be set apart by and do the things that God instructed for holy people to do. There will always be a division between those who are children of God by faith and those who are not, but Gentiles are now invited to join Jews in being part of that division without having to become Jews. The law divides between righteousness and the unrighteousness, not between Jews and Gentiles.


Nonsense. The food laws no longer apply (as repeated in many texts) and the sacrificial laws (Hebrews) all don't apply to Christians after Christ had completed his work.

A closer investigation of the context shows that dietary laws were never done away with. Furthermore, neither Paul nor the Jerusalem Council had the authority to countermand God or violate Deuteronomy 13 by teaching against keeping God's laws, and Paul denied the accusation that he did. Paul continued to keep the Sabbath, Feasts, kosher, and to do sacrifices throughout Acts. When Paul took a Nazarite vow in Acts 18 and paid for the expenses over others who had taken the vow in Acts 21, which involved paying for animal sacrifices (Numbers 6). If you believe that there is a Millenium, then it is a time when the laws in regard to keeping the Sabbaths, Feasts, kosher, and sacrifices will be kept, both of these after Christ's ascension.


As Paul has pointed out in Galatians and Romans, we are no longer under the Mosaic Law, and not just the man-made regulations.

In Galatians, Paul was not arguing against the law, but against those who were saying that Gentiles had to keep it in order to become justified. And Romans says that we uphold the law by our faith and that we are not free to transgress the law.

Paprika
04-15-2015, 12:53 PM
Regardless of your interpretation of Romans 7 and Galatians 3, in trying to understand what Jesus meant by "fulfill", we shouldn't interpret it to mean the same thing as abolish.
And as I've repeatedly made clear, I don't.


Romans 7 is talking about being set free from the aspect of the law that condemns us.
Note how being "released from the Law" per Paul becomes release from "that aspect of the law that would penalize us or condemn us to death for breaking it". It's just eisegesis in a desperate attempt to save the position. (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?6223-Christians-Don-t-Sin&p=179726&viewfull=1#post179726)

"you also have died to the law through the body of Christ, so that you may belong to another...But now we are released from the law, having died to that which held us captive, so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit and not in the old way of the written code."


No, Paul makes the point in 7:2-3 that it is the woman who is bound by the law as long as her husband lives and that she would be be called an adulteress if she were to live with other man while he was still alive, she is the one who is freed from that law after he dies, and is free to marry another. In 7:4 Paul says in the same way we have died to the law so that we can belong to another, so he's talking about being free from that aspect of the law that would penalize us so that we can belong to Christ.
It is the husband who is free from the Law by dying. Paul's point is that (but I repeat myself) "the Law is binding on a person only as long as he lives". The wife is freed only because the husband died and they were previously bound together by Law. That's it. (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?6223-Christians-Don-t-Sin&p=179726&viewfull=1#post179726)


The Mishna became codified a bit after Jesus, but it codified things that were already in existence during his time and includes references to fulfilling that law as interpreting or explaining it.

"If this is how you act, you have never in your whole life fulfilled the requirement of dwelling in a sukkah! (One rabbi is criticizing another's interpretation of the Torah, which caused him not to do what it really intends.)

Whoever fulfills the Torah when poor will in the end fulfill it in wealth. And whoever treats the Torah as nothing when he is wealthy in the end will treat it as nothing in poverty. (Here it means "to obey" - definitely the opposite of "fulfill in order to do away with.")"
:twitch:
Your two examples here don't even support your case: for them 'fulfill' means obey.



G4137 Πληρόω Plēroō
Thayer definition:
1) to make full, to fill up, i.e. To fill to the full
1a) to cause to abound, to furnish or supply liberally
1a1) I abound, I am liberally supplied
2) to render full, i.e. To complete
2a) to fill to the top: so that nothing shall be wanting to full measure, fill to the brim
2b1) to make complete in every particular, to render perfect

It stands that Christ did not come to abolish, but to fill up the Law and the Prophets with meaning and to make perfect the understanding of the them.
Hardly. You're just choosing the definition that fits your case without proper argumentation for it.


I never said we were. When an employee is hired and given an occupational title, they are declared to be someone who now performs that job. Practicing righteousness is the job given to those who are declared righteousness. We can't do this job on our own, but only by faith and through the leading of the Spirit.
:ahem:


we are declared by faith by God to be righteous, that means we are declared to be someone who practices righteousness.


God is holy, righteous and good and He gave a holy, righteous, and good law ...
Stop avoiding the point: we died to the Mosaic Law, as Paul clearly states. That doesn't mean that we don't have another Law to follow, which he also clearly teaches.


A closer investigation of the context shows that dietary laws were never done away with.
Hardly.


Furthermore, neither Paul nor the Jerusalem Council had the authority to countermand God or violate Deuteronomy 13 by teaching against keeping God's laws
:ahem: "For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us..."


and Paul denied the accusation that he did.
Where?


Paul continued to keep the Sabbath, Feasts, kosher, and to do sacrifices throughout Acts. When Paul took a Nazarite vow in Acts 18 and paid for the expenses over others who had taken the vow in Acts 21, which involved paying for animal sacrifices (Numbers 6).
As Paul himself remarked, "to those under the law [he] became as one under the law (though not being [himself] under the law)"



In Galatians, Paul was not arguing against the law, but against those who were saying that Gentiles had to keep it in order to become justified.
:duh:
"Now before faith came, we were held captive under the law, imprisoned until the coming faith would be revealed. So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith. But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian"


And Romans says that we uphold the law by our faith
Because we still serve under law, "in the new way of the Spirit" but not under the Mosaic Law.


The best way to cut through the 'Paul was talking about oral law, not the Mosaic Law' nonsense is to go to Galatians 3 where Paul speaks of the Law given to Moses 430 years after the promises to Abraham, the Law that was a guardian, but which those in Christ are no longer under.

Then one goes to Romans 7 to show why Christians are not under the Law: not because the Law is abolished or destroyed (so the Matthew 5 objection fails) but because we have died to the Law, and here to support this point Paul clearly refers to the marriage law from Mosaic Law, not oral law.

Jedidiah
04-15-2015, 02:41 PM
There is, but you don't care because you're just here to defend Leonhard from the evil bad Paprika. :duh:

Oh? I was not aware of that. Thanks for letting me know.

Soyeong
04-15-2015, 04:34 PM
And as I've repeatedly made clear, I don't.

Well, we're still discussing it's meaning and you're still acting like that what he meant.


"you also have died to the law through the body of Christ, so that you may belong to another...But now we are released from the law, having died to that which held us captive, so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit and not in the old way of the written code."

Indeed, we need to follow the law by the Spirit not by the letter. Following the law legalistically leads to death, but following it by the Spirit brings life.


It is the husband who is free from the Law by dying. Paul's point is that (but I repeat myself) "the Law is binding on a person only as long as he lives". The wife is freed only because the husband died and they were previously bound together by Law. That's it.

I explained how that was wrong:

"No, Paul makes the point in 7:2-3 that it is the woman who is bound by the law as long as her husband lives and that she would be be called an adulteress if she were to live with another man while he was still alive, she is the one who is freed from that law after he dies, and is free to marry another. In 7:4 Paul says in the same way we have died to the law so that we can belong to another, so he's talking about being free from that aspect of the law that would penalize us so that we can belong to Christ."


Your two examples here don't even support your case: for them 'fulfill' means obey.

When you correctly obey the law, you demonstrate the correct understanding of it.


we are declared by faith by God to be righteous, that means we are declared to be someone who practices righteousness.

I explained to you how you misunderstood my statement, so not much sense in you repeating your misunderstanding of it. :shrug:


Stop avoiding the point: we died to the Mosaic Law, as Paul clearly states. That doesn't mean that we don't have another Law to follow, which he also clearly teaches.

Paul is making a distinction between the instruction of the law and it's penalty. There is no need to to die to a holy, righteous, and good set of instructions that Jesus summarized as being about how to love God and how to love your neighbor. God still wants us to do both those things, so instructions for how to do them are still important to follow.

Romans 3:20 or by works of the law no human being[c] will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin.

Romans 7:7a What then shall we say? That the law is sin? By no means! Yet if it had not been for the law, I would not have known sin.

Romans 6:15 What then? Are we to sin because we are not under law but under grace? By no means!

The law is how we know what sin is, so if not being under the law doesn't mean we are free to sin all we want, then we need to obey what the law says about sin. Paul was concerned that people would misunderstand him as you are doing an conclude that not being under the law mean that they were free to disregard the instruction of the law, so he emphatically said we were not free to do that.


Hardly.

Good luck trying to find something that's not there.


Where?

In Acts 21:21, there were rumors that he been teaching Jews to forsake Moses and he took steps to disprove them. In Acts 17:11, the Bereans checked everything he said against OT Scriptures and found him to be in accordance with it. If Paul had been teaching against following the law, then he would have been in violation of Deuteronomy 13 and they would have rightfully rejected him. In Acts 24:14, he said that he believed everything laid down in the Law and the Prophets. In Acts 25:8 Paul said that he had not committed any offence against the law of the Jews. If he had been teaching against follow the law of the Jews, then it would have been very easy for them to have proved it.


As Paul himself remarked, "to those under the law [he] became as one under the law (though not being [himself] under the law)"

It's absurd how much deceitfulness and duplicity that you would have to hoist onto the poor guy in a desperate attempt to save your bad theology.

Paul was already a Jew and said he was not outside of the law, so he couldn't become what he already was. In verse 21 he even said that he was not outside the law of God. Do you really think Paul was saying that he would act like a sinner to reach sinners and thereby corrupt the message he was preaching to them?? No, the point that Paul is making in 1 Corinthians 8-10 was that he was becoming a servant to all, giving up his privileges, and presenting himself as a brother rather than someone from the outside, all for the sake of the Gospel.


"Now before faith came, we were held captive under the law, imprisoned until the coming faith would be revealed. So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith. But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian"

"If your father were king and you were a young child destined to rule one day, he would get a tutor to train you and teach you what you would need to know to rule the kingdom when your time came. He would give the tutor authority to teach, discipline, and punish you.

When your time came, would you immediately shoot your tutor, reject everything he had ever taught you, and then have the audacity to proclaim your actions to be in accordance with the wishes, desires, and intentions of your father the king? The tutor is not the king. He is given by the king to train those who will one day rule. They must be trained so that they can properly make decisions and act in the liberty, freedom, responsibility, and position they will one day have.

The tutor is there so that you might take his lessons to heart, so that they might become a natural part of your thought processes. You are to rule according to what you have learned, even though the tutor no longer has authority to control or punish you. You will not need to be controlled from then outside, because you will have accepted what you have been taught. You will be controlled from within your heart. It will be your second nature."


Because we still serve under law, "in the new way of the Spirit" but not under the Mosaic Law.

You have no trouble thinking that Paul is speaking about the Mosaic Law a few verses earlier when he says we are justified by faith apart from the law, so the only reason I see to think that he talking about some other law is that it contradicts your preconceived theology. You need to let the text inform your theology, not the other way around. Paul foresaw that people would misunderstand him in verses 21-30 as meaning that the law could be disregarded, so he added verse 31 to make sure people didn't come away with that understanding. The law still has a role, it's just that it's not, and never was, for the purpose of us becoming justified by keeping it. We can't keep the law through our own efforts, so it is only by faith and the leading of the Spirit that we are able to live up to God's holy, righteous, and good standard. So it is in this way that our faith upholds the Mosaic Law.

Jedidiah
04-15-2015, 04:43 PM
Jehovah Tsidkenu. My holiness is only in Him.

Soyeong
04-15-2015, 05:21 PM
Jehovah Tsidkenu. My holiness is only in Him.

Indeed, as it was with the Israelites, but that made it no less important for them to follow God's instructions for how those he made holy should behave.

Paprika
04-15-2015, 09:20 PM
Well, we're still discussing it's meaning and you're still acting like that what he meant.
As long as you can't get past the absurd binary that either the Mosaic is abolished or we cannot have died unto it and still are under it there's not much point in further discussion. I'll reply to the rest of the points in a different post but after this there's not more point in rational dialogue, which leaves only condemnation.


shoot your tutor, reject everything he had ever taught you
:twitch:
See above; you are enamored with that ridiculous dichotomy.

Paprika
04-15-2015, 09:21 PM
No, Paul makes the point in 7:2-3 that it is the woman who is bound by the law as long as her husband lives and that she would be be called an adulteress if she were to live with another man while he was still alive, she is the one who is freed from that law after he dies, and is free to marry another. In 7:4 Paul says in the same way we have died to the law so that we can belong to another, so he's talking about being free from that aspect of the law that would penalize us so that we can belong to Christ."
As I've already pointed out, she's free because the husband died. And since we are the ones who have died, who in the analogy represents us?


I explained to you how you misunderstood my statement, so not much sense in you repeating your misunderstanding of it. :shrug:
Your wording was terrible.



There is no need to to die to a holy, righteous, and good set of instructions
Because the very "commandment that promised life proved to be death to me", as it was weakened by the flesh.


Paul was concerned that people would misunderstand him as you are doing an conclude that not being under the law mean that they were free to disregard the instruction of the law
A fine way to twist matters: when we're not 'under the [Mosaic] Law' we're not under it.


Good luck trying to find something that's not there.
Good luck with ignoring all the texts on the food laws, as well as the book of Scriptures.


In Acts 21:21, there were rumors that he been teaching Jews to forsake Moses and he took steps to disprove them.
:lmbo:
Paul took steps to avoid that appearance; it is hardly "Paul denied the accusation".


In Acts 17:11, the Bereans checked everything he said against OT Scriptures and found him to be in accordance with it. If Paul had been teaching against following the law, then he would have been in violation of Deuteronomy 13 and they would have rightfully rejected him.
Deuteronomy 13 is about worshipping other gods, dimwit. Do you really have no shame twisting Scripture in such a manner?


In Acts 24:14, he said that he believed everything laid down in the Law and the Prophets.
Your point being?


In Acts 25:8 Paul said that he had not committed any offence against the law of the Jews. If he had been teaching against follow the law of the Jews, then it would have been very easy for them to have proved it.
Do tell, given that Deuteronomy speaks of a prophet like Moses who would have to be listened to, Jesus himself who inaugurated the new covenant as prophesied by Jeremiah.


It's absurd how much deceitfulness and duplicity that you would have to hoist onto the poor guy in a desperate attempt to save your bad theology.

Paul was already a Jew and said he was not outside of the law, so he couldn't become what he already was. In verse 21 he even said that he was not outside the law of God.
No, dumbass, he makes a distinction between the new law of Christ and the Mosaic Law just as he did in Romans.


Do you really think Paul was saying that he would act like a sinner to reach sinners and thereby corrupt the message he was preaching to them?? No, the point that Paul is making in 1 Corinthians 8-10 was that he was becoming a servant to all, giving up his privileges, and presenting himself as a brother rather than someone from the outside, all for the sake of the Gospel.
He is not just saying that. He details his different behaviour amongst different groups: amongst the Jews he acts like one still under the Law, under the Gentiles he does not so that by all means he might save some.


You have no trouble thinking that Paul is speaking about the Mosaic Law a few verses earlier when he says we are justified by faith apart from the law, so the only reason I see to think that he talking about some other law is that it contradicts your preconceived theology. You need to let the text inform your theology, not the other way around.
Idiot. Paul already makes a distinction between 'the law of works' and the 'law of faith'. Because he talks about other laws one must take that into account and not ignore it:



For I delight in the law of God, in my inner being, but I see in my members another law waging war against the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin that dwells in my members...