tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post8588405826800551981..comments2024-03-28T16:18:50.724-07:00Comments on Through These Woods: So, What Are You Proposing?Dan Trabuehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14303597141397042669noreply@blogger.comBlogger44125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-57127879592644749282011-02-17T16:22:34.563-08:002011-02-17T16:22:34.563-08:00Marshall...You need to prove it to ME.And WHY is i...Marshall...<br><br><i>You need to prove it to ME.</i><br><br>And WHY is it that I need to "prove" my position to you, but you don't have to "prove" your position to me?<br><br>Says who?<br><br>For my part, I freely say that I can't prove that the intent was to be written as an epic. I'm just saying that, given that this was the style of the day, I see no reason to think it would be closer to an Epic style than a modernistic historic account. You are engaging in...<br><br>HELP! What's the term for presuming that a modernistic take on an old notion?<br><br>Anyway, to presume that ancient peoples would tell stories in the same way as we would is very poor exegesis/study method.Dan Trabuehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14303597141397042669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-18840297155753075672011-01-27T05:51:58.037-08:002011-01-27T05:51:58.037-08:00"And I can agree with that hunch that this is..."And I can agree with that hunch that this is not an unreasonable position to hold, AS LONG AS we recognize it as our hunch, our way of trying to explain WHY some OT rules seem TO US to be more universal and some seem more time- and culture-specific and, quite frankly, why some seem just wack. "<br><br>Yup.Alanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16274395216929104919noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-13292965789362262962011-01-26T18:31:54.169-08:002011-01-26T18:31:54.169-08:00"Now, an honest Presbyterian must admit that ...<i>"Now, an honest Presbyterian must admit that nowhere in the Bible does it actually say that. No where in the Bible are those categories given (one could add others, or come up with a completely different scheme.) No where in the Bible does it list which laws are of which type. It's all interpretation and a nice bit of rather obvious legalistic legerdemain that lets us Reformed types get around the obvious contradiction between the OT shellfish laws which were inspired by God and Peter's dream, which was also inspired."</i><br><br>There are few, if any, commands that cannot be properly placed with like commands by anyone who takes the time to study them. There is a common test for even small children, that teaches and/or helps develop this ability. Here's a sample:<br><br>Which of the following do not belong with the rest?<br><br>a-carrots<br>b-peas<br>c-Barack Obama<br>d-apples<br><br>The correct answer is "d" because the rest are vegetables. (OK, "c" because the rest are produce :))<br><br>As to why some commands may no longer be in effect for Christians while others may, it is clear that all of the ritual cleansing (purity laws) and punishments for sins committed have been "changed" by Christ via actual teaching or by His sacrifice on the cross. This isn't a mystery. Yet, everything for which those punishments were mandated have not been done away with, and in most cases made more specific (hate=murder, lust=adultery). <br><br>It seems all the "deep thinkers" and heavy readers have educated themselves out of common sense to now stumble over what is so obvious.Marshall Arthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01054268632726520871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-36346825753261800162011-01-26T15:23:49.433-08:002011-01-26T15:23:49.433-08:00Dan: "And I, for one, generally dig Paul"...Dan: "And I, for one, generally dig Paul"<br><br>I'm currently reading <a href="http://www.harpercollins.com/books/First-Paul/?isbn=9780061803307" rel="nofollow">The First Paul</a> hoping to change my opinion about him. The authors wrote that you either find Paul appealing or appalling. I find him appalling. They find him appealing. Maybe they can change my mind. No one else has been able to up to this point, including my friend and former pastor Dr. Bruce Prescott.Martyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02908921670853665703noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-35528076973497467592011-01-26T14:08:48.662-08:002011-01-26T14:08:48.662-08:00Craig...I will say that we are probably at a point...Craig...<br><br><i>I will say that we are probably at a point where our different traditions and how we define things will probably prevent much further semi productive discussion.</i><br><br>I don't see why. Now that we understand that we're BOTH talking about rightly understanding OT teachings and that a given verse from the OT ("go kill your enemy's children," or, "here's the right way to sell your daughter into slavery...") has no great compulsion for us to accept it as good or moral just because it's there, but rather, that we need to understand it in context of its times and place, we don't seem to be that far apart.<br><br>You don't like using the word "change" in reference to God's rules changing (shrimp was wrong, now it's fine), but you recognize that we are no longer under that law and I agree with that... so where's the problem?Dan Trabuehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14303597141397042669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-7093678623325467262011-01-26T14:04:57.428-08:002011-01-26T14:04:57.428-08:00Marty...Like I said before, Paul carries a lot of ...Marty...<br><br><i>Like I said before, Paul carries a lot of weight in some circles </i><br><br>True, dat. And I, for one, generally dig Paul and he carries a lot of weight for me, too. BUT, interpreted through the lens of Jesus, not the other way around.Dan Trabuehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14303597141397042669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-44743555168944909692011-01-26T14:03:46.104-08:002011-01-26T14:03:46.104-08:00Alan...what Craig is attempting (I would guess) to...Alan...<br><br><i>what Craig is attempting (I would guess) to say is that, in the Reformed Tradition, we believe there are 3 types of laws in the OT: moral, ceremonial, juridical.</i><br><br>And I can agree with that hunch that this is not an unreasonable position to hold, AS LONG AS we recognize it as our hunch, our way of trying to explain WHY some OT rules seem TO US to be more universal and some seem more time- and culture-specific and, quite frankly, why some seem just wack. <br><br>And as long as we recognize that there is no biblical, God-given measuring device that says, "verses 1, 2 and 4b are all universal in nature, while 3, 6 and a bit in the middle of 9 is a cultural rule, with the exception that the end of 9 is not..."Dan Trabuehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14303597141397042669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-14209740088834844002011-01-26T09:16:58.037-08:002011-01-26T09:16:58.037-08:00Dan,I will say that we are probably at a point whe...Dan,<br><br>I will say that we are probably at a point where our different traditions and how we define things will probably prevent much further semi productive discussion.Craighttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17149415942585847184noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-73287295993947348562011-01-26T09:10:17.143-08:002011-01-26T09:10:17.143-08:00Marty,That's because the fundies took over the...Marty,<br><br>That's because the fundies took over the SBC, and then tried to falsely cloak themselves in Calvinism. (Calvin, I suspect, always liked Paul better than Jesus.) Al Mohler, for example, proclaims his phony Calvinist bone fides every chance he gets. In the old days, a Calvinist in the SBC would have been tarred and feathered. Today, I'd wager most of them don't even know the difference, because contrary to what their leaders say, theology doesn't really matter much to most of the people in the pews.<br><br>Recent polls by the Pew Foundation, etc., have showed that most Christians in this country are functionally illiterate when it comes to even basic theology. But then, according to the same polls, even the conservative evangelicals rarely make it to church, so what should we expect?Alanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16274395216929104919noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-58866784000498099182011-01-26T08:22:43.191-08:002011-01-26T08:22:43.191-08:00"While at the same time, clear commands from ..."While at the same time, clear commands from Jesus (eg. don't get divorced except for adultery) get ignored all the time."<br><br>And the one where if you are divorced don't remarry gets igorned as well. It's ok for them to remarry and still be a christian or even become a christian. They don't have to leave their spouse with whom they are continually committing adultery with. But teh gay....well they have to either become hetero or abstain to be a christian and receive salvation.<br><br>You know Dan, one of the main reasons for the split in the SBC was the fact that Jesus was no longer the criteria for interpreting Scripture. Historical Baptists always interepreted Scripture through Jesus, but it ain't so no more. Like I said before, Paul carries a lot of weight in some circles IMHO.Martyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02908921670853665703noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-65744666107104736632011-01-26T07:54:23.338-08:002011-01-26T07:54:23.338-08:00And again to clarify,Dan, what Craig is attempting...And again to clarify,<br><br>Dan, what Craig is attempting (I would guess) to say is that, in the Reformed Tradition, we believe there are 3 types of laws in the OT: moral, ceremonial, juridical. This is laid out pretty clearly in Westminster.<br><br>Now, an honest Presbyterian must admit that nowhere in the Bible does it actually say that. No where in the Bible are those categories given (one could add others, or come up with a completely different scheme.) No where in the Bible does it list which laws are of which type. It's all interpretation and a nice bit of rather obvious legalistic legerdemain that lets us Reformed types get around the obvious contradiction between the OT shellfish laws which were inspired by God and Peter's dream, which was also inspired. And note that we use the term "fulfill" when we don't actually want to admit the obvious contradiction. :) See, those shellfish laws were ceremonial laws and thus not binding on gentiles. Voila! No contradiction!<br><br>Next I'll pull a rabbit out of my hat. :)<br><br>So, as a Presbyterian, I actually think that this scheme makes good sense, or at least as good as anything else. But as a pragmatist, I'm honest enough to admit that I don't buy the certainty some have about which particular sin ends up on which particular list. Because it always turns out that the ones they don't like are *always* ceremonial or juridical and thus not applicable to us. (Shellfish laws, killing children laws, working on sunday laws, etc.) But teh gays? Definitely moral laws (even though a juridical punishment is given!). Blah, blah, blah. While at the same time, clear commands from Jesus (eg. don't get divorced except for adultery) get ignored all the time.<br><br>That must be one of the commands that Jesus didn't come to "fulfill" I guess.<br><br>From the Anabaptist tradition, one would, I think, look at those OT laws not in those categories, but look at whether or we can interpret the OT laws through Jesus' words.<br><br>These are not small differences in how we view the text.Alanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16274395216929104919noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-42324991812830330492011-01-26T07:52:41.740-08:002011-01-26T07:52:41.740-08:00Craig...Why were the Hebrews not supposed to eat ...Craig...<br><br><i>Why were the Hebrews not supposed to eat shrimp etc? So that they would be set apart from the other nations. So that they would be pure before a holy God. So, what changed? The means of achieving ritual or positional purity changed. We don't need to follow the law to become pure, Jesus death/resurrection covers us. </i><br><br>Yes, that is one change. Another thing that changed was culture. The purpose of many OT laws was to set them apart from the CULTURES that surrounded them at the time. <br><br>As cultures change, so too has our understanding of God's rules. In the OT, polygamy was accepted and never condemned. Today, we think we know better and think this is not within God's will.<br><br>In the OT and even in the NT, slavery was accepted and never condemned. Today, we think we know better that this is an atrocity and not within God's will. <br><br>In the OT and NT both, a pernicious sexism was part of the culture, treating women as chattel, as that which BELONGED LIKE PROPERTY to their fathers and then their husbands. Today, we think we know better that treating anyone like property is NOT a good thing, nor within God's will.<br><br>I think we can safely conclude, looking to the Bible, that sometimes some things were apparently wrong IN THAT CULTURE.Dan Trabuehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14303597141397042669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-60164216301836987842011-01-26T07:45:37.543-08:002011-01-26T07:45:37.543-08:00Craig...THAT may be what you think you are saying,...Craig...<br><br><i>THAT may be what you think you are saying, or what you are trying to say, but you have clearly said that the law has changed. </i><br><br>I believe we are mostly down to a matter of semantics, now. I say that the DIFFERENCE between "DON'T eat shrimp" and "It's okay to eat shrimp" constitutes a CHANGE. You are preferring to call it a different way of relating to it, which is fine and I'm not disagreeing with it, but still suggest that "change" best represents the understanding change.<br><br>YES, Jesus said he had not come to abolish the law, but to fulfill it. BUT one way he fulfilled the law was pointing out that where the law said, "Don't eat shrimp," Jesus said, "Sure! Eat shrimp.<br><br>In either case, we are agreeing that our relationship to OT teachings and stories and commands have changed. Which is why I suggest that in matters of criteria for "false teachers" most of us would do best to stick to the teachings of Jesus. I don't think that any of Jesus' teachings are BETTER represented in the OT teachings. The OT does offer some background material and rich, wonderful, glorious depth of understanding. But along with that has come a lot of ancient customs and teachings that people have, in practice, had a hard time interpreting well, seems to me.<br><br>And so, GIVEN the NT teachings about false teachers, I'm suggesting for THOSE purposes, we'd do well to stick to the teachings of Jesus and we'll be less likely go wrong.Dan Trabuehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14303597141397042669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-81473213560846886202011-01-26T07:28:45.735-08:002011-01-26T07:28:45.735-08:00"17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish..."17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to FULFILL them.<br><br>Note the use term Fulfill, not change or superceded or clarified.<br><br> 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. <br><br>Note that the smallest letter of the law will NOT disappear.<br><br><br>"our relationship to the law changed."<br><br>Yes it is true that Jesus fulfilled the OT law and our relationship to the law is different. The law is not different, just how we relate to it. <br><br>"THAT is what I'm saying."<br><br>THAT may be what you think you are saying, or what you are trying to say, but you have clearly said that the law has changed. <br><br>"Jesus did not clarify it, he changed it..."<br><br>I think your problem is that while you are focused on the minutiae of the law, I am talking about the purpose of the law.<br><br>Why were the Hebrews not supposed to eat shrimp etc? So that they would be set apart from the other nations. So that they would be pure before a holy God. So, what changed? The means of achieving ritual or positional purity changed. We don't need to follow the law to become pure, Jesus death/resurrection covers us.Craighttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17149415942585847184noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-45155332171206309882011-01-26T04:09:11.796-08:002011-01-26T04:09:11.796-08:00Dan said..."You keep drawing that conclusion ...Dan said...<br><br><b>"You keep drawing that conclusion when I have not made the distinction."</b><br><br>Craig responded...<br><br><i>Pardon me, You are the one who continues to specify that you follow Jesus. Maybe a bit more precision might help. The implication of your words is that you will follow only the "explicit" teachings from the period when He was incarnate. </i><br><br>I DO follow Jesus and Jesus' teachings were GAME CHANGERS from the Old Covenant to the New. THAT is why I make the distinction. We are NOT just New Jews. We're Christians.<br><br>You seem to get this yourself in your admission that "our relationship to the law changed." THAT is what I'm saying. So the "implication of my words" is exactly what I have said: That we are to interpret the OT words through the teachings of Jesus.<br><br>That is not suggesting that there are two different gods, an OT god and a NT God. There is one God and I have not said anything else. BUT, we must interpret the teachings and words THROUGH the game-changing teachings and words of Christ.<br><br>Because we are Christians and followers of CHRIST and the NEW covenant, not the OT, which has been changed and clarified.Dan Trabuehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14303597141397042669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-65130241000753284502011-01-25T19:13:42.289-08:002011-01-25T19:13:42.289-08:00"Do you think the command to kill disrespectf..."Do you think the command to kill disrespectful children is as important and valid today as the command to tend to "the least of these?" Do you think the command to not have menstrual sex is as important and valid today as the command to seek first God's kingdom and righteousness?"<br><br>I already answered this, I'm not sure I can add anything else. Especially since you are starting to put words in my mouth. Had I actually indicated what you suggest above, you might have a point, as I did not, you don't.<br><br>"You DO see that this is a CHANGE, not a clarification?"<br><br>Once again I already answered this, if you'd like I could cut and paste me earlier comment.<br><br>"You keep drawing that conclusion when I have not made the distinction."<br><br>Pardon me, You are the one who continues to specify that you follow Jesus. Maybe a bit more precision might help. The implication of your words is that you will follow only the "explicit" teachings from the period when He was incarnate. <br><br>Further, you have yet to provide any support for your hunch that the recorded commands from God are otherwise. If you are suggesting the God did not actually give the commands attributed to Him, then make the case. You have established these two categories "stories" and "Jesus commands", which you seem to be insisting are the "right way" to interpret scripture. Yet, I see no Biblical foundation for these arbitrary categories.<br><br>Once again, this is going toward familiar territory. Do you really want to re hash this.Craighttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17149415942585847184noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-37303664194270230692011-01-25T18:41:08.047-08:002011-01-25T18:41:08.047-08:00Craig...Are you suggesting that we can rank God...Craig...<br><br><i>Are you suggesting that we can rank God's commands?</i><br><br>Do you think the command to kill disrespectful children is as important and valid today as the command to tend to "the least of these?" Do you think the command to not have menstrual sex is as important and valid today as the command to seek first God's kingdom and righteousness?<br><br>These commands are not equal in weight. In fact, if one were to try to implement some OT COMMANDS, they would doubtless engage in SIN and atrocities. Yes, yes, we MUST "rank" God's commands. We must take commands, teachings and stories in context. Some rules apply to us and some do not. That is a ranking (ie, the ones that apply today and the ones that do NOT).<br><br>You know, like the CHANGE in commands from "Thou shalt not eat shrimp," to "eat shrimp if you'd like." (You DO see that this is a CHANGE, not a clarification?)Dan Trabuehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14303597141397042669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-73287950158760272122011-01-25T18:35:41.152-08:002011-01-25T18:35:41.152-08:00Craig...Are you suggesting that we can rank God...Craig...<br><br><i>Are you suggesting that we can rank God's commands?</i><br><br>I'm suggesting that good biblical exegesis requires us to make distinctions between stories and commands. SOME commands are NOT universal in nature. Some are ancient and obscure and lacking HUMAN clarity and are often poorly understood.<br><br>The commands on HOW DO WE RIGHTLY sell our daughters into slavery do NOT NOT NOT hold the same authority as the command to love our enemies, to turn the other cheek. Not all biblical texts are created equal.<br><br>To suggest that "don't have menstrual sex" has "equal seriousness" for us today as Jesus' direct teachings about loving the oppressed is to demonstrate poor exegesis.Dan Trabuehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14303597141397042669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-58037346067200438442011-01-25T18:30:36.616-08:002011-01-25T18:30:36.616-08:00Craig...You keep making this strange distinction b...Craig...<br><br><i>You keep making this strange distinction between the Jesus (God) in the OT and the Jesus (God) in the new. How could one not conclude that you regard them as two separate entities?</i><br><br>You keep drawing that conclusion when I have not made the distinction. There is only ONE God. God the Creator of the world, as described in Genesis. God, the son, who became incarnate here with us. God, the Spirit. ONE God.<br><br>I'm not making the distinction that you are hearing me make. I'm making the distinction between the oftentimes bad HUMAN hunches about God from poor OT exegesis.Dan Trabuehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14303597141397042669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-24812502822948498732011-01-25T17:52:33.335-08:002011-01-25T17:52:33.335-08:00"Actually, since we are followers of JESUS&qu..."Actually, since we are followers of JESUS"<br><br>You keep making this strange distinction between the Jesus (God) in the OT and the Jesus (God) in the new. How could one not conclude that you regard them as two separate entities?<br><br>"The onus is on you to demonstrate that God did not so command the Hebrews."<br><br>I can only assume that you decline to so demonstrate. <br><br>"Do you think Jesus cares about menstrual sex?"<br><br>Since He did not specifically mention it (as far as we know) during His earthly ministry, the only clue we have is to see what God says in the OT (Remember Jesus is the God who spoke in the OT). <br><br>The problem is, the question is pointless. The laws covering ritual purity were laws that were established during the period of the Hebrew Theocracy. They were established for a number of reasons, and were expected to be obeyed. After Jesus came/died/rose the he fulfilled the OT law (not abolish, fulfill), and one result of this is that His death made those who followed Him positionally pure, thereby eliminating the need for ritual purity. <br><br>So, to answer you a different way. Jesus (God) established the OT laws on ritual purity (I suspect he cared enough about menstrual sex to address it) for the Hebrew peoples, which He fulfilled by His grace, through His atoning death and resurrection.<br><br> "You think "don't have menstrual sex with your spouse" is equal in stature to "turn the other cheek?"<br><br>I believe I answered it clearly already. I would take any command from God equally seriously. Are you suggesting that we can rank God's commands? That there are some where He gives us a mulligan? A few, we can just blow off? Please make that case.<br><br>I dealt with the ritual purity laws earlier, but to refresh you. After the atoning work of Jesus, those who follow Him are positionally purified by God's grace expressed in Christs death and resurrection. Once Christ FULFILLED (not changed) the law, our relationship to the law changed.Craighttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17149415942585847184noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-85304492672062524502011-01-25T17:12:44.214-08:002011-01-25T17:12:44.214-08:00Craig...I think that Jesus's (being God)teachi...Craig...<br><br><i>I think that Jesus's (being God)teachings are of an equal stature to Gods other teachings. Further, I would not say Jesus "changed" the rules as much as clarified them. In doing so He actually set the standard higher than the OT.</i><br><br>You think "don't have menstrual sex with your spouse" is equal in stature to "turn the other cheek?" Really? I think you'd have a hard time making that case.<br><br>The OT rule was NO shrimp. Jesus did not clarify it, he changed it to YES shrimp. Some things Jesus DID clarify. Other teachings he changed, adapted for a new culture and a new covenant.<br><br>Do you think that going from "No shrimp" to "Shrimp is okay" is NOT an actual change? It's the opposite, I don't see how you could consider it not a change.Dan Trabuehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14303597141397042669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-22099857804046948362011-01-25T17:09:52.808-08:002011-01-25T17:09:52.808-08:00Craig...The onus is on you to demonstrate that God...Craig...<br><br><i>The onus is on you to demonstrate that God did not so command the Hebrews.</i><br><br>Actually, since we are followers of JESUS, I'd suggest that for anyone who thinks Jesus cares about menstrual sex, the onus is on them to demonstrate that since we have no serious reason to think Jesus DOES care.<br><br>Do you think Jesus cares about menstrual sex?<br><br>If not, then we have no serious disagreement here. For that is my point: That not every line in the Bible is created equal or carries the same weight.Dan Trabuehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14303597141397042669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-87832545382491353372011-01-25T15:03:09.934-08:002011-01-25T15:03:09.934-08:00"I DO, however, make a distinction between be..."I DO, however, make a distinction between being a follower of Jesus/God and a follower of human teachings."<br><br>I would agree, but no one is making this particular distinction. We are talking about God/Jesus speaking in the OT v. God/Jesus speaking in the new. <br><br>"This is NOT a teaching of Jesus."<br><br>If, in fact, God actually did command the Hebrews thus, then it is de facto a teaching of Jesus. The onus is on you to demonstrate that God did not so command the Hebrews. By demonstrate, I mean something other than express your personal opinion. I am well acquainted with your opinions on this matter.<br><br>"Do you think Jesus' teachings are inferior to the OT teaching? Do you think Jesus was wrong for changing the rules,..."<br><br>No, I think that Jesus's (being God)teachings are of an equal stature to Gods other teachings. Further, I would not say Jesus "changed" the rules as much as clarified them. In doing so He actually set the standard higher than the OT. <br><br>Thanks for the clarification. I especially appreciate the Anabaptist angle, that helps quite a bit.Craighttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17149415942585847184noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-72139890396594439492011-01-25T13:30:54.075-08:002011-01-25T13:30:54.075-08:00Dan: "Interpret the whole through the lens of...Dan: "Interpret the whole through the lens of Jesus."<br><br>That is how I interpret as well. <br><br>I would suggest that there are those who interpret the whole through the lens of Paul.Martyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02908921670853665703noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-42110718761954992532011-01-25T12:55:53.531-08:002011-01-25T12:55:53.531-08:00To add a further comment or two to Alan's clar...To add a further comment or two to Alan's clarification of Dan, in the Middle Ages, what was understood as the "core" or "kernel" (Luther) of Scripture was, as Alan says, Jesus Christ. Thus Luther, for example - a quintessential medieval exegete - could begin his discussion of Romans by saying that "Jesus" says something in the book of Jeremiah that is, in fact, something attributed to "the LORD".<br><br>This is neither unusual, nor particularly startling. A bit more nuance, however, in one's understanding of the Trinity, and the interrelationship of the Persons of the Godhead, makes such elisions not so much wrong as, at the very least problematic. The doctrine of perichoresis - the interpenetration of the Three Persons, which is to say the Trinitarian nature of all Divine action, the participation of the Son and Spirit with the Father in Creation (something we can see at work in the prologue to the Gospel of St. John) - clarifies the situation.<br><br>Of course, we have the contradiction, in St. Paul, where the Law becomes superceded by the grace revealed in Jesus Christ, while Jesus himself not only refuses to abolish the Law, but insists he, not just in his life, but in his person, is the fulfillment of the law. Since Luther, at any rate, this contradiction has been dealt with by understanding St. Paul's discussion of the Law in Romans as unfolding it as part of God's gracious, Providential dealing with humanity.<br><br>All of this is to say that, even with certain complications and contradictions that arise within a bare reading of the text of the Bible, certain theological assumptions - not just the Trinity, but the doctrine of Providence, and a broad understanding of grace - make saying, "Jesus says 'X'", in the Old Testament rather simplistic, albeit correct in some fundamental way. Which, by the way, I have not read Dan say, or even insinuate.Geoffrey Kruse-Saffordhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11242660591954094499noreply@blogger.com