So, given this conversation about false teachers, someone asked me in an email some (I think) very reasonable questions. They raised a question to the effect of, it seems like you'd like for people to say, "well, we can't really know, so just be quiet and don't say anything, don't take any actions based on what you THINK is right."
My answer is that I would not want anyone to surrender any righteous, non-harmful action they might feel led to, any more than I would want to surrender my option to take action on my beliefs.
I simply want to remind myself and all of us to do so in love and humility, recognizing that, even though we may be "100% certain" or only "nearly totally positive," we could still be mistaken.
Further, I'd like us all to have sort of a sliding scale of rigidity and seriousness over topics of disagreement based upon how closely or not they are to Jesus' actual teachings and real world ramifications.
Someone wants to argue that Mary had ten children after Jesus and someone else wants to argue that Mary had NO children after Jesus? No big deal. Don't sweat it.
There's not much impact there one way or the other and Jesus never says specifically that Mary had X number of children so enjoy a discussion on the topic if you'd like, but keep perspective. Slide the scale back many notches on "debating" that pretty insignificant issue.
Someone wants to argue that drinking alcohol is always wrong and another wants to debate that it's acceptable in moderation? No big deal. Jesus did not stake out a position on drinking alcohol and there is no real harm done either way.
Someone wants to argue against the Triune nature of God and someone else wants to argue in favor of it? Well, Jesus did not stake out an opinion and I can't see a huge amount of harm done either way (depending I guess on how those arguments went). Disagree if you wish, but don't get up in a sweat about it. Don't denounce the Other as non-Christian or false teacher over something that Jesus did not teach and that likely has not serious ramifications (and to be clear: I DO believe in the Triune nature of God, before anyone misses the point... I probably shouldn't use that as an example!).
On the other hand, someone wants to teach that we are to HATE our enemies and kill off their children? Well, that is:
1. directly contradicting something that Jesus said AND
2. it has horrifying consequences.
That's a profound argument worth debating vigorously.
Someone wants to teach that we are saved NOT by grace, but by following rules set up by Jim Jones or someone else? That's a profound disagreement with serious consequences. Worth debating vigorously.
My point is that most things that people want to denounce others as "non-Christian" and "false teacher" about are not even direct teachings of Jesus and don't have overtly serious consequences.
On THOSE points, we all ought to lighten up, is what I'm saying, and remember not to argue about mere words or human commands.
The question was also asked, "If we both might be wrong, why not acquiesce to ME, rather than go with your hunch? Why not, for instance, just NOT support gay marriage, since I might be right about it?"
First off, just because we BOTH could be wrong does not mean that I think both our arguments are equally valid. I obviously think my view is the most reasonable or I would not hold it.
Beyond that, why would I support legalizing and oppose criminalizing marriage? Because of the harm and oppression involved in the criminalization. It's a human rights issue and I think Christians should be in the forefront of working for human rights and against oppression.
If a church does not approve of gay marriage then, while it saddens me, so be it. Don't marry any gay folk. Turn seekers away from the door if they wish. No harm (well, some... depending on how foul they are about it), no foul. I'll disagree with them and move on.
BUT, if they want to criminalize two adults getting married (gay/straight/black/white/whatever), THEN they have moved over into harmful territory, impinging on others' rights. That is where I think is a reasonable place to draw the line.
I don't think AT ALL that recognizing our fallibility and lack of perfect understanding means we do nothing. You don't see ME doing nothing, do you? I engage in conversations. I support and oppose legislation. I choose where and how I shop, live, spend my money, donate, etc. We can do just about anything. Anything Good. Anything Pure. Anything Just.
Anything BUT oppress, cause deliberate harm to others, lie, slander, gossip, kill, torture.
First, Do no harm.
Do you disagree with a behavior? Don't support that behavior. Do you think abortions are wrong? Don't have one. Do you think war is wrong? Don't go to war. Do you think gay marriage is wrong? Don't get married to someone of the same gender!
Do you think a loved one is wrong for getting married to a gay (black, Muslim, Jewish, Fundamentalist) guy/gal? Then speak to them in love about it if you really feel you must. But do so with grace and humility.
But, keep in mind: When it comes to telling others that their non-harmful behavior (non-harmful as far as we can see) is wrong, though, most adults need to reach their own conclusions and talking down to them, telling them they're not Christian, they're a "false teacher," they're going to hell for disagreeing with you, etc, will seldom win converts, so it's not especially helpful if winning them over is your goal.
Simply stick to, "I am concerned because it seems to me that..." and lay out your case with love AND being willing to listen to their side, as well.
That's what I think we should do.
Which is a lot, seems to me.
44 comments:
Is that you in the monster mask?
What monster mask?
No, it's not me.
Dan: "I'd like us all to have sort of a sliding scale of rigidity and seriousness over topics of disagreement based upon how closely or not they are to Jesus' actual teachings and real world ramifications."
I understand a "scale of rigidity and seriousness". I cannot imagine someone thinking that "eating meat sacrificed to idols" (as a biblical example) would have the same measure of seriousness as "saved by grace", for instance. But I do have a question (two, actually).
Why would "Jesus' actual teachings" be the measure? That is, why wouldn't all biblical teachings be more appropriate? Jesus, for instance, did not teach "saved by grace apart from works", but I'm pretty sure that if someone suggested that we are saved by works apart from grace that would be problematic, not merely something upon which we respond lightly.
Second, I'm confused by your meaning of the phrase "real world ramifications". The suggestion is that biblical truth may or may not have "real world ramifications". Further, how are we going to determine "real world ramifications"? (As an example, in the sharp rise of divorce rates in the latter half of the 20th century, many said it wasn't particularly harmful. Later studies are saying that, oh, no, actually it's much worse than they thought.) So who determines "harmful" and "real world ramifications"?
(Please take these as questions, not arguments.)
Stan, thanks for stopping by and for your questions (which I DO take as questions, not arguments). I think they are very good questions worth consideration. You asked...
1. Why would "Jesus' actual teachings" be the measure? That is, why wouldn't all biblical teachings be more appropriate?
I don't think so.
As I've mentioned before, some of my criteria for reading/understanding the Bible include:
Interpret obscure texts through clear texts
Interpret the individual text through the whole of the Bible
Strive to understand the original language and context as well as possible
criteria such as that, and including...
Interpret the whole through the lens of Jesus.
I am/we are Christ-ians. Jesus is our Lord, our God, our Savior. Jesus is our role model and teacher and to best understand all of Scripture, we need to consider the whole through the specific teachings of Jesus.
The OT clearly outlaws (at least for the Jewish people) the eating of meat with blood in it. Jesus specifically points out that those are old laws that we are no longer under. IF we only look at the OT, then we get an incomplete picture of CHRISTIAN teachings (ie, the teachings of the Christ).
Does that mean that I think there is no value in the OT? NOT IN THE LEAST! I LOVE the OT and its teachings and how it informs our faith! But, we aren't just "new Jews." We're Christians. Followers of the teachings of the Christ, Jesus.
Does that mean that there are OT teachings that are absent from Jesus' teachings? I don't know. I can't think of any vital teachings of Jesus that are not echoed in the OT nor any vital OT teachings that Jesus does not echo.
On the other hand, there are a WIDE variety of sometimes clear, sometimes obscure, ancient teachings in the OT that most of us usually agree are not applicable today. Rules for selling your children into slavery. Teachings about destroying your enemies, even their innocent children. Rules about how you are to plow your fields, cut your hair, wear your clothes, have sex (or not) during menstruation, capital punishment, etc.
Most Christians can agree that these rules were generally for a specific people at a specific time and are not, by default, universal in nature. Are there universal PRINCIPLES we can glean from these teachings to a specific people at a specific time? Yes, I think so.
But Christendom is not unanimously in agreement about them. They would generally, to me, fall under the "obscure" teachings which need to be interpreted through "clear" teachings.
As a follower of Christ, I am confident in Jesus' teachings. I hold to Jesus' teachings. I strive to understand Jesus' teachings and follow in that way.
As a follower of Jesus under the New Covenant, I am NOT confident in everybody's ability to rightly divide the OT and its applicability to us. So, for me, the safest measure when dealing with the prospect of "false teachers" is Jesus and his teachings.
Another reason for this is because ONE of the marks of a "false teacher" IN THE BIBLE is that they are departing from Jesus and his teachings. NOT because they are understanding OT teachings in a different way than we are.
I guess my point would be that there are many teachings and stories in the Bible that aren't specifically echoed by Jesus. There are SOME teachings in the OT that are contradicted or re-interpreted/clarified by Jesus in a dramatic change of view.
I think ALL of these teachings/rules/stories are helpful and yet, I don't trust fallible people to get the point of thse ancient rules/stories right, especially the more obscure ones. I prefer to stick to considering "serious" as only those teachings which directly contradict Jesus and his teachings (which I would include generally as NT teachings, not just "red letter" teachings).
One man's opinion. Sorry my answer is so long.
Stan asked...
I'm confused by your meaning of the phrase "real world ramifications". The suggestion is that biblical truth may or may not have "real world ramifications".
Thanks for the question. You raise an important point and one I'm glad to clarify.
I VERY DEFINITELY think that Biblical truth (or, more correctly, Godly truth) has vital real world implications.
BUT, I don't think that each and every teaching or point raised by a Christian has serious real world implications.
Here again, we have a lack of trust in humanity, not a lack of trust in God's Word or in God's Way.
Some Christians and churches would (and do) raise ire and angst over such inconsequential things or, even worse, over wrongheaded ideas.
"Wearing a t-shirt? To church??! Why, the scandal!!"
"What?? They want to let HOMELESS people in the church building to get out of the cold? Well, maybe, IF someone keeps a sharp eye out on them..."
You get the idea.
No, I'm speaking of extrabiblical worries about behaviors and actions that have no serious harmful side effects that we can see.
Do we really want to lose sleep over the "argument" of whether Mary had other children or not? It's such a non-issue. No harm involved if someone holds an opinion on either side.
Do we really want to lose sleep over whether Behavior X (a behavior not discussed in the Bible) is a sin or not? Especially if there are no obvious real world harmful effects? Not drinking or drinking in moderation? No great harm either way, as a general rule.
Baptizing by dunking or sprinkling? Is it worth arguing over? No great harm either way.
That was my point.
On the other hand, suggesting we might ought to kill our enemy's children (as in a deliberate attack upon a civilian center)? THAT has some damned serious side effects. Life and death. I think THAT raises a different level of concern based solely upon the life and death side effects of such behavior.
On gay marriage: If some group supports it as good and holy and it was actually a sin, then the worst that would have happened is that those "sinners" would have engaged in sin unaware and in a more responsible way (ie, in a committed, loving marriage, as opposed to living in a licentious manner) and within the context of the beloved church community, as opposed to without the church and without that beloved community and support.
On the other hand, if "we" are right and the gay marriage opponents are wrong, what is the result? They are driving people from the church - from Christ - with their ungracious behavior. I know this to be true because I have seen it firsthand.
Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable--if anything is excellent or praiseworthy--think about such things.
What are the REAL WORLD ramifications of our behaviors and our choices of things to get uptight/come down hard about? Ones that lead to more direct harm, those are the ones we ought to be concerned about. On all others, we ought to lighten up and tread with grace, by which we are saved and are being saved.
Let me try that first answer again:
As I already stated, in the OT, there are MANY rules and teachings found in stories and commands to the ancient Israel.
There are rules for selling your children into slavery. Teachings about destroying your enemies, even their innocent children. Rules about how you are to plow your fields, cut your hair, wear your clothes, have sex (or not) during menstruation, capital punishment, etc, etc.
In all these teachings, I am MUCH LESS concerned with them EXCEPT insofar as how they relate to Jesus, my Lord and Savior's teachings. Why? Well, for one thing, they ARE stories and rules to and about an ancient people. They are NOT always well understood or their meaning is not always agreed upon.
We aren't to engage in sexual activity while your wife is menstruating? Is that a rule for all time? What did it mean then? What does it mean now?
I just don't care that much. Jesus had nothing to say about menstrual sex. I am a Christian, not a Jew. I find that passage interesting, but when it comes to a topic as serious as "false teachings," I just don't think it's that serious a topic. Have whatever opinion you want about "menstrual sex," I don't care. Just don't insist that it was a topic dear to Jesus' heart or central to his teachings, because that would be silly, given the text of the NT.
So, LOVE the OT, STUDY the OT, please please please LEARN from the OT. See how it can inform your life and teach you wisdom, love and grace. See how and where Jesus used the OT.
But when it comes to a charge as serious as "false teacher" don't tell me Mr X is a "false teacher" because of his position on menstrual sex. I'm just not interested and I just don't believe it.
Dan,
Your conversation with Stan, and a comment you made raise questions.
1. "Someone wants to argue against the Triune nature of God and someone else wants to argue in favor of it?"
Are you suggesting that you personally don't believe/accept the triune nature of God? Or are you suggesting that while your opinion is that God is triune, that it is not a part of God's essential nature? Or are you suggesting that it's just not important?
2. If we accept the triune nature of God, as well as the eternal existence of Jesus as the 2nd person of the Trinity, then in what sense are the words of God in the OT not the words of Jesus.
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and was God..."
Craig said,
"If we accept the triune nature of God, as well as the eternal existence of Jesus as the 2nd person of the Trinity, then in what sense are the words of God in the OT not the words of Jesus."
An as yet unanswered question of mine, as well.
Just for insight, the laws against sex with a menstruating woman were based on the laws regarding blood. Sin is death. Blood (and pretty much all bodily fluids) symbolized death which is the wage of sin. One who touched blood was then impure. Menstruating women had to be ceremonially cleansed after their period.
Craig...
Are you suggesting that you personally don't believe/accept the triune nature of God?
Craig, to answer your question with the words from THIS post:
and to be clear: I DO believe in the Triune nature of God
I suppose you missed that, but there is the answer to your question.
You further asked...
Or are you suggesting that while your opinion is that God is triune, that it is not a part of God's essential nature? Or are you suggesting that it's just not important?
I believe in God the Creator, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit. I think this is an entirely reasonable and biblical conclusion to reach on the nature of God.
I'm further pointing out that JESUS never made a point of emphasizing "God as Trinity" and since I am a CHRIST-ian and interested in the teachings of the CHRIST, I just don't find it that critical a concept.
If someone has no opinion whatsoever on the Triune nature of God, just tends to think of God, or Jesus, God's son, or the Spirit of God without making any necessary connection to a triune nature, BUT that person is saved by God's grace through faith in Jesus and believes in the teachings of Jesus and has made Jesus the Lord of their lives, I don't really care if they think of God in terms of a Triune being.
Now, IF they say, "Well, God IS God, but Jesus was just a man and not the son of God, so there is no Trinity..." that might be something different. I'm just saying that if someone has no great opinion on the Trinity, I'm not concerned about it either, as it is NOT central to Jesus' teachings and I am a follower of Jesus.
Craig...
If we accept the triune nature of God, as well as the eternal existence of Jesus as the 2nd person of the Trinity, then in what sense are the words of God in the OT not the words of Jesus.
The OT has a line that teaches married people not to have menstrual sex. I don't think that Jesus CARES about menstrual sex. I think that because JESUS NEVER MENTIONS IT.
The OT has lines about destroying your enemies, including their children. I don't think THIS is a teaching of Jesus because it is CONTRARY to the teachings of Jesus.
This, as I stated earlier, is why it is important to interpret the whole of the Bible (including the OT) through the lens of Jesus. Jesus helps us understand and clarify and tweak the OT teachings to Jesus' OWN better, improved set of teachings.
"You have heard it said, an eye for an eye, BUT I TELL YOU, turn the other cheek..."
There may have been some validity to many of those OT teachings. There may STILL be some validity to many of those OT teachings (I certainly think there is) BUT in order to best understand the OT teachings, we read them through the teachings of Jesus or else we get a skewed understanding of God.
Dan,
I disagree with your thoughts on whether or not the Trinity is an essential doctrine. I would agree that one could be saved and not hold to the doctrine of the Trinity because they were new to the whole Christianity thing. However, when someone like TD Jakes or the oneness pentecostal folks deny the Trinity, I see that as more of a problem.
However, in your second response you didn't actually answer the question I asked.
So since you believe in the triune nature of God. To clarify; one God, three persons. Then it would follow logically that the words of any of the three persons (Father, Son, Spirit) would be equally the words of God, would it not?
Further, unless you are denying the eternal existence of the triune God (which I don't believe you are, but felt like I shouldn't assume something you have not said.), then how can you deny that the words of God in the OT are not the words of Jesus.
"...Jesus' OWN better, improved set of teachings."
I hope you can see why statements like this would make me ask the question. It seems as though you are suggesting that God the Father said XYZ in the OT, then Jesus, God the Son, came along with the new, better, and improved teachings in the NT. Again, I fail to see how you can separate the words/teachings of one person of the Godhead (God the Father) from another (God the Son). This also opens the door wide for those who say "Well the Holy Spirit spoke to me and we should now do thus and so.". If The second person of the Trinity can supersede the teachings/words of the first person of the Trinity, (if we go with your reasoning) they why wouldn't the third person of the Trinity come along with the new, new, better, and improved teaching that supersedes the other two?
Again, I hope that you can understand how your post might raise these questions.
"...and I am a follower of Jesus."
Are you then making a distinction between a "follower of Jesus" and a follower of God? Could one be a follower of Jesus without being a follower of all three persons who make up the nature and essence of God? Do we get to pick which one we follow, or is it a package deal?
Are you then making a distinction between a "follower of Jesus" and a follower of God?
No. I'm not.
I DO, however, make a distinction between being a follower of Jesus/God and a follower of human teachings.
Then it would follow logically that the words of any of the three persons (Father, Son, Spirit) would be equally the words of God, would it not?
...Again, I fail to see how you can separate the words/teachings of one person of the Godhead (God the Father) from another (God the Son).
Not all passages are created equal.
As noted, the OT has lines teaching Israel to kill the children of our enemies. This is NOT a teaching of Jesus.
It is an interesting story from the OT, which has stories written in many different styles, including (it seems to me) in mythic style and in epic style, among others.
It is important in understanding the Bible aright to understand the STYLE of writing and the writing devices being used. If one takes hyperbole as literal command, one is WHOLLY misunderstanding the hyperbole. If one takes an Epic story and considers it a factually accurate story - one with moral implications - then one might walk away with horrifyingly MISTAKEN hunches about the Bible, including that God sometimes might want us to slaughter the children of our enemies.
Jesus helps clarify all of that.
So, the WHOLE of the Bible, RIGHTLY UNDERSTOOD, is good and the Word of God, God's revelation to us. BUT, rightly understanding it involves, I suggest, considering those teachings in the light of JESUS' specific teachings.
This is why, when discussing False teachers, Paul and Peter and Jesus don't say, "IF they teach something contrary to an OT story or command," but rather, "IF they teach something contrary to JESUS' teachings."
This is my point.
Craig...
It seems as though you are suggesting that God the Father said XYZ in the OT, then Jesus, God the Son, came along with the new, better, and improved teachings in the NT.
In a sense, YES. The Bible contains stories saying DON'T eat certain types of meat. JESUS came along with a new, better, clarified and improved COVENANT - a new and improved UNDERSTANDING.
One that depends NOT on following a bunch of little laws, but one that is built upon GRACE. And GRACE IS a better and improved solution to a works-based approach.
The freedom to eat shrimp IS an improvement upon the OT understanding of not eating shrimp. At least I think so.
Do you think Jesus' teachings are inferior to the OT teaching? Do you think Jesus was wrong for changing the rules, saying "Forget all about that 'an eye for an eye' stuff, turn the other cheek instead?"
I'm sure you don't.
Dan wrote, "Jesus helps clarify all of that."
Craig, I would just point out that, while in the Reformed tradition Scripture interprets Scripture, in the Anabaptist tradition, Scripture is meant to be interpreted through Jesus' words. That is, Scripture interprets Scripture, but the words of Jesus have particular import. In the Reformed tradition, on the other hand, we just would argue they're *all* the words of Jesus.
That POV may clarify Dan's position here, if I'm interpreting what he's saying correctly.
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".
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.
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.
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.
Dan: "Interpret the whole through the lens of Jesus."
That is how I interpret as well.
I would suggest that there are those who interpret the whole through the lens of Paul.
"I DO, however, make a distinction between being a follower of Jesus/God and a follower of human teachings."
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.
"This is NOT a teaching of Jesus."
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.
"Do you think Jesus' teachings are inferior to the OT teaching? Do you think Jesus was wrong for changing the rules,..."
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.
Thanks for the clarification. I especially appreciate the Anabaptist angle, that helps quite a bit.
Craig...
The onus is on you to demonstrate that God did not so command the Hebrews.
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.
Do you think Jesus cares about menstrual sex?
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.
Craig...
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.
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.
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.
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.
"Actually, since we are followers of JESUS"
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?
"The onus is on you to demonstrate that God did not so command the Hebrews."
I can only assume that you decline to so demonstrate.
"Do you think Jesus cares about menstrual sex?"
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).
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.
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.
"You think "don't have menstrual sex with your spouse" is equal in stature to "turn the other cheek?"
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.
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.
Craig...
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?
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.
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.
Craig...
Are you suggesting that we can rank God's commands?
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.
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.
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.
Craig...
Are you suggesting that we can rank God's commands?
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?
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).
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?)
"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?"
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.
"You DO see that this is a CHANGE, not a clarification?"
Once again I already answered this, if you'd like I could cut and paste me earlier comment.
"You keep drawing that conclusion when I have not made the distinction."
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.
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.
Once again, this is going toward familiar territory. Do you really want to re hash this.
Dan said...
"You keep drawing that conclusion when I have not made the distinction."
Craig responded...
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 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.
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.
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.
Because we are Christians and followers of CHRIST and the NEW covenant, not the OT, which has been changed and clarified.
"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.
Note the use term Fulfill, not change or superceded or clarified.
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.
Note that the smallest letter of the law will NOT disappear.
"our relationship to the law changed."
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.
"THAT is what I'm saying."
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.
"Jesus did not clarify it, he changed it..."
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.
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.
Craig...
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
Craig...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I think we can safely conclude, looking to the Bible, that sometimes some things were apparently wrong IN THAT CULTURE.
And again to clarify,
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.
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!
Next I'll pull a rabbit out of my hat. :)
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.
That must be one of the commands that Jesus didn't come to "fulfill" I guess.
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.
These are not small differences in how we view the text.
"While at the same time, clear commands from Jesus (eg. don't get divorced except for adultery) get ignored all the time."
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.
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.
Marty,
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.
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?
Dan,
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.
Alan...
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.
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.
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..."
Marty...
Like I said before, Paul carries a lot of weight in some circles
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.
Craig...
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 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.
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: "And I, for one, generally dig Paul"
I'm currently reading The First Paul 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.
"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."
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:
Which of the following do not belong with the rest?
a-carrots
b-peas
c-Barack Obama
d-apples
The correct answer is "d" because the rest are vegetables. (OK, "c" because the rest are produce :))
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).
It seems all the "deep thinkers" and heavy readers have educated themselves out of common sense to now stumble over what is so obvious.
"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. "
Yup.
Marshall...
You need to prove it to ME.
And WHY is it that I need to "prove" my position to you, but you don't have to "prove" your position to me?
Says who?
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...
HELP! What's the term for presuming that a modernistic take on an old notion?
Anyway, to presume that ancient peoples would tell stories in the same way as we would is very poor exegesis/study method.
Post a Comment