Is this a fair statement by Jesus?

[Wootah]

34 Hearing that Jesus had silenced the Sadducees, the Pharisees got together. 35 One of them, an expert in the law, tested him with this question: 36 “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?�

37 Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’[c] 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’[d] 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.

Is that a good summary of the law? Can we do either thing well enough to satisfy God?

[ttruscott]

...This summation is what makes me believe that God never desired things like sacrifice. Where does sacrifice fit into love? ....

Desiring sacrifices would mean that God desires us to make sin. I think God didn’t want that and He doesn’t want sacrifices.

Agreed.

Matthew 19:8 Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. implies that our sinfulness against our unwanted wives and the the abuse that would be put upon them if we were forced to live with them had HIM set the law to lessen the opportunity for sin in our lives against our spouses.

This means that HE mitigates HIS demands ON EARTH for sinners, to make life as HIS people bearabe while we live in sin. The self sacrifice of the Messiah was for us, only for our sakes and not at all to mollify or apease a judgemental GOD since HIS judgemental qualities are not mollified in the least but reserved for those who sinned the unforgivable sin.

[shnarkle]

[Replying to post 2 by ElCodeMonkey]

Where do sacraments and belief fall into love?

The Latin word "sacramentum" appears in Ephesians 5:32 corresponding to the Greek "musterion" meaning a secret sign or symbol. It indicates a level of intimacy. So I suspect there may be a certain level of intimacy with God necessary in order to love others at all. Belief is necessary for those who have yet to discover God's love.

Jesus flipped the religion on its head, said the Pharisees had it all wrong, and God simply wants us to follow doing what is right.

It may very well be simple, but I don't think just "follow what is right" is what he had in mind. I say this because just doing what is right is precisely what the Pharisees were attempting to do themselves. Jesus wouldn't flip any of them on their head by telling everyone else, "your righteousness must exceed that of the Pharisees or you will in no wise enter into the kingdom of heaven". Jesus wouldn't be holding the Pharisees up as the closest thing to the standard of righteousness if they weren't so meticulous in their observation of God's law. To assume Christ was suggesting the Pharisees were wicked, and one needed to be more righteous than them would be pointless. Their piety is still awe inspiring. Christ simply pointed out that it didn't originate inside themselves as that was nothing but "dead men's bones".

What Jesus was pointing out was that simply doing what was right was never going to be good enough. Why? Because they believed that what they were doing by their own "will and effort" (Rom.9:16) would establish their righteousness. The fact is that one's free will choice to carry out the law can only result in failure. The entire Old Testament is literally a testament to that empirical fact.

Christ (and Paul) supplies the antidote to failure by pointing out that it can only be by faith; Christ's faith operating in the "born again" new creation.

As for doing it well enough to satisfy God, well, if he is loving, kind, and good, he could hardly expect perfection any more than it is loving of us to expect perfection of our kids, ourselves, or anyone else. Expecting perfection is itself imperfect.

You're comparing apples to oranges. God doesn't expect perfection from fallen desperately wicked humanity. Christ and Paul both point out that it is impossible, and those who desire to do their best will fail. Perfection is what is not only expected, but what God insures will happen. God creates those who will carry out God's commandments exactly according to God's will. This is explicitly stated in the texts( Jer.31:33; Ezekiel 11:19; Heb. 10:16 ). What could be easier?

[shnarkle]

[Replying to post 3 by ttruscott]

ttruscott

Of course we can't keep the law including the commandment to love.

That depends upon who you mean by "we".

The law was given to convict us of sin: Romans 3:20

Which law are you referring to? There is the commandment which is "holy, spiritual, good", and there is the law which "was added because of transgressions" which isn't holy, spiritual or good", but explicitly put in place to deal with sin. What was "added" was "against us". The commandments are not against us, but "for" us e.g. "The Sabbath was made FOR man...etc." All the commandments are for our benefit, and can only be kept by faith in, with, and through Christ.

Therefore no one will be justified in His sight by works of the Law.

This does not follow from what you've presented so far. It only follows from keeping the law "by faith, and that not of yourselves"

For the Law merely brings awareness of sin.

Which law are you referring to? God's holiness doesn't bring an awareness of sin to God, the entire celestial host of heaven or anyone else. One cannot really have an awareness of sin without actually sinning in one's heart. Transgressing God's law brings an awareness of sin, but transgressing God's law is not keeping God's law; apples and oranges. Paul even clarifies by referring to it as "the law of sin" which should never be conflated with what is spiritual, holy or good.

and how could that work if we were able to keep it?

It doesn't work. One doesn't have an awareness of sin until they transgress God's commandments.

It is the lack of ability to keep it when we should be able to keep it that points us to our need to repent.

No, the lack of ability doesn't point to repentance. The lack of ability points out that we can't even repent. Repentance is a gift from God and that gift points us to the only solution available; "Christ in you, your only hope of salvation". The old nature, the old man is damned. The new creature cannot sin because the faith of Christ cannot fail. The new creature simply doesn't have the ability to sin anymore than a fish has the ability to breathe air through lungs.

The law is not given to those who are righteous such as the holy angels who can keep it, but to sinners who cannot in fact keep it: 1 Timothy 1:8-10 Now we know that the law is good, if one uses it lawfully, understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the ...

Just so I'm sure we're on the same page here, when you say "can" you mean they do keep it, right? The law used lawfully is kept in one's heart which is the heart God gave them to keep it. (Jer.31:33; Ezekiel 11:19; Heb. 10:16)

[ASIDE: Funny, if Adam and Eve were innocent, ie, NOT lawless and disobedient, why were they put under the command not to eat?]

Because they were innocent, not knowing good and evil. To transgress God's law, and then be told the same thing again would render transgression meaningless. There is no point in telling someone who has already transgressed God's command to then not transgress the command, "or else".

I may be wrong here, but I've seen others use this term "under" in different ways. Paul uses it to spotlight that those who transgress God's law are "under the law" IF they are within the covenant, therefore they are judged by that covenant Those who are outside the law are also dead in their sins dying outside the law covenant. Paul also points out that believers who still continue to sin (not to be confused with those who "walk after the spirit") are "under the law to Christ". In other words, they must continue to rely upon Christ's sacrifice to cover their sins.

Every failure to keep the law or to love is another reason to repent.

And all efforts to repent are useless if the gift of repentance is not supplied by God. When God supplies the gift of repentance, then the old man is dead and the new creation begins to keep God's commandments.

[shnarkle]

[Replying to post 5 by Overcomer]

why did God give humanity list after list of what sacrifices were needed to atone for various sins as listed in the Book of Leviticus?

Because the sacrificial system was put in place to deal with those who can't help but sin. Those who continue to sin have yet to be reborn as a new creature in Christ, and are still "under the law". Therefore they must continue to rely upon the sacrifice of Christ to cover their sin

When Adam and Eve sinned, what did God do? He killed an animal and clothed their nakedness with the skin, the first sacrifice done to cover them physically, the ensuing sacrifices done to cover them spiritually.

The sacrificial system can never be used to justify sin which is why the texts point out that God desires "a humble and contrite heart", repentance, obedience, etc. rather than sacrifice. Sacrifice is explicitly meant as the solution for sins of the flesh, but that is only until one recieves faith.

The spirit leads one to keep God's law while the flesh leads one to sin which can only be remedied with the gift of repentance and sacrifice, both provided by God. When faith has come, one becomes a new creature in Christ and no longer sins, thus doing away with the need for sacrifice (e.g."that which was added because of transgressions"). This is explicitly what Paul means when he points out that those who walk after the spirit no longer fulfill the lusts of the flesh.

Martin Luther noted that anyone who did what were considered "good works" apart from God was still a sinner. So-called "good works" don't impress God if the person performing them has not recognized their sins, confessed and repented of them, and accepted Christ's atonement of them.

Repentance is a work of the law. It is only the Spirit that can reveal one's sin, and then provide the gift of repentance. One needn't accept Christ's atoning sacrifice due to the fact that Christ died while we were yet still sinners. The acceptance is part of the whole process provided by God. Martin Luther had it right, but to then turn around and suggest that anything that follows is due to anything we've done is a refutation of his words, and as you so accurately point out:

Such a person remains dead in his sins, with a spirit that is dead to God. Good deeds do not earn salvation. It's a gift given to those who recognize that they cannot earn salvation.

In other words, one's free will and effort are useless in salvation (Romans 9:16) You can't choose Christ. He chooses you. Paul calls it "election". You do not do the selecting. You are elected.

Yes, he condemned the Pharisees for their hard hearts and empty rituals, but it wasn't and still isn't a matter of a person attempting to do what is right. As I noted in another thread, God didn't send Jesus to make bad people good. He sent Jesus to make dead people alive. This is what people fail to understand -- that they're dead in sin, that their spirits are dead and will remain dead unless they accept Christ and he brings them alive.

I'm with you on this until you get to the part where you say "unless they accept". Dead people can't accept anything; they're dead. When Jesus tells Lazarus to come forth from the grave, Lazarus can't do anything of the sort unless and until God gives him the ears to hear. More to the point, Lazarus doesn't have a choice in the matter. The dead have no choice, and those who are brought to life have no choice either. One need look no further than the delivery room of any hospital to see that infants have no choice in the matter, and when one is returned to that state of innocence as only one who has been begotten of God can, it is a "no-brainer". There simply is no choice.

When we accept Christ,..

You're still under the impression that you have to do something which is exactly how the Old Testament method operated. It was based upon your decision to accept God's will, and Paul is clear in pointing out that the Old Testament system was insufficient to save anyone. God doesn't wait for you to accept Christ. He draws you to him. God draws you to acceptance of Christ. I suspect you already knew this, but others might not get it with your articulation.

Until people recognize their sinfulness and the fact that they cannot change it, they will never see the need for the Saviour who is the only one who can and will and does change it.

Yes! Very true!

People who think they're good enough for God without Jesus don't understand that and that misunderstanding is their downfall. Entering into a relationship with Jesus is what it's all about.

I disagree, and you will probably think I'm engaging in semantics here, but I see it quite a bit differently because Christ himself points out that "Apart from me, you can do nothing". So it has nothing to do with understanding at all. The fact is that we are already intimately connected to Christ in a relationship with the Father while we were dead in our sins; we just didn't, or don't know it.

Christ came in sinful flesh which conceals his identity from those who are blind to the truth, and even while we are dead in our sins, the Father is drawing us to Christ as he conforms us to his image.

[shnarkle]

[Replying to post 6 by 1213]

I have understood that people wanted to sacrifice, and that is why God gave rules for it.

People do not want to sacrifice. Sacrifice isn't necessary for those who are created to keep God's law, but those who do sin need to know that there is a way to stop sinning, and it begins with understanding the nature of sin. Sin leads directly to death, but the irony is that death to one's self is also the way to eternal life so it's a win/win.

The rules God gave supply us with insights into our sinful nature. For example, it is a fundamental principle of the law that when one sins unintentionally, or accidentally the remedy is sacrifice, and (if necessary) restitution. However, if one sins intentionally, sacrifice is in no way a remedy.

Thus when one comes to an understanding of the sacrifice of Christ and then sins intentionally, their sin is not covered. Because it is making a mockery of the sacrificial system, and Christ's sacrifice. This is explicitly what is articulated in the letter to the Hebrews (Heb.10:26).

[shnarkle]

[Replying to post 7 by Elijah John]

Blood sacrifice is associated with pagan polythieism.

What is preventing anyone from associating it with the sacrificial system as it was carried out by the Patriarchs? Noah was righteous and walked with God, and yet God told Noah to bring seven pairs of clean animals onto the Ark, and use them to offer sacrifice. Noah is not a pagan. He obeys YHVH.

nothing about "believing in the blood sacrifice" of the coming Messiah. That would have been human sacrifice, unthinkable to the Jews of the time. And far from enlightened, and in fact, primitive and barbaric.

The gospel narratives depict a man who knows his bible, and calls all who would follow to "deny themselves, pick up their own cross, and follow", not because blood sacrifice covers sin, but because that is what the whole sacrificial system pointed to. It pointed out that one has to die to their own life. Jesus himself points out that it isn't what is offered, "the gold", but the alter itself within the holy of holies. It isn't the temple, but what is housed inside that is holy. So too, it is the same with the body. The temple is where the sacrifice takes place.

[shnarkle]

[Replying to post 8 by JehovahsWitness]

EXODUS 29:41-42 - NWT

You will offer the second young ram at twilight, along with the same grain and drink offerings as in the morning. You will render it as a pleasing aroma, an offering made by fire to Jehovah. It is to be a regular burnt offering throughout your generations at the entrance of the tent of meeting before Jehovah ,


Does the above sound like a concession to accept something unclean, offensive and essentially displeasing or a divine requirement for something God Himself designed and requested? The law is full of dozens of specific sacrificial requirements, it's one thing to make a concession but adding so many would only serve to make them an embedded part of the culture.

You make a good point here, but something also doesn't quite add up. I'm not speaking for anyone else here, but I think what others are pointing out is that when one begins to see that the sacrificial system is pointing to self sacrifice, they no longer have to offer a ram when they have already sacrificed themselves. Once that occurs, they no longer sin, and no sin requires no sacrifice.

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but would you say that you are "under the law",i.e. under the Mosaic law covenant? My assumption is that you wouldn't make that claim, correct?

If you are not entered into that covenant, then how does one then make any claims to being covered by a sacrificial system they are no part of? If Jesus came to fulfill any laws, it can be none other than the Mosaic law, and the Mosaic law doesn't allow one to offer sacrifice for someone else's sin; at the very least those outside that covenant.

To then say, as others commonly do; that Christ's sacrifice covers all sins without one necessarily having to be brought under the terms of the covenant indicates a God who is playing favorites, and most notably has a double standard. For example, Paul points out that those who failed due to a lack of obedience to God's commands are cut off, but even though they remain cut off, anyone who is now "saved" can sin with impunity. I say this because I routinely hear people admit that they still continue to sin, but are still covered.

When a woman had a baby YHWH asked for a sacrifice, when a man made a vow YHWH asked for a sacrifice, when the people harvested their crop YHWH asked for a sacrifice, when the nation wanted forgiveness for sins YHWH asked for a sacrifice, when a person was healed of a serious illness YHWH asked for a sacrifice, when a person celebrated a blessingYHWH asked for a sacrifice, ... and on and on. Does that SOUND like a reluctant concession to something God disliked but tolerated?


If a father is against his children watching television, he may have one in the house as a concession, but what message would be communicated if he put a tv in every room and MANDATED they watch tv at least three times a day?

This is a great analogy! However, I think it is slightly inaccurate, but only in missing the message. It is more like this: The father is against his children getting dirty, tracking filth and grime into the clean house. The remedy is a shower, as well as bringing out all the soaps, cleansers, the deep steam cleaning rug cleaner, the pine sol, etc. This is a necessary fact of life when children can't remember that playing in mud and tracking it into the house isn't acceptable.

The problem is that eventually you will have carpet stains that will not come out which means more cleaning isn't going to cut through all that grease and grime. The solution is to simply get new carpeting.

When they grow up and know better, they stop it. This is what is meant by doing away with the mechanism that "was added because of transgressions". No transgressions = no need for a sacrificial system.

[shnarkle]

[Replying to post 9 by Elijah John]

[Replying to post 8 by JehovahsWitness]

Quote:
22 For I spake not unto your fathers, nor commanded them in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt offerings or sacrifices:
23 But this thing commanded I them, saying, Obey my voice, and I will be your God, and ye shall be my people: and walk ye in all the ways that I have commanded you, that it may be well unto you.
Jeremiah 7.22-23

Great quotation! However, this is dealing with those who keep God's commandments, not with those who violate them. Those who violate them must rely upon God's mercy and justice, but that is not without sacrifice. You're talking about God's plan A, while others are referring to plan B for those who are not ready to stop sinning just yet.

It amazes me that so many people would rather cling to the most primitive and barbaric ideas about God when the Bible itself offers clear and more enlightened alternatives. Jesus also tried to bring enlightenment, but don't it beat all, Paul and his disciples (the RCC and it's offshoots) just went and made a "blood sacrifice" out of him!

It isn't that Paul made a blood sacrifice out of him, but that self sacrifice is "the way". Christ and Paul both enjoin those who would follow Christ to essentially offer themselves as a sacrifice as well. Christ refers to it as denying yourself, and picking up your cross, while Paul refers to it as sacrificing yourself daily. A modern day equivalent idea would be The Grateful Dead. When one is dead, they no longer sin.

[shnarkle]

[Replying to post 10 by Mithrae]

He broke and taught his followers to break at least two of the ten commandments (Sabbath and honor for parents),

Could you please document where you're getting this idea from, and why you've come to this conclusion? All of the examples I can think of don't point to Jesus teaching his followers to break the Sabbath or dishonor their parents.

proclaimed himself superior to them, declared that he had better answers about divorce than Moses also,

Again, please document why you have come to this conclusion.

and insisted that the kingdom of God was replacing or 'fulfilling' the Torah.

I don't think fulfilling the Torah, necessarily replaces the Torah. Fulfilling God's will doesn't replace God's will. I suspect these ideas are a conflation of what the texts state with Christian doctrines.

[shnarkle]

[Replying to post 11 by ttruscott]

Matthew 19:8 Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. implies that our sinfulness against our unwanted wives and the the abuse that would be put upon them if we were forced to live with them had HIM set the law to lessen the opportunity for sin in our lives against our spouses.

I don't deny that there's something to this idea, but I think the explicit statement takes precedence. In other words, hard hearted people shouldn't get married, but if they do then God's grace reigns. At no time does Jesus allow for marriage to those who are explicitly allowed to get divorced for any reason under the sun because of their hard hearts.