Leviticus 19:19 warns us, `You shall keep my statutes. You shall not let your livestock breed with another kind. You shall not sew your field with mixed seed. Nor shall a garment of mixed linen and wool come upon you.`
A similar statement is made in Deuteronemy 22:11, `You shall not wear a garment of different sorts, such as wool and linen mixed together.`
One could surmise from this that The Lord has a `thing` against certain types of clothing, salad blends, or perhaps even the tastey Beeffalo. However this would be missing the point for today, as we are no longer bound to Levitical Law because of The New Covenant in Christ.
Paul clearly brings these Old Testament Laws into New Covenant focus in Galatians 1:8-9, `But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again, if anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have recieved, let him be accursed.`
These are strong, and clear words that leave very little room for error in interpretation. There is no arguable double meaning to confuse, no room to wriggle into something more comfortable, accommodating, or less exclusive. We know from all of Scripture that God, is a God of absolutes and accepts no substitutes when it concerns to His Word.
The Bible confirms we are made by God in His image. I believe this is why, in a sense, we seek what is pure and perfect in the world when it comes to what we desire from it.
No one seeks a new car with some mechanical defect, or a scratch in the paint. When we see something like this we walk by, and look to the next opportinity. Women who are moderately handsom do not grace the cover of magazines selling the latest fasions, or we might shun the clothes. When we look at diamonds, we seek to find the clearest, brightest, most cleanly cut specimen to adorn the finger of our intended, and the jeweler never seeks to use gold of marginal quality in his wears. As parents, we hope and pray that our children are born with all the fingers and toes in the perfect place, and in the right amount.
This being true, it is tragic we so easily and carelessly turn our hand against the perfection of The Word. Daily many will cut out those parts that seem somehow wrong to us, sew on odd limbs of interpretation, and fuse our weakly woven earthly agendas into the fabric of the ephod our Creator spun to fit us with great precision, and loving care. The result men of such arrogance produce is an ill fitting garment that may appear warm and wonderful at a glance, but upon closer inspection will always reveal its flaws. The shoddy sticthing of inept and foolish hands leave gaps in the panels, and these errors will not cease to expose the shameful sin of presumption, when the Masters` design is at last set before it for all to see.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
15 comments:
I'm glad to see that even though you say that we can't cut out those parts that seem wrong to us that we are still permitted to cut out the Levitical law. That, of course, means that we no longer need to view homosexuality as an abomination, or stone disobedient children.
And I would suppose that the 2000+ verses in the Bible about taking care of those in poverty could rightly constitute a keystone of the true gospel, wouldn't you agree? So those preaching a "health and wealth" gospel are to be accursed and being in the top 10% of the wealthy of the world while thousands of children daily starve to death should drive us to our knees, right?
To use your metaphor, I'm saddened that we seem too often to worry about a missing button, while the garment is missing a sleeve! The word of God is indeed powerful and I need it to motivate me to better actions in service of God. I have to live on this earth until that day that God calls me home when I expect to be examined for the life I led. Does anyone really think that God will be pleased with an answer like, "I'm sorry that I didn't do much to alleviate the suffering around me that I knew about, but I did have solid faith in you and believed true doctrine. I confessed my sin to you and you forgave me and saved me, right?"?
Actually, the bible is concerned with poverty as a result of injustice and poverty as result of circumstances external to the poor person- poverty as a result of sloth and laziness is a grotesque sin not to be enabled by coercive income redistribution systems enacted by elites that live parasitaically off the poor and others.
It is not either or, it is both and. Sound doctrine produces right living. Without right theology, we may well assist in sending full bellied sinners to hell.
Homosexuality is constantly condmened inscripture, that is irrefutable - it is detrimental to human flourishing and is anti - creation.
I think, respectfully Ian, that your observation misses the point. No one that I take seriously as a sage or wise person would ever suggest we could coer up for lack of works by reminding God of our right doctrine, for the lack of works is the fruit of wrong doctrine sinfully maintained.
I think mkz has offered some brilliant analogies, anfd those that endorese any other gospel need fear for thier souls, for to do so is to make shipwreck of another human being. One cannot be fully human absent a Christian conversion worught by the power of God. All other religious systems result in "not man". To that end we strive to ensure salvation both for ourselves and for others.
Anything else is from the evil one.
HO, I'm really wondering what Bible you read.
The Bible is chock full of instructions to care for the widow and the orphan, specifically those who did nothing to create their poverty. Jesus' healings show us God's love for those who did nothing to deserve their fate. This is a resounding note intoned again and again in scripture. And as for coerced income redistribution, that is God's idea, we are to give from our abundance specifically because it does not belong to us but to God.
I'll admit that I couldn't resist the opening to send a zinger about homosexuality, and I'll also concede that this is not yet the post the discuss that issue, BUT there is no way that anyone can credibly argue that "homosexuality is constantly condemned in scripture." There are precious few references, far too few to use an expression like "constantly condemned." If you want to argue for something that is constantly condemned, then I suggest you return to the topic I raise, i.e. executing justice for the oppressed, specifically the economically oppressed.
As for right doctrine leading to right living, we agree. I believe that we agree that one who believes rightly would never be capable of stating what I suggested in my first post. But don't you think that there are people who don't believe correctly and do believe that confessing their sins and trusting God for grace is all that is needed to "get into heaven?"
Good day Ian, and a Merry Christmas to you and yours.
I know you have a better knowledge of scripture than to seriously say we can disregard Levitecus, I submit Matthew 5:17-20 for your review.
If we have Salvation in Christ, and are truly indwelt by the Holy Spirit, we will bear fruit. I believe while this benefits us to a degree, the fruit produced is for the Glory of God, and to feed the needs of the spiritually, and physically hungry. It is the mandate of Jesus that every believer give of himself to those who have not, tragically so many brothers fail in this, because they put their reliance on their own abilities to provide, rather than in Christs`. Health and wealth? this is not a gospel Ian, it is a corporate buisness agenda from Hell, and twists the Word of God in ways that should bring every Christian to their knees in prayer for the souls of those who speak it, and those of the decieved who are lead away from the Gospel of Christ by it.
James 2:14 says all that needs to be said about faith without works, like the heart of a man without Christ, it is dead.
Anywhere in the Bible you can go, and read of a reference to sex of any kind, outside of the marriage bed it is called sin. This would include homosexuality, as marriage is Biblicaly specific as being between a man and a woman. To tell anyone Gods` Word suggests otherwise is to presume one knows better than God. This is a dangerous precipice, and one best left to another post. But brother Ian, I will say that you are just plain wrong in your statement that the Bible is scarce in it`s condemnation of abberant sexual behavior. I feel a post on the subject of homosexuality is on its` way in the near future, as I have a personal perspective from both sides of the fence on this one, I feel somewhat qualified to present some convincing arguments.
Sorry gentlemen, an error, my refference in James should read `James 2:14-26` please apply in consideration of my post.
I do agree that people think signing a card gets them to heaven. But of course that is contrary to scripture.
Each time homosexuality appears in scripture, it is condemned - perhaps a better choice of words on my part would have been "consistently condemned". You are right that "constantly" does seem to indicate substantial quanitity of references. I could have said that it is always and without exception condemned by God.
I never disagreed with the fact that caring for widows orphans and strangers is repeated throughout scripture. I don't get the "I don't know what bible you read" part. In fact if you reread my post, you will see that I in no way disparaged poverty that was not result of personal failing. Neither would I discourage helping those that became poor as result of thier living - if the goal was for them to once again enjoy the dignity of work and production.
God instituted tithing in theocratic Israel, with specifics for its administration and use. In New Testament coerced giving is entirely foriegn, and indeed in the OT the tithe was initially a free will offering.
God does not endorse the state to tax for godless purposes, in which case there would be more for the genuine poor. He also advised (through Paul)that if one did not work, neither should they eat (in proper context and assuming ability)
I would never argue against justice for the oppressed, but I am sure you and I would lock horns as to how to define the oppressed in our society, even while agreeing on the more obvious and glaring ones.
SO perhaps we do not disagree on as much as you think. My concern is that Christmas not be hijacked by factions that think that Jesus came to bring peace on earth and end poverty. He surely demanded that, but the worlds failure to do that is part and parcel of the sin that required His sacrifice.
By the way, I have been to Haiti and seen genuine, grotesque poverty. And while there I have seen genuine greed and coveteousness. We should never address one to the exclusion of the other. Wouldn't you agree?
mkz, you were the first to allow for a move away from levitical law, I was simply furthering the thought.
I also find it interesting that HO points out the difference between theocratic Israel and the church of the NT (and I would assume by extension, the church today).
Both of you are clearly advocating a view of scripture that allows for changes in requirements/expectations from earlier to later. Then you seem to imply that there are still very clear lines on what otherwise could be considered a slippery slope.
Ian
there has been no abrogation of any laws at all. The ceremonial laws in Israel were (among other things ) a refection of the set apart character God intended for His people. In a sense those things prefigured the spiritual reality that is the Christian, shadows the passed away with the concrete substance. And in that milieau they were part of a future which was repeated throughout the OT.
The lines and distinctions are clear and in thier respective covenantal setting have distinct meaning.
In any case, if scripture is not inspired of God, you have nothing to be concerned with - it is merely a human convention to be discarded as soon as it causes tension.
Fulfillment of The Law in Christ dose not eliminate it, Christ said as much, or do you discount Matthew 5:17 as Christ telling a `little white lie`?
The circumstance between the Old and New Covenent did change, The Law, while defining Gods` will for us could not save us, only the perfect sacrifice of Jesus, who is the complete package of The Law in living flesh could atone for our disobedience to The Law. Sin is still sin, and Christ is still the only way to salvation, nothing about this has changed.
HO, so if the ceremonial laws were a shadow, what authority do they have? Peter's vision declared that all things were now clean. So does that mean that only kosher laws no longer apply, or that all that made a person unclean no longer applies? Surely the latter.
And so, if Christ sacrifice is the only way to salvation, the only way to atone for our disobedience, and it is bestowed by grace not works, and the law is fulfilled, then what is to keep me from complete disobedience of the former law now fulfilled and simply bank on the grace of God to save me?
The ceremonial laws had complete authority in thier old covenant setting.
Peter initially did not go to the gentiles because he considered them unclean. God showed him that the gospel for is everyone - His dream was in context of bringing the gospel. In fact he still struggles with legalism well into his fifties I imagine (see Galatians)
Jesus taught that what comes out of a man defiles him, not what goes into him.
As to your other question, if you knew your wife would never leave you if you committed adultery, would you run out and commit adultery? Why not say let us sin so that grace may abound? (Paul)
The law is good and holy, and by it we know the character of God and the type of person he would have us to be. The atonement makes one a child of God and unites him inseperably to God. If the root is good, so too the branches and indeed we know a tree by its fruit.
What keeps me from complete disobedience? Grace. A desire, wrought by God, to please him. A heart of flesh - God's spirit in me causing me to walk in His way - to strive for it. Sanctification is the process of becoming more human and it cannot happen without renewal and conversion by the Holy Spirit.If you want me to explain exactly how that works, I am sorry I can't! You know, the whole wind bloweth where it listeth thing, etc.!
Ian, If one is truly saved in Christ, and the Holy Spirit truly dwells within him, then the friut of that salvation is a need to obey the Law fulfilled in Christ. Salvation, as OP said is not a free pass to sin. If a `Christian` convincingly feels sin, or as the point of this blog asserts, editing the Word of God for the comfort of men, is just O.K. because the Lord sent His Son to die a pure sacrifice to pay for all sin anyway, then I submit to you said `Christian` would do well to thoroughly recheck Scripture, and even more so his `Salvation`.
Of course my questions were "set-ups" to see where the discussion might go. Both of you have shown some tenderness in your responses, something I welcome. That is really what I am seeking; a place where we celebrate grace, where we can say "thank God for God" and know that each and every one of us has a shot because God loves us madly!
Thank God for God!! AMEN!
God bless you, Ian and praise God in all His soverienty and grace.
Post a Comment