Pre Cross versus Post Cross doctrines

Can you list any teachings of Jesus that changed with His death?

Here are a few examples.

Tithing versus cheerful giver (Matt 23:23 vs 2Co 9:7)

Keeping the law versus saved by grace through faith. (Mat 19:17 vs Eph 2:8)

Forgive or you won't be forgiven - or forgive because you have been forgiven. (Mat 6:15 vs Col 3:13)



Jesus Rules!

Where would you like to start?

Jesus was not wanting to start any church or sect or party. What he was about was to ameliorate the worst aspects of 'keeping the law'. Thus he demonstrated that one could heal the sick of the Sabbot.

Paul missed this aspect and went his own way and was not really interested in Jesus at all.

It was only after the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD, that the Gospels were written and the whole aspect of what Jesus taught was moulded into something else. The reason - because the sacrificial aspects of Judaism came to a halt with the destruction of the Temple. Another sacrificial system had to be found - and Jesus death fitted rather nicely.

So it was not just that some things changed - the whole aspect of what Jesus meant changed. What you are picking up on is those areas where the evidence exists that such changes were made - sort of the impression of a fingerprint from another era.

It seems somewhat misleading to me to say that any of Jesus' teachings were nullified by His death. Frankly, to read anything in the New Testament as "cancelling" Jesus' teachings strikes me as evidence of poor biblical interpretation.

The flaw that I see in the reasoning quoted above seems to begin in the second assertion ("keeping the law vs. save by grace"). Implicit in this assertion is that legalism was something that Jesus taught and that grace had no place in Jesus' teachings. This is, however, not the case, as John the Evangelist makes clear throughout His gospel (See, e.g, 3:16-18; 6:35-40; 11:25-26). In Matthew 19:17, Jesus responds to a direct question posed to Him in v. 16: "What good thing must I do to get eternal life?" The rich young man was missing the point and was looking to his own efforts as the means of his salvation. Jesus uses this as a teaching opportunity taking advantage of the the young man's insight that his obedience has so far been insufficient to illustrate why his obedience is insufficient. The reason that he has not found the key to eternal life is that his material possessions are keeping him from relying on God. He is not condemned because of his lack of works, despite his faith; he is condemned because of his lack of faith, as evidenced by his materialistic actions.

The relationship between our faith and our actions is further illustrated by James and John. James tells us that faith without works is dead. (Js. 2:26. John tells us that "anyone who does not love remains in death" and that "anyone who does not do what is right is not a child of God." (1 John 3:14, 10). So, does this contradict the teachings of Paul in, e.g., Eph. 2:8-9? I don't believe it does. What I believe has happened in the modern church is that we have an incorrect understanding of what it means to have faith. The author of Hebrews tells us that "faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see." (Heb. 11:1) When we are sure or certain of something, this inevitably affects the way we conduct our lives in relation to that thing. Thus, if we are sure of the promises of God, we will act as though they are true. This interpretation is evidenced by the remainder of Hebrews 11, which proceeds to illustrate faith through the actions and choices of Old Testament heroes. In this context to be saved by grace, through faith, does not mean that obedience is not an aspect of our salvation. It merely changes the emphasis from the action to the state of mind that brings about the action. In other words, we are not saved because we do good works; we are saved because we God has grace on us, and even though our works are insufficient to justify us, God's grace looks to the attitude and the desire of our heart to obey Him, rather than our success rate in living out this desire. It is made clear throughout the NT (including Paul's writings -- see e.g., Rom. 6), however, that faith inevitably entails a change in our choices and actions (ie., "works").

Jesus taught the same as His followers in this regard. It is our belief in Christ that saves us. Our belief, however, if it is sincere affects our actions. Jesus never taught legalistic adherence to the Mosaic law as a means of salvation.

As for tithing vs. cheerful giving: this too strikes me as a misleading characterization. Jesus criticized the Pharisees for their legalism in living to the letter of the law, no more and no less, while neglecting the very principles of justice the law was intended to promote. There are some today who use Paul's statement that "God loves a cheerful giver" in much the same way. They say, "I can't be cheerful about tithing, so I will just give less, so that I can be cheerful about it." This attitude is the opposite of faithfulness. The problem with the person who cannot tithe cheerfully is not that the tithe is overly burdensome; it is that the person is ungrateful and fails to recognize that every asset that they own is a gift from God to use for His purposes. To be a cheerful giver is not about giving whatever amount will allow you to continue to live at a standard that you are accustomed to; it is to learn to be excited about giving sacrificially because you are grateful for what God is doing and because you value God's Kingdom more than money. "Cheerful givers" routinely give more generously than a mere tithe, but rarely are satisfied with giving little or nothing to the work of the Kingdom. True, the legalistic notion of giving exactly 10% is not supported by Paul (or by Jesus, for that matter). Rather, we are called to give generously and cheerfully, which I believe generally implies that the tithe is minimal at best.

The third point about forgiveness is also problematic. Jesus and Paul were both making the same basic point, but from different perspectives. The point is that if we have faith and if we value God's forgiveness, we will forgive others. When we refuse to forgive others, this is because we are not assured of God's forgiveness of us. If we are not assured of God's forgivess, we do not have faith. And, as has been stated already, if we do not have faith, we have not yet chosen to receive God's grace -- and are "unsaved".

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

A Nicaraguan woman, named Ivania, helping to build her new home in Bello Amanecer, Nicaragua.
Please pray for the people of Santa Lucia and Bello Amanecer, Nicaragua.

Dear wayseer. The Bible is God talking to Man, written by God-inspired men and women, accepted and loved by thousands upon thousands Christian men and women. Although doctrines may change, but our God will never change. Jesus showed us God, as He really is, and no doctrine will change that. The Bible might not be as everyone wants it to be, but it is still the world-wide accepted Word of God. Pre Cross, the O.T. is mainly a History of the Israelites and their Prophets, but Jesus did not come to nullify it. I say this humbly and with love, wayseer. Greetings from Emmy, sister in Christ.

I wasn’t trying to be misleading, but to inspire discussion.

I am working on this doctrine and would like more input from others.

The angle I am coming from is:

Col 2:14 Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;

And also the Death of the Testator is required before the Covenant takes force.

Heb 9:16-17 For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. (17) For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth.

What ordinances were blotted out? And who is affected?

Jesus Rules!

Interesting angle. But where does this fit in with your OP where you asked about changing the teaching of Jesus?

Thank you. I don't think I've suggested otherwise - doctrines do change but God's message is still one of love.

Christ’s teachings in the Gospels (pre cross) were often supportive of keeping the laws. He also emphasized the Spirit of the Law too (telescoping the Post cross doctrines). The law of grace couldn’t have come into effect until after His death. So some of the things He was teaching pre-cross that seemed to support the laws now don’t contradict with the post-cross teachings of grace because of the timing in which the covenant took effect.


I am having problems with this of course, henceforth the post. But I have noticed that some pastors don’t distinguish any difference between what Jesus taught pre-cross with the post-cross teachings. They lump them together like the death of the testator never happened! To me it looks like there are a few differences that have to do with us now being under grace and Christ being the End of the Law (Rom 10:4).

The handwriting of ordinances (Col 2:14) that were nailed to the cross was still in effect until the death of the Testator (Heb 9:16,17).


Don’t rake me over the coals! This is a doctrine I am looking for input on!

Jesus Rules!

I am not trying to rake you over the coals. I do, however, notice that Jesus seems to teach the same message of salvation by faith that is taught throughout the epistles, especially the espistles of Paul. I don't see that Jesus is ever saying that the way to get on God's good side is to obey the law. Rather, he says in many different contexts that the key to eternal life is belief (faith) and nothing more. In addition, he even violated the Mosaic law, himself (e.g., by "working" on the sabbath). Meanwhile, the epistle writers make clear that sincere faith always leads to action (in this case obedience).

You do make some good points that are worthy of consideration, especially concerning Col. 2:14 and Heb. 9:16-17. If the law was cancelled by being "nailed to the cross" and the new convenant resembles a testamentary gift, requiring the death of the testator, then we would need a death and a cross for this new order to go into effect. But, Jesus, however, seemlingly taught according to this new convenant during His teaching ministry prior to the Cross. The teachings found in the epistles seem to support and apply Jesus' teachings rather than contradicting them.

I don't think that the before/after thing is as big a deal for God as it is for us. Perhaps the cross and the resurrection should be seen as evidence, if not proof, of Christ's spiritual authority to enter into this new covenant. Thus, for example, the act of nailing the code to the cross is not to be seen as the cause of the obliteration of the "law", but rather the proof that Jesus had the authority that he had already exercised in forgiving sins and nullifying legalistic standards. Just a thought. Perhaps, the new convenant went to into effect when Jesus began to teach it, but His death and resurrection legitimated it.

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

A Nicaraguan woman, named Ivania, helping to build her new home in Bello Amanecer, Nicaragua.
Please pray for the people of Santa Lucia and Bello Amanecer, Nicaragua.

I think it is very difficult to work out from the scriptures which is a pre-Easter teaching and which is Post-Easter teaching. Remember, all the Gospels where written decades after Jesus' death and within a very different cultural climate - the temple had been destroyed. The Jesus Seminar has made an attempt in that direction.

But I think we can make some calculated guesses. It is of some interest that while Paul develops an understanding of salvation through the death of Jesus he does not see Jesus as offering himself as a sacrifice. What I'm thinking is that the whole concept of Jesus becoming a living sacrifice was a developing theology and not one which he nor his friends recognised at the time.

It is also clear that Jesus did not come to convert gentiles to Judaism. If fact one incident has him referring to gentiles as 'dogs' feeding from the crumbs dropped from the table of Judaism.

So there are some significant differences between what Jesus was teaching and we are taught what Jesus taught.

Many Pastors etc don't recognise the difference because in recognizing such differences they would have to also accept some Biblical inconsistencies which would, in turn, undermine their literalist position. So it is better not to talk about such matters and play it safe.