Jesus did not do away with the law in Mat 5:17

[Teofrastus]

What Jesus means is that there will be no revision of the law, that is, we will not continue along the legalistic path (Matt. 5:18). Instead, there will be a radical break that only faith can achieve. Paul tries to explain this. Only in faith is the fulfilment of the law, and that's why the law still remains to be fulfilled by a radical break with the old model of innocence and guilt. Instead of maintaining 'meaning' in our worldly life, by upholding our innocence and blaming the 'guilty,' we shall embrace faith and identify with sinful mankind. The saying "No one is good, except God alone" implies that solidarity is substituted for innocence and guilt (Mark 10:18). Jesus often talks in a way that makes people draw the opposite conclusion than what he actually means, "in order that 'they may indeed look, but not perceive, and may indeed listen, but not understand; so that they may not turn again and be forgiven'” (Mark 4:11-12). His point is that the sinner must reach rock bottom before he can be forgiven, and that's why he speaks in a way that lets the sinner misunderstand his message. Sinners shall continue on the path of innocence and sink lower and lower. This is the only way out for those people that cannot see the radical break that faith entails.

 

[Clare73]

What Jesus means is that there will be no revision of the law, that is, we will not continue along the legalistic path (Matt. 5:18). Instead, there will be a radical break that only faith can achieve. Paul tries to explain this. Only in faith is the fulfilment of the law, and that's why the law still remains to be fulfilled by a radical break with the old model of innocence and guilt. Instead of maintaining 'meaning' in our worldly life, by upholding our innocence and blaming the 'guilty,' we shall embrace faith and identify with sinful mankind. The saying "No one is good, except God alone" implies that innocence and guilt is substituted for solidarity (Mark 10:18). Jesus often talks in a way that makes people draw the opposite conclusion than what he actually means, "in order that 'they may indeed look, but not perceive, and may indeed listen, but not understand; so that they may not turn again and be forgiven'” (Mark 4:11-12). His point is that the sinner must reach rock bottom before he can be forgiven, and that's why he speaks in a way that lets the sinner misunderstand his message. Sinners shall continue on the path of innocence and sink lower and lower. This is the only way out for those people that cannot see the radical break that faith entails.

Jesus did not do away with the law, he did away with the curse of the law.

 

[Teofrastus]

Jesus did not do away with the law, he did away with the curse of the law.

Indeed, the law must remain for people to continue on the path of innocence and guilt, so that they eventually bottom out and come to faith. When there's no point anymore to continue our cultural lie about divine 'meaning' behind the good and bad that happens, then it is time to lift up the cross and come to faith. "God can be found only in suffering and the cross," says Luther (LW 31: 53), and then we are "sharing Christ's sufferings" (Phil. 3:10).

 

[fhansen]

Jesus did not do away with the law, he did away with the curse of the law.

Yes, and the curse of the law is not that it requires us to obey God-of course we must obey: sin separated us from Him to begin with and yet man was never created to sin. The curse of the law is that we cannot obey it unless we enter union-solidarity-with Him, and that's the purpose of faith: reconciliation between man and God now realized! IOW the law can only serve to condemn us, testifying to what we must do but lacking any power to accomplish it in us. Alienation from God has always been man's problem since Eden, when man first disobeyed, resulting in our exile here into this world where the "knowledge of God" is lost, and must be regained. God is man's power, our life.

Now, with God, we can do what is impossible to do without Him. That is the radical break that faith achieves, that allows us to finally obey, the right way, God's way, so that our righteousness may surpass that of the Pharisees and teachers of the law. It's summed up in the new covenant prophecy of Jer 31:

“I will put my law in their minds
and write it on their hearts.
I will be their God,
and they will be my people.
No longer will they teach their neighbor,
or say to one another, ‘Know the Lord,’
because they will all know me,
from the least of them to the greatest,”
declares the Lord.

 

[Dan Perez]

Please name one poster who ever said we have a free pass to sin. Or failing that, name one poster whose posts legitimately justify your concluding that they believe there is a free license to sin.


This argument actually works against your position, at least in one way as I will now demonstrate. In Mt 5:17-18, Jesus says the law will not pass away until "heaven and earth pass away". This certainly sounds like the Law is still in force since heaven and earth are still here.

But, as you point out, one needs to interpret scripture accounting for the Jewish culture in which it was written. Jesus is arguably drawing on a Biblical tradition of using apocalyptic language in a metaphorical sense to refer to events in the here and now. This is not mere speculation – we have concrete evidence. Isaiah writes:

10For the stars of heaven and their constellations
Will not flash forth their light;
The sun will be dark when it rises
And the moon will not shed its light

What was going on? Babylon was being destroyed, never to be rebuilt. And that has already happened.

Conclusion: Jesus is not necessarily speaking literally when He says the Law will last until heaven and earth pass away.

I would like to see some evidence to support this interpretation. From a logic of the passage perspective, what you are suggesting seems unworkable. Here is the whole passage:

Do not presume that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish, but to fulfill. 18 For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not [g]the smallest letter or stroke of a letter shall pass from the Law, until all is accomplished!

The "for" at the beginning of verse 18 tells us that verse 18 amplifies / continues the thought of verse 17. But verse 18 is decidedly about the timing of the end of the Law. This only makes sense if verse 17 were addressing matters related to the law coming to an end. But you are denying this. Let's see how the entire passage works on your interpretation:

Do not think I came to misinterpret Scripture. I came not to put forth false teaching but to teach the correct meaning of Scripture.. 18 For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not [g]the smallest letter or stroke of a letter shall pass from the Law, until all is accomplished!

See the problem? The "for" explanation of verse 18, which deals with the timing of the end of the law, is logically disconnected from a statement about false teaching vs correct teaching. No one would ever say "I am coming to teach law correctly for the law will be here till heaven and earth pass away". On the other hand, the text as actually rendered in the NASB manages the logical transition from verse 17 to 18 perfectly since both verses deal with matters of timing.

And Matt 5:17 is not the most quoted verse that Jesus did away then Law of Moses .

# 1 One is Isa 6:1-18

#2 Other is in Luke 13:34 and 35

#3 Other is in Acts 28:25-28 ''

And there v are others !!

dan p

 

[Teofrastus]

...

True. Furthermore, when Jesus talks about sin, he doesn't mean what people mean nowadays and what the Pharisees meant, which are transgressions against the cultural code. Rather, he means hardness of heart, unbelief, covetousness and idolatry. Not to heal the man with the withered hand on the Sabbath (Mark 3:1-6) would be hardness of heart, which is sinful. The law only serves a self-serving interest in the pursuit of innocence. Like Paul explains, it only increases sin, until the Gospel is the only way out. That's why Luther says that the nature and work of the hidden God (deus absconditus) is only recognizable "under the opposite form." The devil aggravates anxiety and guilt, until it finally becomes obvious in its consequences. But to identify sinfulness with alcoholism, for example, is too easy. Hardness of the heart, unbelief, etc., are much harder to turn around. Such people must sink very low. That's why so many people today are so evil and nasty.

 

[Clare73]

And Matt 5:17 is not the most quoted verse that Jesus did away then Law of Moses .

# 1 One is Isa 6:1-18

#2 Other is in Luke 13:34 and 35

#3 Other is in Acts 28:25-28 ''

And there v are others !!

dan p

Jesus did away with the curse of the law of Moses for those who believe in and trust on him and his atoning work for the remission of their sin and who walk in obedience to the NT word of God.

 

[Clare73]

True. Furthermore, when Jesus talks about sin, he doesn't mean what people mean nowadays and what the Pharisees meant, which are transgressions against the cultural code.

That is a misrepresentation of what the Pharisees taught, and of what their sin was regarding the law.

Rather, he means hardness of heart, unbelief, covetousness and idolatry. Not to heal the man with the withered hand on the Sabbath (Mark 3:1-6) would be hardness of heart, which is sinful.

Are you saying Jesus was required by Mosaic law to heal that man in order to be not guilty of hardness of heart?

What about all the other afflicted that he did not heal?

The law only serves a self-serving interest in the pursuit of innocence. Like Paul explains, it only increases sin, until the Gospel is the only way out. That's why Luther says that the nature and work of the hidden God (deus absconditus) is only recognizable "under the opposite form." The devil aggravates anxiety and guilt, until it finally becomes obvious in its consequences. But to identify sinfulness with alcoholism, for example, is too easy. Hardness of the heart, unbelief, etc., are much harder to turn around. Such people must sink very low. That's why so many people today are so evil and nasty.

Sinfulness is identified with our fallen nature with which we are born, and which manifests in all varieties of disobedience and indulgence, all of which are sin; gluttony, covetousness, alcoholism, sexual addiction and perversion, theft, etc.

 

[Teofrastus]

That is a misrepresentation of what the Pharisees taught, and of what their sin was regarding the law.

Are you saying Jesus was required by Mosaic law to heal that man in order to be not guilty of hardness of heart?

What about all the other afflicted that he did not heal?

Sinfulness is identified with our fallen nature with which we are born, and which manifests in all varieties of disobedience and indulgence, all of which are sin; gluttony, covetousness, alcoholism, sexual addiction and perversion, theft, etc.

There were different kinds of Pharisees, and Jesus appears to have been confronted by the more radical among them. On the other hand, Nicodemus was a Pharisee, and he evidently believed that Jesus was sent from God. So, it is not so clear-cut that Pharisaism means staunch legalism. However, Pharisaism means today that the cultural code takes precedence before the righteousness of God. It means that the Pharisees are alive and well. Today, they have taken possession of the Christian Church.

According to Luther, Christians are divided into two theological schools: theologia gloriae and thelogia crucis. The former is Pharisaic in that it is moralistic and offers steps for a godly life and the overcoming of sin. But these steps are according to human culture and not according to the righteousness of God. It does not lead to salvation, only faith does. As Paul realized, the heathen are even better at following the premises of social life, despite the fact that they have never heard of the law. So, "proper behaviour in human society" (e.g., do not steal, do not commit adultery, etc.) belongs to human nature and culture. It has not much to do with God (although God might condone a well-functioning society). This has been verified by cognitive science and social science. So, in their own society, the barbarians weren't more barbaric than the Jews.

The healing of the man with the withered arm implies the negation of the law as a way to salvation and freeing of sin. You cannot become "innocent before God" by abstaining from gluttony, theft, etc., only innocent before other people. To think that one can climb a ladder to God is in itself covetousness. Coveting is a quest for power and worldly meaning. The person wants to count for something, to acquire status and self-significance. This is how we are, on account of original sin. So, if you think that you can count for something before God, by sanitizing yourself from cultural "sin" and becoming clean, then you're only being utterly human, following in the path of original sin. You only make matters worse, and the longer you go the more sinful you get. That's why Jesus says: "So the last shall be first, and the first last: for many be called, but few chosen" (Matt. 20:16).

Faith implies the negation of the cultural "God," the way in which we have projected our own human nature on God. We have dressed him up in our own clothes and forced him to carry the role as the foundation of human morality. It is immoral to believe in such a "God."

 

[Clare73]

There were different kinds of Pharisees, and Jesus appears to have been confronted by the more radical among them. On the other hand, Nicodemus was a Pharisee, and he evidently believed that Jesus was sent from God. So, it is not so clear-cut that Pharisaism means staunch legalism.
However, Pharisaism means today that the cultural code takes precedence before the righteousness of God. It means that the Pharisees are alive and well. Today, they have taken possession of the Christian Church.

Pharisaism in Jesus' day meant preaching and demanding law-keeping from others which they themselves did not keep (Mt 23:2-3).
Does your modern Pharisee demand Biblical law keeping which they do not keep?
If not, they are not Pharisees.

The healing of the man with the withered arm implies the negation of the law as a way to salvation and freeing of sin.

Jesus' miracles were signs (Jn 2:11, 23, 3:2, 4:54, 6:2, 14, 26, 30, 12:37, 20:30) showing the nature of gospel grace or salvation (Lk 7:22); i.e., healing of the spiritually lame, sick, deaf, dumb and blind.
They had nothing to do with negating the law, which was never given for righteousness or as a way of salvation, but only to reveal sin (Ro 3:19-20).
Jesus negated the curse of the law, not the law itself.

 

[Teofrastus]

Pharisaism in Jesus' day meant preaching and demanding law-keeping from others which they themselves did not keep (Mt 23:2-3).
Does your modern Pharisee demand Biblical law keeping which they do not keep?
If not, they are not Pharisees.

Oh yes, today churches have swallowed legalism hook, line and sinker. You must conduct yourself according the rules of culture, which are now wokeism, UN's human rights, LGBTQI rights, women's rights, anti-racism, racial equity, etc. There is an immense number of rules to follow, and you're damned if you do not bow to them. It has never been this bad before. There are frightened people everywhere, always on the look-out for "sinners" that break the rules.

Jesus' miracles were signs (Jn 2:11, 23, 3:2, 4:54, 6:2, 14, 26, 30, 12:37, 20:30) showing the nature of gospel grace or salvation (Lk 7:22); i.e., healing of the spiritually lame, sick, deaf, dumb and blind.
They had nothing to do with negating the law, which was never given for righteousness or as a way of salvation, but only to reveal sin (Ro 3:19-20).
Jesus negated the curse of the law, not the law itself.

Justification means to be set right before God. But we do not achieve this on an individual basis by thinking of how 'I' can be justified, or how 'I' can attain the status of saved. The only solution is to get out of it altogether, by adopting a new orientation of life centered in Christ crucified rather than in "doing the right thing." That's why Paul says that "you died to this life, and your real life is hidden with Christ in God" (Col. 3:3). Justification has nothing to do with being a "good person" in the eyes of others or in your own eyes. It's not about following the correct rules in order to acquire the status of "innocent" so that you can castigate others as "guilty." As Christians we don't really care about the rules, and that's why Paul says:

To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God's law but am under Christ's law), so as to win those not having the law. To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all people so that by all possible means I might save some. I do all this for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in its blessings. (1 Cor. 9:20-23)​

He just plays along in order to be socially acceptable in that particular culture. He must do this, because he has a missionary vocation. But nothing of it matters to him, because his life is hid in Christ:

I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I now live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. (Gal. 2:20)​

 

[Clare73]

Oh yes, today churches have swallowed legalism hook, line and sinker. You must conduct yourself according the rules of culture, which are now wokeism, UN's human rights, LGBTQI rights, women's rights, anti-racism, racial equity, etc. There is an immense number of rules to follow, and you're damned if you do not bow to them. It has never been this bad before. There are frightened people everywhere, always on the look-out for "sinners" that break the rules.

Thank heaven that is not done in my church.

Justification means to be set right before God. But we do not achieve this on an individual basis by thinking of how 'I' can be justified, or how 'I' can attain the status of saved. The only solution is to get out of it altogether, by adopting a new orientation of life centered in Christ crucified rather than in "doing the right thing." That's why Paul says that "you died to this life, and your real life is hidden with Christ in God" (Col. 3:3). Justification has nothing to do with being a "good person" in the eyes of others or in your own eyes. It's not about following the correct rules in order to acquire the status of "innocent" so that you can castigate others as "guilty."

Justification (righteousness) is imputed by God upon saving faith.

As Christians we don't really care about the rules, and that's why Paul says:

To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God's law but am under Christ's law), so as to win those not having the law. To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all people so that by all possible means I might save some. I do all this for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in its blessings. (1 Cor. 9:20-23)​

He just plays along in order to be socially acceptable in that particular culture. He must do this, because he has a missionary vocation. But nothing of it matters to him, because his life is hid in Christ:

I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I now live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. (Gal. 2:20)​

Christians care about the laws (rules) of God.

 

[fhansen]

True. Furthermore, when Jesus talks about sin, he doesn't mean what people mean nowadays and what the Pharisees meant, which are transgressions against the cultural code. Rather, he means hardness of heart, unbelief, covetousness and idolatry. Not to heal the man with the withered hand on the Sabbath (Mark 3:1-6) would be hardness of heart, which is sinful. The law only serves a self-serving interest in the pursuit of innocence. Like Paul explains, it only increases sin, until the Gospel is the only way out. That's why Luther says that the nature and work of the hidden God (deus absconditus) is only recognizable "under the opposite form." The devil aggravates anxiety and guilt, until it finally becomes obvious in its consequences. But to identify sinfulness with alcoholism, for example, is too easy. Hardness of the heart, unbelief, etc., are much harder to turn around. Such people must sink very low. That's why so many people today are so evil and nasty.

I honestly believe that the new covenant is not solely about the forgiveness of sin and the non-imputation of it to believers, but also about the overcoming of sin in the right way, with God now instead of apart from Him, a separated state within which we’d never overcome sin or otherwise become who we were created to be. Man was not created to sin, which is why the law, the commandments, “happen” to be right, at least as far as external moral behavior is concerned. But the greatest commandments refer to more than external obedience, but to internal change, and this is what Jesus is after in us-and this is what He’s referring to in Matt 5 & 23. Growing in love is also the main way we grow in likeness to Him, while fulfilling the law without even needing to hear it.

Adam’s first sin was certainly one of unbelief, which opened the door to all other sins as his disobedience effectively denied God’s authority over man, man now becoming his own “god”, so to speak. Belief restores that broke relationship and places man on a path to gaining the integrity lost-and much more yet. He’s now choosing to eat of the Tree of Life after all. And righteousness is simply intrinsic to this new life with God even as we continue to struggle against the attractiveness of sin while being tested, growing, being refined, etc. God’s not demanding absolute perfection in this life; He’s looking for the beginning of relationship with Him where His seed is planted in us-and increase is possible and expected. The Parable of the Talents sheds much light on this. It's more of a journey-to our very purpose- than a one-time event.

While we don’t need to hear or know the law in order to be part of this work, that doesn’t mean that the new covenant has anything to do with serving as a carte blanc reprieve from the necessity of being authentically righteous and obedient, even if we must first come to recognize and acknowledge our abject failure at achieving those things. It’s ok in any case to know that you’re not doing things right; conviction is not a bad thing. But that doesn’t need to lead to scrupulosity or mechanical legalism either. It needs to lead to Christ crucified, who not only forgives sin but overcomes it as well. He just wants us to pick up our cross daily, and follow Him in His work.

The primary difference between the old and new covenants is the difference between me, alone, and me, with God the Spirit.

 

[Teofrastus]

Justification (righteousness) is imputed by God upon saving faith.

True.

Christians care about the laws (rules) of God.

Paul says that "Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law..." (Gal. 3:13). Why don't people take it seriously? Although the law is still relevant to Christians, it has been relegated to a secondary role.

 

[Teofrastus]

I honestly believe that the new covenant is not solely about the forgiveness of sin and the non-imputation of it to believers, but also about the overcoming of sin in the right way, with God now instead of apart from Him, a separated state within which we’d never overcome sin or otherwise become who we were created to be. Man was not created to sin, which is why the law, the commandments, “happen” to be right, at least as far as external moral behavior is concerned. But the greatest commandments refer to more than external obedience, but to internal change, and this is what Jesus is after in us-and this is what He’s referring to in Matt 5 & 23. Growing in love is also the main way we grow in likeness to Him, while fulfilling the law without even needing to hear it.

Adam’s first sin was certainly one of unbelief, which opened the door to all other sins as his disobedience effectively denied God’s authority over man, man now becoming his own “god”, so to speak. Belief restores that broke relationship and places man on a path to gaining the integrity lost-and much more yet. He’s now choosing to eat of the Tree of Life after all. And righteousness is simply intrinsic to this new life with God even as we continue to struggle against the attractiveness of sin while being tested, growing, being refined, etc. God’s not demanding absolute perfection in this life; He’s looking for the beginning of relationship with Him where His seed is planted in us-and increase is possible and expected. The Parable of the Talents sheds much light on this. It's more of a journey-to our very purpose- than a one-time event.

While we don’t need to hear or know the law in order to be part of this work, that doesn’t mean that the new covenant has anything to do with serving as a carte blanc reprieve from the necessity of being authentically righteous and obedient, even if we must first come to recognize and acknowledge our abject failure at achieving those things. It’s ok in any case to know that you’re not doing things right; conviction is not a bad thing. But that doesn’t need to lead to scrupulosity or mechanical legalism either. It needs to lead to Christ crucified, who not only forgives sin but overcomes it as well. He just wants us to pick up our cross daily, and follow Him in His work.

The primary difference between the old and new covenants is the difference between me, alone, and me, with God the Spirit.

God does indeed demand perfection in faith. It means that we shall die to the world and have our life in Christ. If so, we are no longer under the law. But we live in the world and must continue to make pretense of being good citizens, like Paul does.

The problem is that being righteous and obedient according to the cultural ideal may prevent us from being justified in God's sight, because "the righteousness of God" cannot be equated with any rules. To become authentically righteous and obedient is not possible by following any rules of conduct. But this does not mean that we shall throw out the absolute truths of the bible. After all, they serve as foundation for our Christian culture. Could this be what Paul means by "the law of Christ"? The problem of law and Gospel remains a quandary. Maybe C. F. W. Walther got it right. His famous book "The Proper Distinction between Law and Gospel" (1897) is freely downloadable on Archive.org: here. Simply put, his view is that the law is secondary to the Gospel:

In the twelfth place, the Word of God is not rightly divided when the preacher tries to make people believe that they are truly converted as soon as they have become rid of certain vices and engage in certain works of piety and virtuous practises.​

​

In the nineteenth place, the Word of God is not rightly divided when an attempt is made by means of the demands or the threats or the promises of the Law to induce the unregenerate to put away their sins and engage in good works and thus become godly; on the other hand, when an endeavor is made, by means of the commands of the Law rather than by the admonitions of the Gospel, to urge the regenerate to do good.​

​

In the twenty-first place, the Word of God is not rightly divided when the person teaching it does not allow the Gospel to have a general predominance in his teaching.​

 

[Clare73]

True.

Paul says that "Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law..." (Gal. 3:13). Why don't people take it seriously? Although the law is still relevant to Christians, it has been relegated to a secondary role.

Probably because they do not realize that "not under the law" means not under the curse of the law.

 

[fhansen]

God does indeed demand perfection in faith. It means that we shall die to the world and have our life in Christ. If so, we are no longer under the law. But we live in the world and must continue to make pretense of being good citizens, like Paul does.

The problem is that being righteous and obedient according to the cultural ideal may prevent us from being justified in God's sight, because "the righteousness of God" cannot be equated with any rules. To become authentically righteous and obedient is not possible by following any rules of conduct. But this does not mean that we shall throw out the absolute truths of the bible. After all, they serve as foundation for our Christian culture. Could this be what Paul means by "the law of Christ"? The problem of law and Gospel remains a quandary. Maybe C. F. W. Walther got it right. His famous book "The Proper Distinction between Law and Gospel" (1897) is freely downloadable on Archive.org: here. Simply put, his view is that the law is secondary to the Gospel:

In the twelfth place, the Word of God is not rightly divided when the preacher tries to make people believe that they are truly converted as soon as they have become rid of certain vices and engage in certain works of piety and virtuous practises.​

​

In the nineteenth place, the Word of God is not rightly divided when an attempt is made by means of the demands or the threats or the promises of the Law to induce the unregenerate to put away their sins and engage in good works and thus become godly; on the other hand, when an endeavor is made, by means of the commands of the Law rather than by the admonitions of the Gospel, to urge the regenerate to do good.​

​

In the twenty-first place, the Word of God is not rightly divided when the person teaching it does not allow the Gospel to have a general predominance in his teaching.​

Hmm, something seems to be missing here. IMO, to the extent that we’re living by a faith-born love, the law poses no threat, and offers no instruction or conviction. A faith-based union with God results in this love as I see it. But as we’re not yet “perfected in love” in this life, the law can still serve to remind us of how we fail to love.

But if the only sin is unbelief, then none of that would matter anyway, as you say. Now, you seem to maintain that any other sin need not be a matter of concern or focus or alarm for the believer but at the same time you seem to maintain that a believer will nonetheless live a more ostensibly righteous life, not only for convenience sake in this world but also due to change that God makes in us? Would that be a correct assessment? Or does no change towards interior righteousness take place in those who believe?

And, incidentally, does anyone ever achieve “perfection in faith” in this life anyway?

 

[Teofrastus]

Hmm, something seems to be missing here. IMO, to the extent that we’re living by a faith-born love, the law poses no threat, and offers no instruction or conviction. A faith-based union with God results in this love as I see it. But as we’re not yet “perfected in love” in this life, the law can still serve to remind us of how we fail to love.

But if the only sin is unbelief, then none of that would matter anyway, as you say. Now, you seem to maintain that any other sin need not be a matter of concern or focus or alarm for the believer but at the same time you seem to maintain that a believer will nonetheless live a more ostensibly righteous life, not only for convenience sake in this world but also due to change that God makes in us? Would that be a correct assessment? Or does no change towards interior righteousness take place in those who believe?

And, incidentally, does anyone ever achieve “perfection in faith” in this life anyway?

Arguably, a life in faith must be "perfect," because it implies the negation of 'meaning' and 'innocence,' and this cannot be half-hearted. No theologian has managed to come up with a believable explanation of why Jesus had to die. It's because it cannot be explained according to our moral and intellectual premises of culture. Paul says that Christ crucified is "a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles." After all, there is neither a 'sign' nor any 'wisdom' associated with it. Christ's passion was the passion of faith and nothing else. It had nothing to do with 'meaning,' heroic goodness, or living up to an ideal.

If we think that we can come closer to God by following the moral ideals of Christianity, then we are still living according to a worldly ideal of meaning. We could equally well strive for worldly success in some sense. This was how the romans thought. A successful person was believed to be patronized by a god. To be immensely successful was to aspire to divinity. If we think in terms of having success on the Christian path, then we remain half Pagan. It is understandable and forgivable, because that's how human beings are. We are ambitious and want to climb upwards. We covet after meaning in our lives. But coveting is a root sin:

And they come unto thee as the people cometh, and they sit before thee as my people, and they hear thy words, but they will not do them: for with their mouth they shew much love, but their heart goeth after their covetousness. (Ezekiel 33:31, KJV)​

To live in sin is to be a careerist. The law is good, because it allows us to detect when we're being careerists. Paul, in his letters, only demands of people that they be upstanding citizens. Do not quarrel, be not sexually promiscuous, do not gorge yourself with food and drink, etc. He has no overbearing demands. How can people think that living according to such demands qualifies for being a Christian? Only faith qualifies. Faith means to die to this world, to live without the diverse forms of 'meaning' that this world offers. The prostitute that anointed Jesus with her costly oil had no career. She had no hope in this world, and that's why she had faith, instead. This is what it means to be "poor." It does not mean lack of money; it means lack of meaning. Such a person is "poor in spirit."

 

[fhansen]

Arguably, a life in faith must be "perfect," because it implies the negation of 'meaning' and 'innocence,' and this cannot be half-hearted. No theologian has managed to come up with a believable explanation of why Jesus had to die. It's because it cannot be explained according to our moral and intellectual premises of culture. Paul says that Christ crucified is "a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles." After all, there is neither a 'sign' nor any 'wisdom' associated with it. Christ's passion was the passion of faith and nothing else. It had nothing to do with 'meaning,' heroic goodness, or living up to an ideal.

If we think that we can come closer to God by following the moral ideals of Christianity, then we are still living according to a worldly ideal of meaning. We could equally well strive for worldly success in some sense. This was how the romans thought. A successful person was believed to be patronized by a god. To be immensely successful was to aspire to divinity. If we think in terms of having success on the Christian path, then we remain half Pagan. It is understandable and forgivable, because that's how human beings are. We are ambitious and want to climb upwards. We covet after meaning in our lives. But coveting is a root sin:

And they come unto thee as the people cometh, and they sit before thee as my people, and they hear thy words, but they will not do them: for with their mouth they shew much love, but their heart goeth after their covetousness. (Ezekiel 33:31, KJV)​

To live in sin is to be a careerist. The law is good, because it allows us to detect when we're being careerists. Paul, in his letters, only demands of people that they be upstanding citizens. Do not quarrel, be not sexually promiscuous, do not gorge yourself with food and drink, etc. He has no overbearing demands. How can people think that living according to such demands qualifies for being a Christian? Only faith qualifies. Faith means to die to this world, to live without the diverse forms of 'meaning' that this world offers. The prostitute that anointed Jesus with her costly oil had no career. She had no hope in this world, and that's why she had faith, instead. This is what it means to be "poor." It does not mean lack of money; it means lack of meaning. Such a person is "poor in spirit."

Ok, so Christianity gives no more meaning to life than paganism or unbelief. I’ll have to try to remember that, somehow. And yet the prostitute had a great deal of love. I really don’t know of anything that can and does give more meaning to life than that, that takes the emptiness and futility of sin and worldliness away, replacing it with something worth living and dying for, with something that causes us to easily surpass the righteousness of the Pharisees and teachers of the law, incidentally.

In that same chap, Matt 5, Jesus actually ups the standard as He tells us that merely refraining from murder or sexual idolatry, for example, isn’t enough, if we still have anger and lust in our hearts. Again, he’s after real change in us, change that only He can accomplish as we enter union/fellowship with Him, which is the purpose of faith. This change is perhaps best described in the words of 1 Cor 13:1-8.

Doubt we’re going to get too far with each other here, tho . I guess I have a difficult time in thinking that the many acts of self-giving that I've observed in this world are strictly attributable to social etiquette for practical reasons or for the sole purpose of making us feel morally superior to our fellow human beings. Another way to put my view is that we don't act obediently in order to draw close to God, rather we draw close to God and the result is that we will act more obediently.

 

[Teofrastus]

Ok, so Christianity gives no more meaning to life than paganism or unbelief. I’ll have to try to remember that, somehow. And yet the prostitute had a great deal of love. I really don’t know of anything that can and does give more meaning to life than that, that takes the emptiness and futility of sin and worldliness away, replacing it with something worth living and dying for, with something that causes us to easily surpass the righteousness of the Pharisees and teachers of the law, incidentally.

In that same chap, Matt 5, Jesus actually ups the standard as He tells us that merely refraining from murder or sexual idolatry, for example, isn’t enough, if we still have anger and lust in our hearts. Again, he’s after real change in us, change that only He can accomplish as we enter union/fellowship with Him, which is the purpose of faith. This change is perhaps best described in the words of 1 Cor 13:1-8.

Doubt we’re going to get too far with each other here, tho . I guess I have a difficult time in thinking that the many acts of self-giving that I've observed in this world are strictly attributable to social etiquette for practical reasons or for the sole purpose of making us feel morally superior to our fellow human beings. Another way to put my view is that we don't act obediently in order to draw close to God, rather we draw close to God and the result is that we will act more obediently.

In Luke 7:50, Jesus says to the woman that her faith has saved her. Without faith one cannot have Christian love. Faith comes before love, which is not of our own making but of the Holy Spirit. "Acts of self-giving" are fine, but they do not justify us. To think that "I" am justified by good deeds is only an attempt at self-justification.

• Justification = self-justification = sin

That "everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment" (Matt. 5:22) means that we are all liable to judgment. Accordingly, there's no way to evade hellfire other than by receiving the forgiveness that comes through faith. All who pass through the narrow gate must be forgiven by faith, like the prostitute woman. Nobody is worthy to enter the kingdom. This is what he means.

Nevertheless, when the sinful Prodigal Son returns, the father embraces him with love, because the son has faith (Luke 15:11-32). The older brother did everything right according to his father's wish, but he is angry with his brother. If he lacks faith he will not be let into the feast.