Humble obedience Vs Proud obedience

[Xeno.of.athens]

Noah, Abraham, Moses obeyed YHWH implicitly because they believed in YHWH. Their Obedience was from a humble and contrite heart, the kind of heart that God promises not to despise.

Saul, Pharisees, Sadducees obeyed God out of pride in their birth, role, and alleged surety of salvation. God did not accept their obedience, he despised it.

Jesus says about his disciples

These things I have spoken to you, that my joy may be in you, and your joy may be filled. This is my commandment, that you love one another, as I have loved you. Greater love than this no man hath, that a man lay down his life for his friends. You are my friends, if you do the things that I command you. ​

John 15:11-14 DRB

 

[Fireinfolding]

Didn't Jesus say that they say and do not?

How would that be obedience at all?

Mark 7:9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.

Even in respects to John

Luke 7:30 But the Pharisees and lawyers rejected the counsel of God against themselves, being not baptized of him.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Didn't Jesus say that they say and do not?

How would that be obedience at all?

Mark 7:9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.

Even in respects to John

Luke 7:30 But the Pharisees and lawyers rejected the counsel of God against themselves, being not baptized of him.

And the Lord observed,

The scribes and the Pharisees have sitten on the chair of Moses. All things therefore whatsoever they shall say to you, observe and do: but according to their works do ye not. For they say, and do not.​

Matthew 23:1-3 DRB

So, you are right insofar as their works are concerned. They spoke well, but they didn't perform.

Jesus told a parable about it,

But what think you? A certain man had two sons: and coming to the first, he said: Son, go work to day in my vineyard. And he answering, said: I will not. But afterwards, being moved with repentance, he went. And coming to the other, he said in like manner. And he answering said: I go, Sir. And he went not. Which of the two did the father's will? They say to him: The first. Jesus saith to them: Amen I say to you that the publicans and the harlots shall go into the kingdom of God before you. For John came to you in the way of justice: and you did not believe him. But the publicans and the harlots believed him: but you, seeing it, did not even afterwards repent, that you might believe him.​

Matthew 21:28-32 DRB

 

[FireDragon76]

Rom 14:23 comes to mind, "Whatever is not of faith is sin".

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Rom 14:23 comes to mind, "Whatever is not of faith is sin".

Three verses come to mind:
Gal 5:6
Gal 6:15
1Cor 7:19
The tell us what saint Paul thought mattered and what he thought didn't matter.

 

[FireDragon76]

Three verses come to mind:
Gal 5:6
Gal 6:15
1Cor 7:19
The tell us what saint Paul thought mattered and what he thought didn't matter.

Yes, but the same applies more broadly to all OT law. Paul's critique applies to religious hypocrisy more generally. Instead of OT lawkeeping, Paul suggests a virtue ethic shaped by the example of Christ.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Yes, but the same applies more broadly to all OT law. Paul's critique applies to religious hypocrisy more generally. Instead of OT lawkeeping, Paul suggests a virtue ethic shaped by the example of Christ.

Saint Paul suggests that the righteousness commanded by God in the old testament is genuine righteousness when offered from a humble and contrite heart. This applies both to the old testament saints and to new testament saints. It is not righteousness that is critiqued by saint Paul, it is the pseudo-righteousness that comes from circumcision and membership in fleshly Israel along with the racial pride that accompanied it that saint Paul seeks to eviscerate. As saint Paul says, the Law is just and good. He has no desire to destroy it, nor did Jesus, our Lord, but he wants obedience that comes from the heart rather than outward sacrifice as the prophet said YHWH wanted.

And Samuel said, "Has the LORD as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the LORD? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams. 1Samuel 15:22 RSV-CE​

​

Guard your steps when you go to the house of God; to draw near to listen is better than to offer the sacrifice of fools; for they do not know that they are doing evil. Ecclesiastes 5:1 RSV-CE​

And as the Lord Jesus said, in a parable:

But what think ye? A certain man had two sons; and he came to the first, and said, Son, go work to day in my vineyard. He answered and said, I will not: but afterward he repented, and went. And he came to the second, and said likewise. And he answered and said, I go, sir: and went not. Whether of them twain did the will of his father? They say unto him, The first. Jesus saith unto them, Verily I say unto you, That the publicans and the harlots go into the kingdom of God before you. For John came unto you in the way of righteousness, and ye believed him not: but the publicans and the harlots believed him: and ye, when ye had seen it, repented not afterward, that ye might believe him. ​

Matthew 21:28-32 KJV

 

[FireDragon76]

Saint Paul suggests that the righteousness commanded by God in the old testament is genuine righteousness when offered from a humble and contrite heart. This applies both to the old testament saints and to new testament saints. It is not righteousness that is critiqued by saint Paul, it is the pseudo-righteousness that comes from circumcision and membership in fleshly Israel along with the racial pride that accompanied it that saint Paul seeks to eviscerate. As saint Paul says, the Law is just and good. He has not desire to destroy it, nor did Jesus, our Lord, but he wants obedience that comes from the heart rather than outward sacrifice as the prophet said YHWH wanted.

And Samuel said, "Has the LORD as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the LORD? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams. 1Samuel 15:22 RSV-CE​

​

Guard your steps when you go to the house of God; to draw near to listen is better than to offer the sacrifice of fools; for they do not know that they are doing evil. Ecclesiastes 5:1 RSV-CE​

And as the Lord Jesus said, in a parable:

But what think ye? A certain man had two sons; and he came to the first, and said, Son, go work to day in my vineyard. He answered and said, I will not: but afterward he repented, and went. And he came to the second, and said likewise. And he answered and said, I go, sir: and went not. Whether of them twain did the will of his father? They say unto him, The first. Jesus saith unto them, Verily I say unto you, That the publicans and the harlots go into the kingdom of God before you. For John came unto you in the way of righteousness, and ye believed him not: but the publicans and the harlots believed him: and ye, when ye had seen it, repented not afterward, that ye might believe him. ​

Matthew 21:28-32 KJV

I don't think Paul is completely consistent in his rhetoric, and he's definitely not an analytical philosopher. He's struggling to make sense of grace in light of a very legalistic religious background, where you so much as pick up some sticks on the wrong day, and people can stone you to death. And he sometimes uses ideas rhetorically, such as praising the Law. But in other places, he equates the Law with bringing death.

That's why I think something like the Lutheran or Reformed understanding is more true to Paul, than the notion here that Paul is merely speaking out against circumcision. Circumcision is just a stand-in for the entire practice of Torah observance, being its most salient and burdensome form. However, there's no reason we need to restrict the force of his argument merely to circumcision.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

I don't think Paul is completely consistent in his rhetoric, and he's definitely not an analytical philosopher. He's struggling to make sense of grace in light of a very legalistic religious background, where you so much as pick up some sticks on the wrong day, and people can stone you to death. And he sometimes uses ideas rhetorically, such as praising the Law. But in other places, he equates the Law with bringing death.

That's why I think something like the Lutheran or Reformed understanding is more true to Paul, than the notion here that Paul is merely speaking out against circumcision. Circumcision is just a stand-in for the entire practice of Torah observance, being its most salient and burdensome form. However, there's no reason we need to restrict the force of his argument merely to circumcision.

Except that his argument is about both circumcision and the Law of Moses in the context of membership of Israel [according to the flesh]

 

[FireDragon76]

Except that his argument is about both circumcision and the Law of Moses in the context of membership of Israel [according to the flesh]

I'm not certain what your point is. I just don't see Paul's theology justifying a religious magisterium that every creature must be subject to.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

I'm not certain what your point is. I just don't see Paul's theology justifying a religious magisterium that every creature must be subject to.

Since the original post is not about the magisterium of the Catholic Church I am not surprised that such is not in the content of the passages cited and quoted thus far.