There is a difference between obedience and purity. Purity is an achievement. It's focused on us. Obedience focuses on Jesus.
Which is simply another example of specious liberal dichotomies. You cannot be obedient to i Christ without seeking to attain moral purity, to be as He is in this world, which disallows moral impurity as acceptable or moral purity as marginal.
Certainly it is not enough to abstain from outward sins such as stealing, fornication, etc. while having a proud stern heartless attitude toward those in need, and sins of the heart such as conceit, a calculating malicious deceitful heart are worse sins than having a drinking problem, but moral purity and disciplining such things as indolence is not to be minimized or opposed to such things as having helping the needy, but the two are to go together, hating moral disobedience and impurity as regards such things a fornication (in ourselves first), while having "compassion on the ignorant, and on them that are out of the way; for that he himself also is compassed with infirmity. (Hebrews 5:2)
Keep yourselves in the love of God, looking for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life. And of some have compassion, making a difference: And others save with fear, pulling them out of the fire; hating even the garment spotted by the flesh. (Jude 21-23)
The problem with purity is that it leads to a checklist morality, where people are worried about even things that are arguably not a problem for Jesus, because any failure makes them impure.
And just where would they get that idea? Surely not per the specious red-letter heremenuetic:
For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, Thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness: All these evil things come from within, and defile the man. (Mark 7:21-23)
Quite a check list.
You see this in Christian Advice all the time. The purity focus leads people to spend all their time trying to get rid of supposed sins. As they fail they get more and more concerned, and their focus gets more and more on themselves.
The problem is not purity focus but being focused more on the sin that must be dealt with than on Christ who is the solution.
Wherefore seeing we also are compassed about with so great a cloud of witnesses, let us lay aside every weight, and the sin which doth so easily beset us, and let us run with patience the race that is set before us, Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God. (Hebrews 12:1-2)
"Do you thank the slave for doing what was commanded? So you also, when you have done all that you were ordered to do, say, ‘We are worthless slaves; we have done only what we ought to have done!’ ” (Luke 17:9-10, NRSV) Not "we've achieved moral purity." See also the parable of the sheep and goats. The sheep didn't even know they were doing something meritorious. I don't think that's just a throw-away detail
.
No, it is not a a throw-away detail any more than other words of the Lord such as "Thou hast a few names even in Sardis which have not defiled their garments; and they shall walk with me in white: for they are worthy." (Revelation 3:4)
What you are engaging in is the typical liberal recourse to false dichotomy, implicitly contrasting social action of compassion with the focus on moral purity, and the condemnation of moral sins of the flesh, which is a false balance, and which the Lord hates, (Proverbs 11:1) which extends beyond the physical.
One could just as as well argue that Jesus did not affectionately behold and love the rich young ruler because he engaged in humanitarian work, but because he kept
"the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Defraud not, Honour thy father and mother. (Mark 10:19-21) But because he trusted in riches (Mark 10:24)
"Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me. (Matthew 19:21)
Thus rather than one being marginalized both are necessary, and likewise James says, Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world. (James 1:27)
Obviously Jesus had plenty to say about behavior. But it was all things that matter to others. He didn't talk about purity at all, except Mat 5:8, which isn't quite moral purity.
That is absurd, for as told to your comrade, besides resorting to the spurious "red-letter" hermenuetic, you ignore most of the other texts such as condemn personal moral impurity, including where the Lord clearly condemns adulteries, fornications, lasciviousness, blasphemy etc.
He used holy of the Holy Spirit, but not of people except the "holy prophets." He didn't even use the term sin very much, except in forgiveness of sins. Basically he avoided anything that would lead people to the personal purity approach. That was very specifically the Pharisees' ideal.
Are you serious? Once again besides resorting to the spurious (and it is indeed) "red-letter" hermenuetic, you ignore that what he condemned the Pharisees for was merely ritual purity, while reproving them for their fornication (via divorce) implicit in murder of prophets which preached moral purity in heart and in life, and being greedy and filthy inside:
Thou blind Pharisee, cleanse first that which is within the cup and platter, that the outside of them may be clean also. Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness. Even so ye also outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity. (Matthew 23:26-28)
Wherefore ye be witnesses unto yourselves, that ye are the children of them which killed the prophets. (Matthew 23:31)
Moreover, since the gospels mainly deal with the sins of the scribes and Pharisees which were as described, then thus we most often see them dealt with, yet the Lord also emphasized how serious immorality was in regards to actions, thus recommending the cutting off of body parts to avoid doing these, if that would actually do it
This doesn't mean that he didn't care about how we act. But I think when we do things because they matter we get different results than when we do things to be pure or sinless.
You are restricting moral purity to that which is merely for show as contrasted with social service, yet the Lord clearly condemned basic moral sins such as stealing, fornication, etc. and whose life was that of moral purity from such, as well as having compassion toward those in needs, and the two are to go together.
As are the gospels with the rest of the NT, all of which writings were inspired by the same Spirit of Christ who authored the gospels, and with the latter being interpretative of the former, as the gospels themselves are of the OT. Only by considering the whole counsel of God can one understand what Godliness requires.
And which includes is the emphasis upon doctrine and priority of salvation of the soul, not priority of the physical (though that may be most urgent, not not most important), yet with the same love means helping with both, and doctrinal Paul as a follower of Christ whom we are to follow, showed both.
And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision. Only they would that we should remember the poor; the same which I also was forward to do. (Galatians 2:9-10)