How mortal sins became lifestyle choices
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
The personal weblog of David Anderson
Subscribe via email
Personal Links
Good Reading
Blog Archive
-
▼
2012
(138)
-
▼
March
(18)
- Actually, David was the favourite
- Atheists versus reason
- How can it be?
- More on the beloved disciple
- The disciple whom Jesus loved
- Only the doctrine of creation ultimately stands ag...
- Eternal life
- Let him hear! (2)
- He had better hear!
- Lowering our discernment threshold
- Am I just reading the wrong sources?
- How mortal sins became lifestyle choices
- Not just one step ahead
- Not wanting to be prejudiced, but I couldn't help ...
- Expanded covenant privileges
- The advance of Christianity and the advance of civ...
- When Christianity declines...
- Short term mission is not automatically beneficial...
-
▼
March
(18)
Labels
- Darwinism (85)
- Atheism (51)
- Kenya (45)
- Links (43)
- Denis Alexander (42)
- Books (36)
- Secularism (27)
- Christian Education (25)
- Federal Vision (24)
- Parenting (19)
- Baptism (18)
- Gospel of Mark (18)
- Apologetics (15)
- Good News (14)
- Islam (12)
- Gay rights (11)
- Photos (11)
- Abortion (10)
- Paedocommunion (10)
- Quotable Quotes (10)
- Richard Dawkins (9)
- Running (8)
- Eschatology (7)
- Missions (7)
- Exodus (6)
- Galatians (6)
- Last Things (6)
- Self Promotion (6)
- A Christian State (5)
- Penal Substitution (5)
- Christian Unity (4)
- Church of Scotland (4)
- Gospel of Luke (4)
- Mathematics (4)
- Sexual revolution (4)
- Tom Wright (4)
- Family (3)
- Newspapers (3)
- The Fall (3)
- Bible Interpretation (2)
- Church Life (2)
- Gospel of John (2)
- Repentance (2)
- christ and culture (2)
- 1 John (1)
- Abraham (1)
- C S Lewis (1)
- Noah's Flood (1)
- Old Testament (1)
- Resources (1)
- capital punishment (1)
- euthanasia (1)
- exploitation (1)
- homosexuality (1)
- marriage (1)
The Proprietor
- David Anderson
- Married with children. Details of my church and contact details are on my homepage, here. That photo is from 2006 if I recall correctly!
6 comments:
I suspect that even some Christian denominations are inadvertently complicit with their rejection of Torah and even the Ten commandments. They choose to identify God as Love, and forget the Justice and Wrath bits. Perhaps if we paid more attention to Moses, this slide into liberalism would be arrested.
“And you will again obey the voice of the Lord and do all His commandments which I command you today.” (Deut 30:8) If we are to imitate Christ, why not fully imitate Him as He was on earth, not as we slice and dice Him as suits our preference? You may argue that we do not have to because we are not Jews, but if we worship God out of love, not legalism, what does it matter what we have to or not?
Well, of course Christ lived under the abrogated settlement of the Old Covenant, and hence kept feast days etc. which Paul tells us not to (Col. 2v16-17). But the main point is well taken. If we listened to Christ, then we would note that at the outset of his exposition of his kingdom, he told us that the commandments were not passing away but must be fully maintained (Matthew 5v17ff).
I am ever bemused by this interpretation of Col 2:16-17, as with the adverse interpretation of Gal 4:10. Paul does not say do not do, he says do not judge. The irony is that having decided to not follow the God ordained feasts, the Christian Church has implemented its own days and months and seasons and years, some of which are re-implementations of the OT feasts, i.e. Sabbath, Passover, and Pentecost. Further, if the feasts are commanded and the commandments are not passing away, why would a Torah loving Paul tell us to not observe God ordained feasts? As the seed of Abraham, Jewish history is our history also, and why would we not celebrate the milestones leading to the Messiah?
Would your theology have led you to have written Colossians 2:16-17 or Galatians 4:10? I think that's always a good test of how Biblical our theology is - not simply if we can parse a statement, but if our own broader view would have led us to right the same statement in the same way. Would the Galatians practice of taking up Mosaic observance have driven you to express yourself to them in letter in the same manner that Paul did?
Gal 4:10 is not about the observance of Jewish feasts, but the Roman feasts that all non-Jews in the Roman Empire had to observe. Judaism was a recognised religion and the Jews were given an exemption from worshipping Roman gods. Verse 4:8 does not allow an interpretation of Jewish feasts, nor would Paul describe God-ordained feasts as “weak and beggarly”. The audience of Galatians is most probably God-fearers who had eschewed idolatry and worshipped the God of the Jews, but were not inclined to become full proselytes via circumcision and observance of all Mosaic law. Some did become proselytes to escape the Roman worship requirements, and others were plainly confused, not sure whether to convert or to worship the Roman gods to save their skins. Paul was arguing against those who claimed that one had to convert to Judaism to share in the kingdom, and was simultaneously telling them not to submit to Rome. At the time, Shammai had taken over from Hillel as Nasi and had imposed an additional 18 ordinances designed to further separate the Jew and Gentile. They were very confused times, with pressures from all sides, and Paul’s words need to be understood in that context.
Re Col 2:16-17, the word “so” links the conclusion to the discourse that starts in verse 8, and concerns the traditions of men, not the commandments of God. Paul says more in verses 20-23, again clearly “commandments and doctrines of men”. Paul would not refer to Mosaic Law as “of men”. He was countering the Colossian / Gnostic heresy of the time, which taught against the Judaic practices. When Paul said “let no-one judge you”, it was because the Colossians WERE PRACTISING those things, and Paul was encouraging them to continue.
Would I have written in the same manner that Paul did? Highly doubtful as I hope I would have been less obscure. However, I would have written on the same subjects to address the errors that had quickly overtaken his gospel.
This seems rather more like an ideologically driven position, rather than what can be reasonably discovered in the actual text of the book.
Post a Comment