|
| Mercy vs. Religious Duty? |
|
| |
 About the same time as Jesus commanded people to come to him for rest for their souls, he was walking through a grain field on the Jewish rest day. Careful observance of Sabbath rest was very important to the Jews. Hungry, the disciples plucked some grain, violating rabbinical interpretation of the Sabbath command. Jesus' answer to his critics was to point out Bible examples where human need is a higher priority than the letter of the law. He even quoted a principle from the law regarding where our priorities should lie — God desires mercy and not sacrifice.
Jesus then called himself Lord over the Sabbath — he had the authority to decide what was lawful on that day. As the author of the Torah, it was his interpretation of it that counted. Man-made religious restrictions often contradict the purposes of God. The central doctrines of Christianity are not our man-made traditions or fads, but the teachings of Christ. 12:1 At that time Jesus went through the grainfields on the sabbath; his disciples were hungry, and they began to pluck heads of grain and to eat. 12:2 But when the Pharisees saw it, they said to him, "Look, your disciples are doing what is not lawful to do on the sabbath." 12:3 He said to them, "Have you not read what David did, when he was hungry, and those who were with him: 12:4 how he entered the house of God and ate the bread of the Presence, which it was not lawful for him to eat nor for those who were with him, but only for the priests? 12:5 Or have you not read in the law how on the sabbath the priests in the temple profane the sabbath, and are guiltless? 12:6 I tell you, something greater than the temple is here. 12:7 And if you had known what this means, 'I desire mercy, and not sacrifice,' you would not have condemned the guiltless. 12:8 For the Son of man is lord of the sabbath."
|
|
| To add a comment to "Mercy vs. Religious Duty?" |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| March 26, 2008 |
 |
|
|
Follow His teachings? Isn't that what being a disciple is all about?
Well, said, Grant! |
|
|
| March 27, 2008 |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
| March 27, 2008 |
|
|
|
Grant,
Didn't the writer of the book of Hebrews (presumably Paul) conclude that the real Sabbath (not just the shadow) was ushered in by the Lord of the Sabbath?
Through some pretty skillful handling of the word, Paul explains that the Sabbath isn't a day, per se, but an age. This "Day of rest" (what he called "To day") is available to those who believe. Not available to those who believe in Jesus, necessarily, but believe that Jesus is the Author of the Sabbath rest of the people of God - the Lord of the Sabbath.
The kingdom of God is not generally available to people who believe in God. I think it was James the Just who said something to the effect, "the devils are monotheists - and tremble." The kingdom of God is only available to people who believe Jesus bought it for them. They can only gain access by that childlike faith and not because they've got it all figured out - or whatever.
Hebrews 3:6 to Hebrews 4:11 tells the whole story.
The way I read it, Jesus' yoke is easy and His burden is light because He has done all the heavy lifting for His beautiful bride. Now all she has to do is walk in the reality of His dominion, power, and authority. Interestingly, this is where most Christians stumble. Faith righteousness is simple but it's not easy - it's not intuitive. The "work" is in believing that it is so.
"What must we do to do the work of God?", they asked Jesus one time. Jesus answered and said, "If you want to do the work of God, believe on the one whom He hath sent." (see Jn. 6:28-29)
Yet we have entire denominations dedicated to "dead works". Almost all Messianics are ruined by "works righteousness" and religious observance. The Seventh Day Adventists actually named themselves after their error. Roman Catholicism and all her progeny observe the "Christian Sabbath" (i.e. Sunday).
According to Paul's theology, Sabbath Day observance is tantamount to circumcision. It means nothing and it prevents you from believing and receiving the sabbath rest of the people of God. Let us labor, therefore, to enter into that rest, lest any man fall after the same example of unbelief. The children of Israel did not enter into His rest and most nominal Christians have missed the boat as well.
Or so it seems to me,
Rob |
|
|
| March 31, 2008 |
|
|
|
 I would agree with that. In a different context, Paul spoke of our eternal Sabbath rest in that eternal promised land. He was not contradicting Jesus, in whom we will rest for that eternity. Each context must be seen in its own light, but none should contradict other parts of scripture in essense. |
|
|
| April 01, 2008 |
|
|
|
There is no contradiction or separate context that I can see. Jesus is the fulfillment of all the Law and the Prophets. When the Testator died, the old code that was against us was cancelled (i.e. blotted out, taken out of The Way, nailed to His cross).
Paul's theology really didn't contain alot of "Religious Duty" because the fundamental tenant of his faith was "righteousness". To Paul, everything came down to "righteousness".
While "righteousness" may (arguably) have come in degrees under the Old Covenant, it is a "binary" (either On or Off) under the New. There is no such thing as "more righteous" or "less righteous" in Paul's theology. One is either righteous or not righteous.
Also righteousness is not something that we do, it's something we are. This is why "Religious Duty" is a foreign concept in Paul's theology. Religious Duty performs no useful function in the acquisition of righteousness. Why? Because righteousness (in Paul's theology) is a gift that cannot be earned.
This is why Paul's theology conflicted with the theology of the established church. The Jerusalem church was headed up by the brother of Jesus - James the Just - who believed that righteousness (i.e. justification) was earned and not a gift. Contrast James 2:24 with Romans 4:2-4:
2:24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.
4:2 For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. 4:3 For what does the scripture say? "Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness." 4:4 Now to one who works, his wages are not reckoned as a gift but as his due.
In other words, Paul's theology was 180 degrees off from the theology of James the Just - the "Chief Apostle" of Jerusalem. To Paul, righteousness was a gift. To James, God owed it to him.
Be that as it may, the doctrine of righteousness by faith is the cornerstone of Paul's gospel.
We can build a theology based on Religious Duty and other contexts but care should be taken that it does not deny the free gift of righteousness by the faith of Jesus (i.e. Jesus' faith - not my faith). And if my Religious Duty has nothing whatever to do with my righteousness then why am I doing it at all?
Grant, I was part of a religious cult (called the church of Christ) for many years. This cult continues to this day. They are all about religious duty. In the end, it does not work. There's always something more you can do for God (as if He has any need of my religious duty). If I wake up at 6:00 to read my bible and pray then why not 5:00? You know what a rat-race religious duty is. I don't have to tell you.
We are free from Law and "dead works" thanks to Jesus. To me, there is no contradiction or other context. Traditional Sabbath Day observance, as it's practiced by most, denies the finished work of Jesus as described in the book of Hebrews.
Or so it seems to me,
Rob |
|
|
| April 01, 2008 |
|
|
|
| I don't see a contradiction between James and Paul. Two sides of the same coin. Blessings! |
|
|
| April 02, 2008 |
|
|
|
Good, thoughtful, and intelligent answer. There is no contradiction between faith righteousness and works righteousness.
No wonder the church is so schizophrenic.
Rob |
|
|
Follow this blog
