BibleForums Christian Message Board
Other Categories => Controversial Issues => Non Christian Perspective => Topic started by: Fenris on May 01, 2022, 03:59:18 PM
-
The Jewish bible is about sanctification.
The Christian bible is about salvation.
Discuss.
-
I’m not certain I would agree with the premise.
Sanctification is part and parcel of salvation; the being cleansed and set aside for holy service is just one part in the Christian paradigm of being made whole in a salvific sense.
And then, of course, Christians do view the Jewish Bible as “Volume 1” of the entire story as Christians would view it.
Interesting thread… looking forward to the discussion.
-
Sanctification is part and parcel of salvation; the being cleansed and set aside for holy service is just one part in the Christian paradigm of being made whole in a salvific sense.
Yes. The Christian paradigm.
Jews are not Christians though.
Our bible is about sanctification. It is part and parcel of our covenant with God. Sanctification is done for it's own sake. Not for the Christian concept of "salvation" which does not exist in Judaism.
-
It is also almost exclusively about the Jewish concept of sanctification as God’s Chosen People in isolation from sanctification for anyone else.
In that sense, the Christian paradigm is more expansive than the Jewish paradigm. That certainly does not negate or lessen the issue of sanctification from the Torah, the writings, and the prophets
-
It is also almost exclusively about the Jewish concept of sanctification as God’s Chosen People in isolation from sanctification for anyone else.
Yes. Yes it is. It is the story of a single people's relationship with God.
But what is the purpose of this relationship?
Before the revelation at Sinai, God instructs Moses to tell the children of Israel, "You have seen for yourselves what I did to Egypt, and how I carried you on eagles’ wings and brought you to Myself. Now if you will indeed obey My voice and keep My covenant, you will be My treasured possession out of all the nations— for the whole earth is Mine. And unto Me you shall be a kingdom of priests and a holy nation."
What does that mean, to be "a kingdom of priests?" Well, what do priests do? They minister to the lay people. Who are the lay people, in this instance? The other nations of the world.
Judaism is not exclusionary. We don't have a sole claim of God. The opposite; God has sole the sole claim on us.
Judaism is a difficult religion and was never meant for universal practice. It was meant for a single people to practice, and become sanctified, and in so doing become a moral pilot project to the rest of the world to follow.
In that sense, the Christian paradigm is more expansive than the Jewish paradigm.
It's more universal in a way, but also less. Jesus says "No one comes to the Father except through me" i.e. one must believe in Jesus and therefore be a Christian in order to be with God. Judaism has no such restrictions. Anyone, Jew or gentile, can become close to God, based not on their beliefs but on their actions. Sanctification, you see.
-
The Jewish bible is about sanctification.
The Christian bible is about salvation.
Discuss.
I'm not sure I see the either/or. If "Judaism is a difficult religion and was never meant for universal practice. It was meant for a single people to practice, and become sanctified, and in so doing become a moral pilot project to the rest of the world to follow" then to what end?
-
A particular sanctification for a covenant people with an ultimate purpose involving the salvation of the non-Jew:
"And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; because thou hast obeyed my voice."Gen22:18
Seed of Abraham being the key.
-
I'm not sure I see the either/or. If "Judaism is a difficult religion and was never meant for universal practice. It was meant for a single people to practice, and become sanctified, and in so doing become a moral pilot project to the rest of the world to follow" then to what end?
The Jewish ethical system was adopted by, and became an essential part of, Western Civilization. It civilized the world.
-
A particular sanctification for a covenant people with an ultimate purpose involving the salvation of the non-Jew:
The "salvation" part of the non-Jew, or even Jews for that matter, is an NT concept. The sanctification in the OT isn't a means to end, but rather an end unto itself.
-
I'm not sure I see the either/or. If "Judaism is a difficult religion and was never meant for universal practice. It was meant for a single people to practice, and become sanctified, and in so doing become a moral pilot project to the rest of the world to follow" then to what end?
The Jewish ethical system was adopted by, and became an essential part of, Western Civilization. It civilized the world.
I guess what I'm asking is, what comes after sanctification, or, what precedes salvation?
-
I guess what I'm asking is, what comes after sanctification, or, what precedes salvation?
Salvation in the Christian sense does not exist in Jewish bible. Sanctification is the end result.
-
I guess what I'm asking is, what comes after sanctification, or, what precedes salvation?
Salvation in the Christian sense does not exist in Jewish bible. Sanctification is the end result.
It's salvation of some kind though, right? The Jewish sense, I mean?
-
This week's Torah portion is Leviticus 19:1 through 20:27.
It begins with the words "And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, Speak to the entire congregation of the children of Israel, and say to them, 'You shall be holy, for I, the Lord, your God, am holy.' "
It then gives dozens of commands to follow, beginning with honoring one's parents and keeping the Sabbath. It ends with the prohibition of sexual immorality and avoiding non-kosher animals.
It concludes with "You shall be holy to me, for I the LORD am holy and have separated you from the peoples, that you should be mine."
There is no reward promised for any of this. No "salvation". It is simply the terms of God's covenant with the Jewish people.
-
This week's Torah portion is Leviticus 19:1 through 20:27.
It begins with the words "And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, Speak to the entire congregation of the children of Israel, and say to them, 'You shall be holy, for I, the Lord, your God, am holy.' "
It then gives dozens of commands to follow, beginning with honoring one's parents and keeping the Sabbath. It ends with the prohibition of sexual immorality and avoiding non-kosher animals.
It concludes with "You shall be holy to me, for I the LORD am holy and have separated you from the peoples, that you should be mine."
There is no reward promised for any of this. No "salvation". It is simply the terms of God's covenant with the Jewish people.
When it's all said and done, then, the Jew and non-Jew alike end up in the same circumstance?
-
It's salvation of some kind though, right? The Jewish sense, I mean?
Let's look at this chronologically. The five books of Moses were written during the 40 years after the exodus and before entering the land. At that time, Jews were already under the covenant at Sinai. The magnificent works of Jeremiah and Isaiah were hundreds of years in the future. Yet those people were perfectly good Jews just following the law and sanctifying themselves according to God's word.
-
When it's all said and done, then, the Jew and non-Jew alike end up in the same circumstance?
When it's all said and done God is concerned with what we do. Jew and gentile alike. Hence the topic of the bible being sanctification.
-
When it's all said and done God is concerned with what we do. Jew and gentile alike. Hence the topic of the bible being sanctification.
If we're talking about a covenant with one people who are to be the "moral pilot project to the rest of the world to follow", then doesn't this imply something about the world should the world not follow? That is, if God is a righteous God, then those who do evil don't receive what is good -- or do they? But if they don't, then does this suggest that sanctification is tied up in something more than just its own sake?
-
If we're talking about a covenant with one people who are to be the "moral pilot project to the rest of the world to follow", then doesn't this imply something about the world should the world not follow? That is, if God is a righteous God, then those who do evil don't receive what is good -- or do they?
Looking at this from the negative side "what if the world doesn't follow" is a very (if you will pardon the expression) Christian way to look at things. You guys are obsessed with sin and it's consequences. Why not look at it like this: Every single good deed that we do sanctifies both the doer and the world. Even doing a single thing that God asks changes the world in ways that we cannot even imagine.
Instead of talking about sin and punishment, consider it as people who miss out on opportunities for sanctification.
Now go from there.
-
Why would I go from there when God starts with dealing with sin and it’s consequences?
-
Why would I go from there when God starts with dealing with sin and it’s consequences?
The glass doesn't have to be half empty. It's just that Christians see it that way.
-
If we're talking about a covenant with one people who are to be the "moral pilot project to the rest of the world to follow", then doesn't this imply something about the world should the world not follow? That is, if God is a righteous God, then those who do evil don't receive what is good -- or do they?
Looking at this from the negative side "what if the world doesn't follow" is a very (if you will pardon the expression) Christian way to look at things. You guys are obsessed with sin and it's consequences. Why not look at it like this: Every single good deed that we do sanctifies both the doer and the world. Even doing a single thing that God asks changes the world in ways that we cannot even imagine.
Instead of talking about sin and punishment, consider it as people who miss out on opportunities for sanctification.
Now go from there.
That's because a lot of Christians operate from the assumption of an Augustinian, ontological sin nature, as a consequence of the sin of Genesis 3. But what I'm asking is, what about those who consistently act in ways that don't sanctify the world? I reject Augustine so I don't think I'm stuck on 'sin and punishment', but on, what of those who act in malicious, immoral, evil ways?
Are you saying that they also engage in good deeds - and surely they do - and those deeds sanctify, and are in some way redemptive? I suppose in that I'm assuming that acts follow from character, so how someone acts tells us about who they are. Or is the idea that we have opportunities for sanctification, and even if we miss every single one of them and curse God our entire lives, we still go wherever it is the moral people go? Is there a sense of life after death, or is the idea purely: what you do in this life is what matters because there's nothing more? (And in that case, can there even be a Christian sense of salvation? And if not, is then salvation predicated on sanctification, i.e., the salvation of the future is predicated on the sanctifying acts of today?)
-
That's because a lot of Christians operate from the assumption of an Augustinian, ontological sin nature, as a consequence of the sin of Genesis 3. But what I'm asking is, what about those who consistently act in ways that don't sanctify the world? I reject Augustine so I don't think I'm stuck on 'sin and punishment', but on, what of those who act in malicious, immoral, evil ways?
So here's another observation. The OT spends an exhaustive amount of time talking about those things that God expects from us. Well the Jews, anyway. It spends almost no time talking about what happens when we don't meet those expectations. There are two chapters that dwell on it, Lev 26 and Deut 28, and those chapters are clearly warning about the community falling short of standards and not individuals. So why don't we focus on what constitutes the majority of the bible? Do what God expects.
Are you saying that they also engage in good deeds - and surely they do - and those deeds sanctify, and are in some way redemptive?
The bible doesn't tell us that deeds are "redemptive". The whole idea of being "saved" in the Christian sense doesn't exist outside of the Christian bible. As my first post says, it's a different topic.
I suppose in that I'm assuming that acts follow from character, so how someone acts tells us about who they are. Or is the idea that we have opportunities for sanctification, and even if we miss every single one of them and curse God our entire lives, we still go wherever it is the moral people go?
The bible is silent on this, so why make assumptions? Again, this is looking at the topic from a NT standpoint.
Is there a sense of life after death, or is the idea purely: what you do in this life is what matters because there's nothing more?
What we do with our time here matters because God says that it does. The bible doesn't really tell us what happens after. Surely there is something. But I'm not going to worry about it. I'm going to concern myself with the things that God told me to do. Let Him worry about what comes after.
-
You guys are obsessed with sin and it's consequences.
Indeed.
From my point of view, what happened in the garden (rebellion) and the God ordered immense consequences that followed is dominant for the rest of the Scriptures.
-
That's because a lot of Christians operate from the assumption of an Augustinian, ontological sin nature, as a consequence of the sin of Genesis 3. But what I'm asking is, what about those who consistently act in ways that don't sanctify the world? I reject Augustine so I don't think I'm stuck on 'sin and punishment', but on, what of those who act in malicious, immoral, evil ways?
So here's another observation. The OT spends an exhaustive amount of time talking about those things that God expects from us. Well the Jews, anyway. It spends almost no time talking about what happens when we don't meet those expectations. There are two chapters that dwell on it, Lev 26 and Deut 28, and those chapters are clearly warning about the community falling short of standards and not individuals. So why don't we focus on what constitutes the majority of the bible? Do what God expects.
Are you saying that they also engage in good deeds - and surely they do - and those deeds sanctify, and are in some way redemptive?
The bible doesn't tell us that deeds are "redemptive". The whole idea of being "saved" in the Christian sense doesn't exist outside of the Christian bible. As my first post says, it's a different topic.
I suppose in that I'm assuming that acts follow from character, so how someone acts tells us about who they are. Or is the idea that we have opportunities for sanctification, and even if we miss every single one of them and curse God our entire lives, we still go wherever it is the moral people go?
The bible is silent on this, so why make assumptions? Again, this is looking at the topic from a NT standpoint.
Is there a sense of life after death, or is the idea purely: what you do in this life is what matters because there's nothing more?
What we do with our time here matters because God says that it does. The bible doesn't really tell us what happens after. Surely there is something. But I'm not going to worry about it. I'm going to concern myself with the things that God told me to do. Let Him worry about what comes after.
To be fair, our Scripture tells us exactly what happens after, which is why yes, Christians are obsessed with the issue of sin and what God has done about it.
-
I find 'obsession' has a negative connotation, so I'm not sure it's the right word.
Insofar as Fenris' distinction between the Jewish and Christian bibles, I think the "surely there is something" tips the hat that perhaps there's more to the Jewish bible than sanctification, and more to the Christian bible than salvation.
-
Indeed.
From my point of view, what happened in the garden (rebellion) and the God ordered immense consequences that followed is dominant for the rest of the Scriptures.
What immense consequences? It hardly features in the OT at all.
-
To be fair, our Scripture tells us exactly what happens after, which is why yes, Christians are obsessed with the issue of sin and what God has done about it.
Yes. Your scripture. Because it's about "salvation". That's my contention.
On the other hand, my bible hardly talks about the consequences of sin at all. It's mostly about that God expects of us. "Be holy". How? "Do these things that I command you". Ok.
-
Indeed.
From my point of view, what happened in the garden (rebellion) and the God ordered immense consequences that followed is dominant for the rest of the Scriptures.
What immense consequences? It hardly features in the OT at all.
The garden is described as an heavenly place (not from this Earth but somewhere supernatural on Earth) where A&E lived in the presence of God. It was a place without sin and thus without death (Gen 2:17). No animal killing to have a nice steak, only verbs and fruit were on the menu. Like it will be on the new Earth (Jes 65:25). So a perfect world. No death, no killing, no sickness, no wars, no tornado's, no earthquakes, no COVID, no Putin, no climate change, all of that don't happen in a heavenly place where God lives.
Then one moment of disobedience and everything changed, kicked out of the heavenly place, away from the presence of the Lord on a not so nice Earth, full of dangers, death as the inevitable end result. I assume A&E cried a million of tears because of the new reality and what was lost. It's that how serious God takes sin.
Consider also there was no mercy for A&E, God could have forgiven them, He did not.
-
The garden
The garden is in three chapters of the bible. My bible has 929 chapters. That means the garden is around 3/10 of 1% of the bible. The garden happened, and the story goes on. The topic of my bible is sanctification, not the garden.
Then one moment of disobedience and everything changed, kicked out of the heavenly place, away from the presence of the Lord on a not so nice Earth, full of dangers, death as the inevitable end result.
It depends on one's outlook. I see Adam and Eve's actions giving our life meaning. We can make choices. We can do the right thing, "be holy", in spite of temptation.
Consider also there was no mercy for A&E, God could have forgiven them, He did not.
No mercy? God could have killed them on the spot. That was the proscribed punishment. Yet He did not. That shows plenty of mercy.
This week's reading from the prophets features the interesting verse of Ezekiel 20:17 "...they kept rejecting My ordinances, refusing to walk in My statutes, and profaning My Sabbaths; for their hearts continually went after their idols. Yet I looked on them with pity and did not destroy them..."
-
The Jewish bible is about sanctification.
The Christian bible is about salvation.
Discuss.
Hey Fenris,
I appreciate the thought provoking topic!
When I read Psalms the book and David seem very occupied with thoughts of salvation, deliverance, being saved...etc
Others, like Jacob, Moses, Hannah, Job, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Jonah, Habakkuk...in the OT spoke of these things as well.
The context of those is deliverance, salvation from an enemy or adversary. Clearly they could not deliver themselves in their own energy. They sought out God because that was a work that could only come from God.
That's no different in NT. The NT identifies sin as an enemy. It's an adversary that I can't deliver myself from. It wars within me.
I see this enemy and know that my deliverance will come from no one but God. I seek out God. I cry out like David knowing that God will deliver me from this enemy. He is my Redeemer just as Job spoke of. And in the same way I know that my Redeemer lives.
-
Hey Fenris,
I appreciate the thought provoking topic!
Awesome!
When I read Psalms the book and David seem very occupied with thoughts of salvation, deliverance, being saved...etc
First of all, king David lives hundreds of years after the bible was written. The religion is already established according to the laws of the first 5 books of the bible. And it's about sanctification. "Be holy".
Second of all, he lead a very eventful life. He battled the mighty Goliath. He was on the run from king Saul. He fought in wars. When he speaks of "salvation" he very clearly means in the physical sense: God saving his skin, not letting him fall into his enemies hands in battle. For example, 2 Samuel 24:14 David answered Gad, “I have great anxiety. Please, let us fall into the LORD's hands because His mercies are great, but don't let me fall into human hands.” Notice that king Saul commits suicide rather than fall to his enemies tender mercies.
Others, like Jacob, Moses, Hannah, Job, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Jonah, Habakkuk...in the OT spoke of these things as well.
You're really going to have to provide verses instead of throwing names out.
The context of those is deliverance, salvation from an enemy or adversary. Clearly they could not deliver themselves in their own energy. They sought out God because that was a work that could only come from God.
This is not so. They did what they had to do and only then prayed for divine assistance.
That's no different in NT. The NT identifies sin as an enemy.
That's because the NT is about "salvation". But it's a different topic than the OT.
It's an adversary that I can't deliver myself from. It wars within me.
Different topic, but-
Genesis 4:7 sin is crouching at your door; it desires to have you, but you must rule over it
Deuteronomy 30:11 Now what I am commanding you today is not too difficult for you or beyond your reach.
-
First of all, king David lives hundreds of years after the bible was written. The religion is already established according to the laws of the first 5 books of the bible. And it's about sanctification. "Be holy".
In that case David writings in Psalms would be falling in line with the same accusation you made of the NT compared to the OT.
Second of all, he lead a very eventful life. He battled the mighty Goliath. He was on the run from king Saul. He fought in wars. When he speaks of "salvation" he very clearly means in the physical sense: God saving his skin, not letting him fall into his enemies hands in battle. For example, 2 Samuel 24:14 David answered Gad, “I have great anxiety. Please, let us fall into the LORD's hands because His mercies are great, but don't let me fall into human hands.” Notice that king Saul commits suicide rather than fall to his enemies tender mercies.
Yep. We agree on that context.
Others, like Jacob, Moses, Hannah, Job, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Jonah, Habakkuk...in the OT spoke of these things as well.
You're really going to have to provide verses instead of throwing names out.
Challenge accepted. How many do you need? One for each?
The context of those is deliverance, salvation from an enemy or adversary. Clearly they could not deliver themselves in their own energy. They sought out God because that was a work that could only come from God.
This is not so. They did what they had to do and only then prayed for divine assistance.
Yes, they did everything they could and it wasn’t enough for deliverance.
That's no different in NT. The NT identifies sin as an enemy.
That's because the NT is about "salvation". But it's a different topic than the OT.
The NT is about sanctification too ;)
It's an adversary that I can't deliver myself from. It wars within me.
Different topic, but-
Genesis 4:7 sin is crouching at your door; it desires to have you, but you must rule over it
...And I ask for help as David did in Psalm 119:133
And just like David asked God to cleanse him of his sin in Psalm 51:1-2
Deuteronomy 30:11 Now what I am commanding you today is not too difficult for you or beyond your reach.
Aah! That’s interesting. I’m not going to quickly try to explain that away. Not going to ignore it either as it does make your point. Thanks for giving me something to meditate on.
But my initial thoughts are who is Isaiah 53 speaking of and how does that fit in your understanding of Deuteronomy 30:11?
-
In that case David writings in Psalms would be falling in line with the same accusation you made of the NT compared to the OT.
I have not commented on what king David wrote. All I have said is that it was hundreds of years later. That means that for hundreds of years, the only texts that Jews had was he 5 books of Moses, whose topic is... sanctification.
Yep. We agree on that context.
Excellent.
Challenge accepted. How many do you need? One for each?
Show, don't tell.
Yes, they did everything they could and it wasn’t enough for deliverance.
That's... not what the bible says. They did what they could and they prayed to God. No place does the bible say that their actions "weren't enough".
The NT is about sanctification too
It specifically isn't. Christian theology is all about how humans can't do anything right and have to rely on Jesus's sacrifice. The in the OT God says "Be holy" and then tells us how.
And just like David asked God to cleanse him of his sin in Psalm 51:1-2
There's a difference between asking God to cleanse sin and saying that we're incapable of not sinning. God tells Cain, the world's first murderer, that he's capable of overcoming sin.
Aah! That’s interesting.
Yes. Yes it is.
But my initial thoughts are who is Isaiah 53 speaking of and how does that fit in your understanding of Deuteronomy 30:11?
Isaiah was written 600 years or more after Deuteronomy. It obviously could be understood without juxtaposing it by the people who read it in those times.
-
It depends on one's outlook. I see Adam and Eve's actions giving our life meaning. We can make choices. We can do the right thing, "be holy", in spite of temptation.
I see the rebellion in the garden and their consequences in a different light, and far more momentous. I believe Adam and Eve's actions disrupted the fellowship and communion mankind originally had with the Creator. Yet I see in the Genesis account not only a fall from grace, but a foreshadowing of God's ultimate plan of redemption through a coming Savior -- playing out first in the OT, and coming to fruition in the NT. I also see the reason the Apostle John referred to Jesus as the Word of God (John 1:1, 14; 1 John 5:7; Revelation 19:3).
Eve ultimately ate of the forbidden fruit because she believed the serpent rather than God regarding the consequences. It was a lack of faith in God's Word that led to her disobedience, and that disobedience led to death. We see a reversal of this detrimental process in the redemptive work of Jesus. Faith in Jesus as God's Word robed in humanity effectively reverses the damage done in the garden. Just as a lack of faith led to disobedience and disobedience to death, faith in God's Word manifest in the flesh of the Savior leads to obedience, and that obedience leads to eternal life. While you don't see Jesus as the embodiment of God's Word, you would not obey God if you did not first believe in Him, so faith in God's word at least, is foundational to both our belief systems.
We also see foreshadowed shortly after the expulsion from the garden the atoning blood of Jesus revealed in the NT. The fig leaf aprons Adam and Eve made for themselves were inadequate to cover the nakedness that symbolized their sin. The animal skin garments God replaced them with required the killing of innocent creatures and shedding of their blood. In a similar way, God later rejected Cain's sacrifice because it was the works of his own hands, produced from the cursed ground, rather than a sacrifice that shed blood. This sacrificial offering instituted shortly after the exile from Eden was familiar to Noah since we see him making his offering shortly after leaving the ark (Gen 8:20).
Blood had to be applied to the lentils and doorposts in Goshen, on the vessels used in worship, the mercy seat in the holy of holies, and even on the priests themselves. What purpose does the blood serve, if not sanctification? As the writer of Hebrews states, "without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness."
There is yet another NT foreshadowing in Genesis which is very profound. The Genesis account tells us Eve was taken out of Adam. We read that God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man and removed a rib from which his bride was formed. Thousands of years later, Jesus likewise went into the deep sleep of death, and from the blood and water that came out of a spear wound in His side, His bride, the church was formed. For both the atoning blood of Jesus and waters of baptism are foundational to the faith (Romans 5:9; Ephesians 1:7-8; 1 Peter 3:21; 1 John 5:6-8; Acts 22:16). Moreover, while Jesus and Adam were motivated by different circumstances, they both willingly allowed themselves to be separated from God for the sake of their beloved.
Fenris, I know as an orthodox Jew you disagree with the premise I present, but to call such dove-tailing parallels happenstance is really pushing the envelope on coincidence. Events separated by thousands of years fit together like a hand and a glove. The closing chapters of the book of Revelation even describe a 360 degree return to conditions similar to the garden of Eden -- complete with the tree of life.
-
The garden
The garden is in three chapters of the bible. My bible has 929 chapters. That means the garden is around 3/10 of 1% of the bible. The garden happened, and the story goes on. The topic of my bible is sanctification, not the garden.
That's like studying cosmology ignoring the big bang ;D
Then one moment of disobedience and everything changed, kicked out of the heavenly place, away from the presence of the Lord on a not so nice Earth, full of dangers, death as the inevitable end result.
It depends on one's outlook. I see Adam and Eve's actions giving our life meaning. We can make choices. We can do the right thing, "be holy", in spite of temptation.
Not sure why you insist A&E life actions had no meaning and of course they had free will to make choices.
Consider also there was no mercy for A&E, God could have forgiven them, He did not.
No mercy? God could have killed them on the spot. That was the proscribed punishment. Yet He did not. That shows plenty of mercy.
Or relented like He did to the people of Nineveh giving A&E a second chance. Instead (because of that one sin) God knowingly allowed a world of suffering while we know God is love. Why? How can you not take sin as the root of the moment things went wrong.
This week's reading from the prophets features the interesting verse of Ezekiel 20:17 "...they kept rejecting My ordinances, refusing to walk in My statutes, and profaning My Sabbaths; for their hearts continually went after their idols. Yet I looked on them with pity and did not destroy them..."
Without His mercy we are nothing.
-
If one cannot see the NT as the inspired, progressive outfolding of the OT, then one can neither see hell in it's NT terms nor the desperate need for salvation which applies to all men, as no man remained sanctified under the Law. The Law did not fail, per se, but men do and did.
-
I see the rebellion in the garden and their consequences in a different light, and far more momentous.
It's a mere three chapters, less than a half of one percent of the bible, and it ever features again. Meanwhile the rest of the five books of Moses deals quite exhaustively with God's covenant and the conditions in it, especially some 613 commands that are expected to be followed. The word "salvation" doesn't appear, but the phrase "be holy" does. I'm just telling you what's there.
I believe Adam and Eve's actions disrupted the fellowship and communion mankind originally had with the Creator. Yet I see in the Genesis account not only a fall from grace, but a foreshadowing of God's ultimate plan of redemption through a coming Savior -- playing out first in the OT, and coming to fruition in the NT. I also see the reason the Apostle John referred to Jesus as the Word of God (John 1:1, 14; 1 John 5:7; Revelation 19:3).
And to prove this, you have to quote...the NT. Because my bible doesn't say any of the things that you're talking of.
Eve ultimately ate of the forbidden fruit because she believed the serpent rather than God regarding the consequences. It was a lack of faith in God's Word that led to her disobedience, and that disobedience led to death.
The word "faith" also doesn't feature. It was Eve's actions that got her in trouble. What she did. Not what she believed, because the bible actually doesn't tell us that.
We also see foreshadowed shortly after the expulsion from the garden the atoning blood of Jesus revealed in the NT. The fig leaf aprons Adam and Eve made for themselves were inadequate to cover the nakedness that symbolized their sin.
"Symbolized". "Foreshadowed". But not in the text.
Blood had to be applied to the lentils and doorposts in Goshen, on the vessels used in worship, the mercy seat in the holy of holies, and even on the priests themselves. What purpose does the blood serve, if not sanctification?
Yes. That's what I said. The OT is about sanctification. The NT is about salvation. Different topics.
As the writer of Hebrews states, "without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness."
Weirdly enough, that phrase is not in my bible.
There is yet another NT foreshadowing in Genesis which is very profound.
Again. "Symbolized". "Foreshadowed". But not in the text.
Try reading Leviticus. It's full of things that God actually expects us to do. Because they sanctify us. No symbolism or foreshadowing needed.
Fenris, I know as an orthodox Jew you disagree with the premise I present, but to call such dove-tailing parallels happenstance is really pushing the envelope on coincidence. Events separated by thousands of years fit together like a hand and a glove. The closing chapters of the book of Revelation even describe a 360 degree return to conditions similar to the garden of Eden -- complete with the tree of life.
This gave me a chuckle. Honestly, someone writes about getting back to Eden, ignoring the entire rest of the bible, and that makes it correct and believable?
-
If one cannot see the NT as the inspired, progressive outfolding of the OT, then one can neither see hell in it's NT terms nor the desperate need for salvation which applies to all men, as no man remained sanctified under the Law.
The NT creates a "need for salvation", and then fills it. It is circular logic. I don't need "salvation", because my bible doesn't speak of it. It tells me that God wants us to sanctify ourselves though His commands. So this I must do. And that's it.
-
That's like studying cosmology ignoring the big bang ;D
Bad analogy. The big bang happened, and that's it. All the laws of physics were already in place.
On the other hand, God communicated with man after the garden. In fact, there are far far more communications between man and God after the garden than in the garden. And a lot of them deal with God's expectations for our behavior. To sanctify ourselves. You might not like it, but you can't pretend that it didn't happen.
Not sure why you insist A&E life actions had no meaning and of course they had free will to make choices.
They could be tempted from without, sure. But after eating from the tree of knowledge, they could also be tempted from within.
Gen 3:22 And the LORD God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil."
Instead (because of that one sin) God knowingly allowed a world of suffering while we know God is love. Why?
Evil is the consequence of free will. But so is good. In fact, struggling to overcomes one's baser instincts and doing the right thing gives that meaning.
Without His mercy we are nothing.
Yes, that's true. But that doesn't mean that we shouldn't obey God and sanctify ourselves, as He asks.
-
I have not commented on what king David wrote. All I have said is that it was hundreds of years later. That means that for hundreds of years, the only texts that Jews had was he 5 books of Moses, whose topic is... sanctification.
Your opening post stated the OT. There’s no need to justify the discussion context as based on the first 5. There are Books after the first 5 that do discuss salvation. In Psalms and Isaiah it’s mentioned several times. Psalms often.
Show, don't tell.
As you wish...
Jacob: Genesis 49:18
Moses: Exodus 14:13-14; 15:2
Hannah: 1 Sam 2:1
Job: Job 13:16
Isaiah: Isaiah 52:7
Jeremiah: Lamentations 3:25-26
Jonah: Jonah 2:9
Habakkuk: Habakkuk 3:17-18
That's... not what the bible says. They did what they could and they prayed to God. No place does the bible say that their actions "weren't enough"
To be clear I’m saying. David needed God’s help of deliverance. He knew he couldn’t deliver himself. In Psalm 144:2 he pleads in his neediness. As Psalm 3:8 states, Salvation belongs to the Lord.
It specifically isn't. Christian theology is all about how humans can't do anything right and have to rely on Jesus's sacrifice. The in the OT God says "Be holy" and then tells us how.
It’s not correct to say that sanctification specifically isn’t in the NT. The Greek hagios is defined as: to make holy, consecrate, sanctify. Sanctification is there. (28) times specifically.
There's a difference between asking God to cleanse sin and saying that we're incapable of not sinning. God tells Cain, the world's first murderer, that he's capable of overcoming sin.
Do you know someone that capably has never sinned? This is why the NT discusses salvation so much.
Isaiah was written 600 years or more after Deuteronomy. It obviously could be understood without juxtaposing it by the people who read it in those times.
That's a flimsy explanation. In this case what is good for the Goose is still good for the gander.
-
Your opening post stated the OT. There’s no need to justify the discussion context as based on the first 5.
I can justify the context however I like. You're quoting single verses directly below this and ignoring the entire surrounding chapter. Where's your context?
Jacob: Genesis 49:18
"For Your salvation, I hope, O Lord!"
There is no context here whatsoever.
This is when Jacob is blessing his sons before his death. The verse prior says "Dan will be a serpent on the road, a viper on the path, which bites the horse's heels, so its rider falls backwards" and the verse following says "As for Gad, a troop will troop forth from him, and it will troop back in its tracks" (Which is a pun in Hebrew but not English. What you miss by not reading it in the original Klingon). The "salvation" referenced, in context, seems to mean God saving these tribes in battle. Nothing more, and certainly not "salvation" in the NT sense.
Moses: Exodus 14:13-14
"Moses said to the people, Don't be afraid! Stand firm and see the Lord's salvation that He will wreak for you today"
Again, context.
The Israelites are afraid of the approaching Egyptian chariots. Moses tells them not to worry, God will save them. From the Egyptians. And their chariots.
Isaiah: Isaiah 52:7
"How beautiful are the feet of the herald on the mountains, announcing peace, heralding good tidings, announcing salvation, saying to Zion, "Your God has manifested His kingdom."
Context.
The chapter begins "Awaken, awaken, put on your strength, O Zion; put on the garments of your beauty, Jerusalem the Holy City, for no longer shall the uncircumcised or the unclean continue to enter you." This is talking about the Jews being redeemed from exile. No mystery, this is the plain text.
And so on....
Now I'm going to quote some verses about sanctification. Since nobody seems interested in the topic.
Lev 16
The Lord said to Moses, “Speak to the entire assembly of Israel and say to them: ‘Be holy because I, the Lord your God, am holy.
“‘Each of you must respect your mother and father, and you must observe my Sabbaths. I am the Lord your God.
“‘Do not turn to idols or make metal gods for yourselves. I am the Lord your God.
“‘When you sacrifice a fellowship offering to the Lord, sacrifice it in such a way that it will be accepted on your behalf. It shall be eaten on the day you sacrifice it or on the next day; anything left over until the third day must be burned up. If any of it is eaten on the third day, it is impure and will not be accepted. Whoever eats it will be held responsible because they have desecrated what is holy to the Lord; they must be cut off from their people.
“‘When you reap the harvest of your land, do not reap to the very edges of your field or gather the gleanings of your harvest. Do not go over your vineyard a second time or pick up the grapes that have fallen. Leave them for the poor and the foreigner. I am the Lord your God.
“‘Do not steal.
“‘Do not lie.
“‘Do not deceive one another.
“‘Do not swear falsely by my name and so profane the name of your God. I am the Lord.
“‘Do not defraud or rob your neighbor.
“‘Do not hold back the wages of a hired worker overnight.
“‘Do not curse the deaf or put a stumbling block in front of the blind, but fear your God. I am the Lord.
“‘Do not pervert justice; do not show partiality to the poor or favoritism to the great, but judge your neighbor fairly.
“‘Do not go about spreading slander among your people.
“‘Do not do anything that endangers your neighbor’s life. I am the Lord.
“‘Do not hate a fellow Israelite in your heart. Rebuke your neighbor frankly so you will not share in their guilt.
“‘Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against anyone among your people, but love your neighbor as yourself. I am the Lord.
“‘Keep my decrees.
“‘Do not mate different kinds of animals.
“‘Do not plant your field with two kinds of seed.
“‘Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material.
“‘If a man sleeps with a female slave who is promised to another man but who has not been ransomed or given her freedom, there must be due punishment.[ Yet they are not to be put to death, because she had not been freed. The man, however, must bring a ram to the entrance to the tent of meeting for a guilt offering to the Lord. With the ram of the guilt offering the priest is to make atonement for him before the Lord for the sin he has committed, and his sin will be forgiven.
“‘When you enter the land and plant any kind of fruit tree, regard its fruit as forbidden. For three years you are to consider it forbidden; it must not be eaten. In the fourth year all its fruit will be holy, an offering of praise to the Lord. But in the fifth year you may eat its fruit. In this way your harvest will be increased. I am the Lord your God.
“‘Do not eat any meat with the blood still in it.
“‘Do not practice divination or seek omens.
“‘Do not cut the hair at the sides of your head or clip off the edges of your beard.
“‘Do not cut your bodies for the dead or put tattoo marks on yourselves. I am the Lord.
“‘Do not degrade your daughter by making her a prostitute, or the land will turn to prostitution and be filled with wickedness.
“‘Observe my Sabbaths and have reverence for my sanctuary. I am the Lord.
“‘Do not turn to mediums or seek out spiritists, for you will be defiled by them. I am the Lord your God.
“‘Stand up in the presence of the aged, show respect for the elderly and revere your God. I am the Lord.
“‘When a foreigner resides among you in your land, do not mistreat them. The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt. I am the Lord your God.
“‘Do not use dishonest standards when measuring length, weight or quantity. Use honest scales and honest weights, an honest ephah and an honest hin. I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt.
“‘Keep all my decrees and all my laws and follow them. I am the Lord.’”
and at the end of the following chapter,
You are to be holy to me because I, the Lord, am holy, and I have set you apart from the nations to be my own.
With the exception of verses 5 thru 8, and the matter of the female slave, this all applies and can be carried out nowadays. And so we do. Because God commands us to be holy, the topic, and purpose of, the bible.
To be clear I’m saying. David needed God’s help of deliverance. He knew he couldn’t deliver himself.
He knew the outcome of his actions were in God's hands and not his own. No place does the bible say that "he couldn't deliver himself".
It’s not correct to say that sanctification specifically isn’t in the NT. The Greek hagios is defined as: to make holy, consecrate, sanctify. Sanctification is there. (28) times specifically.
Again, just because it uses a word doesn't make it a topic of significance. I've been here a long, long time. Standard Christian theology as has been taught to me is that all our deeds are meaningless and only faith saves. In other words, the topic of the NT is "salvation". By way of contrast, the OT says that our actions are extremely consequential, and God expects us to abide by His covenant with us by sanctifying ourselves. I cited an entire chapter, above.
Do you know someone that capably has never sinned? This is why the NT discusses salvation so much.
Of course everyone sins. God created us imperfectly. That doesn't mean that we need "salvation" in the Christian sense. God doesn't expect perfection from us. He expects us to reach our own individual potential, which is different for each person.
Really the whole idea that man needs "salvation" in the Christian sense is a Christian invention. Galatians 2:21 for example- " if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing".
That's a flimsy explanation. In this case what is good for the Goose is still good for the gander.
In what way is it "flimsy"? The Jews at Sinai were only just receiving the bible. They didn't have the works of the prophets. How could they know and be guided by words they never heard and concepts they did not know?
-
It's a mere three chapters, less than a half of one percent of the bible, and it ever features again. Meanwhile the rest of the five books of Moses deals quite exhaustively with God's covenant and the conditions in it, especially some 613 commands that are expected to be followed. The word "salvation" doesn't appear, but the phrase "be holy" does. I'm just telling you what's there.
"Speak up and present your case—yes, let them take counsel together. Who foretold this long ago? Who announced it from ancient times? Was it not I, the LORD? There is no other God but Me, a righteous God and Savior; there is none but Me. Turn to Me and be saved, all the ends of the earth; for I am God, and there is no other." (Isaiah 45:21-22)
Maybe I'm missing something, but if God calls Himself a Savior, and exhorts all to turn to Him to be saved, I see the concept of salvation. You might maintain the Hebrew there means to be "rescued" or "delivered", rather than "saved", but it all boils down to the same concept of redemption and protection.
The word "faith" also doesn't feature. It was Eve's actions that got her in trouble. What she did. Not what she believed, because the bible actually doesn't tell us that.
Come on, fenris. If Eve had believed God's warning instead of the serpent's lies, she would not have eaten the fruit. But then again you probably see the whole convo with the serpent as allegory, anyway, right?
Yes. That's what I said. The OT is about sanctification. The NT is about salvation. Different topics.
"The righteous shall live by faith." (Habakkuk 2:4) Also, Abraham was credited with righteousness because of his faith long before the giving of the law. And Jews would not obey the law unless they believed in God to begin with. Don't act like faith is a foreign concept in the torah.
-
:thinking: It seems to me that you're talking about the same thing with respect to Eve, except that Sojourner is trying to get at why Eve acted as she did. Probably 'trust' would be a better word, and this lack of trust is what informed the act, and it's the act that got her in trouble. Of course, the text only tells us that Eve ate the fruit because she saw that it was good for food, aesthetically pleasing, and desirable for gaining wisdom. Whatever determinations we make of Eve's motivations are purely implied by the text.
I wonder: if Adam and Eve had acted differently, would their relationship with God and each other have survived? Was the sin the act of eating the fruit, or their responses after eating the fruit?
-
:thinking: It seems to me that you're talking about the same thing with respect to Eve, except that Sojourner is trying to get at why Eve acted as she did. Probably 'trust' would be a better word, and this lack of trust is what informed the act, and it's the act that got her in trouble. Of course, the text only tells us that Eve ate the fruit because she saw that it was good for food, aesthetically pleasing, and desirable for gaining wisdom. Whatever determinations we make of Eve's motivations are purely implied by the text.
I wonder: if Adam and Eve had acted differently, would their relationship with God and each other have survived? Was the sin the act of eating the fruit, or their responses after eating the fruit?
Eating the fruit was a violation of God's commandment, which is rebellion. And Eve clearly understood the prohibition, for she repeated to the serpent what God had said about it. I believe the serpent convinced Eve that God was not being truthful, but was attempting to deprive her of benefits the fruit would impart. The bottom line is, satan, through the serpent, enticed Eve with the same delusion that caused his own downfall -- believing that one can be "like God."
Edit: Satan's equivocation through the serpent is what beguiled Eve. He did what he is a master of: blending in just enough truth to make a lie believable. Yes, her eyes were opened to know good and evil, but eating the fruit brought fear and guilt instead of the godlike attributes he promised. In the final analysis, regardless of the potential benefits, Eve would not have eaten the fruit if she believed it would result in her death. I think she simply chose to trust the serpent rather than God.
-
Eating the fruit was a violation of God's commandment, which is rebellion. And Eve clearly understood the prohibition, for she repeated to the serpent what God had said about it.
Not quite (emphasis my own):
Genesis 2:15 - 17
The Lord God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it. And the Lord God commanded the man, “You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die.”
Genesis 3:2 - 3
The woman said to the serpent, “We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, but God did say, ‘You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.’”
Eve added the prohibition against touching the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, whereas the narrative in chapter 2 prohibits eating, but not touching. This is potentially a failure of Adam to teach Eve properly, which leads us to something interesting...
...If Eve thought that she'd die if she touched the fruit, and then doesn't, this error of knowledge lends credence to the lie of the serpent. She touched the fruit and didn't die, just like the serpent said. How did that error creep in such that the serpent could capitalise?
In any case, Adam who was with Eve failed to stop Eve from eating the fruit (ch. 3v6). And, if Eve understood the command to prohibit touching, and she touched, then to her, that is still an act of disobedience -- rebellion is something else, I think. But again, in that instance, if Eve believed that God didn't tell the truth, then how mitigating is that circumstance in terms of culpability?
(And then we circle back to my post above.)
-
I can justify the context however I like. You're quoting single verses directly below this and ignoring the entire surrounding chapter. Where's your context?
There is no context here whatsoever.
I’m not ignoring the context. I clearly stated previously in post #29 that the context was deliverance from an enemy or adversary.
He knew the outcome of his actions were in God's hands and not his own. No place does the bible say that "he couldn't deliver himself".
That seems like a contradictory statement. Are you saying the outcome was in God's hands or that David could have delivered himself without God?
Again, just because it uses a word doesn't make it a topic of significance. I've been here a long, long time. Standard Christian theology as has been taught to me is that all our deeds are meaningless and only faith saves. In other words, the topic of the NT is "salvation". By way of contrast, the OT says that our actions are extremely consequential, and God expects us to abide by His covenant with us by sanctifying ourselves. I cited an entire chapter, above.
There’s a lot of nuance here that you’re not acknowledging.
James 2:17-18 says: In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.
But someone will say, “You have faith; I have deeds.”
Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by my deeds.
Of course everyone sins. God created us imperfectly. That doesn't mean that we need "salvation" in the Christian sense. God doesn't expect perfection from us. He expects us to reach our own individual potential, which is different for each person.
Yes, everyone sins, and that sin separates us from God.
Isaiah 59:2 But your wrongdoings have caused a separation between you and your God, And your sins have hidden His face from you so that He does not hear.
Because of sin we need God deliverance as we can’t deliver ourselves since all our righteous deeds are filthy rags.
Isaiah 64:6 For all of us have become like one who is unclean, And all our righteous deeds are like a filthy garment; And all of us wither like a leaf, And our wrongdoings, like the wind, take us away.
In what way is it "flimsy"? The Jews at Sinai were only just receiving the bible. They didn't have the works of the prophets. How could they know and be guided by words they never heard and concepts they did not know?
It’s flimsy because you are trying to continue the conversation in limitation to only what they received at Sinai. God’s revelation to the nation was not complete and there was more to unfold. The more to unfold was Isaiah 53 as I bought up.
-
The Jewish bible is about sanctification.
The Christian bible is about salvation.
Discuss.
Since salvation is to save life, there is no difference.
-
If one cannot see the NT as the inspired, progressive outfolding of the OT, then one can neither see hell in it's NT terms nor the desperate need for salvation which applies to all men, as no man remained sanctified under the Law.
The NT creates a "need for salvation", and then fills it. It is circular logic. I don't need "salvation", because my bible doesn't speak of it. It tells me that God wants us to sanctify ourselves though His commands. So this I must do. And that's it.
Your focus on the differing themes of the testaments draws my attention to Christ in all the scriptures, which I cannot help but see.
While Your academic synopsis does highlight the over-arching differences in God's immediate purpose for the children of Israel in Old Testament periods and the New Testament's claim of Christ's messiahship and His calling all men into the Kingdom of God, it only serves to highlight the mutual dependence of the scriptures upon each other.
The NT is fullfilment of what has been repeatedly shown in the OT to be an innocent victim (a lamb) who's sacrifice would be sufficient and pleasing to God the Father for the forgiveness of sin.
Everything we need to know of this person is detailed in the OT.
To not apprehend this is likened to kicking against the pricks when reading both testaments.
The OT without the NT reads like a saga wherein Israel repeatedly strives yet ultimately fails to sanctify God while awaiting a messiah.
-
The OT without the NT reads like a saga wherein Israel repeatedly strives yet ultimately fails to sanctify God while awaiting a messiah.
That's not what Fenris is saying, but I think you've captured the distinction he's drawing. I think what needs to be argued is that sanctification is salvific, even if understood differently than the Christian understanding.
Sanctify yourself, or don't, and worship that calf, but then you'll die of the plague.
-
The OT without the NT reads like a saga wherein Israel repeatedly strives yet ultimately fails to sanctify God while awaiting a messiah.
That's not what Fenris is saying, but I think you've captured the distinction he's drawing. I think what needs to be argued is that sanctification is salvific, even if understood differently than the Christian understanding.
Sanctify yourself, or don't, and worship that calf, but then you'll die of the plague.
Right. And eventually the question needs to be asked: Does sanctification in the OT system deliver from death, the penalty of sin?
The NT does not invent this but does proclaim eternal life for the believer. Yes, salvation from death is essential and is what the NT offers freely.
Sanctification for the children of Israel was also essential as God prepares the world for Messiah, whose gift of salvation was preached to Israel first. Salvation for the non-Jew followed Israel's rejection of the Gospel through unbelief.
Salvation is eternal deliverance from death. Sanctification is the role that God's people fulfill in a lost world, and is salvific only in the sense of the coming Messiah, which the OT promises.
-
Eating the fruit was a violation of God's commandment, which is rebellion. And Eve clearly understood the prohibition, for she repeated to the serpent what God had said about it.
Not quite (emphasis my own):
Genesis 2:15 - 17
The Lord God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it. And the Lord God commanded the man, “You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die.”
Genesis 3:2 - 3
The woman said to the serpent, “We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, but God did say, ‘You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.’”
Eve added the prohibition against touching the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, whereas the narrative in chapter 2 prohibits eating, but not touching. This is potentially a failure of Adam to teach Eve properly, which leads us to something interesting...
...If Eve thought that she'd die if she touched the fruit, and then doesn't, this error of knowledge lends credence to the lie of the serpent. She touched the fruit and didn't die, just like the serpent said. How did that error creep in such that the serpent could capitalise?
In any case, Adam who was with Eve failed to stop Eve from eating the fruit (ch. 3v6). And, if Eve understood the command to prohibit touching, and she touched, then to her, that is still an act of disobedience -- rebellion is something else, I think. But again, in that instance, if Eve believed that God didn't tell the truth, then how mitigating is that circumstance in terms of culpability?
(And then we circle back to my post above.)
I've always pondered a possible "test touch" prior to the eating of the fruit as well. It exemplifies the jeopardy we can place ourselves in when we add to or take away from what God actually said.
Not sure how Adam and Eve's willful disobedience to a commandment of God doesn't amount to a self-serving rebellion against His authority.
At any rate, regardless of motive, not taking God's word to heart can lead to harsh consequences. Consider the case of the hapless Uzzah.
-
Eating the fruit was a violation of God's commandment, which is rebellion. And Eve clearly understood the prohibition, for she repeated to the serpent what God had said about it.
Not quite (emphasis my own):
Genesis 2:15 - 17
The Lord God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it. And the Lord God commanded the man, “You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die.”
Genesis 3:2 - 3
The woman said to the serpent, “We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, but God did say, ‘You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.’”
Eve added the prohibition against touching the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, whereas the narrative in chapter 2 prohibits eating, but not touching. This is potentially a failure of Adam to teach Eve properly, which leads us to something interesting...
...If Eve thought that she'd die if she touched the fruit, and then doesn't, this error of knowledge lends credence to the lie of the serpent. She touched the fruit and didn't die, just like the serpent said. How did that error creep in such that the serpent could capitalise?
In any case, Adam who was with Eve failed to stop Eve from eating the fruit (ch. 3v6). And, if Eve understood the command to prohibit touching, and she touched, then to her, that is still an act of disobedience -- rebellion is something else, I think. But again, in that instance, if Eve believed that God didn't tell the truth, then how mitigating is that circumstance in terms of culpability?
(And then we circle back to my post above.)
I've always pondered a possible "test touch" prior to the eating of the fruit as well. It exemplifies the jeopardy we can place ourselves in when we add to or take away from what God actually said.
Not sure how Adam and Eve's willful disobedience to a commandment of God doesn't amount to a self-serving rebellion against His authority.
At any rate, regardless of motive, not taking God's word to heart can lead to harsh consequences. Consider the case of the hapless Uzzah.
I think rebellion requires intention that Adam and Eve didn't necessarily possess. They weren't in the garden intending to rebel against God, but they were disobedient. I suppose I'm saying that all rebellion involves disobedience, but not all disobedience is rebellion. Maybe it's a hair-splitting technical distinction, but I think if anything I'd consider Adam and Eve to have acted unwisely, foolishly, and disobediently, but not out of malice, spite, hatred, etc. Like, Eve wanting to be like God isn't necessarily that she wanted to be equal to God, but that she knew how God was and wanted to be like that very good creator.
-
Eating the fruit was a violation of God's commandment, which is rebellion. And Eve clearly understood the prohibition, for she repeated to the serpent what God had said about it.
Not quite (emphasis my own):
Genesis 2:15 - 17
The Lord God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it. And the Lord God commanded the man, “You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die.”
Genesis 3:2 - 3
The woman said to the serpent, “We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, but God did say, ‘You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.’”
Eve added the prohibition against touching the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, whereas the narrative in chapter 2 prohibits eating, but not touching. This is potentially a failure of Adam to teach Eve properly, which leads us to something interesting...
...If Eve thought that she'd die if she touched the fruit, and then doesn't, this error of knowledge lends credence to the lie of the serpent. She touched the fruit and didn't die, just like the serpent said. How did that error creep in such that the serpent could capitalise?
In any case, Adam who was with Eve failed to stop Eve from eating the fruit (ch. 3v6). And, if Eve understood the command to prohibit touching, and she touched, then to her, that is still an act of disobedience -- rebellion is something else, I think. But again, in that instance, if Eve believed that God didn't tell the truth, then how mitigating is that circumstance in terms of culpability?
(And then we circle back to my post above.)
I've always pondered a possible "test touch" prior to the eating of the fruit as well. It exemplifies the jeopardy we can place ourselves in when we add to or take away from what God actually said.
Not sure how Adam and Eve's willful disobedience to a commandment of God doesn't amount to a self-serving rebellion against His authority.
At any rate, regardless of motive, not taking God's word to heart can lead to harsh consequences. Consider the case of the hapless Uzzah.
I think rebellion requires intention that Adam and Eve didn't necessarily possess. They weren't in the garden intending to rebel against God, but they were disobedient. I suppose I'm saying that all rebellion involves disobedience, but not all disobedience is rebellion. Maybe it's a hair-splitting technical distinction, but I think if anything I'd consider Adam and Eve to have acted unwisely, foolishly, and disobediently, but not out of malice, spite, hatred, etc. Like, Eve wanting to be like God isn't necessarily that she wanted to be equal to God, but that she knew how God was and wanted to be like that very good creator.
Yeah, I believe there can be a fine line between disobedience and outright rebellion, (using Uzziah again as an example). And I agree there was no malice involved on Adam and Eve's part. But God considered the offense egregious enough to warrant expulsion from the garden, followed by a life of toil, pain, sickness, misery, and ultimately death. I believe there was spiritual death immediately after eating the fruit.
I have wondered if the forbidden fruit scenario was a test instigated by Satan, similar to the way Job was put to the test. Eve's temptation involved lust of the flesh, (good for food), lust of the eyes (pleasant to look at), and the pride of life (desirable for imparting wisdom), the same three-prong strategy Satan later tried on Jesus. Studying man, the Devil developed an effective formula that generally exploits the weaknesses of human nature. I've even wondered if successfully corrupting man in the garden facilitated forfeiture of Adam's dominion over the earth to Satan. After all, Jesus did not dispute him when he claimed it had been handed over to him, and was his to give away.
At any rate, if what transpired in the garden was a test, they failed miserably, and suffered dire consequences that impacted us all. Still, the sin that caused mankind's fall facilitated an opportunity for God to fully demonstrate His mercy and grace by means of a plan to redeem us through a Savior.
-
Matt 5:48 - You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.
Lev 19:2 - You shall be holy, for I the LORD your God am holy.
Does it mean the same or not?
I understand both verses as to be sinless as God is without sin.
Since no one is without sin it can be reasoned that we remain under the curse (punishment) of the fall in the garden and remain separated from God, even after death. Unless....
-
Unless they're truly repentant. Every believer will be tried, because he was tried, even though he's not the One who needed it. 😀
-
I dunno, if Jesus died for the sins of the world then:
(1) We need to limit what 'the world' is so that it's not everybody, or
(2) We need to predicate the payment of sin on accepting Jesus' death/sacrifice, or
(3) We need to accept that the sins of the world were paid for, and so salvation/damnation now rests on something else, e.g., entering into a relationship with Jesus/rejecting Jesus
On (3) the salient idea is that a relationship cannot be forced, so even if your sins are paid for, if you don't want to be in a relationship then you don't want to be in a relationship, and that's not going to be forced on you. Hell for humanity isn't thus "you go here because of all those weighty sins" but "you go here because you rejected a relationship".
Or, 'being tried' and 'being accountable' are two different things.
-
It's how I understand (the much discussed) Eph 2:8 and I am not even sure but it certainly is in line with my previous post.
8 - For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast.
Without grace [Jesus] no one is saved [John 14:6].
Not even by faith.
And he/she remains under the curse of the garden, separation from God.
As such I read the rest of the passage and is in context with v1-v7.
But because of God's gift (Jesus) by faith we are saved (John 3:16) from the curse of the garden.
It's maybe a bit farfetched to put so much emphasis on the curse of the garden but it is the point when things went wrong and maybe restoration starts where things went wrong.
-
It's how I understand (the much discussed) Eph 2:8 and I am not even sure but it certainly is in line with my previous post.
8 - For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast.
Without grace [Jesus] no one is saved [John 14:6].
Not even by faith.
And he/she remains under the curse of the garden, separation from God.
As such I read the rest of the passage and is in context with v1-v7.
But because of God's gift (Jesus) by faith we are saved (John 3:16) from the curse of the garden.
It's maybe a bit farfetched to put so much emphasis on the curse of the garden but it is the point when things went wrong and maybe restoration starts where things went wrong.
Sure, but this doesn't exclude (3). Faith is still salvific, and Jesus is still the object. What others lack is faith, not the payment of their debt (I suppose).
-
It's how I understand (the much discussed) Eph 2:8 and I am not even sure but it certainly is in line with my previous post.
8 - For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast.
Without grace [Jesus] no one is saved [John 14:6].
Not even by faith.
And he/she remains under the curse of the garden, separation from God.
As such I read the rest of the passage and is in context with v1-v7.
But because of God's gift (Jesus) by faith we are saved (John 3:16) from the curse of the garden.
It's maybe a bit farfetched to put so much emphasis on the curse of the garden but it is the point when things went wrong and maybe restoration starts where things went wrong.
Sure, but this doesn't exclude (3). Faith is still salvific, and Jesus is still the object. What others lack is faith, not the payment of their debt (I suppose).
Isn't faith a sign (or even proof) of a relationship?
-
It's how I understand (the much discussed) Eph 2:8 and I am not even sure but it certainly is in line with my previous post.
8 - For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast.
Without grace [Jesus] no one is saved [John 14:6].
Not even by faith.
And he/she remains under the curse of the garden, separation from God.
As such I read the rest of the passage and is in context with v1-v7.
But because of God's gift (Jesus) by faith we are saved (John 3:16) from the curse of the garden.
It's maybe a bit farfetched to put so much emphasis on the curse of the garden but it is the point when things went wrong and maybe restoration starts where things went wrong.
Sure, but this doesn't exclude (3). Faith is still salvific, and Jesus is still the object. What others lack is faith, not the payment of their debt (I suppose).
Isn't faith a sign (or even proof) of a relationship?
Yes, and (3) relies on the relationship for salvation, but not the act of forgiveness of sin. I'm suggesting the possibility that damnation is possible even where sin has been paid for, because what would matter is the relationship, not this-or-that sin. I'm not saying I believe that, it's just something to think about.
-
Oh I believe that without qualification.
-
just because it uses a word doesn't make it a topic of significance. I've been here a long, long time. Standard Christian theology as has been taught to me is that all our deeds are meaningless and only faith saves. In other words, the topic of the NT is "salvation". By way of contrast, the OT says that our actions are extremely consequential, and God expects us to abide by His covenant with us by sanctifying ourselves. I cited an entire chapter, above.
Fenris, I know your extensive exposure to Christian theology has given you a working knowledge of the fundamentals. But saying our deeds are meaningless reveals a skewed perception. Yes, Christians look for atonement for sins in the blood of Jesus, and we trust in His righteousness rather than relying on our personal works for justification. But our actions are certainly not inconsequential. James declares that a profession of faith without good works is empty, like a body without a spirit. Acts of benevolence and altruism are evidence that one's faith is sincere. Beyond James' treatment of the topic, numerous passages speak of the importance of our actions. Here are just a few:
For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that each one may receive his due for the things done in the body, whether good or bad. (2 Cor 5:10)
And I heard a voice from heaven telling me to write, "Blessed are the dead--those who die in the Lord from this moment on." "Yes," says the Spirit, "they will rest from their labors, for their deeds will follow them." (Revelation 14:13)
“Behold, I am coming soon, and My reward is with Me, to give to each one according to what he has done. (Revelation 22:12)
For we are God’s workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance as our way of life. (Ephesians 2:10)
Pursue peace with everyone, as well as holiness, without which no one will see the Lord. (Hebrews 12:14)
In the same way, let your light shine before men, that they may see your good deeds and glorify your Father in heaven. (Matthew 5:16)
But to those of you who will listen, I say: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. (Luke 6:27-28)
And our people must also learn to devote themselves to good works in order to meet the pressing needs of others, so that they will not be unfruitful. (Titus 3:14)
The sins of some men are obvious, going ahead of them to judgment; but the sins of others do not surface until later. In the same way, good deeds are obvious, and even the ones that are inconspicuous cannot remain hidden. (1 Timothy 5:24-25)
The works of all believers will be examined and assessed at the judgment seat of Christ, with the good being rewarded, and the bad being burned up. If there is nothing to rewarded for, the believer will "suffer loss," but will be still be saved. (1 Cor 3:11-15). The death angel passed over the households in Goshen that had the Passover lamb's blood on the doorposts. In the same way, God's judgment passes over Christians that have the blood of Jesus applied to them through faith. As Paul described it, we are clothed with Christ's righteousness like a garment, and are justified before God because of His righteousness. But we're still expected to live a holy, sanctified life just as Judaism teaches.
Don't forget that Christianity is not a Gentile contrivance. It originated with devout, law-keeping Jews who simply believed Jesus was the long-awaited Messiah and God's Passover lamb. With the exception of Luke and Acts, the NT was written by Jewish believers. You may, as did the first century Jewish authorities, believe our faith to be an errant sect. But, like Judaism, it has its roots firmly in Abraham, whom God accounted righteous because of his faith -- hundreds of years before the law was even established.
-
Oh I believe that without qualification.
I'm leaning heavily in that direction, having spent a lot of time over the last year thinking, praying, studying, reading on, etc., the more 'traditional' propitiatory model. Actually, I was thinking of that in relation to Genesis 3 more recently:
- Adam and Eve eat the fruit
- Let's assume the fruit doesn't impart knowledge, but A&E instead experience guilt with respect to "what did we just do?"
- When asked where they were, Adam and Eve hide, cast blame, deflect, don't take personal responsibility, etc.
- A&E are kicked out of the garden and are cursed/are told what it means to be away from God i.e. 'cursed'
Were they kicked out specifically because of their sin, or because the realisation that followed their act meant that it simply wasn't relationally possible for them to maintain their relationship with God, i.e., it would now be anxious, guilt-ridden, filled with self-blame, regret, etc. That is, if Christ died for the sins of the world then their sin was already paid for, but what that paying for can't account for is the relationship dynamic.
-
It's how I understand (the much discussed) Eph 2:8 and I am not even sure but it certainly is in line with my previous post.
8 - For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast.
Without grace [Jesus] no one is saved [John 14:6].
Not even by faith.
And he/she remains under the curse of the garden, separation from God.
As such I read the rest of the passage and is in context with v1-v7.
But because of God's gift (Jesus) by faith we are saved (John 3:16) from the curse of the garden.
It's maybe a bit farfetched to put so much emphasis on the curse of the garden but it is the point when things went wrong and maybe restoration starts where things went wrong.
Sure, but this doesn't exclude (3). Faith is still salvific, and Jesus is still the object. What others lack is faith, not the payment of their debt (I suppose).
Isn't faith a sign (or even proof) of a relationship?
Yes, and (3) relies on the relationship for salvation, but not the act of forgiveness of sin. I'm suggesting the possibility that damnation is possible even where sin has been paid for, because what would matter is the relationship, not this-or-that sin. I'm not saying I believe that, it's just something to think about.
I believe so too, a relationship is based on dedication, if there never was any or dedication is lost during time the relationship is worth not much. If any. But that's up to the Lord.
-
I'm leaning heavily in that direction, having spent a lot of time over the last year thinking, praying, studying, reading on, etc., the more 'traditional' propitiatory model. Actually, I was thinking of that in relation to Genesis 3 more recently:
- Adam and Eve eat the fruit
- Let's assume the fruit doesn't impart knowledge, but A&E instead experience guilt with respect to "what did we just do?"
- When asked where they were, Adam and Eve hide, cast blame, deflect, don't take personal responsibility, etc.
- A&E are kicked out of the garden and are cursed/are told what it means to be away from God i.e. 'cursed'
Were they kicked out specifically because of their sin, or because the realisation that followed their act meant that it simply wasn't relationally possible for them to maintain their relationship with God, i.e., it would now be anxious, guilt-ridden, filled with self-blame, regret, etc. That is, if Christ died for the sins of the world then their sin was already paid for, but what that paying for can't account for is the relationship dynamic.
Several passages illustrate how critical a personal relationship with Jesus is to the Christian faith, one of the most emphatic being recorded in Matthew 7. Jesus first teaches that one's spiritual integrity is clearly manifested in his life just as the quality of a tree is revealed by the quality of its fruit. He then relates a chilling scenario that will take place at the judgment.
Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of My Father in heaven. Many will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?’ Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you workers of lawlessness!’ (Mat 7:21-23)
The individuals Jesus refers to clearly demonstrated some degree of faith in Him, since they prophesied, cast out demons, and performed miraculous acts in His name. (Though they were seeking to justify themselves by laying claim to actions made possible only by the power and authority of His name). They exhibited at least an intellectual assent regarding who Jesus was, or they would not have done things in His name. What is clearly missing however, is a personal relationship, without which there is no redemption or communion.
When Jesus says, "I never knew you," He speaks of the absence of intimacy between them and Himself, using the same sense of the Greek ginosko that denotes sexual relations in Matthew 1:25. Clearly, Jesus is drawing a parallel between the genuine relationship a believer must have with Him to be saved, and the sexual union between a husband and wife, which represents the greatest degree of intimacy possible. Just as a couple are joined together physically to become one flesh, so too, a believer must be united with Jesus spiritually.
Just as a couple can have an empty, loveless marriage, lacking fidelity, and essentially married in name only, it's possible to hold a shallow belief in Jesus without being in an intimate relationship with Him. One day, many lukewarm and pseudo-Christians will be shocked to find themselves standing with the goats instead of among Jesus' sheep. Such people can fool others with their spiritual facade, but the Lord knows who belongs to Him and who does not.
-
"Speak up and present your case—yes, let them take counsel together. Who foretold this long ago? Who announced it from ancient times? Was it not I, the LORD? There is no other God but Me, a righteous God and Savior; there is none but Me. Turn to Me and be saved, all the ends of the earth; for I am God, and there is no other." (Isaiah 45:21-22)
Maybe I'm missing something, but if God calls Himself a Savior, and exhorts all to turn to Him to be saved, I see the concept of salvation. You might maintain the Hebrew there means to be "rescued" or "delivered", rather than "saved", but it all boils down to the same concept of redemption and protection.
OK, So the revelation at Sinai takes place sometime around 1300BC. The five books of Moses are written sometime between then and the Hebrews reaching the promised land. Isaiah is prophesizing a minimum of 600 years later. I'd argue even later, since this selection comes from Deutero Isaiah. That means for almost a thousand years, Judaism did not have this verse. Because "salvation" is not central to Judaism. Certainly not in the Christian sense of being "saved from sin". This verse is speaking of the Jewish salvation from exile, which had already occurred by the time of this prophecy.
Come on, fenris. If Eve had believed God's warning instead of the serpent's lies, she would not have eaten the fruit.
It was her actions that got her into trouble. Not her lack of faith which the bible does not even mention.
But then again you probably see the whole convo with the serpent as allegory, anyway, right?
I have not ventured an opinion on this, nor have you asked me for one.
"The righteous shall live by faith." (Habakkuk 2:4)
The book of Habakkuk was again, written hundreds of years after Sinai. And it mentions much more than just half of verse 2:4 that you quote. To wit-
Why do You show me iniquity and look upon mischief; and plunder and violence are before me; and the one who bears quarrel and strife endures. Therefore Torah is slackened, and justice does not go out forever, for a wicked man surrounds the righteous; therefore, justice emerges perverted.
Woe to him who builds a city with blood and establishes a city with injustice.
What did a graven image avail that its maker has graven it? A molten image and a teacher of lies, that the maker of his work trusted in it to make dumb idols? Woe to him who says to the wood, "Awaken!"; to the dumb stone, "Arise!" Shall it teach? Behold it is overlaid with gold and silver, and no spirit is within it.
Because of iniquity I saw the tents of Cushan; the curtains of the land of Midian quaked.
Also, Abraham was credited with righteousness because of his faith
This is the worst, most out of context quote. And I see many. Let's give it context.
Genesis 15
After this, the word of the Lord came to Abram in a vision:
“Do not be afraid, Abram.
I am your shield,
your very great reward.”
God is promising Abram a great reward.
But Abram said, “Sovereign Lord, what can you give me since I remain childless and the one who will inherit my estate is Eliezer of Damascus?” And Abram said, “You have given me no children; so a servant in my household will be my heir.”
Abram says, what good is a reward? I won't have descendants to inherit me!
Then the word of the Lord came to him: “This man will not be your heir, but a son who is your own flesh and blood will be your heir.” He took him outside and said, “Look up at the sky and count the stars—if indeed you can count them.” Then he said to him, “So shall your offspring be.”
God responds, don't worry. You will have a son to inherit you. In fact, your descendants will be very numerous!
Now comes your verse.
Abram believed the Lord, and he credited it to him as righteousness.
Now, I have mentioned this here before. It's not clear from the verse, in Hebrew or English, who is crediting whom. Is Abram crediting God for being righteous by giving him descendants? Possibly. Is God crediting Abram for believing Him? Also possible. In either case, Abram is happy with God making a specific promise to him. This has nothing to do with "having faith". Abram obviously believes in God, otherwise who is he having a conversation with?
long before the giving of the law.
God's promise to Isaac in Genesis 26:
I will make your descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky, and I will give them all these lands, and through your offspring all nations of the earth will be blessed, because Abraham listened to My voice and kept My charge, My commandments, My statutes, and My laws.
As Neo would say, Whoa.
And Jews would not obey the law unless they believed in God to begin with. Don't act like faith is a foreign concept in the torah.
We're getting off topic here. The discussion is about "salvation", not "faith".
-
Matt 5:48 - You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.
Lev 19:2 - You shall be holy, for I the LORD your God am holy.
Does it mean the same or not?
No, it doesn't.
First of all, the whole idea of abstract perfection doesn't even exist in Judaism. It's a Greek concept, which is why we first encounter it in the (Greek) NT.
Secondly, the Hebrew word for "holy" has the root KDSh which means "to separate" not "perfect". It perfectly fits into Lev 19 and 20, which begins with God commanding us to "Be holy" and then giving a long list of things we are to do that make us holy, and ends with the verse "You are to be holy to me because I, the LORD, am holy, and I have set you apart from the nations to be my own"
-
Fenris, I know your extensive exposure to Christian theology has given you a working knowledge of the fundamentals. But saying our deeds are meaningless reveals a skewed perception. Yes, Christians look for atonement for sins in the blood of Jesus, and we trust in His righteousness rather than relying on our personal works for justification.
Saying that we "need salvation" is not a Jewish concept. It has nothing to do with the covenant at Sinai or what it means to be a Jew. Saying that we need to "be holy", because God explicitly commanded it is the core of the Jewish bible and hence Judaism itself.
Don't forget that Christianity is not a Gentile contrivance. It originated with devout, law-keeping Jews who simply believed Jesus was the long-awaited Messiah and God's Passover lamb. With the exception of Luke and Acts, the NT was written by Jewish believers.
We actually don't know who wrote the NT. Or when. Or where. And even if it was written by Jews, so what? Jews can be as wrong as anybody else. I'm not going to become a Marxist just because Karl was a Jew.
But, like Judaism, it has its roots firmly in Abraham, whom God accounted righteous because of his faith -- hundreds of years before the law was even established.
I addressed this in the post above.