Jesus did not say follow preachers, He said follow Me.

But that's not what you wrote. You said that we should follow the apostles' teaching the way the Jews followed the teaching of the Pharisees. Your words, "if Jesus tells those under Moses to do everything the pharisees tell them to do, shall we not do what the apostles tell us to do?" There is nothing about the Holy Spirit here.

According to 2 Cor 3, once our hearts are turned to the Lord Jesus Christ, a vail is lifted from our hearts ... the vail is done away in Christ:

2 Corinthians 3:

14 But their minds were blinded: for until this day remaineth the same vail untaken away in the reading of the old testament; which vail is done away in Christ.

15 But even unto this day, when Moses is read, the vail is upon their heart.

16 Nevertheless when it [our heart] shall turn to the Lord, the vail shall be taken away.

I was blind, but now i see 😎

you thought no mention? then you forgot Who made them apostles, and why, but i was remembering it when i wrote -


i asked whose seat the apostles sit in, if the pharisees sit in the seat of Moses. that was implying the new covenant & the Spirit above the letter, because the priests were justified by their lineage according to the letter but the apostles were shown approved by the Spirit in power & the authority of the message for which they were made ministers by Him.

In English... " Therefore, since we have such a hope, we behave with great boldness, and not like Moses who used to put a veil over his face to keep the Israelites from staring at the result of the glory that was made ineffective. But their minds were closed. For to this very day, the same veil remains when they hear the old covenant read. It has not been removed because only in Christ is it taken away. But until this very day whenever Moses is read, a veil lies over their minds, but when one turns to the Lord, the veil is removed." 2 Corinthians 3:12-16

"He" is Ephesians 4 (not 11!) is referring to Jesus. Ephesians 4:7-11 says, "But to each one of us grace was given according to the measure of Christ’s gift. Therefore it says, “When he [Christ] ascended on high he captured captives; he gave gifts to men.”[g] Now what is the meaning of “he ascended,” except that he also descended to the lower regions, namely, the earth? He, the very one who descended, is also the one who ascended above all the heavens, in order to fill all things. And he himself [Christ] gave some as apostles, some as prophets, some as evangelists, and some as pastors and teachers,"

Hello again brother, this is great stuff , and there are a number of things that I'd like to discuss with you, but there's a question that I'd asked you a couple of posts back that I'd like you to answer first, if possible, as I believe it will be very helpful as we continue our conversation. Here again is the question (BTW, this is a no-trick question, so just a basic/straight-ahead answer is what I'm hoping for .. or I'll answer it for you if you'd prefer me to, just let me know).

Thanks

~Deut

I take that statement literally without trying to read into his intentions. He accepts what Jesus said that to have eternal life, he must love his neighbor as himself.

He was trying to clarify with Jesus exactly who is his neighbour, so that he can obey the 2nd commandment as intended.

.

Hello Guojing, if it was the lawyer's intention to "inherit eternal life" in the manner prescribed by the Lord, then why (upon hearing Jesus' answer) does he attempted to "justify himself" instead

The fact is, the lawyer knew ~exactly~ what Jesus meant (in v25-28), because he already knew what the Law taught (which is why he also knew that he didn't measure up .. e.g. Deuteronomy 6:5; Leviticus 19:18). God/the Scripture sets the bar for inheriting eternal life (outside of Christ) a tad higher than Pharisees/Jewish Oral Tradition did in Jesus' day.

You have to give the lawyer kudos for assessing the situation and giving it the "old college try" though, don't you I mean, he just skipped right over the utterly impossible opening command, “YOU SHALL LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, AND WITH ALL YOUR SOUL, AND WITH ALL YOUR STRENGTH, AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND", and took a shot at command #2 instead (which he tried to circumvent, not obey).

Clearly we both see this passage from very differing POV! It will be interesting to continue to look into it.

God bless you!

~Deut

Whoops, I ran out of editing time before I saw the error in my opening sentence. It's supposed to read like this instead:


Sorry about that!

~Deut

If you are asking me what was he really thinking when he asked that question, I can only offer my opinion as you, but we are both making an argument from silence, since Scripture is silent there.

For me, I see him as perhaps he was trying to narrow down the term neighbors to people whom he could easily love as himself.

Thus, when Jesus mention the Samaritian, that must have been shocking, not just to me, but to any Jews who are listening. The Jews would have nothing to do with them.

Paul's writings are every bit as authoritative as Jesus' words, as the words Paul wrote were God-breathed, inspired by the Spirit of God. To try to separate Paul's words from the Christ is a major no-no.

Hello Guojing, I believe that the Scriptures are far from silent here. After all, St. Luke tells us plainly that the lawyer attempted to "justify himself". He knew what the Scriptures taught (and Jesus confirmed that he did). The reason that he sought an alternative to the Scriptures was because he knew that he wasn't obeying what they taught.

In point of fact, NO ONE can (obey those two commandments, that is .. Luke 10:27, and the lawyer realized that, even if was unwilling to admit it as openly, like he should have at that point in time .. though I certainly hope that he was able to do so later, of course!).

The Lord came to save the ungodly/wicked, the sick who know that they are sinners in need of the Great Physician, not the self-righteous who do not .. e.g. Mark 2:17; Romans 4:5 (see below).

~Deut

Are you interpreting that as the Lawyer knew that he could not get eternal life by following the 2 commandments, and hence he knew he needed something else?

If so, it appears to me that you are not contented with the literal interpretation of the passage but you are trying to read Paul into it.

The other thing you may want to consider is, what does the greek say when it comes to the phrase "justify himself"? Does it also mean what you are trying to say?

The lawyer was not defending himself . Just as the Son of man, Jesus defends the father.

It is the same mutual spirit of faith, (Christ's) that works in us to defend us. Like with Peter. Not what does man seen say. But rather what does the unseen Spirit reveal to the believer.

In that way all believer are apologist defender of the faith that works in us .The armor of God. We are to put it on and keep it on. No armor for the rear. He is the rear guard who works with us to guard our new hearts soul and mind. He promised us he will finish the good work of the pleasure of his will. .

We must be careful how we hear,

2 Corinthians 4:13-14 King James Version (KJV) We having the same spirit of faith, according as it is written, I believed, and therefore have I spoken; we also believe, and therefore speak; Knowing that he which raised up the Lord Jesus shall raise up us also by Jesus, and shall present us with you.

Hello Guojing, no, my belief is that he (the lawyer) knew and understood what the Law taught .. Deuteronomy 6:5; Leviticus 19:18; Luke 10:27. He also knew that he wasn't walking in obedience to it/to them (the two greatest commandments). Surely he was somewhat embarrassed, considering who he was (because he asked the Lord to answer a question that he should have already known the answer to), so there is that, but I believe that he also sought to justify himself because (again) he knew what the demands of those two laws were, and he knew that he wasn't keeping them.

BTW, δικαιόω (translated justify/justified/etc.) is the same word that other Biblical authors, like James and Paul, used. That said, I believe the phrase in this case means what it (literally) means in English.

~Deut

I think most of them knew they could not keep the law perfectly. God also expected that so he made the animal sacrifice provision for them.

Once a year, the high priest would offer the sacrifice for the entire nation and if God accepted that, without killing the high priest, the entire nation will rejoice and expect to be blessed.

But, as I have said, they still have to try to keep the law because that is how they show faith in God.

The reformation came .

The letter of the law is "death". Its appointed to all men to receive,

The blood of animals never took away any sin. (not one) They are used to represent the redeemed to those who believe. Others the unclean, to represent those in need of being redeemed . We are not redeemed by the letter of the law .But are according to the "law of faith" the eternal .

The ceremonies or shadows did not point to those moved by the Holy Spirit to perform them. But a sign to the whole world that God is the God of all nations. Having nothing to do that could profit according to the corrupted flesh of mankind.

We walk by faith. Not by looking at the temporal things of men, seen.

It seems to me that keeping the law has to do with our obedience, not with a demonstration of our faith. Law-keeping involves a covenant of works, so Israel was demonstrating that they were "obedient" to God .. or not (not whether they had faith in God, or not), and that they were therefore worthy of receiving the blessings and the benefits that come along with keeping the Law, or the curses and the penalties that came from breaking it.

~Deut
p.s. - I get the sense sometimes that the two of us believe the same thing, but that each of us may approach a topic like this one from two different perspectives. So, if you ever feel that I am not understanding your meaning, I would appreciate you telling me what it actually is!

Thanks