Rules or principles?

Matthew Johnson

2008-10-16 00:54:54 UTC

Post by Jacob
Peter asked Jesus how many times we should forgive someone (Mt.18:21).
Suppose Jesus had given him a number, that would have made things
simple for us, wouldn't it? We would know when we still have to
forgive or when we have forgiven enough! It is easy to understand
rules (mostly!) and it is easy to know if we have kept them or not. We
can even say that we feel mentally safe and relaxed when we know
exactly what we are supposed to do or not. That would save us from
having to decide each time whether we can do something or not.

Not really. After all: if you insist on following that approach, there
is ALWAYS a situtation that is not covered by the rules, or on which
the rules yield an obviously unacceptable decision, or even conflict
with each other. Surely you have heard of "moral dilemmas"? Besides:
it is notorious that with the commandment against work on the Sabbath,
the Bible never does define the term 'work'. Does it, or does it not
include lighting a fire, starting a car, turning on an electric
switch, etc?

Post by Jacob
On the contrary imagine what we have to do with 'loving'
someone. Does anyone know what exactly it is to love? When we love
someone does it mean that we agree with everything he does? Can we
disagree with him? Can we have an opinion that tells us something
bad about him? Should we like everything he does? Things seem so
vague and abstract, don't they? But actually when we love someone we
know it in our heart, don't we,

No, we do not. On the contrary: many people deceive themselves into
thinking that they do know, and become obnoxious and painful to the
very people they 'love'. Google "toxic love" to see for yourself how
_very_ common this is.

NB: you do NOT have to agree with the 'analysis' at many of these
sites that show up in the Google search. In fact, I hope you do
not. But even when we do not agree with their analysis, the sheer
number of these sites is a pretty reliable proof: the problem is
widespread and severe.

Then again, it sounds strange to suggest verifying this by looking at
websites. It should be obvious enough from your own circle of
acquaintances! Unfortunately, it really is that common.

But if for some reason some hypothetical reader has not been able to
figure it out from his own circle of acquaintances, then poking around
with Google using the suggested query just might lift the scales from
his eyes.

Post by Jacob
even if we can't understand or explain rules about love. That is the
difference between following rules and living according to virtues or
by principles.

And neither works. Not, at least, following your presumed meaning for
the words, 'virtues', 'principles' or even 'love'. Why, I am not sure
why you want to call only the former approach "following the rules" in
the first place; surely you are not following the rule at all if you
stick to the letter, but trample on the principle it expresses.

Post by Jacob
The Old Testament (or covenant) has given a set of rules - the Law.

You are repeating ad nauseum a dichotomy that is NOT in Scripture. You
are pretending that Scripture opposes Law to Love, yet the very first
Law, the very greatest, is "LOVE the Lord your God with all your heart
etc.". So HOW can this dichotomy be real?

Post by Jacob
We shall do these and not do those. They are easy to understand and
follow.

No, they are not. That is why the long, twisted and bizarre disputes
in the Mishnah exist in the first place.

Post by Jacob
But when it comes to the new covenant, we come to standards,
principles and virtues. Most of the time we cannot know exactly what
is to be done. Let us look at some examples.
In the Old Testament people were asked to give tithes to God. It was
easy to understand, and to know if we have given. But when we come to
the new covenant it only says to give cheerfully! (2Co.9:7).

But why do you assume this is even about tithing? It isn't. He is
talking about a special collection for the benefit of those suffering
from poverty, famine and/or persecution in the Holy Land (2 Cor 9:1);
nothing to do with 'tithing' at all.

And again: you are trying to oppose Law and Love here, but even the
phrase "God loves a cheerful giver" is an allusion to the Talmud
tractate Vajikra Rabba, which is about LAW.

So you see, the unique insight you are trying to ascribe to the Gospel
as preached by Paul was -already- present in Vajikra Rabba.

Post by Jacob
It also says our reaping will be in proportion to our giving
(v.6). Now how do we know how much to give? Will we know if we have
given enough? Can't we make ourselves to think we have given much
when we haven't? Things can be quite confusing without rules, can't
they?

As I mentioned recently in another post, St. Maximus the Confessor
covered this in Centuries on Charity, saying #40:

ERGON AGAPHS ESTIN H EIS TON PLHSION EK DIAQESEWS EUERGESIA KAI
MAKROQUMIA KAI UPOMONH. KAI TO META ORQOU LOGOU XRHSASQAI TOIS PRAGMASI

or:

Doing good to your neighbor from the heart and long-suffering and
patient endurance are all works of love. So is the prudent, noble use
of things.

Of course, it is still not easy to decide to what extent and in what
manner is "prudent, noble use of things (including especially money)",
or even what is 'long-suffering', but that is part of the labor
Christians are called to (Joh 14:15). If you want to "walk not
according to the flesh (Rom 8:1)", then you will not shrink from this
hard work of 'mortification' (Rom 8:13, cf. Col 3:5).

Post by Jacob
How did Jesus live, according to rules or principles?

I remember quite a few heated posts in this forum about the issue: did
He, or did HE not break the Law concerning the Sabbath?

Since you have brought the same issue up in an even wider case, the
only way you can avoid that heat is if people simply ignore your post.

Post by Jacob
Just think of what looked many times like the breaking of the
Sabbath.

Ah, but the best opinion even among the Pharisees of His time was that
doing good on the Sabbath is NEVER violating the Sabbath. That was
what he was alluding to with the example of an ox that fell into a
well (Lk 14:5). See, for example, the Talmud Tractate T. Bab. Yoma.

In fact, I notice you carefully said "LOOKED many times". Why are you
hedging? Don't you realize your entire argument collapses like a house
of cards unless He really -did- break the law?

Post by Jacob
But we know that He had come to fulfil the law, and so He wouldn't
have broken the law in any way any time (Mt.5:17).

It it hard to see why you think Mt 5:17 has anything to do with
this. Are you really so sure that "fulfilling the Law" always and in
every way implies "keeping the Law"? Why?

Post by Jacob
In other words, He always kept the principle of the Sabbath while the
Pharisees were looking at the rules.

You are running away from the issue again: how is it possible to "keep
the principle" while not "looking at the rules", or even "following
the letter of each and every rule?" This is the real central issue.

Post by Jacob
Once at Cana He told Mary that His time had not come, but almost
immediately afterwards went on to turn water into wine (Jn.2:4). On
another occasion He told His brothers that He was not going to
Jerusalem, but soon after that He set off for Jerusalem! (Jn.7:8). Of
course He was not talking loosely, but He moved according to the
leading of the Holy Spirit.

Now you are hiding the real issue under the breezy "of course". There
is no "of course" about it. Do you really think the Holy Spirit is so
fickle and flighty? So that at one moment, Christ does not know the
Holy Spirit will lead Him to change water into wine, and then the next
moment, He does?

What is more, there is a significant textual variant here: does it
read "I am not going up to the feast (Joh 7:8)", or does it read "I am
not -yet- going up to the feast"? Both variants occur in Greek
manuscripts, but only the first in the Vulgate. The standard
explanation is that a scribe realized that the text made Him look like
a liar, so the scribe inserted "yet". This reading then "caught on",
since it is SO much easier to understand. This is the TC principle
often called "difficilior [lectio] potior".

Obviously the exegete has to provide a very different explanation
depending on which variant he accepts as original. Equally obviously,
the entire history of the interpretation of this verse is influenced
heavily by both.

Post by Jacob
This tells us that if we want to live according to the new covenant,
we need to be led by the Spirit rather than by rules (Ro.7:6;8:14).

No, it does not, nor does this follow from your Romans citations.

Post by Jacob
Walking according to rules is the old way, and was meant for
spiritual children (Ga.3:24,25).

Nor does this follow from Gal 3:24-25. On the contrary: remember that
the word used is PAIDOGWGOS (G3807), a highly trusted domestic
slave. Once the heir longer needs to be lead to school, good families
did NOT simply set the slave aside. On the contrary: he remained like
part of the family, often continuing to guide the child in other ways.

So also with the OT Law! This is why James could refer to the Gospel
as "royal Law (James 2:8) ", this is why Paul could describe ALL of
the Law as:

..inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for
correction, and for training in righteousness, (2Ti 3:16 RSVA)

Post by Jacob
The Spirit wants to lead us to a deeper knowledge of God's mind and a
closer fellowship with Him.

But He does NOT want to lead us into tossing aside the faithful
PAIDOGWGOS. Rather, we must honor 2Ti 3:16 fully as well.