Here is a selected post from my first year which you have probably never seen. It is freshly revised and updated. I hope you like it!
Many say the foundational passage of the New Testament is John 3:16. Even young children can quote it:
For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.
Yet I believe the passage that reveals the heart of the New Testament is in Matthew 11:
Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light.
Both passages touch my heart and draw me toward Jesus, yet the first (as used by many believers) seems almost doctrinal—describing what God did, while the second is invitational—inviting me to accept what Jesus offers. In introducing Jesus…
View original post 529 more words
Jesus Without Baggage 
Pingback: I Will Give You Rest—Not More Burdens — Jesus Without Baggage | Talmidimblogging
Tim, although John 3:16 played a large part in my coming into the Kingdom, the second has had a significant part in my understanding of the ways of God, but my focus was not on the burdens that I had, since I had few, but rather on learning from God and expecting that He would not put an unbearable load on me if I obeyed Him. He does not give us tasks to carry out unless He has first prepared us and provided whatever we will need to succeed.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Chas, I am glad you had only few burdens. Many have tremendous burdens–even some believers. I very much agree with you on the importance of the ‘learn of me’ part. It is often overlooked.
LikeLike
Tim, a further thought here – although this passage shows a laying down of the burdens of life, it does not mean that we have nothing to do in the Kingdom. We still have to do work for God, as is shown by His yoke and His burden, although this work is easy, because He empowers us to do it. What we must not do is to take it easy and rest in comfort, thinking that we have it made. A friend of mine put it as: ‘I’m comfortable, but not complacent.’ This contains a recognition that she might need to change.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Good point Chas, and I completely agree. I sometimes, but not always, discuss both aspects of the kingdom at the same time: accepting the invitation to identify with the kingdom of God and learning to live kingdom principles (which is nothing like legalism).
The most important thing is to understand the invitation to follow Jesus, then we are able to grow and mature in the kingdom.
LikeLike
I think many confuse God’s Laws with “Legalism”. While we must not indulge in the “fence building” around Torah..=talmud/ legalism , we must still obey Father’s requirements of Kingdom living.
Yes The Kingdom has a set of Laws and it stood long before the Sinai Covenant. The KING requires all to obey. For what is sin? According to the Scripture it is Transgression of the LAW. What Law? the law of the Kingdom.
What was “nailed to the cross? God’s law? No it was the Pharisee’s Man made traditions or Legalism.. Christ told them they had “made the Word of GOD to none affect by their traditions of men” it was those ordinances and restrictions that he sought to destroy, Not God’s Law.
Christ summed the LAW up in two requirements..love GOD and love thy neighbor…and it wasn’t a suggestion but a command. and we can see that surely the burden and the yoke are easy and light. To serve the Creator does not require religious ceremonies nor rigid adherence of Tradition (legalism)..it is achieved thru spirit and truth.
Many have taken Paul’s words and twisted them, just as Peter said they would, and taught the LAW was done away with. How utterly ridiculous to think that GOD would sacrifice His Son for transgression of a law that HE would do away with.?
We rest in God and his law is a delight to our spirit..there is no burden in doing good and the yoke of good works is light.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Mark, I agree with you that: “Christ summed the LAW up in two requirements…love GOD and love thy neighbor.” I believe this is pretty much the foundation for all our behavior and that there are no other ‘rules’ for us.
Beyond that, I am not sure what you are saying about the Old Testament Law. I agree that the Pharisees built a hedge around the law, but I also believe that there is nothing in the entire OT law that is of concern to us; the OT law is not binding on believers.
I am unsure whether you are saying something similar or whether you are saying that OT laws ARE binding on believers. You say that: “The Kingdom has a set of Laws and it stood long before the Sinai Covenant.” What laws are these? Can you clarify?
LikeLike
Where I said Kingdom Law before Sinai… what I should of spoke was Moral Obligation to the Creator by our actions to our fellow man. Which indeed was what Christ came to “RE-establish”…He trimmed the man-made fat (Law) and replaced it with the original…(Love)
So we are required to Love one another as Christ taught, that is a Law .
You see if I lack love and then defraud my fellow man….does GOD wink at my sin and say it’s ok because I am in Christ? Without repentance, NO. The NT teach us we have an Advocate..ie. Christ. It teaches us He is faithful to forgive IF we come to Him and confess our sins. So what happens if I/we don’t confess and repent? Does the FATHER just say…”oh OK then”. I don’t want to find out.
What need would there be for an Advocate if there was no Law to break?
How does/will Christ rule the millennium Kingdom with an Iron Rod, without Law?
Rule without Law is an oxymoron.
You stated this “but I also believe that [[there is nothing in the entire OT law that is of concern to us]]; the OT law is not binding on believers.”
Thou shalt no kill……that’s no concern?
Covet?
Adultery?
Theft?
No concern..really?
What Scripture did the early Christians use KJV..NIV..RSV? or did they use the Old Testament? To say the OT is no concern is to say that Believers for the first 300 to 350 years before a cannon was established had it all wrong and James John Peter and even Paul had taught incorrectly and Jesus lied when He said He came not to destroy the Law. He said till Heaven and Earth passed away the Law would stand. Or did He not?
Looking out my window here at 6:54 am, I see that the Earth is still here.
Tim I am sure you will not agree with most of what I said…and I am not here to “amen or rubber stamp” all your opinions either. We agree on many things and we disagree on others and that’s just the way it is my friend.
I enjoy that we can do it without Malice or ill ‘will as an intent….but with civility and compassion.
Peace on you and yours Brother.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Mark, I recently had a conversation with a conservative evangelical in which I said the 10 Commandments are not binding on us. “What!”, he responded, “It’s okay to murder!” I answered, “Of course not.” and explained that murder was wrong before it was ever included in the 10 Commandments.
There are some important statements in the 10 Commandments, but they are not divine Law that is binding on us. We do not refrain from killing (or adultery, theft, or coveting) because of a law, but because it violates other people. Otherwise it becomes legalism, and legalism is inadequate as a guide for behavior.
This might be what you mean by pre-Sinai “Moral Obligation to the Creator by our actions to our fellow man.” to which I would agree! I do not think we are bound by rules but by a love for all people that is expressed in empathy, compassion, and care. If we internalize this, then we don’t need rules.
I appreciate what you say about being able to disagree without malice. This is important to me, and I try to always consistent in this. I have not illusion that I am an authority with whom no one can disagree. I welcome the thoughts of those who disagree; I cannot learn if I listen only to those who agree with me!
LikeLike
Seems we are om the same page…..you just illustrate it more clearly.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Mark, though I ‘illustrated’ my view, I am not sure I completely represented your view. We might be on the same page, but I am sure there are differences in nuance. And, as I said before, I don’t think my views are the standard for anyone else.
LikeLike
Tim, granted there are ” differences in nuance” for sure.
But for now, to keep an open dialogue, I can savvy to the idea of “obligation” as you understand and agreed with.
And since none of us have the lock on the ENTIRE truth…let us move forward with love and charity to be as He said…Doers and not just hearers of the Word.
Have I told you lately How much I do enjoy this blog?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Mark, I am glad you enjoy the blog. And I enjoy your comments. I agree that all of us should “move forward with love and charity to be as He said…Doers and not just hearers of the Word.” Well said!
LikeLike
Hi Tim
I’m still going through your older blogs and finding many jewels to ponder.
One that stood out in this one was something that Mark said in one of his replies:
“Moral Obligation to the Creator by our actions to our fellow man.”
It struck me because it seemed to me to be a good explanation of what C.S. Lewis meant by an inner moral code that we all have.
And it also seems to be a good way to understand what is actually meant by OT law. This simple idea, which is really just another way of expressing the golden rule, is common to all spiritual seekers everywhere, and is in my understanding the only law to be carried over from the OT to the NT. And the only reason for it to even be in the OT is because it is universally applicable to all peoples and not just to the OT nation of Israel.
My understanding leads me to regard the OT as one nation’s attempts to explain what it means to actually fulfill this law. And of course, a lot of these ideas seem to have come from minds that couldn’t understand the concept of “the spirit of the law” and which could only rely upon legalism.
This isn’t to say that all of the OT voices where like this, but it sure seems like a large majority of them were!
And if this is accurate, then when Jesus talked about “the spirit of the law” and “fulfilling the law”, this would be the law He was referring to. And the two statements He gave about fulfilling the OT law, loving God with all of out hearts and loving others in the same way we love ourselves, would definitely be the way we fulfill the law of the OT.
I know this is only my understanding of it, and that there could be a lot more to it, but I also think that this is what both you and mark were saying also.
To sum up, my understanding is that the only law of the OT that needs to be fulfilled is the universal law of loving God and others, and Jesus fulfills that law perfectly by His nature, and we fulfill that law when we abide in Him and trust in His ability to enable us to fulfill it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Dennis, I really like your closing paragraph, “To sum up, my understanding is that the only law of the OT that needs to be fulfilled is the universal law of loving God and others, and Jesus fulfills that law perfectly by His nature, and we fulfill that law when we abide in Him and trust in His ability to enable us to fulfill it.” I think you are right on target.
LikeLiked by 1 person