Rajk999's Luke 10:25-28

This thread concerns Rajk999's favorite bombshell for Saved through Works:

Rajk999 wrote in another thread:

Here is the question: Will you tell me even one scripture in context that says a person who performs good works will be given eternal life.

Here is my answer: Well there are many but, here is one and its from Jesus Christ:

And, behold, a certain lawyer stood up, and tempted him, saying, Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life? He said unto him, What is written in the law? how readest thou? And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself. And he said unto him, Thou hast answered right: this do, and thou shalt live. (Luke 10:25-28 KJV)

Let me repeat :

Love God and your neighbour as yourself = Eternal Life

Rajk999, anything you want to say before I get started with my analysis of your points on Luke 10:25-28 ?

Let me say from the outset. I believe that the Bible is infallible. I do not believe that all my interpretations of the Bible are infallible.

I will present my feeling about how Luke 10:25-28 should be understood in context. I will fairly include arguments for and listen to arguments contrary to the interpretation I think is good.

Originally posted by sonship
This thread concerns Rajk999's favorite bombshell for Saved through Works:

Rajk999 wrote in another thread:

[quote] Here is the question: Will you tell me even one scripture in context that says a person who performs good works will be given eternal life.

Here is my answer: Well there are many but, here is one and its from Jesus Christ:

And, be ...[text shortened]... ly include arguments for and listen to arguments contrary to the interpretation I think is good.

Before you get started? You mean before you pollute the thread topic with miles of pages of analysis [irrelevant mostly] which nobody reads?

If you really want me to participate the rules are the same for when you started another thread about something I said. You could not follow the rules.

Its simple. Keep the posts short. Christ never had to lose anybody with volume. His words were brief and to the point. Be realistic and truthful about which verses you connect together in order to make or prove your point.

Finally this is not about who can debate better than whom. This is the failure of Christians on this site, ie getting carried away with debating skills. It is about establishing the truth as Jesus and His Apostles preached it.

If you are intersted in me 'adding anything before you get started' then give me time to respond. Yes I will respond [ and my posts are very brief compared to yours], but I have a life outside of RHP unlike some around here who post all day.

Originally posted by sonship
This thread concerns Rajk999's favorite bombshell for Saved through Works:

Rajk999 wrote in another thread:

[quote] Here is the question: Will you tell me even one scripture in context that says a person who performs good works will be given eternal life.

Here is my answer: Well there are many but, here is one and its from Jesus Christ:

And, be ...[text shortened]... ly include arguments for and listen to arguments contrary to the interpretation I think is good.

"Let me say from the outset. I believe that the Bible is infallible. I do not believe that all my interpretations of the Bible are infallible. "

Someday I would like to see a discussion of this question: "How do we know when we have arrived at an sufficiently correct interpretation of (a part of) the Bible?"

Or it could be stated as "You know when you have an when you have arrived at an sufficiently correct interpretation of (a part of) the Bible, when _________________ (fill in the blank.)

Originally posted by JS357
"Let me say from the outset. I believe that the Bible is infallible. I do not believe that all my interpretations of the Bible are infallible. "

Someday I would like to see a discussion of this question: "How do we know when we have arrived at an sufficiently correct interpretation of (a part of) the Bible?"

Or it could be stated as "You know when you ha ...[text shortened]... tly correct interpretation of (a part of) the Bible, when _________________ (fill in the blank.)

You know when you have an when you have arrived at a sufficiently correct interpretation of (a part of) the Bible, when it has been approved by his most illustrious holy eminence and pontificate maximus, robbiecarrobie.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
You know when you have an when you have arrived at a sufficiently correct interpretation of (a part of) the Bible, when it has been approved by his most illustrious holy eminence and pontificate maximus, robbiecarrobie.

Thank you for your participation. You may return to this screen to update your responses at any time.

Originally posted by Rajk999
Before you get started? You mean before you pollute the thread topic with miles of pages of analysis [irrelevant mostly] which nobody reads?

If you really want me to participate the rules are the same for when you started another thread about something I said. You could not follow the rules.

Its simple. Keep the posts short. Christ never had to lose an ...[text shortened]... f compared to yours], but I have a life outside of RHP unlike some around here who post all day.

Acrtually, you were not able to substantiate false accusations you made about me teaching:

1.) Believers and unbelieve should SIN ALL YOU WANT.

2.) To Believers - Sin is of no consequences.

You did not substantiate you accusations.
You did not retract your accusation.

So actually, I don't care that much what you write here. And I expect, as in the past, you won't dialogue too much about it.

As for promising every post will be 25 words of less ? Forget it.

Who reads it, simply reads it.
Who doesn't because it is too long, simply doesn't.

Originally posted by JS357
"Let me say from the outset. I believe that the Bible is infallible. I do not believe that all my interpretations of the Bible are infallible. "

Someday I would like to see a discussion of this question: "How do we know when we have arrived at an sufficiently correct interpretation of (a part of) the Bible?"

Or it could be stated as "You know when you ha ...[text shortened]... tly correct interpretation of (a part of) the Bible, when _________________ (fill in the blank.)

Someday I would like to see a discussion of this question: "How do we know when we have arrived at an sufficiently correct interpretation of (a part of) the Bible?"

I am glad that you specified the word "sufficiently". That means adequately, I think.

Notice that Paul said that we prophesy in part and know in part:

"For we know in part, and we prophesy in part;" (1 Cor. 13:9)

"Prophesy" does not mean only predict. It mean generally to speak for God or speak forth God. To speak truth concerning God is included in "prophesy" .

I think for Paul to say "we prophesy in part" , including himself, must mean that there is still left something unknown or unrevealed even in their partial disclosure concerning God. We know partially. We speak for God partially, releasing what is sufficient and adequate for spiritual edification but is by no means exhaustive. It is "in part" .

So I think our interpretations are also "in part" . Love never fails. But our knowledge and our prophecies will one day be rendered useless -

"Love never falls away. But whether prophecies, they will be rendered useless; or tongues, they will cease; or knowledge, it will be rendered useless." (v.8)

The goal of all our prophecy is to encourage people to touch Christ Himself. That is to come forward spiritually to contact Jesus Christ and experience Him.

So I think a general rule is, if an interpretation discourages people from depending on Christ or dampens their hunger for Christ, no matter how good it sounds, it is likely to be wrong.

Any interpretation which increases my hunger for Christ, even though it may not be so good, it is at least safe.

Any interpretation which cools down my love for Christ or turns me away from Christ or encourages me to be independent from God in any way, no matter how good it sounds, it is wrong.

An interpretation may be less than accurate, but be safe.
And an interpretation can be "dead right."
It sounds right but ministers spiritual death and urges one to withdraw from the living God.

The Apostle Paul exhorted the Ephesians elders not just to teach the flock but to "feed" the flock. That means their teaching should nourish something spiritual in their hearts, delivering spiritual sustenance not just correct in letter interpretations.

So you ask "Does this teaching tend to warm up my love for God and for Jesus Christ? Or does this teaching tend to cool me down towards Jesus Christ and God ?

What does this interpretation do for my appetite to receive God with my heart ? Does it tend to make me hungry for more Christ or does it tend to cool off my desire for Christ ? "

This are good questions for the seeker of truth to ask before God.

Originally posted by sonship

Someday I would like to see a discussion of this question: "How do we know when we have arrived at an sufficiently correct interpretation of (a part of) the Bible?"

I am glad that you specified the word [b]"sufficiently". That means adequately, I think.

Notice that Paul said that we prophesy in part and know in part:

...[text shortened]... my desire for Christ ?

This are good questions for the seeker of truth to ask before God.[/b]

You: "I am glad that you specified the word "sufficiently". That means adequately, I think."

Yes, I had written "adequately" and changed it to "sufficiently" (without changing "an" to "a" ).

Your response suggests a pragmatic theory of truth. There's nothing necessarily wrong with that. "The point ... is to explain that one cannot conceive of the truth of a belief without also being able to conceive of how, if true, that belief matters in the world."

http://atheism.about.com/od/philosophyepistemology/a/Pragmatic.htm

It also reminds me of CS Lewis saying in his "The Problem of Pain," something that I interpret as meaning this: the problem (of explaining pain in a world with God in it) needs to be approached with faith in hand and with the confirmation of faith in mind.

Originally posted by JS357
You: "I am glad that you specified the word "sufficiently". That means adequately, I think."

Yes, I had written "adequately" and changed it to "sufficiently" (without changing "an" to "a" ).

Your response suggests a pragmatic theory of truth. There's nothing necessarily wrong with that. "The point ... is to explain that one cannot conceive of the truth o ...[text shortened]... God in it) needs to be approached with faith in hand and with the confirmation of faith in mind.

Why not start with the example of Rajk999's interpretation:

And, behold, a certain lawyer stood up, and tempted him, saying, Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life? He said unto him, What is written in the law? how readest thou? And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself. And he said unto him, Thou hast answered right: this do, and thou shalt live. (Luke 10:25-28 KJV)

Let me repeat :

Love God and your neighbour as yourself = Eternal Life

Fortunately, one passage does not contain ALL of the truth of the Scripture.

What does the interpretation Rajk999 has put forth do to a person's feeling towards Jesus Christ? I dare not presume to answer for everyone. I think a person has to find out for themselves.

So, Rajk999 exalts over the simplicity of his interpretation -

Love your neighbor = eternal life. Conversly I assume he means "No love for the neighbor = no eternal life."

If the effect of Rajk999's interpretation tends to cool off your desire to draw close to Jesus Christ, it is not a good interpretation. Suppose you say to yourself -

"Well, here we have it. If I love my neighbor I have eternal life. What need is there for Jesus ? I can be an agnostic, an atheist, a Voodoo practicioner, doesn't matter. If I love my neighbor, automatically - eternal life. That is the interpretation.

Jesus can be in the picture. Jesus can be out of the picture. Love my neighbor = eternal life regardless of Jesus, regardless of God really. "


Does the interpretation warm up your feeling towards God?
Or does the interpretation tend to make you want to be independent from God - work it out on your own irregardless of God. Muster up your self effort? Apply self improvement? Christ is not necessary? I mean saying "Quite apart from anything Jesus Christ is or does or did, I can work it out to gain eternal life."

Any Bible interpretation that dampens your dependency upon God or encourages you to withdraw from Christ is wrong.

But I will examine better ways to interpret the passage. I like short posts too. But I may not be able to make all explanations of my thoughts two sentences.

Now Rajk999 says "Love your neighbor = eternal life".

If you receive the teaching that having come to Jesus Christ, you perceive that it is certainly important that you love your neighbor, that is safe. Love is the expression of divine life.

John says that we know that we have passed from death to life because we love the brothers. So to love the brothers in the Christian brotherhood is evidence that one has passed from death to life already.

"We know that we have passed out of death into life because we love the brothers. " (1 John 3:14)

If someone says "I love my neighbor. This eternal life is just causing me to love my neighbor and to love the bothers in Jesus" then the little equation - "Love you neighbor = eternal life" is at least safe. It may not be so good an interpretation as one means it who seeks to deny Christ's work. But if taken as "Love is very important. Love is life. Love is the expression of the divine life and I love because of Jesus in me or working on my" that is at least a safe interpretation.

Any interpretation like " I don't need Jesus or His death and resurrection. Jesus told the man essentially love the neighbor and win eternal life. I really don't need the Son of God. I only need to love my neighbor" that is a wrong interpretation of the passage.

Now let's get to analysis.

Rajk999 wrote:

And, behold, a certain lawyer stood up, and tempted him, saying, Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life? He said unto him, What is written in the law? how readest thou? And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself. And he said unto him, Thou hast answered right: this do, and thou shalt live. (Luke 10:25-28 KJV)

Let me repeat :

Love God and your neighbour as yourself = Eternal Life

Some questions:

Let us for the moment assume that by "eternal life" in Luke 10:25-28 means that a person would physically never die. Let us just make that assumption for this phase of the discussion.

1.) Would Jesus have been lying to the man ?

I say no. The Old Testament had said that the one who obeyed the law would live by the law. So Jesus is pretty much just reiterating the Law of Moses:

Romans 10:5 quotes Moses - "For Moses writes concerning the righteousness which is out of the law: "The man who does them shall live by them." Paul is quoting Leviticus 18:1.

Let us for the moment assume that "live by them" both in Romans and in Leviticus means to live forever by keeping the commandments.

The question is:

2.) Is there any reason to believe that Jesus expected the lawyer to keep the commandment and thereby have eternal life ?

Though Jesus TOLD him how to keep the law to obtain eternal life, it is not likely that Jesus expected him to be able to do so.

Why?
How many people in the Old Testament lived eternal life because of keeping the righteousness of the law of Moses ?

How many people in the Old Testament lived eternally by being righteous in ANY manner?

Let's be fair:

Enoch in Genesis was taken before he died (Genesis 5:22-24). This was before the law of Moses. Yet Enoch, MAYBE, is a man born that will never see physical death. God took Enoch somewhere because he was an example of a man who walked with God.

Elijah in Second Kings chapter two is the only other man who was raptured up by God before he saw physical death. Elijah had his weaknesses. And this is after the giving of the Law. MAYBE Elijah is our other candidate to have served an example to the lawyer in Luke 10.

It is possible that Enoch and Elijah are the ONLY two people in the Old Testament who could conceivably be considered as models for the lawyer in Luke 10.

By the way, either man, Enoch or Elijah could be one of the witnesses to return to earth to be slain in the great tribulation according to Revelation 11.

But anyway aside from these two men, we have no other models of men who could live at least to escape death apparently. Did Jesus expect the lawyer to be another Enoch or another Elijah? I think probably not. And I don't think that anything but God's GRACE was responsible for the raptures of Enoch and Elijah. By grace, I believe they served as examples. I don't believe by keeping of the law of Moses perfectly or by loving the neighbor they WON rapture - escape from death.

So Jesus told him the truth. But there is the problem that no one could serve as an example of having been able to gain eternal life by the law keeping of Moses' law.

We could interpret that Jesus told the lawyer the truth which He knew no man, including the lawyer, was able to carry out.

Cont. below.

I have said above that I don't think Jesus expected the lawyer to do what no one had ever done.

And he [the lawyer] answered and said, "You shall love the Lord your God from your whole hart and with your whole soul and with your whole strength and with our whole mind, and your neighbor as your self."

And He [Jesus] said to him, You have answered correctly; do this, and you shall have life." (Luke 10:27,28)

Let us assume that "have life" means have "eternal life".

Is there any reason to believe that Jesus EXPECTED the lawyer to be capable of fulfilling the Law of Moses to that degree ? I think the answer is no, He did not expect the lawyer to be able to do it.

Was Jesus wrong in telling him then, what he must do to gain eternal life? No. At that time before Christ's redemptive death, why should what He be telling the eager man be wrong? It was the truth since the Old Testament times. It is just that no one was able to do so.

Enoch and Elijah are possible exceptions which I think should not be understood as the only men able to fulfill the Law.

Well then, did Jesus expect that anyone READING the Gospel of Luke would be able to gain eternal life by so loving others and themselves and so absolutely loving God? I say no.

Jesus could tell the man what he needed to and still know at that stage that no one was able to do it.

The most logical reason that He knew to gain eternal life something else would be needed for EVERYONE is when He ESTABLISHED the new covenant latter in the Gospel of Luke.

Before His predicted death and resurrection Jesus instituted the last supper saying:

"And He took a loaf and gave thanks, and He broke it and gave it to them, saying, This is My body which is being given for you; do this in remembrance of Me.

And similarly the cup after they had dined, saying, This cup is the new covenant established in My blood, which is being poured out for you." (Luke 22:19,20)

The "new covenant" refers to the "new covenant" prophesied to come by Jeremiah. Part of the contents of that covenant was that God would by NO MEANS remembers the sins of the sinner any more.

The New Covenant or the New Testament was not consummated in Luke chapter 10. Rajk999 wants to place the focus of the New Testament of Christ in Luke 10 at the point of Jesus telling the lawyer what he must do to receive eternal life.

But the focal point of the covenant Jesus came to establish is not there. It is when He poured out His blood in redemption and allowed His body to be broken for the forgiveness of sins.

Compare to Matthew's record of the same table meeting:

"For this is My blood of the covenant, which is being poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins." (Matt. 26:28)

Eternal life is granted to those for whom God says He will by NO MEANS remember their sins any more.

Do not listen to the slander that I mean to say that it is OK then to not love. Do not listen to any slander that by this interpretation I am giving Christians license to sin as much as they can.

I am however, emphasizing that for the consummation of the new covenant we do not look to Luke 10 but to the redemptive death and resurrection of Christ. Believing INTO Him, receiving Him -we receive eternal life.

I am not finished yet and have not forgotten the parable of the Good Samaritan in Luke 10 which I will come to.

But suffice it to say that the prophet Jeremiah TOLD us that the new covenant would NOT be like the covenant God made through Moses -

Jeremiah 31:31 - "Indeed, days are coming, declares Jehovah, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, NOT LIKE THE COVENANT which I made with their fathers in the day I took them by their hand to bring them out from the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, although I was a husband to them."

The NEW COVENANT which Jesus established in His blood, with His broken body and redemptive death was new and not like the covenant God made at Sinai with Israel. The NEW COVENANT includes (not only includes, but includes) that God would forever forgive and forget their iniquities:

" ... for I will forgive their iniquity, and their sins I will remember no more."

This teaching was not explicitly given to the lawyer who asked the question of Jesus in Luke 10. It is however strongly implied symbolically in the following parable.

Jesus just told the lawyer that according to the Old Covenant, keeping perfectly the law would result in him having eternal life, yet knowing that He would be establishing the new covenant soon.

Originally posted by sonship
Why not start with the example of Rajk999's interpretation:

[quote]
And, behold, a certain lawyer stood up, and tempted him, saying, Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life? He said unto him, What is written in the law? how readest thou? And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and ...[text shortened]... love my neighbor" that is a wrong interpretation of the passage.

Now let's get to analysis.

Well, I must ask: What does it mean to "draw close to Jesus Christ"? Does it move me away from the interpretation of Luke 10:25-28 that he espouses, and toward yours? What if it cools my heart toward God to think of the verses your way?

I suppose that is unthinkable to you?

Originally posted by JS357

Well, I must ask: What does it mean to "draw close to Jesus Christ"? Does it move me away from the interpretation of Luke 10:25-28 that he espouses, and toward yours? What if it cools my heart toward God to think of the verses your way?

I suppose that is unthinkable to you?

As I was writing my post I of course was imagining someone saying - "Well jaywill / sonship, YOUR interpretation actually cools me off to Jesus. So there. Your interpretation here must not be good according to your own rule."


To such a complainer I would say that any teaching which has the effect of wanting you to withdraw from knowing Jesus, you better set aside. The problem, however, could be with you. The problem could be with the teaching though.

Fortunately that does not mean to set the whole Bible aside. There are plenty other passages that will put you back on the right track if I have led you on the wrong track. Go to another passage and be attracted to the Lord Jesus, I say.

My desire in a forum like this is to explain things to people until JESUS becomes an issue to them.

It is not to explain things until I, sonship become an issue to them. There's a difference. I only desire to talk a little so that Jesus becomes Someone they have to deal with.

If my interpretation seems to cool you off to Jesus, deal with Jesus directly in prayer, put it aside. There are plenty, plenty other passages where a course correction can be made.

Originally posted by sonship

Well, I must ask: What does it mean to "draw close to Jesus Christ"? Does it move me away from the interpretation of Luke 10:25-28 that he espouses, and toward yours? What if it cools my heart toward God to think of the verses your way?

I suppose that is unthinkable to you?

As I was writing my post I of course was imagining someone s ...[text shortened]... er, put it aside. There are plenty, plenty other passages where a course correction can be made.

OK That's fair.

Originally posted by sonship
Acrtually, you were not able to substantiate false accusations you made about me teaching:

1.) Believers and unbelieve should SIN ALL YOU WANT.

2.) To Believers - Sin is of no consequences.

You did not substantiate you accusations.
You did not retract your accusation.

So actually, I don't care that much what you write here. And I expect, as ...[text shortened]... et it.

Who reads it, simply reads it.
Who doesn't because it is too long, simply doesn't.

Well proceed. You are criticising Christ not me. I gave no analysis or interpretation.