Spending 1 Year Following Every Biblical Rule

[Ethos]

Sept. 21, 2007 - After A. J. Jacobs spent a year reading the entire Encyclopaedia Britannica for his book “The Know-It-All,” he figured he had the yearlong experiment thing down. How much harder could it be to follow every rule in the Bible? Much, much harder, he soon discovered, as he found himself growing his beard, struggling not to curse and asking strangers for permission to stone them for adultery. Jacobs spent the year carrying around a stapled list of the more than 700 rules and prohibitions identified in the Good Book, and also consulted with religious leaders and spent time with the Amish, Hassidic Jews and Jehovah’s Witnesses. He spoke to NEWSWEEK’s Jennie Yabroff about his experience and his new book, “The Year of Living Biblically” (Simon & Schuster), which goes on sale Oct. 9. Excerpts:



NEWSWEEK: It’s been a little over a year since your experiment ended and you shaved your beard. How’s the life of sin?
A. J. Jacobs: It’s all right. I miss my sin-free life, but I guess I was never sin free. I was able to cut down on my coveting maybe 40 percent, but I was still a coveter. Flat-screen TVs, the front yard of my friend in the suburbs, a better cell phone, higher Amazon rankings. And that's not to mention coveting my neighbor's wife. I live in New York, I work in publishing, so there’s a lot of coveting, lying and gossiping.

What, if any, rules are you still following?
I’m not Ghandi or Angelina Jolie, but I made some strides. The experience changed me in big ways and small ways. There’s a lot about gratefulness in the Bible, and I would say I’m more thankful. I focus on the hundred little things that go right in a day, instead of the three or four things that go wrong. And I love the Sabbath. There’s something I really like about a forced day of rest. Also, during the experiment I wore a lot of white clothes, because Ecclesiastes says let your garments always be white, and I loved it, so I look like Tom Wolfe now. Wearing white just made me happier. I couldn’t be in a bad mood walking down the street looking like I was about to play in the semifinals at Wimbledon. One thing I learned is that the outside affects the inside, your behavior shapes your thoughts. I also really liked what one of my spiritual advisers said, which was that you can view life as a series of rights and entitlements, or a series of responsibilities. I like seeing my life as a series of responsibilities. It’s sort of, "Ask not what God can do for you, ask what you can do for God."

There seems to be a great interest in religion and fundamentalism in our culture right now. Why do you think that is?
As far as I can see it, it goes in waves. Now it seems like the third great awakening. Is that right? I’ve forgotten my encyclopedia knowledge. But I do think we’re going through a wave right now. You certainly see it with Islam. I think it’s ebbed a little bit because the atheist movement is creating backlash against the religious movement, so it might have peaked a year ago. But it’s certainly the defining issue of our time. I hope the book will appeal to both the sacred and the profane.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20910659/site/newsweek/

I'll admit now I could not hope to be successful at such an experiment. This gentleman has my respect.

Ethos

[Izdaari]

I'm afraid he missed the point. Nobody, save Jesus himself, was ever sin-free. Salvation does not come by following rules, but is a free gift, available to anyone by grace alone, through faith alone. Although he did kinda get near the point; the point of all those rules is that it is indeed impossible to follow them all. And he did seem to have learned some truths from his experiment. I just hope he figures out the main truth.

[Eddie]

Then what`s the point with the rules in the first place?

[burntgorilla]

Then what`s the point with the rules in the first place?

Just what I was wondering.

[Izdaari]

I answered that one already.

...the point of all those rules is that it is indeed impossible to follow them all.
Btw, not an original observation on my part. I got it from Martin Luther, who got it from Paul. It's hard to cite just one scripture backing it up, since it's a major theme running though Paul's epistles... but here's an excerpt from Galatians. I recommend reading the entire chapter, and preferably the entire book of Galatians, which is very short.


Galatians 3:10-25 (NIV)

10All who rely on observing the law are under a curse, for it is written: "Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law." 11Clearly no one is justified before God by the law, because, "The righteous will live by faith." 12The law is not based on faith; on the contrary, "The man who does these things will live by them." 13Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: "Cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree." 14He redeemed us in order that the blessing given to Abraham might come to the Gentiles through Christ Jesus, so that by faith we might receive the promise of the Spirit.

15Brothers, let me take an example from everyday life. Just as no one can set aside or add to a human covenant that has been duly established, so it is in this case. 16The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. The Scripture does not say "and to seeds," meaning many people, but "and to your seed," meaning one person, who is Christ. 17What I mean is this: The law, introduced 430 years later, does not set aside the covenant previously established by God and thus do away with the promise. 18For if the inheritance depends on the law, then it no longer depends on a promise; but God in his grace gave it to Abraham through a promise.

19What, then, was the purpose of the law? It was added because of transgressions until the Seed to whom the promise referred had come. The law was put into effect through angels by a mediator. 20A mediator, however, does not represent just one party; but God is one.

21Is the law, therefore, opposed to the promises of God? Absolutely not! For if a law had been given that could impart life, then righteousness would certainly have come by the law. 22But the Scripture declares that the whole world is a prisoner of sin, so that what was promised, being given through faith in Jesus Christ, might be given to those who believe.

23Before this faith came, we were held prisoners by the law, locked up until faith should be revealed. 24So the law was put in charge to lead us to Christ that we might be justified by faith. 25Now that faith has come, we are no longer under the supervision of the law.

[Cedars]

I'm afraid he missed the point. Nobody, save Jesus himself, was ever sin-free. Salvation does not come by following rules, but is a free gift, available to anyone by grace alone, through faith alone. Although he did kinda get near the point; the point of all those rules is that it is indeed impossible to follow them all. And he did seem to have learned some truths from his experiment. I just hope he figures out the main truth.
It is commendable that one would do one's best to try to follow God. I would say, though, that there were TWO people who were free of sin -- Jesus and His mother, Mary (who received His saving Grace BEFORE she was born in order that she be a perfect vessel for carrying Christ in her womb and for raising the child Christ). If you look at the Ark of the Covenant and all that the building of it entailed and the sanctification of that Ark, you can see how much more Mary, the God-bearer (she held Christ/God incarnate in her womb), must have been sanctified in order to bear Christ in her womb. Mary is also a type of the Ark of the Covenant -- for the Ark of the Covenant (in the OT) held the Ten Commandments (the word of God), manna from heaven (the Bread of God), and the priestly rod of Aaron, whereas Mary, the Ark of the NEW Covenant, bore in her womb Christ Jesus -- and who is Jesus if not the Word of God, the Bread of Life and the High Priest? Mary is not God, but she was chosen by God to bear God (Christ), and for this reason she is due high honor -- Christ followed the Ten Commandments perfectly, and He perfectly followed, honoring His earthly mother.

While I agree that salvation is a free gift, available to anyone by Grace alone, I do not agree that salvation is through faith alone. We know from scripture that faith, without works, is dead. ("But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?" James 2:20; "For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also." James 2:26) All Grace and salvation is from God, but our free will must cooperate with God -- our faith must move us to love others as God loves us -- if our works do not reflect our faith, then our faith is dead; it did not bear good fruit.

[Cedars]

Then what`s the point with the rules in the first place?
It is simplified by Christ when He said that the two greatest commandments were to love God with all your heart and to love others. If you follow these two commandments, all the other rules fall into place (in other words, you will have followed them if you follow these two commandments).

[Izdaari]

While I agree that salvation is a free gift, available to anyone by Grace alone, I do not agree that salvation is through faith alone. We know from scripture that faith, without works, is dead. ("But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?" James 2:20; "For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also." James 2:26) All Grace and salvation is from God, but our free will must cooperate with God -- our faith must move us to love others as God loves us -- if our works do not reflect our faith, then our faith is dead; it did not bear good fruit.
Yes and no. Whether salvation is though faith alone, or through faith + works is a doctrinal question that divides Catholics and Protestants. I think Martin Luther was right on that one. But I agree that good works are important: they're the evidence that your faith is real. If you believe in Christ, it should show in your behavior. If it doesn't, how does anyone know it's real?

[Cedars]

Yes and no. Whether salvation is though faith alone, or through faith + works is a doctrinal question that divides Catholics and Protestants. I think Martin Luther was right on that one. But I agree that good works are important: they're the evidence that your faith is real. If you believe in Christ, it should show in your behavior. If it doesn't, how does anyone know it's real?
You prefer Martin Luther's take on faith and works over James 2:20 and 2:26?

[burntgorilla]

It is simplified by Christ when He said that the two greatest commandments were to love God with all your heart and to love others. If you follow these two commandments, all the other rules fall into place (in other words, you will have followed them if you follow these two commandments).

Does loving God and other people make your clothes turn white? Which rules are ignored because of this, and which are still regarded? I can see how the Ten Commandments are worked into this, but then what about bits about homosexuality? I think that's mentioned in the NT again, isn't it? Should a Christian basically ignore all of the rules and commandments in the OT?

[burntgorilla]

Yes and no. Whether salvation is though faith alone, or through faith + works is a doctrinal question that divides Catholics and Protestants. I think Martin Luther was right on that one. But I agree that good works are important: they're the evidence that your faith is real. If you believe in Christ, it should show in your behavior. If it doesn't, how does anyone know it's real?

Surely it only matters if God knows?

[Cedars]

Does loving God and other people make your clothes turn white?
Not to my knowledge -- unless you are referring to the symbolism of being made pure through Christ.

Which rules are ignored because of this, and which are still regarded?
You mean, like, the Jewish law for circumcision, say, and offering animal sacrifice? These laws and others like them were given before the Messiah (Jesus); but once Christ came, He perfected the laws. Circumcision, for instance, was the rite into becoming Jew (and Baptism is the Christian rite); animal sacrifice was replaced by the sacrifice of Christ for all men (therefore, animal sacrifices are no longer necessary).

PS: I should probably clarify here that Christianity is FOR the Jews -- God sent the Messiah first to the Jews but intended that all nations should come to believe THROUGH the Jews. Because some Jews rejected Christ as the Messiah, they rejected Christianity. But Christianity arose as a continuation of the Jewish story; it was first considered by some Jews as a Jewish "sect," and not a separate faith.

I can see how the Ten Commandments are worked into this, but then what about bits about homosexuality? I think that's mentioned in the NT again, isn't it? Should a Christian basically ignore all of the rules and commandments in the OT?
Now, you lost me here. What about homosexuality?

[burntgorilla]

Not to my knowledge -- unless you are referring to the symbolism of being made pure through Christ.

So how does loving God and your fellow man help you to fulfil the bit about wearing white clothes?


You mean, like, the Jewish law for circumcision, say, and offering animal sacrifice? These laws and others like them were given before the Messiah (Jesus); but once Christ came, He perfected the laws. Circumcision, for instance, was the rite into becoming Jew (and Baptism is the Christian rite); animal sacrifice was replaced by the sacrifice of Christ for all men (therefore, animal sacrifices are no longer necessary).

PS: I should probably clarify here that Christianity is FOR the Jews -- God sent the Messiah first to the Jews but intended that all nations should come to believe THROUGH the Jews. Because some Jews rejected Christ as the Messiah, they rejected Christianity. But Christianity arose as a continuation of the Jewish story; it was first considered by some Jews as a Jewish "sect," and not a separate faith.

Now, you lost me here. What about homosexuality?

Yes, circumcision and the like was what I was talking about. Bits in the OT are often used as a reason for considering homosexuality a sin. However, Jesus also said something about it in the NT. So, moving away from that slightly, does that make the OT essentially useless to a modern Christian?

[Eddie]

the point of all those rules is that it is indeed impossible to follow them all.

Still makes no sense to me. Then why not just skip them if they have no point other than being impossible to follow?

It is simplified by Christ when He said that the two greatest commandments were to love God with all your heart and to love others. If you follow these two commandments, all the other rules fall into place (in other words, you will have followed them if you follow these two commandments).

Still doesn`t explain why they are outlined in the first place unless God actually wants you to follow them. If you follow them by default by loving God and others, including the rules as well only give cause for confusion and misunderstanding.

[Cedars]

So how does loving God and your fellow man help you to fulfil the bit about wearing white clothes?
Sorry, but can you give me a specific reference? I am not sure what you are referring to.

Yes, circumcision and the like was what I was talking about. Bits in the OT are often used as a reason for considering homosexuality a sin. However, Jesus also said something about it in the NT. So, moving away from that slightly, does that make the OT essentially useless to a modern Christian?
No, the OT is not useless, quite the opposite. I think it was St. Augustine who said, "What lies hidden in the Old Testament, is made manifest in the New." The OT prepared Jews for Christ. But the OT, even today, can help us understand the NT (and vice versa). The Bible is a twofold literature, made up of two distinct collections (the OT and the NT) which correspond with two successive and unequal periods of time in the history of man. Both testaments are necessary, because they are pre-eminently one. Both collections have one and the same religious purpose, one and the same inspired character. They form the two parts of a great organic whole the centre of which is the person and mission of Christ.

[Cedars]

Still doesn`t explain why they are outlined in the first place unless God actually wants you to follow them. If you follow them by default by loving God and others, including the rules as well only give cause for confusion and misunderstanding.
The laws in the OT (such as circumcision and animal sacrifice) were required before Christ came into the world. Why? Because those laws helped prepare men for Christ and to understand when He did enter time so that we may recognize Jesus as the Messiah (so that we may be perfected through Jesus, which we could not accomplish on our own, without Him -- but the old laws helped us until He came). By following those two commandments (to love God and love others), the other commandments fall into place. If you love God, you will not take His name in vain nor will you fail to worship Him nor have any false gods. If you truly love others, you will honor your mother and father and not bear false witness or kill or steal or commit adultery or covet a neighbor's goods. So you see, the other commandments are being obeyed if you obey these two.

[Eddie]

The laws in the OT (such as circumcision and animal sacrifice) were required before Christ came into the world. Why? Because those laws helped prepare men for Christ and to understand when He did enter time so that we may recognize Jesus as the Messiah. By following those two commandments (to love God and love others), the other commandments fall into place. If you love God, you will not take His name in vain nor will you fail to worship Him nor have any false gods. If you truly love others, you will honor your mother and father and not bear false witness or kill or steal or commit adultery or covet a neighbor's goods. So you see, the other commandments are being obeyed if you obey these two.

Still, why point them out if you would follow them by default if you followed the "big two"? (The OT part I understand and makes perfect sense to me).

[Izdaari]

You prefer Martin Luther's take on faith and works over James 2:20 and 2:26?
Both are correct. Faith is the tree, works are the fruit. A tree that bears no fruit is dead... or else waiting for spring.

[Cedars]

Still, why point them out if you would follow them by default if you followed the "big two"? (The OT part I understand and makes perfect sense to me).

I am not sure I understand your question. If you are asking why give the other commandments when love God and love your neighbors would suffice, then I would guess that God was making it clearer because He knew they might not understand what loving God and others fully comprised of. If you are asking something else, please clarify.

[Eddie]

I am not sure I understand your question. If you are asking why give the other commandments when love God and love your neighbors would suffice, then I would guess that God was making it clearer because He knew they might not understand what loving God and others fully comprised of. If you are asking something else, please clarify.

No, you got my question right. So the other commandments and rules would be more of a description of the meaning of "love"?

[Cedars]

Both are correct. Faith is the tree, works are the fruit. A tree that bears no fruit is dead... or else waiting for spring.
So what do you see as the difference between Catholic belief and Martin Luther's belief regarding faith and works? The Catholic belief is that your faith must bear fruit (works). In other words, if you have faith in Christ but do not have a charitable attitude, what does that say for your faith? For instance, carrying a heavy package for one who cannot is a charitable work; or taking your neighbor to the grocery store because he or she has no transportation is a charitable work; or even lovingly taking care of your family is a charitable work. If you cannot help others, then your faith is essentially dead. So again, what do you see as being the difference?

[Cedars]

No, you got my question right. So the other commandments and rules would be more of a description of the meaning of "love"?

Yes -- sort of a what to do and what not to do. Even the circumcision and the animal sacrifice under the OT were signs of love to God. When one was circumcised, one made the affirmation of one's intention to become a Jew (or in the case of infants, the parents made the affirmation that they would bring up the child as a good Jew). When one made animal sacrifice to God, one would give the best of one's crops or animals to show God the high favor God was held in (in the case of Cain and Abel, Cain did not offer his best and resented his brother, Abel, who did). But as I said before, these practices were perfected in Christ. We no longer need to circumcise as we are now baptized into the family of God. We no longer need to make animal sacrifice because Jesus sacrificed Himself and won redemption for all.

[Eddie]

Yes -- sort of a what to do and what not to do. Even the circumcision and the animal sacrifice under the OT were signs of love to God. When one was circumcised, one made the affirmation of one's intention to become a Jew (or in the case of infants, the parents made the affirmation that they would bring up the child as a good Jew). When one made animal sacrifice to God, one would give the best of one's crops or animals to show God the high favor God was held in (in the case of Cain and Abel, Cain did not offer his best and resented his brother, Abel, who did). But as I said before, these practices were perfected in Christ. We no longer need to circumcise as we are now baptized into the family of God. We no longer need to make animal sacrifice because Jesus sacrificed Himself and won redemption for all.

Okay. That makes sense to me, but wouldn`t that mean that the rules and commandments still should be followed because they are guidelines to how you actually love God and others (apart from the rules that have been made obsolete due to the new covenant)?

[Izdaari]

So what do you see as the difference between Catholic belief and Martin Luther's belief regarding faith and works? The Catholic belief is that your faith must bear fruit (works). In other words, if you have faith in Christ but do not have a charitable attitude, what does that say for your faith? For instance, carrying a heavy package for one who cannot is a charitable work; or taking your neighbor to the grocery store because he or she has no transportation is a charitable work; or even lovingly taking care of your family is a charitable work. If you cannot help others, then your faith is essentially dead. So again, what do you see as being the difference?
I have no disagreement with that part; if you don't act lovingly, you don't have love, and if you don't have love, you're not following Christ. But all that is evidence of salvation, not the means of salvation.

But perhaps it was all a big misunderstanding. According to this Catholic writer, it was:

Where then do good works come in? In Christian Liberty, Luther explains that after the great liberation about faith — that we are saved by faith in Christ’s work, not by our works — comes a great liberation about works: they need not be done slavishly, to buy our way into heaven, to pile up merits or Brownie points with God, but can be done freely and spontaneously and naturally, out of gratitude to God — not to get to heaven but because heaven has already gotten to us. Thus they can be done for the sake of our neighbor, not for our own sake, to purchase salvation. And this is winsome. No one wants to be loved as someone else’s good deed for the day.

<snip>

Luther eventually came to reject many Catholic doctrines that he thought he could not find in Scripture. But only one justified his bold words before the Diet of Worms, which condemned him: “Here I stand. I cannot do otherwise. God help me.” The doctrine was justification by faith. The justification of Luther’s faith, he thought, was the doctrine of justification by faith.

For everything is at stake here. The question is nothing less than how to get to heaven. Luther thought the Catholic Church was teaching not only heresy (heretics always call orthodoxy heresy, by the way) but another religion, another way of salvation, “another gospel” (Gal 1:6). That’s about as serious a charge as you can imagine. We need to examine this charge very carefully to justify the surprising claim that the fundamental dispute between Protestants and Catholics was due to a misunderstanding.

It certainly doesn’t look like a misunderstanding. It looks like a flat-out contradiction: the Catholic Church taught that we are saved by faith and good works, while Luther taught that we are saved by faith alone (sola fide). But appearances may be deceiving.

For one thing, even if the two sides did disagree about the relationship between faith and works, they both agreed (1) that faith is absolutely necessary for salvation and (2) that we are absolutely commanded by God to do good works. Both these two points are unmistakably clear in Scripture.

For another thing, the terms of the dispute are ambiguous or used in two different senses. When terms are ambiguous, the two sides may really disagree when they seem to agree because they agree only on the word, not the concept. Or the two sides may really agree when they seem to disagree because they agree on the concept but not the word. The latter holds true here.

When Luther taught that we are saved by faith alone, he meant by salvation only the initial step, justification, being put right with God. But when Trent said we are saved by good works as well as faith, they meant by salvation the whole process by which God brings us to our eternal destiny and that process includes repentance, faith, hope, and charity, the works of love.

<snip>

Faith is the root, the necessary beginning. Hope is the stem, the energy that makes the plant grow. Love is the fruit, the flower, the visible product, the bottom line. The plant of our new life in Christ is one; the life of God comes into us by faith, through us by hope, and out of us by the works of love. That is clearly the biblical view, and when Protestants and Catholics who know and believe the Bible discuss the issue sincerely, it is amazing how quickly and easily they come to understand and agree with each other on this, the fundamental divisive issue. Try it some time with your Protestant friend.

http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/ap0027.html


If that writer is representing Catholic doctrine correctly, my biggest point of disagreement with it goes away. :)

[burntgorilla]

Sorry, but can you give me a specific reference? I am not sure what you are referring to.

Have you read the OP? He mentioned a bit in Ecclesiastes about wearing white. I'm assuming he didn't make it up.


No, the OT is not useless, quite the opposite. I think it was St. Augustine who said, "What lies hidden in the Old Testament, is made manifest in the New." The OT prepared Jews for Christ. But the OT, even today, can help us understand the NT (and vice versa). The Bible is a twofold literature, made up of two distinct collections (the OT and the NT) which correspond with two successive and unequal periods of time in the history of man. Both testaments are necessary, because they are pre-eminently one. Both collections have one and the same religious purpose, one and the same inspired character. They form the two parts of a great organic whole the centre of which is the person and mission of Christ.

Sorry, but that just sounds a bit wishy-washy to me. I simply don't follow you. The god in the OT and the god in the NT are quite different, aren't they? The OT god is a tribal god helping armies to win wars and laying down stern rules that serve little purpose. The NT god is much more philosophical and abstract, and seemingly then eradicates most of the laws previously given out.

[Cedars]

Okay. That makes sense to me, but wouldn`t that mean that the rules and commandments still should be followed because they are guidelines to how you actually love God and others (apart from the rules that have been made obsolete due to the new covenant)?
I would think so. What do you think is not followed?

[Eddie]

I would think so. What do you think is not followed?

Hmmm. I think I might confused yours and Izdaaris argument. But thank you for the explanation.

[Cedars]

I have no disagreement with that part; if you don't act lovingly, you don't have love, and if you don't have love, you're not following Christ. But all that is evidence of salvation, not the means of salvation.

But perhaps it was all a big misunderstanding. According to this Catholic writer, it was:



If that writer is representing Catholic doctrine correctly, my biggest point of disagreement with it goes away. :)
It seems accurate to me. Catholics do not believe we EARN salvation through works, no. Catholics believe that works is a result of the saving Grace of God; and if we lack works, our faith is dead.

So it looks like we agree after all. Good!

[Cedars]

Hmmm. I think I might confused yours and Izdaaris argument. But thank you for the explanation.
You are most welcome!

[Cedars]

Have you read the OP? He mentioned a bit in Ecclesiastes about wearing white. I'm assuming he didn't make it up.
Ah, yes, thank you. Ecclesiastes 9:8 -- "At all times let thy garments be white, and let not oil depart from thy head."

You asked, "So how does loving God and your fellow man help you to fulfil the bit about wearing white clothes?"

I am not a scripture scholar, but I believe the white garment refers to purity. St. Jerome said (Letter 38, to Paula) in 389 AD: "'Pray to the Lord Jesus, that He may pardon me, because what I would have done I have not been able to do.' Be at peace, dear Blæsilla, in full assurance that your garments are always white. [Ecclesiastes 9:8] For yours is the purity of an everlasting virginity. I feel confident that my words are true: conversion can never be too late."
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3001039.htm

Sorry, but that just sounds a bit wishy-washy to me. I simply don't follow you. The god in the OT and the god in the NT are quite different, aren't they? The OT god is a tribal god helping armies to win wars and laying down stern rules that serve little purpose. The NT god is much more philosophical and abstract, and seemingly then eradicates most of the laws previously given out.
It is the same God in both the OT and the NT. Both Jews and Christians believe that the OT prophesied a Messiah. Christians believe that Messiah is Jesus, while modern Jews are still waiting for the Messiah (as they reject Jesus, which is also foretold in the OT). The Jews believe that the Messiah would be a king and would help the Jews rule on earth forever. But Jesus's kingdom was much different than they expected; so many did not accept Him. Jesus did not eradicate the old laws. He perfected them. Jewish people thought that if they followed the laws, then they followed God. Some demanded that they follow the laws to the very letter and in doing so they lost sight of the law. For instance, they forbade Jesus to do good works on the Sabbath (such as healing), because they said He wasn't supposed to work on the Sabbath. On becoming so set on the law itself, they lost sight of what was right and proper before God. They didn't realize that a good work (done with faith and love) such as Jesus was doing healing on the Sabbath was right and proper. Works done not out of love of God but from the law itself was NOT right and proper -- it is mere lip service to the law. The law was to aid us until Jesus, the Messiah, came. And it is through Jesus we are perfected, and not through the law.

[Izdaari]

Hmmm. I think I might confused yours and Izdaaris argument. But thank you for the explanation.
Mmmaybe. But Cedars and I seem to be in agreement after all. :flowers: