The Nature and Role of Law: Part 7–15

Walt Henrichsen June 26, 2015

Part Seven

Judgment is the fruit of justice and law defines justice. All of us loath the though of judgment; very rarely do we hear the subject exposited in our churches. Yet we all insist upon it when our rights are violated. Interestingly, we are one of the most unforgiving and litigious societies in history, yet we avoid discussing personal accountability. We want justice, but we do not want to be just. More accurately, we want to define justice without being consistent, irrespective of what the law or anyone else says. The US Supreme Court reflects this attitude in what we call “judicial activism.” Rather than allowing the Constitution to define justice, the Court, in a myriad of opinions, ignores the Constitution, overriding the will of the people in the process.

We feel uncomfortable talking about the judgment of God, not because we don’t believe in judgment, but because Scripture assures us that we cannot define justice nor avoid judgment; both are under His authority. Justice ensures judgment.

Let’s now explore the third major section in this study:

LAW AND MAN’S INABILITY TO GOVERN HIMSELF

God does not want man to govern himself; that would be a quick trip to hell. Man has an insatiable appetite for autonomy; it was part of his nature before the Fall. If Adam had not wanted to govern his own affairs he would not have been tempted to the Serpent’s suggestion that he eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. “For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.”[22] Even Jesus, in the Garden of Gethsemane, wrestled with His submission to the governance of God.[23] We will not govern ourselves in heaven, and He does not want us to govern ourselves on earth.

From the time of the Tower of Babel, men have been chased the dream of establishing utopia – a system of government without any reference to God. This was the objective in Plato’s The Republic,[24] and philosophers and statesmen alike have been mesmerized by this dream ever since. Because God is gracious and merciful, He has frustrated man’s every attempt to accomplish this objective.

Men dream of utopia because they want to be independent from God. Dick Halverson, the late chaplain to the US Senate, use to publish the “Perspective,” a one-page challenge to business and professional men. In one of his issues he noted that the problems of our country could be easily solved. We could empty the prisons, cut the police force, eliminate crime, curtail the crippling cost of welfare, and pay off the national debt – simply by obeying the Ten Commandments. But man will have none of it; we will destroy ourselves before surrendering our dream of autonomy.

Before we can be reconciled to God we must understand that we are alienated from God. Before this alienation can end, we must surrender our craving for autonomy and declare our dependence upon God.

TWO PURPOSES OF THE LAW

One of the purposes of the Mosaic Law is to teach us our depravity and need for Christ. Another purpose of the Mosaic Law is to define and ensure justice. If we could ensure justice, we wouldn’t see our depravity.

Therefore we see that two of the purposes of the Law – to define and ensure justice and to reveal our depravity and need for Christ – are mutually exclusive. In short, God commands justice in the Law, and ensures that we are unjust by preventing us from reaching the goal of creating utopia. In this we see His grace.

LEGISLATING MORALITY

In an earlier issue we explored the difference between legality and morality. Legality seeks to define morality, even though apart from the Bible it can never do it perfectly. The legislature struggles knowing that it cannot legislate morality. All good law is stated negatively. When the state establishes positive laws such as those pertaining to affirmative action, it overloads the judicial system with the need for interpretation. This, in part, creates the “imperial court” where the judges impose their will on the people without the consent of the governed.

Law is used in interpersonal relationships for two reasons: First, because of immaturity. At our home I establish a law that my little grandson cannot play in the street. He is too young to understand the danger, and so I enforce the law to keep him from harms way. As he matures, I need to take time to explain why children shouldn’t play in the street. When we make rules that seem nonsensical, and we refuse to explain their rationale, we encourage rebellion. The explanation, “Because I said so,” is at best inadequate. It probably reflects laziness on my part; I don’t want to take time to discuss the validity of his challenging my rule.

Second, we use law in interpersonal relationships because of willfulness. People need to be restrained from sin and harming themselves. The state establishes maximum speed limits to not only protect the driver, but also innocent people who happen to be in his way. If we make no rules regarding children going to school, truancy would abound and those same people would later become a burden on the state. Laws and their commensurate penalties keep people from stealing.

Having established this, note that you cannot relate to others on the basis of law. Precisely because we all sin, living in a sinful world, we need an eagerness to please others combined with an eagerness to forgive, in order for relationships to exist. If either of these two is missing, the relationship will disintegrate. When you assume the responsibility of the state and seek to ensure justice in your relationship with others, you will be unable to forgive; for remember, justice and forgiveness are mutually exclusive.

Conversely, when the state confuses its job of ensuring justice with the need to forgive, injustice reigns. Crime without punishment breeds anarchy. Today we fail to punish crime with the excuse that criminal behavior is the fault of the environment. People are victims because of their minority position, race, socio-economic position, etc. The state has no business trying to be redemptive; efforts are almost always at the expense of justice. You cannot relate to people on the basis of justice. This is why God calls upon us to forgive.

LESSONS

The following are illustrative of the lessons we should learn from this:

1 – In government, we allow evil to continue because we fear that the removal of it will create a greater evil. For example, most people agree that there is such a thing as pornography, and that it is wrong. But we have two problems. First, we cannot agree on what constitutes pornography. Second, we also want to maintain freedom of expression, and fear that if we define pornography too generally, we will infringe on this freedom. So we tend to be more tolerant of pornography than we would perhaps like, because we fear the consequence of being too harsh in seeking to eradicate it.

2 – We are content with a lesser good because we doubt that we can create a greater good. For example, one of the great debates in society is over public education. Most agree that our schools have failed in their task of properly educating our youth. However, we are reluctant to do way with public education, for we doubt that we can create a better system.

3 – The presence of law implies the presence of transgression. By way of illustration, in the 18th century in this country we did not have 65mph speed limits. The reason is obvious: no one could travel that fast. The presence of law reveals the threat of sin. In this we see the dilemma of government. If there were no laws there would be not be any transgressors. But if law and accountability did not exist, men would not submit to authority. We will develop this more fully later, but note in the Garden of Eden; Adam violated the only law God gave him.

CONCLUSION

As we close this section on “law and man’s inability to govern himself,” notice that the Book of Joshua closes with Israel possessing the land. The Book of Judges consists of a series of cameos showing the Theocracy in practice. A cursory reading of Judges forces us to conclude that from the start, the Theocracy never worked. Each episode shows the miserable failure of Israel against the backdrop of God’s patience and grace. In truth, Israel was more focused on God and His will when in captivity than when free.

The judges were not part of the law. God instituted them for pragmatic reasons because of Israel’s failure to follow the law. So the people demanded and received a monarchy. Some argue that during the reigns of David and Solomon, the system worked. It is a dubious argument, but if made, understand that it happened because man “improved” on God’s system and instituted the monarchy.

In either case, the rest of the period of kings was a disaster. During this period the ten northern tribes of Israel practiced Baal worship to such an extent that God used the Assyrians to disperse them among the other conquered people in her empire. Today they are referred to as “the ten lost tribes of Israel.”

And why not? They had forsaken the worship of the true God for gods that are no gods. What loss was there in being moved to foreign lands, which produced as good or better crops as Israel? It was a lateral move!

Later, God sent the southern tribes of Judah into captivity in Babylon. From that time to the present, the Jews have never experienced both political and religious freedom, except possibly for brief moments when they were in rebellion.

What do we learn from this? In the sense of following God and obeying the law, Israel has done a better job when deprived of her freedom than at any time she was ostensibly a Theocracy. Man will not live under the rule of God without pain and opposition. His lust for autonomy is so great that he will, without fail, rebel.

A sense of desperation is essential for man to maintain his focus on God. Only to the degree that he sees his relationship with God as an absolute essential for survival in the midst of pain and tribulation, will he willingly submit. Man will not even submit to the good without a sense of dependence. Without pain he will not perceive the good to be good.

Lord Jesus, come quickly,

Walt

References

[22] Genesis 3:5.

[23] Cf. Matthew 26:39-46.

[24] Plato was a Greek philosopher who lived 427-347 BC. In The Republic, Socrates, using the didactic method, sought to teach the people how to establish the perfect republic.

Part Eight

During the construction of the Tower of Babel, God said, “Now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do.”[25] If the Genesis analysis of man is accurate, and if this reflects how God perceives the corporate efforts of man, we can see why God frustrates man’s endeavors, as He did at Babel.

Other biblical accounts of man seeking to conquer and gain control include Assyria, Babylon (named after Babel), and Rome. Each time God intervened to stop them from accomplishing their goals. Then too there exists a host of illustrations not included in Scripture. The vision of a one-world government under the auspices of something like the United Nations captures the imagination of many philosophers and statesmen.

If such an effort proved successful, we would lose our hope in God and become eternally lost. In the last issue we noted that two objectives of the Mosaic Law were to define and ensure justice and to reveal the depravity of man. But the depravity of man precludes justice ever being ensured. Thus these two purposes of the Law work against each other. God intended it that way, not because He wants man to fail in his attempt to be righteous, but rather because He does not want unrighteous man to succeed in his rebellion against God.

God does not want man to govern his own affairs any more than He wanted man to be successful in building the Tower of Babel. To the degree that man can bring order, peace, and security to his environment, he will be inoculated from sensing his need for salvation. Christianity is a religion of rescue; it is designed for the desperate.

Let’s now move to the next major section in this series:

LAW AND REQUEST

What is the difference between a law and a request? The first and most obvious difference is, law is obligatory, and a request is not. Let me suggest a couple of other differences that may not appear quite as obvious.

First, most laws have the recipient’s best interest at heart, while requests generally have the requester’s interest in mind. I will again use my grandson’s playing in the street as an example. At our home I have a law that, under no circumstance, can he play in the street. I want to keep him from harm as autos speed past the house. My law is designed to protect him.

Now my grandson and I enter the house and I ask him to go to the bedroom and fetch me my slippers. This is not a law, but a request; he does not have to do it. But my request seeks my interest, not his. For the most part, this difference between law and request holds true.

To the degree that this is true, you would think that people would rather obey law than request. I would rather follow that which serves my interest rather than that which seeks the interest of another. But, alas, such is not the case. This should alert us that something is terribly wrong with how we approach life. Interestingly, the Bible claims that God’s law has both His and our best interest as its motivation.

Second, laws have consequences, while requests don’t necessarily have them. By way of example, my wife and I are sitting at the breakfast table and she gets up to do something else. As she leaves the table, I ask her to pour me another cup of coffee. Is this a law or a request? It depends upon how she and I view it.

If my wife answers me, “Do I have to?” I have to make a decision. I can view it as a request and respond by saying, “No, of course you don’t have to. I will do it myself.” Or I can view it as a law and say, “Yes, you have to. I am head of this home and you are biblically obligated to obey me. Stop this nonsense and get me the cup of coffee!”

I would be foolish to convert my request for another cup of coffee into a law. But more importantly, if my wife responded to my request with the words, “Do I have to?” it would indicate that there is something terribly wrong in our marriage. An eagerness to please forms the core of any healthy relationship.

THE NEED TO KNOW

You need to know what a person wants in order to give it to him. I remember when Leette and I were first married we desperately wanted to please each other. I would come home tired from a hard day, and think, “My wife has been in the house all day, maybe she would like to go out this evening,” even though I would rather stay home. When I asked her if she would like to go out, she would think, “He has had a hard day and probably wants to go out this evening,” even though she wanted to stay home.

We both went out seeking to please the other, while both of us wanted to stay home. We finally learned that we needed to know what the other person wants in order to give it to them. An eagerness to please has to be combined with honesty.

It seems to me that we should view the commandments of God from this perspective. Because our Lord Jesus saved us, because we are His obedient servants, and because He loves us and does all things for our good, we should be eager to please Him. He knows what we want, but gently reminds us that His commands should be viewed as requests, simply because He is eager to please us!

This may be what David had in mind in Psalm 19:7-11: “The law of the LORD is perfect,

converting the soul: the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple. 8 The statutes of the LORD are right, rejoicing the heart: the commandment of the LORD is pure, enlightening the eyes. 9 The fear of the LORD is clean, enduring for ever: the judgments of the LORD are true and righteous altogether. 10 More to be desired are they than gold, yea, than much fine gold: sweeter also than honey and the honeycomb. 11 Moreover by them is thy servant warned: and in keeping of them there is great reward.”

Again, Psalm 119:97-104: “O how love I thy law! it is my meditation all the day. 98 Thou through thy commandments hast made me wiser than mine enemies: for they are ever with me. 99 I have more understanding than all my teachers: for thy testimonies are my meditation. 100 I understand more than the ancients, because I keep thy precepts. 101 I have refrained my feet from every evil way, that I might keep thy word. 102 I have not departed from thy judgments: for thou hast taught me. 103 How sweet are thy words unto my taste! yea, sweeter than honey to my mouth! 104 Through thy precepts I get understanding: therefore I hate every false way.”

LAW, THE LAST LINE OF DEFENSE

When you view the commandments of God as a law obligating you to perform in a certain way, it indicates a breakdown in the relationship, as surely as my wife’s response, “Do I have to?” Law is the last line of defense in a deteriorating relationship. Forcing your will upon another through a law indicates that you are working towards damage control. By that I mean, when you have played the trump card of “law,” you have run out of options. When the other person breaks the law, you are forced to make them face the consequences. At that point the relationship is fractured.

For example, if a couple came to you for counseling before marriage, would you encourage them to have a pre-nuptial agreement before becoming husband and wife? There is nothing biblically wrong with such an agreement; I know of no command that prohibits it. But no same person enters marriage with a list of laws. Rather, love implies an eagerness to please. A request is enough.

What do you do when a person makes a request that you do not want to meet? In an earlier issue we noted that the force of law is in accountability. The absence of accountability may not void the law, but it does strip it of all effectiveness. In a certain sense, this is true for requests as well.

So when we are asked to do what we don’t want to do, we either consciously or unconsciously ask ourselves, “Is the request valid and reasonable, or am I lazy and selfish? Will saying no put the relationship in jeopardy? Do I care, or should I care, if I lose the relationship? Do I view myself as his ‘servant for Jesus’ sake?’[26]” In the final analysis, you evaluate the cost/result ratio of the decision.

SEEKING THE BEST FOR OTHERS

Never make laws out of your desire to see people seek their best. I Corinthians 7 with Paul’s instruction on celibacy affords a good illustration. In this passage Paul says that single people have a better opportunity to seek the things of Christ than those married do.[27] But he leaves the decision with the individual believer saying, “it is better to marry than to burn.”[28] The Roman Catholic Church, understanding the validity of Paul’s argument, makes celibacy a law for those entering the priesthood.

We can easily do this with our children as we seek to provoke them to godliness. But we must constantly remind ourselves that a thirst for holiness comes from within the heart. Law is external, ignoring the heart.

Making laws is easier than influencing thinking. More often than not, however, exercising this option ends in being counter-productive to the relationship without accomplishing the desired objective.

CONCLUSION

The difference between a law and a request is attitude. Do you delight to do the will of God as both Jesus and the Psalmist testified, or do you view His commandments as intrusive and restrictive, and therefore seek ways to ignore them? We will explore this in greater depth in the next issue, but evaluating your attitude toward biblical commands will instruct you on how you perceive God. You cannot have it both ways: You cannot argue that our Lord’s commandments are created with an eager desire to please you and help you in life, and that your relationship with Him is marked by an eagerness to please Him, and then ignore His commands by saying they are cultural or non-essential.

His for a life of obedience,

Walt

References

[25] Cf. Genesis 11:6.

[26] Cf. II Cor 4:5.

[27] Cf. vv. 32-35.

[28] Cf. v. 9.

Part Nine

In the August 18, 1997 issue of Time Magazine, they reported in an article entitled, “The Ties That Bind,” that our culture couldn’t make up its mind regarding divorce. “Should breaking up be harder to do? The debate over easy divorce rages on.” After taking polls, running tests on the pros and cons of divorce, etc., the “evidence” was inconclusive.

Ultimately, the decision rests in the hands of the spin-masters and their ability to garner enough votes from the masses to affirm their positions. No objective decision can be made because they exclude from the debate how Scripture addresses the question.

In part 4 we noted that philosophically, certainty is found in either the subject or object. I think you are wonderful, and therefore you are wonderful, etc. The only objectivity obtainable is the opinion of the majority; most people agree with me that you are wonderful. The Time Magazine article on divorce clearly demonstrates the limitations of this approach. Morality is the subjective opinion of the majority. If we are consistent we must admit that the only reason Hitler was wrong in his endeavor to exterminate the Jews was, we won the war and we said he was wrong! There is no objective basis for concluding that his actions were immoral.

LAW AND LOVE

This is the next major section in our study on the subject of the nature and role of law.

Jesus said, “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.”[29] Earlier in His ministry He said, “Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.”[30]

Love and the Golden Rule make law unnecessary. All the requirements of the law are satisfied; you are free to do what you want. I believe Martin Luther once said, “Love God and do as you please.” The point: if you love God you will love doing as He pleases.

In the last issue of this series we explored the difference between law and request. People wish to move from request to law because of rebellion. For example, a man enters into a bad marriage and knows that it was a mistake. He wants out, but the Bible gives him no out. So he goes to Scripture to see if he can find some kind of loophole in God’s prohibition against divorce and remarriage. He either examines the commands to see if he can justify his desire, or he argues that he is no longer under the law and can therefore do as he pleases.

In either case, he insists that he genuinely loves God and wants His will. I have a problem counseling such a person, for I do not know his motives or his sincerity when he says he genuinely wants to do God’s will; only God knows. I do know, however, what the Bible teaches, so I seek to dissuade him, exegeting the command with him for his sake. As I oppose him, he can obfuscate and justify himself. I am not smart enough to evaluate beyond what the Bible says. As I stand in his way, for his sake, he views me as his enemy.

WHO TOLD YOU YOU WERE NAKED?

This question, asked by God in Genesis 3:11 after Adam and Eve sinned, draws attention to an important truth. How they knew that they were naked was more important to God than the fact that they were naked. God wanted to know, “Who made it an issue?” How did they lose their innocence?

This probing question to Adam and Eve reveals the core of the issue in the relationship between love and law. By way of explanation, let me give several illustrations:

BECOMING AN ELDER

In I Timothy 3 Paul outlines the requirements for elders. In verse 2 he says he must be “the husband of one wife.” A literal translation reads, “a one-woman man.” At face value, Paul prohibits digamy of every kind for those seeking to be elders, and historically this is how the church has understood it.

A man challenges this last paragraph and with the question, “How do you know that this was the intent of Paul in I Timothy 3:2?” A more important question needs to be asked before responding: Why do you want to know? Who made it an issue? Almost always the question is raised on behalf of a divorced man who wants to be an elder and perceives that this verse stands in his way.

The man pushes to justify himself, insisting on the letter of the law with any and all possible points of ambiguity. Does Paul mean that if a man’s wife dies and he remarries he is barred from becoming an elder? Supposing a man fornicated with other women before he married? In the strict sense of the word, can we say that he is a “one-woman man?”

People argue that Paul had in mind polygamy rather than divorce and remarriage. There is no way I can know the motives and intent of such people’s hearts, but it is a convenient argument; the state prohibits polygamy and allows divorce and remarriage. Each individual knows in his heart whether he loves God will all his heart and eagerly desires to do His will, and God will judge him in that great day of reckoning.

WOMEN COVERING THEIR HEADS

In I Corinthians 11:1-16, Paul teaches that a woman should cover her head when she prays or prophesies. For years your wife and daughters go to church, pray and teach Sunday School, etc. and never covered their heads. Not that they were rebellious; they never thought about the issue, even though they read I Corinthians many times.

After church one morning, “Sue” comes to your wife and says, “I am glad to see that you are not wearing a hat. I just read I Corinthians 11 and Paul’s unreasonable insistence on women covering their heads. I always suspected that Paul was a male chauvinist, and now I am convinced. These medieval efforts to suppress women must be resisted, and I am glad you agree with me!”

Your family has just lost its innocence. “Who told you you were naked? Who made it an issue?” Once it becomes an issue you are forced to deal with it. You must now decide whether you consider God’s commands arcane and restrictive, or whether you really do love God with all your heart and are eager to please him.

You may resist me at this point, suggesting that these are not the only two options, and I agree. But the command is clear. Why wouldn’t you want to obey so simple a command? Each of us must answer to God who understands every thought and motive of the heart.

USING THE FAMILY AUTO

One of your children approaches you regarding the use of the family car. He wants you to make some rules regarding its use because he doesn’t feel that he has been treated fairly. You respond by saying, “Son, we love each other; let’s not try to relate to one another on the basis of a bunch of rules. When do you want to use the car? Just ask me, and if it is available, you can have it.”

But the boy is not satisfied. He does not think that it is “available” to him often enough. So he wants laws established to defend his rights. When he does this, he communicates that trust is missing and that the relationship is strained. In brief, he wants law because he perceives a lack of love.

HIDING WITH LYING LIPS

The prohibition against lying if found in ninth of the Ten Commandments: “Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.”[31] As you know, it does not address lying per se, but rather that I do not falsify any man’s words. I think that it is safe to assume that most, if not all, know what this means.

For example, a man is caught in a lie; he deceives another person into believing that he could pay for a product when he knew that he couldn’t. So, seeking to justify himself, he argues, “Didn’t God deceive Saul in I Samuel 16:2?[32] And what about the midwives in Exodus 1:18-20; didn’t God bless them for lying to Pharaoh? Wouldn’t you lie to protect your family? Supposing your five-year-old daughter comes dressed atrociously with her mothers clothes and make-up, and asks, ‘Daddy, am I dressed beautifully?’ what would you say?”

He push you, seeking to force you into conceding what you are reluctant to concede. He wants to justify himself in his lie. But his point is well made; there are times when you feel justified in lying. When God commanded that we not lie, did He have in mind that we shouldn’t affirm our children in their endeavor to please, or lie in order to hide people from the harm of others?

I don’t think so, but each of us knows in our hearts whether when we lie we love God with all our hearts, and our neighbor as ourselves. When we so love God and our neighbor, the law is fulfilled, and it is on this basis that God will judge us.

Walking by faith,

Walt

References

[29] Matthew 22:37-40.

[30] Matthew 7:12.

[31] Exodus 20:16.

[32] 1 Samuel 16:2: “And Samuel said, How can I go? if Saul hear it, he will kill me. And the LORD said, Take an heifer with thee, and say, I am come to sacrifice to the LORD.”

Part Ten

God’s commandments, by their very nature, are objective in their meaning, but how a believer chooses to apply these commands is frequently subjective. For example, Paul says in I Timothy 2:12: “But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.” The command is clear, but how to apply it is not. Can she teach male children in Sunday School? Can she teach her own sons? When does the child cross the line between being a child and a man?

Some applications of commands are more objectively determined than others. It is easier, for example to determine whether a person has committed murder than to determine whether he has loved his neighbor. Thus, applications of negative commands are easier determined than positive commands, simply because with positive commandments, intent must be taken into consideration. When an assassin plunges a knife into a man’s chest it is murder, but when a surgeon does the same, it is life saving surgery. However, if the surgeon dislikes the patient and is less careful than otherwise, and the patient dies, is it murder? Only God, who knows the heart, can decide.

So you may ask, “How can I subjectively decide what the application of the commands looks like? I suggest that you ask and answer three questions:

1 – What does the command say? (Be ruthlessly honest when you answer this.)

2 – Am I in a state of perpetual brokenness and submission to God as I seek to apply His commands? Do I want to please Him? Do I view His commands as laws or requests?

3 – Does my application follow the Golden Rule? In other words, would I want people applying other commands using the same logic that I have used in this command?

We have been discussing how love and the Golden Rule make law unnecessary. When a person seeks to apply the law with brokenness and in accordance with the Golden Rule, the law is fulfilled. Closely related to this is an examination of the relationship between law and self-denial. Let’s therefore take a brief look at this subject.

LAW AND SELF-DENIAL

Some people like to approach self-denial in the same way that they believe the law should be followed. However, law differs from self-denial in the following ways: Law is objective while self-denial is subjective – subjective in the sense that each person decides for himself what it looks like. Law is external, given to us by our authority, while self-denial is internal, originating from personal conviction. Therefore we see that others determine law, while each individual for his own life determines self-denial. If I command my children to have a quiet time each morning before breakfast and fast twice each week, I give them a law. But if I determine these same standards for myself, without reference to any outside authority, I practice self-denial.

People practice legalism when they impose their standards, usually in reference to positive laws, upon others. However, when we insist that others in the Body of Christ obey God’s commands, usually in reference to negative laws, this is not legalism, it is church discipline. I cannot charge another with legalism if he confronts me when I break a commandment of God. If I am wise, I will thank him for his willingness to watch for my soul.

When a man practices discipline in his own life, because he has convictions that these disciplines will help him accomplish his goals, this is not legalism. A disciplined man becomes legalistic if he makes laws for himself outside of the commandments of God set forth in Scripture, and concludes that His relationship with God is determined by his keeping them. But discipline is different from legalism; the two should not be confused.

PEOPLE BOTH LOVE AND HATE LAW

People have always had a love-hate relationship with law; they love its clarity while hating its limitations. So too, when it comes to self-denial, there is a love-hate relationship. People love the fact that they get to choose what the application of self-denial looks like, but on the other hand, they hate the fact that they will need to answer to God about the kind of application they have chosen.

As noted earlier, all good law is stated negatively. However, God introduces positive law in His expectations of us because positive law reveals the heart, and heart attitude is exceedingly important to God. Since God alone knows the human heart, we are best served making only negative laws when seeking to govern the behavior of others.

Positive law, like actions involving self-denial, is ambiguous in that each person must decide for himself what its application looks like. Like self-denial, positive law cannot be measured. Thus, if you wish to observe if people want to relate to God on the basis of law rather than love, look at how they relate to positive law.

JESUS AND THE SABBATH

As you know, Jesus had difficulty with the Pharisees over the Sabbath. By way of illustration, read the following discussion Jesus had with them:

“At that time Jesus went through the grainfields on the Sabbath; his disciples were

hungry, and they began to pluck heads of grain and to eat. 2 But when the Pharisees saw

it, they said to him, ‘Look, your disciples are doing what is not lawful to do on the

sabbath.’ 3 He said to them, ‘Have you not read what David did, when he was hungry,

and those who were with him: 4 how he entered the house of God and ate the bread of the

Presence, which it was not lawful for him to eat nor for those who were with him, but

only for the priests? 5 Or have you not read in the law how on the Sabbath the priests in

the temple profane the Sabbath, and are guiltless? 6 I tell you, something greater than the

temple is here. 7 And if you had known what this means, `I desire mercy, and not

sacrifice,’ you would not have condemned the guiltless. 8 For the Son of man is lord of

the Sabbath.’”[33]

In this passage, Jesus raises the question, What does keeping the Fourth Commandment look like? In essence, the Pharisees argued, “He keeps the law best who does the least work.” It is ironic that after Jesus rebuked the people in Matthew 11:20-27 for their failure to repent,[34] the Pharisees rebuke the disciples for violating the Pharisees’ interpretation on how the positive commandment pertaining to the Sabbath should be kept.

Jesus’ disciples ate grain while walking through the fields on the Sabbath. Were they wrong? In answer, Jesus tells two stories: First, He tells how David, while fleeing Saul, ate the shewbread in the Tabernacle. Jesus affirms David in his breaking the Mosaic Law. (We will discuss this more in the next section.)

Second, Jesus calls attention to the priest’s caring for the Temple on the Sabbath. Granted, it is the Lord’s work, but they nonetheless violate the Fourth Commandment when they do it. Are the priests wrong? Jesus concludes with the admonition, “Mercy is better than Sacrifice.” By quoting from Hosea 6:6, Jesus means that God much prefers a heart of spiritual softness to an external observance of the law.

ORIGIN OF THE PROBLEM

Jesus calls for repentance and mercy; the Pharisees call for the people to meet the Pharisees’ expectations on how the positive laws are obeyed. How did the Pharisees arrive at this unhappy state? To understand, we need to look at the Babylonian Captivity. God gave Judah into the hands of Nebuchadnezzar because of Judah’s willful disregard for God’s law. The sins of Judah were many, but the two primary ones were idolatry (a negative command) and not honoring the Sabbath (a positive command). The Jews had no difficulty determining how to keep the negative command, but application of the positive command presented a bit of a problem.

To rectify this failure to honor the Sabbath, the Jews established the Synagogue and the order of Scribes while in captivity in Babylon. As far as I can tell, God makes no reference to these solutions being His desire. However, the people took the initiative and created them to avoid repeating the problem that got God angry with them in the first place. To their credit, the Jews never again repeated this problem.

But in doing so, they sought to relate to God on the basis of law – i.e., they viewed keeping the law as a necessity rather than a privilege. Thus the letter of the law replaced the spirit of the law. With God, the heart, and only God can know the heart, is more important than the act. We have earlier observed how an act, such as the use of a knife in the hands of a surgeon or an assassin, is differentiated by intent. For this reason, God excuses ignorance, for with God you are innocent when ignorant, even if your action is wrong – simply because He knows your heart. Governments on the other hand, insist that “ignorance in no excuse,” because they cannot know your heart’s intent.

CONCLUSION

I suggest four lessons from this:

First, if I have a heart to please God, loving others as myself, then when I oppose a person who breaks a negative commandment, I have their best interest at heart. Instead of judging the application of the positive commandments, I will allow others to interpret for themselves what such applications looks like.

Second, we must all live with the tension of wanting both security and freedom. In life, we cannot have both because the two are mutually exclusive. Railroad tracks afford the train security, while at the same time restricting its freedom. The forced retirement program of the US government, Social Security, restricts our freedom to spend all our money the way we wish while young, yet it provides security for our old age. Life abounds with many illustrations of the balance between security and freedom, but it is best practiced in the Christian life through self-denial.

Third, don’t seek to relate to God on the basis of law. In your marriage, as well as in most relationships, you don’t relate to one another on the basis of rules and regulations. So also, we have noted that the desire to please our loved ones blurs the distinction between a law and a request. God’s commandments afford you opportunity to learn how to please Him; they are not the basis upon which the relationship is established or maintained.

Fourth, never view God’s commandments as punitive. When relating to others, restrictions are not necessarily punishment, and with God they never are punishment. He designed all restrictions for your good. If you succumb to the temptation of concluding that His law is punitive, you are guaranteed an unsatisfactory relationship with Him.

This concludes the fifth of six parts on The Nature and Role of Law. With the next issue we will begin to explore the last section, the Mosaic Covenant. What role, if any, does it play in the believer’s life today?

In His firm grip,

Walt

References

[33] Matthew 12:1-8.

[34] Cf. esp. v. 25: “At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, ecause thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes.”

Part Eleven

MOSAIC LAW

PURPOSE OF THE MOSAIC LAW

The Old Testament indicates at least five reasons for the Mosaic Law:

1 – It reveals, in part, the nature and character of God.

2 – It gave Israel the rules for living under the Theocracy.

3 – It exposed sin, thus revealing the need for Christ.

4 – It was Israel’s means of sanctification.

5 – It gave Israel her culture.

THE VARIOUS KINDS OF LAW

There are a number of ways you can divide the Mosaic Law. One of the most common is:

a) – Ceremonial – Those laws dealing with ritual instituted by God on Sinai. Included are feast days, various kinds of sacrifices, and rites of purification.

b) – Moral – Those laws dealing with absolute standards of right and wrong. They are summarized in the Ten Commandments, and elaborated in passages such as Leviticus 18-20.

c) – Civil – These are laws dealing with daily commerce in Israel, not of a moral nature. Included are regulations dealing with how people dress, the care of livestock, and disease.

d) – Dietary – Laws dealing with clean and unclean food.

Another way you can divide the Mosaic Law is:

1) – Laws that cover sins that result in the need for sacrifice, but more commonly, banishment from the community or death. These range from violating the moral law to willfully violating the dietary laws.

2) – Those laws which require sacrifice and rites of purification. These include touching dead or unclean things, women having babies, and vessels coming into contact with leprosy.

3) – Laws God establishes that have nothing to do with sin, but restrict the behavior of people – e.g., a blemished man cannot be High Priest, bastards cannot enter the congregation of the Lord, and none but the Levites can function as priests.

We have no way of knowing why God established many of these laws that restrict people or render them unacceptable for certain privileges. Our reason cannot give an adequate rationale, and God does not explain Himself. But we must constantly remind ourselves that God’s commandments restricting behavior are never punitive, and when we begin to think that they are, we guarantee ourselves a relationship with God that questions His goodness. “What does God have against bastards that they cannot enter the congregation of the Lord? It wasn’t their fault that they were illegitimate.” New Testament believers may be tempted to ask, “Why does God punish women by insisting that they cannot teach or have authority over men? In many cases they certainly are more competent than men.”

What we do know is that God’s covenant with the nation Israel parallels His covenant with the redeemed in the following ways:

1 – God has expectations He insists His people meet, reflected in the Old Testament Law and in the New Testament commands.

2 – Breaking the commandments of God has dire consequences. In the Old Testament, the national consequences had to be temporal; for individual believers in both Testaments, they may be temporal, but they certainly are eternal.

3 – Neither Israel as a nation, nor any descendent of Adam can relate to God by any kind of works, including the works of the Law.

4 – God’s gracious covenant with Abraham ensures both the nation of Israel and the individual believer that sin will not lead to the ultimate rejection of God. Any immediate rejection is redemptive and temporary.

5 – God’s grace does not mean that His laws and commandments can be neglected, altered or considered negotiable. Even in the New Covenant promised through Jeremiah, God says, “I will put my law within them, and I will write it upon their hearts.”[35] When God fulfills His promises to Israel in the future, His Law will remain unchanged.

LAW AND LIFE

At the time when God gave Israel the Law, He also expanded the rules and regulations of sacrifices. Until Mount Sinai, each person was able to offer his own sacrifice whenever and wherever he desired. The Law decreed that from Sinai on, only a Levite from the house of Aaron could offer sacrifices. Even more importantly, the sacrifices could not absolve a person when he defiantly broke the Law.

“And the priest shall make atonement before the Lord for the person who goes astray

when he sins unintentionally, making atonement for him that he may be forgiven. You

shall have one law for him who does anything unintentionally, for him who is native

among the sons of Israel and for the alien who sojourns among them. But the person who

does anything defiantly, whether he is native or an alien, that one is blaspheming the

Lord; and that person shall be cut off from among his people. Because he has despised

the word of the Lord and has broken His commandment, that person shall be completely

cut off; his guilt shall be on him.”[36]

Even on the Day of Atonement, the one time each year the High Priest entered the Holy of Holies sprinkling the blood of a sacrifice on the Mercy Seat, it was only effective for “sins committed in ignorance.”

“Now when these things have been thus prepared, the priests are continually entering the

outer tabernacle, performing the divine worship, but into the second only the high priest

enters, once a year, not without taking blood, which he offers for himself and for the sins

of the people committed in ignorance.”[37]

There was no sacrifice available for those who defiantly broke the Law. When King David committed murder and adultery, he understood that nothing in the sacrificial arsenal could help him. Thus, he prayed, “For thou desirest not sacrifice; else would I give it: thou delightest not in burnt offering. The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit: a broken and a contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not despise.”[38]

From this we learn that if the people became too wicked, God judged them harshly. We also know that if they obeyed the Law, God blessed them.[39] A question remains: How far from the Law can the people stray and still be assured that they will not provoke the judgment of God? There can be no answer. One infraction, no matter how minute, exposes the people to the possible retribution of the Lord.

On a large scale, this is exemplified by the nation of Israel. After receiving the Law on Mount Sinai, Israel, because of sin, wandered in the wilderness forty years. When Moses died and Joshua took his place as leader of the people, God brought them into the Promised Land. The Book of Joshua records Israel’s struggles and victories in taking possession of the land. The Book of Judges records the experiences of Israel living under God’s Law, having established itself in the land. Through the tenure of the Judges, the pattern repeated itself: The people break the Law – God sends the oppressor (the Philistines, Midianites, Moabites, etc.) – the people repent – God sends a deliverer (the Judge) – the deliverer dies – the people sin -….

Because the Law defines sin, and because a Holy God cannot cohabit with sin, every individual loses his assurance the moment he violates the Law. Remember God made no provision in the sacrificial system for willful sin, only that committed in ignorance.

LAW AND CONVERSION

God required of Israel a frequent remembrance of His deliverance from the slavery of Egypt to show their dependence upon Him for that deliverance, in lieu of a personal conversion experience. The Law gave God’s standards and the people were expected to obey. Failure to comply meant either death or banishment from the community. People like King David were not executed because of God’s grace – a grace made possible by the propitious death of Christ. Interestingly, nothing in the Mosaic Law ensured people that if they broke God’s Law His grace would pardon them. David prays, “The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit: a broken and a contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not despise.”[40] Scripture gives no indication where David got such a notion. We believe it came from God because we believe the Psalms are Holy Writ.

God never says the Law is impossible to keep. If, in the Old Testament, God had called for conversion based on an acknowledgment of sin, He would have had to tell the Jews that His Law was impossible to keep – an intrinsic defect in the system He created. If, on the other hand, keeping the Law was key to salvation, two things would be true: 1 – A person could be saved by works, and 2 – God would have to make obedience to the Law relative, for no one can keep the Law perfectly. In such a case the death of Christ would have been superfluous.

Thus, He assumed their ability to obey the Law, and, rather than calling for personal conversion, asked them to acknowledge dependence and gratitude for His deliverance and preservation:

“And thou shalt speak (recite) and say before the Lord thy God, A Syrian ready to perish

was my father, and he went down into Egypt, and sojourned there with a few, and

became there a nation, great, mighty, and populous: And the Egyptians evil entreated us,

and afflicted us, and laid upon us hard bondage: And when we cried unto the Lord God of

our fathers, the Lord heard our voice, and looked on our affliction, and our labour, and

our oppression: And the Lord brought us forth out of Egypt with a mighty hand, and with

an outstretched arm, and with great terribleness, and with signs, and with wonders: And

he hath brought us into this place, and hath given us this land, even a land that floweth

with milk and honey. And now, behold, I have brought the firstfruits of the land, which

thou, O Lord, hast given me. And thou shalt set it before the Lord thy God, and worship

before the Lord thy God.”[41]

When the nation failed to acknowledge dependence upon God, violating His commandments, He sent them into captivity, either in their own country, or the country of their enemy. Crushed and humbled, they acknowledged their dependence upon God for deliverance, repenting of their sin. Captivity reminded them of Egypt that reminded them of their dependence upon God. At no time did God leave His people in captivity, and He promises a future restoration of Israel.

There was no call to personal conversion in the Old Testament, only a confessed acknowledgement of dependence upon God based on past history. This deliverance, an act of God’s grace, and Israel’s acknowledged dependence, became the basis by which people could expect to be saved. Nevertheless, only those regenerated by the Holy Spirit (like David) were able to understand, as confirmed by the Apostle Paul: “For they are not all Israel which are of Israel.”[42]

CONCLUSION

When reading the Torah I am struck with the tediousness of God’s Law. He not only outlines in meticulous fashion the details of what He wants done, He also demands that these details be meticulously followed. There probably are many ways a person registers his dependence upon God. Under the New Covenant, we principally acknowledge this dependency by recognizing our depravity and need of Christ’s salvation. In the OT, that dependence was, in part, acknowledged by faithfully following the minutia of God’s regulations. Thus, we see that it is not the area in which we acknowledge our dependence that ultimately matters, but the fact that we do so. Again, as King David confessed, “a broken and a contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not despise.”[43]

In Deuteronomy 28:1-44 God instructs His people to rehearse the blessings He will bestow upon the nation if they obey, and the curses He will plague them with if they disobey. We disobey God because we think that we gain more in disobedience than obedience; “His Law prohibits me from obtaining what I want, what I feel to be of value.” The blessings and curses of Deuteronomy 28 reveal that obedience is of greater value than disobedience. When I violate God’s Law to obtain what I want, I lose more than what I gain. This, in essence, is the lesson God teaches in Deuteronomy 28. Obedience is always more profitable than disobedience. What we obtain, however, is not salvation, but eternal blessing rather than eternal loss. For salvation is, and has always been, apart from the works of the Law.

In His bonds,

Walt

References

[35] Jeremiah 13:33

[36] Numbers 15:28-31

[37] Hebrews 9:6-7

[38] Psalm 51:16-17

[39] Cf., e.g., Exodus 19:5

[40] Psalm 51:17

[41] Deuteronomy 26:5-10

[42] Romans 9:6

[43] Psalm 51:17

Part Twelve

CONTINUITY OF MOSAIC LAW

I have saved for last possibly the most controversial aspect of “The Nature and Role of Law,” the place (if any) that the Mosaic Law plays in the believer’s life. The church is divided on this issue. Is the New Testament people of God obligated to keep the Mosaic Law? Those who answer in the affirmative argue that the believer is obligated to keep all Old Testament laws unless they are repealed in the New Testament.

For example, Paul sets aside many of the ceremonial aspects of the Law with his statement, “Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.”[44] From this we can conclude that the dietary laws, along with those pertaining to feast days, are no longer obligatory for the New Testament believer.

Conversely, others argue that the Mosaic Law plays an important role in the life of New Testament believers in the sense that they can observe and be instructed by it,[45] but not obligated to obey it. People embracing this position argue that the New Testament believer is not obligated to keep any of the Old Testament laws unless they are repeated in the New Testament.

For example, all of the Ten Commandments are repeated in the New Testament with the exception of the fourth: “Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: But the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates. For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.”[46]

Those arguing for the continuity of the Mosaic Covenant face the following problem: no one actually believes that all Old Testament laws should apply in the New Testament unless repealed in the New Testament. For example, Deuteronomy 23:2 says, “A bastard shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord; even to his tenth generation shall he not enter into the congregation of the Lord.” I know of no church that practices this, and this is merely one of many such examples.

JERUSALEM COUNCIL

Acts 15 records a dispute that arose in the early church regarding the Law: “And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved.”[47] Although nobody in the early church disputed that God’s grace demonstrated through the propitious death of Jesus Christ was the basis of salvation, Luke records that, according to some, circumcision (something required under the Old Testament Law) was a condition for salvation. Thus Luke continues, “But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.”[48]

At the Jerusalem Council of Acts 15 the Apostles debated the question of whether Gentile converts were obligated to keep the Mosaic Law and thus should be circumcised, not whether circumcision saved a person. None can call themselves believers apart from faith in Jesus Christ as the only way to the Father.[49]

By way of illustration, Paul says, “Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind.”[50] In this passage Paul is not arguing that if you don’t practice these crimes you can go to heaven. Rather, he says that if you do violate these commands you cannot go to heaven. So too at the Jerusalem Council, the question wasn’t whether keeping the Mosaic Law was sufficient to save, but rather whether Gentiles believers were obligated to keep the Law.

The Jerusalem Council concluded: “Therefore my judgment is that we should not trouble those of the Gentiles who turn to God, but should write to them to abstain from the pollutions of idols and from unchastity and from what is strangled and from blood. For from early generations Moses has had in every city those who preach him, for he is read every sabbath in the synagogues.”[51] Gentile converts to Christ need not keep the Law of Moses.

MATTHEW 5:17-19

Those arguing against the authority of Old Testament Law over the life of the New Testament believer must overcome Jesus’ apparently contradictory statement from the Sermon on the Mount:

“Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.”

Here is my analysis:

Jesus uses two different words for the two times “fulfill” appears in this passage. In v. 17 the word can mean “To show it forth in its true meaning,” or “To complete, finish, bring to an end.” The context or your theological bias must decide. The other word for “fulfill,” used in v. 18, takes up five and a half columns of meanings in the Greek – English Lexicon, and can mean “until all has been fulfilled” or “until all has happened.”

Note that Jesus gives a double condition: “Until heaven and earth pass” and “Until all be fulfilled.” So the passage can mean, “Until heaven and earth pass into non-existence, every dot and comma of the law will stand,” or it can mean, “Until all of the law is fulfilled, heaven and earth will not pass away.” The context must decide.

If the meaning is “Until heaven and earth pass into non-existence, every dot and comma of the law will stand,” how do we reconcile Paul’s repeal of specific Old Testament commands? Is Paul the least in the Kingdom, for he taught that the “least” of the commandments were abolished in Christ?[52] Reading the New Testament as a whole encourages interpreting Jesus’ statement as meaning that the authority of the Mosaic Law could now lapse because He had fulfilled it.

Jesus fulfilled the Mosaic Law in at least two senses. First, He completely kept the Law, never violating any part of it. This made Him eligible to be our substitute on the cross. Second, He fulfilled what the Law promised, namely that God would provide a way to pardon our sins while maintaining His standard of justice.

Matthew 5:17-19 means that the entire divine purpose prophesied in the Law must take place; not one aspect will be annulled until all is fulfilled. It was fulfilled in the death of Christ on the cross, and thus Paul is not “least in the Kingdom.”

CONCLUSION

We could argue all day about how the various passages in the New Testament regarding the Law should be interpreted. All of the Ten Commandments, with the exception of the Fourth, are repeated in the New Testament. No individual or group, of which I am aware, keeps the Old Testament Law in its entirety, not even the Seventh Day Adventists. Who checks the genealogy of his congregation to ensure that no bastard for the past ten generations attends his church?

As best I can understand, the reason people argue for the continuity of the Mosaic Law centers around two objectives. The first is the desire to mandate a Sabbath on which the body of Christ is to gather. Ironically, although the Mosaic Law requires that no work be done on the Sabbath, nowhere in either the Old or New Testament exists a command to gather one day out of seven. Rest, not gathering, is the requirement of the Fourth Commandment.

The second, as discussed in the series on eschatology, is the desire of the institutional church to replace the nation of Israel in the affections of God. If this is your objective, then you need a set of laws to govern the institution of the church, and these are found in the Mosaic Covenant. If this is not your objective, and the church is an organism and not an institution, you have no need for carrying the Mosaic Law into to the New Testament.

As I said, as best I understand, these are the two principle reasons why people feel it important to argue for the continuity of the Old Testament Law of Moses. If you believe that the church replaces Israel or that the Bible commands that believers meet one day out of seven, note the following:

1 – As already noted, the fourth commandment requires rest, not gathering. No commandment in either the Old or New Testament mandates gathering one day a week.

2 – I know of no tradition in the Christian church that seeks to obey all Old Testament law unless repealed in the New Testament. Laws pertaining to bastards, wearing clothes with various threads, and planting more than one crop in a field, are merely illustrative.

3 – As mentioned earlier in this issue, if you interpret Matthew 5:17-19 to mean that the continuity of the Mosaic Covenant exists until “heaven and earth pass away,” Paul must be judged “least in the kingdom of God,” for he violated the “least” of the commandments and taught others to do the same as he himself says in Colossians 2:16-17.

Although it is true that this issue of the continuity of the Mosaic Law is much debated in the church, it seems best to me to assume that this system of Law has been done away with in Christ and that we are only obligated to obey those commands found in the New Testament. This, of course, does not mean that the believer is void of moral restraint. Quite the contrary; we are obligated to keep all the commandments of the New Testament, which reiterate all Ten Commandments with the exception of the one dealing with the Sabbath.

United by our commonality in Christ,

Walt

References

[44] Colossians 2:16-17

[45] Cf. Romans 15:5 and I Corinthians 10:11

[46] Exodus 20:8-11

[47] Acts 15:1

[48] Acts 15:5

[49] Cf. John 14:6

[50] I Corinthians 6:9

[51] Acts 15:19-21

[52] Cf. Colossians 2:16-17

Part Thirteen

As is the case with all literature, there are certain rules that must be observed when reading the Bible. For example, you must interpret the meaning of words by the context in which they are used. “Don’t be cross with me as I pick up my cross and cross the street.” This sentence uses the word “cross” three times in three different ways. The context lets you know each of their meanings.

As you study Scripture keep three rules in mind. First, the believer is free to do whatever the Bible does not prohibit. Of course, the Holy Spirit may prohibit you from doing something not prohibited in the Bible, such as gambling, but you cannot make your convictions normative for others.

Second, positive biblical examples affirm personal practice, but they do not bind. For example, our Lord Jesus never married. If I feel led to live a life of celibacy, Jesus’ example affirms my right to do so. But I am not bound by His example to never marry.

Third, biblical example never negates a command. The Bible says, concerning Samson, “Then his father and his mother said unto him, Is there never a woman among the daughters of thy brethren, or among all my people, that thou goest to take a wife of the uncircumcised Philistines? And Samson said unto his father, Get her for me; for she pleaseth me well. But his father and his mother knew not that it was of the Lord, that he sought an occasion against the Philistines: for at that time the Philistines had dominion over Israel.”[53] This, however, does not mean that the believer can marry an unbeliever.

OLD TESTAMENT LAW

In part 12 of this series we looked briefly at some Old Testament laws that are not repealed in the New Testament and that most, if not all, New Testament believers believe are no longer binding. Let me elaborate on some of these commands:

“No man that hath a blemish of the seed of Aaron the priest shall come nigh to offer the offerings of the Lord made by fire: he hath a blemish; he shall not come nigh to offer the bread of his God.”[54] I remember communicating with a brother who believes in the continuity of the Mosaic Law, and he said this law applies to pastors in the New Testament, as affirmed by the Fathers of the early church. Most churches and denominations, however, do not disqualify a candidate for the ministry because of a blemish on his body.

“You are to keep My statutes. You shall not breed together two kinds of your cattle; you shall not sow your field with two kinds of seed, nor wear a garment upon you of two kinds of material mixed together.”[55] In this passage we note three prohibitions, not repealed in the New Testament, and considered by the all the churches of which I am aware, to be no longer binding.

“A bastard shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord; even to his tenth generation shall he not enter into the congregation of the Lord.”[56] Once again, I am confident that few, if any, congregations check ten generations of the genealogy of their congregates for illegitimacy, and nothing in the New Testament indicates that this law of Moses is repealed.

“And ye shall keep my statutes, and do them: I am the Lord which sanctify you. For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him.”[57] I know of no church (or group of believers) that advocate keeping this law of Moses (although I am sure there are some parents who are tempted).

Our Savior kept all of the Mosaic Law; He was the bridge between the Old and New Testaments. His fulfilling the Law qualified Him to be the perfect substitute for our sin. The people who lived during the earthly life of Christ were likewise obligated to keep the Law. Thus He says, “The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat: All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.”[58] Jesus charged the Pharisees with hypocrisy, not false teachings. He tells the people to obey all the Pharisees taught from Moses.

Even iff we ignore the numerous references in the Apostle Paul’s writings to the effect that we are no longer under the Law, we still have to conclude that none are consistent in keeping those laws not repealed in the New Testament. Therefore if we argue for the continuity of the Mosaic Law, we ought to be forthright in admitting that we don’t even try to keep them; like the Pharisees, we do not practice what we preach.

SABBATH

The church is motivated to argue for the continuity of the Mosaic Law, if for no other reason than to bring into the New Testament the Fourth Commandment:

“Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: But the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.”[59]

In the Old Testament, the Sabbath was a day of rest, not of gathering. Israel gathered three times a year at the Tabernacle: Passover, Weeks, and Ingathering.[60] On the Sabbath, they refrained from work and travel.

During the Babylonian captivity, the Hebrews instituted two systems to ensure that they would not again become the objects of God’s chastisement. First they instituted the order of Scribes. These were learned men whose task it was to learn the Mosaic Law and teach it to the people. We don’t know for sure, but Ezra may have been the first scribe. Second, they instituted the synagogue and required the people to attend on the Sabbath to listen to the scribe teach the Law.

Jesus, during His earthly ministry, attended the synagogue “as was His custom.”[61] But He never commented on the importance of synagogue attendance. There is no command in either Testament to the effect that God’s people are to gather one day out of seven; it is a tradition (and a good one) instituted by man in his endeavor to please God.[62]

The author of Hebrews says, “There remains therefore a Sabbath rest for the people of God.”[63] The word used for “Sabbath rest” was coined by the author of Hebrews and is used only here in the New Testament. It is the only time “Sabbath” appears in Hebrews, and “Sabbath” done not appear in any New Testament literature after Acts, except Colossians 2:16 were Paul uses the word in a negative sense.

Gathering as the people of God on the Lord’s Day is a wonderful tradition, one that I believe should be encouraged. But we cannot compel believers to meet on Sunday simply because there is no command to that effect in the Bible.

CONCLUSION

In the Gospels our Lord rebuked the religious leaders:

“Then the Pharisees and scribes asked him, Why walk not thy disciples according to the tradition of the elders, but eat bread with unwashen hands? He answered and said unto them, Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me. Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do. And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.”[64]

Jesus charged these religious leaders with two wrongs. First, they made the traditions of men equal in importance with the commandments of God, such as washing of hands. Second, they ignored the commandments of God. Generally, when you find a person doing one of these wrongs, they are guilty of both. The following are merely illustrative of this phenomenon.

Some Christian groups have a policy that its members cannot participate in the charismatic movement while at the same time allowing divorced men in positions of leadership.

The church sends women missionaries who on the mission field teach men while prohibiting polygamy.

We insist on regular church attendance while allowing our members to involve themselves in litigation with fellow Christians.

Women elders with short hair and uncovered heads serve grape juice for communion.

Let us resolve to be the obedient servants of Christ, keeping the commands of the New Testament rather than the traditions of men.

Yours for a life of obedience,

Walt

References

[53] Judges 14:3-4

[54] Leviticus 21:21

[55] Leviticus 19:19

[56] Deuteronomy 23:2

[57] Leviticus 20:8-9

[58] Matthew 23:2-3

[59] Exodus 20:8-11

[60] Cf. Deuteronomy 16:16ff.

[61] Cf. Luke 4:16

[62] Hebrews 10:25 admonishes, “Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching.” It is the only command in the New Testament, of which I am aware, to the effect that the people of God should gather. But no reference is made as to how often or where or under what conditions.

[63] Hebrews 4:9

[64] Mark 7:5-9

Part Fourteen

Luke tells us in Acts that “Saul, still breathing threats and murder against the disciples of the Lord, went to the high priest and asked him for letters to the synagogues at Damascus, so that if he found any belonging to the Way, men or women, he might bring them bound to Jerusalem.”[65] It was on his trip to Damascus that Saul of Tarsus encountered the Lord Jesus. When Jesus accused Saul of opposing Him, He did not indict Saul with violating His Law. Saul had done no wrong.

Later in his life, Saul (now Paul) testified before Agrippa that Jesus said to him on the Damascus road, “Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me? It hurts you to kick against the goads.”[66] Evidently the Holy Spirit had been working in Paul’s life prior to his conversion. This may have included a sense of discomfort and guilt when he witnessed the stoning of the martyr Stephen. We cannot tell. But whatever the nature of the “goading” by God, Paul had no reason to believe he had in any way transgressed God’s commandments. His mission to Damascus was, from an Old Testament perspective, a noble one; he sought to keep the True religion pure.

When writing to the church at Philippi, he boasts in his pedigree saying, “Concerning zeal, persecuting the church; touching the righteousness which is in the law, blameless.”[67] From Paul’s perspective, he kept the Law – a remarkable statement from a man who later calls himself “the chief of sinners.”[68] The point, however, is that when Paul met Jesus en route to Damascus he viewed himself as circumspect in his relationship with God and blameless in keeping the Law. And yet, God called him His enemy.

I cannot imagine the trauma experienced by Saul when he pondered the implications of Jesus’ accusation. How would you feel if you had given your life in dedication to what you believed to be the will of God, only to discover that your life was in opposition to the will of God? Luke records, “And Saul got up from the ground, and though his eyes were open, he could see nothing; and leading him by the hand, they brought him into Damascus. And he was three days without sight, and neither ate nor drank.”[69] We cannot know what raced through the mind of Saul as he waited in the room in Damascus for the healing touch of Ananias, but with a bit of sanctified imagination, we can see him wrestling with how such a thing could have happened. How could he be “touching the righteousness, which is in the law, blameless,” while at the same time the enemy of God?

IMPOTENCE OF THE LAW

This may very well have been the moment that Paul understood the impotence of the Law in man’s ability to find favor with God. During his ministry, he constantly called attention to the Law’s inadequacy.

To the church at Rome he wrote: “You are not under the law, but under grace.”[70] “Likewise, my brethren, you have died to the law through the body of Christ, so that you may belong to another, to him who has been raised from the dead in order that we may bear fruit for God.”[71]

To the Corinthians Paul wrote: “To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews; to those under the law I became as one under the law — though not being myself under the law — that I might win those under the law. To those outside the law I became as one outside the law — not being without law toward God but under the law of Christ — that I might win those outside the law.”[72] Note that Paul says, “I became as a Jew.” When he came to Christ he became a citizen of Heaven, and ceased, in his own eyes, being a Jew. In the same way he practiced the Law when with those for whom the Law was important, but Paul felt no obligation to keep the Mosaic Law, only the commandments of Christ.

In II Corinthians, Paul addresses the influence of Judiazers in the life of the church. Even though they call themselves ministers of Christ,[73] Paul refers to them as “false apostles, deceitful workmen, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ,”[74] for they taught that the Corinthian believers had to practice the Mosaic Law in order to please Christ. These antagonists of Paul argued for the continuity of the Mosaic Covenant. When you live under the Law you tend to measure your worth before God by the degree to which you keep the Law. Performance influences your position in eternity, but it has nothing to do with your relationship with Christ. When you live under Law, you are forced to think of external behavior, the keeping of the Law. When you live under grace, you are forced to think of internal behavior, i.e. – that which pleases the indwelt Christ. In a moment we will see the critical importance of this difference.

When writing to the churches in Galatia, Paul says: “Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.”[75]

FINDING FAULT

Paul warns the Corinthians: “For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may receive good or evil, according to what he has done in the body.”[76] When you stand in the presence of God, giving account for your life, imagine your response to God when He asks you the following:

“How was your prayer life?” You respond by pointing out that you daily came before Him in prayer, registering your dependence upon Him. He points out that your prayer life was lacking, for you were to “pray without ceasing.”[77]

You ask Him if He would change the subject, and He asks, “How was your time in the Word of God?” After you comment on your Bible reading program, etc., He reminds you that you were to allow the “Word of Christ (to) dwell in you richly,”[78] suggesting that you failed in this area of your life.

Next He calls upon you to give account for your evangelism. Embarrassed, you ask again if He would change the subject. So He asks you to explain your keeping His command to love your wife. Feeling a bit better about this, you point out that you in fact did love her. He retorts, “As Christ loved the Church?”[79]

It becomes immediately apparent to you that the Savior can find fault with you in any area of your life that He pleases. Paul discovered this regarding his own life while on the road to Damascus. The Law is impotent in its ability to help you to be “blameless” simply because much of the Law (as well as the commandments of Christ in the New Testament) defies specific application in your life. What do adequate prayer, evangelism, and love look like?

God is absolutely consistent, but He is not predictable. You can no more predict how God will evaluate you on the Day of Judgment than Paul when He met Jesus en route to Damascus. If you think you can, you have an inadequate understanding of God.

CONCLUSION

From this, what should we learn? Let me suggest the following:

First, if God does fault you on the Day of Judgment, as He most probably will, your best response is that of King David when God charged him with sin: “For I acknowledge my transgressions: and my sin is ever before me. Against thee, thee only, have I sinned, and done this evil in thy sight: that thou mightest be justified when thou speakest, and be clear when thou judgest.”[80] Your relationship with Him was established by grace, and if grace fails you at your Reckoning, then all is lost. Freely admit to Him that your ability to please Him rests solely on His willingness to find favor with you.

Second, remember that God does not want you to be able to predict how He will respond in these and other areas of your life. If you are confident that He will say, “Well done, good and faithful servant,”[81] you will cease being dependent upon Him. His unpredictability keeps you broken and humble before Him, which is the only safe posture to maintain with God.

Third, although this may appear contradictory, your relationship with God had nothing to do with your performance; it was His performance on the Cross that established the relationship. You must carefully maintain a distinction between God holding you accountable for all you do, on the one hand, while remembering that your relationship with Him rests in His grace alone. Grace does not eliminate accountability, just as forgiveness does not eliminate consequences. (If, in a moment of despair, you jump from a tall building, God will forgive you, but He will not eliminate the consequences.) Grace simply ensures that your relationship with God has nothing to do with your performance.

By His sovereign grace,

Walt

References

[65] Acts 9:1-2

[66] Acts 26:14

[67] Philippians 3:6

[68] Cf. I Timothy 1:15

[69] Acts 9:8-9

[70] Romans 6:14

[71] Romans 7:4

[72] I Corinthians 9:20-21

[73] Cf. II Corinthians 10:7, 11:23

[74] II Corinthians 11:13

[75] Galatians 3:24-25

[76] II Corinthians 5:10

[77] Cf. I Thessalonians 5:17

[78] Colossians 3:16

[79] Ephesians 5:25

[80] Psalm 51:3-4

[81] Matthew 25:21

Part Fifteen

You find two kinds of law in the Old Testament:

Moral Law not rooted in time. These laws deal with the nature and character of God. They encompass the Ten Commandments and possibly those Laws requiring the death penalty when violated. For example:

“And ye shall keep my statutes, and do them: I am the Lord which sanctify you. For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him. And the man that committeth adultery with another man’s wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour’s wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death. And the man that lieth with his father’s wife hath uncovered his father’s nakedness: both of them shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

And if a man lie with his daughter in law, both of them shall surely be put to death: they have wrought confusion; their blood shall be upon them. If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. And if a man take a wife and her mother, it is wickedness: they shall be burnt with fire, both he and they; that there be no wickedness among you. And if a man lie with a beast, he shall surely be put to death: and ye shall slay the beast. And if a woman approach unto any beast, and lie down thereto, thou shalt kill the woman, and the beast: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.”[82]

Non-Moral Law dealing with specific issues rooted in time. These are not part of God’s nature. These laws include ceremonial and dietary considerations. Note what God says through His prophet Isaiah:

“Hear the word of the Lord, ye rulers of Sodom; give ear unto the law of our God, ye people of Gomorrah. To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices unto me? saith the Lord: I am full of the burnt offerings of rams, and the fat of fed beasts; and I delight not in the blood of bullocks, or of lambs, or of he goats. When ye come to appear before me, who hath required this at your hand, to tread my courts? Bring no more vain oblations; incense is an abomination unto me; the new moons and sabbaths, the calling of assemblies, I cannot away with; it is iniquity, even the solemn meeting. Your new moons and your appointed feasts my soul hateth: they are a trouble unto me; I am weary to bear them. And when ye spread forth your hands, I will hide mine eyes from you: yea, when ye make many prayers, I will not hear: your hands are full of blood. Wash you, make you clean; put away the evil of your doings from before mine eyes; cease to do evil; Learn to do well; seek judgment, relieve the oppressed, judge the fatherless, plead for the widow.”[83]

I use Isaiah because he discourages the people from keeping these commands because of the hardness of their hearts. It is interesting to note that God does not say this about the Moral Commands; He does not say, “Because of your hard hearts, go ahead, steal, murder, and fornicate.” God wants His Moral Laws obeyed irrespective of our hearts.

Some of the non-moral laws of God are found in the Old Testament but not the New Testament, such as those dealing with sacrifices and feast days. Likewise, some are found in the New Testament that are not found in the Old Testament, such as head covering and the role of women in the church.

Non-moral laws are no less authoritative and absolute than moral laws; God wants all of His laws obeyed. A non-moral law is as binding as a moral law. Furthermore, you cannot predict how God will react to the violation of His law. For example, Moses struck the rock[84] and was unable to enter the Promised Land (a non-moral law), while his brother Aaron made a golden calf (a moral law) and there is no record of God holding him accountable.[85] The only solution to the unpredictability of God’s responds to the breaking of His commands is obedience. A life of obedience is the only safe way to relate to God.

SUMMARY

This concludes our study of the nature and role of law. The following is a summary of its suggested importance:

1 – Absolute law is attested by judging. All people everywhere believe in absolute law by virtue of the fact that they judge. No one is capable of not judging. The debate centers around who gets to define the absolutes.

2 – The scientific method was founded on the belief that a sovereign God reigns over and transcends creation, and that He established inviolable laws governing the universe. With the erosion of this belief in the God of Scripture, certainty that such laws exist begins to wane. University professors despair because they see in their students the fruit of secularism: a profound skepticism of anything absolute. They worry that this skepticism undermines the scientific method, for agnosticism questions the foundation upon which the scientific method exists.

3 – Philosophically, certainty can be found in either the subject or object. “I think you are wonderful and therefore you are,” or “You think I am wonderful and therefore I am.” Because there is no objective way of determining this, our certainty is subjective. For example, we say that a certain length equals a meter, but the standard was arbitrarily set in the first place. True objectivity can only come from the sovereign of the universe who controls all and determines the standards.

4 – Morality and legality differ in that legality seeks to define morality. Morality is absolute, but can only be defined by the Supreme Court of the universe to whom all must give account. The force of law is in accountability. Governments form legislatures that sit in session seeking to attain morality by defining legality. Thus, their laws are relative, for the legislature of one country may establish laws contrary to those established by the legislature in another country. The laws of God are absolute and therefore in the Old Testament there was no need for a legislature; God spoke at Sinai and His law is absolute.

5 – Forgiveness is the setting aside of justice. Just people don’t need forgiveness. For this reason people cannot relate to one another on the basis of law. God requires the state to execute justice lest oppression and injustice reign. He requires the individual to forgive.

6 – Grace and forgiveness do not eliminate consequences. You see this when you forgive your child while requiring him to live with the consequences of his decisions. We are incapable of autonomy without the elimination of consequences. For this reason, you will be tempted to conclude that grace and forgiveness in Christ eliminates eternal consequences. Nothing could be further from the truth.

7 – The Law of the Harvest, while a law, must be applied only in the eternal. Although it is true that people often reap what they sow in the temporal, this is not always the case. A law, by definition, can have no exceptions. (This is why we call the breaking of scientific law a miracle.) When you apply the Law of the Harvest to the temporal, like Job’s three friends, you distort and confuse God’s promise of justice.

8 – A purpose of Law is to teach us our depravity and need for Christ. Law must define and ensure justice. Therefore we see that these two purposes of the Law are mutually exclusive. When God imputed the sin of Adam to the human race, He ensured that we would be unjust, while commanding that we be just. In this we see His grace.

9 – Man will not live under the Law of God without opposition; his lust for autonomy is so great that, without fail, he will rebel. Therefore God brings pain into the lives of those He loves to help them sense their dependence and need for Him.

10 – Jesus said that love fulfills the Law; if you properly love you will keep the Law. People want to move from love to law because of rebellion. We test the limits of our liberty with the exactitude of law because we perceive pleasing God out of love keeps us from doing what we want and therefore is not in our interest. Leveraging with law is the last line of defense in a deteriorating relationship.

11 – The commandments of God are objective; their application is subjective. God says, “I will not allow a woman to teach or have authority over a man.” The command is clear and objective, but how you apply it will be subjective, e.g., when does a boy become a man? Some commands are more objective than others are. You will find it easier to determine what murder looks like than what loving your wife looks like.

12 – You must decide if Scripture requires New Testament believers to keep the Mosaic Law in those cases in which it is neither repeated nor repealed in the New Testament. Weigh this carefully and be consistent, for how you live the Christian life will, in large manner, be influenced by it.

13 – The distinction between moral and non-moral law in Scripture does not warrant you considering one more authoritative and absolute than the other. You are obligated to keep all the commandments in the New Testament, moral or otherwise.

14 – It is impossible to predict God’s response to the violation of His commands. You are most safe by being His obedient servant.

Lord-willing, in the next issue I will begin a study on SIN. Since sin is something common to all of us, there ought to be ample application. Meanwhile let us continue to pray for the quick return of Christ. Then the question of sin will be moot.

His….Yours,

Walt

References

[82] Leviticus 20:8-16

[83] Isaiah 1:10-17

[84] Numbers 20:8-12

[85] Exodus 32:2-6, 21-30