Continuing the Debate On Law
I would love to write down my extended argument about the Law now, but I want to make it as thorough as possible and I go down to the College next week to teach on Worldviews and World Religions and so the preparation for that must take priority. I will aim to do it in two weeks time, for those who are interested.
To respond to Roger’s helpful comment, I think of the Mosaic Law as all the laws given to Moses at Sinai for the nation of Israel, including but not limited to the Ten Commandments.
What I would say in response to the other guys is that we are of course called to live by the will of God and that there is therefore a moral law which predates and transcends the Mosaic Law. This moral law is summed up as love God and love neighbour and is of course reflected in the Mosaic Law, as Jesus indicated. But the Law given to Moses was for a particular stage and purpose in salvation-history (i.e. the gradual unfolding of God’s salvation purpose in history) and was given to help establish Israel as a nation in a particular cultural context.
I believe that the main purpose of the Law (of Moses) and much of the record of Israel’s history is actually to demonstrate to us the inadequacy of Law (as an external moral code). The Law is not bad in itself (in that it does reflect something of God’s moral law) but it simply condemns us; and in doing so leads us to the grace we find in Christ!
In him, under the new and better covenant, we find that the law is written in our hearts (according to the promises found in Jeremiah and Ezekiel) because the inner law (not as an external written moral code but as a spiritual and living expression of the character and will of God) is far deeper, richer and fuller than the Mosaic Law. This is why Paul can write that he is not under law (an external moral code) and yet he is under Christ’s law (the will of God revealed in the heart) - see 1 Cor.9:20. For Christians now we fulfil the righteous requirements of God’s moral law not by applying a moral code but by living by the Spirit (Rom.8:4)
It is surely possible to recognise that the Mosaic Law had a specific, limited and temporary purpose at a particular stage in God’s unfolding plan without being accused of wanting to be free of God’s moral law and his will!
The massive question, now, is how this all applies to a fallen world where many people do not accept God and his ways. I will leave that until tomorrow when I will also try to explain some of the terms that have been used during this debate to make it as accessible as possible to anyone who is listening in - and wondering what on earth we are talking about!!
But, in case we are tempted to think that we have got all the answers and that everyone else is wrong in this particular debate, let me end with a quote from Jonathan Edwards (American theologian and philosopher in 18th Century):
"There is perhaps no part of divinity attended with so much intricacy, and wherein orthodox divines so much differ, as stating the precise agreement and difference between the two dispensations of Moses and Christ."
See ya! (that was me, not Jonathan Edwards!)
January 11th, 2006 @ 9:36 pm
Trevor would you clairfy for me whether you think the Law was inadequate as an external moral code or whether you think that fallen man has inadequete power to obey the Law? Was the problem in the Law or man? Thanks again for your forum.
Doug
January 12th, 2006 @ 7:50 am
Great question, Doug.
The Law most certainly exposes our inadequacy. And the Law is good. But it had a particular purpose. I am not saying that there is anything inherently wrong with the Law when I say that it is unable to do something it was never meant to. Its primary purpose in salvation-history is to expose our sin and lead us to Christ; its secondary purpose was to establish Israel as a nation in a particular cultural and historical period.
But I do think that it also plays its part in communicating a wonderful truth. Man sharing in God’s holiness and righteousness goes far beyond a code or system of ethics. Laws, rules and regulations of any kind will always be reductive. The wonderful truth of the new and better covenant is that we share in God’s righteousness and holiness by the work of the Holy Spirit. This is what Paul was so passionate about - in the gospel a righteousness had been revealed that was not by law but by faith! This was not only about justification, but sanctification - God’s holy and righteous character being increasingly revealed in us. Not by us applying laws, but by the Holy Spirit’s life and leadership within. Hallelujah!!
January 12th, 2006 @ 4:59 pm
If Christ came to fulfil the law, then was the law complete until he came?
He did not just fulfil the requirements of the law through his sacrificial death, but also he was the means of fulfilling the blessings of the law. Through the sheading of his blood he brought eternal salvation to those long-dead OT saints who had lived under the law and had exercised faith in God through the revelation of God in the law.
So I guess the law was not inadequate, just incomplete without Jesus.
Returning to the earlier idea of Christian government, I have been struck again today in reading Acts 19 (the riot in Ephesus) as to the fact that it was the intervention of a Roman official, the threat of Roman military intervention, and the offer of recourse to Roman courts of law that lead to a peaceful conclusion of the situtation and a continuing atmosphere of peace where the gospel could prosper.
I have to balance this thought with our commission to disciple nations (Matt 28) - and this commission is tied up with a proclamation of the kingdom of God I shall continue to think on…
January 16th, 2006 @ 6:31 pm
I agree with your post Trevor. It’s really important for us all to be those who live by the law of faith alone. What a challenge that is to the works oriented flesh to live by faith.
I do have another question related to Christian activism. Let’s just take out the terms about thoenomy or antinomianism and simply ask the question, does the Bible offer a comprehensive social theory? If the Bible does offer a comprensive social thoery then would you include the case laws as at least a template for social justice, private property regulations, and familial laws. If the Bible does not offer a comprensive social theory then how can we legitamalty offer any alternative in our restoration retoric. I don’t claim to have all the answers but I think it’s a relevent question. I’m interested to know Mattews comments too.
Doug