Law is presented as a destructive force, a judgment to be feared, a prison to be escaped, and ultimately a primary tool of humanity's chief Adversary.
Grace, on the other hand, is portrayed as antagonistic to this Great Foe. It protects us from the Law. Some would say, destroys the Law. The Old and New Testaments would be (as it were) in conflict with one another.
It becomes important, therefore, to a Christian: Are Law and Grace in Conflict? And if so, what implication does this have on a Christian's life?
Students of Early Christian History may remember the name Marcion. He rejected the Old Testament because he saw God in the Old Testament as overly harsh, but Jesus in the Gospels as much nicer. He denied that they were the same God.
That's one approach to Law and Grace that is still taken today -- dismiss Law as irrelevant. Proceed as though the Old Testament was never written, or at least ignore large sections of it.
There are problems with this approach. 1) Jesus claimed to be the pivotal theme of Hebrew scriptures. (2) It also ignores Jesus' strong warning in Matthew concerning the Law. (3) The New Testament is deeply rooted in and intertwined with the Old Testament.
That said, there is clear evidence that there IS something of an either/or dilemma with Grace and Law. (Galatians and Romans in particular show this tension.)
The Christian life is exemplified by Faith, which is described as explicitly antithetical to righteousness by the Law. How do we resolve this?
First, as Christians, we must guard against adopting a false understanding of Law. The Muslim view, for example is sometimes mistaken for the Christian one.
Islam's view of Law is much different than the classical Christian (or Jewish) one. God, in the Muslim framework, can decree whatsoever he wishes, and the Decree is what causes something to become morally good or morally evil.
The Christian view is very different. God in himself is altogether Holy.
The Triune God does not arbitrarily choose to make some things good and some things evil. Quite the opposite.
God's own Holiness is the benchmark against which all moral measurements are made. For this same reason, He cannot Lie, He cannot be tempted by Evil, and He cannot deny Himself. Is this not the reason we love God's word? Because it is rooted in His person and character?
So then, His Character is unchanging. And the entire Bible finds its origin in this same unchanging Character. His Law as revealed in the Old Testament, is something of a window into God's own character. Even the Sermon on the Mount was an example of Jesus expounding on the Ten Commandments (e.g. Adultery, Murder) in the context of the New Covenant.
Whatever way we resolve this, we must be very careful to accurately depict some seemingly contrary things.
We must consider the Holiness of God's character as shown in His Law.
We must consider the futility of trying to satisfy God by keeping the Law.
We must consider the position of Grace working by faith.
We must reconcile these things without destroying what God has said about any of them.
We must do so in a way that honours the Person and Work of Christ.
The Law is Good (Romans 7:12, 7:16, 7:22, I Timothy 1:8).
The Law condemns us all as guilty. (Romans 3:20)
We do not discard the Law (Romans 3:31)
Those who seek justification by the Law are cursed if they do not keep it perfectly. (James 2:10, Gal 5:3)
Where does this leave us?
Since none of us has been righteous, we are all lawbreakers.
We all stand guilty before a perfectly righteous God.
Acquitting the guilty and condemning the innocent—So what hope is there for us?
the LORD detests them both. -- Proverb 17:15
If the Curse is to be broken, there are only two options:
- The Law that demands death for our sin must change
- or We must change.
What did God do? What could He do?
If the Law is an expression of His Character, and His Character does not change, how could He change the Law?
The Law declared our guilty hearts to us. It revealed our weakness to us.
It caused a holy despair of trying to prove our own goodness to God.
It showed us that we need a Saviour.
It drove us to Christ.
So Jesus Christ, born of a woman and born under the Law (Gal 4:4), lived a guiltless life. Death held no claim on Him. And yet He (God) laid down His life for the ungodly. He, sinless, died the sinner's death.
[Is the Atheist's charge of "cosmic child abuse" fair? No. Because Christ died willingly, this isn't an accurate depiction of the Atonement. Jesus CHOSE to absorb the full wrath of a Holy God upon sin.]
Has the Law changed? Not one bit.
It is still the righteous demand of a Holy God? Yes.
Are we still under its judgment? No, with one condition: Not if we are "in Christ".
If we are "in Christ", we have died with Him, (and have been raised to new life).
The Law is just as it was.
But WE have been changed. (2 Cor 5:19)
3 comments:
Useful distinction between law in Islam and law in the Bible.
I basically agree with what I think you are trying to do in this post, and appreciate your tackling a thorny subject. So I hope you can receive the rest of this comment as an inadequate attempt to express something that is very difficult to capture properly in words.
Having recently re-read the Pentateuch (and not long before that, the Sermon on the Mount and all Paul's epistles) I must say that I was struck again by the fact that some aspects of the law as recorded in the Books of Moses are clearly culturally bound whereas the "essence" of the law is trans-cultural. Those who want to be justified by the law are bound to keep the whole written law, but the "law of the Spirit of life" which Paul says we keep if we love our neighbour - the higher righteousness which Jesus expounded in the Sermon on the Mount - is a much simpler, yet ultimately deeper and more demanding law, and of course can only be kept by grace. It does not include any rules about mildew on the walls of our houses, the proper treatment of oxen and donkeys, what types of seed we should sow in our fields, various types of offerings and so forth. It cuts to the heart and demands radical transformation, so it certainly does not exempt us from holiness - but it is not a list of written rules anymore, even though its implications sometimes have to be spelled out in concrete circumstances - the content of much of the practical instruction in the Epistles - and when this is done the result is more demanding and challenging than anything in the Law of Moses. I realize that to talk about the "essence of the law" as being in some way distinct from the written law is dangerous language and open to abuse, but note I am not saying that the OT law is not valid in its own place and time - and it points us to the "higher law" that is in Christ and in which it is fulfilled. The word "law" of course is used in different senses in Scripture which complicates the discussion somewhat. Anyway I hope you can recognize that what I am saying here is far from the spirit of Marcion. Jesus clearly spoke in the highest possible terms of the Law of Moses and the Covenant of which it was part, yet He just as clearly went beyond it, stood in sovereign authority over it, and introduce a New Covenant which supersedes it.
You managed to articulate much of what I set out to say, only much more artfully.
=)
Gee, thanks. I actually thought you did a really good job.
Post a Comment