I don't hear the kind of hatred for United States law, and I stopped above with only two categories, as I hear of the hatred of God's law. There are 51 titles in multiple volumes of the U. S. law code. By the 1980s -- and now there are many more -- there were 23,000 pages of just federal law. There were in the 1980s 3,000 only federal and only criminal offenses.
I know that people take city, state, and federal law seriously. They don't want the short-term penalties, fines, courts, lawsuits, imprisonment, and other punishments. They don't think about how restrictive that all is.
I know that people take city, state, and federal law seriously. They don't want the short-term penalties, fines, courts, lawsuits, imprisonment, and other punishments. They don't think about how restrictive that all is.
So let's turn to the law of God. Yes, God. Why is the law of God viewed in such a negative fashion? It is. Many, if not most Christians, don't think we have to keep God's law anymore, and when you suggest it, you are viewed in a bad way. Compare that to, say, being a law-abiding United States citizen. The latter doesn't carry with it the same kind of dubiousness, suspicion, or hostility, as saying that you've got to follow Old Testament law or even just biblical law.
Who wrote the Old Testament law? God. Through the laws of the Old Testament, God would control people's lives. Who wouldn't want that? I'm not talking about human government, but divine government, not being controlled by congress, but by God. Who wouldn't want to know what God wanted so that what He wanted could be done? And that is exactly how God wanted His people to see His law -- wanting to do what God wanted
Compared to U.S. law, the Old Testament is easy. It's not hard to keep up with what God said in His Word. God doesn't over legislate. He doesn't pass a law so that He could find out what was in it, for instance, like Nancy Pelosi said the United States Congress needed to do with the Affordable Care Act in 2010. There are 613 commandments in the Old Testament. That's a drop in the bucket compared to how the United States legislates your life, and God's law is easy to understand compared to the U. S. code. On top of that, those laws in the Old Testament come from God, not a collection of flawed, sinful human beings. The law of the Lord is perfect (Psalm 19:7).
In the history of Christianity, many different efforts have arisen from teachers to void the Old Testament. From the teaching of the New Testament, one can see that this was happening right when the New Testament was being written, and those attempts were denounced. Outside of scripture, early in the second century just after the completion of the twenty-seven New Testament books, a teacher from Sinope, Turkey, Marcion, went so far as to teach that the God of the Old Testament and the God of the New Testament were really two separate gods, the former a god of wrath and the latter a god of love.
A version of this two-different-god theory of Marcionism, though not embraced in a formal or technical sense, has become a very popular modern understanding of God. People often today separate the God of the Old Testament from the one of the New Testament. It's a common view. They see the teaching of the the two testaments as diametrically different. They've got a problem with Old Testament law. They even think, albeit in a kind amateurish way, that the teachers of the New Testament and even Jesus themselves have a problem with the Old Testament, inclining them toward depreciation of the law. That division results in even laughing at some of what the Old Testament teaches.
Church leaders and Christian teachers today, although in most cases not wanting association with Marcion, feel the shame of affiliation with the teachings of the Old Testament and through their hermeneutic have essentially nullified the law of the Old Testament. Very often they don't like some of the stories that are hard to explain either, so they use various systems of interpretation to accommodate a suppression of the Old Testament. Even though they claim the same God wrote both testaments, in a more sophisticated and contemporary manner than Marcion, they treat the Old Testament like it's written by a different one.
The mothballing of the law of God doesn't proceed from the teachings of Jesus. A fair reading of Jesus doesn't see Him as distancing Himself from the law of the Old Testament. He not only embraces it, but takes the strictest possible interpretation of the actual laws. He says famously in Matthew 5:17-19:
17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. 18 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. 19 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.There is no place in the New Testament where Jesus didn't follow the actual Old Testament law, not to be confused with His insubordination to faulty interpretations of religious teachers. On top of not committing murder, He said, don't even hate a brother. Further than not committing adultery, He said, don't even think about it. The best way to look at this was not His adding to what had already been written, but giving the Divine spirit of the law. It was intended to be supported, to be kept inside and out.
Shelving the law of God didn't come from the Apostle Paul either, even though Marcion said he was a follower of Paul. Paul wrote, "we know that the law is good" (1 Timothy 1:8). He said that "the law was holy" (Romans 7:12). In addition, the Apostle John wrote, "Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law" (1 John 3:4).
The Old Testament saints, like David, whom the New Testament really admires (Acts 2:25, 4:25, 13:22, Romans 4:6, etc.), loved the law of God.
Psalm 40:8, I delight to do thy will, O my God: yea, thy law is within my heart.
Psalm 119:77, Let thy tender mercies come unto me, that I may live: for thy law is my delight.
Psalm 119:97, O how love I thy law! it is my meditation all the day.
Psalm 119:113, thy law do I love.
Psalm 119:163, thy law do I love.
Psalm 119:165, Great peace have they which love thy law: and nothing shall offend them.
God wrote the law. God wanted His people to live the law. If you loved God, then you loved His law. It was the way your life was regulated by the God you loved. God made you. God sustained you. So what's the problem with the law? Why is there a low view of the law?
The underlying problem for people with God's law starts with God Himself. If they loved and trusted God, they wouldn't have a problem with His law, so their actual problem is with Him. It relates to something I posted last about the two sons of the Father in that parable of Jesus in Luke 15. The problem with the regulations of the Father is a problem with the Father. They don't want to be controlled by Him. He clashes with their lust.
Even when someone wants to continue doing what he wants, the threat of promised bad consequences might and should check those desires. However, he's got to believe in the reality of the consequences, which is a matter of faith. Does He believe the Bible? Does He believe God? People don't take the Bible seriously, which is not taking what God said seriously. If God says He will kill you for something, then you should expect to die for it, even if He might withhold that punishment in the short term.
Today the Bible is too embarrassing for people, who even call themselves Christians, to say something like, homosexuality is an abomination. A test comes when the law runs up against conventional thinking. I read someone I know quite well recently use the terminology, "core human sensibility." Those three words are a rorschach ink blot that someone could pour about anything. What are "core human sensibilities"? People trust "core human sensibilities" more than they do God. What are called "core human sensibilities" most often -- verging on one hundred percent of the time -- contradict the laws of God that are the most difficult or clash the most with the culture.
"Core human sensibilities" do not clash with the particular laws of God that society still favors. That's the sweet spot where their invented perversion of Christianity lies. Those with a low view of the law of God, yet still want to be a Christian for whatever benefits they try to convince themselves they'll still receive, land all of their Christianity exactly where the world says it is permissible. God controls through laws, so God isn't really in control, the world is.
The low view of God's law that voids laws of God that clash with "core human sensibilities" is actually a low view of God Himself. It is a view of God that doesn't fear God, doesn't even want to be afraid of anything, resents that. It is a view of God that doesn't trust God. "God can't be right about all this," which is finally a view that doesn't love God or truly think that God loves us. Loving conventional thinking is loving the world. You don't trust God when you don't trust the "hard parts," which are the "clashing parts," really what it means to be a Christian, a lover of God. The low view of the law proceeds from this.
Even when someone wants to continue doing what he wants, the threat of promised bad consequences might and should check those desires. However, he's got to believe in the reality of the consequences, which is a matter of faith. Does He believe the Bible? Does He believe God? People don't take the Bible seriously, which is not taking what God said seriously. If God says He will kill you for something, then you should expect to die for it, even if He might withhold that punishment in the short term.
Today the Bible is too embarrassing for people, who even call themselves Christians, to say something like, homosexuality is an abomination. A test comes when the law runs up against conventional thinking. I read someone I know quite well recently use the terminology, "core human sensibility." Those three words are a rorschach ink blot that someone could pour about anything. What are "core human sensibilities"? People trust "core human sensibilities" more than they do God. What are called "core human sensibilities" most often -- verging on one hundred percent of the time -- contradict the laws of God that are the most difficult or clash the most with the culture.
"Core human sensibilities" do not clash with the particular laws of God that society still favors. That's the sweet spot where their invented perversion of Christianity lies. Those with a low view of the law of God, yet still want to be a Christian for whatever benefits they try to convince themselves they'll still receive, land all of their Christianity exactly where the world says it is permissible. God controls through laws, so God isn't really in control, the world is.
The low view of God's law that voids laws of God that clash with "core human sensibilities" is actually a low view of God Himself. It is a view of God that doesn't fear God, doesn't even want to be afraid of anything, resents that. It is a view of God that doesn't trust God. "God can't be right about all this," which is finally a view that doesn't love God or truly think that God loves us. Loving conventional thinking is loving the world. You don't trust God when you don't trust the "hard parts," which are the "clashing parts," really what it means to be a Christian, a lover of God. The low view of the law proceeds from this.
10 comments:
Very true, thanks for bringing this up. Thanks for the article. I've noticed that modern versions often like to alter Scripture in a passage at John 5:39. They make it say "You search the scriptures" as if it was something they were currently doing and should stop, rather than "Search the scriptures" as a commandment directly from Jesus to search these things out. Compare the two versions of the verse:
Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.
“You search the Scriptures because you think they give you eternal life. But the Scriptures point to me!
Now, which one of these two versions do you think is de-emphasizing God's plain and timeless wisdom, and which version (the true one) is remarkably reaffirming it? Is it any wonder why people would have itching ears to de-emphasize all of the plain statements preserved for us in Scripture and would rather not be told to Search, and Seek God? They'd go with the second one. They'd go with the second, corrupt version of John 5:39.
But what's interesting is what you mention about how people still like to affirm the currently "acceptable" parts of God's law, and even heap praise on it while belittling the supposedly "difficult" parts. But the fact they like to so emphasize and underscore one part of God's law is itself their own mouth testifying against themselves on the part that they don't like. And like Jesus said in John 5:46, For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me. And this is the final condemnation of trying to pocket part of the perfect law while scorning the rest.
A.T.
Yes, search the scriptures were the Old Testament. Good point, A.T. and thanks.
Just would like some clarification - are we to obey all of the Old Testament Commandments? Seems like some are very Jewish centric or am I wrong in thinking that?
Paul
Paul,
There are three types of laws in the Old Testament law. We keep them all. Since the primary purpose of the ceremonial laws was to point forward to Jesus Christ, we obey them by receiving and obeying Jesus Christ through the church. They related to the worship of God and we still worship God, but now through the church do we love God with heart, soul, and body. Someone who does not receive Jesus Christ and worship Him through the church is disobeying the ceremonial law. The principles of the civil or judicial laws are still kept, even as seen in their use in the New Testament by Jesus, Paul, Peter, and John. They were given to the nation Israel to enforce, but the principle of them, which is how they are applied by the New Testament writers, is still intact and to be strictly followed. This is keeping the Divine spirit of these laws, which is what God intended even in the Old Testament. The moral law, which reveals the nature and will of God, requires strict obedience to the letter. Jesus brought people back to the original purpose of God's law, which was to love God and love your neighbor. He did not contradict the law, but spoke against the abuses and excesses to which it had been subjected.
Still confused -
We should still put fringes on the corners of clothing
Affix the mezuuzah to the door posts and gates of our house
Read the Shema in the morning and evening
Not travel on the Sabbath outside the li its of one's place of residence
...
We should follow these and the other 609 OT laws?
I've never heard this, so excuse my confusion.
Paul
I would add that the distinction between the moral law (for every individual) and the civil law (for the nation) is simply that of which sphere of authority they fall under. For instance, the moral law is for every individual person to keep, for example Ephesians 6:2 tells us "Honour thy father and mother; (which is the first commandment with promise;) That it may be well with thee, and thou mayest live long on the earth." This is true today as it was in the Old Testament times. Every individual who honors their father and mother does so that it may be well with them, and the promise originally given is still true. These moral laws often predate Moses as well.
The civil law is still applicable in the sense that it denotes what is the right way to handle the cases that it covers. However, it is applicable only by a nation as a whole, so it falls under the sphere of the government to enforce. See Romans chapter 13. This would include for instance various death penalties. If a country would pass those into their laws, it would be well for that country, but an individual cannot enforce them on others. So the civil law is still true today as the best ideal that leads to a well ordered society, but we may have to deal with parts of it not being enforced by fallible governments whilst we wait for Christ to return. So in this sense the civil law is still true.
The ceremonial law, such as the parts dealing with ritual uncleanness when entering the temple, keeping of the Sabbath, and holy days, were not completely fulfilled by the Mosaic arrangement with the Levitical priesthood. Hebrews chapter 7 deals with this. The priests had to continually offer animal sacrifices and the old Law was only able in this area to show us the existence of our sin. However, Christ came to fulfill the law, and accordingly his sacrifice purged sin absolutely. So the way we keep the ceremonial law is through Christ. He is the now-perfect fulfillment of that law for us now, he makes all things clean. As Colossians 2:16-17 states.
"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."
--A.T.
Paul,
Respectfully, did you read my answer? I said that we keep the ceremonial law by receiving Christ and through the worship of the church. That is why Jesus in Matthew 5 said He didn't come to destroy, but to fulfill. We keep the principles of the judicial law. The Sabbath is ceremonial, fulfilled by receiving Christ and worship in the church. We observe Sabbath by entering into our rest, which is Christ (Hebrews 3-4). That is keeping the law.
The idea of putting the law on the doorpost in Deuteronomy 6 isn't nailing a little symbol of the shema. That was a superficial ritual that was permissible, but it wasn't what Deut 6 was teaching. The point of that command was to know and remember all of the law. Put it everywhere in front of your face so that you will learn it. It's supposed to be constantly read, studied, meditated upon, and lived out of love for God.
The typical argument against Jesus in not loving the law and keeping it is to point to ceremonial or judicial laws or even just traditions, like you have, and then saying that since we aren't keeping those, then the law has been voided for us all. This is a false antinomian argument.
Thanks for dropping by, Paul.
Thanks A.T.
I tried my best to read your answer and please forgive me for being a bit dense on this. I have mainly experienced the typical Christianity promoted in most mainline churches. The ones that tell you over and over that God loves you so much that it doesn't matter what you've done or will do, believe and you are a "true" believer.
Perhaps in my quest to break away from such teaching I tend to be rigid on trying to literally stay true to what the Bible says. So when I read about following and doing all the laws I take that literally. That is why I asked about some of them that I quickly looked up.
I understand your point about seeing and doing the spirit of the law, but I fear that I run the risk of not doing something that was commanded - such as fringes on the corners of clothing, or praying the Shema 2x daily.
After all, why not just say know and always remeber the law and to study, meditate, read it always every day. I guess I'm looking at it to literally in my quest to break away from my decades of lax biblical teaching.
Thanks,
Paul
Dear Paul,
I meant, read my post, which answered that question, so my apologies for saying, "answer," when I meant "post." I'm glad you want to do everything God said. That's what Jesus said to do. In the process of reading everything, it's easy to see that God undid the dietary restrictions in Acts 10-11. Those would fall under judicial laws that were given to Israel, for Israel to enforce on her nation, but the principles of them are still required under especially love your neighbor. Paul commanded not to muzzle the ox that treads the corn, and he applied that in many different ways to a workman being worthy of partaking in the fruit of his labor. That is still supposed to be kept even in Paul repeating it in the New Testament.
The fringes of the garment on the priests garment was a requirement for the priest as a regulation for ceremonial worship in the Old Testament, but Jesus is our priest, and we have one mediator between God and man (1 Tim 2:5). Related to putting the law on the doorposts and the forehead, that didn't mean literally attach a copy of the law on someone's forehead. It is a figure of speech, which there are many in the OT and the NT. We take it literally but as a figure of speech. The point was to keep the law, all of it, and having it right in front of the face of our children all day so they will keep every part of it. The figure of speech is powerful, showing how serious it is.
Thanks again for dropping by Paul.
Post a Comment