DeaconDean
γέγονα χαλκὸς, κύμβαλον ἀλαλάζον
- Jul 19, 2005
- 22,188
- 2,677
- 61
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
From a post 8 years ago:
The Law and the Christian Pt. 3
E. Jesus and the Law in the Synoptic Gospels
1.The Occurrence of the word nomoV
To understand materially the attitude of Jesus to the Law one has to take into account stories in which the word nomoV does not occur. Adolph von Harnack raises this question well and points out that:
it is doubtful in many instances whether the term is part of the original saying or statement, e.g.: cf. Mt. 7:12 with Lk. 6:31.[1]
In the few verses where nomoV is found, it is simple except in the case of Lk. 2:23. Rather than having the article, it is followed up as nomoV kurioV. (the law of the Lord) normally, nomoV means the Pentateuch. In the scriptures we find o nomoV kai oi projhtai (Mt. 5:17; 7:12; 11:13; 22:40; Lk. 16:16; 24:44(also yalmoi)). The twofold meaning signifies both the Law and the Pentateuch or scripture. Predominate is the sense of the Law as that which governs what we should and should not do.
In Mt. 22:36, when Jesus is asked: poia entolh megalh en tw nmow (which command (is) great in the Law) the meaning is not which is the greatest command in the Pentateuch, but what kind of commandment is important within the total context of the Law.[2]
Mt 5:17-18 presents an interesting contrast. In vs. 17, Jesus says: iwta en h uia keraia ou mh parelqh apo tou nomou, and in vs. 18 He says: uia twn entolwn toutwn twn elacistwn. Context here dictates that because the Law is mentioned alongside the prophets, the nomoV here is speaking of the whole of O.T. scriptures in particular those speaking of Him. And the nomoV of verse 18 is a reference to the Pentateuch because of the iwta and keraia. Heaven and earth shall not pass until the law down to the smallest point has been fulfilled. And again, in Mt. 12:5, based on the context, nmow here is an obvious reference to the Law, Pentateuch, I.e.: the Law of Moses.
2. Jesus Negation of the Law
The essential and basic negation of the Law in Jesus consists in the fact He disposes it from its position of mediation. In other words, what determines mans position to God is no longer the Law and mans relation to it. The decisive factor now is no longer the Law, it is now occupied by the Word of Jesus, even Jesus Himself. Man now finds his relation to God in his relation to Jesus. Several classic examples are found scattered thougout the Synoptics.
To illustrate this point, look at Mt. 21:28-32. A father has two sons, he says to one, go work in my vineyards. The son says no, but later repented and went. The second said yes and went not. Which of the two did the will of the father? According to the context here, what separates man from God is not transgression and negation of the Law. (21:28) In the latter part of verse 31, the reference here is not to the cleavage between word and act, but to the difference between actual refusal of the Law and the new event of conversion and doing the will of God. But that this hopeless situation can be remedied. This is seen in verse 31: oi telwnai kai ai pornai proagousin umaV eiV thn basileian tou qeou. (tax-collectors and harlots go before you into the kingdom of God) The point being that tax-collectors and harlots would enter heaven because they would sooner come to repentance than those who would be justified by supposedly living according to the law which Jesus eventually accused them of making a pretense. (Mt. 23:14)
This is further illustrated in the parable of the prodigal son. In the parable, one son leaves and one stays at home. The one who stayed obeyed his father, done all that was asked, but, he did not profit by staying home. By this we mean it is not in his relation to the Law, whether in a constant fulfillment which is not disputed or in flagrant transgression which is not condoned, that the righteous or the sinner find his definitive relation to God . If the sinner is received into pardoning fellowship with Jesus, he is at home in his fathers home. And this fact puts the man who is legally righteous the challenge whether he is building on his obedience to the commandments as hard-earned merit - this seems to be suggested by the grumbling when the prodigal returns - or whether he regards his perseverance in obedience as a joyous being at home in the fathers house. This leads us, however, that in both cases the Law is disposed from its position of mediation. The relation to the word and deed of Jesus now decides ones relation to God.
In essence, the same point is made in the sayings in Mt. 10:32. Confession or denial of Jesus decides the eternal destiny of man. Similarly, the parables collected in Mk. 2 are possible only if the Law no linger plays a decisive role between God and man, and conduct either in accordance with or opposition to the Law no longer justifies or condemns a man definitively before God.
What Jesus did was grounded in the fact that He determined mans relation to God, not according to the Law, but in the power of His mission.[3]
The blessing of the children in Mk. 10:13, the beatitudes in Mt. 5:3; and the saying in Mt. 11:28, all point in the same direction. Jesus pronounces these words precisely to those who are so burdened under the Law that they no longer have any anapausiV (rest). On the publican who falls down in repentance before God, and counts on Gods grace alone, the sentence is passed: katebh outoV dedikaiwmenoV eiV ton oikon autou par ekeinon (this one went to his house having been justified rather than that one. Lk. 18:4), rather than on the man who can boast of his observance of the Law. (cf. also Lk. 17:7) The scribes and Pharisees close the kingdom of God (Mt. 23:13) because they will allow men to enter by fulfillment of the Law which they themselves administer.
So that we are left with this conclusion, Jesus then, bases the relation of men to God on their relation to Himself and the Lordship of God, which comes in Him. His specific invitation as the one who pardons is to sinners. This means that He firmly negates the righteousness of the Law. The Law is now forced out of its key position by the person of Jesus Himself.
3. Jesus Affirmation of the Law
In terms of this new position and its implied negation of the Law, however, Jesus also affirms the Law when rightly understood. Even though the Law is disposed as mediator, it is not a repudiation of the Law. We see this:
a. Jesus recognizes the Law when He acts as the One who forgives sins; and calls sinners and publicans to fellowship with Himself (Lk. 15). A plain judgment is pronounced; He is dealing wit the sick (Mk. 2:17), the lost, the victims of death (Lk. 15:3ff.; 24:32). Thus Jesus validates the Law by the judgment implied in His pardon.
b. Moreover, all incidents addressed show that Jesus is not seeking to overturn the Law when He will not make it the basis of the relation to God. (cf. Mt. 21:28 ff.)
c. Hence, it is not surprising that according to the Synoptic account Jesus Himself keeps the Law.
d. Jesus recognizes the Law to be Gods good will not only for Himself, but also for others, To the question of right conduct he gives the answer: taV entolaV oidaV (the commandments you know, Mk. 10:19) He does not accept as good any other will than the will of God revealed in the Law. Apart from this He does not champion any other goodness (Mk. 10:18; cf. also Lk. 10:25 ff.) The Law demands self-denying love for God and neighbor.
e. There is confirmation of the Law, but along with this there is criticism, and in reality this criticism only serves to confirm and establish in the Law, not destroy it. To explain this paradox, the first point is Jesus criticism is that the Law can serve to protect mans disobedience against the claim of God. By that, it is meant that the commandment Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy (cf. Ex. 20:8f.) can be set aside. While it is agreed that the commandment are/were the revealed will of God, if your neighbor has a dire need, even though it may be the Sabbath, your under obligation to love your neighbor. That is the point Jesus is making in MT. 12:9-14. This is, however, no reduction of the Law to morality. It is a radicalizing of the Law by the question of concrete obedience in love for your neighbor.
The second point in Jesus criticism is linked with the first. He criticizes the Law in that it does not expose sin at the root by only condemning the act and not the heart which underlies the act. For reference, note the change in the command concerning adultery.
Finally, Jesus criticism of the Law is that the Law as it presupposes the sin of man as a factor which cannot be altered. In Mk. 10:5 we see: proV thn oklhrokardian umwn egrayen umin thn entolhn tauthn. (For the hardheartedness of you, he wrote this commandment.) With a relationship to Jesus and membership of the basileia tou qeou (kingdom of God), however, there is restored the order of creation which does not accept sin as a given factor.
4. The Interrelation of Negation and Affirmation of the Law
This interrelation of Negation and Affirmation of the Law is seen in two points. First, it calls for full repentance, which acquires depth and concreteness from the Laws requirements. Secondly, it exhibits true obedience, the new righteousness. Both aspects are indissolubly bound up wit h the fact that Jesus bases the relation between God and man, not on fulfillment of the Law, but on the new act of God. Confrontation with Gods unconditional claim through the Law, together with recognition of condemnation by the newly understood Law on the one side, and liberation from the mediation of the Law on the other, mutually promote and control one another. Only when he renounces his own achievement and receives forgiveness is man truly able to offer the obedience of love. At the same time the question Gods new act on man and the world is contained in the radical establishment of the demand and its judgment.
III. The Conflict Concerning the Law
a. A brief introduction
A great cause of confusion today concerns the place of the Mosaic law in the New Testament believers life. While this short study cannot begin to cover all the issues involved, it is my hope that it will shed some light and remove some of the confusion.
One of the profound emphases of the New Testament, especially the epistles of Paul, is that Christians are no longer under the rule of the Mosaic law. This truth is stated in no uncertain terms and in various ways (see Rom. 6:14; 7:1-14; Gal. 3:10-13, 24-25; 4:21; 5:1, 13; 2 Cor. 3:7-18), but in spite of this, there have always been those who insist that the Mosaic Law, at least the Ten Commandments, are still in force for the Christian. In regard to the relation of Christian ethics to the Mosaic Law, Luck writes:
There are Christian teachers of repute who consider the Mosaic law to be the present-day rule of life for the Christian.[4] A view not infrequently found among earnest, orthodox believers is that although we are not saved by the law, once we have been justified by faith, then the Mosaic law becomes our rule of life. Those holding such a view generally make a sharp division of the Mosaic law into two parts, which they distinguish as the moral and the ceremonial. The ceremonial portion they consider as having found its fulfillment in Christ at His first advent, and thus as having now passed away. But the moral portion of the Mosaic law, say they, is still in force as the believers rule of life. The treatment given to Christian ethics by some highly respected authors is indeed but little more than an exposition of the Decalogue.
It seems exceedingly strange that Bible-believing Christians should advocate such a view, when the New Testament makes it abundantly clear that the believer in Christ is not any longer under the Mosaic law in its entirety Indeed after having been delivered from the law, to deliberately place ourselves once again under its [control] is said to be falling from grace.
But let it be immediately understood that this does not mean to say that we should necessarily behave in a manner just opposite to what the Mosaic law commandsthat we should kill, steal, bear false witness, etc. Long before the law was given through Moses, it was utterly wrong to do such evil things. . .[5]
By contrast, the age in which we live, the church age, has often and rightly been called the age of grace. This is not because Gods grace has not been manifested in other ages, but because in the coming of the Lord Jesus Christ we have the ultimate manifestation of Gods grace.
Titus 2:11-12. For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to all people. It trains us to reject godless ways and worldly desires and to live self-controlled, upright, and godly lives in the present age,
Grace becomes an absolutely inseparable part of the believers life in Christ. In the coming of Christ and His death on the cross, the Mosaic Law as a rule of life was terminated. The believer is now to live in the liberty and power of Gods grace by the Spirit, not the rule of law. This new liberty must never be used as an occasion to indulge the flesh or sinful appetites (Gal. 5:13) nor does it mean the Christian has no moral law or imperatives on his life, but simply that he or she is to live righteously by a new source of life as asserted in Romans 8.
Romans 8:2-4. For the law of the life-giving Spirit in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and death. 3 For God achieved what the law could not do because it was weakened through the flesh. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and concerning sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, 4 so that the righteous requirement of the law may be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.
But a great deal of confusion exists over the issues of law and grace and the place of the Mosaic law in the New Testament believers life. However, the basic principle is that the fusion of law and grace brings a confusion which results in sterile legalism. Because of mans natural bent toward either legalism or license, the place and function of the Law has been an issue in the Christian community since the very early days of the church. There have always been those who have sought to put the Christian back under the Law or make the Law necessary for both salvation and sanctification. As a result large sections of the New Testament are written directly to this issue (see Acts 15 and the council at Jerusalem; Romans 5:10; 6:14; 7:1f; 2 Cor. 3:6-18; and the entire book of Galatians). These passages were written against a legalistic use of the Law, one which promotes works to gain points with either God or people; works of self-effort rather than a life lived by the power and personal leading of the Holy Spirit.
Of course, other parts of the New Testament are written against license and the misuse of liberty (Gal. 5:13ff. Rom. 6:1ff; 8:4ff; Tit. 2:11-14). But the answer is never to put the Christian back under the Law, but rather a proper understanding and appreciation of Gods grace to us in Christ. Christian liberty is not the right to do as one pleases, but the power, desire, and will to do as one ought in and by the power of God and a regenerated life.
This is ultimately the focus of Titus 2:11-14. The glorious manifestation of Gods grace in Christ instructs and trains believers in how to live.[6] This grace provides the incentive, the motive, and the means. Regarding Titus 2:11-14 Ryrie writes:
The verb teaching encompasses the whole concept of growthdiscipline, maturing, obedience, progress, and the like. This involves denial of improper things and direction into proper channels. These five termsgodliness, worldly lusts, soberly, righteously, godlydo not describe the content of grace teaching so much as they indicate the object and purposeful goal of that teaching. And this intent is, according to this passage, the ultimate purpose of the Incarnation of Christ. He came to display the grace of God in the changed lives of his people. The final cause of the revelation of the grace of God in Christ is not creed but character.[7]
In Romans 6:14, Paul gives us a fundamental principle as it relates to the Christians understanding and the place of the Law in a believers life. For sin will have no mastery over you, becauseyou are not under law but under grace. (emphasis mine). Romans 6 deals with the believers walk or sanctification. In this regard, under grace is never to be taken as an excuse to sin as one pleases since he is under grace (6:1-2) and it is placed in strong contrast[8] with under law. Two things are prominent here: (1) these two (law and grace) are set forth as complete opposites, and (2) the text also makes it clear that the only way the believer is going to experience true sanctification (victory over sin plus the production of positive righteousness) is by grace (the work of God in Christ) and never by law. The reasons, which will be set forth below, are bound up in two issues, the weakness of mans flesh and the nature of the Law and its inability because of mans weakness to produce a truly holy life. This is not to say that the Mosaic Law is not good and holy and does not have a function, but this too will be set forth below.
b. The Primitive Community
Up to this point, we have shown the development of the Greek word nomoV from a meaning of to allot to Law. We have seen how the commandments were handed down to Moses from God and were regarded as the Law. We have the view of the Law in the Synoptics and the interrelation of Jesus negation and affirmation of the Law and how they are interwoven so that it actually restores and establishes the intent of God in His revealed will.
Now we come to a most difficult area which brought conflict nearly two millennia ago, and one which still brings conflict today. The conflict concerning the Law and its relevance to Christians then and now. There is no clear cut definitive picture of just what the understanding of the Law was in the primitive community. But it is a certainty that they did in fact keep the Law, but as to the extent of the keeping of the Law it is not certain from the account in Acts because no distinctive can be discerned in this record. So what we can do, however, is to look at what records we do have concerning the conflict which are found in the book of Galatians and in Acts 15.
The question of the Law first became an issue when the Apostles began their missionary journeys. When they moved out to the Gentile world, more specifically the Gentile nations, there was so much conflict that the first Apostolic Council is recorded. With regards to this meeting, and the decision they came to, we can work best work out what the fundamental understanding of the Law was in the primitive community.
A problem that had existed from the Day of Pentecost was how to integrate Gentile believers into the church. Apparently, Paul taught his Gentile converts that they did not need to submit to the Law in order to be members in good standing, a point which not all agreed on. Pauls first missionary journey took him from Jerusalem to Antioch to Galatia and back to Jerusalem which led to the first Apostolic Council meeting. AS in Pauls day, there were a group of people who are commonly called legalists. Of whom believed that not only was a belief in God required, but also a strict observance to the Law of Moses was required.
According to Gal. 2, the data relevant to the council are as follows: first, agreement between Pauls gospel and that preached by the primitive community is confirmed and not just established. Gal. 2:2: aneqemhn autoiV to euaggelion o khrussw en toiV eqnesin (I put before them the gospel which I proclaim in the nations) Vs.6: emoi oi dokounteV ouden prosaneqento (to me, for those conferred nothing) Note in the KJV, the translators added the word important thus the italics, to emphasize Paul was referring to the Apostolic council.
The second point is equally certain, namely, that practical questions over and above the unanimity of principle was not so fully cleared up as to make impossible the dispute at Antioch as Paul describes it in Galatians 2. To understand this passage it should be noted that neither directly nor indirectly does Paul have any word of censure from James. The concrete question is whether and how far those born Jew may live together in fellowship with Gentile Christians who do not keep the Law. In particular, can they have fellowship with them at table and in the Lords Supper? For if they do, they necessarily surrender essential parts of the strict observance of the Law. The measure of clarity reached thus far was simply that purely Gentile Christian churches were free from the Law with the consent of the primitive community, and purely Jewish Christian churches should keep the Law with the consent of Paul.
The findings of the Apostolic Council, then, are that the Law is not to be kept as though one could be righteous by its observance, that faith in Jesus brings salvation to both Jew and Gentile alike, and that the Law is still binding on Jews. On this basis, it seems that the separation of Gentile and Jewish evangelization (Gal. 2:7) had to be accepted by both Paul and the primitive as necessary and appropriate.
c. But this raises the question of why Jewish Christians were obliged to keep the Law. The main reason is concern for the possibility of the Jewish mission. The preaching of Jesus as the Christ of scripture could not be believed by Jews if His followers left the Law of God. That Paul could agree with this view is shown beyond any question in 1 Cor. 9:20. He neither demands nor makes any demonstration of his freedom from the Law which might consist in transgression of the Law.
d. From the basic and practical decision of the primitive community in these matters we may work out its understanding of the Law during the preceding period. The actual commitment to the Law was not monism in the sense that fulfillment of the Law w regarded as a presupposition of belonging to the Messianic kingdom. On the contrary, it regarded observance of the Law as the obedience concretely required of it as this people - an obedience which it had also to render for loves sake in the service of the Gospel. What constituted the community and separated it from others, however, was not a specific understanding of the Law but faith in Jesus as Lord and Christ. Historically speaking, it is probable that the Synoptic accounts of Jesus attitude to the Law are correct and that fundamentally the primitive community took its attitude to the Law from Jesus Himself.
e. Further developments in the primitive community is also to be understood in light of the conflicts, motives, and decisions brought to light in the first Apostolic Council and the events relating to it. The radical party, traditionally called the Judaizers, insisted that in spite of the councils decision, circumcision and the Law must be laid on Gentile Christians, since otherwise they could not enjoy salvation or belong to the community of Christ. They evidently propagated this view with zeal, especially in the Pauline churches, though it is open to question whether the situation presupposed in Rome can be explained by Judaising propaganda.
f. Distinct from the position of the Judaizers is that of James, Peter, and the community controlled by them, who seem to have kept essentially to the lines laid down by the Apostolic Council. This certainly corresponds to the depiction of James in Acts 21:148, and it is confirmed by the account of his death in Josephus.[9] In regards to Peter, it is best to assume that he returned to the position of the Apostolic Council and James after accepting the view of Paul for a period in Antioch. Certainly the attempt to make Peter a champion of the Judaizers lacks enough exegetical support in the available sources and it suffers from intrinsic improbability.
As concerning the understanding of the Law in normative circles of primitive Christianity, it may thus be said that they regarded the Law as the obedience to be rendered by Jewish Christians. They were also conscious of being under this obligation for the sake of winning the Jewish world for the Gospel. They did not believe that by achieving this obedience man could attain to righteousness before God. They were prepared to extend brotherly fellowship to Gentile Christians even though the latter did not keep the Law. In mixed congregations, Gentile Christians were obliged to observe such points as would make fellowship of Jewish Christians with them defensible in the eyes of the Jewish world.
Continued...
[1] Adolph von Harnack, Beitrage zur Einlertung in das NT, II: Sprucle u. Reder Jesu (1907), 11f.
[2] T. Zahn, Kommentar z. Matthausev, 1905
[3] A. Schlatter, Kommentar z. Mk., 1930
[4] For further information on this subject, see the article by Roy l. Aldrich, Causes for Confusion of Law and Grace, Bibliotheca Sacra, 116:463:221-29, July 1959
[5] G. Coleman Luck, Christian Ethics, Bibliotheca Sacra, 118:471 - July 1961, Theological Electronic Library, Galaxie Software
[6] The verb train or instruct is paideuo,,, to bring up, instruct, educate, train, then, correct, practice, discipline, give guidance.
[7] Charles C. Ryrie, The Grace of God, Moody Press, Chicago, 1963, pp. 51-52
[8] In this clause, but is alla, a conjunction that expresses strong contrast.
[9] Josephus, Ant., 20, 200
God Bless
Till all are one.
The Law and the Christian Pt. 3
E. Jesus and the Law in the Synoptic Gospels
1.The Occurrence of the word nomoV
To understand materially the attitude of Jesus to the Law one has to take into account stories in which the word nomoV does not occur. Adolph von Harnack raises this question well and points out that:
it is doubtful in many instances whether the term is part of the original saying or statement, e.g.: cf. Mt. 7:12 with Lk. 6:31.[1]
In the few verses where nomoV is found, it is simple except in the case of Lk. 2:23. Rather than having the article, it is followed up as nomoV kurioV. (the law of the Lord) normally, nomoV means the Pentateuch. In the scriptures we find o nomoV kai oi projhtai (Mt. 5:17; 7:12; 11:13; 22:40; Lk. 16:16; 24:44(also yalmoi)). The twofold meaning signifies both the Law and the Pentateuch or scripture. Predominate is the sense of the Law as that which governs what we should and should not do.
In Mt. 22:36, when Jesus is asked: poia entolh megalh en tw nmow (which command (is) great in the Law) the meaning is not which is the greatest command in the Pentateuch, but what kind of commandment is important within the total context of the Law.[2]
Mt 5:17-18 presents an interesting contrast. In vs. 17, Jesus says: iwta en h uia keraia ou mh parelqh apo tou nomou, and in vs. 18 He says: uia twn entolwn toutwn twn elacistwn. Context here dictates that because the Law is mentioned alongside the prophets, the nomoV here is speaking of the whole of O.T. scriptures in particular those speaking of Him. And the nomoV of verse 18 is a reference to the Pentateuch because of the iwta and keraia. Heaven and earth shall not pass until the law down to the smallest point has been fulfilled. And again, in Mt. 12:5, based on the context, nmow here is an obvious reference to the Law, Pentateuch, I.e.: the Law of Moses.
2. Jesus Negation of the Law
The essential and basic negation of the Law in Jesus consists in the fact He disposes it from its position of mediation. In other words, what determines mans position to God is no longer the Law and mans relation to it. The decisive factor now is no longer the Law, it is now occupied by the Word of Jesus, even Jesus Himself. Man now finds his relation to God in his relation to Jesus. Several classic examples are found scattered thougout the Synoptics.
To illustrate this point, look at Mt. 21:28-32. A father has two sons, he says to one, go work in my vineyards. The son says no, but later repented and went. The second said yes and went not. Which of the two did the will of the father? According to the context here, what separates man from God is not transgression and negation of the Law. (21:28) In the latter part of verse 31, the reference here is not to the cleavage between word and act, but to the difference between actual refusal of the Law and the new event of conversion and doing the will of God. But that this hopeless situation can be remedied. This is seen in verse 31: oi telwnai kai ai pornai proagousin umaV eiV thn basileian tou qeou. (tax-collectors and harlots go before you into the kingdom of God) The point being that tax-collectors and harlots would enter heaven because they would sooner come to repentance than those who would be justified by supposedly living according to the law which Jesus eventually accused them of making a pretense. (Mt. 23:14)
This is further illustrated in the parable of the prodigal son. In the parable, one son leaves and one stays at home. The one who stayed obeyed his father, done all that was asked, but, he did not profit by staying home. By this we mean it is not in his relation to the Law, whether in a constant fulfillment which is not disputed or in flagrant transgression which is not condoned, that the righteous or the sinner find his definitive relation to God . If the sinner is received into pardoning fellowship with Jesus, he is at home in his fathers home. And this fact puts the man who is legally righteous the challenge whether he is building on his obedience to the commandments as hard-earned merit - this seems to be suggested by the grumbling when the prodigal returns - or whether he regards his perseverance in obedience as a joyous being at home in the fathers house. This leads us, however, that in both cases the Law is disposed from its position of mediation. The relation to the word and deed of Jesus now decides ones relation to God.
In essence, the same point is made in the sayings in Mt. 10:32. Confession or denial of Jesus decides the eternal destiny of man. Similarly, the parables collected in Mk. 2 are possible only if the Law no linger plays a decisive role between God and man, and conduct either in accordance with or opposition to the Law no longer justifies or condemns a man definitively before God.
What Jesus did was grounded in the fact that He determined mans relation to God, not according to the Law, but in the power of His mission.[3]
The blessing of the children in Mk. 10:13, the beatitudes in Mt. 5:3; and the saying in Mt. 11:28, all point in the same direction. Jesus pronounces these words precisely to those who are so burdened under the Law that they no longer have any anapausiV (rest). On the publican who falls down in repentance before God, and counts on Gods grace alone, the sentence is passed: katebh outoV dedikaiwmenoV eiV ton oikon autou par ekeinon (this one went to his house having been justified rather than that one. Lk. 18:4), rather than on the man who can boast of his observance of the Law. (cf. also Lk. 17:7) The scribes and Pharisees close the kingdom of God (Mt. 23:13) because they will allow men to enter by fulfillment of the Law which they themselves administer.
So that we are left with this conclusion, Jesus then, bases the relation of men to God on their relation to Himself and the Lordship of God, which comes in Him. His specific invitation as the one who pardons is to sinners. This means that He firmly negates the righteousness of the Law. The Law is now forced out of its key position by the person of Jesus Himself.
3. Jesus Affirmation of the Law
In terms of this new position and its implied negation of the Law, however, Jesus also affirms the Law when rightly understood. Even though the Law is disposed as mediator, it is not a repudiation of the Law. We see this:
a. Jesus recognizes the Law when He acts as the One who forgives sins; and calls sinners and publicans to fellowship with Himself (Lk. 15). A plain judgment is pronounced; He is dealing wit the sick (Mk. 2:17), the lost, the victims of death (Lk. 15:3ff.; 24:32). Thus Jesus validates the Law by the judgment implied in His pardon.
b. Moreover, all incidents addressed show that Jesus is not seeking to overturn the Law when He will not make it the basis of the relation to God. (cf. Mt. 21:28 ff.)
c. Hence, it is not surprising that according to the Synoptic account Jesus Himself keeps the Law.
d. Jesus recognizes the Law to be Gods good will not only for Himself, but also for others, To the question of right conduct he gives the answer: taV entolaV oidaV (the commandments you know, Mk. 10:19) He does not accept as good any other will than the will of God revealed in the Law. Apart from this He does not champion any other goodness (Mk. 10:18; cf. also Lk. 10:25 ff.) The Law demands self-denying love for God and neighbor.
e. There is confirmation of the Law, but along with this there is criticism, and in reality this criticism only serves to confirm and establish in the Law, not destroy it. To explain this paradox, the first point is Jesus criticism is that the Law can serve to protect mans disobedience against the claim of God. By that, it is meant that the commandment Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy (cf. Ex. 20:8f.) can be set aside. While it is agreed that the commandment are/were the revealed will of God, if your neighbor has a dire need, even though it may be the Sabbath, your under obligation to love your neighbor. That is the point Jesus is making in MT. 12:9-14. This is, however, no reduction of the Law to morality. It is a radicalizing of the Law by the question of concrete obedience in love for your neighbor.
The second point in Jesus criticism is linked with the first. He criticizes the Law in that it does not expose sin at the root by only condemning the act and not the heart which underlies the act. For reference, note the change in the command concerning adultery.
Finally, Jesus criticism of the Law is that the Law as it presupposes the sin of man as a factor which cannot be altered. In Mk. 10:5 we see: proV thn oklhrokardian umwn egrayen umin thn entolhn tauthn. (For the hardheartedness of you, he wrote this commandment.) With a relationship to Jesus and membership of the basileia tou qeou (kingdom of God), however, there is restored the order of creation which does not accept sin as a given factor.
4. The Interrelation of Negation and Affirmation of the Law
This interrelation of Negation and Affirmation of the Law is seen in two points. First, it calls for full repentance, which acquires depth and concreteness from the Laws requirements. Secondly, it exhibits true obedience, the new righteousness. Both aspects are indissolubly bound up wit h the fact that Jesus bases the relation between God and man, not on fulfillment of the Law, but on the new act of God. Confrontation with Gods unconditional claim through the Law, together with recognition of condemnation by the newly understood Law on the one side, and liberation from the mediation of the Law on the other, mutually promote and control one another. Only when he renounces his own achievement and receives forgiveness is man truly able to offer the obedience of love. At the same time the question Gods new act on man and the world is contained in the radical establishment of the demand and its judgment.
III. The Conflict Concerning the Law
a. A brief introduction
A great cause of confusion today concerns the place of the Mosaic law in the New Testament believers life. While this short study cannot begin to cover all the issues involved, it is my hope that it will shed some light and remove some of the confusion.
One of the profound emphases of the New Testament, especially the epistles of Paul, is that Christians are no longer under the rule of the Mosaic law. This truth is stated in no uncertain terms and in various ways (see Rom. 6:14; 7:1-14; Gal. 3:10-13, 24-25; 4:21; 5:1, 13; 2 Cor. 3:7-18), but in spite of this, there have always been those who insist that the Mosaic Law, at least the Ten Commandments, are still in force for the Christian. In regard to the relation of Christian ethics to the Mosaic Law, Luck writes:
There are Christian teachers of repute who consider the Mosaic law to be the present-day rule of life for the Christian.[4] A view not infrequently found among earnest, orthodox believers is that although we are not saved by the law, once we have been justified by faith, then the Mosaic law becomes our rule of life. Those holding such a view generally make a sharp division of the Mosaic law into two parts, which they distinguish as the moral and the ceremonial. The ceremonial portion they consider as having found its fulfillment in Christ at His first advent, and thus as having now passed away. But the moral portion of the Mosaic law, say they, is still in force as the believers rule of life. The treatment given to Christian ethics by some highly respected authors is indeed but little more than an exposition of the Decalogue.
It seems exceedingly strange that Bible-believing Christians should advocate such a view, when the New Testament makes it abundantly clear that the believer in Christ is not any longer under the Mosaic law in its entirety Indeed after having been delivered from the law, to deliberately place ourselves once again under its [control] is said to be falling from grace.
But let it be immediately understood that this does not mean to say that we should necessarily behave in a manner just opposite to what the Mosaic law commandsthat we should kill, steal, bear false witness, etc. Long before the law was given through Moses, it was utterly wrong to do such evil things. . .[5]
By contrast, the age in which we live, the church age, has often and rightly been called the age of grace. This is not because Gods grace has not been manifested in other ages, but because in the coming of the Lord Jesus Christ we have the ultimate manifestation of Gods grace.
Titus 2:11-12. For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to all people. It trains us to reject godless ways and worldly desires and to live self-controlled, upright, and godly lives in the present age,
Grace becomes an absolutely inseparable part of the believers life in Christ. In the coming of Christ and His death on the cross, the Mosaic Law as a rule of life was terminated. The believer is now to live in the liberty and power of Gods grace by the Spirit, not the rule of law. This new liberty must never be used as an occasion to indulge the flesh or sinful appetites (Gal. 5:13) nor does it mean the Christian has no moral law or imperatives on his life, but simply that he or she is to live righteously by a new source of life as asserted in Romans 8.
Romans 8:2-4. For the law of the life-giving Spirit in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and death. 3 For God achieved what the law could not do because it was weakened through the flesh. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and concerning sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, 4 so that the righteous requirement of the law may be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.
But a great deal of confusion exists over the issues of law and grace and the place of the Mosaic law in the New Testament believers life. However, the basic principle is that the fusion of law and grace brings a confusion which results in sterile legalism. Because of mans natural bent toward either legalism or license, the place and function of the Law has been an issue in the Christian community since the very early days of the church. There have always been those who have sought to put the Christian back under the Law or make the Law necessary for both salvation and sanctification. As a result large sections of the New Testament are written directly to this issue (see Acts 15 and the council at Jerusalem; Romans 5:10; 6:14; 7:1f; 2 Cor. 3:6-18; and the entire book of Galatians). These passages were written against a legalistic use of the Law, one which promotes works to gain points with either God or people; works of self-effort rather than a life lived by the power and personal leading of the Holy Spirit.
Of course, other parts of the New Testament are written against license and the misuse of liberty (Gal. 5:13ff. Rom. 6:1ff; 8:4ff; Tit. 2:11-14). But the answer is never to put the Christian back under the Law, but rather a proper understanding and appreciation of Gods grace to us in Christ. Christian liberty is not the right to do as one pleases, but the power, desire, and will to do as one ought in and by the power of God and a regenerated life.
This is ultimately the focus of Titus 2:11-14. The glorious manifestation of Gods grace in Christ instructs and trains believers in how to live.[6] This grace provides the incentive, the motive, and the means. Regarding Titus 2:11-14 Ryrie writes:
The verb teaching encompasses the whole concept of growthdiscipline, maturing, obedience, progress, and the like. This involves denial of improper things and direction into proper channels. These five termsgodliness, worldly lusts, soberly, righteously, godlydo not describe the content of grace teaching so much as they indicate the object and purposeful goal of that teaching. And this intent is, according to this passage, the ultimate purpose of the Incarnation of Christ. He came to display the grace of God in the changed lives of his people. The final cause of the revelation of the grace of God in Christ is not creed but character.[7]
In Romans 6:14, Paul gives us a fundamental principle as it relates to the Christians understanding and the place of the Law in a believers life. For sin will have no mastery over you, becauseyou are not under law but under grace. (emphasis mine). Romans 6 deals with the believers walk or sanctification. In this regard, under grace is never to be taken as an excuse to sin as one pleases since he is under grace (6:1-2) and it is placed in strong contrast[8] with under law. Two things are prominent here: (1) these two (law and grace) are set forth as complete opposites, and (2) the text also makes it clear that the only way the believer is going to experience true sanctification (victory over sin plus the production of positive righteousness) is by grace (the work of God in Christ) and never by law. The reasons, which will be set forth below, are bound up in two issues, the weakness of mans flesh and the nature of the Law and its inability because of mans weakness to produce a truly holy life. This is not to say that the Mosaic Law is not good and holy and does not have a function, but this too will be set forth below.
b. The Primitive Community
Up to this point, we have shown the development of the Greek word nomoV from a meaning of to allot to Law. We have seen how the commandments were handed down to Moses from God and were regarded as the Law. We have the view of the Law in the Synoptics and the interrelation of Jesus negation and affirmation of the Law and how they are interwoven so that it actually restores and establishes the intent of God in His revealed will.
Now we come to a most difficult area which brought conflict nearly two millennia ago, and one which still brings conflict today. The conflict concerning the Law and its relevance to Christians then and now. There is no clear cut definitive picture of just what the understanding of the Law was in the primitive community. But it is a certainty that they did in fact keep the Law, but as to the extent of the keeping of the Law it is not certain from the account in Acts because no distinctive can be discerned in this record. So what we can do, however, is to look at what records we do have concerning the conflict which are found in the book of Galatians and in Acts 15.
The question of the Law first became an issue when the Apostles began their missionary journeys. When they moved out to the Gentile world, more specifically the Gentile nations, there was so much conflict that the first Apostolic Council is recorded. With regards to this meeting, and the decision they came to, we can work best work out what the fundamental understanding of the Law was in the primitive community.
A problem that had existed from the Day of Pentecost was how to integrate Gentile believers into the church. Apparently, Paul taught his Gentile converts that they did not need to submit to the Law in order to be members in good standing, a point which not all agreed on. Pauls first missionary journey took him from Jerusalem to Antioch to Galatia and back to Jerusalem which led to the first Apostolic Council meeting. AS in Pauls day, there were a group of people who are commonly called legalists. Of whom believed that not only was a belief in God required, but also a strict observance to the Law of Moses was required.
According to Gal. 2, the data relevant to the council are as follows: first, agreement between Pauls gospel and that preached by the primitive community is confirmed and not just established. Gal. 2:2: aneqemhn autoiV to euaggelion o khrussw en toiV eqnesin (I put before them the gospel which I proclaim in the nations) Vs.6: emoi oi dokounteV ouden prosaneqento (to me, for those conferred nothing) Note in the KJV, the translators added the word important thus the italics, to emphasize Paul was referring to the Apostolic council.
The second point is equally certain, namely, that practical questions over and above the unanimity of principle was not so fully cleared up as to make impossible the dispute at Antioch as Paul describes it in Galatians 2. To understand this passage it should be noted that neither directly nor indirectly does Paul have any word of censure from James. The concrete question is whether and how far those born Jew may live together in fellowship with Gentile Christians who do not keep the Law. In particular, can they have fellowship with them at table and in the Lords Supper? For if they do, they necessarily surrender essential parts of the strict observance of the Law. The measure of clarity reached thus far was simply that purely Gentile Christian churches were free from the Law with the consent of the primitive community, and purely Jewish Christian churches should keep the Law with the consent of Paul.
The findings of the Apostolic Council, then, are that the Law is not to be kept as though one could be righteous by its observance, that faith in Jesus brings salvation to both Jew and Gentile alike, and that the Law is still binding on Jews. On this basis, it seems that the separation of Gentile and Jewish evangelization (Gal. 2:7) had to be accepted by both Paul and the primitive as necessary and appropriate.
c. But this raises the question of why Jewish Christians were obliged to keep the Law. The main reason is concern for the possibility of the Jewish mission. The preaching of Jesus as the Christ of scripture could not be believed by Jews if His followers left the Law of God. That Paul could agree with this view is shown beyond any question in 1 Cor. 9:20. He neither demands nor makes any demonstration of his freedom from the Law which might consist in transgression of the Law.
d. From the basic and practical decision of the primitive community in these matters we may work out its understanding of the Law during the preceding period. The actual commitment to the Law was not monism in the sense that fulfillment of the Law w regarded as a presupposition of belonging to the Messianic kingdom. On the contrary, it regarded observance of the Law as the obedience concretely required of it as this people - an obedience which it had also to render for loves sake in the service of the Gospel. What constituted the community and separated it from others, however, was not a specific understanding of the Law but faith in Jesus as Lord and Christ. Historically speaking, it is probable that the Synoptic accounts of Jesus attitude to the Law are correct and that fundamentally the primitive community took its attitude to the Law from Jesus Himself.
e. Further developments in the primitive community is also to be understood in light of the conflicts, motives, and decisions brought to light in the first Apostolic Council and the events relating to it. The radical party, traditionally called the Judaizers, insisted that in spite of the councils decision, circumcision and the Law must be laid on Gentile Christians, since otherwise they could not enjoy salvation or belong to the community of Christ. They evidently propagated this view with zeal, especially in the Pauline churches, though it is open to question whether the situation presupposed in Rome can be explained by Judaising propaganda.
f. Distinct from the position of the Judaizers is that of James, Peter, and the community controlled by them, who seem to have kept essentially to the lines laid down by the Apostolic Council. This certainly corresponds to the depiction of James in Acts 21:148, and it is confirmed by the account of his death in Josephus.[9] In regards to Peter, it is best to assume that he returned to the position of the Apostolic Council and James after accepting the view of Paul for a period in Antioch. Certainly the attempt to make Peter a champion of the Judaizers lacks enough exegetical support in the available sources and it suffers from intrinsic improbability.
As concerning the understanding of the Law in normative circles of primitive Christianity, it may thus be said that they regarded the Law as the obedience to be rendered by Jewish Christians. They were also conscious of being under this obligation for the sake of winning the Jewish world for the Gospel. They did not believe that by achieving this obedience man could attain to righteousness before God. They were prepared to extend brotherly fellowship to Gentile Christians even though the latter did not keep the Law. In mixed congregations, Gentile Christians were obliged to observe such points as would make fellowship of Jewish Christians with them defensible in the eyes of the Jewish world.
Continued...
[1] Adolph von Harnack, Beitrage zur Einlertung in das NT, II: Sprucle u. Reder Jesu (1907), 11f.
[2] T. Zahn, Kommentar z. Matthausev, 1905
[3] A. Schlatter, Kommentar z. Mk., 1930
[4] For further information on this subject, see the article by Roy l. Aldrich, Causes for Confusion of Law and Grace, Bibliotheca Sacra, 116:463:221-29, July 1959
[5] G. Coleman Luck, Christian Ethics, Bibliotheca Sacra, 118:471 - July 1961, Theological Electronic Library, Galaxie Software
[6] The verb train or instruct is paideuo,,, to bring up, instruct, educate, train, then, correct, practice, discipline, give guidance.
[7] Charles C. Ryrie, The Grace of God, Moody Press, Chicago, 1963, pp. 51-52
[8] In this clause, but is alla, a conjunction that expresses strong contrast.
[9] Josephus, Ant., 20, 200
God Bless
Till all are one.
Upvote
0