withallyourmind.net

In my last post in this series, I made two main points:

1. The primary purpose of the Law was to serve as a constitution to the newly formed nation of Israel.
2. The Law must be viewed as a unified whole. There is no scriptural basis for breaking it down into civil, ceremonial, and moral divisions.

Let me first say a little more concerning point #2 above. According to Douglas Moo:

Jews in Jesus’ and Paul’s day certainly did not divide up the law into categories; on the contrary, there was a strong insistence that the law was a unity and could not be obeyed in parts.

Those who attempt such a division usually argue that it is the moral part of the law which Christians remain under obligation to obey. Paul disagrees that one can choose which parts of the law one wishes to obey, arguing in Galatians 5:3 that “I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law.” James, likewise, asserts that “whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it” (James 2:10). A. T. Lincoln argues:

In all of his discussion and terminology Paul treats the Law of Moses as a total package and makes no distinction between moral and ceremonial elements within it.

A second, related, point should also be considered at this time. What is the relationship of the Ten Commandments to the New Testament believer? Are Christians obligated to follow them? Are they the basis of the believer’s morality? It has been my experience that the average person on the street thinks that they do serve this purpose. It is also true that many Christians view them in this manner. However, once again, this view is without strong scriptural support. The Ten Commandments should be viewed within the context of the giving of a constitution for the nation of Israel. They were not given to the church.

In fact, they do not all deal with moral issues, specifically this is the case for the commandment concerning Sabbath-keeping. There is no reason to believe that the moral commandments contained within the Law are eternally binding in their original form. This should not be misunderstood as saying that we are free from God’s moral law. It is simply to say that the Ten Commandments were given to a specific people at a specific time for a specific purpose. Since God’s moral character does not change, one should expect, and indeed does find, the moral principles contained in the Decalogue reiterated by Christ in the New Testament.

Next, I turn to a second purpose of the Law.

John Mark Reynolds has a recent post called, On the Middle Ages: Building for Future Greatness. In it he exposes what he calls the secular myth of the Medieval, which he defines as:

As Christianity spread, culture and civilization declined from the secular glories of Greece and Rome to a dark age dominated by priestcraft and superstition. This is the story that secularists tell themselves, but it is false.

Reynolds argues that Christianity did not bring about the “dark” ages, but instead was responsible for restoring civilization in the West. Others (including non-Christian apologists) agree. I have listened to a number of lectures from The Teaching Company relating to the Middle Ages, which universally have agreed with Reynold’s assessment. These include the Early Middle Ages, the High Middle Ages, and the Late Middle Ages, taught by Philip Daileader (all excellent courses which I would highly recomment to anyone interested in Medievel history).

Reynolds summarizes by stating:

Because Christianity was somewhat dominant in the Middle Ages, our ranks contained the greatest sinners, hypocrites, but also saints, philosophers, and just rulers. When Islam, by God’s great severe mercy, sent the riches of Eastern Christendom to the West, the Western church was ready to receive them. The combination produced much that is good in this world today. Culturally, the notion that Christianity has only harmed the world is, therefore, absurd.

The Gallup’s 2008 Values and Beliefs survey has recently ranked the attitudes of modern Americans on the moral acceptability of 16 ethical issues. The most morally acceptable issue: Divorce, with 70% of those interviewed saying that it is morally acceptable. This represents an all-time high.

Before I comment on this number, let me note that this lofty (or lowly) ranking for divorce in terms of moral acceptability might not be entirely accurate. Divorce is not quite so cut and dried for evangelicals in that the Bible does provide moral grounds for divorce in certain situations. So, many evangelicals might feel that divorce is always a bad, unfortunate occurrence, but might not be immoral in itself. This would not be the case for other ethical issues evaluated (such as premarital sex). So, the number of evangelicals who think divorce is morally acceptable in this survey may be inflated. By the way, 55% of respondents for whom religion was very important felt divorce was morally acceptable (65% of Protestants and 75% of Roman Catholics).

Nonetheless, evangelicals have been often quick to point out the immorality of homosexual behavior and pre-marital sexual relations, but perhaps have failed to effectively assert the immorality of divorce. Certainly, the high number of divorces in contemporary American has created all sorts of private and public ills.

Perhaps, that 70% view divorce as morally acceptable is directly related to the fact that 91% view extramarital affairs as immoral. In fact, the New Testament indicatea that adultery is a morally acceptable ground for divorce.

The most concerning information to come from this survey is the trend in those who find divorce is morally acceptable. Since 2001, that number has gradually increased from 59% to the now record high of 70%. Those for whom religion is very important the increase has been from 47% to 55%; for Protestants 53-65%; for Roman Catholics 60-75%. This trend cannot be easily explained away by the fact that some of these feel there are morally acceptable bibical grounds for divorce.

So, while Christians must care for and support those who are injured by divorce (perhaps, the children most of all), we must do a better job of explaining the moral unacceptability of divorce.

Al Mohler argues rightly, here, that this is a question which science is not capable of answering. This discussion was prompted by an article in The New Scientist by Christine Kenneally in which she states:

THERE was a time when we thought humans were special in so many ways. Now we know better. We are not the only species that feels emotions, empathises with others or abides by a moral code. Neither are we the only ones with personalities, cultures and the ability to design and use tools. Yet we have steadfastly clung to the notion that one attribute, at least, makes us unique: we alone have the capacity for language… Alas, it turns out we are not so special in this respect either.

Science continues to “tell us” that humans are not essentially any different than any other animal in the world. We are not unique or special in any substantive sense. The question that needs to be asked is, “Is science capable of answering such a question?” The only answer that could possible come from modern naturalistic science is, “No!” Mohler states:

The methodological worldview of secular science is naturalistic materialism. Evolution stands at the center of that worldview and evolution can sustain no argument for a categorical distinction between humans and other animals. What quickly becomes clear is the fact that functional definitions of human uniqueness cannot sustain a claim of human dignity.

There is certainly something common-sensical about the assertion that humans are in some significant way unique from other animals. The affirmation of this intuitive sense of human uniqueness is accounted for by the biblical perspective that man is made uniquely in the image of God. From a naturalistic perspective, there is no accounting for such uniqueness. In fact, there is a denial of any ultimate distinction between man and “lower” animals. As Mohler states:

The Christian worldview offers the only sustainable foundation for human dignity. The Christian truth claim, grounded in the Bible, claims that human dignity is ontological (based merely in the human being’s existence) rather than functional. According to this worldview, every single human being is equally created in the image of God. The other creatures are wondrous and each reveals the glory of God in its own way, but no other creature is created in the image of God. To be human is to be a bearer of God’s image. Thus, every single human being possesses full human dignity.

The concept of human rights emerged from the Christian worldview. Any attempt to ground human rights in a secular concept of human uniqueness is, as we have seen, doomed to failure or fatal weakness. Current debates about animal rights and even plant rights are symptoms of a dangerous intellectual disease. The denial of basic human rights to some human beings is tragic evidence that the disease is spreading.

J. P. Moreland has recently posted on Human Persons and the Self in which he briefly presents evidence for the existence of a unified, simple self. He then argues that naturalism cannot account for such a self and that the self is better accounted for by the Christian teaching that we are made in the image of God. I find his arguments compelling that…

… the self is a simple, indivisible, unified I that remains the same through change, for example, as the body changes or as memories, personality, conscious experiences come and go and become different.

In my last post, I discussed how theoretically one could be saved by complete obedience to the Law, yet this was never the purpose for which God intended the Law. Today, I turn to the purpose of the Law.

What then is the purpose of the Mosaic Law? As previously noted, the most straightforward and basic purpose of the Law was to provide a constitution for the newly formed nation of Israel. Baylis notes that “expecting to find only spiritual things” in the Law leads confusion. Not only does the Law contain moral commandments, but also such things as building codes and public health laws.

This is not to say that there are not more spiritual purposes for God’s giving of the Law. For examlple, the Law serves to reveal God’s character. Leviticus 11:45 states, “I am the Lord who brought you up out of Egypt to be your God; therefore be holy, because I am holy.” Not only does the Law reveal God’s character, but also reveals an obligation to conform to that character.

At this point, it might be helpful to consider an oft-heard, but little supported, claim that the Mosaic Law can be divided into three distinct categories: moral, ceremonial, and civil. Willem A. VanGemeren argues for such a position while defending a non-theonomic reformed view of the relationship of Law and Gospel. This division is quite important if one is to argue that the Mosaic Law is still binding for the New Testament believer, as some scholars do. In doing so, it is possible to argue that only the moral, or moral and civil , law is currently authoritative for the Christian. This equivocation on the meaning of law in different contexts, however, is difficult to justify. This tripartite division is nowhere explicitly taught in Scripture. This is not to say that certain laws cannot be classified as pertaining to ceremony, civil activity, or moral behavior. However, the biblical writers uniformly treat the Law as a unified whole.

Next, more on the pupose of the Mosaic Law.

In my last post, I began an examination of the relationship of the Christian and the Mosaic Law. I finished, yesterday, with an emphasis on the discontinuity between the Law and the believer. Christ’s work has changed the way a New Testament believer approaches the Law.

Is the Law, then, to be regarded with disdain and seen as a vile thing? No, not at all. There is no doubting that the Law is good. The important question is, Good for what? The Law’s worth must be judged with regard to its purpose. It is clear that the Law was never intended to be, nor could it be, a means by which one might obtain salvation.

Douglas Moo calls the Law a hypothetical covenant of works. By this he means that, in theory, it would be possible to obtain salvation if one were to keep all the commandments of the law. Leviticus 18:5 states, “Keep my decrees and laws, for the man who obeys them will live by them.” However, in practice, this is impossible, and the Law was never intended for this purpose by God. Sinful humanity could never achieve such perfection.

So, am I asserting a contradiction? The dual assertions that God did not give the law to bring about the salvation of His people and that one can be saved by full obedience to the law are not contradictory. The Law is not a legalistic document and does not advocate a method of salvation other than faith. God, knowing the inability of man to keep the law, did not give the law for that purpose. Acts 13:39 states that…

… by him [Christ] everyone who believes is freed from everything from which you could not be freed by the law of Moses.

Galatians states…

… if a law had been given that could impart life, then righteousness would certainly have come by the law… (and) if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing.

In the Old Testament, as well as in the New, the only means to obtain righteousness was by faith in God. In Romans 4, Paul supports this principle by arguing that the promise of righteousness was given even before the Law was given. Therefore righteousness does not depend on keeping the Law but on grace through faith in the promises of God. God’s means of salvation has always been the same – faith in Him.

Next, the purpose of the Law.

This is the first in a short series of posts examining the relationship between a New Testament believer and the Old Testament Law. There exists a great deal of confusion on this very important topic.

Christians disagree about the place of the Mosaic law in the life of the believer because the New Testament itself contains statements that appear to support opposite conclusions.

With this statement, Douglas Moo presents the issue every Christian believer faces in regard to the Law: What role does the Old Testament law play in the life of a believer? Is the law good? Paul apparently thought so, for in Romans 7:12 he proclaimed that “the law is holy,” and in Romans 3:31 he stated that “we uphold the law.” On the other hand, Paul argued that “Christ is the end of the law” (Romans 10:4), and that the believer is “not under the law” (Romans 6:14).

How are such conflicting statements to be reconciled? In the next few posts, I will attempt to provide a reasonable, scripture-based answer to this question.

First of all, one must address two important questions: What is the Mosaic Law (hereafter, at times, simply “Law”)? And what is its purpose? Albert H. Baylis identifies the Law as the constitution and national legislation of the nation of Israel. This was not just a man-made constitution, but a constitution given by God and therefore “holy, righteous and good” (Romans 7:12).

It is important to realize that the Law was given to a specific group of people within a specific geographical and chronological context. Any proper application of the Law to the New Testament believer must take this into account. There is no reason to think that the Law serves as a constitution for the Church or is binding in any other way on the Church unless explicitly stated to be so in Scripture.

Additionally, one must recognize that a marked change takes place at the cross of Christ. Clearly, the law does not hold the same status for the Christian as it did for a member of the nation of Israel under the Old Covenant. Indeed, there is a discontinuity between the time before and the time after Christ at the core of the Scriptures. This discontinuity between Law and Gospel which takes place through the life and ministry of Christ means that Christians are no longer “under law but under grace.”

A. T. Lincoln states that one can resolve the apparently conflicting statements of the New Testament writings of Paul regarding the Law by placing them in the context of Paul’s view of…

… God’s ongoing action in history for the salvation of men and women. He [Paul] circumscribes the validity of the law within this framework…

Romans 7:6 states:

We are released from the law, having died to that which held us captive, so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit and not in the old way of the written code.

The coming of Christ changed the way that the believer relates to the Law - there is a definite discontinuity present. Nonetheless, this discontinuity does not entail that there is no continuity between the Law and the Gospel.

In my next post, I’ll continue these introductory remarks.

War creates no absolutely new situation: it simply aggravates the permanent human situation so that we can no longer ignore it. Human life has always been lived on the edge of a precipice. Human culture has always had to exist under the shadow of something infinitely more important than itself. If men had postponed the search for knowledge and beauty until they were secure, the search would never have begun. We are mistaken when we compare war with “normal life.” Life has never been normal…

What does war do to death? It certainly does not make it more frequent: 100 percent of us die, and the percentage cannot be increased… Does it increase our chances of painful death? I doubt it… Does it decrease our chances of dying at peace with God? I cannot believe it. If active service does not persuade a man to prepare for death, what conceivable concatenation of circumstances would?

- C. S. Lewis, The Weight of Glory, “Learning in War Time” (1939) pp. 21-22, 31

I have just started reading Craig Evans’ book Fabricating Jesus: How Modern Scholars Distort the Gospels. In the first chapter, he takes a look at four scholars who, having once been Christian, became skeptical of the claims of Christianity and lost their faith: Robert Price, James Robinson, Robert Funk, and Bart Ehrman. I think Evans is right on in his assessment that much of the “blame” in their departure from authentic Christianity can be placed on a “brittle fundamentalism,” that is, an unrealistic, unwarranted, and unnecessary view of scripture. Many of the Christians I know still reside in such a state. Their faith is fine as long as they remain coccooned from scholarship and hide themselves in ignorant bliss. However, when exposed to modern criticism, their “brittle” faith crumbles. Here are the words of Evans regarding Ehrman’s fall from faith:

And so everything began to unravel for Ehrman. But observe the line of reasoning; it is so typical of brittle fundamentalism. I have heard fundamentalists say, “Show me one mistake in the Bible and I will throw out the whole thing.” I suspect Ehrman heard that more than once in his Moody Bible Institute days. His reasoning today, even as a professing agnostic, still has a fundamentalist ring to it…

Ehrman’s struggle with faith - and I feel for him - grows out of mistaken expectations of the nature and function of Scripture, mistaken expectations that he was taught as a young, impressionable fundamentalist Christian.

I have seen too many young people turn their backs on their faith because they’ve been presented an innacurate picture of true Christianity and what is entailed by that. It truly is sad and should compel us to lay aside “brittle fundamentalism”, replacing it with “solid” Christianity.