withallyourmind.net

Today, I conclude this series on the relationship of the believer and the Law of Moses.

Previously, I have stressed the discontinuity between the Law of Moses and the Law of Christ. It is instructive, however, to note that there is continuity between them. Many commandments found in the Mosaic Law are taken up and included in the Law of Christ. This might be expected since God’s holiness and righteousness do not change. God’s moral character would be manifest in all formulations of His law. It is therefore not surprising that God’s moral commands found within the Law of Moses are repeated for the New Testament believer.

It is also not surprising that love is at the center of both formulations. As Jesus summarized the Mosaic Law with the love of God and the love of one’s neighbor, so Paul encouraged Christians to “bear one another’s burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ.” While there is some disagreement over whether there are specific commandments within the Law of Christ, the emphasis is clearly on the direction and enablement of the Holy Spirit. It is the Spirit who produces fruit in the believer’s life.

In conclusion, we have seen that the Law, although good and holy, does not serve as a direct source of guidance for the conduct of the Christian. New Testament believers are not under its condemning force. This does not mean that the Law is of no use to the Christian. In fact, Douglas Moo provides three ways in which the Law is profitable.

First, although the Law it itself is not binding on the Christian, individual commandments within that Law might be if they are “reapplied” by the New Testament writers. For example, the Law of Christ subsumes nine of the Ten Commandments (excluding the Sabbath), making us responsible for those nine. The Christian, however, is bound only to that part of the Mosaic Law which is explicitly taken up by and incorporated into the Law of Christ - only that which is repeated in New Testament teaching. (This is counter to those who might hold that we are bound to obey whatever parts of the Mosaic Law which are not explicitly denounced in the Law of Christ.)

Second, the Mosaic Law “fills out” or explains certain basic concepts found in both Testaments (Moo uses an example concerning laws of personal injury in the Old Covenant). Principles might be found therein that are profitable for the believer in this time after Christ has come. Baylis states that “Paul is not opposed to using the Law for instruction. It was from his pen that 2 Timothy 3:16-17 flowed, affirming that all Scripture… is to be used for teaching.” The Mosaic Law was certainly not a means of attaining justification, but did serve as an insight into God’s view of life.

Finally, the Law serves as a “prophetic witness” to the fulfillment of God’s plan in Christ. As such, it is beneficial to the believer.

(Recommended Reading: Five Views on Law and Gospel, from which many quotes in this series was taken.)

Christian Audio offers a free audiobook each month. This month’s featured book Pilgrim’s Progress (10.5 hrs). The checkout code is JUN2008.

HT: Justin Taylor

In this post, I continue to look at the relationship betwen the believer and the Mosaic Law.

Paul, in Galatians 3-4, argues that the believer is no longer “under the law.” In this context, Paul notes that the Law occupied a particular position in God’s salvation history – it was for the nation of Israel before the coming of Christ. At that time, they were subject to the Mosaic Law. However, God’s promise of salvation was given prior to the Law (to Abraham) and continues after the law has reached fulfillment. The New Testament believer is no longer directly under the power and authority of the Law. For Christ has abolished…

… in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations.

Jesus has…

… canceled the written code, with its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us.

Other New Testament writers also confirm these conclusions. John’s Gospel clearly presents the discontinuity between the Law and the Gospel throughout. John 1:17 states:

For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.

The author of Hebrews maintains that the Law was “only a shadow of the good things that are coming” and incapable of perfecting those who are under it. He contrasts the Old Covenant with the New Covenant and holds that the Old is faulty and obsolete. Christ’s fulfillment of the Mosaic Law abolishes it as a binding rule of conduct for the believer.

This does not necessarily lead to an antinomian approach to the Gospel. As I have already suggested, the Christian is bound to a law, not the Mosaic Law, but the Law of Christ. We are still obliged to obey God’s law. The eternal law of God is found in both the Mosaic Law (which also contained commandments temporally limited to a particular circumstance) as well as in the Law of Christ. In 1 Corinthians 9:21, Paul said of himself that he was not…

… outside the law of God but under the law of Christ.

Since the Mosaic Law was a special formulation of God’s will for a specific people for a specific time in a specific place, one should not reasonably expect that it is still in force for the Church. The believer is now subject to God’s will in another form - the Law of Christ. This Law of Christ is not a code or series of commandments and prohibitions, but is composed of the teachings of Christ and the apostles and the directing influence of the Holy Spirit. When New Testament writers encourage believers to follow God’s commands, they are not referring to the Law of Moses, but rather to those commands found in the Law of Christ. There has been a shift in the salvation history of the world in which the Mosaic Covenant no longer occupies center position.

Next, I conclude.

Now that the purpose of the Law has been addressed in previous posts, let me now turn to the question at hand, “What is the relationship of the Law to the New Testament believer?”

Briefly, the New Testament teaches that the entire Mosaic Law has found fulfillment in Jesus Christ and has been replaced by a new law, the “Law of Christ.” Jesus stated in Matthew 5:17, “I have come… to fulfill [the Law and the Prophets].” The entire Old Testament, including the Law, anticipated the coming of Christ. Christ accomplished that to which the Law looked forward.

I might insert here that although the believer is no longer under obligation to the Mosaic Law, this does not mean that he is without law. Instead, the Law has been replaced with the “Law of Christ.” A.T. Lincoln argues that Matthew saw that:

… the whole law pointed forward to Jesus’ teaching and ministry, ultimately culminating in His death and Resurrection, and lives on only in so far as it has been transformed through its fulfillment by Jesus.

Paul, like Matthew, claimed that “Christ is the end of the law.” The Mosaic Law anticipated Christ, and now that Christ has come the law has reached its culmination, finding its goal and completion in Him. This “Law of Christ” to which Christians are bound does not consist in the principles of the Mosaic Law, but consists in those principles exemplified and taught by Jesus Christ. The Law of Christ is centered on love and motivated by the Spirit. Romans 8:2-4 shows that the time of the Law of Moses has ended, and the believer is no longer subject to it as a rule of life:

For the law of the Spirit of life has set you free in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and death. For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.

Next, more on the relationship of the believer and the Law.

Before turning to the actual relationship of the Christian to the Mosaic Law, I would like to take one last look at the purpose of the Law in this, the fifth post in this series.

We have already seen that the first, and most straightforward, purpose of the Law was to serve as a constitution for the nation of Israel. A second purpose of the Law, clearly stated in Scripture, is the revelation of sin, particularly to the nation of Israel (but by extrapolation to all people). Paul stated:

The law was added so that the trespass might increase [and] … through the law comes knowledge of sin.

Not only was sin given definition by the Law, but men realized that they were sinful and incapable of obeying the Law, thus being imprisoned under sin. Galatians 3:22 states:

The Scripture declares that the whole world is a prisoner of sin.

Douglas Moo comments:

The law is like an unfulfilled and unfulfillable “IOU” standing against sinful human beings.

A. T. Lincoln agrees that the purpose of the Law was…

… to make sin and transgression evident.

One must continue to bear in mind that these purposes of the Law should be confined to the people and time to which it was given, the nation of Israel before Christ. D. R. De Lacy summarizes:

The law presents us with the ethical standards of the holy God. As such, its goodness is unquestionable, but its effect is simply to demonstrate the existence of our sin, to condemn us as a result, and also to provoke our sin. Because of the weakness of the flesh, it can have no other effect on us when we read its righteous demands.

Next, how does the believer relate to the Law?

So, what is Tony Blair up to since leaving his position as Prime Minister of Great Britain? A recent article in Time, Tony Blair’s Leap of Faith, provides some details. It appears he has dedicated the rest of his life to promoting the importance of religious belief in society and encouraging those of different faiths to work together to achieve common goals. The article explains:

“Faith is part of our future,” Blair says, “and faith and the values it brings with it are an essential part of making globalization work.” For Blair, the goal is to rescue faith from the twin challenges of irrelevance—the idea that religion is no more than an interesting aspect of history—and extremism. Blair and those working with him think religion is key to the global agenda. “You can’t hope to understand what’s happening in the world if you don’t know that religion is a very important force in people’s lives,” says Ruth Turner, 37, formerly a top aide to Blair in 10 Downing Street, who will head the foundation. “You can’t make the world work properly unless you understand that, while not everyone will believe in God or have a spiritual life, a lot of people will.” Blair, she says, has been thinking about these issues “for decades and decades and decades.” Over time, says Blair of the foundation’s work, “this is how I want to spend the rest of my life.”

Michael Elliott’s article treats Blair’s Christian faith with respect and reveals just how deep his commitment to that faith is. (Blair converted to Catholicism from Anglicanism seveal months ago.) He has recently launched the Tony Blair Faith Foundation in order:

… to promote respect and understanding between the major religions;
… to make the case for faith as a force for good;
… and to encourage inter-faith initiatives to tackle global poverty and conflict.

In his speech given to launch the foundation he explained that his efforts will extend to the six leading faiths (Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Sikh and Jewish) to, among other things, mobilize against such world problems as Malaria.

Time goes on in explaining Blair’s faith, which he rediscovered as Oxford as a student in the 1970’s:

Blair is deeply religious—the most openly devout political leader of Britain since William Ewart Gladstone more than 100 years ago. He handles questions about religion deftly. He doesn’t back down. His longtime press secretary and consigliere, Alastair Campbell, remembers Blair in 1996 at a school in Scotland where a gunman had killed 16 children and a teacher. In a bloodstained classroom, Campbell asked Blair, “What does your God make of this?” Blair, says Campbell, stopped and replied, “Just because man is bad, it does not mean that God is not good.” There was, says Campbell, a force, a sense of conviction in Blair.

There is much good in the article, and I’ll close with one last quote about Blair:

He is convinced, he told me, that in the rich world, “without spiritual values, there is an emptiness that cannot be filled by material goods and wealth.” He understands that faith is what gives meaning to the lives of billions, and he passionately believes that the world would be a better place if people of faith harnessed their talents together in aid of the common good.

Mary Eberstadt, at National Review, has just produced her third installment in a series of “Loser Letters” in which she assumes the position of a former Christian (”Dulls”) who has recently converted to atheism (”Brights”). In these correspondences, she offers advice to the leading athiests on how to better promote the athiest cause. As a new “convert” to atheism, she is in prime position to do so.

They are all done in a tongue-in-cheek manner, actually offering a defense of Christian theism. The letters, from A. F. Christian, are addressed thusly:

An open letter to those spokesmen for the New Atheism who have labored mightily these last few years to sweep aside religion’s paralytic webs of superstition and prejudice, and to liberate the rest of our Species via Science and Enlightenment:

Here are the links to the present letters (I suspect more are coming): Letter I, Some Little Contradictions and How They Grew, and The Trouble with Good Works.

Here’s a taste from letter three, in which she advocates pointing out the evils committed by religious people, but strongly advocates against promoting atheism as capable of producing good:

The trick to end-running it is clear enough: Just keep focused at all times on the evils committed in religion’s name. Never mind how long ago they were! Try not to let the Dulls point out that you are comparing religious apples (i.e. what institutionalized religion did in Europe 600 years ago) with atheist oranges (i.e. what institutionalized atheism did in Europe 60 years ago). Mercifully, as it were, many of them are just ignorant enough of history not to call our bluffs on rhetorical saves like that.

Addendum (6/7/08): Here is the fourth letter, The Trouble with Dull Art.