« The Myth of Secular Neutrality: Unbiased Bioethics? Part 2: The Secular Assault |
Main
| Interview With A Marijuana User »
What Is The Law For In The Life Of The Christian?
There once was a glorious salvation
Offered freely to each tongue, tribe and nation
By grace we are saved; not because we behaved....
But some issues still cause conflagration.
As I mentioned in my introduction, one of my great challenges in Christian thinking has been to understand the proper relationship between law and grace. Like the issue of the proper sphere of government, this topic often disappears into my subconscious, and I don't think about it for a while...then, I read or hear something and it pops back to the surface. This happened earlier this week when I was browsing at Annie's impressive blog and came across a link to a discussion about the OT mandate to stone a stubborn and rebellious son (Deuteronomy 21:18-21). The conversation began with quotes from a sermon preached by a well-known pastor, and the comments were almost unanimously horrified that this would be considered a proper topic for a Christian sermon because hearkening to this passage seemed to 1) bypass God's grace and 2) give abusive parents a justification for their abuse.
As I was pondering this, I found myself once again wondering exactly what the Law of God is for in the life of a Christian, and I remembered hearing about a theological idea called the threefold use of the law. In the words of John Calvin, "The use of the Moral Law is threefold. The first use shows our weakness, unrighteousness, and condemnation; not that we may despair, but that we may flee to Christ. The second is, that those who are not moved by promises, may be urged by the terror of threatenings. The third is, that we may know what is the will of God; that we may consider it in order to obedience; that our minds may be strengthened for that purpose; and that we may be kept from falling."
While I think it is very uncommon for anyone to think that we are today bound to the exact sanctions of breaking God's law (which seemed to be part of the problem in the thoughts on the disobedient son), this quote from the Reformer indicates that God's law is there so we can know His mind on what is good and right (what we should pursue) and what is bad and wrong (what we should avoid), and that being in Christ in no way means that we are not bound by the moral law of God, but simply that we are not condemned by it because of Christ's death and life, and our appropriation of those benefits, by faith.
But what does that have to do with our passage in Deuteronomy, and others like this one:
"If any man takes a wife, and goes in to her, and detests her, and charges her with shameful conduct, and brings a bad name on her, and says, 'I took this woman, and when I came to her I found she was not a virgin...if the thing is true, and evidences of virginity are not found for the young woman, then they shall bring out the young woman to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her to death with stones, because she has done a disgraceful thing in Israel, to play the harlot in her father's house. So you shall put away the evil from among you.
Are we supposed to *only* see the rebellious son and the fornicating daughter as a picture of sinful people in general, with the penalties as pictures of God's general wrath against sin, and make the application only gratitude that through Christ, we are saved from those penalties? Or are we to *also* see in these passages the utter seriousness with which God looks upon children who do not respect and obey their parents, young women who do not remain chaste, and parents who do not take seriously their role as protectors of their children's virtue? Is it sidestepping the reality of God's grace to use such passages to help us both act and react in ways that are pleasing to the Lord, even though our good works and right living have nothing at all to do with our salvation?
On a tape, I once heard someone ask R.C. Sproul if he thought that Christians were obligated to work towards a Christian Theocratic State. He said no, but was quick to clarify and say that we need to be careful that we don't start thinking that it would be inherently *wrong* to criminalize, for example, adultery, because we would then be saying that we are somehow more gracious and compassionate than God, and that His idea of morality was overly strict and harsh. Sometimes I wonder if, in our very real concern to show forth God's grace and avoid any semblance of teaching salvation by works, we have, on a personal rather than legal level, actually begun to fall into what RC Sproul warned against.
I'll look forward to your thoughts on this, as I am not at all convinced that I understand this subject beyond the most shallow level, which is probably why it continues to be a struggle for me.
J. Budziszewski, in The Problem With Conservatism:
moralism: ". . . the important distinction is not between religion and secularism, but between faiths that do and faiths that do not demand the civil enforcement of all their moral precepts . . . To the question "Should the civil law enforce the precepts of the faith?" the biblical answer is, "Some yes, but some no; which ones do you mean?" . . . Christianity is not a legislative religion. While the Bible recognizes the Torah as a divinely revealed code for the ruling of Israel before the coming of Messiah, it does not include a divinely revealed code for the ruling of the gentiles afterward. To be sure, the Bible limits the kinds of laws that Christians can accept from their governments, for "we must obey God rather than men" (Acts 5:29). However, it does not prescribe specific laws that they must demand from them. " . . . It is not even true that all of God's commands limit the kinds of laws that Christians can accept. To see this, contrast two such precepts: (1) I am prohibited from deliberately shedding innocent blood; (2) I am prohibited from divorcing a faithful spouse. Both precepts are absolute in their application to me, but that is not the issue. If we are speaking of governmental enforcement, then we are speaking of their application to others. The former precept should require very little watering down in the public square, for even nonbelievers are expected to understand the wrong of murder . . . But the latter precept requires a good deal of watering down in the public square, for before the coming of Christ not even believers were expected to understand the true nature of marriage . . . No doubt the Pharisees to whom He was speaking were scandalized by the idea that their civil law did not reflect God's standards fully. They must have been even more offended by the suggestion that it was not intended to. Among religious conservatives this suggestion is still a scandal, but it does not come from liberals; it comes from the Master . . . Christians, then, may certainly commend a law as good or condemn it as evil. They may declare it consistent or inconsistent with the faith. But not even a good law may be simply identified with the faith; Christians must not speak of a tax code, marriage ordinance, or welfare policy as Christian no matter how much, or even how rightly, they desire its enactment or preservation. That predicate has been preempted by the law of God. The civil law will be Christian-if it still exists at all- only when Christ himself has returned to rule: not when a coalition of religious conservatives has got itself elected."
I think Christians place themselves in a bad place when it is percieved that we wish to legislate our morality - especially since the point of the New Covenant was that it was proven under the Old Covenant that the law could not make people righteous. CS Lewis:
. . . the other is the quite different question-how far Christians, if they are voters or Members of Parliament, ought to try to force their views . . . on the rest of the community by embodying them in . . . law . . . the Churches should frankly recognise that the majority of the British people are not Christians and, therefore, cannot be expected to live Christian lives. " -- Mere Christianity
This is really a difficult topic. Clavin's explanation of the threefold use is really interesting and helpful, I think.
I also think that the law shows us what kind of behaviour God likes and dislikes. So it can show us at least "overall principles" to live by, so that our lives are pleasing to God.
But I do not think that we are required to follow the law the way Israel was. In Acts we read of believing Jews who thought that the Gentiles needed to be circumsized and to follow the law of Moses. The council in Jerusalem decided after hearing them and Paul and Barnabas to write a letter to the Gentiles from which is the following excerpt:
Acts 15, 28 f.:
It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements: 29You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things.
In addition I do not think we have to follow the dietary rules because Jesus once said that it does not make us unclean what goes into us. Thereby, at least according to my study bible, He declared all food clean.
Looking forward to more comments and discussion!
The Old Testament is very much about holiness: teaching the Jewish nation what God is like, what standards of behaviour constitute right behaviour. But Jewish writing often used strong exaggeration to make a point.
Jesus, in his arguments with the Pharisees, explained that legalism is not what God wants. We are first to love God, and then to love our neighbours as ourselves. We don't stone ourselves, instead we do what we can to justify our own sin... so surely we can offer at least that much to others. Some of the OT laws were generalisations: keep one day a week special, to concentrate on God and to stop doing ordinary work. I don't personally think God ever intended the hundreds of minute details that people invented to spell out what was meant by work - or the ways they got around them. Jesus made that one clear, too: the Sabbath is made for us, for our benefit, not to become a hotch-potch of legalism.
When Jesus was asked about the women caught in adultery, he made his point very clearly - she was indeed a sinner, but so are we all. Love is far more powerful than punishment. Forgiveness must be offered 490 times and more, every day.
I would rather err on the side of mercy all the time rather than the side of judgement. God is the final judge, not man.
Just my thoughts: The law is God's picture or image of Life, Truth and Righteousness. As an image it is there to represent these things--apart from Christ they are mere reflections and images. I have discussed the laws requiring stoning and some of the stories of very harsh penalties (such as Achan's sin) with my children. I explained to them that God, through the law is trying to demonstrate the Realities of Life and Death. The 10 Commandments all reflect the Law of Love summed up in "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind....and your neighbor as yourself." Following these leads to Life.. Violating any of the Law will lead to death---but some more quickly than others. Murder is the obvious one. But sins related to the breakdown and destruction of the family will also quickly destroy a society living on the edge of survival as Israel was. Achan's sin, violating direct commands from God, cost the lives of people in his society and if not made an object lesson, this precedent could have led to the destruction of the whole of Israel.
My point is that the harsher the penalty the more it was demonstrated how serious, how deadly to not just the person, but to the society, those sins were. Again, all sin leads to death, but some have more immediate and wide-spread consequences to the society at large. These are the sins that have the harshest penalties in the O.T.
With Christ came the fulfillment of the Law. The Law of Love is now written on our hearts.
How or whether God's laws should be enacted in a secular government is whole other issue. It's my understanding that the founding father's believed laws should be based on Natural Law--but not necessarily as expressed in the revealed law of the O.T.
Hot topic Sammantha! And one that every Christian needs to seriously wrestle with. We need to take seriously that Jesus was most strongly against the religious legalists of his day and then also look at his life and the moral purity and love that he lived. He came to complete and fulfill the law and establish his new kingdom of redeemed people. We need to look first to Chirst to interpret the Law for us.
In the post Sammanth refrenced to, my greatest concern was a sermon teaching the law so strongly WITHOUT teaching grace in the same sermon. As ministers of the cross, gospel and grace, a pastor ought to teach these things with every sermon. As Paul said, I am resolved to alone preach christ and Him crucified. (1 Cor. 2:2)
Sammantha - I agree with you that the law is also to show the grave seriousness of immorality such as adultery or rebellion. Though I will not stone my child, I will tell her of the stories and urge her to understand its seriousness and destruction.
I deal with the topic more in two posts, "Law and Truth" as well as "Stench of Legalism". Both are on the right side bar, if any one is interested. I look foreward to hearing more here in the comments.
Essentially, as I face my day and think about how I train my children, I think of a few central verses. Paul says that all things are lawful but not all things are edifying. He also says that the law was a tutor to lead to Christ. Finally, he lists the fruit of the spirit and says against these there is no law.
As I raise my children, we will have "laws" so that they might learn God's standards, their own sin, be led to Christ, as well as be saved from destructive actions. As they mature and know Christ, I will teach them of the grace and freedom we have, and that we are called to focus not on do's and don'ts but upon having the fruit of the spirit in our lives, in every way. If I am truly walking in love self-control, patience, humility, peace, gentleness . . . against these there is no law and my children will do well.
I need some free salvation for my tongue, where can I obtain it. I kissed a less than clean girl, will god forgive me?
Thanks for all these comments...please don't misunderstand me, I think we are *always* to extend grace to people (even excommunication has as it's end reconciliation).
My concern is not that we should be more "harsh" personally towards sinners at all but whether (as it seemed in the reaction to the sermon I cited) we are somehow desensitized to the grave seriousness of sin in God's eyes, or perhaps somewhat guilty of falling into the frequently-heard-today idea that the OT God was a God of wrath and judgment, but the NT God is a God of love and forgiveness.
Since I was not critiquing that sermon in particular, but rather just using it as a springboard, I had not looked at the whole transcript. It seems that, yes, in that particular sermon, the entire focus is on the judgment of God and that it is not mixed at all with the wonderful reality of salvation by grace, and forgiveness when we sin as Christians. That is not good at all.
Samantha, I read your post last night and skimmed the comments this morning (I intend to read them more fully later) but I just wanted to say that you touched on something that disturbs me, too--it's this idea of divorcing God from himself. Either making it look like He changed (which is unscriptural since he's always the same and transcends time) or that the trinity is like "good cop-bad cop" where the Father plays the strict role and Jesus plays the nice guy. As I read on a blog somewhere recently, the seeming contradictions in God's character are just that--"seeming"--not actual. God is a paradox to our finite minds, but in reality, his seemingly contradictory characteristics are in perfect harmony. We just can't get our brains around it, but there are ways to accept and understand it in part, if not fully.
The threefold use of the law (as you cite it from Calvin) is very helpful, but there is also the issue of the different types of law: Moral Law, Ceremonial Law, and Civil Law.
In the Pentateuch, all three types of law come to bear -- Moral law are the timeless principles of right and wrong -- the Ceremonial law were the laws for reinstating cleanliness before God (much of leviticus), and the civil law deals with the societal punishments and governmental regulations (kingship, certain punishments, etc).
The ceremonial law was but a shadowy type of Christ (as the book of hebrews teaches). The civil law was but an institution for a certain period so we could get a sense of God's holiness and his wrath against sin (and so we could have the antetype of the kingship - which anticipates Christ)
But the moral law still stands eternal. The trick is in discerning from any given passage what the moral law is and what teh civil/ceremonial law is. And that is the sticky wicket.
Russell
Marla - Paradox is one of my favorite words. Good points.
Great post Samantha! I'd like to say, regarding "legistlating morality" that we are always legislating someone's morality. I need to go back and read the context of Lewis (I'm not at home and can't), so hopefully I'm not too strong:
. . the other is the quite different question-how far Christians, if they are voters or Members of Parliament, ought to try to force their views . . . on the rest of the community by embodying them in . . . law . . . the Churches should frankly recognise that the majority of the British people are not Christians and, therefore, cannot be expected to live Christian lives. "
Legislating for the common good means drawing upon God's principles because there is nothing better. This doesn't necessarily mean arguing by scripture and verse in the public square, but it certainly means that we recognize that the only alternative is what autonomous man brings with him to the table.
I really enjoy reading everyone's comments!
Sarah said,
"Legislating for the common good means drawing upon God's principles because there is nothing better. This doesn't necessarily mean arguing by scripture and verse in the public square, but it certainly means that we recognize that the only alternative is what autonomous man brings with him to the table."
When you speak of "God's principles", from where do these principles come from? Scripture? If so, what then of your comment that "This doesn't necessarily mean arguing by scripture and verse in the public square"? If the principles do not come from scripture, do they come from natural law? :-) *devilish grin* lol
p.s. For the rest of you reading this, Sarah and I are friends. We have discussed these issues on paltalk among other friends, so I can't help but pick on her! :-)
Interesting, I have been thinking a lot about the law's relation to grace lately, from a conversation centering around Galatians 3:23-25, that the law is our guardian until Christ came. The standard understanding is historically, that the law guarded Israel until Christ was born, but I was thinking of the place the law has in guarding the children of Christian parents until those children come to their own faith in Christ as adults.
Something to consider when one looks at the Old and New Testament versus our society: They didn't have a democracy. Regular folks had no say in the law. A king or a Ceasar, or a Senate made up of the affluent and powerful, a Governor or a Pharoah made up the rules. There was no question of New Testament believers being able to vote in "morality". Wasn't gonna happen. They had to learn to live in a pagan context. However, what occurred within that sphere where Christians COULD make "laws" of a sort--the church? Simple--there were laws. There were rules. They were strict. And there was punishment for scofflaws--shunning, ex-communication. And there was a process for reconciliation.
If the NT believers could be a nation within a nation, and as such, make laws that ruled the body, including expulsion of willful and unrepentant transgressors, then I take that as a model of what we may be able to do if we have a say-so in the running of a nation. Why should we suddenly turn pagan just because we can vote? No, we're still Christians when we vote. Our morality is a Biblical one.
If we extend that mindset of "church rule" to a democracy/republic, then Christians are free to push to make the gov't as moral as they can. Period. That is part of being salt. If someone who is pagan or someone who is atheist or someone who is of any other religion can push for their morality, how can we argue that we are not free or even ETHICALLY MANDATED to do the same. If we're to be that light and that salt, then that's just not in our personal lives (where surely it should begin, that's the priority), but then in widening circles to the church body, to the local community, city, state, nation and world.
Paul encourages us to judge the body and live at peace as much as is possible with us with our neighbors. But if our neighbors espouse immoral agenda that will infect our political body, then that's where the "at peace" has to take a back seat to a vigorous civil battle. It's now out of our hands. They've fired over the bow and broken the peace.
I assure you that that pro-abortion and pro-gay-marriage folks don't sit around wringing their hands about whether they should impose their ideas of what is right into law or social action. No, they feel it's their right and duty to remake society into the image they feel is correct.
I figure Christians must take on that challenge as well. If we know that a A is right and moral and B is evil, we must fight for A and against B. And if we don't, then we have become enablers to the powers of darkness.
I agree with the commentator that all those death penaly infractions laid down by God are there for a reason. These are behavior which have serious consequences for society (and families) and which God does not take lightly. In a Theocracy, to blatantly blaspheme God is to undermine the gov't--it's a form of treason. To commit adultery is to undermine the family (and gee, isn't our youth benefitting greatly in our time from rampant divorce huh?) Since this isn't a Theocracy, the law more directly pertaining to how one speaks or relates to God can't be implemented. That makes no sense. But we are a nation of individuals and families, and immorality is always dangerous to individuals and families. That means, it's bad for society. Gluttony costs health care dollars and early deaths, as does promiscuity, with the added horror of children who are disconnected from absent fathers. Juvenile delinquency is costly and adds to the danger of urban living and to the risks teachers undertake doing their jobs. That "rebel" youth may very well be the one who murders and rapes someone else's not-rebellious youth. Or you. Or me. Or heads off to join Al-Qaeda.
Every immoral act costs us something.
I don't agree that the Founding Fathers only cared about Natural Law. They talked too much about how the Bible was necessary to have good government and virtuous folks. Natural law and revealed law (ie Judeo-Christian morality) had a place in forming the Western legal system.
So, maybe there's a place for pragmatism (we only have so many tax dollars for prison), so some things we must learn to tolerate. We need wisdom to figure out what. But I think I much prefer criminalizing adultery and sodomy and promicuity and levying big fines to transgressors, rather than just shrugging our shoulders and saying, "No big thing. So many people do it. Yawn." I'm of a mind that there is always a percentage of folks who will not do something if it's illegal. Notice abortion: All reliable figures show that when it became legal, use of it exploded. Why? Many women would not resort to "the back alley" or risk their lives or risk social stigma for it. Make it legal and you remove part or most of the stigma and you make it safe and, voila, more women will have abortions when it's convenient to their lives.
Having something illegal is a type of restraint. It always is. Not perfect, but it does help minimize.
And that's, no doubt, part of why God has a Law. Not just as a mirror to show us our lack, not just as a national guiderule, not just as a shadow or type or metaphor. It is also something that restrains evil.
Why should we fear pushing for laws that restrain evil, even by a bit?
Mir
Interesting points, Mir. And I agree with your statement:
I don't agree that the Founding Fathers only cared about Natural Law. They talked too much about how the Bible was necessary to have good government and virtuous folks. Natural law and revealed law (ie Judeo-Christian morality) had a place in forming the Western legal system.
What I meant in my comment about the founding father's belief that law should be founded on Natural--not necessarily on the reavealed Law of the Bible was that they regarded much of the morality of the O.T. as something that transcended human religious boundaries. Yes, the Bible did deeply influence the thinking, morality and legislation of these, mostly Christian, men. But they had little fear of being accused of instituting a state religion or of imposing a certain religion's beliefs or morality on members of other religions because they believed that much of the law of the Bible and the morality they wished to legislate (laws against stealing, murder, and in some states even adultery, etc...) were a part of natural law of which most persons, of any religious persuasion, had common understanding and agreement.
However how that morality is expressed would sometimes vary between religions and ultimately the Judeo-Christian viewpoint, held by the majority, would trump the others. But in the early days of our country these issues of 'imposing morality' rarely came up--almost all were in common agreement. (The polygamy issue with the Mormons, is one exception I recall) However, as our society became less homogenous in it's beliefs conflicts did become more common. But the biggest problem has come from the disintegration of society and a decreasing understanding and acceptance of even 'natural' law.
Samantha, I really appreciate this post because it is an issue that I also struggle with frequently. I would have commented earlier but I've been lying prone with a 102 degree fever until now!
Other people have already said a number of good things. The only thing I would add is this: my guess is that the people of Israel had more revelation of God and so were more accountable for their sin. This is only my guess. Sin is sin whether a person is aware of that or not, but I think God is more strict in exercising judgment against those who willfully transgress his laws. A boy growing up in Israel should have known the fifth commandment and been aware of the punishment for cursing his parents. Likewise, a girl growing up in Israel should have been well aware of the prohibition against immorality and the consequences for transgression. All people should have had a basic understanding of the holy nature of God, and thus all people would have no excuse for their sin.
I'm not convinced my theory is right! It is still something that I am pondering.
Hi Samantha,
When people talk about the Law today there is often a mixing and confusion of "the law" and the Mosaic Law. There is certainly a difference between the two. For one, the eternal law of God existed prior to the Mosaic Law. God's moral law, or better yet moral will, is eternal. The Mosaic Law, on the other hand, was given to Moses some time later. It was obviously not devoid of the eternal moral law/will of God but it was another covenantal revelation to God's people.
I think Calvin put us on the right track with the three-fold use of the law. We should not stop there though and we should not be afraid to refine and tune what this great Reformer began. Bill Baldwin has a stimulating paper named "The Three Uses of the Law A New Proposal".
When reading passages like the one mentioned in Deuteronomy we must remember that Israel was a prototype of the consummated eternal kingdom. It was a holy theocratic kingdom. The typological nature of the Mosaic Law works itself out culturally in the Old Covenant through theocracy, holy war, subjgation of false religions, and the penal system. This passage in Deuteronomy 21:18-21 reveals the severity of sin and the holiness of being part of God's kingdom. Remember, it was pointing to something greater. The wicked shall not enter the kingdom of God. There are many threatening passages in the Old Testament like this that point to a future reality. Stop and consider, for a moment, how much more severe this is on this side of the cross. The typological language used here in Deuteronomy sounds very harsh; and it was. It is a type, a shadow, of being removed from God's covenant; being cast outside of the kingdom of heaven. It was physical death. How is this carried out today? The church, through ordained pastors and elders hold the keys to the kingdom. When they excommunicate a person what could be worse? We are talking about eternity here! Under the shadow it was physical death, but under the reality it is spiritual death!
Your questions are good ones. I think you are seeing why the specific categories mentioned by Calvin, while helpful, are not completely adequate.
It is not an *only* but more of an *also*. Obeying God's moral will (law) does have something to do with salvation in a sense. Not in the obtaining but in the result of being saved. It is the fruit, the outworking (the sanctifying work) of being justified. Because of the finished work of Christ and His imputed righteousness, we have been given the power to walk upright and not in our former ways. We will persevere to the end. The Westminster Shorter Catechism is quite succint in this regard:
Q. 35. What is sanctification?
A. Sanctification is the work of God’s free grace, whereby we are renewed in the whole man after the image of God, and are enabled more and more to die unto sin, and live unto righteousness.
God's grace to you,
Shawn
interesting topic, although as you say Samantha it is hard to understand this beyond its most obvious /shallowest meanting.
funny too (if funny is the right word) On Sunday I will preach (again) about forgiveness - I will try to get the congregation to identify with the woman who was caught in adultery and yet not stoned.
I'm giving out small stones for people to hold while we contemplate this. Hope they don't stone me :)
interesting topic, although as you say Samantha it is hard to understand this beyond its most obvious /shallowest meanting.
funny too (if funny is the right word) On Sunday I will preach (again) about forgiveness - I will try to get the congregation to identify with the woman who was caught in adultery and yet not stoned.
I'm giving out small stones for people to hold while we contemplate this. Hope they don't stone me :)
