Teach People the Ten Commandments
Posted by theologyandsteak on October 23, 2008
OK, this is a long post, but I would encourage all of you to read it. I believe the Ten Commandments is one of the long lost subjects of preaching, and it is what people these days need the most. You can’t understand the gospel without the law. Sorry, but my blog is NOT a guilt-free zone. We should all feel guilty of our sin before a Holy God so that we will all repent daily and live holy lives. If Jesus loves me, and I don’t need to feel guilty before the law and a Holy God, then why should I change or repent? Read on, brothers and sisters!
In 2007 and part of 2008, I took an informal survey of the sermons I heard to determine how they basically presented the gospel. In virtually all of the dispensational and seeker sensitive churches I attended, the gospel call was essentially the same, with a few minor variations in wording:
- Jesus loves you, and He died for you so that you could be free from your guilt, your hurts, and all your mistakes.
- Jesus loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life. All you have to do is ask him to come into your life.
- God loves you just the way you are.
- Come to Jesus and you will find peace, joy, and happiness in your life.
This sampling of just a few comments shows that most gospel calls in many evangelical churches today all start with God’s love or Jesus’ love for the particular person sitting in the pew (or auditorium). Most of the pastors I had heard started, with good intentions I am sure, with an appeal to the heart. They appealed to everyone’s sense of longing to be loved. Most appealed to each individual in their current situation, stating that God or Christ loved them just as they were, “warts and all,” “with all of your bad mistakes and bad relationships.” In most, if not all, of the sermons there was very little mention of repentance. When there was mentioned repentance, it was said to mean a “change of mind,” and the terms sin or sins were not mentioned regularly. Repentance was for wrongdoings, mistakes, bad relationships or bad decisions.
In her book, All is Forgiven, Marsha Witten examined 47 sermons on the Prodigal Son (Luke 15:11-32) from Southern Baptist and Presbyterian USA churches across the United States. What she found were sermons that enumerated the social and psychological advantages of church attendance and religion without much mention of spiritual striving, suffering, repentance of sin, and faith in Christ. These sermons in her sample focused on God as a loving and understandable Daddy, focused on encouragement to make right choices among secular offerings, or focused on the offer of rescue from the secular world’s confusion. The concept of sin, she writes, “has been accommodated to fit secular sensibilities.” Some mention of sin is included in these sermons, but, as Witten again states, the language frequently cushions the listener from its impact, as “it employs a variety of softening rhetorical devices.” She writes that these strategies include depersonalizing sin, rendering the notions of sin vague and abstract, using selectivity to omit the foundational doctrine of original sin, projecting sin off of the group of listeners and onto those outside the church, and therapeutic tolerance in which sin is translated as aberrant behavior, replacing the context from the individual to the social, and replacing judgment with empathy. [1]
While it may be risky in making the following generalization, I would argue that the situation in many churches today and in may professing Christians today is that churches and individuals do not fully know why they need to be saved, and therefore do not fully know or appreciate the gospel message, because they do not know what sin is. Without knowing what sin is and why it is so hated by God, one cannot understand the love of God in the gospel outside of a shallow therapeutic, empathetic, or a sentimental love that is apparently preached in today’s churches. If this sin is not applied to the individual specifically, but diverted to others outside of the individual, then the gospel cannot be applied to the individual’s specific situation, because it is not needed by them. This becomes a precarious situation in which the gospel is a self-help program intended for the individual to become a better person. It may help the person in the name of spirituality or Christianity get rid of some bad habits or possibly make some better decisions, but it does nothing to convince a person of their need for a savior from the wrath of a Holy God against the wickedness of sin.
Charles Spurgeon wrote in his Autobiography, “Too many think lightly of sin, and therefore think lightly of the Saviour. He who has stood before his God, convicted and condemned, with the rope about his neck, is the man to weep for joy when he is pardoned, to hate the evil which has been forgiven him, and to live to the honour of the Redeemer by whose blood he has been cleansed.”[2] In order to understand sin and our individual need for a savior, it is critical to understand the role and meaning of the Ten Commandments, and why the Ten Commandments are absolutely still relevant today and why they need to reinforced and taught to everyone. In this short paper, I would like to briefly explain the role of the Ten Commandments in the pre-Christian and post-Christian life, and to explain why it is absolutely critical to teach the Law of God to our children and our congregation. While the Law of God encompasses more than the Ten Commandments, in this paper I will use the terms Ten Commandments, the Law, and the Decalogue somewhat interchangeably.
Why is the Law of God, the perfect abbreviation of which is the Ten Commandments, still relevant and needed today? Paul wrote in Romans 7:7, Yet if it had not been for the law, I would not have known sin. For I would not have known what it is to covet if the law had not said, “You shall not covet.” One of the main reasons is that the Decalogue shows man what sin is, and thereby in contrast shows us a glimpse of the holiness of God. Thomas Watson, in his treatise The Ten Commandments, states that the law is a “looking glass to show us our sins, that, seeing our pollution and misery we may be forced to flee to Christ-to satisfy for former guilt, and to save from future wrath.”[3] The Decalogue shows man what sin is, so that he may be convicted by the power of God and forced to flee to Christ for his rescue. Without the law man would not readily know what sin is. Man’s conscience, as well as the natural law of God that is written on the heart of every man, is not a perfect guide for one to determine what is right and what is wrong, what is good and what is evil, what is sin and what is righteousness. The Fall has corrupted man’s consciousness. Paul writes in Romans 1 that man sometimes suppresses the truth in unrighteousness (v 18), and that man even knows what is right yet does the very opposite, and even encourages others to do what they know is wrong (v 32). The written Law therefore acts as an unalterable God-written standard by which our thoughts and actions can be measured and judged, sometimes in accordance with, and sometimes in spite of, man’s own conscience. It is the Rule of God. Romans 3:20 states, For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin.
The Law also serves for the purpose of conviction. The Puritan John Flavel writes that the Law has the power to convince us and show us our need for Christ. He states, “It cannot make us righteous, but it can convince us that we are unrighteous; it cannot heal, but it can open and discover the wounds that sin has given us.”[4] Ezekiel Hopkins, another English Puritan, states that the Law is given, “and ought still to be preached, for the Conviction of Sinners.” He gives three reasons for the preaching of the Law to convict sinners. One is for their guilt. He states, “For, by laying their actions to the rule, and comparing the strictness and purity of the one, with the obliquity and defects of the other, they may discern wherein they have offended: and their natural conscience may have an advantage, to charge their sin and guilt upon them.” A second reason he provides is that the sinner may be convinced of the wrath of God upon them and the eternal death in which they stand. A third point is that the law serves to convince sinners of the utter impossibility under which sinners lie, of ever obtaining justification before God through the Law.[5] Hopkins wrote in the mid-17th century, but his thoughts are very applicable today as well. It is difficult to convince anyone they are wrong today, because no one wants to offend anyone by calling them wrong. I have heard several pastors in their sermons state that their church is a “guilt-free zone” and no one will be made to feel guilty in during their preaching. However, guilt before God is what people need to feel and know. All of us deep down believe that we are good enough, smart enough, and capable enough to work hard and please God on our own. After all, this is the American way. Americans tell themselves, “If we try just a little harder, we can succeed.” The Law of God is there to show all sinners that we stand guilty before a Holy God and that we can never be good enough or capable enough to meet the holy standards that God has set before all mankind.
Hopkins continues with his discourse on the Law and explains what the law’s convincing work brings to a sinner. He states,
Thus far the convincing work of the Law proceeds; and when it hath brought a man to despair in himself, by showing him his guilt, and that wrath to which he stands exposed, and the remedilesness of his sad condition by anything that he can either do or suffer, it there leaves him in this horror of darkness, till the Spirit of God, who hath thus by the Ministry of the Law convinced him of his own unrighteousness in himself, doth also by the Ministry of the Gospel convince him of a righteousness out of himself, in the Lord Jesus Christ.[6]
The law brings a sinner to his knees, out of desperation and hopelessness. Once the sinner realizes his situation before a holy God, and he is brought to the bottom, with nowhere to go, he can then cast his eyes on Jesus, knowing that while he is not able to remedy himself nor satisfy the divine justice of God, he can place his trust in one who has satisfied the divine justice of God for him. In much preaching and evangelism today, however, this step in the process (if you will) is generally omitted. No preacher or evangelist wants to put his audience in a depressed state. Sermons are supposed to be happy and uplifting. They are supposed to be practical and helpful for the sinner and Christian alike to live a better and more transformed life. Rick Warren in his Purpose Driven Church spends several chapters discussing preaching, and the primary focus is on speaking to people’s felt-needs in order to break down barriers that they have to making a decision for Christ.[7] In two other evangelism books, Bill Hybels’ Becoming a Contagious Christian, and Rebecca Pippert’s Out of the Saltshaker and Into the World, the authors stress the relationship, the love of God for all people, and the need to make a decision for Christ. While repentance is mentioned, the sins we need to repent of are generic, behavioral, and defined as rebellion, self-centeredness, and refusing the love of Christ and going our own way.[8] The Law of God is never mentioned as a means to convict the sinner of the guilt of his sins before a Holy God.
Hopkins builds on his explanation of the use of the law in preaching by stating that the preaching of the Law is absolutely necessary. He states, first of all, that “Where the Law hath not yet wrought its convincing work with power upon the conscience, there the preaching of Jesus Christ will altogether be in vain.”[9] Until the sinner is thoroughly convinced of his guilt and misery before God, and until he is fully aware of the threats and terrors of the Law and God’s wrath upon him as eternal punishment, it is not likely that someone will be able to seriously persuade the sinner of the mercies and love of Christ as spelled out in the gospel. The sinner sees no need of the gospel when he himself is getting along just fine. Hopkins states that, “He wraps himself in his own carnal confidence and security, and sees no need of looking out after any other righteousness than his own; and, although his own righteousness be but filthy rags, both imperfect and impure; yet, being his own, he thinks them better than borrowed robes.”[10]
I firmly believe that this is the reason that the American church in the 21st century is failing, is shallow and hollow, and is unable to make any significant impact on the culture at large. The seeker-sensitive church, the emerging church, and the liberal social church all do not have many real converts because a great deal of the members have not been thoroughly convinced and convicted of their situation before God. I would argue that many of the people in the pews of the American church do not truly understand the gospel because they do not truly understand the Law, and their situation before God under the Law. Jesus said in Matthew 9:12, Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. The problem in the American church is that most everyone believes himself to be well, only in need of a little cough medicine. They do not comprehend the nature of their condition, what Paul calls in Ephesians 2:1 dead in trespasses and sins.
Charles Spurgeon in his Autobiography recounts in the chapter entitled “Through Much Tribulation” the effect of the Law and conviction upon his soul. While Spurgeon’s conversion is not to be taken as a model for all conversions, it is noteworthy to see his anguish and turmoil as he wrestles with the conviction of the Law. He states, “Precious is that wine which is pressed in the winefat of conviction; pure is that gold which is dug from the mines of repentance; and bright are those pearls which are found in the caverns of deep distress. We might never have known such deep humility if the Lord had not humbled us. We had never been so separated from fleshly trusting had He not, by His rod, revealed the corruption and disease of our heart.”[11] Another long quote will show the seriousness of the conviction that Spurgeon felt regarding his sin and situation before almighty God:
Our Heavenly Father does not usually cause us to seek the Savior till He has whipped us clean out of all our confidence; He cannot make us in earnest after Heaven till He has made us feel something of the intolerable tortures of an aching conscience, which is a foretaste of hell. I remember, when I used to awake in the morning, first thing I took up was Alleine’s Alarm, or Baxter’s Call to the Unconverted. Oh, those books, those books! I read and devoured them when under a sense of guilt, but it was like sitting at the foot of Sinai. For five years, as a child, there was nothing before my eyes but my guilt; and though I do not hesitate to say that those who observed my life would not have seen any extraordinary sin, yet as I looked upon myself, there was not a day in which I did not commit such gross, such outrageous sins against God, that often and often have I
wished I had never been born.
…I reckoned that the most defiled creature, the most loathsome and contemptible, was a better thing than myself, for I had so grossly and grievously sinned against Almighty God.[12]
Spurgeon wrestled with his sin, and his situation before God, because he had a good idea of the seriousness of sin in general and of his in particular with respect to the Holiness of God. Sin was not something that was merely behavioral, but it was something that defined his nature as a fallen man. Many of those that are sitting in the pews of American churches do not fully comprehend their standing before God. They have been taught that God is a cosmic Daddy who is loving, kind, and all-forgiving, and that the Law is something of the Old Testament. The gospel has been preached without the Law, and it has therefore not taken hold. I certainly do not want to judge converts, but it is apparent by the statistics which show that Christians are no less likely to divorce, have premarital sex, or use drugs than non-Christians that perhaps the conversion experience of many professing Christians is not what it used to be.
Hopkins again states that, “As Christ cannot be accepted, where the Law doth not perform its convincing work; so he will not save, where it doth not perform its reforming work. Where there is no amendment of life, there can be no forgiveness of sins, nor true hopes of salvation: for Christ is given to us not to save us in our sins, but from them.”[13] Therefore, the preaching of the Law as a precursor to the gospel must be preached from the pulpit, in the small group Bible study, and in the Sunday School room, to both children and adults. The preaching of the Law is necessary for the knowledge of sin, for the conviction of sin, and for the salvation of the sinner. The gospel is incomplete without the preaching of the Law as the basis and the reason for the “good news.” The good news is not good news unless we know why it is good. The ‘But now” of Romans 3:21 doesn’t mean much unless the sinner understands Romans 1:1 – 3:20, and how he himself is under the condemnation of the Law of God. Once the gospel is set in conjunction with and in the context of the Law, only then does it become good news.
In conclusion, the following statement by J. Gresham Machen, the principal founder of Westminster Theological Seminary, will emphasize the importance of the place of the law. In What is Faith? He states, “A new and more powerful proclamation of that law is perhaps the most pressing need of the hour; men would have little difficulty with the gospel if they had only learned the lesson of the law. As it is, they are turning aside from the Christian pathway…. So it always is: a low view of law always brings legalism in religion; a high view of law makes a man a seeker after grace. Pray God that the high view may again prevail.”[14]
[1] Witten, Marsha G. All is Forgiven: The Secular Message in American Protestantism. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1993, 101.
[2] Spurgeon, Charles H. Autobiography: Volume 1, The Early Years. Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth Trust, 1962, 54.
[3] Watson, Thomas. The Ten Commandments. Revised edition. Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth Trust, 1965, 44.
[4] Flavel, John. The Works of John Flavel. Six volumes. Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth Trust, 1968, 2:287-288.
[5] Hopkins, Ezekiel. The Works of Ezekiel Hopkins. Three volumes. Morgan, PA: Soli Deo Gloria Publications, 1995, 1:538-539.
[6] Hopkins, 1:539.
[7] Warren, Rick. The Purpose Driven Church. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1995, chapters 12 and 16.
[8] Hybels, Bill. Becoming a Contagious Christian. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1994, and Rebecca Manley Pippert. Out of the Saltshaker and into the World. 2nd ed. Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 1999.
[9] Hopkins, 1:539.
[10] Hopkins, 1:540.
[11] Spurgeon, 1:53.
[12] Spurgeon, 1:59.
[13] Hopkins, 1:540.
[14] Machen, J. Gresham. What is Faith? Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth Trust, 1991, 141-142.
Candy said
Brett, I sometimes wonder if that is why there is such a problem with depression in our society. We have God’s law written on our hearts, so we know deep within us that we are not good enough or righteous enough, but without the teaching of the law and the good news of Christ’s blood, we are left in our despair with no way out. My daughter used to listen to a song entitled “Pain”, which describes the hopelessness that so many feel. Remind me to show you the lyrics and picture she drew from this song. I used it to teach a lesson in our Girls of Grace class.
irishvicar said
What do you do with Matthew 19? It seems difficult to have such a Phariseaic view of the priestly law when Christ himself said there was more to being in His kingdom than simply keeping the law. Can you keep the 10 commandments? I can’t. In fact Paul writes in Romans and Galatians that no one can keep the law. I get your point that we need to understand it, but bearing the burden of our sins has already been accomplished in the death of God’s Christ. Should we go on sinning to recieve more grace? No, but we can’t set ourselves up for continued failure either. How often should we repent? How frequently should we feel the sting of sin? I would argue that Jesus has a better view of the law than you present because he summed it up as loving God and loving nieghbor. There is the fulfillment of the 10 commandments. I agree that soft touch feely preaching is theologically void of truth; however, we do need to know Christ loves us and wants to be in relationship with us. And his promise is to take away our pain, perhaps not in this world, but in his kingdom come. What do you do with Paul’s profession in Romans that he would willingly damnation if his Jewish people would see God’s Messiah? How does that fit with your suggestion of needing more law? They had the law and couldn’t see the Savior for the trees. You have a well though argument but I think there needs to be grace because grace abounds. Your post goes against your claim to be supportive of the 5 solas? There isn’t Law listed in the solas so how does that fit your theology. Believe me I’m not trying to pick a fight or discredit your work; rather I’m interested in your reply.
theologyandsteak said
Hi Irishvicar;
Thanks for the comment. However, I think you missed my point. Gospel without law is asking for a complete misunderstanding of what God has done. I am not saying that we ought to be able to keep the entire law. You are right – we can’t. That fact should drive us to the gospel. However, Paul spends the first three chapters in Romans telling us about why the gospel is indeed good news – the law convicts us of our sin. God’s law is perfect, and is still in force. Law is a subset of grace. Yes, Christ kept the entire law for us as our substitute, but that doen’t mean that the law is meaningless or abrogated for the New Testament Christian. If we are saved, we should love the law of the Lord – read Psalm 119. Yes Christ bore the burden of our sins, but that doesn’t mean we live the way we want to. The law still governs the Christian life, but it should not be a burden. It should be a delight. Sure, we can’t keep it, but that is no reason that we should not strive to do so. When we fail, we know we have a mediator for us who has already kept it for us. The law and the gospel are distinct, yet all part of one plan of God. Preaching the gospel without law is useless. What is the good news if there is no law? Read 1 John, specifically 1 John 2:4, 3:22-24, and 5:3. We love the Lord if we keep his commandments. How do we love God with all of our heart? The first 4 commandments. How do we love our neighbor as ourself? The last six commandments. we don’t and can’t keep them perfectly, but that doesn’t mean we don’t attempt to out of love for God.
theologyandsteak said
Irishvicar;
Regarding Matthew 19. The point was not that the law was bad, but Jesus was showing the rich young ruler that his pride and wealth was preventing him from the Kingdom. He valued himself and his works, and his wealth, as more valuable than Christ. He worshipped his abilities (himself) and his wealth. This is idolatry. Verse 26 is the key – with man salvation is impossible, but all things are possible with God. Man can try everything to be set right before God, but it is to no avail. Only God regenerates and saves. It is not of any part of man (his will, his work, his desire), but only of God. John 1:12-13, Ephesians 2:8-9, etc.
Just some thoughts.
Brett
irishvicar said
Hello Brett,
Thanks for those thoughts; yes I’ve heard them before and I struggle with them. Perhaps I come from such a strict sect of Pharisees that I have grown weary of the Law being used in the manner you have presented. Don’t take that the wrong way, I am not throwing the baby out with the water, but I read Paul a bit differently. There is no longer Jew or Gentile, male or female, slave or free. That is essentially disregarding the Law. If you have ever dined on shrimp or great pork barbeque, that is disregarding the Law. Granted that is not the 10 Commandments, but if Leviticus is a redaction of Josiah’s discovery of Deuteronomy then it definitely is (progressive thought); and if Leviticus is the Holy response of the Decalogue then it (conservative thought) definitely is as well. If Jesus in Matthew 19 says to the man why do you ask what is good, there is only one who is good, then keeping the Law doesn’t make us better, or good. It shows us where we need grace, but it doesn’t make us good. It can’t. The Jerusalem council broke free of the Law for Gentiles when Paul and Barnabas argued against the Gentiles being required to be circumcised and required to obey the Law of Moses (Acts 15). Peter even argued on behalf of the Gentiles. Peter’s words sting deeply and resonated with those gathered, as well as with me today. 7-11 read “Brothers, you know that some time ago God made a choice among you that the Gentiles might hear from my lips the message of the gospel and believe. God, who knows the heart, showed that he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us. He made no distinction between us and them (the Law), for he purified their hearts by faith. Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of the disciples a yoke that neither we nor our fathers have been able to bear (the Law)? No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are.” To me this shows that we are not called to live the Jewish way of life, instead we are called to love God and love neighbor. I am in no way shape or form saying we can’t learn from the 10 commandments, nor am I saying we live contrary to the biblical example. Rather I suggest we view the Law as a reminder of God’s promise instead of something that is lorded over our heads in a way which shows us how unworthy of God’s love we are. I think this requires those of us who teach to be held at a higher standing because we have the ability to interpret the Law and teach our parish as well as those outside our parish the gospel of God’s Christ. I suspect you and I are more alike than different and it appears to me we’re looking at this from different angles. I have subscribed to your feed and I look forward to continued discussions, as well as looking forward to your response.
Mark
theologyandsteak said
Hi irishvicar;
OK, now I see where you are coming from. You have a lot of good points in your post above, but in some respects you are confusing a lot of points. There is the Jewish ceremonial law, the moral law, and the judicial law. Don’t lump the whole thing together. There is no longer Jew, Gentile, etc, has more to do with the ceremonial law, and especially the Jewish interpretation of it. There was a whole litany of interpretation and additions and extras that the Pharisees added to the original law handed down by God to Moses. The dietary laws, yes, have been abrogated (done away with) by Jesus as part of the ceremonial laws that Jesus himself fulfilled in his coming, his person, and his work. Paul himself states as much. A side note: Don’t assume that Leviticus is a redaction of Deuteronomy that was found by Josiah, and therefore assume that Deuteronomy is of a late date rather than early from the Mosaic period. The critical opinion of the dating of Deuteronomy has been discredited a number of times, more especially by O.T. Allis in his book The Five Books of Moses and more recently by Meredith Kline’s work. I can give you more references if you like.
Acts 15 also corresponds to the ceremonial laws such as circumcision. Paul in Colossians equates the OT sacrament of circumcision to the NT sacrament of baptism. It is also mentioned a number of times in both the OT and the NT that circumcision was of the heart. In the OT, circumcision was a sign and seal of the covenant that God made with Abraham. Baptism is a sign and seal of the New Covenant that God/Jesus made with us. In your quote by Peter, I think you are defining certain things he says as “law” when they are not.
I do think we are more alike than diffeent, but the moral law is still in effect. In fact, and please don’t misunderstand me, there are two ways to get to heaven. One is by living the moral law of God perfectly, from the first second you were born to the last second you die. Of course, no one except Jesus has done that. The second, is the gospel, by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone. Again, I want to state that one cannot understand the gospel outside of the moral law of God, as embodied in the 10 Commandments. How does one know what sin is if we don’t have the moral law code (Romans 7)? You are absolutely right, that we cannot live by the moral law that God has set before us, because we are sinners and by nature hate God, until He opens our eyes through regeneration. However, we don’t have to be perfect, because Jesus lived th perfect life, died for our sins, rose again to conquer death, and is now our substitute and mediator as long as we put our faith in his person and work. However, The law is still in force – see Matthew 5:17-20.
The purpose of the moral law is numerous: 1)to convict us of sin (Christians and nonchristians alike, Romans 7:9-10), 2) to show us the moral character and demands of God, 3) it defines sin (1 John 3:4, Romans 3-5), 4) it exposes infractions and rebellion, 5) It actually incites us to rebel against God as sinners (Romans 5:20, 4:15, and gal 3:19), 6) it drives us to Christ (Gal 3:24); 7) it also restrains evil (1 Timothy 1:8-10),
it also guides sanctification (Proverbs 6:23, Lev 20:8, Psalm 119).
Once we are saved, the law is no longer a burden, being Lorded over us, but a delight that we strive to uphold our of love for the God who has saved us. While we are unsaved, the law is a burden, unfair, hateful, and incites rebellion in sinners against God. After our eyes are opened, it becomes part of the grace of God as He uses it to convict us, sanctify us, and guide us into holy living.
Whew! Sorry such a long post. These are great questions and I really appreciate your comments.
Brett
irishvicar said
Hello Brett,
I knew where you would have disagreements with my post, so it was neat to see you quickly jumped on those points. It is difficult for me to come behind your idea of moral, judiciary, and ceremonial law being three distinct laws. And, I believe Leviticus to be a latter redaction of Deuteronomy vis a vis post-exilic Israel and the Jeremiah/Ezekiel priestly orders. The ceremonial and judiciary laws were born from the idea of moral obligations to the Decalogue; therefore it is difficult for me to view the NT writers keeping the baby in the bathwater whilst draining the tub via the window.
I have struggled with this since beginning seminary, and have come away with the position I now hold upon completion thereof, and now have a different variation of the teaching of the 10 Commandments. My interpretation of the Mosaic commands are that of a generation of exiles being reintroduced to their God. Therefore, they are now free from having more than one God, free from idol worship, free from blasphemy, free from working without rest, encouraged to honor their families, free from murder, free from adultery, free from stealing, free from bearing false witnesses, and free from coveting. These are freedoms they were not afforded in the exile to Egypt, however now they no longer have to submit to the wishings and requirements of another sovereign. They have a new knowledge of their Sovereign and He is giving them this freedom. To better understand this they were then able to develop the “judiciary and ceremonial” law you prescribe to. I find it difficult to read Romans 7 without knowledge of Romans 8. Paul’s rhetorical writing sets up a 3-1 debate in that 1-3 should be read in light of 4, 5-7 in light of 8, 9-11 in light of 12, and 13-15 in light of 16. Therefore his arguments of 7 are answered in 8. “Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit of life set me free from the law of sin and death. For what the law was powerless to do in that it was weakened b the sinful nature, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful man to be a sin offering. And so he condemned sin in sinful man, in order that the righteous requirements of the law might be fully met in us, who did not live according to the sinful nature but according to the Spirit.” Paul goes on in 8 to declare not to live in fear of the old sinful nature that ends in death, which he previously here has identified as the law.
Again, don’t get me wrong, we should teach our congregations to be students of the 10 commandments; I just can’t get to a place where we are bound to the Law. I don’t think Paul leads us there, I don’t think Peter leads us there, and despite your Matthian reference; I don’t think Christ leads us there. If He did, the rich man in Matthew would be presented with the whole law and not just the second tablet. Also, Jesus would not have summed the Law into love God, love neighbor if the Law were to be enforceable. I may appear to you to be heretical, and I’m comfortable with you believing that. Believe me I’ve debated the Law numerous times in papers and dissertation. My view is that Paul’s circumcision led him to seeing the Law as a death sentence, and leading the church away from its rigidity toward following it.
I look forward to your response. I apologize for my lack of retort as I was preparing my sermon this weekend and got away from seeing your post until today.
Truly,
Mark >
MoniQue said
YESS !
Good article!
The church is even starting to say we don’t need to honor the Sabbath Day anymore. The actual commandment as was given by the LORD starts with “you shall work 6 days…” So that is a qualifier that negates the leisure life we Americans live, specifically people who don’t want to work, but CAN.
Even when this is a commandment. Just like “Thou shall not commit adultery is.”
We definitely need to get back to the basics.
After all, they’re the 10 COMMANDMENTS (not the 10 “suggestions).
theologyandsteak said
Hey Mark;
Sorry it took me so long to get back to you re: your last post. I may be misunderstanding you, so if I am please correct me. However, it appars to hold to a late date of the Pentateuch as post-exilic. If so, I think you need to relook that view in light of a lot of the research and findings of Meredith Kline and the relationship between the Hittite Law Treaty and Deuteronomy, and again, O.T. Allis and his work on the dating of the Pentateuch. I think you will find that the research today supports overwhelming the early dating of the Pentateuch in the Mosaic period, as conservative orthodox Christianity has held since the beginning. Bruce Waltke’s new book on OT Theology also sheds some light on this discussion. In the rediscovery of the Law in the time of Josiah God brings the nation of Israel back to its religion, but recent scholarship now shows that the law was not originally written then. It has its origins in Moses as the Biblical text says.
Historic reformed theology has held that the law is divided into three parts like I explained above. However, ALL of this law is still in force, even the ceremonial law. The reason Christians don’t abide by it was that it was fulfilled once and for all by Christ on the cross as our substitutionary atonement and propitiation of sins. The sacrifices in the OT were types and shadows of what Christ did and fulfilled. Therfore, since this law is fulfilled, we don’t hvae to do this any longer. Baptism replaces circumcision, etc.
However, nowhere in the NT does Paul say that the law is no longer binding. We are no longer slaves to it, true, but again, Paul states that we would not know sin except for the law. The Jews got to thepoint where they believed that they could be reconciled to God by perfect obedience to the law. This is not possible, and only can we be reconciled to God through the person and work of Christ. So we are no longer slaves to the law, but slaves to Christ. That said, the law still serves its functions as I explained above. Not to save us, but to convict us of our sins and drive us to Christ. I still think you misunderstand the parable of the rich young ruler you keep mentioning. Christ used the law to convict him of his own idolatry and pride. He went away sad because he valued (read worshipped) his money and possessions (and his own abilities to keep the law) rather than seeing his sin and repenting of it. He went away sad because he was convicted by the law, but he trusted himself more than God.
Yes, I think we are still bound to the law, as men created by God. This is God’s law and is how He will judge the world in the end. The unregenerate will be judged according to their own works by the law of God. So will the Christian, except we have been clothed with the righteousness of Christ who obeyed the law perfectly and in whom we are in union if we are saved. Therefore, we have been justified, declared legally set right before God, when we are saved. On judgment day, God will look at Christians through Christ. His work as our substitute will save us by faith through grace. Man can’t obey the law and therefore be set right with God. Christ did. When we believe in Christ, then his righteousness is imputed to us.
Sorry, I may not be making myself as clear as I would like. This may be a point where we agree to disagree! The conversation is good, though. It makes me think and search the Scriptures.
Brett
theologyandsteak said
Hey Mark;
One more point. If I read you correctly in your discussion of Romans, I think I may agree with you in some respects. In Romans 8:1-4, Paul does explain how there is no condemnation for those who are in Christ (who are saved, believers, regenerate, etc.) because we have been set free from the law by Christ. God did what the law could not do, specifically save us. God did – not we did, by the way. Salvation is completely of God, not by human will. Adam could have obeyed God and been given eternal life, but we (post-Adam) cannot (Romans 3:20). God sent his own son in the flesh to live the law perfectly “in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us….” Man can’t live the law today, either, but we can believe in Christ and he still today fulfills the righteous requirement in us. Man in general is still condemned by the law, and Christ still saves. Paul here affirms one of the functions of the law, even today, is to convict sinners of their sin and drive them to Christ. Yes, we are released from the law in terms of salvation by it.
But the law still can be used to sanctify us. Not to save us, but to correct us and keep us on the right path, by the Spirit of God. Again, my question is, how do we know we are on the wrong path, even as Christians? The Spirit speaking to us? Maybe, but written revelation is set down down once and for all in order to objectively shows Christians and nonchristians who God is, what He expects, and the way to reconcilliation to God. It also shows the Christian, the believer, the path to righteousness that God has set forth. After salvation, we are slaves to righteousness (Romans 6). What is God’s righteousness? How do we know what that righteousness is? The law! We are not slaves to it, but we strive to keep it out of love for God.
Galatians 2-4 is a great explanation of the law and grace. Law condemns us, and grace saves us. The law is still in force today for unbelievers because it leads them to Christ.
Christians don’t use the law to be saved or to even remain saved (God through his grace and the faith he gives us and we exercise does that). The 10 Commandments are the directional arrows that tell Christians which way God wants us to live. They describe his righteousness. We are able to keep it perfectly through Christ.
Brett
irishvicar said
So what then is the work of the Spirit in view of the Law guiding us toward the way God desires us to live?
theologyandsteak said
Hi Mark;
The Holy Spirit works with/through the law to convict sinners, among other things, such as opening our eyes to the truth, illuminating the Word, regeneration, etc.
Brett