Grace: The Point of No Return
There are certain points of no return, however, where it is possible to turn back, but to do so has consequences which are very serious. Grace is one of those points of no return — it is possible to turn back from grace but there are very serious consequences indeed.
In Galatians 5:1-4 Paul makes it absolutely clear (you can hear his frustration!) that turning back from grace means the following:
It prevents Christ from being of benefit to the believer
Paul's readers were being pressured by false teachers to become circumcised in order to be fully accepted by God.
Circumcision was the entrance sign of the Mosaic covenant. To be circumcised represented a commitment to live according to that covenant (all of it — see the next point). But, as Paul has been saying in his letter so far, the old covenant is no longer in effect for the Christian (see Gal 3). For Paul, it represented a form of slavery from which they had been liberated (Gal 5:1). The effect of turning away from grace and getting 'tied up again in slavery to the law' (Gal 5:2) was to place oneself in a position where the benefits of Christ could not be available (Gal 5:2).
It is the same for us. If we turn away from grace and allow ourselves to 'get tied up in slavery to the law' then Christ will be of no benefit to us.
Requires 100% keeping of the law
To turn back from grace to slavery to the law means that the basis of our acceptance with God is the law. And any acceptance by God based on law requires 100% keeping of the entire law (Gal 5:3). William Barclay provides a useful analogy:
Suppose a man desires to become a naturalized subject of a country and carefully carries out all the rules and regulations of that country as they affect naturalization. He cannot stop there but is bound to accept all the other rules and regulations as well. (1)
The breaking of one point is the same as breaking the entire law. So, yes ... you can choose to keep the law in order to be accepted by God. But you are guaranteed to fail because you are required to keep the entire law. And noone has been able to, nor can, do that successfully.
Cuts us off from Christ
Not only is a return to law a loss of the benefits that come with Christ — it represents an actual cutting off from Christ (Gal 5:4). Here's what Jack Hunter has to say about Paul's message:
In the Galatian situation, circumcision to Paul was not a surgical operation, nor merely a religious observance. It represented a system of salvation by good works. It declared a gospel of human effort apart from divine grace. It was law supplanting grace; Moses supplanting Christ; for to add to Christ was to take from Christ. Christ supplemented was Christ supplanted; Christ is the only Savior—solitary and exclusive. Circumcision would mean excision from Christ. (2)
Is a fall away from grace
And finally, to return to the law is to fall away from grace as the basis for our acceptance with God (Gal 5:4). If we choose to return to the law then we choose to reject the grace of God who has chosen to make that the only way to be saved.
It is hard to avoid the conclusion that the Christian should be running in the opposite direction to the law! It is '[f]or freedom Christ has set us free.' (Gal 5:1, NRSV) We need to pursue that freedom and avoid every attempt to seduce us back to the law. Grace is a point of no return!
References
- The letters to the Galatians and Ephesians. 2000, c1976 (W. Barclay, lecturer in the University of Glasgow, Ed.) (electronic ed.). Logos Library System; The Daily study Bible series, Rev. ed. (43). The Westminster Press: Philadelphia
- Jack Hunter, What the Bible Teaches, Galatians – Philemon, p. 78. cited in MacDonald, W., & Farstad, A. 1997, c1995. Believer's Bible Commentary : Old and New Testaments (Ge 1:1). Thomas Nelson: Nashville
Send an Email to us here!
"If ye love me, keep my commandments."
ReplyDelete--John 14:15
Hi A. Friend
ReplyDeleteYes... it is important to keep Jesus' commandments (the word 'my' is important!).
In John 15:10, Jesus' commandment is given:
This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you. (Jn 15:12, ESV)
To assume that, when Jesus speaks of 'my commandments' he is automatically referring to the Mosaic Law (the law given on Mt Sinai - which is what I assume you are referring to), is to ignore the little word 'my'. It is Jesus' commands the Christian is to obey.
Note the following (emphasis supplied):
'If you love me, you will keep my commandments.' (Jn 14:15, ESV)
'Whoever has my commandments and keeps them, he it is who loves me. And he who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I will love him and manifest myself to him.”' (Jn 14:21, ESV)
'If you keep my commandments, you will abide in my love, just as I have kept my Father’s commandments and abide in his love.' (Jn 15:10, ESV)
'You are my friends if you do what I command you.' (Jn 15:14, ESV)
This is entirely consistent with the teaching of Paul in the remainder of Galatians 5. Christians are to live by the Spirit who will produce the fruits of the Spirit - love, joy, patience, etc (Gal 5:22-23).
To keep the commandments of Jesus, we need to love. To love, we need to live by the Spirit (Gal 5:16-25)
Paul does not tell Christians to be saved by grace in order to go back to the (Mosaic/Sinaitic) law. Instead, he tells us we are saved by grace in order to follow Christ and keep Christ's commands by living in the Spirit.
I frequently find a sort of hostility towards the ten commandments some call the Mosaic Law. They were not from Moses but from God Himself. I am not sure why exactly they are disliked other than they contain love and respect shown to God (first four that humans changed ) as well as to other human beings (the last six--they seem more logical to the human mind that may have difficulty understanding a God who wants to be worshipped a certain way--see Cain).
ReplyDeleteLiving by the ten commandments does not do away with grace as some say (why would it?). However, they are not a way into heaven or no one would get there.
Jesus is The Way and He lived them as God would have them lived. They are based on love. Because of our selfish human nature we won't keep them consistently including in our minds, even though we want to as a witness. But Jesus has done this for us. The fruits of the Spirit are not behaviors but attitudes.
Without a standard primitive people would not understand how to love--the law is the schoolmaster (it teaches)how to love. Otherwise we would be bowing down to idols.
I conclude that humans want to worship God in their own way without respect to what God has asked because of centuries of tradition so that now they don't think it important.
What do you think Jesus meant by obey? What did He want them to obey? The Laws of Love, I would say, that God gave to His people centuries before. Jesus and God are one.
Just some personal thoughts on the matter,
Ellamae
I have to agree whole-heartedly on part of what you say. I believe (with you I think) that what Paul speaks about is buying into a system that keeping the law is what justifies us before God. This is not the law in itself, but a relationship to the law, being "under the law." The verse you quoted that said returning to the circumcision was returning to "slavery of the law" was quoted from the NLT. This translation is a paraphrase and so it interprets quite a bit. You will not find this phrase in more literal translations that are more true to the text (ESV, NASB, NRSV, KJV for example). Literal translations should always be used for theological study for this reason.
ReplyDeleteThe part I disagree with is the way you define the dialectic of slavery and freedom. I think that Hebrews in chapters 7 & 8 outlines it quite clearly (I know this probably wasn't written by Paul, but it is very Pauline in its approach). The dialectic is this. You are free from sin and death and enslaved to righteousness, or you are free from righteousness and enslaved to sin and death. The law is the thing that is "used" by sin to create death in us. It is death to us because of our sin. With grace our relationship to the law changes, and we can see that it is "holy, just, and good" without having to rely on it for justification or righteousness.
Hope this makes some sense.
Hi Ellamae
ReplyDeleteThanks for your comments. Just a couple of points in response (quotes from your post in italics):
I frequently find a sort of hostility towards the ten commandments some call the Mosaic Law.
I'm not sure what experiences you have had with others, but my attitude is not one of hostility. It is more about where it is best to identify the moral requirements for a Christian. In essence, I think the 10 Commandments aren't adequate as a moral guide for Christians -- not now that Jesus has arrived and we have a much better source of moral guidance.
Jesus himself contrasted his own teachings with that of the 10 Commandments. Concerning the commandment not to murder, Jesus said, 'But I say to you that if you are angry with a brother or sister, you will be liable to judgment; and if you insult a brother or sister, you will be liable to the council; and if you say, ‘You fool,’ you will be liable to the hell of fire.' (Mt 5:22, NRSV)
Concerning the commandment against adultury: 'But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust has already committed adultery with her in his heart.' (Mt 5:28, NRSV)
Jesus also contrasted his teaching with laws outside the 10 commandments, for example, the laws regarding adultery: 'But I say to you that anyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of unchastity, causes her to commit adultery; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.' (Mt 5:32, NRSV)
Notice the "but" in all of these. Jesus wants his listeners to move beyond the law (in the case of murder and adultery) and sometimes in the opposite direction (as in the divorce laws).
I am assuming you would not see Jesus as being hostile to the law/commandments. It is just that Jesus, as God's ultimate revelation, has the right to tell his followers what they are now to consider to be the moral expectations of living under God's rule in this new era.
Paul, similarly, had enormous respect for the law, describing it as holy and good. He also knew that the law, given at Sinai, was for a particular time and place and had a limited role until Christ came (see Galatians 3-4 for the clearest expression of this). Now that Christ has come, he becomes our moral compass. Understanding the place and purpose of something is not hostility.
An illustration may help: I play the piano a bit. You can buy music that has been adapted for learners so that it can be played by someone who is just learning and who would not be able to play the full-fledged, mature piece of music. Years later, the musician may learn to play according to the full, mature piece. With the availability of, and the ability to play, the full, mature piece, why would a musician take as their guide to playing the piece the learner's version? There is nothing wrong with the learner's version. It is just that it had its time and place and it is no longer adequate. Some of the notes are the same as the later version. Some are no longer played at all. And the mature musician is not hostile to the simpler version. He or she looks back with the understanding that, at the time, it served its purpose. He/she may even appreciate it for the role it played in their development. But now something better is available.
It is the same with the law given at Mt Sinai. Paul makes it clear in Galatians 3-4 that it had a limited life. It served its purpose. But now that Christ has come, Christ and the gospel is our moral compass.
They were not from Moses but from God Himself.
The term "Mosaic Law" is to distinguish, in a brief phrase, the law given at Mt Sinai from other laws that God gave (eg. the law that God gave Adam and Eve in Eden not to eat of a particular tree). It is important to remember that not only the 10 Commandments were from God. All of the laws of the Mosaic Covenant were from God himself and were equally binding for Israel. Just after the 10 Commandments in Exodus 20, in verse 22, the Lord gave laws about building altars. Exodus 20:22 begins: 'The Lord said to Moses...'. In Exodus 21, the laws concerning slaves, violence, property, etc, etc were all given by God.
Now, I am assuming that, even though you may subscribe to the 10 Commandments, you don't subscribe to the other laws of Moses (all from God) such as circumcision, sacrifices, stoning of people for working on the Sabbath, etc. If this is the case, then the argument that a law came from God is not enough to conclude that it is binding on Christians. Even the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15 understood this and rejected the idea that Gentiles should be bound by these laws.
So when a Christian argues that a particular law or commandment is no longer binding on a Christian, it is not necessarily because of hostility or a denial that they came from God. The reality is that God's commands have changed over history (some remain the same, some have been superceded, some have been enriched, some have been "deleted").
I am not sure why exactly they are disliked
I hope I have clarified this above. Think about a Jew saying to you that, because you no longer believe that God requires circumcision or sacrifice, and them responding by saying that you are "hostile" to the commandments or "dislike" them, or don't accept that they came from God. What would you say?
other than they contain love and respect shown to God ... as well as to other human beings
The 10 Commandments do not contain love. Love is never mentioned in them. They are just commands. In fact, the word "love" only occurs 5 times in Exodus and 2 times in Leviticus (as translated in the NRSV)! Within the 10 commandments in Exodus 20 (the first of the two versions in Scripture) and Deuteronomy 5 (the second of the two versions in Scripture), the love of God for those who obey and punishment for those who disobey is the only mention of love (see Exodus 20:6 and Deuteronomy 5:5).
You have to actually go outside the 10 commandments to discover the requirement to love God and fellow human beings (Deuteronomy 6:5 and a number of other places). This is not a problem because Israel did not distinguish between the different laws except to see "the Ten" as being a summary of all the others.
For a Christian, understanding how we are to love is by looking at Jesus and the gospel. No greater understanding of love is possible, either for God for humans.
Living by the ten commandments does not do away with grace as some say (why would it?). However, they are not a way into heaven or no one would get there.
I would agree with that. Nothing can replace grace as our means for salvation. The question, though, is What does God want us to live by? The 10 Commandments or something else? An interesting exercise is to search for the phrase "live by" in the New Testament. There are 13 verses in the NRSV New Testament. Here's what I found regarding what Christians are to live by:
'Every word that comes from the mouth of God'(Mt 4:4, NRSV - see also Lk 4:4)
'by faith' (Ro 1:17; Gal 3:11, Heb 10:38, NRSV)
'the power of God' (2 Co 13:4, NRSV)
'by faith in the Son of God' (Gal 2:20) [Assuming we are to live like Paul did.]
'by the Spirit' (Gal 5:16, 25)
Jesus is The Way and He lived them as God would have them lived.
(I'm not saying this exhausts the issue of how Christians are to live and what the standard is. I guess I think we need to be careful in using terms such as "live by" and stick with what the NT language means by them. That seems safer to me!)
Actually, Jesus was a Jew and kept all the Jewish laws. Are you suggesting that we should keep all of the commandments that God ever gave in the same way that Jesus did?
Because of our selfish human nature we won't keep them consistently including in our minds, even though we want to as a witness. But Jesus has done this for us.
I agree.
The fruits of the Spirit are not behaviors but attitudes.
Attitudes (the way we think) lead to behaviour.
Without a standard primitive people would not understand how to love--the law is the schoolmaster (it teaches)how to love.
You have alluded to Galatians 3:24. But you have changed the tense of Paul's statement. Paul does not say the law is the schoolmaster. He says it was the schoolmaster for Israel until Christ came. I encourage you to read Galatians 3 in its entirety.
Otherwise we would be bowing down to idols.
I don't think so. Paul, in Acts 19:20ff just told the idol makers of his day that things made with human hands can't be gods. Just good logical reasoning. I don't recall Paul appealing to the 10 commandments when dealing with idolatry in the early church. He basically argued that they can't be real gods when compared to the real God!
I conclude that humans want to worship God in their own way without respect to what God has asked because of centuries of tradition so that now they don't think it important.
If you are talking about humanity in general, that may be true. But one thing I have learned since actually listening to non-Adventists is that most Christians are not motivated by a desire to disrespect what God has asked. They mostly have a genuinely different interpretation of the Scripture than Adventists do around this issue. Sure... there will always be people to just want to ignore God because they don't like what they believe God is asking of them. But even a cursory visit to a non-Adventist denominational worship service should convince anyone that they love God/Jesus as much as most Adventists. In my view, construing the motivation of those who don't agree with Adventist understandings of the commandments and sabbath-keeping as just disrepespectful or disobedient is itself highly disrespectful.
What do you think Jesus meant by obey?
I am sure that our understanding of obedience is exactly the same. If God says to do something, then we should do it. The disagreements are more about what God expects than whether we should obey God or not. A Jew, for instance, would probably tell us that we should keep all the festivals, new moons, and sabbaths as God commanded in the Law (in fact, a number of Adventists are moving to suggesting this!). I think we need to start from the assumption that other Christians are equally determined to worship and obey God. It is just that they have genuine disagreements about what that means.
What did He want them to obey? The Laws of Love, I would say, that God gave to His people centuries before. Jesus and God are one.
Surely every law that God gave to Israel had, at its basis, love (although it is hard to see sometimes -- particularly when God commanded genocide of even children or stoning for working on the Sabbath). In fact, the Old Covenant itself commanded love of God and love of neighbour. If that is the case, why do you discriminate between the 10 Commandments and the rest of the Law?
Just some personal thoughts on the matter,
And they are enormously appreciated! You are helping me work through ideas and issues that I struggle (in the nicest way!) with. I look forward to continuing dialogue!
Hi Johnston
ReplyDeleteThanks for your comments.
I agree with you re using the NLT for Bible study. I use a variety of translations for study and don't rely on this one alone.
Not sure what you mean by the phrase regarding circumcision being a return to slavery to the law being absent. Gal 5:2ff refers to this in all the translations I have. Maybe I misunderstand your point. Could you just clarify please?
With grace our relationship to the law changes, and we can see that it is "holy, just, and good" without having to rely on it for justification or righteousness.
In my view, the Christian's relationship to the law is more radically changed than you suggest. In Rom 7, Paul describes Christians as having '... died to the law through the body of Christ, so that you may belong to another, to him who has been raised from the dead in order that we may bear fruit for God.' (Rom 4:4) After our death to the law, we are not raised again to have another relationship to the law. Our relationship is to Christ. As a result, '... we are discharged from the law, dead to that which held us captive, so that we are slaves not under the old written code but in the new life of the Spirit.' (Rom 7:6)
The contrast here is not "slaves of sin and death vs slaves to righteousness"; it is "slaves to the law vs slaves to Christ and the Spirit".
In my view, Hebrews 7-8 teaches precisely the same thing about our relationship to the law. I don't see anything in these two chapters about slavery to righteousness based on a new relationship to the old covenant laws. The following seem to support this (emphases mine):
'For when there is a change in the priesthood [from the Levitical system to Christ as priest], there is necessarily a change in the law as well.' (Heb 7:12, NRSV)
'There is, on the one hand, the abrogation of an earlier commandment because it was weak and ineffectual (for the law made nothing perfect); there is, on the other hand, the introduction of a better hope, through which we approach God.' (Heb 7:18-19, NRSV)
'In speaking of “a new covenant,” he has made the first one obsolete. And what is obsolete and growing old will soon disappear.' (Heb 8:13, NRSV)
The old covenant is completely gone. It is there for us to study in order to understand its nature and purpose in the plan of redemption. But the Christian is no longer under that old covenant nor the law that was associated with it. There is most certainly a new law for the Christian -- the law of Christ(Gal 6:2) This law is placed in our hearts and we are empowered by the Spirit to live according love and produce fruit for God.
On a personal note:
I have been a member of the Adventist denomination all my life and still am. I know all the arguments traditionally offered around the law and, in particular, the 10 commandments. The problem I have is that most of these arguments seem increasingly inadequate. It is as though once a certain perspective is allowed to speak, so much becomes clearer than it used to be. Passages of scripture require less "gymnastics" to understand. I really appreciate the opportunity to have some of these ideas tested in the fire of dialogue. So thanks for that. I am always open to new evidence and understandings -- which is, I suppose, why the spiritual journey is such a challenge. But I wouldn't have it any other way. I am committed to following the evidence wherever it leads. But want to do that in the context of fellow Christians on the journey. So thank you to all who choose to engage with me. I really value it.
Steve
Hi Steve,
ReplyDeleteThanks for your post. I, too, have grown up in the SDA denomination, although I had to take a 13 year sabbatical a few years back.
This issue of Grace vs. Law seems to never get resolved. The two sides seem as divided as the Arabs and Israelis, and always will be. A wall seems to be erected to keep them apart psychologically. But must this be so? Jesus can be their peacemaker to bring them together--in Him. Apart from Him and His self-sacrificing love, they can never unite. But in Him upon whose shoulders the divine government rests, grace and truth, righteousness and peace are brought together in perfect union. In Him and His everlasting love, "the counsel of peace shall be between them both." (Zech. 6:13). He is a Prince and a Savior, a priest upon His throne.
I admit to having to stand back and recognize that I have not studied the details of the texts that are being discussed in these dialogues. I tend to look at the big picture.
ReplyDeleteAt the present time I want a faith that also makes sense and there seems to be a way that we all twist the texts around to our own point of view. So I suspect it is just too subjective to discuss at length. No one has ever come up with all the answers. We have only the principle of salvation through Christ alone and not "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin." I think we might make it all too complicated.
I do believe that the Ten comandments are on a different level and much more important than the cultural rules, given their place place in the ark. This is symbolic. There is much symbolism in the Bible and much of it points to Christ and its fulfillment in the NT. The rules outside the Ten are interpretations of how they applied to these primitive peoples--God speaks to us where we are.
I admit to having a much broader view of salvation than most Christians or even Adventists although, I beleive there is more flexibility in Adventist dogma than in most Christian dogma.
I do not mean to be disrepectful of other Christians, for we are no more "saved" than they are. But they have inherited dogma that I find unacceptable (such as the hell concept). They have held on to age-old traditions and interpretations that I just don't happen to personally beleive--and I don't go along 100% with all SDA beliefs either (ie, remnant theology).
Love is the basis for the Ten, I believe, and it taught a primitive people the standards of love. Love can be a very vague concept.
But somehow I miss in some posts that Jesus and God are One. There is no such thing as Jesus' love and law and God's as being seperate things. They are both the same. But as a human in a certain culture, Christ showed love, and so does God in the OT. He says again and again that His love endures forever. Jesus is His embodiment and thus gives a clearer picture. They don't have two standards of perfection (maturity).
The sample of learning to play the piano is a good one in that it shows that beginners need guidance--that is exactly what I was saying. We mature into the kind of love that Jesus had. If only more of the missionaries going overseas had emphasized all the commandments and not just the ones associated with SDA church dogma (the first four). Today we have a sitution in third world countries where stealing is common in some church groups, women are abused and kept back, etc. --it's thought to be the way life is supposed to be. They should have studied all the ten.
I think Paul was speaking to unique problems in his time--mostly historical Jews--and they weren't getting it--salvation full and free. It takes going beyond the trees and seeing the forest--beyond the literal words and seeing the situation. (I don't see the Bible as verbally inspired--dictated by God.) I do not tend to use proof texts.
The new covenant I see as the move from symbolic sacrifices to the Real Sacrifice that it pointed to--salvation in Christ that went back to the foundation of the world--retroactive.
Hope I have made some sense here for the purpose of understanding and not to claim to have all the answers. I am sure I have forgotten some things but can't fit it all in.
Hi Ellamae,
ReplyDeleteYou may not even read this, but I thought I'd chime in anyway. I like the way you said, "the law is the schoolmaster (it teaches)how to love."
I know that Steve corrected you by changing the "is" into a "was" which is how Paul wrote it. But for Galatians and the rest of scripture to be relevant and profitable for doctrine, reproof, etc, as Paul also said, I believe he would say that we need to apply everything in the Bible to our current circumstances. Otherwise, it becomes a 2,000 year old statement and meaningless to us fighting sin today.
The Law is our schoolmaster to keep bringing us to a need of Christ's grace. As we walk in the advancing light of truth, we have fellowship with God. Ellen White through the Holy Spirit did a lot to advance the light of the Bible, much like Moses did in the wilderness. Its all our schoolmaster, giving us good reasons to flee to our Savior for His mercy. "All that the Father giveth Me shall come to Me." All those who came to Jesus and received Him were driven there by the Father's powerful consequences to the breaking of His Law. And He gives us the certainty of acceptance to all who have been thus humbled and moved by the Father: "and him that cometh to Me I will in no wise cast out." (Jn 6:37). What a beautiful arrangement They have going!
We need all the help we can get for getting to and staying with Jesus. Abraham, the father of faith, did. Remember Pharoah rebuked him through Sarah? David, the man after God's own heart, did. Remember what happened when he numbered his army for his own vanity's sake? Both of these men knew grace, and that abundantly. Yet, there was the Law and its consequences if broken.
Then there was Paul, who also discovered what Abraham and David had found in grace, using sharpness to the Corinthians when needed because the Law still had a place in "his" gospel. Nothing has changed since Christ spoke in kind warning to Cain before his murder. He spoke the same way to Judas when he wanted to join the following.
What we need is to understand the relationship between grace and Law.
Steve?
Hi Steve, Can I just say to begin with that I am really enjoying this discussion? I hope it doesn’t die too soon although it’s already pretty long. First, clarification on Galatians 5.2. You stated that it says our slavery is to the law and it doesn't say that. It only says if you keep the law you are again in slavery. No prepositional phrase is attached to the noun "slavery" saying the slavery is to the law. It doesn’t say what the slavery is to. Only that if you keep the law you are in that slavery.
ReplyDeleteMaybe you will think this is a gymnastics, but I don't know of any place where it says the slavery is to the law. And in fact, when I understand it the way I explain more fully below, I have much fewer gymnastics than either when I held the old school (Smith and Butler in 1888 for those of you familiar) view of some Adventists or trying to read it with the evangelical dispensations of grace and opposition of the covenants of grace and law.
You mentioned Romans 7:6 which says the law "held us captive." I think that says it perfectly. The law held us captive by holding us accountable to the payment of death. But the slavery is to death and that slavery is through the law. Galatians 3.21 says the law is not opposed to the promise (grace). And the law would save us if it could. They are not two sides held in tension. They are brothers and partners, though the law is certainly lesser. But even grace would not have been possible without the law. The law was because of transgressions (Gal 3.21). Were people transgressing before the law? Of course. The law came later to show them what they were doing was wrong. To show them they needed God. They needed Grace (3.22, Rom 7.7).
And this grace was what saves us both before and after Jesus and before and after Sinai. See Galatians 3 again. God gave the promise (Jesus/salvation) to Abraham before the law. He was saved by faith in this promise, as we are. The law never saved a single soul. It has been Grace all along (Rom 8.3-4).
So I disagree with two elements common in the split of law and grace. One, I don't think they are opposed at all, the problem is that people were using law to do what it was never meant to do. People try to save themselves with the law when the law only condemns us. This is what Paul spoke about when he spoke of slavery and death. Two, I don't think the "new covenant" was new in the sense of brand new. It is the thing that was promised to Adam and Eve after their sin. It is the promise and reality that Christ will come and save us all. And it was the only thing that saved anyone ever. Keeping the law doesn’t save people. Dead animals don't save people, even when they are on an altar (heb 10.4).
When Jesus came the light came on. More than that, the Kingdom of God came to earth, at least that's how Jesus said it. I still have trouble understanding this. But I think you are helping me when you talk about Jesus being the clearest and greatest revelation of God. And that does mean that there are other revelations that are less clear. The law is certainly one of these, but that does not mean it is without meaning. Sometimes I need to go back to baby steps. Sometimes I'm plenty challenged by not coveting or by having no other gods in the fullest sense of the word. And also, an understanding and acceptance that you do not kill people is a necessary precursor to not hating people. Work in a prison and I'm sure you'll understand =)
Another note, I think you misunderstood my meaning of "relationship to the law." I do not believe we have a relationship with the law as we do to Jesus. I mean simply that the way you interact with (relate to, think of, approach) the law changes when you are trying to keep it to be saved from when you are keeping it because you are Christ's disciple and trying to be like Him.
There is another entire dimension to dive into about the law in Hebrews, but I want to go to bed! I'll give my short version and if anyone wants to continue that discussion, so be it. My view of that enlightening book is that it is telling us indeed that the law is changed. The old law with bloody animals that couldn't save us was only a symbol, an earthly representation (this includes the big 10 of course) of something greater. I think Jesus expressed it in those verses you quoted from the Sermon on the Mount. He's saying, let's go deeper. These laws were getting at something even greater, here's that greater thing. Now it’s not an outer courtyard and an inner holy place, it’s heaven and earth with Jesus (the high priest) going between the two. Now it's not a sacrificed goat, it's a sacrificed Lord. Now it's not abstaining from murder, it's abstaining from hate. Now it's not abstaining from unclean meat, it's being vegetarian ;) And so on.
And this is the great debate and the great journey of being a Christian. It's going deeper into the heavenly covenant. It's writing the law on our hearts (Deut 6.4-9; Jer 31:31-34), meditating on it day and night, learning from the words of Jesus how truly to understand it, until we realize, with Christ, not just the earthly law, but the heavenly one. Some might call this moving “beyond the law.” When we are done, we begin again, studying the law of Christ in a never ending and beautiful cycle of discovering the depth and richness of the kingdom of God.
P.S. This may be off topic a bit, but the Sabbath (part of the law) is referred to as a "blessing" and a "delight." Why would it be good to take away a blessing and delight? That's like saying God saved us from sunsets and friends (two things I enjoy most frequently on Sabbath). I don't want that kind of grace! I want a grace that takes me beyond keeping Sabbath for salvation and into keeping Sabbath for delight.
Hi David
ReplyDeleteYour comments in italics...
But for Galatians and the rest of scripture to be relevant and profitable for doctrine, reproof, etc, as Paul also said, I believe he would say that we need to apply everything in the Bible to our current circumstances. Otherwise, it becomes a 2,000 year old statement and meaningless to us fighting sin today.
I would agree that all Scripture is profitable for doctrine, etc. That doesn't mean, however, that all Scripture still applies in terms of directing us to live in a certain way. When we read the OT laws, they clearly don't all apply to Christians now. For example, we do not obey the laws relating to a woman's menstrual period described in Lev 15:19-30 and Lev 20:18. We don't stone people for breaking Sabbath laws anymore (Num 15:32-36). We don't require circumcision. And so on.
All of these passages are useful for studying to learn how God has related to his people in history. So they are meaningful. But I don't see them (and I know of no Christian) who would argue that they should be kept today in order to make them meaningful.
The Law is our schoolmaster to keep bringing us to a need of Christ's grace.
I have to disagree with you on this. As I understand Galatians (in particular Gal 3) I don't see Paul saying that, once Christ has come, we still need the law. Sections like the following convince me that Christ is quite adequate in keeping us recognising that we need his grace (emphasis added):
' Why then the law? It was added because of transgressions, until the offspring would come ...' (Ga 3:19, NRSV)
'... the law was our disciplinarian until Christ came ... But now that faith has come, we are no longer subject to a disciplinarian' (Ga 3:24-25, NRSV)
In Galatians 4:21-5:1 Paul uses the allegory of Hagar and Sarah to drive home the point that Christians are no longer subject to the law. He begins by saying, 'Tell me, you who desire to be subject to the law, will you not listen to the law?' (Gal 4:21) In Gal 4:24 he explains that the allegory is about two covenants -- Mt Sinai (and the law given there) and the earthly Jerusalem; and the heavenly Jerusalem which is free from the old covenant. Paul makes it absolutely clear that the Christian is a child of the heavenly Jerusalem; they are not children of Mt Sinai or the earthly Jerusalem that is still enslaved by the old covenant. Paul even goes so far to suggest that those who remain enslaved to the Old Covenant cannot receive the inheritance of the children of the free woman (Gal 4:30).
It is interesting to do a search of all of Galatians for the words "law" or "commandment". Here they are:
Galatians 2:16
Galatians 2:19
Galatians 2:21
Galatians 3:2
Galatians 3:5
Galatians 3:10
Galatians 3:11
Galatians 3:12
Galatians 3:13
Galatians 3:17
Galatians 3:18
Galatians 3:19
Galatians 3:21
Galatians 3:23
Galatians 3:24
Galatians 4:4
Galatians 4:5
Galatians 4:21
Galatians 5:3
Galatians 5:4
Galatians 5:14
Galatians 5:18
Galatians 5:23
Galatians 6:2
Galatians 6:13
I would encourage reading each one to see whether or not Paul recommends the Christian to return to the law after coming to Christ. In fact, he contrasts the way of law with the way of the Spirit because there is no law against the way of the Spirit (Gal 5:23).
All those who came to Jesus and received Him were driven there by the Father's powerful consequences to the breaking of His Law.
That doesn't seem to me to be what Jesus taught. Speaking of his own death on the cross, he said that '... I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself.”' (Jn 12:32, NRSV)
All the law can do is make people guilty. It doesn't drive us anywhere per se. Once the law has made us feel guilty, then the fact that Jesus is there draws us to him. Giving someone the law without Christ won't lead them to Christ. Only Jesus is able to motivate someone being drawn to him.
And He gives us the certainty of acceptance to all who have been thus humbled and moved by the Father: "and him that cometh to Me I will in no wise cast out." (Jn 6:37). What a beautiful arrangement They have going!
I agree. A wonderful thing! But in Jn 6 people come to Jesus, the Bread, because they are hungry and want to be filled. There is nothing in Jn 6 about the law driving people to Jesus. Jesus has met his audience where they are.
We need all the help we can get for getting to and staying with Jesus.
I agree. And that will never come from the law. It comes from the Holy Spirit empowering and transforming us (Gal 5:22-26) Where in Scripture does it say that the law helps us get and stay with Jesus?
What we need is to understand the relationship between grace and Law.
I, of course, agree :-)
If we search the NASB (a literal translation) for every verse in the Bible where "law" and "grace" both appear, here's what we find (I'm not suggesting that this is all that the Bible says about the relationship between law and grace, but it seems a logical place to start):
(Note: the words "law" and "grace" never appear together in the Old Testament. The word "grace" appears only 10 times in the OT!)
'The law indeed was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.' (Jn 1:17, NRSV)
Moses is never (as far as I know) spoken of as bringing grace to Israel -- only the law. It is through Jesus that grace and truth have come.
'For this reason it depends on faith, in order that the promise may rest on grace and be guaranteed to all his descendants, not only to the adherents of the law but also to those who share the faith of Abraham (for he is the father of all of us,' (Ro 4:16, NRSV)
'But law came in, with the result that the trespass multiplied; but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more,' (Ro 5:20, NRSV)
'For sin will have no dominion over you, since you are not under law but under grace.' (Ro 6:14, NRSV)
'What then? Should we sin because we are not under law but under grace? By no means!' (Ro 6:15, NRSV)
Paul goes on to talk about how we are now slaves to righteousness and to God -- he doesn't talk about us returning to the law.
'I do not nullify the grace of God; for if justification comes through the law, then Christ died for nothing.' (Ga 2:21, NRSV)
'You who want to be justified by the law have cut yourselves off from Christ; you have fallen away from grace.' (Ga 5:4, NRSV)
All of these passages (and others) convince me that Paul never suggests we return to the law for guidance. In his writings, he clarifies the gospel and then says we are to live according to that gospel - loving as Jesus loves; forgiving as Jesus forgives; in essence, if we take love, as modeled by Jesus and empowered by the Spirit, we fulfil all that God requires of us.
Jesus is all we need!
Steve:
ReplyDeleteI can see you are a student of the Word. And I have to say that though I have studied Galatians, it hasn't stayed with me, and there is much to study and so little time.
Therefore, I sent your note to a friend who is quite a scholar in the Word (it seems as if he has memorized the whole Bible to me!)
---------
Here is his reply:
"Keep in mind that there was no Greek word in Paul's day equal to our English word legalism. He uses the phrase "works of the law" to refer to someone who uses the law as a means of salvation, which he condemns (Galatians 2:16). Or, one who keeps the law as a contribution towards ones salvation . That is, grace plus law or faith plus works. This is what is meant by Galatianism (Galatians 3:1-5). Many SDAs are trapped into this perverted Gospel (Galatians 1:6-9 the angel includes the 3 angels of Rev. 14). In Galatians 3:19-25, the passage that caused the controversy in 1888, Paul is using the law in a historic sense. His argument is that the purpose of the law was not to solve the sin problem but to expose it. It put all of us into death row, until Christ came and set us free. That is why Christians are not under the law but under grace (Romans 6:14).
Having explained Paul's negative use of the law, you will discover that in Galatians Paul also upholds the law as a standard of Christian living, the fruits of Justification by Faith (Galatians 5:13, 14)."
--------
It would be interesting to hear your response on this. I am still unsure why you see Jesus' commandments not the same as His Father's when they are One. Or the obvious differences between the Ten and the ones given to the culture.
All are based on love with Jesus giving them even more clarification. He didn't say thinking about lust is not sin. I think it is the 4th you find troublesome.
Steve is right in a sense that when we are truly in Christ, we really don't need to think about if we are living by laws as they are in our hearts (the same 10).
ReplyDeleteThe Holy Spirit guides us daily in our thoughts and actions. There is a standard in the universe that is the basis for what love looks like,and it is seen in Christ and what He has done for us. He is the Truth. He is all of it. It is seen in the Trinity's relationship to one another and to us.
The Ten tell us about relationships that they require love and selflessness and to never hurt others--to honor God and humans. God made a special sacred time to show the sacredness of all time--something for us and Him in relationship. He showed that only He can be worshipped and not idols of any kind. When we come to Christ we no longer need the reminders--they are part of us. early on we looked in the mirror and found our faces dirty. Jesus saved us and cleaned us up.
Through the Holy Spirit we continue to live the Ten--they still exist, but they don't save us. That has already been done.
This is as plain as I can make it, I think.
Hi Johnston
ReplyDeleteYour comments in italics ... as usual.
Can I just say to begin with that I am really enjoying this discussion? I hope it doesn’t die too soon although it’s already pretty long.
Yes... I'm enjoying it too. My main limitation is time (apart from my other human fallibilities!)
Maybe you will think this is a gymnastics, but I don't know of any place where it says the slavery is to the law.
An interesting observation you raise re Gal 5:1-2 and whether actual slavery to the law itself is meant. The way I read the whole of Galatians, of course, has led me to interpret it that way. In terms of a specific text that speaks of slavery to the law itself, the best I can come up with off the top of my head is Romans 7:6:
'But now we are discharged from the law, dead to that which held us captive, so that we are slaves not under the old written code but in the new life of the Spirit.' (Ro 7:6, NRSV)
To my mind, this text makes it clear that we were in captivity to the law -- the old written code means, to me, all of the old law including the Ten -- and now we are free from that captivity and live a new life in the Spirit.
You mentioned Romans 7:6 which says the law "held us captive." I think that says it perfectly.
Clearly we interpret this text differently! :-)
The law held us captive by holding us accountable to the payment of death. But the slavery is to death and that slavery is through the law.
I guess the question for me is: can the law ever produce anything else but death for a human?
Galatians 3.21 says the law is not opposed to the promise (grace). And the law would save usif it could. They are not two sides held in tension. They are brothers and partners, though the law is certainly lesser.
I agree with all this. But Gal 3:25 is determinative for me: 'But now that faith has come, we are no longer subject to a disciplinarian,' (Ga 3:25, NRSV)
But even grace would not have been possible without the law. The law was because of transgressions (Gal 3.21). Were people transgressing before the law? Of course. The law came later to show them what they were doing was wrong. To show them they needed God. They needed Grace (3.22, Rom 7.7).
I certainly agree with you on this. The difference for me is what comes next. Once the law has served its purpose, it is no longer needed. What do you make of the until in Galatians 3?
And this grace was what saves us both before and after Jesus and before and after Sinai.
Agreed. There is no question that God saves us by his grace. The question is, are we required to be subject to the law after grace?
See Galatians 3 again. God gave the promise (Jesus/salvation) to Abraham before the law. He was saved by faith in this promise, as we are. The law never saved a single soul. It has been Grace all along (Rom 8.3-4).
Agreed. But my understanding is that this proves that the law was temporary. It seems to me this is the whole point of Galatians 3 -- the temporary nature of the law.
So I disagree with two elements common in the split of law and grace. One, I don't think they are opposed at all, the problem is that people were using law to do what it was never meant to do.
Agreed. But I would go further and say that the law, which is holy, just, and good, is radically opposed to human nature. The problem is not the law -- it is human nature. And because of that, a life in the Spirit is a life very different from living in subjection to the law (the schoolmaster).
Two, I don't think the "new covenant" was new in the sense of brand new. It is the thing that was promised to Adam and Eve after their sin. It is the promise and reality that Christ will come and save us all. And it was the only thing that saved anyone ever. Keeping the law doesn’t save people. Dead animals don't save people, even when they are on an altar (heb 10.4).
I certainly agree. The new covenant, as you suggest, is really a fulfillment of the promises made before the law came into effect at Mt Sinai. This seems to me to be the whole point of Paul's argument in Galatians 3. I do, however, think that the covenant made with Israel at Sinai was made completely obsolete by Christ's new covenant.
'In speaking of “a new covenant,” he has made the first one obsolete. And what is obsolete and growing old will soon disappear.' (Heb 8:13, NRSV)
Something obsolete leading to a disappearance seems pretty final to me. Even in Jeremiah 31:31-34 where the new covenant is promised, God contrasts the two by saying the new one will not be like the old one.
The law is certainly one of these, but that does not mean it is without meaning.
I agree. The law has meaning. The question, of course, is what the meaning is for the Christian.
Sometimes I need to go back to baby steps. Sometimes I'm plenty challenged by not coveting or by having no other gods in the fullest sense of the word. And also, an understanding and acceptance that you do not kill people is a necessary precursor to not hating people. Work in a prison and I'm sure you'll understand =)
I guess we disagree on this. I don't think we ever need to go back to the law to learn how to live. Learning from Jesus and the gospel is all we need.
I do not believe we have a relationship with the law as we do to Jesus. I mean simply that the way you interact with (relate to, think of, approach) the law changes when you are trying to keep it to be saved from when you are keeping it because you are Christ's disciple and trying to be like Him.
No problem. I understand the distinction. My view is that the law is never about relationship really. It is about keeping a set of rules and can't be much more than that (that is not to say that keeping a set of rules may not have some effect on a relationship). But in relationship to Jesus, we don't need rules.
The whole issue of the teaching of Hebrews is another great topic! I guess you will be able to tell from my use of the text from Hebrews above that I think it teaches, not that the new covenant deepens the old -- but that it makes the old obsolete!
P.S. This may be off topic a bit, but the Sabbath (part of the law) is referred to as a "blessing" and a "delight." Why would it be good to take away a blessing and delight? That's like saying God saved us from sunsets and friends (two things I enjoy most frequently on Sabbath). I don't want that kind of grace! I want a grace that takes me beyond keeping Sabbath for salvation and into keeping Sabbath for delight.
Most certainly - it is better to celebrate the Sabbath as a delight rather than a mere keeping of a rule.
Now... I admit to being a little bit cheeky with my next comment. The argument seems to be (P=premise; C=conclusion):
P1: If anything is called a delight in the Bible then we should not abandon it.
P2: The Sabbath is called a delight in the Bible.
C1: Therefore, we should not abandon the Sabbath.
Psalm 1:2 (NRSV) describes happy people as delighting in the law of the Lord: '... their [happy people] delight is in the law of the Lord, and on his law they meditate day and night.' (See also Psalm 119).
The law referred to in the Psalms is the Torah. The Torah, of course, most generally refers to the word of God spoken to Israel but, specifically, refers to the Law of Moses documented in Leviticus and Deuteronomy.
Now, here's my argument patterned on yours:
P1: If anything is called a delight in the Bible then we should not abandon it.
P2: The (entire) Torah is described as a delight in the Bible (eg, Psalm 1:2 and Psalm 119).
C1: Therefore, we should not abandon any of the Torah.
That would mean, I assume, that we should not abandon all the Sabbath laws which, as I understand it to be argued by some, were motivated by God's love and care for Israel and to make the Sabbath meaningful.
(I said I was going to be a bit cheeky -- but it is sort of a serious point! :-) )
Here is, I think, a better argument:
P1: It is better to delight in the fulfilment of a shadow than to delight in the shadow itself.
P2: Jesus is the fulfilment of the shadow(s) of the Torah.
C1: Therefore, we should delight in Jesus rather than the shadow(s) of the Torah.
Now that Jesus has come, we delight in him rather than delighting in an old covenant rule!
Thanks for a very challenging conversation!
Hi Ellamae
ReplyDelete... I have to say that though I have studied Galatians, it hasn't stayed with me, and there is much to study and so little time.
I'd have to agree with you there! My favourite biblical books are Romans and Galatians - they have had the most impact on me. I experienced 10 years of a major depressive disorder some years ago and if it hadn't been for Romans with its constant assertion that I am saved by God's grace alone I don't think I would have made it. And Galatians is, for me, the Christian's freedom charter once we have been saved by that grace. I used to be a pharasaical legalist in my younger days and Galatians, I think, is particularly significant for legalists. Anyway... I wouldn't be where I am today with Romans and Galatians!
Therefore, I sent your note to a friend who is quite a scholar in the Word (it seems as if he has memorized the whole Bible to me!)
No problem!
Here is his reply:
"Keep in mind that there was no Greek word in Paul's day equal to our English word legalism. He uses the phrase "works of the law" to refer to someone who uses the law as a means of salvation, which he condemns (Galatians 2:16).
I agre with him on Gal 2:16. I would go further, though, and argue that Paul, in Gal 3, is saying that the way they are living since their justification is incorrect - they have started with the Spirit after having died to the law - but now they want to return to the law rather than living according to the Spirit. Paul writes:
'For through the law I died to the law, so that I might live to God. I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I who live, but it is Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.' (Ga 2:19-20, NRSV)
Paul says he has 'died to the law' in order to 'live to God'. He doesn't say he died to the law so that he could be resurrected and have a better relationship to the law.
Or, one who keeps the law as a contribution towards ones salvation . That is, grace plus law or faith plus works. This is what is meant by Galatianism (Galatians 3:1-5). Many SDAs are trapped into this perverted Gospel (Galatians 1:6-9 the angel includes the 3 angels of Rev. 14).
I would agree that many Adventists are trapped in a grace plus law approach. The doctrine of the investigative judgment (at least as it is traditionally understood - the way Ellen White understood it in Great Contoversy) bears an enormous amount of the blame for this.
In Galatians 3:19-25, the passage that caused the controversy in 1888, Paul is using the law in a historic sense. His argument is that the purpose of the law was not to solve the sin problem but to expose it. It put all of us into death row, until Christ came and set us free. That is why Christians are not under the law but under grace (Romans 6:14).
Absolutely agree with this statement. But I suspect that he and I would disagree on the implications for the Christian since that time ;-)
Having explained Paul's negative use of the law, you will discover that in Galatians Paul also upholds the law as a standard of Christian living, the fruits of Justification by Faith (Galatians 5:13, 14)."
Paul does not uphold the law in these two verses. His argument is that, as a result of freedom, they do not have the liberty to indulge themselves. He actually directs people to love as the standard for living. He is suggesting, I think, that these people who are on about law have actually missed the whole point of the law they are promoting - that the ultimate obedience is to love. So this is an argument specifically aimed at those who are promoting obedience to the law for the new Gentile Christians.
To understand Paul's specific focus for Christian living, we need to look at Gal 5:16-26 which is an extended statement of the way Christians are to live. He does not suggest we are to live by the law. Instead, we are to live by the Spirit. If we do that, we are not subject to the law (Gal 5:18).
After listing the fruit of living by the Spirit, he justifies this approach by saying that '[t]here is no law against such things' (Gal 5:23b) To live subject to the law is to live negatively by avoiding breaking rules. To live by the Spirit is a whole different "ball game" because the Spirit positively produces attitudinal changes that, when lived out, empower us to truly love in a way the law could never produce.
I am still unsure why you see Jesus' commandments not the same as His Father's when they are One.
They are the same. The issue is not that they are not the same. The issue is are they different than those given to Israel? The laws regarding divorce are a case in point. The Mosaic law allowed for divorce (Deut 24:1-4) but Jesus counteracted that saying that it was allowed at the time because of hardness of heart (Matt 19:8).
Throughout John 14-15, Jesus constantly uses the phrase 'my commandments':
' “If you love me, you will keep my commandments.' (Jn 14:15, NRSV)
'They who have my commandments and keep them are those who love me; and those who love me will be loved by my Father, and I will love them and reveal myself to them.”' (Jn 14:21, NRSV)
'If you keep my commandments, you will abide in my love, just as I have kept my Father’s commandments and abide in his love.' (Jn 15:10, NRSV)
And in John 15:12, Jesus makes explicit what his commandment is:
'“This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you.' (Jn 15:12, NRSV)
Now... here's a challenge. Where is this specific command found in the 10 Commandments or the more general Mosaic law? The command to love as Jesus has loved was not possible until Jesus himself came.
In Galatians 6:2, Paul refers specifically to 'the law of Christ'.
My intention is to give due weight (as I see it) to this emphasis. I am sure God the Father agrees with Jesus! :-)
Or the obvious differences between the Ten and the ones given to the culture. All are based on love with Jesus giving them even more clarification. He didn't say thinking about lust is not sin. I think it is the 4th you find troublesome.
I don't find anything God says as troublesome -- except in the sense that we often don't like to hear what God says and may resist it! So I don't find the 4th commandment particularly troublesome at all. But an analogy I find particularly helpful to me is:
Imagine you have a mortgage on a home with a particular bank. The mortgage contract is drawn up and contains detailed rules about how the mortgage is to be conducted including the bank's responsibilities and your responsibilities. You are to live according to that contract for the life of the mortgage.
However, a few years later, you decide to refinance the mortgage to improve your home. A new mortgage contract is drawn up and the old one becomes obsolete. The new one will not be completely new. It will contain elements of the old one; some things from the old will be deleted; some things will be added to the new. So there will be both continuity and discontinuity with the old.
Now, which mortgage contract are you to live by? The old or the new? There is a sense in which the new contract is not "new" because it contains elements of the old. But there is a difference. And the only way to know how you are to conduct the arrangements now is by following the new contract even though there are similarities to the old. But it would be completely incorrect to continue to see the old contract as binding. It is obsolete. It was useful at the time but is now inadequate for conducting the new arrangement. Yes -- there will be many things that remain the same (similar obligations); but the new one supercedes the old one and to continue to live by the old one would actually lead to a breaking of the new one. There was nothing wrong with the old contract. It was good and served its purpose. To suggest that one should live by the new contract is not to denigrate the old one. It is to value it for what it was at the time; learn from it; is part of our story that has led us to the new one; and so on.
It is the same with the relationship between the old and new covenants. The Christian values the original covenant with Israel for the purpose it served at the time; as part of the history of God caring for God's people; but now we are under a new "contract". The only way to find out what God/Jesus expects now is to read the new contract. What the new contract affirms we accept. What the new contract deletes we let go isr.
So this has nothing to do with finding any particular element of the old covenant troublesome. It is about trying to live according to what God has put in place for us at this time.
Hope that helps clarify my thinking!
You have done a thorough study all right. I can understand how important this was from your background. Having been baptized as a young adult from a "backslidden" SDA family I didn't grow up with the guilt-producing ideas that some have. I think the problems are more in presentation than in the doctrines themselves. Humans can take the most profound truths of any faith and turn it into superstition so easily!
ReplyDeleteThere is some good material out there about Christian church history by scholars secular and Christian. They best seem to indicate that Jesus, Paul, and the early church did not intend to start a new religion (as we have been saying for decades). They did not intend to give up the Jewish law (the ten--the others as seen by their placement in the ark were cultural applications most of which no longer apply). In order to distance themselves from the Jews they gave up things like Sabbath. The groups that didn't either moved away or were overwhelmed. Constantine was the final straw that split Jews and Christians for good.
Again I believe Paul was speaking to a certain audience. Also his terminology is not always understandable. But in the last days as knowledge increases, we learn more about the Bible and its context. This is from the scholarly standpoint. However,if you have found something precious in your interpretation, then praise God. If it's important that you learn something different, you will know. God loves you and He is love and mercy and knows where we came from.