Skip to main content

How We View the Law of God

There are a few topics in Christianity that engender more debate than others.  These topics flare up tempers and inspire seemingly-endless ingenuity as we seek to understand them better and clarify our positions more precisely.  One such topic is the law of God.  Some go so far as to say that the Old Testament law holds absolutely no value for the New Testament Christian, while others go to the opposite extreme in believing that the entirety of the law is still binding.  In between these two extremes exist a thousand shades of antinomianism and theonomy.  It seems that every denomination has a slightly different view of the law of God.

I don't want to discuss that today.  In fact, I don't know that I could really commit to an exact description of my own view.  I think the two extremes are, well, extreme, and many of the views in the middle have good points.  It's a complex issue.

One thing I do know, however, is that the Law of God, the Old Testament Torah, is not a bad thing.  I think this is very important to remember.  Many people, even Christians, tend to read the Old Testament laws as oppressive, outdated, and superstitious. We can debate what parts of the Law apply to us today, as well as how they apply to us, but we must spurn any interpretation that views the law as inherently a bad thing.  It's difficult to read passages like Psalm 19 and condone this pervasive view.  David says that the law is perfect, pure, clean, and more desirable than gold and honey!  That doesn't sound like the words of someone who feels oppressed by God's commands!

Nevertheless, the New Testament tells us that the law of God was inadequate, not because of its own inherent inferiority, but because mankind was unable to obey it perfectly.  Therein lies the superiority of the Gospel--it is able to overcome the weakness of man!  All the Law can do for sinful mankind is condemn us, but the glory of the Gospel is demonstrated in that it is superior to the law of God, which was glorious in its own right.

As we read the Old Testament Law, if, in fact, we do, it's important to remember why it was put away.  These many laws were not put away because they are oppressive, outdated, or superstitious.  They were put away because something greater has come.  Jesus, the true Lamb of God has come, so we don't need to offer carnal sacrifices anymore.  Jesus, God incarnate, has come and tabernacled among us, so we no longer need a physical Temple in which to worship.  Jesus, the Sabbath of God, has brought us rest, so we no longer need to observe days, months, and years.  The Antitype has been revealed, which leaves the types with no purpose but to teach us more about the Antitype.  The Old Testament laws have been put away, not because the law is bad, but because Christ is better.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

4 Reasons I Affirm Paedocommunion

If you have interacted with me on social media, you know that I have always been outspoken on the issue of Paedocommunion .  It is a theological position and a liturgical practice about which I am passionate.  Having been raised, and having raised my children, at the Table, I cannot imagine attending a church that didn't allow PC.  I hope that when I am old and gray, I will still be an advocate for bringing little children to the Sacrament. Throughout the 12 years that I have had this blog, I have written scattered thoughts on the topic, but it appears that I have never written a concise summary of my reasons for affirming PC.  I was thoroughly convinced that I had, but I can't seem to locate it, so I guess I never did.  So, to rectify the omission, here are four reasons I hold to PC. 1) Paedocommunion is Biblical.   Any discussion of the topic should start here, and I would hope that both sides of the debate would make this assertion.  However, l...

1 Corinthians, the Covenant Hermeneutic, & Paedocommunion

As an adherent to Paedocommunion  (hereafter PC), I have always found it painfully ironic that Credocommunionists use 1 Corinthians 11 to withhold children (among others) from the Table.  One can imagine St. Paul shaking his head as he watches theologians using his discussion of unity at the Table to divide the body at the Table.  You're missing the point! he would say in exasperation.  Not only does 1 Corinthians 11 not forbid PC; I would go so far as to say that there is no better defense of PC in the New Testament than the epistle of 1 Corinthians. Credocommunionist logic is pretty straightforward.  1 Corinthians 11:28 says, "Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup."  If, they argue, one is unable to fulfill the exhortation to examine himself, then he may not eat of the bread and drink of the cup.  This is a pretty logical deduction, right? Credobaptists would adamantly agree.  Acts 2:38 says, "Repe...

The Real Presence & Paedocommunion: A Deeper Rift Between Reformed Churches

You're going back to Rome! Theological disagreements within the Reformed world, especially those of the last half century, often devolve into these sorts of accusations.  As controversialists like Doug Wilson and Peter Leithart began to break away from the larger conservative Presbyterian and Reformed denominations, it became clear that the rift was deeper than semantics and systematic minutiae.  Much like the Reformation four centuries before, the Table was a primary point of conflict.   What does it mean?  Who may partake?  What do we call it?    These questions, along with a few more, divided Reformed brethren as the physical elements of our religion reflected deeper conflicts.  Good men began to understand that the problem wasn't just in our logos, but in our pathos and ethos, as well. Paedocommunion (hereafter PC) has been one of the hottest points of contention.  PC has always been normal to me as I grew up with it.  I underst...