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  Many people, even Christians, tend to read the Old Testament laws as oppressive, outdated, and superstitious.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  These many laws were not put away because they are oppressive, outdated, or superstitious.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, let me clarify what I mean when

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, "Repent and be baptized...&quo

Why do you go to church on Sunday?

Why do you go to church on Sunday?  I would assume there are many reasons, but what is the primary reason that you get up on a cold, snowy Sunday morning and get your butt to church?  Further, why has the Church of Jesus Christ consistently gathered together on Sundays (among other days) for the last 2000 years? Throughout my 34 years of church attendance I would have proffered a variety of answers to that question.  As a child I'm sure I went to church because I had to, to see my cousins (who happened to be my best friends), to get bread and wine (weekly communion for the win), etc.  As my faith matured in adulthood these reasons remained, hopefully deepening, but to them were added concepts like rest and theological training. As I moved into Anglicanism I was struck by the deliberate focus on worship .  Why do Christians gather on Sunday morning?  To worship God!  Are teaching and fellowship important?  Absolutely!  Are they aspects of worship?  Certainly!  Is either the primary