Thursday 31 March 2011

In What Way Might the Law Be Used in the N.T.?

Someone wrote to me:

John - I say this with love, but can you explain:

1. If the 10 commandments are all underlying principles - how is the 4th commandment going?


There are a number of timeless spiritual principles which the observance of the seventh-day sabbath gave expression to. Those underlying spiritual principles are eternal - they remain part of God's eternal nature. But today we live-out those truths differently to the way they were lived-out under the Old Covenant. The ethics are timeless - but the vehicle of expression of those ethics, given to Israel, was only temporary.

Let's consider some of the underlying meanings of the seventh-day sabbath. Firstly, it was the Lord who sanctifies Israel. Secondly, it was in God's nature to give man a rest. The seventh-day sabbath was a model which Moses gave Israel in order to bring-home those two ethics.

Now let's consider what the New Testament says about those two ethics. Firstly, Christ has sanctified us. Secondly, faith is our rest. By faith in Christ, we fulfill the ethics which the seventh-day sabbath was merely a temporary model of.

"But the seventh-day sabbath predated the Law," some may say.

Let's go back to creation and see what it says. It says God rested on the seventh day, and sanctified the seventh day. Notice the main point of the sabbath was sanctification. Question: did God resume His work of creation again, on the eighth day? No. The seventh day was the beginning of a permanent state of rest.

Now let's see what the New Testament says about that. In Hebrews it says that we who have entered into God's rest (God's permanent state of rest) have ceased from our own works (permanently) as God also ceased from His. It's the rest of saving-faith, as opposed to working for salvation. Through Jesus, we have entered into a permanent, sanctifying "sabbath" which the Law, having only a shadow of good things to come, could not deliver.

That's why it says in Psalms, "A rest remains for the people of God". The cycle of seventh-day rests was not the true rest! It was only a model, a foreshadowing, of that true rest (true sanctification) which was still to come. And Jesus brought it!

There isn't any indication that the Apostles imposed a cycle of seventh-day sabbaths on new believers. If that was important, as Seventh Day Adventists believe it is, then the Council at Jerusalem in the Book of Acts would have been the ideal time for the Holy Spirit to indicate its importance. But instead, the Apostles and elders decided to put no such burden on the churches.

That's why Paul taught that believers need not let anyone judge them in the matter of sabbaths - because Christ, Paul said, is the true fulfillment of it.

Nevertheless, Paul also allowed that if a brother, weaker in the faith, felt it necessary to observe one day as special, then we who are stronger in faith and conscience ought to bear with that. Neither group ought to judge the other, said Paul - for both groups believed they were honoring God by what they did.

Although the real point of the sabbath is about sanctification and spiritual rest, God still likes to give people physical rest too. That remains part of God's nature. There is no teaching in the New Testament which demands this should be expressed by a cycle of seventh-day sabbaths. Neither does the New Testament teach that the seventh-day sabbath is replaced by a sabbath on the first day of the week (the Lord's Day). Rather, the ethic of physical rest is expressed under the New Testament through actions such as: masters are commanded to treat their servants ethically, knowing that they shall give account to Christ; believers are commanded not to have a love of money; we are commanded not to destroy our bodies (the Temple), etc.

Before God's Law was given, the seventh day which God sanctified was a permanent state of rest - not a repeat cycle of seventh-day rests. God's intention after the fall was to eventually bring man back to this state of permanent spiritual 'rest' - which He later did through Christ - but in the interim, He gave Israel a temporary model to illustrate His promise to bring in that rest. That's the Gospel!


2. How can you say with any logical consistency that underlying principles apply - but external forms don't?


God's nature is eternal. "I am the Lord, I change not." God is love. God is holy. The Law was given to model God's nature.

For example, God's holiness demands that without the shedding of blood, there can be no remission of sins; while God's love teaches that there can be a holy substitute sacrificed for sin. God gave them the law of sacrifices to illustrate this. But it was only an outward form, a model, a shadow. Those principles were expressed finally and fully in Christ. The underlying principle still exists - that's why the Blood continues to bear witness in heaven - that's why we show forth the Lord's death til He come, through the celebration of the Lord's table. But the outward form of animal sacrifices has passed away.

The underlying principles of every point of law in the Law are eternal and unchanging. But how they should be expressed in the New Covenant varies - and like you said, it takes discernment to know how. (And the best way to 'discern' is to follow what Paul said about it.)

Consider a less obvious example:

"Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth the corn". It meant, Israelietes weren't allowed to prevent the ox from having a bite to eat while it was labouring.

Now let's see how Paul applied it, in the New Testament. Paul said that God gave them that point of law, not merely because He cared about oxen - but for man's benefit. Paul drew a deeper principle out of it, which Paul claimed was the real point which that point of law served to illustrate. Paul said God wrote it for us, for men. Paul said the real point was that all labour deserves payment. Then he applied it to the Ministry, and said that preachers of the Gospel deserved to earn a living from their work as Ministers of the Gospel.

Notice Paul didn't say we should still today never muzzle an ox while its treading corn. The real point is: all labourers, including preachers, deserve to be paid. That fulfills the unchanging ethic of that law. As for oxen, they should be allowed to eat too. But you can feed it before it treads the corn if you want. Or you can give it a break halfway through its work to feed it. But whether or not you use a muzzle isn't really the point. The underlying principle - which applies mainly to men but also to oxen - is that no labourer should be denied his pay.


3. How can you separate what is an underlying principle - and what is an external form? Specifically, look at Leviticus chapters 18-20, and try and separate principles from forms.


The best way is to see what the New Testament teaches. It's called "rightly dividing the word of truth".

Another way to do it is to ask: what does this point of Law teach me about love and righteousness? (Because love is the fulfilling of the Law, said Paul). That will help you identify the underlying ethic. Then ask, How can I best express this ethic today?

Jesus said that the New Commandement (love) is the same as the Old Commandment (the Law). In other words, the Law was given to Israel to teach them what it would look like to walk in love. Today, we have the Spirit in us to cause us to walk in love. But how we express our love - for God, for our fellowman - will differ in many ways.

For example, in olden days, a person expressed his love for God by bringing an animal sacrifice. Nowadays, we express our love for God through giving thanks for Jesus.

God's righteousness and love are unchanging - but the way we express it today will not be the same in every circumstance, while in some circumstances it will be the same.

For example, we won't commit adultery - because love still teaches us not to commit adultery - same as it did under the Law.

Love is the key.

The New Testament teaches us how to discern.

And reading the Law still has benefits - for the lawless, said Paul.

Let's look at Levitucus 18-20, like you suggested. Let's pick two points of Law: one, prohibited incest and marrying family relations; another, prohibited harvesting the corners of your field. Let's follow my method for 'discernment' of 'covenant relevancy' , 'rightly dividing the Word' by distinguishing principle from form.

1. What does the particular point of law tell us about love?
2. What does the particular point of law tell us about righteousness?
3. What difference does the Cross make?
3. What does the New Testament teach about it?

Those are the questions I ask about every point of Law.

Okay, the law against incest. It tells me of the sanctity of marriage. It tells me to honour close relatives. It tells me of the inappropriateness of marriage to certain relationships. The cross makes us want to do that even more. And in the New Testament, Paul wrote to the Corinthians to temporarily put someone out of the church for having his father's wife.

Conclusion: it's pretty clear - as New Testament believers, walking in love - we won't commit incest, we won't have sexual intercourse with our father's wife - just the same as under the Law.

Now, the law about not harvesting the corner of your field. What does it teach us about love? It teaches us to leave a little bit of work for poor people to do. About righteousness? It teaches us that it's okay to make a profit, but at the same time we should have a desire to give opportunity to the poor. What difference does the cross make? Jesus exemplified those morals on the cross! Therefore, we will want to be considerate of the poor, while not neglecting our own profit. And what does the New Testament teach? Well it never actually says it's wrong to harvest the corners of your fields. But it does say to consider the poor. It does say to give some employment to the poor.

Conclusion: it's okay to harvest the corners of your fields - we don't have to leave them - so long as we are finding other ways to be equally considerate to the poor.

We could follow this process with every point of Law in Leviticus 18-20.

Love fulfills each point (real point) of law - but the outward forms may or may not be the same.

I'm happy & willing to review Covenant relevancy ... but Torah still applies - internally, and externally.

I think you're actually saying the same thing as me, just using different terms.

You might come to slightly different conclusions though. But that's to be expected - even in Paul's day, believers had different levels of freedom from the observances of the Law. And Paul said to allow that, to a certain extent.

I cry for weak Christians that don't get fed properly. Let is be noted that it is the Torah-based Christians that go around focusing on the Father, Messiahship, Lordship, righteousness, feeding the sheep with quality food .... concepts that are sorely missing in most Sunday churches.


I know how you feel. But the church I got saved in had really good teaching which focused on all the things you admire - without actually keeping any of the outward forms of the Law.

Christ is the end of the Law (not just part of the Law, but the Law) for righteousness, to everyone who believes, said Paul. And yet He said, We fulfill the Law (not just part of the Law, but all of it).

The whole law is finished. We still fulfill the whole Law. How can this be? Because LOVE - the underlying principles of the Law - is the Law and the Prophets and it is Christ's New Commandment which is the same as the Old Commandment.

No comments:

Post a Comment